Due to the lack of generally acknowledged rules on the accidentals' validity, there is a number of discrepancies in the sources in this respect. Below we present the differences in comparison with the version of GE4 (→GE5) adopted in the main text:
-
in CLI there are no
in the 2nd and 3rd groups in bar 54, in the 3rd group in bar 60, in the 4th group in bar 65 and in the 2nd group in bar 66; no 
in the 4th group in bar 55 and in the 2nd group in bar 64; -
in FE (→EE2→EE3) there are no in the 4th group in bar 55 and in the 2nd group in bar 64; no in the 2nd group in bar 60, in the 4th group in bars 64-65 and in the 2nd and 3rd group in bar 66;
-
in GE1 (→GE1a→GE2→GE3) there are no in the 2nd group in bar 64; no in the 2nd group in bar 60, in the 4th group in bar 65 and in the 2nd group in bar 66;
-
in EE4 there are no in the 2nd group in bar 64; no in the 2nd group in bar 60, in the 4th group in bars 64-65 and in the 2nd group in bar 66;
The aforementioned omissions do not exercise any influence on the interpretation of the text.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Source & stylistic information
issues: EE revisions, Accidentals in different octaves, GE revisions
notation: Pitch