The 
sign in bar 259 is written in GC most probably one quaver too early, therefore, in the main text we give the corrected version of the pedalling of this source. The absence of this sign in FE is a patent mistake, however, each attempt of completing the pedalling, being de facto a reconstruction of [A], would be, according to us, a useless manipulation:
- the overlooked sign could have been added in [A] slightly later, as we suggest in the main text;
-
it could have been also more or less there where it was introduced by the copyist, yet having a different meaning due to, e.g., a denser notation or deletions – a favourable combination of inaccuracies of [A] and GC makes it even possible to imagine only at the beginning of bar 260.
We see the latter in EE, however, there is no certainty whether it is an addition of the reviser, who, not having insight into GC, adopted the most natural way of correcting the mistake of the base text (FE2). In spite of this, the version can be considered to be equivalent in relation to the main text. EE added also the overlooked in FE 
sign at the end of bar 260.
The absence of pedalling in GE1 is a patent error of the engraver (the pedalling begins from a new line in bar 261). The oversight was corrected in GE2, precisely after GC.
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE, Errors in GE, GE revisions, Inaccuracies in GC
notation: Pedalling
Back to note