data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/73ecd/73ecd80c88ad44c39f3711b6bcc33ca9e1021267" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/75013/75013441a15e45e6f391d55c49aaf803f3dff8a4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57140/571405c7057401412640722d57e0f4262876af22" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3075f/3075f31e8b155e01785c3a53896ad205598099cf" alt=""
The version of FE1 (→FE2→EE) is certainly erroneous – it is proved both by the text of GC (→GE) and the proofreading of FE3 (→FE4). At the same time, it is only FE4 that includes a completely correct text, as FE3 overlooked the before the corrected note.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in FE, Terzverschreibung error, Errors in the number of ledger lines, Authentic corrections of FE
notation: Pitch