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 sharp before the last semiquaver in FE is almost certainly a mistake – it is proved by comparison with analogous bar 196, 200 and 551, supported by deletion of the unnecessary accidental in FEJ. The awkward e2-d
2 sequence, omitting the chordal e2, drew the attention of both the revisers of GE and EE. The traces of corrections visible in FE prove that the discussed note was corrected from d
2 to e
2, which allows us, to a certain extent, understand the mechanism of the mistake – the proofreading was definitely aimed at e2, yet along with a notehead, the engraver erroneously moved also the
(cf. the Sonata in B
Minor, Op. 35, 3rd mov., bar 20).
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Annotations in teaching copies, EE revisions, Errors in FE, Errors resulting from corrections, GE revisions, Annotations in FEJ
notation: Pitch