It is difficult to determine how come that the correct text of GE2 (excluding the mistake in the 1st quaver in bar 127, discussed separately) was changed to the impoverished version of GE2a. Perhaps a worn-out fragment of a plate was re-engraved in order to remove the increasingly pronounced printing defects. Traces of such procedures are to be found, e.g. in the Concerto in F Minor, Op. 21 – see the characterization of its GE1a. It also happened that various mistakes were committed in a newly engraved text, most frequently, precisely, oversights. However, in the discussed place printing defects are visible rather on the available copies of GE2a; hence after possible corrections (cf. e.g. the copy from the National Library in Warsaw).
GE3 introduced here a version based on GEorch, which differs in certain details from the authentic version of FE (→GE1→GE2). Could it be that the reviser of GE3 corrected the erroneous text of GE2a not having access to the authentic version printed (with only one mistake) in GE1 and GE2? It seems to be more likely than possible direct changes in the version of GE2, in which it was enough to correct the erroneous top note of the 1st quaver in bar 127.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors resulting from corrections, Errors in GE, GE revisions
notation: Pitch