A STACCATO DOT IS A STACCATO DOT
Franz Schubert's single 'staccato' dot in left-hand accompaniment passages (2010, Manchester)

Beth P. Chen

In some of his piano works, Schubert displayed an unusual preference for marking a dot (not a stroke) above or below the first note of each group of his left-hand accompaniment figures, and neither of these dots was slurred to its immediate following note of the same chord. A good example of this can be seen in bars 27-32 in the first movement of the sonata D. 960, as in Ex. 1 (bars 27-29). Such indication appeared particularly in the works which Schubert composed in the last two years of his life in 1827-1828. Pianists may wonder whether it is practical to have a separation or articulatory silence between the staccato note and the rest of the slurred notes of the same chord. (In fact, there are many modern or even period instrument pianists tend to link such staccato note to its following slurred notes by using the sustaining pedal.) This is particularly puzzling when the first staccato note is the bass note of a chord, and when this important harmony note does not appear again in the rest of the accompaniment figure or the music of the same chord. For instance, at the beginning of the second movement in sonata D. 959 (Ex. 2), the first staccato quaver F sharp is the bass note of the F sharp minor chord, and it is obviously the only F sharp note in the whole bar. If this F sharp quaver is played as a short detached note but not slurred or sustained by the sustaining pedal, this tonic chord in F sharp minor will not be completely heard from the second beat on when only the third and fifth of the chord are left. This may sound even more unusual if the bass or third note of each chord keeps being missed in a whole section of the music. Would this be what Schubert expected? Or if it is not, why did Schubert indicate these single staccato dots particularly in the accompaniment passages of piano works mainly after 1819-1820 and particularly in his late works?

EX. 1 [1]

EX. 2

EX. 3 [2]

SCHUBERT'S TWO PRACTICES: SUSTAINED NOTES AND SINGLE STACCATO DOTS OR STROKES

Schubert's use of single staccato dot for left-hand accompaniment passages seems not to have been his practice before he wrote the sonata D. 664 (1819 or 1825) or Fantasie in C (1822). It was when he wrote his later works that the indication of a single staccato dot for accompaniment passages or chords became one of his favourite practices. Examples are in D. 664 (1819 or 1825), Fantasie in C (1822), Impromptu D. 899 (Op. 90) nos. 2 and 4 (1827?), D. 935 (op. 142) no. 3 (1827), Sonatas D. 894 (Op. 78), D. 959, and D. 960 (1928). This indication in fact was an opposite approach to Schubert's frequent notational habit: sustaining the bass part of accompaniment figures, arpeggios, or chords. Mostly, throughout all his piano works, apart from the few sections in the above-mentioned works, Schubert preferred to sustain bass notes and he notated them clearly, as can be seen in the sonata D. 459, I (1816) (see below Ex. 4). This appears to be unusual compared with his forerunners, as it seems not to have been a composer before him who tended to notate so many sustained bass notes as Schubert did.

EX. 4

Schubert's preference for indicating sustaining bass notes was possibly derived from the concept of finger pedalling, a keyboard performing practice in the 18th century which was not a notated practice. He frequently notated a whole section of sustained bass notes for accompaniment passages, whereas this was not the common case among other composers. An early record of the practice of finger pedalling can be found in French harpsichordist Saint Lambert's Principles of the Harpsichord (1702). When he introduced the function of the slur sign, he said that one should hold all the notes under a slur after playing each of them, as in Ex. 5a (below).[3] In this example, a slur is indicated over the notes of the same chord. Later, in his Klavierschule 1789, Türk was still repeating the same concept when explaining the meaning of a slur over a left-hand chord. He said that when there is a slur indicated over a slow broken harmony chord, especially in the works which have a pleasant character, one keeps one's fingers on the keys until the beginning of the next harmony chord. [4]

Wenn über langsam gebrochenen Harmonien ein Bogen steht, wie in den folgenden Beyspielen a), so pflegt man, besonders in Tonstücken von gefälligem (pleasant) u. Charakter, die Finger bis zum Eintritt einer andrn Harmonie auf den Tasten liegen zu lassen. (Klavierschule, VI, § 38, p. 355.)

EX. 5a

EX. 5b

In his examples (above Ex. 5b), Türk showed how notes of a broken chord were sustained when a slur was indicated over it. It was the slur, as Türk indicated, which suggested finger pedalling, but not the notated length of notes. This could have been a custom at the time, especially on the harpsichord, yet there was no clear rule about how and when pianists should apply the practice of finger pedalling. Should pianists always sustain all the notes of a broken chord, or only the bass note? Should pianists also apply finger pedalling whenever seeing an Alberti bass? The most important issue is whether Türk's suggestion necessarily describes the same practice that most composers would have wanted in their works. A slur may simply mean legato even in left-hand accompaniment passages. For instance, Mozart often slurred notes of more than one broken chords, and it would either sound too heavy or lose clarity if finger pedalling were applied to such as a lyric passage. Although rarely, in comparison with Schubert's notation, Mozart did notate a few sustained bass notes particularly in his later works, as in the sonatas K. 475 (I, bar 145) and K. 533 (I, bars 4-7). Thus, there is really a great deal of uncertainty about the usage of finger pedalling in the passages where a composer did not indicate the notes he wanted to sustain. Presumably, Schubert was aware of the necessity for giving clear guidance when he wanted the first note (or bass note) of an accompaniment passage to be sustained, and thus whenever he wanted to sustain notes, he wrote the notes in the length he expected. This may also imply that when he did not write a sustained bass note, he probably did not want the notes to be sustained.

Since Schubert's usual notational practice is to sustain the first note of an accompaniment figure or chord, his single staccato dot on the first note of a broken chord, as in above Ex. 3 gives a contrary impression: that he did not want to sustain it. One possibility is that he used the dot against the application of finger pedalling, and thus he indicated a staccato dot to emphasize that the first note is not to be sustained. Or it was simply his clear distinction between two performing practices: to have a sustained bass note or not.

Apart from the first note of a broken chord as in Ex. 3 (above), Schubert's single staccato dots also appeared in various forms of accompaniment passages, and they were always on the first note of each accompaniment figure or chord. A good example is in his Impromptu D. 935 (Op. 142), no. 3. In this piece, he varied his accompaniment parts in each of his variations, and he consistently indicated a single staccato dot on the first note of most accompaniment chords or figures in the Thema and four of his five variations, as in Ex. 6 (below). This is the opposite of his usual notational practice of sustaining the bass notes. When he wanted to sustain bass notes, he often repeated the first note and wrote it as a sustained bass part, as in his sonata D. 537, III (below Ex. 7a). In addition, he would ignore the practicability of the sustaining notes for the manual part he indicated, when he decided to sustain the notes. For instance, he would sustain notes which were difficult to be sustained merely by the left hand (unless a big hand), but the sustaining pedal, as in his song Mein! (Ex. 7b). As for the sustained bass notes in his song Nachtstück (Ex. 7c), that was a very common indication of his. It was practical and easy to play. Again, this shows how clear Schubert's indications are. When he wanted a sustained note, he would indicate it in whichever way made it clearest.

EX. 6a [5] Impromptu D. 935 no. 3, Thema

EX. 6b

EX. 6c

EX. 6d

EX. 7a Litschauer, Klaviersonaten I, p. 66.

EX. 7b [6] Dürr, Lieder, band IIb, NSA, p. 273.

EX. 7c Dürr, Lieder, band IIb, NSA, p. 226.

And thus, when he inserted a single staccato dot instead, he must have also had a clear intension as to why he marked it. Often when Schubert applied single staccato dots on the first bass notes of left-hand accompaniment passages, he still wrote sustained bass notes in other sections of the same music. In other words, he had two notational practices in use. This also means the two different notations must have not shared the same performing practice.

Unlike Mozart who indicated every detail, including dots, slurs, dynamics, simultaneously whilst writing his notes,[7] Schubert was much slower at notating his music completely. He tended to write mainly notes in his sketches or rough drafts, possibly accompanied with a few articulation signs or without any, and then later he inserted all the details he wanted when he wrote his final versions or fair copies. As seen in his first draft of the first movement of the sonata D. 959 (below Ex. 8a), he notated only the chords, without giving any details as to how the chord should be played, nor articulation signs. It was not until he wrote his fair copy that he clearly indicated the details of his music and also the vertical strokes in the bass part (below Ex. 8b). This implies that he must have been clear what he was indicating when he marked any articulation signs, presumably, including single staccato dots in the accompaniment passages, which can be found in the second movement of this sonata (above Ex. 2).

EX. 8a

EX. 8b

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN SCHUBERT'S STACCATO STROKE AND STACCTO DOT

In addition to his distinction of the usage of sustaining notes and single staccato notes as previously mentioned, Schubert's distinction of the use of single stroke and single dot again emphasise his approach of different notational guidance. According to Walther Dürr, Schubert used stroke (`) mostly only in forte passages (this applied to all instruments, except the percussion instruments). His dots, however, appear in all ranges of dynamics (Staccato wedge is not found in his handwriting)[8]. This explains that Schubert applied two signs as his staccato marks. Schubert tended to indicate his stroke as a vertical line, a shorter form of his bar line, and thus there is a clear distinction between his strokes and dots. For example, in D. 959, II (above Ex. 8b) and the beginning of D. 571, his little vertical lines are indicated as his strokes, and in D. 960, I (above Ex. 1), his dots cannot be misunderstood as strokes. This suggests that Schubert was very clear about his indications, and the functions of his strokes and dots were obviously different.

EX. 8b [9]Litschauer, Klaviersonaten I, NSA.

EX. 8b Litschauer, Klaviersonaten I, NSA

The usage of dots and strokes seems to have varied from one individual to another. In 18th-century treatises, writers, such as Leopold Mozart in his Versuch einer gründlichen Violinschule (1756) and François Devienne in his Méthode Théorique et Pratique pour la Flute (1794) tended to use strokes to distinguish detached notes from slurred notes. L. Mozart even suggested that when a composer wanted some notes to be accented and to be separated from each other, he should indicate little strokes (these little strokes appear like vertical strokes in L. Mozart's musical example).[10] In his Méthode Nouvelle et Raisonnée pour le Hautbois (1792), Amand Vanderhagen also applied stroke signs to mean an accent, whereas his dot sign was used to instruct the tonguing as 'Te'. In one of his musical examples, a single stroke indicated before a slur already existed (Ex. 10a). He used the word piquée (inf. piquer) to describe how this stroke was to be played.[11] Piquée means prick, and thus a stroke indicates a shortened accent. Devienne in his 1794 book says that this is rarely seen, and it seems not to have been a common indication in later piano music either. One of the very few examples of this in Beethoven's piano sonatas is the single stroke at the beginning of the Minuetto in op. 22. This stroke is presumably a sign indicating an accent and a separation between the first quaver and its following slurred quaver.

EX. 10b [12]

EX. 10b Barry Cooper ed. Beethoven sonatas, ii, p. 40.

Instead of marking a stroke, Schubert's practice or preference of this kind is a single dot added before a slur. A six-bar passage in the first movement of the sonata D. 960 is again an example (Ex. 11). Yet, why did he indicate dots rather than strokes?

EX. 11 Litschauer ed., Klaviersonaten III, NSA.

Türk in his treatise 1789 actually mentioned both the signs. He said: Stoβen (Impact) or Absetzen (detaching) were commonly indicated by a stroke or a dot. The two signs have the same meaning, but some will mark a shorter Absetzen by strokes rather than by dots (below Ex. 12).

Das Stoβen oder Absetzen wird, wie bekannt, durch Striche a) oder Punkte b) über (oder unter) den Noten angedeutet. […] Die Zeichen bey a) und b) haben einerley Bedeutung; doch wollen Einige durch die Striche a) ein kürzeres Absetzen bezeichnen, als durch die Punkte b). (Türk, VI, ii, § 36, p. 353)

EX. 12 Türk, Klavierschule, VI, § 36

This suggested that a stroke may guide a shorter execution than a dot. Clive Brown notes that, several theorists from the 18th and early 19th centuries suggested that a stroke indicated a sharper and shorter execution than a dot.[13] If this was also Schubert's notational practice, then his indication of a single dot in the above-mentioned examples meant that he did not want a too short or too sharp accented staccato, as a single stroke might have indicated. Or he possibly did not want a dry and big gap between the first note and its following slurred notes like the one with a stroke in Beethoven's example in op. 22, III (above Ex. 9b). If this was the reason Schubert indicated single dots rather than single strokes, then this could actually explain the reason that some of his single staccato dot notes appear to be inseparable from their following notes, i.e, to break the fluency of the accompaniment passage. A particular example is in bars 112-131 of his Fantasie Op. 15, I (Ex. 13), where it seems not to make sense always to have a short and sharp staccato first note and to separate it with a interrupting gap from the rest of the notes of each 8-semiquaver accompaniment figure, when each 8-semiquaver group presents merely a chord rather than a melodic phrase as in the above Beethoven example. Since Schubert did not use strokes but clearly only dots in such cases, it is possible to assume that he wanted to have merely a tiny but articulated emphasis on the first note of each group of the accompaniment figure.

EX. 13 Schubert Op. 15, I, bars 112-114 (Landon and Dürr)

WHAT DOES SCHUBERT'S SINGLE DOT MEAN? HOW CAN ONE PLAY IT TODAY?

Clive Brown has pointed out that it was very common in the 18th and 19th centuries for dots and strokes to be used to differentiate the notes which were not slurred, and they were not necessarily indicated to specify a genuinely staccato execution.[14] Part of this could explain Schubert's single staccato dots. If the purpose of Schubert's indication of a single staccato dot was to show that he did not want the first note of each 8-semiquaver group to be joined or slurred, as in the above example, then this dot already guides pianists that the note with a staccato dot should not be linked. But, how can this be done? Brown's 'not specifying staccato execution' was possibly better to be regarded as a description which used to indicate the normal execution or touch of some 18th-century fortepianos, but cannot also be a description for later English or say modern pianos when the normal touch between such as Viennese fortepianos and later English and modern pianos are totally different. This means, when Schubert's intended function of his single staccato dot sign was for the result which he expected on fortepianos, this result may actually need a different technical approach to achieve if it is on English or later modern pianos. This implies that if one would like to follow Schubert intended guidance, one may need to apply different technical approaches for different instruments one plays.

According to the Viennese piano maker Andreas Streicher in 1805, the action of English pianos at the time was heavier and the key was deeper than Viennese fortepiano.[15] This suggests that the touch of Viennese fortepiano was lighter than English pianos at the time (the forerunner of modern pianos), and the sound of Viennese pianos also decays rapidly. The normal touch of Viennese instruments can be possibly described as detached or non legato. This is very different from English or later modern pianos when the action of English instruments is heavier, slower and less responsive than the action of Viennese fortepianos. Compared with modern pianos today, the sound of modern pianos lasts much longer than the sound of a Viennase fortepiano; the normal touch on a modern piano is therefore less detached than on a Viennese fortepiano. This means that on a modern piano, one needs to particularly lift the finger quicker in order to 'not' join or slur a note from one to another, especially between two fast semiquavers. If Schubert's dot meant normal touch (detached) on a fortepiano, then it may have to mean staccato in terms of technical aspect on an English or modern piano. A pianist then could play it shorter and make it clear that the note is well-articulated.

But, it could be more difficult to present this staccato dot when the sustaining pedal is involved on a modern piano. In the same section of the Fantasie, Schubert wrote octaves in the right-hand part from bar 116 to 131. In the two bars shown in Ex. 14 (below), without a big hand, it is not likely to play the right-hand octaves legato without applying the sustaining pedal. That is, the whole passage of bars 116-131 needs to be played with the sustaining pedal, in order to link the octaves. Yet, by doing so, the single staccato dots in the left-hand part can be easily obscured or linked to their following slurred notes when the modern sustaining pedal is applied. For instance, when the pedal is used to link the first two quaver octaves A and C in the right-hand part, the single dot on the E flat semiquaver would also be linked to the next semiquaver B flat.

EX. 14 Schubert Op. 15, I, bars 116-117 (Landon and Dürr)

Apparently, the single staccato dots in this Fantasie seem to be not very practicable on a modern piano if one insists to simply follow what Schubert indicated. What if when this is played on fortepiano? Although it is not very clear what kind of fortepianos for which Schubert was composed, it is possible that he used Viennese fortepianos, such as Walter, Stein, Graf rather than pianos from Paris, such as Pleyer, which Chopin preferred, or Erard which Liszt preferred. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, some Viennese fortepianos were made with separate pedals or knee levers, such as Walter ca. 1778-1780. The construction of split damping therefore could control bass and treble registers separately.[16] This means if Schubert were written for such instruments, then in this passage in bars 116-131 (Ex. 14 above), it is possible to sustain only the right-hand octaves of the treble register, and this would theoretically leave the left-hand part unsustained, apart from the middle area where there might be no clear division between treble and bass dampers.[17] As for the pedalling in the left-hand part, the issue is how one can interpret Schubert's single staccato dots. A pianist may use the bass pedal to link only slurred notes, or also to pedal the first bass note solely if this was a practical and not too complicated pedalling then and if this was what Schubert intended. However, since Schubert was composing in the 19th century already, it was also highly likely that Schubert was not written for such an instrument, but an instrument with no separate sustaining pedals. In this case, pianists may again face with the dilemma of deciding whether to sacrifice the right-hand legato line, if there are octaves which need to be linked by the sustaining pedal as in bars 116-117 (Ex. 14 above), or to sacrifice a clear left-hand well-articulated detached staccato dot as Schubert indicated in the same passage.

Does this suggest that this passage is genuinely impossible to play as Schubert indicated? There is actually a hint from Schubert's D. 960, which may provide modern pianists with a clue as to how to play his single dots when applying the sustaining pedal on modern pianos or even fortepianos. As previously mentioned, it would not be a problem to sustain the notes in the right-hand part with the sustaining pedal while leaving the left-hand part mostly unsustained on a Viennese fortepiano. This is impossible on modern pianos because when the right-hand part is sustained with the sustaining pedal, the left-hand part is sustained too. According to Litschauer's transcription, Schubert marked single strokes in the bass part of the second movement in D. 960 and he also indicated col pedale (Ex. 15a). These were all what Schubert later inserted, as all the strokes and dots were not yet included in Schubert's first draft (Ex. 15b). There is no reason to assume that what Schubert later added was not his intended indication or impracticable. One may argue (if Schubert had separating sustaining pedals in his mind), whether Schubert's col pedale meant bass pedal or treble pedal. Since there are bass notes with strokes in the bass part and notes with staccato dots in the treble part, it is not very likely that Schubert would want to sustain the top C sharp quavers while leaving the bass part unsustained when applying the treble sustaining pedal for linking the middle melodic line. This is a question of balance. Schubert also did not mark a long slur to link the notes in the middle part. His col pedale therefore could be his expectation for the sound and sustaining bass notes. Why did Schubert indicate a stroke rather than a dot in the bass part here? The bass notes might be obscured when applying the bass pedal or even a moderator in this pianissimo passage, and thus these bass notes would need to be particularly articulated and clearly played. If a stroke is sharper than a dot to Schubert, this could be an explanation of why he indicated strokes here in the passages where the pedal was also used. This is the hint to modern pianists: when applying the sustaining pedal, Schubert's dot may actually mean the stroke as he indicated in this second movement of D. 960.

EX. 15a Litschauer, Klaviersonaten III, NSA, 132

EX. 15b

In contrast with the previous example where Schubert marked strokes in the bass part (above Ex. 15), in the second movement of D. 959, he indicated single dots in the bass part (below Ex. 16). Also unlike the passages in Fantasie (above Ex. 14), all the bass notes here in D. 959, II, are already impossible to link to their following notes due to the distance between the notes. So, why did Schubert still indicate dots to guide this separation when this separation already existed automatically? In this movement, Schubert did not write col pedale; he marked single dots but no rests between notes. This already appears to be a different notation from the previously mentioned D. 960, II (above Ex. 15), and presumably these two differently presented notations in D. 960 and D. 959 (below Ex. 16) guide different performance. Without indicating col pedale in D. 959, II (below Ex. 16), Schubert may not have wanted sustaining each bass note over beats, but a well-articulated staccato bass note (perhaps a short pedal only for the note) followed by the slurred notes as what he indicated.

EX. 16

However, did Schubert really not want to sustain the bass notes, even though sometimes they are the most important notes in the chords? What could be certain is that he indicated what he wanted: well-articulated left-hand parts. He could easily have written sustained bass notes, which was his common practice, or write col pedale if he had wanted. However, this does not necessarily mean that Schubert did not want the use of pedals at all. Perhaps if Schubert had the separating sustaining pedals in his mind, then the treble pedal could be used for the right-hand part, and the bass pedal could be used to link the slurred notes, and also each bass note solely. Even without separating sustaining pedals, pianist may still sustain each bass note solely.

In his Impromptu Op. 142, no. 3 (below Ex. 17), Schubert tended to mark a single staccato dot on the bass note in the Thema and four of the five variations in Variations II, III, IV, V. One may question whether the reason Schubert indicated notated sustaining bass notes in Variation I was because it was possible to sustain the bass notes by hand. Did he also want his bass notes in the Thema and four other variations to be sustained by the sustaining pedal, like Chopin's bass notes in his Mazurka where Chopin often indicated pedalling to sustain bass notes even though he also indicated staccato dots above or below these notes (a common practice among some 19th-century composers)? This is possible, but would it be more sensible to presume that Schubert's notational practice or performing practice was derived from his forerunners, from Vienna, from the Viennese pianos he used, and from himself rather than from such as Chopin and pianos made in firms in Paris?

EX. 17 Impromptu Op. 142, no. 3

It is a fact that Schubert's music was not composed for a modern piano, and it is highly likely that Schubert's notational and performing styles were different from the composers after him and from what we modern ears are accustomed to. In Schubert's autographs, it is obvious that the distinction between his strokes and dots is far clearer than some of Mozart's, Brahms's, or other composers' indications. This suggests Schubert's dots mean dots, but not strokes. One may also notice that Schubert was very keen on indicating notated sustaining bass notes. This implies that he would not have indicated a dot when he wanted a substantial sustained bass note. These indications, however, were for the fortepianos he knew or he had used, but not for modern pianos. When one understands the original function and meaning of Schubert's notational signs, one should not ignore those dots. Pianists could either play the dots without applying the pedal or pedaling each bass note solely. Or if one would like to interpret those dots differently by sustaining each bass note longer, then one might need to change the execution of Schubert's dot as it were his stroke in order to present what might be closer to Schubert's intended articulation. This will produce the articulation which Schubert might have wanted and still keep the sound of a full harmony chord which Schubert might appreciate if he had heard this on a modern piano.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------

Footnotes

[1] Franz Schubert, Drei groβe Sonaten für das Pianoforte D. 958, 959 und 960 (Frühe Fassungen). Facsimile nach den Autographen in der Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek (Tutzing: Verlegt bei Hans Schneider, 1987), 6. The autographs of the fair copy (Reinschrift) is now in a private collection in Switzerland. Regarding the musical examples of Schubert's autographs (facsimiles) used in this article, spots and the parts that are not relevant to the main discussions are cleaned or deleted by means of editing software in order to make it easier for readers to read the main text.
[2] Landon Christa and Walther Dürr, ed., Klavierstück II, NSA, p. 112. Autograph of the first draft is in a private collection in Vienna.
[3] Principles, tr. Rebecca Harris-Warrick, 29.
[4] Klavierschule, tr. Raymond Haggh, VI, § 38, pp. 344-345.
[5] Christa Landon, and Walther Dürr, ed., Klavierstück II, NSA, pp. 92-97.
[6] Schubert, Lieder (Kassel: 1975), ed. Walther D?rr, Neue Schubert Ausgabe, band IIb

[7] A good example can be found in Mozart's unfinished Requiem. In his unfinished 'Lacrymosa' (f. 33r), all the details were already included.

[8] 'Er verwendet Staccato-Striche (bei allen Instrumenten, das Schlagzeug ausgenommen) meist nur in forte-Passagen, Staccto-Punkte hingegen in allen dynamischen Stufen (Keile sind in seinen Handschriften nicht zu finden.)' Dürr, Schubert Handbuch, p. 98.
[9] Autograph is in Wiener Stadt- und Landesbibliothek.
[10] L Mozart, Versuch, I, iii, § 20, p. 45.
[11] Freillon-Poncein, 15.
[12] Vanderhagen, p. 15
[13] Clive Brown, 'Dots and Strokes in late 18th- and 19th-Century', p. 595.
[14] Clive Brown, Classical and Romantic, pp. 208-209.
[15] According to the Viennese piano maker Andreas Streicher, the English pianos as Clementi demaned had heavier action and deeper [key] fall, with which Streicher did not agree and thought it was bad. Katalin Koml?s, Fortepianos and their Music (Oxford, 1995), 18-19.

[16] Mobbs, 471.
[17] Rowland, A History of Pianoforte Pedalling, 18-19.
[18 ]The autograph of Reinschrift is in a private collection in Swiezerland. In Litschauer's critical report of Klaviersonaten III (pp. 97-119), he did not particularly mention the stroke signs and the indication 'col pedal', and thus presumably there was no problem when transcribing the sign and the indication.