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 absence of is probably an oversight by the copyist or by the engraver of FE1. It is supported by the presence of cresc. - - - leading to this bar in FE, whose range is identical as in A, as a result of which the possibility that both markings were added independently (cf. bar 101 and 109) is less likely; therefore, it is rather A that is the only original source of the markings.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Errors in FE
notation: Verbal indications