|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Slurs separated in b. 205, our alternative suggestion |
As in bars 199-203, the FE slurs may be an authentic variant of phrasing, yet most probably written down inaccurately. We assume that the beginning of the slur in bar 205 is probably erroneous (from the 1st chord, suggesting that the phrase should be divided internally, resulting in the dominant chord leading to the tonic chord being separated from it). Therefore, as an alternative for the source notation, we suggest moving the beginning of this slur over the next chord. In the main text we give here the A slurs (→GE), unquestionable in this place, despite the beginning of the slur starting in bar 204 being over the g
1 semiquaver (most probably due to ink stoppage).
Compare the passage in the sources»
category imprint: Differences between sources; Editorial revisions
issues: Inaccurate slurs in A
notation: Slurs