The slur in EE erroneously begins only in b. 624. We may suspect that the omission of the slur's beginning until the end of the line mast have occured already in the manuscript for the edition. Also the GC slur may well be inaccurate, so we assume based on GE that the slur is too long and should apply to where the RH comes in. For the main text we adopt the FE slur which seems to be musically most natural.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in EE, Inaccuracies in GC
notation: Slurs