Each of the third phrases in bars 25, 27, 29, and 31 is provided with the 
sign in the sources, yet in none of them they appear in all places. In JC, there are no signs at all, in EF they are in bars 25, 27, and 31, while PE has them in bars 27 and 29. In the main text we give only the signs of PE, as they almost certainly come from [A]. The difference in markings in bars 25 and 27 may suggest an intensified expression in the repetition of the phrase in bar 27, whereas the lack of the sign in bar 31 may be related to shortening of the motif and the desire to intensify the effect of 
on the 6th quaver of the bar. On the other hand, one also cannot exclude an inaccurate notation of PE, therefore, according to us, considering the signs in all four places in the performance is acceptable.
The short hairpins visible in PE at the beginning of bar 27 seem to be inserted mistakenly, e.g., it could have been a reversed extension of 
(a long accent) from the previous bar. In the main text we omit it.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Sign reversal, Errors in PE
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins
