The pitch and possible hold of the 2nd quaver of the bar raise doubts in the sources. Both in JC and in PE, when read literally, the note is a non-sustained d
3 quaver, whereas in EF – a d4 quaver held with a tie. In the case of JC, a total lack of the octave sign (embracing 7 quavers) is almost certainly a mistake. The situation is less obvious in PE, where the octave sign was not omitted, yet it starts only from demisemiquavers, while the tie is also absent in bar 70. This version, considered independently of the piece, would not raise any doubts, however, in the context of similar phrases in bars 62-63 and 70-71, it seems to be erroneous.
In the main text we give probably the only authentic version, written faultlessly in EF.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors of JC, Errors in PE
notation: Rhythm