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=""
EE1
compare
According to us, the slurs of the sources unnecessarily complicate the notation in this place (cf. bars 473-474 and 475-476); moreover, their authenticity is uncertain – the slur in bar 477 could have been, e.g. prolonged in [A], which the engraver of FE misinterpreted as an addition of another slur. One can also imagine that the second slur was added in the proofreading of FE as a simplified form of its prolongation. Taking the above into account, we give one slur over the entire passage in the main text.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Editorial revisions
notation: Slurs