In the main text we adopt the undoubtedly authentic slur of A1, written in the same way in b. 36-37 (b. 68-69 are marked as repetition of b. 12-13). In turn, the authenticity of the slur of GE is not entirely certain, since the engraver could have misinterpreted the notation of [A2], e.g. due to the transition into a new line in the manuscript or other inaccuracy of notation. In a simple chordal texture, starting from the 3rd beat in b. 12, such a change – in relation to A1 – of phrasing in the L.H., contrary to the R.H. slur, seems to be inconceivable. In Afrag, which ends in b. 12, there are no L.H. slurs. In FE the beginning of the slur in b. 12, which closes the line of the text, is placed under the stave, whereas its continuation in the next bars – over. We interpret that illogical notation as a continuous slur, in accordance with A1. In turn, in EE each part of the slur was reproduced as a complete, separate slur.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: EE revisions, Inaccuracies in FE
notation: Slurs
