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=""
in A1 is one of the three only verbal indications in b. 1-20 (along with con forza in b. 15 and
in b. 18). The number of other dynamic markings is also significantly lower – see b. 6-7.
The absence of the indication in CJ is an oversight – it is present in CK and IJ, based on [A2], just like CJ. in EL is an arbitrary change of Kolberg or the publisher.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors of JC, Revisions in EL
notation: Verbal indications