in 
It is difficult to interpret the mark in CJ – it has uneven arms, as a result of which it is uncertain when it should begin, while its ending falls within the 2nd half of the bar, written using abridged notation, which hampers the estimation of its range. Moreover, the absence of the mark in the remaining sources, and particularly in CK, which is based on the same source, suggests that it could have been entered by mistake – the first halves of b. 8-9 are graphically very similar, which could have confused the copyist. According to us, assuming that the mark was present in [A2], we consider a long accent to be the most likely interpretation. Due to the described doubts, in the main text we give this accent in a variant form.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Graphic ambiguousness; Differences between sources
issues: Long accents, Scope of dynamic hairpins, Inaccuracies in JC
notation: Articulation, Accents, Hairpins