|
Slur from bar 48 in A, literal reading |
|
|
Slur continued from bars 44-46 in A, contextual interpretation (→FC→GE, →FE→EE) |
The discussed bars are a repetition of b. 31-32, not written out in the manuscripts, marked in an abridged manner. Therefore, we encounter here similar problems concerning the interpretation of the ambiguous L.H. slurring of A – see the note on those bars. The phrase mark written in A under signalized b. 48-58 is a new element; it suggests that their slurring should be different than the first time and that b. 47 is either to be devoid of a phrase mark or provided with the same one as in b. 31. According to us, as was the case with b. 44-46, it is the latter that is correct.
FC does not contain the phrase mark that begins in A in b. 48. Since the entire section written down in an abridged manner is devoid of L.H. phrase marks in this copy, it is the ones present in FC (→GE) for the first time that are valid.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources; Source & stylistic information
issues: Inaccurate slurs in A, Errors of FC
notation: Slurs