|
Continuous slur in A |
|
|
||
|
||
|
2 slurs incl. to bar 55, our alternative suggestion |
|
|
3 slurs incl. to bar 51 & 55, our another suggestion |
These bars, although not written out in the manuscripts, are provided in A with a phrase mark encompassing b. 48-58. Therefore, we should assume that the phrase mark is supposed to replace the slurring featured in the respective bars the first time (b. 34-40). In turn, the omission of that phrase mark in FC indicates that it should be the slurring of b. 34-40 that should be repeated, which was implemented in GE (in this version the phrase marks in b. 35-39 = 51-55 were overlooked by the copyist by mistake). A solution consisting in repeating the slurring featured the first time was also adopted by FE (→EE). That version, based on the slurring of A referring to the actually written down text of b. 34-40, and not empty bars, can be considered an equivalent variant. Our two alternative suggestions are of a similar nature – the first is based on the version of FE, yet it takes into account a more likely interpretation of the phrase marks of A in b. 34-35 = 50-51, whereas the second is a compromise between the version with three phrase marks and the version of A with a continuous phrase mark. The above suggestions are based on the questionable range of the phrase mark of A in the discussed bars, which questions the credibility of its literal interpretation – see the note on b. 57-59.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Interpretations within context; Differences between sources
issues: Errors of FC
notation: Slurs