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=""
On the available photograph of A, the R.H. rhythm notation is vague – in the 1st half of the bar, there is an e2 minim and a crotchet rest; however, one can see a mark between them that can be considered a blurred dot prolonging the minim. If we included that dot (as it was done by FE (→GE,EE)), there would be too many rhythmic values; therefore, the editions left out the rest. According to us, the notation of A is not erroneous; the alleged dot is most probably an accidental fleck of ink, one of many visible in this manuscript.
Compare the passage in the sources »
category imprint: Differences between sources
issues: Errors in FE, Inaccuracies in A
notation: Rhythm