Mudarra I

Mud&II&,S1"I'!-;-,_-

Harp Fantasia:,1__iQ iI11SIOI'V 8110 AH2\1VS1S®

J

It is the Fantasia que contrahaze

la harpa en la manerade Ludovicv [Fantasia that imitata the harp in the styleof Ludovico] that has secured the vihuelist AlonsoMudarra a place among those renaissance musicianswhose music is frequently performed today. Firstpublished in his Tres Libros de Musica en Cfrus paraVzhuela (Seville: ]uan de Leon, 1546), both the noveltyof sormd and the ingenuity of conception have guaran-teed Mudarra’s fantasia a lasting attraction amongvihuelists, lutenists and guitarists. Many guitartranscriptions have been published and, apart from in-dividuality of fingering, most agree with the modifica-tions to the original tablature that appear in EmilioPujol’s standard critical edition of Mudarra’s Tres I ibros®. A facsimile of the original edition is also currentlyavailable ® The purpose of this article is todemonstrate the uniqueness of the Fantusx

a que con-

trahaze

Ia harpa among fantasias for the vihuela: it is theearliest known set of variations on the I-`oliu, written byMudarra to emulate a renowned harpist of a previousgeneration. The work thus contains a second layer ofinformation based on Mudarra’s perceptions of soloinstrumental improvisation of an earlier age. My inten-tion here, however, is not principally to provide anhistorical discourse, but rather to expose a set of his-torical and analytical facts that might stimulate per-formers towards a style of interpretation based on anew vision of the work, one which challenges variousaccepted notions.

The fame that this fantasia enjoys are due aboveall to its novel harplike sound effects. Of the 219fantasias

that survive for the vihuela, it is the only onethat makes use of special idiomatic effects, imitatingon one stringed instrument sounds belonging toanother. Instead of relying on imitative counterpoint, ·the usual staple ingredient of the fantasia, here we findarpeggios, embellished and syncopated passages, aswell as various kinds of chromaticism and dissonance.These are the ingredients from which the harp effect iscreated. Mudarra was also obviously aware of thenovelty of his work. This must have been his reasonfor adding at the beginning of the work the commentthat it es difu:H hasta ser entendhi

a [it is difficult until it is

understood] and, from bar 125 of the original tabla-ture, that Desd

e aqui fasta acerc

a del final ay Algunas fal-

sas taniendose

bien no parecen

mal [from here almost tothe end are several dissonances which, when playedwell, do not sound bad]. These effects are well knownto all that have played or heard the work.

What has been overshadowed by the special harpeffects of the work is its relationship to the melodic-

JBy john Griffiths

harmonic scheme that a few decades later came to beknown as the folia. As the following analysis reveals,the fantasia comprises three variations on the folia.Consistent with the general characteristics of vihuelafantasias, Mudarra’s work reveals a rational scheme ofbalanced formal architecture, the typical symmetry ofall renaissance art. At the same time it possesse

s an ex-

traordinarily dynamic forward motion that enables itto develop with fluidity and brilliance. It epitomizesthe union of static architectural design and dynamicmovement through time.

The discovery of this hitherto undisclosed formalcontruction invites an historical explanation, and leadsto questions concerning performance and interpreta-tion. That in 1546 Mudarra published a solo in-strumental work based on the folza is in itself ofsignificance ® It must not be mere coincidence thatMudarra chose to use the fclia in a fantasia that wasconceived as a tribute to a famous musician of the pre-vious century. He must have had some notion of howplayers of an older generation improvised, and usedthis as the basis of his composition.

The identity of the Ludovico to whom the "HarpFantasia" is dedicated cannot be established with ab-solute certainty, although all evidence points to aminstrel employed by Ferdinand the Catholic whoreigned jointly with Isabel of Castille from 1469 to1502. According to documents gathered by thenineteenth—century

music historian Barbieri and citedby Pujol in his study on Mudarra, © a musician named"Ludovico el del Arpa" was employed at that court. Itappears that this harpist was of extraordinary skill andrepute, and that he became something of a legendaryfigure. He is probably the same harpist that thetheorist ]uan Bermudo mentions in his Declaracicm dede instrumentos musicales, (Ossuna, 1555). According toBermudo, "Dizen que el nombrado Ludovico quarzd

o venia

a clausular, pemiendo

el dedo debaxo

de Ia cuerda, la semi-tonaua, y hazia clausula de sust1entad0

". [lt is said that

the renowned Ludovico, when he came to make acadence, put tris finger beneath the string to [raise it] asernitone, thus making a leading—

tone cadence. © lt is

precisely the imitation of these cadences that givesMudarra’s fantasia it character and individuality. Wemay suppose, on this basis, that Mudarra wrote hisfantasia as a homage to this already legendary harpist,using the devices for which Ludovico was famous asthe basis of his sound effects. He must have chosen tocast the piece in variation form knowing it to havebeen the musical style that, to musicians of the last

third of the fifteenth century, enjoyed a high statusequivalent to the imitative fantasia of his own time.Mudarra thus transmits to us information of great his-torical significance. Not only does he imitate the soundof Ludovico’s sharpened cadences, but he also trans-rnits a knowledge of the style and structure of piecescreated by late sixteenth-century solo instrumentalistsabout whose irnprovisatory practices scarcely anyother documentation remains.

Even though the earliest piece named folia datesfrom 1593, it is evident that the harmonic progressionthat it defines had already evolved by 15()0

, and that

during the sixteenth century, it was widely used/ forvariation writing under various names. ® 'I'lreevidence suggested by Mudarra’s fantasia is that atradition of improvising on set harmonic schemes in-cluding the jblra had already evolved during the fif-teenth century. This is significantly earlier than theFrench and Italian dances found in early sixteenth-cen-tury printed lute books, and more so than the earliestdiferencias

[variations] published in Narvaez’s vihuelabook of 1538. ®

ANALYSIS

The Fantasia que amtrahaze

la harpa is composed asthree continuous fvlia variations, both in its melodyand harmony. The first variation takes up 95 of the 157bars of tablature that comprise the work.

The remaining 62 bars divide into two variationsof almost equal length. The opening of the originaltablature is shown in Example 1.

Example 1. Mudarra, Tres libros de musica, fcls13,130.

Example 1.}§>!.IBRO.I·e1Z FOLXIII.

ln I "_ I E,-9— —- .-.- ——.

.—6–2

x TATA.; sx, A-L3 .Z1 . ;· "* -‘:g]g·-z—=3Zs¤`iZ€%sarmi T- ‘—i**

¤@§“m`“;;..c;T:e...J:.. #XCR~»

"=‘-_.T-T1 _.Li.n_____.1

T —_&_;;1_.,_T

- .... #1 .4—: _——

None of the three variations presents the folia for-mula identically, nor does any conform to the folra for-mula that becarne stabilized in the seventeenthcentury. The fvlia formula in its evolved form is com-pared with the three variants used by Mudarra in Ex-

ample 2. Instead of the E minor chord that begins theevolved folia, Mudarra substitutes an A major chord,lowering the bass a fifth and the melodic note a third.® This is not surprising as the first chord of the foliawas the last to stabilize during its gradual historicaldevelopment. The versions of Valderrabano andPisador, for example, use the typical sixteenth-centuryprocedure of commencing on the second chord of the Aprogression, omitting the opening E minor altogether.In Mudarra’s work however, the use of the A majorchord permits the variations to proceed continuouslywith no cadential interruption. The work is thus ableto develop not only with fluidity, but also with an in-sistent forward thrust. The melodic alteration of thescheme also gives it a more regular linear curve, rising rn` I Y,

Example 2. Melodic-harmonic formulaeAa LL- —4 ..t AL:- -.a.;..I.. I —......-A - 1..—-..:- W I-AJ..-At the end or tms 31’tlCl

€, 1 present a transcription

of the Fantasia que contrahaze

la harpa that shows thestructure of the composition more clearly than thoseintended primarily for performance. By reducing therhytlunic values of the original tablature to onequarter their length, both formal structure and rhyth-mic subtlety are shown with rnaximurn clarity. Thus,one crotchet of the transcription represents one bar ofthe original tablature. Barlines appear in the transcrip-tion only to mark important musical divisions; they donot denote metre. Double bars divide the variations.The bar numbering accords with the number ofcrotchets in the transcription, that is, with the bars ofthe original tablature.

In the original tablature, errors occur in two placesand both concern rhythmic notation. Firstly, the bar-line Sevaratinz bars 58 and 59 was omitted together

T j T _ _’2’1T’“‘i"°1",,

_.Tl. . IT; ?··’····[jj*f‘T—j -

·—— _—— f·2·»··r!j·—f·' éq ··I· |_‘—·‘|**·· —··.7·T4···\···.—1 frit ··T···...H.T_"

kl-l_;· .;j"———§if;.% _' F.,0-—e — -—;';—-e ——-P- -}_—e

_LI ¢ l __._ L*;1C;¤i,—§§;'F§‘;—\;;;Ejg@__\._|;; ;t.4L;..._ mm · * L I T T __·__·_—_—__. .&;—e%j;2–4_—-lab-——

— ——e2-°3=

l—3-}c $·¥§_;

_. T . QL ,4 »+ —

— ——+. *1-

H.Z A 3i. -sale)?-

+*-$@5-v

——w—r

me- Y-: ‘ Z ·with the minima that should be above the first figure ofbar 59. Secondly, in the penultimate bar, there is a [= crotchet

] figure that shoul

d be a fus

a [=

quaver]. These errors are not substantial, and aretranscribed correctly in all editions I have seen

.

AG] Mudarra

Example 2.

.u......—...rL. . l 7 V35; Ill!.-_Z£— —I

I _| xl0 _ U V

0 'G

inn.

v U

ID')Y.-|_’R_\! \$I_I|—

rljrh {. (• /n_I I_

•J

.Lli_

S 6 - ' 0 — /

mam. I—I.-I-P- l \

. ¤(\ iI 1\ hn_I I_\

•)

.0.]..

S U' " »*r;;_s /

mlm. mhm L5. ..$¤· m " ’E /

Example 3.

//

//

X <BL..._§i T2

-;

_|;_}‘ _.LHof

//

'iz f`II

"|‘t‘

{ I |/ A IT T / / n1 Y1 l ll1Y

.1j•|» *L·!¢—!\ T'r¤_II] —Z_ I \!'_Q$_Y__ • n \qlllfl

II

_Lrr|

ft§\\ TT1 I`.!I

I ‘ _\\$ r

K \

Tll I1 Im;

Y K1 - LY‘I.|| —._·l• ¤t\ h¤_II—rl_ IlI1¤I—\I\ Q—1'_- _ 11 émY'

TTTI Hnwnvnr. in all thou.: ndil-inn:

’=‘TrTinrlu ud inn lpa nin": nr-GI-},rrvvvcvcn, un an urcvt: c\nuU1l¤, lllllulllllg {Up! S CI'l IZl·

cal edition, other corrections are made that have nojustification. The common correction that converts bar91 into two bars appears incorrect. The brusqueness ofits original form appears intentional: it is the sign thatMudarra gives to announce the join of the first twovariations, the retum to the point of departure.

Furthemrore, the additional bar destroys the perfectsymmetry of the first variation with its two halvm of48 bars each. The alteration has been widely acceptedbecause it maintains the consistency of the arpeggiofigure established early in the piece, although in termsof the present analysis it eradicates a special signalthat Mudarra is trying to convey, one that can be jus-tified in terms of the fantasia's internal symmetry. Theother frequent and unnecessary correction is to thebass in bars 115 and 117. Once again, these bars havebeen altered by modern editors to provide texturalconsistency throughout the sequence that atthis point. 'I`he syncopated bass in the original,however, represents the composer s resolution of atechnical problem. Mudarra appears to have chosen tosyncopate the bass in order to avoid the awkwardnessfor the right hand that results on the vihuela if texturalconsistency is strictly maintained. The solution hechose does not dstroy the balance of the passage, ifanything it enhances the syncopation of the middlevoice. The tablature with both literal and Pujol's "cor-rected" transcriptions are shown in Example 3.

Example 3. Transcription variants.

The first variation of 95 bars is composed sym-metrically, arriving at its climax exactly at its midpoint at bar 48 on the G major chord, with the melodicb in the upper voice. Due apparently to the length ofthis variation, Mudarra extends the normal range of

_ _______I

j —‘·%`**‘·?—©-, u6' { H? 1

I.' I II I

I1 , 'infmgmrnmmi-slam;-mn-1-rsn.Z I_ I_1_Z I$—IHZ_-Iwm it mi ini my mi 1:1

u | ‘/I'-I

/`°'“'L"¤"‘

|“ : TT I

QTLL';

(Lid—1_\H-KKK!—_\Zi-(\I\.—-1-_I_-I-C—_I_-_-I

In- “_ U Yu l}_ H ;_1'T3'- I

the melodic scheme by a third, from g to b. Themelodic-harmonic scheme is also varied in both halvesto control the impetus with which the work unfolds,distorting the harrnonic-melodic symmetry yet main-taining them in equal periods of time. In the first half,Mudarra adds one chord (E minor) between the fourthand fifth chords of the formula (bars 44–47). He arrives

I T 21

j AG] nr I

at this point with the melody having risen by stepfrom the initial c# up to g. To arrive at his first climax,the upper voice skips a third to arrive at b at bar 48, aforeshortening that gives strong impetus to the work’sforward momentum. For the descent in the second halfof the variation, Mudarra maintains the hamronicprogression of the folia scheme, but elaborates themelodic skeleton with the pair of descending thirdsabove the D major and E minor chords between bars55 and 71. (Refer to Example 2.) In this way the im-petus acquired in the first half of the variation is dis-sipated gradually but without losing the worllsrhythmic momentum. /

Within the first variation, the melodic skeleton iselaborated by three figures. The first is the thr·ee-

notefigure that opens the work, the filled falling third thatterminates on the main note of the melodic skeleton.Example4._

U ,_ _

sonority of the harp. Many guitar transcriptions carrythe same idea even further through the use of moreelaborate left-hand fingerings. In these redobles

, groups

of three notes are used within duple metre, adding afurther dimension to the effect. Whether these are per-formed according to their melodic pattern or with ac-cents to maintain strict metre is a matter for individualchoice, and neither interpretation can be preferred onhistorical grounds. The assymmetrical option deserve

sconsideration as the resultant 3+3+2 pattern attainsconsiduable structural significance in the later varia-tions.

Example 4 shows how the first variation iselaborated through the use of the three elementsdescribed. Repetitlions are omitted.

Example 4. Variation 1, schematic reduction

I- •\Y 7

lm, (ZT

WT (zohim hlv L -.I" .»1 ilh§. .L [mj r

Tl] l I

.43-

(SIT L

-L*\

wiall/I

(42)jjQ_L;_

\IY-¤ m-@

•!]/\nl} •'•':" '9 ’ `W7

JESS]; O—

(cr)J A

YFTII DYi I '

1 A •" S ` [ l I

(MT

w (#6)*

<¤¤<>>

(az)

l 1(lih1Ll l.lI_i£KLl·I¤ I

I\ 1 _I "lIQHI_ 1Z A

, , - —. - . -. - su rvu !• a • •· • Illllnrll El, _.,¢..• · .1. - r-|:- — -|- 1— Ia -I..- .-...-.;.1.... TL- G.-L -.·.•·&»•bi4`•• i¤ nvealnnabnvu in nnhurn Il in Ii}. IThis cell emphasizes the folia melody. lt also providesthe germ for further melodic development within thework, introducing interplay between the notes of themelodic skeleton and those a third higher. Example 4shows the use of this cell in the first variation. Theother two figures are those which imitate the harp: thearpeggios whose notes are marked in the tablaturewith a circumflex to show that they should be sus-tained, and the extended redoble

s [figurations] that

parody Ludovico’s talent for chromatic alteration ofcadences. The pur·pose of these redobl

e passages is to

direct the music to each subsequent note of the foliaformula, while the arpeggios reinforce the harmonicscheme and maintain rhythmic continuity. In theredobles,

Mudarra places the note d# on the secondstring with e being the open first so that both soundconcurrently in order to reproduce something of the

l ne rrrst varrauon rs exploratory rn nature. rt rs ut-tle more than the folia sequence set out in somewhat ir-regularly over a ninety-five bar period. Each melodicnote is reinforced by a short melodic cell and by har-monic arpeggiation, and short connecting phrases lacethese together.

This is in keeping with the work's origin as im-provised music. Rather than the usual modem inter-pretation of this fantasia with dance-like rhythmicstrictnss, there is considerable scope to treat the open-ing with more freedom as if it were, in fact, being im-provised. Each new chord can be treated as if it were agoal, and thus suitably stressed, but the joumey be-tween each "goal" can be treated more flexibly in orderto create the irnprovisatory effect. Later in the fantasia

,rhythmic insistence is more crucial.

I }

AG] Mudarra

The second variation possesses

the same sym-metry as the first. Its first part, bars 95 to 110, reiteratesa new melodic phrase four tima as an ascending se-quence that follows the stepwise ascent of the foliamelody. This figure elaborates on the interplay ofthirds that occurs in the first variation. lt at thelowest ebb of the work's inner drama, following theforty-seven bar descent from the first climax point, butrises quickly to a second peak at bar 111. The secondhalf of this variation, bars 111 to 124, sustains the forceof the climax. It presents the folia melody and bass inskeletal form, modified only in the penultimate chordwhere the nomral bass note of e is replaced by a c. Thestrength and dynamism of the passage is created bythe rhythm of the inner voice whose semiquavers aregrouped 3+3+2 against the strict duple metre of theother parts. As this climax is achieved more rapidly, itappears to have greater force than the preceding one.However, in view of this climax occurring in the mid-dle of a variation, there seems to be no justification forthe change in tempo made at this point by many per-formers. The need to slow down from bar 111 can beobviated by an interpretation of the first variation ac-cording to the criteria set out above. Slowing thetempo at this point obscures the listener' s perceptionof the work's form: it does nothing to enhance themusic.

Even though words are frequently an inadequatemeans of describing musical phenomena, Mudarra’sFantasia que contrahaz

e la harpa can readily be described

and understood due to the great clarity of its construc-tion. It is a famous and mttraordinary work that, inde-pendent of its artistry, reveals various importantaspects of the early history of instrumental music. Asthe oldest conserved folia, it combines variation formwith the typical structural balance of the fantasiagenre, as well as informing us of the nature of solo in-strumental improvisation some half century earlierthan its own publication date. In addition, it is a mar-vellous work to play, and one which provides the lis-tener with ample reward.

Footnotes:

® This study is based on my article "La 'Fantasiaque contrahaze la harpa’ de Alonso Mudarra; estudiohistorico-analitico" published in Revista de Musicologia,X (1986), 29–40

, but substantially modified here.

® Alonso Mudarra, Tres Iibros de musica en cifraspara vihuela, ed. Emilio Pujol, Monurnentos de laMusica Espanola, VH, (Barcelona: Instituto Espanol deMusicologia, 1949, rpt. 1984).

© Monaco: Editions Chanterelle, 1980.

The syncopated figure introduced in the secondvariation, reminiscent of the opening "harp cadence"(bars 9–13)

, is transferred into the upper voice for the

third variation, and continues the work's dynamism.In this variation, the folia scheme is treated withgreater freedom. The ascending half of the formula isreduced to two chords: A major from bars 125 to 134,and B minor in bars 135 -142. While the treble partreiterates the 3+3+2 rhythmic figure, using the inter-play of thirds for its melodic substance, the bass rises afifth by step from a to e, and this is then repeated insyncopated and diminished form. The same process isrepeated

a tone higher on the B minor chord, althoughthe syncopation of the shorter bass repetition issmoothed out. It is this passage that provoked Mudar-ra to add the cautionary remark about dissonances.The conflict between d# in the upper part and dnatural in the bass, as well as the accented fourths,sevenths and ninths, does more than add dissonance,it creates a temporary sense of bitonality. This passageis the most dramatic representation of the legendarycadences for which Ludovico was famed, and creates awonderful effect on the vihuela or guitar.

Preparation for the final cadence is achieved bythe addition of two chords in the second half of thevariation. As well as retarding the work's accumulatedimpetus, these extra chords balance the simplificationof the chordal pattern in the first half. This last sectionbegins at bar 143 with further reiterations of the 3+3+2syncopation accompanied by the regular harmonies ofthe folia, which are converted into redobles from bar

I i`i§.’{.{{§ré;{§r§tr$I.'r6£tré

aaem.

® Mudarra also used the opening progression ofthe folia as the harmonic basis for the second part of hisFantasia del quurto tono for guitar (No. 12), albeit in amore abstract form. See lohn Griffiths "I`he VihuelaFantasia: a Comparative Study of Fomrs and Styles"(Diss., Monash, 1983), pp. 200–204.

© Mudarra, Tres libros de musica, op. cit. pp. 64-66. Pujol does not give the exact source of hisreference, and I have not been able to locate it amongthe archive of Barbieri documents in the BibliotecaNacional in Madrid.

© Fol. 110.

® The earliest use of the term occurs in the Ramil-lete de flares manuscript, Madrid Bibl. Nac. MS 6(X)1

.Concerning other early folias, several songs from thefifteenth-century Cancionero del Palacio are derivedfrom it, as are several instrumental pieces of the six-teenth century published in the vihuela books ofValderrabano (1547) and Pisador (1552) under thenéne of Pavana

.® Luis de Narvaez, Los seys libros del Delphin, (Val-

ladolid, 1538).

® The transcription and analytical commentaryuse E-tuning to make it conform with modern guitarpitch tuning. G-tuning renders the most satisfactorytranscription in terms of renaissance tonality.

I

_A.li.._

FANTASIA OUE CONTRAHAZE LA HARPA

721 ll'7. 1 gm

Alonso MudarraTranscription: John Griffiths

I I'-·— I-I| 1·A|\]*_1!lZPIa I¤I¢*_€l'II¢ YI lll] L-. Ll- L! B- I

In IIIJ- *!_llILY! ¤V -;— :

’ x ' ••)

14

S3';be

IIJEL-lm

Tilml-

FSI»=:.==I

l=HEF=E=IFF=EFE=I

I I1.1Q!; ¤( l . ' ' ’ ’ ' •

a“. I|I I••_ { j | \17_JX_ I

26 I E

Ajm

vi

.I=H€??=l.E?E LIE- I

|

Il•1_{ YQI U ¤7_ 1

3 -1....

3*.1 @1 ll].1 .-r.— EF I

'i Z r#j 2

I “7___ •J

4

-

31r“.I

IDIh I"""1I

IJ.II .I- JQ

ID lf

EJ_ ..- ‘/II H Q I _ _•n—j aa I'1.1.

rj §lK'W Y __.l1'Y ln_ja Y . — ¤7_;”1Z Qj (t_Zi •Q ‘”Y”'—TITT*T§*’Allsl

@-1-

it"?.I7ir·¤ EFI I

'Y.j.! I l fr*1 1 l ¤ 1| -_

g gl`!

D

I’”iY"1DI’ *z”IP|“`HEI y¤EF`¤.-hmmm _ I I

'Y·: jl• ;J 1111Yi*ji?;1I|§’lPH I _ 1-[X1};-YU! [Zh-

In_j _ }AI1r ¤Y 1 1’_

©Copyright 1989 John Grifliths

78 — \_+. . I I5 rn- —;:

Y.HZf Z I-? l__1Tl1“ L4¤I I'! Ll

I..jl'Zl* 'Kl__’1l_ l[.. \V—¥1! _ _

I I I5°° rn: ”· - `~ ” rl `rsll . » -1 hu.? ‘ _' 1 Ihm

Y.1|$ Y I [Y’.|Z_l;(II|KFI I 71111 KIZFLHIKYI Lll TIT';}.Zj•I¢ •I•_I1‘I¤I • .l PI V1Ll•I L.

ll•_II'1 KQIPI I_IH\K.lI _I \V_1I1;—Yj' " T'? {NIF? F

103 E E 1107 Q E Q

·t‘t.;

‘ ·;Illr, , , -

I’ml R-jH¤‘I*'¤:dFIH'T*1K.] LLQYI L .l YI _I-i A.QZ_HIj_Z1I1_(__I

.1 !$ 1'_-P'!P'KYI-P';F'_II.._ $\ [.!'I L] Ll lll All All\!V_

115

119

123I . JZ-mmm - mmm., -_..- I·-—.....1.121Ij¤_L2i1j;_IZ¢l-__1""•I¢li-¤_1**IIir:

.1 Z11K11ZZ€11IYl$_1_H1-$_1_1IIZb’. I.. YI YI Tl il il YIY'l$FKP1?'l1F'$F'1II.lL; \!! IKIW Aj Al Ll'! L1 Ll'I1•Q';?'$ Xl

• r z"-

A ggies;. sggrggssess. assess.

isms;-,

—- —·-· -_ -— —- —_ *··. . _ -I-rn nl-n nl-n II.-rn ..F.rr .—FIF..$.1) 1 A.; L4 L:·r L; 5; Arr A.; LJ Arr LK Liwmlnmsmm-nm- *-1

.m•m. m:nnm ·tnmmr—nI..ma1Y1 u:rtmm*s.rrm·rm.r|\l7_2’*_I% 1 Yl'Qs.m;'r\.j mn

{ I147 —_ 151

I- " l`I:=` — -y . -1 I •_: *71. ·-' -2;..n.m:m. mm mm ru—$__—.._Y$i¢rmm......m•m;ri 1.1•m;n ;m.4•r PKXKZQ-1}:I—!1YZYY•U nzrmmI.•_J—I__¢ l§i r_m_ m_n:»m1·_¤·¤ nmtrmummWim L mm 71.1 ml mmm-·'-..··m

7 • ' ..4}

H9 ____ 1571 . _ .- :- [Z22: ’i‘$.m.r ¤m :r•_¤-1 mm 1m1l

mama mm:m;am·r ; 1..mn. -1 m;m•m wm

U