Mudarra I
Mud&II&,S Harp Fantasia:
1"I'!-;-,_-
I11SIOI'V J
8110 AH2\1VS1S®
It is the Fantasiaquecontrahaz la harpaenla manera
de Ludovicv [Fantasia thate imitata the harp in the style
of Ludovico] that has secured the vihuelist Alonso
Mudarra a place among those renaissancemusicians
whose music is frequently performed today. First
published in his Tres Libros de Musica en Cfrus para
Vzhuela (Seville: ]uan de Leon, 1546), both the novelty
of sormd and the ingenuity of conceptionhave guaran-
teed Mudarra’s fantasia a lasting attraction among
vihuelists, lutenists and guitarists. Many guitar
transcriptions have beenpublished and, apart from in-
dividuality of fingering, most agreewith the modifica-
tions to the original tablature that appear in Emilio
Pujol’s standard critical edition of Mudarra’s TresIibros
®. A facsimile of the original edition is also currently
available ® The purpose of this article is to
demonstrate the uniqueness of the Fantusx que con-
trahaz Ia harpaamong fantasiasfor thea vihuela: it is the
earliest known set of variations on the I-`oliu,written by
e significance ® It must not be mere coincidence that
Mudarra to emulate a renowned harpist of a previous
generation.The work thus contains a second layer of
information based on Mudarra’s perceptions of solo
instrumental improvisation of an earlier age. My inten-
tion here, however, is not principally to provide an
historical 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 a
new vision of the work, one which challenges various
acceptednotions.
The fame that this fantasia enjoys are due above
all to its novel harplike sound effects. Of the 219
fantasia that survive for the vihuela, it is the only one
sthat makes use of special idiomatic effects, imitating
on one stringed instrument sounds belonging to
another. Instead of relying on imitative counterpoint,
the usual staple ingredient of the fantasia, here we find
arpeggios, embellished and syncopated passages,as
well as various kinds of chromaticism and dissonance.
Theseare the ingredients from which the harp effect is
created. Mudarra was also obviously aware of the
novelty of his work. This must have been his reason
for adding at the beginning of the work the comment
that it esdifu:Hhastaserentendhi [it is difficult until it is
understood] and, froma bar 125 of the original tabla-
ture, that Desd aqui fastaacerc delfinal ay Algunasfal-
sastaniendose bien no parece
a mal [from here almost to
the eend are several dissonances
n which, when played
well, do not sound bad]. These effects are well known
to all that have played or heard the work.
What has been overshadowed by the special harp
effectsof the work is its relationship to the melodic-
,1__iQ i
J
By john Griffiths
harmonic scheme that a few decades later came to be
known as the folia. As the following analysis reveals,
the fantasia comprises three variations on the folia.
Consistent with the general characteristics of vihuela
fantasias, Mudarra’s work reveals a rational scheme of
balanced formal architecture, the typical symmetry of
all renaissanceart. At the same time it possesse an ex-
traordinarily dynamic forward motions that enables it
to develop with fluidity and brilliance. It epitomizes
the union of static architectural design and dynamic
movement through time.
The discovery of this hitherto undisclosed formal
contruction invites an historical explanation, and leads
to questions concerning performance and interpreta-
tion. That in 1546 Mudarra published a solo in-
strumental work based on the folza is in itself of
Mudarra chose to use the fclia in a fantasia that was
conceived as a tribute to a famous musician of the pre-
vious century. He must have had some notion of how
players of an older generation improvised, and used
this as the basis of his composition.
The identity of the Ludovico to whom the "Harp
Fantasia" is dedicated cannot be established with ab-
solute certainty, although all evidence points to a
minstrel employed by Ferdinand the Catholic who
reigned jointly with Isabel of Castille from 1469 to
1502. According to documents gathered by the
nineteenth— music historian Barbieri and cited
by Pujol
century in his study on Mudarra, © a musician named
"Ludovico el del Arpa" was employed at that court. It
appearsthat this harpist was of extraordinary skill and
· repute, and that he becamesomething of a legendary
figure. He is probably the same harpist that the
theorist ]uan Bermudo mentions in his Declaracicm de
de instrumentosmusicales,(Ossuna, 1555).According to
Bermudo, "Dizen queel nombradoLudovicoquarzd venia
a clausular,pemiend el dedodebax de Ia cuerda,
o la semi-
tonaua,y hazia
o clausula de sust1entad0
o [lt is said that
the renowned Ludovico, when
". he came to make a
cadence,put tris finger beneath the string to [raise it] a
sernitone, thus making a leading— cadence.© lt is
precisely the imitation oftonethese cadences that gives
Mudarra’s fantasia it character and individuality. We
may suppose, on this basis, that Mudarra wrote his
fantasia as a homageto this already legendary harpist,
using the devices for which Ludovico was famous as
the basis of his sound effects.He must have chosento
cast the piece in variation form knowing it to have
been the musical style that, to musicians of the last
 third of the fifteenth century, enjoyed a high status
equivalent 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 sound
of Ludovico’s sharpened cadences,but he also trans-
rnits a knowledge of the style and structure of pieces
created by late sixteenth-century solo instrumentalists
about whose irnprovisatory practices scarcely any
other documentation remains.
Even though the earliest piece named folia dates
from 1593,it is evident that the harmonic progression
that it defines had already evolved by 15()0and that
during the sixteenth century, it was widely
, used/ for
variation writing under various names. ® 'I'lre
ample 2. Instead of the E minor chord that beginsthe
evolved 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 folia
was the last to stabilize during its gradual historical
development. The versions of Valderrabano and
Pisador, for example, use the typical sixteenth-century
procedure of commencing on the second chord of the A
progression, omitting the opening E minor altogether.
In Mudarra’s work however, the use of the A major
chord permits the variations to proceedcontinuously
with no cadential interruption. The work is thus able
to develop not only with fluidity, but also with an in-
sistent forward thrust. The melodic alteration of the
scheme also gives it a more regular linear curve, rising

W
I
evidence suggested by Mudarra’s fantasia is that a rn` I Y,
tradition of improvising on set harmonic schemesin-
cluding the jblra had already evolved during the fif- Example 2. Melodic-harmonic formulae
teenth century. This is significantly earlier than the
French and Italian dancesfound in early sixteenth-cen- At the end
Aa LL- —4
or AL:-
..t
tms -.a.;..I..
31’tlCl I1 —......-A
present -a 1..—-..:-
transcription
-AJ..-

tury printed lute books, and more so than the earliest of the Fantasiaque contrahaz
€, la harpathat shows the
diferencia [variations] published in Narvaez’s vihuela structure of the composition
e more clearly than those
book
s of 1538.® intended primarily for performance. By reducing the
rhytlunic values of the original tablature to one
ANALYSIS quarter their length, both formal structure and rhyth-
mic subtlety are shown with rnaximurn clarity. Thus,
TheFantasiaqueamtrahaz la harpais composed as one crotchet of the transcription representsone bar of
three continuous fvliae variations, both in its melody the original tablature. Barlines appearin the transcrip-
and harmony. The first variation takes up 95 of the 157 tion only to mark important musical divisions; they do
bars of tablature that comprise the work. not denote metre. Double bars divide the variations.
The bar numbering accords with the number of
The remaining 62 bars divide into two variations crotchets in the transcription, that is, with the bars of
of almost equal length. The opening of the original the original tablature.
tablature is shown in Example 1.
In the original tablature, errors occur in two places
Example 1. Mudarra, Tres libros de musica, fcls and both concern rhythmic notation. Firstly, the bar-
13,130. line Sevaratinz bars 58 and 59 was omitted together
Example 1.
}§>!.IBRO.I·e1Z FOLXIII.
T
T;
j T _ _’2’1T’“‘ _.T
?··’····[jj*f‘T—j
l. .
-
I

·——
—··.7·T4···\···.—1i"°1",,frit ··T···.
_——`f·2·»··r!j·—f·' éq ··I· |_‘—·‘|**··

..H.T kl-l_;· .;j"———§if;.% _' F.,

— ln I —- .-.-"_ ——I E,-9
.—6–2 0-—e — -—;';—-e ——-P- -}_—e
_"
x TATA.; sx, _LI ¢l __._ L
A-L3
*;1C;¤i,—§§;'F§‘;—
.
.
Z1 . ;· "* -‘:g]g·-z—=3Zs
rmi T- ‘—i** #XCR~» \;;;Ejg@
;;..c;T:e...J:.. ¤`iZ€%sa
__\._|;;
L I
&;—e%j;2–4_—- — ——e2-
;t.4L;..._
T T
mm
__·__·_—_—__.
l—3-}c
· *
.

-_.T-T1—_&_;;
_.Li.n_____.- ¤@§“m`“ T
"=‘ .... $·
lab-——
_. T . QL,4
°3=

1 #1 .4—:
1_.,_T

None of the three variations presents the folia for-

_——
i.-sale)?-
¥§_;
»+ —
——w
——+. *1- A 3
— me-
with the minima
H.Z
Y-: ‘ Z ·
—r that should be above the first figure of
mula identically, nor does any conform to the folra for- bar 59. Secondly, in the penultimate bar, there is a
mula that becarne stabilized in the seventeenth
century. The fvlia formula in its evolved form is com-
pared with the three variants used by Mudarra in Ex-
+*-$@5- [= crotchet figurethatshoul bea fus [=
quaver]. These] errors are not substantial,
d and
a are
transcribed correctly in all editions I have seen
.
 AG] Mudarra

Example 2. Furthemrore, the additional bar destroys the perfect

symmetry of the first variation with its two halvm of
48 bars each.The alteration has beenwidely accepted
.u......—...rL.
.-_Z£—
. l 7 V35; Ill!
—I
becauseit maintains the consistency of the arpeggio
I _|
xl figure established early in the piece, although in terms
0 _ U V 0
'G v `U of the present analysis it eradicates a special signal
that Mudarra is trying to convey, one that can be jus-
tified in terms of the fantasia's internal symmetry. The
other frequent and unnecessary correction is to the
inn. ID') bass in bars 115 and 117. Once again, these bars have
Y.-|_’R_\!
rljrh
/n_I I_
{. (•
\$I_I|—
been altered by modern editors to provide textural
•J
consistency throughout the sequence that at
S 6
— -

' 0/ this point. 'I`he syncopated bass in the original,

however, represents the composer s resolution of a
technical problem. Mudarra appears to have chosento
syncopatethe bassin order to avoid the awkwardness
.Lli_I.-I-P- mam. l
I— \
for the right hand that results on the vihuela if textural
. ¤(\
hn_I I_
\
iI 1\
consistency is strictly maintained. The solution he
•)
S U' "
chose does not dstroy the balanceof the passage,if
»*r;;_s / anything it enhancesthe syncopation of the middle
voice. The tablature with both literal and Pujol's "cor-
rected" transcriptions are shown in Example3.
.0.].. mlm. mhm L5. .. Example 3. Transcription variants.

$¤· The first variation of 95 bars is composed sym-

m
" ’E /
metrically, arriving at its climax exactly at its mid
point at bar 48 on the G major chord, with the melodic
b in the upper voice. Due apparently to the length of
this variation, Mudarra extends the normal range of
Example 3.

X <BL...
i T2 _§
_|;_}‘ _.L _ _______I

/
/
/

/
Hof
/
-; 'iz
I
I
f` "|‘t‘
j
, u6'
—‘·%`**‘·?—©-
{ H?
I
1
/ .'
I I II
I
T T1 /
{ I
/
|/ A
n
I 1 , '
.1j•|» *L·!¢—!\
Y1 l l1Y
infmgmrnmmi-slam;-mn-1-rsn
T'r¤_II] —Z_ I .Z I_ I_1_Z I$—IHZ_-I
\!'_Q$_Y__ wm it mi ini my mi 1:1
\\$ r_
:TT
qlllfl • n \
I ‘ u | ‘/I'-
ft§\\ TT
I
I
T I
|“ Q
_Lrr| 1 I`.! ll K
I1 \Im; /`°'“'L"¤"‘
T
I Y K1
._·l• ¤t\
- LY‘I.|| —
(Lid—1_\H-KKK!—_\Zi-(\I\
I LL';
h¤_II—rl_ IlI1¤I—\I\ Q .—-1-_I_-I-C—_I_-_-I
—1'_- _ 11 émY' In- “_ U Yu l}_ H ;_1'
T3'- I

TTT ’=‘TrT
I Hnwnvnr.
rrvvvcvcn, in
un all
an thou.:
urcvt: ndil-inn:
c\nuU1l¤, inrlu
lllllulllllg ud inn lpa nin":
{Up! nr-GI-},
S CI'l`IZl· the melodic scheme by a third, from g to b. The
cal edition, other corrections are made that have no melodic-harmonic scheme is also varied in both halves
justification. The common correction that converts bar to control the impetus with which the work unfolds,
91into two bars appears incorrect. The brusquenessof distorting the harrnonic-melodic symmetry yet main-
its original form appears intentional: it is the sign that taining them in equal periods of time. In the first half,
Mudarra gives to announce the join of the first two Mudarra adds one chord (E minor) between the fourth
variations, the retum to the point of departure. and fifth chords of the formula (bars 44–47). He arrives

T 21
j AG]
nr
I

at this point with the melody having risen by step
from 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, a
foreshortening that gives strong impetus to the work’s
forward momentum. For the descent in the second half
of the variation, Mudarra
progression of the folia scheme, but elaborates the
melodic skeleton with the pair of descending thirds
above the D major and E minor chords between bars
55 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
rhythmic momentum.
sonority of the harp. Many guitar transcriptions carry
the same idea even further through the use of more
elaborate left-hand fingerings. In theseredoblesgroups
of three notes are used within duple metre,
, adding a
further dimension to the effect.Whether these are per-
maintains the hamronic formed according to their melodic pattern or with ac-
centsto maintain strict metre is a matter for individual
choice, and neither interpretation can be preferredon
historical grounds. The assymmetrical option deserve
consideration as the resultant 3+3+2 pattern s attains
considuable structural significance in the later varia-
losing the worlls tions.
/

E U ,_
Example 4 shows how the first variation is
Within the first variation, the melodic skeleton is elaborated through the use of the three elements
elaboratedby three figures. The first is the thr·ee- described. Repetitlionsare omitted.
figure that opens the work, the filled falling note
third that
Example 4. Variation 1, schematic reduction
terminates on the main note of the melodic skeleton.

Y 7 I- •\

lm, (Z WT (zo
I"him T ilh§. .L
.»1
wi- [mj hlv
r L -.

all/I
Tl] l I

xa _ .43-

@\IY-¤

nl}
II DYi •'•':"
•!]/\'9
(SI
T

’ `W7
L

JESS];
L*
\
O—
(cr)
JA
(42
jjQ_L;_
)

T YF
I '
m-

m
1 A
•"
S ` [ l I
(M w (#6 <¤ (az l
I\ 1 _I
lIQHI_ 1Z
T
1(lih1Ll l.lI_i£KLl·I¤
)* ¤< I
"
A
)
>>
•, ·, .1.- -
This cell emphasizes the folia melody. lt also provides
r-|:-
—. — -|- - 1—
. Ia
-. -I..-- .-...-.;.1.... su
l ne G.-L
TL-
rvu
rrrst -.·.•·&»•bi4`••
!•
varrauon i¤rs nvealnnabnvu
a • •·
exploratory inrn nnhurn
•
nature. Ilrt inrsIi}.ut-
Ilnrll El, _.,¢. I

the germ for further melodic development within the tle more than the folia sequenceset out in somewhatir-

pl
work, introducing interplay between the notes of the regularly over a ninety-five bar period. Each melodic
melodic skeleton and those a third higher. Example 4 note is reinforced by a short melodic cell and by har-
shows the use of this cell in the first variation. The monic arpeggiation, and short connecting phraseslace
other two figures are those which imitate the harp: the thesetogether.
arpeggios whose notes are marked in the tablature
with a circumflex to show that they should be sus- This is in keeping with the work's origin as im-
tained, and the extended redoble [figurations] that provised music. Rather than the usual modem inter-
parody Ludovico’s talent for pretation of this fantasia with dance-like rhythmic
s chromatic alteration of strictnss, there is considerable scopeto treat the open-
cadences.The pur·poseof these redobl passagesis to
direct the music to each subsequent note of the folia ing with more freedom as if it were, in fact, being im-
e
formula, while the arpeggios reinforce the harmonic provised. Eachnew chord can be treated as if it were a

e
scheme and maintain rhythmic continuity. In the goal, and thus suitably stressed, but the joumey be-
redoble Mudarra places the note d# on the second tween each"goal" can be treated more flexibly in order
string
s, with e being the open first so that both sound to create the irnprovisatory effect. Later in the fantasia
concurrently in order to reproduce something of the rhythmic insistenceis more crucial. ,

}
I
 AG]
The second variation possesse the same sym-
metry asthe first. Its first part,
s bars 95 to 110,reiterates
a new melodic phrase four tima as an ascending se-
quencethat follows the stepwise ascent of the folia
melody. This figure elaborates on the interplay of
thirds that occurs in the first variation. lt at the
lowest ebb of the work's inner drama, following the
forty-sevenbar descentfrom the first climax point, but
rises quickly to a second peak at bar 111. The second
half of this variation, bars 111 to 124, sustains the force
of the climax. It presents the folia melody and bass in
skeletal form, modified only in the penultimate chord
wherethe nomral bass note of e is replaced by a c. The
strength and dynamism of the passageis created by
the rhythm of the inner voice whose semiquavers are
grouped 3+3+2 against the strict duple metre of the
other parts. As this climax is achieved more rapidly, it
appearsto have greater force than the preceding one.
However, in view of this climax occurring in the mid-
dle of a variation, there seemsto be no justification for
the changein tempo made at this point by many per-
formers. The need to slow down from bar 111 can be
obviated by an interpretation of the first variation ac-
cording to the criteria set out above. Slowing the
tempo at this point obscures the listener' s perception
of the work's form: it does nothing to enhance the
music.
The syncopated figure introduced in the second
variation, 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 with
greaterfreedom.The ascending half of the formula is
reduced to two chords: A major from bars 125 to 134,
and B minor in bars 135 -142. While the treble part
reiterates the 3+3+2 rhythmic figure, using the inter-
play of thirds for its melodic substance,the bassrises a
fifth by step from a to e, and this is then repeated in
syncopatedand diminished form. The sameprocess is
repeate a tone higher on the B minor chord, although
the
d syncopation of the shorter bass repetition is
smoothedout. It is this passagethat provoked Mudar-
ra to add the cautionary remark about dissonances.
The conflict between d# in the upper part and d
natural in the bass, as well as the accented fourths,
sevenths and ninths, does more than add dissonance,
it createsa temporary senseof bitonality. This passage
is the most dramatic representation of the legendary
cadencesfor which Ludovico was famed, and creates a
wonderful effecton the vihuela or guitar.
Preparationfor the final cadence is achieved by
the addition of two chords in the second half of the
variation. As well as retarding the work's accumulated
impetus,theseextra chords balance the simplification
of thechordal pattern in the first half. This last section
beginsat bar 143with further reiterations of the 3+3+2
syncopationaccompaniedby the regular harmonies of
the folia,which are converted into redobles from bar
I i`i§.’{.{{§ré;{§r§tr aaem.
$I.'r6£tré
I
Mudarra
Even though words are frequently an inadequate
means of describing musical phenomena, Mudarra’s
Fantasiaquecontrahaz la harpacan readily be described
and understood e due to the great clarity of its construc-
tion. It is a famous and mttraordinary work that, inde-
pendent of its artistry, reveals various important
aspects of the early history of instrumental music. As
the oldest conserved folia, it combines variation form
with the typical structural balance of the fantasia
genre, as well as informing us of the nature of solo in-
strumental improvisation some half century earlier
than 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 'Fantasia
que contrahazela harpa’ de Alonso Mudarra; estudio
historico-analitico" published in RevistadeMusicologia,
X (1986),29–40but substantially modified here.
,
® Alonso Mudarra, Tres Iibros de musicaen cifras
para vihuela, ed. Emilio Pujol, Monurnentos de la
Musica Espanola, VH, (Barcelona: Instituto Espanol de
Musicologia, 1949, rpt. 1984).
© Monaco: Editions Chanterelle, 1980.
® Mudarra also used the opening progression of
thefolia as the harmonic basis for the secondpart of his
Fantasiadel quurto tono for guitar (No. 12), albeit in a
more abstract form. See lohn Griffiths "I`he Vihuela
Fantasia: 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 his
reference, and I have not beenable to locate it among
the archive of Barbieri documents in the Biblioteca
Nacional in Madrid.
© Fol. 110.
® The earliest use of the term occurs in the Ramil-
lete deflares manuscript, Madrid Bibl. Nac. MS 6(X)1
Concerning other early folias, several songs from. the
fifteenth-century Cancionerodel Palacio are derived
from it, as are several instrumental pieces of the six-
teenth century published in the vihuela books of
Valderrabano (1547) and Pisador (1552) under the
néne of Pavana
.
® Luis de Narvaez, Los seys libros del Delphin, (Val-
ladolid, 1538).
® The transcription and analytical commentary
use E-tuning to make it conform with modern guitar
pitch tuning. G-tuning renders the most satisfactory
transcription in terms of renaissancetonality.
 FANTASIA OUE CONTRAHAZE LA HARPA
Alonso Mudarra
Transcription: John Griffiths

_A.li.._
'-·—
721
I-I|
ll'7. 1·A|\]*_1!lZPI
1 gm I
I
aI¤I¢*_€l'II¢ YI lll] L-. Ll- L! B- I

FSI
In IIIJ- *!_llILY!
¤V -;— :
•) S3'; ’ x ' •

II Til
`1.1Q!; ¤(
a“. I|I
14
be JEL-lm »=:.l=HEF=E=I
l
ml- . ' ' ’ ’ ' •
I

I••_ { j |

==I FF=EFE=I
\17_JX_ I

vi

Ajm
26 I E
.I=H€??=l.E?E LIE- I
|

Il•1_{
¤7_ 1
YQI U

3 -
.... @1
1 ll].1 .-r.— EF I
I
'i Z
r#j 2
I

3*.1
“7___
-
•J
ID
lf

IDI
4
3
II
'1.1.
rj §lK'W Y
ln_ja Y
1r“.I
H Q I

.
.II
_
h .I-I"""1I
JQ
_•n—j
J
__.l1'Y
—
EJ_ ..- ‘/ aa I
‘”Y”'—TITT*T§*’
¤7_;”1Z Qj (t_Zi •Q

it"?
l
Allsl @-1- .I7ir·¤
'Y.j.! I
r*1 1
lf
EFI I
¤ 1| -_

g gl DI’”iY"1DI’ *z”IP|“`
`! HEI y¤EF`¤.-hmmm
'Y·: jl•;J 1111Yi*ji?;1I|§’lPH
_ I
I I
_ 1-[X1};-YU! [Zh-
In_j _ }AI1r
¤Y1 1’_

©Copyright 1989 John Grifliths

 78 — \_
.`Y.HZf. I Z
I5 rn- I-? +

l__1Tl
—;:
1“ L4¤I I'! Ll
I..jl'Zl* 'Kl__’1l_ l[..
\V—¥1! _ _

I I I5
lY.1|$.Y °° I
rn: [Y’.|Z_l;(II|KFI
”· » --1 I
`~
hu.?
71111
‘ ”
KIZFLHIKYI
_' rl
1 Lll
`rsl
Ihm
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 ·t‘t. ‘ ·;

I’
103 E E 1107 Q E Q Illr,; , , - ml R
K.] LLQYI L .l YI _I-i A.QZ_HIj_Z1I1_(__I
-jH¤‘I*'¤:dFIH'T*1
.1 !$ 1'_-P'!P'KYI-P';F'_I
I.._ $\ [.!'I L] Ll lll All All
\!V_

11 11 12
I .
5 JZ-mmm
1.121Ij¤_L2i1j;_IZ¢l-__1""•I¢li-¤_1**IIir:
.1 Z11K11ZZ€11IYl$_1_H1-$_1_1IIZb’.
- mmm.,
9 -_..- I·-—.....
3
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. assessisms;-,

.
—- —·-· -_ -— —- —_ *··
. . _ -I-rn
$.1) 1 A.; L4 L:·r
nl-n L; 5; Arr
nl-n A.; LJ Arr
II.-rn LK Liwmlnmsmm-nm-
..F.rr .—FIF.. *-1
.m•m.m:nnm ·tnmmr—n
I..ma1Y1 u:rtmm*s.rrm·rm.r|
\l7_2’*_I% 1 Yl'Qs.m;'r\.j mn

{ I
147 —_ 151
y .
n.m:m. mm
I- "
-1
mm
l`I:=`
I •_: *71.
ru—$__—.._Y$i¢rmm......m•m;ri
·-' —-2;.. - 1
.1•m;n ;m.4•r PKXKZQ-1}:I—!1YZYY•U nzrmm
I.•_J—I__¢l§i r_m_ m_n:»m1·_¤·¤ nmtrmumm
Wim L mm 71.1 ml mmm-·'-..··m
7 • ' ..4}

H9 ____ 15
1$.m.r. _ ¤m :r•_¤-1
.- :- [Z22:
mm 1m1l
7’i‘
mama mm:m;am·r ;
1..mn.-1 m;m•m
wm