Martyn Hodgson wrote: > In subsequent messages I gave more information (you must have > missed it): - how such small instruments were strung (just top > course an octave down or at a much higher nominal pitch eg D), - > early written evidence of theorbo sizes, - examples of solo music > for such instruments -
Again, there was no information; just your own conclusion that smaller theorbos were not tuned double reentrant. You may be confusing these posts (I've just reread them) with your post about guitar stringing, which actually contained information. > and gave Lynda Sayce's website and Bob Spencer's article as > providing more information. You may say that I only refer to these > articles because they support the position on theorbo sizes which I > take - which it is true they do - But they don't. Spencer doesn't correlate single-reentrant stringing with size. Linda Sayce does, but like you, states only her conclusions. > As already said, I'm still waiting for David Tayler's and your own > evidence that small theorboes (say mid 70s to low 80s) in the A or > G tuning were generally strung as double reentrant. Regarding > evidence to support the case that such stringing only generally > applies to larger instruments (say mid 80s to high 90s), I had > hoped the sources I gave were sufficiently well known to avoid me > having to do more than refer to them, but obviously not. It's not that the sources aren't well known. It's that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. It boils down to "big theorbos were strung double reentrant because they had to be; smaller theorbos didn't have to be, therefore they never were." This makes sense only if you assume that necessity was the only reason for double reentrant, an assumption which is hardly justifiable (If it's correct, you've proved that the tiorbino never existed). Players obviously liked its possibilities and gleefully exploited it in solo music. > The ones that come to mind include: > > Praetorius (1620): Lang Romanische Theorbo:Chitarron). Scaled > engraving showing an instrument with six fingered and 8 long bass > courses, fingered string length 90/91cm. Tuning given as the > theorbo G tuning (double reentrant). > > Talbot MS (c 1695): English Theorboe A tuning (double reentrant), > detailed measurement and tunings given. Fingered string length > 88/89cm (you tell us that you have other information on the string > length of this instrument - I'd be grateful for it) The Talbot MS doesn't actually give the total length, does it? David van Edwards calculated the Talbot "English Theorbo" at 77 cm. See his explanation at http://www.vanedwards.co.uk/47.htm He made a "Talbot" theorbo for Linda Sayce. I gather from her web site that its fingerboard strings are 80cm (thus scaled up or down from the original, depending on your point of view) and she strings it single reentrant in G. > Talbot MS: Lesser French theorbo in D (double reentrant) string > length 76cm. If we have one 76cm French theorbo in double reentrant D and one 77cm English Theorbo in double reentrant A, we scarcely have a small- theorbo trend, let alone "overwhelming" evidence. > 'POWER' > I'm really not sure if I quite follow your argument here, Simply that it was not universally the only consideration in building or stringing a theorbo. This is not to say that it wasn't important. As I said, players and builders must have had a wide range of desires and motivations. And not everyone had to be heard in choruses in the Paris opera or with trombones in San Rocco in Venice. > there is no evidence to support A or G double rentrant theorbos > between the mid 70s and low 80s. And no evidence against it. There may be all sorts of practical or artistic reasons for drawing conclusions about smaller theorbos, but the appeal to history comes up empty. This whole discussion has glossed the complicating question of pitch. I have made the point before that we would expect an instrument designed to be played at AF6 to have strings about 83% the length of an instrument designed to be played at A=390. If so, all other things being equal, you'd expect that a 76cm instrument designed for AF5 to be tuned the same way as a 92cm instrument designed for A=390. Whether this was historically the case is a matter of speculation. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
