<<<P.S. I should have posted this earlier. I found Eugene's
accusations disturbing, and wanted to reply to them only after I had
calmed down a bit.
<<<After all, the discovery of the manuscript for Chilesotti's Codice
Lauten-Buch was a major event for which we all should be cheering,
and I
felt the readers of this list would like to hear about it. To my
chagrin
Eugene charged that the discovery of the original manuscript is some
kind of fraud. His allegations are wholly unjustified, often
mean-spirited and false.>>>
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
My word, Eugene! To equate some distant floating tree stump in a
Scottish
lake with a sighting of the mythical "Nessie monster" is hardly
comparable
to a master lutenist holding and playing from a 16th-century
manuscript of
lute music at a private function in northern Italy.
The former is a fiction, the latter, a bona fide.
Furthermore, I find it unfortunate that you would misrepresent the
facts
with your perversion of the word "rumor."
Consult your dictionary for the correct meaning and usage of the word
"rumor" and you will discover that a rumor is a "statement or report
WITH
NO DISCERNABLE SOURCE" (my caps). Even a tenth-hand report, when
attributed, is not a rumor, or folktale, I would like to point out.
The manuscript used for OC's Codice Lauten-Buch was seen by a living,
breathing Italian lutenist (whose name I have forgotten, but whose
identify is known to many, including the
several lute scholars and performers I encountered and with whom I
discussed it at the various social gatherings at the 1997 Francesco
Conference in Milan.). Thomas Schall also told this
list about a meeting with the professional (see below). So we even
have
an immediate and direct (first hand) source--not a rumor of one.
Furthermore, there is no necessity for further "verification"
because that
professional lutenist is fully qualified to pass on its authenticity
and
has
already identified the manuscript as the original 16th-century
manuscript
used for Chilesotti's edition, _Da_un_Codice_Lauten-Buch._ Do you,
Eugene,
have factual evidence that the lutenist is a disreputable person, or
"phantom
looth fairie" (Matanya Ophee), who might spin a yarn and lie about the
private recital and his host's treasured manuscript? What purpose is
served by such deception?
Do you have evidence that the lutenist lied to Dinko Fabris?
Did he lie to Thomas Schall?
Did he lie to the several individuals I met in Milan?
This is not court-room testimony, nor is it the draft of a statement
for a
scholarly journal. Nevertheless, in a court of law, our lutenist might
well qualify as an "expert witness" on the subject of manuscript lute
music.
Since when does a simple statement detailing the events and
discoveries at
a private recital remain invalid until scrutinized and approved in a
peer-reviewed scholarly journal as you claim? And ecven if you had
one,
what good would it do you or your pal Matanya? Can you read titles
written in 16th-century German script?
I've never heard of such a thing in the discipline of musicology.
Can you
cite examples of peer-review to approve the authenticity of any
manuscript? Do such certified works carry some kind of distinctive,
notarized stamp on the flyleaf? Of course not, because such procedures
have never
been followed in any musicological context. Where'd you get the
screwy
idea they do?
Usually if one discovers a new manuscript, everyone yells "bravo!" And
you, Eugene? You scream, "Get the approval stamp on the manuscript,
get
the stamp, or I'll report you as a liar and fraud! A phantom!"
That's a
crazy
way to act.
Now you even get sillier, when, in order to malign a
distinguished colleague in Italy you allege that he may have played
from a
fictitious Nessie-like fictional manuscript you describe as
| >>a deliberately fraudulent reintabulation,
| >>passed off if as <sic> an original.
Think about it. Can't you thimk? Where would anyone find a person
with the
skills and leisure to counterfeit a 250-page manuscript written in old
German script,
which most Germans can't even decipher? Even if a professional
forger were
engaged, the resulting document would cost more to prepare than it
would
be to purchase the original. And what would motivate anyone to
promulgate
such an expensive hoax? Do think you could spot such a
forgery if presented to you on the pages of a peer-reviewd journal?
That's how screwy your idea is.
You're really grasping at straws now, Eugene, as you try to defame the
reputation of an eminent Italian lutenist by joining Matanya Ophee to
claim he is some kind of "phantom looth fairie."
Do you claim that Thomas Schall was lying when he reported on his
face-to-face meeting with the lutenist:
| >As far as I can judge the story of the Chilesotti
| >Codice which survived
| >and about the lutenist giving a house concert
| >from it is true - I met
| >the lutenist in question and he confirmed the story.
| >It seems the manuscript is preserved in a
| >bank tresor (I've been told
| >there would be many treasures in tresors
| >because some people buy old
| >books for their insurance value
| >[does Tom mean investment value? ajn]
| >which would
| >get lost if the owner would
| >make the manuscript accessible
| >to the public). A pity!
Of course, Matanya seems to think Tom's a liar, because he
deliberately
misrepresented Schall's words that Tom described
| >a phantom lutenist who played from the phantom
| >original Codice at a phantom evening given by
| >the phantom owner at some phantom evening.
Who among us can approve such twisting of the truth? Except you,
Eugene,
as I presume from your several sad comments approving Matanya's
drivel in
his article, "Vagaries of the Looth Fairie"? You wrote as follows,
| >>>I admit that I cannot find anything
| >>>that disagrees
| >>>with *either* of our
| >>>positions in the content of [Matanya's article].
Besides putting words in my mouth, which I resent, I also deplore your
attempts to lend credence to your comments by asserting that I am your
friend and somehow agree with you. In any event, yours was a real
cheap
shot. I disagree with almost everything Matanya wrote in that
article.
oooooooooooooooooooooo
It was exciting to learn at a genial group luncheon in Milan that the
original manuscript for the Codice Lauten-Buch was not destroyed. It
is
perhaps one of the most important lute discoveries of the decade. I
hope
one day to examine it to clarify some of the mysteries which have
fascinated me for so long. (Not the Latin dirty jokes in the margin--I
have them
already, thanks to Billy Tappert who copied them out.<g>) I doubt
Eugene's potential forger has them either.
Chilesotti freely altered the musical texts in his edition, and the
readings need to be set right. I suspect that some of the pieces
may be
in the hand of the Italian lute virtuoso at the Polish Royal Court,
Diomedes Cato, and I'd like to find which ones are his by following
the
handwriting.
It is possible that Chilesotti may have himself composed some pieces
in
his edition,
and I'd like to know which ones they are (if indeed my suspicions are
correct). And why did he leave out so many reputed fine compositions,
like the famous Howett galliard. (they were probably corrupt, as are
some
pieces he did include--none of the currrent editors tracked down the
concordances to compare with the OC versions, an easy task given the
available reference tools of this computer age.).
And what are the actual titles that Chilesotti
could not read or misread. (I know some of them already from
Tappert's
papers--they are seldom illegible, at least not to anyone familiar
with
16th-century German script. Compare No. 58 which OC calls "titolo
indecifrabile" with the facsimile.)
It may also be Chilesotti's struggle with German script that caused
him to
print so many misspelled titles, some rather funny in their
misreading.
One of the most famous canzonettas of the 16th century is included,
"Chi
mira gli occhi tuoi", unattributed in OC's edition, but by Orazio
Vecchi
("Whoever looks in your eyes and does not sigh is surely without
life . .
."). Chilesotti comes
up with this title, "Ch mira l'odio tuo et non sospira poi," a title
faithfully reproduced in all those rip-off guitar editions: "Whoever
sees
your hatred and doesn't sigh is without life." That must have
produced a
few chuckles at Italian guitar recitals. (Be careful with the
titles in
the Codice
Lauten-Buch editions. If performing from the modern transcriptions,
you
can easily check the titles in a library. If you need assistance,
ask a
music referenmce librarian. They're whizzes at that sort of thing, as
I've discovered so frequently.<g>)
We should not have to resort to error-filled, incompetent pseudo-
guitar
rip-offs in order to appreciate this significant repertory,
including some
of the most beautiful and exciting lute pieces of the Cinquecento.
Discovery of the manuscript restores this music to the instrument for
which it was intended. (Most of the pieces are for SIX-course lute,
sometimes "in Abzug," and only a few for seven course--pace
Matanya.) The
original owner of the manuscript, a Nuremberg merchant, seems to have
acquired a seven-course lute late during the copying of the
manuscript,
which extended, I believe, over a period of nearly 30 years. It's a
commonplace book, as witness the dirty jokes and witty sayings in the
margin. They probably were reminders of jokes to tell his listeners
while
he tuned.)
The matter of the present whereabouts of the manuscript was settled
decades ago: the Codice Lauten-Buch was not destroyed in a fire (as
Dinko
discovered), but resides in a private library in northern Italy, as
Paul
O'Dette's then unconfirmed reports suggested as early as 1987.
Further discussion of that point is moot. And Matanya and Eugene's
allegations of scholarly malfeasance are without any substance
whatsoever.
Case dismissed.
=====AJN (Boston, Mass.)=====
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
