Hi, all.
No specific counterexamples here, but in general having something banned by the Church is not (IMHO) a reliable indicator that it was not done. I'll quote as best I can from a 16th century French writer (sorry, can't remember the name, I'm sure someone here knows) reporting what he saw when present at the reading of a papal bull in Rome: "...(and it was announced) that anyone wrongly appropriating Church funds would fall under threat of excommunication, at which the Cardinals Sforza and deMedici laughed heartily." And to quote my old Ren. dance teacher: "A good way to find out what was popular is to see what the church banned." Best to all, Chris. >>> "Mathias Roesel"<mathias.roe...@t-online.de> 12/21/2009 2:12 PM >>> What can this debate be about? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar was never played at sacred occasions because the Church had banned the guitar from service (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, composers would strictly exclude the guitar from their sacred compositions (one counterexample will do to prove wrong)? In Italy during the 17th century, the guitar would more often than not evoke secular sweets and was therefore rather rarely to be found performing, or as accompaniment of, sacred music (no counterexample possible, matter of more or less)? Mathias "howard posner" <howardpos...@ca.rr.com> schrieb: > > On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:48 AM, Monica Hall wrote: > > > But surely the prohibition applied only to playing musical > > instruments in worship on the Sabbath not other days of the week. > > As a practical matter, it did, probably because of the lost-Temple > business. > > > I seem to remember when doing some study of Judaism that people > > mustn't play them > > or listen > > > during their official period of mourning either unless they need to > > to earn their living. > > > This may seem irrelvant to the Monteverdi Vespers but I think the > > point is that all religions have quite precise rules concerning the > > way prayers and ritual is conducted which in the case of the > > Catholic Church in Italy in 1610 probably excluded using the > > baroque guitar during the liturgy and offices. Anything doesn't go. > > Tosh and nonsense, my dear (or perhaps nonsense and tosh; I always > forget which comes first). How is it possible that the Catholic > Church could have had a precise rule excluding the guitar at Vespers, > and such an eminent scholar as yourself not be aware of it and be > reduced to speculation? > > The point is that every instrument, including the organ, was at some > point considered improper for services, but rather a lot of them > sneaked into church somehow. We can't say categorically that any > instrument wouldn't have been used in Mantua in 1610, or Venice in > 1640. Nor can we exclude "secular" sounds in the Dominus ad > adjuvandum, which uses a secular fanfare over the super-falsobordone > intonation of the text, and breaks it up with interludes that are > obviously galliards. To get on or off this list see list information at [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html -- References 1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute
