Dear Monica,
I think I've said this before, but I'll say it again: do, please, read
what I write with a little more care.
I have been at pains to explain my position: in short, that I do not
know if the 'chitarra' (or similar) in 16th and early 17th century
Italy was a figure8 shaped instrument ; but neither do I know that it
was always a lute shaped instrument. There is evidence, explored
previously, points either way (and perhaps both might have been known
in Italy at the time).
I think I understand your position is that unless the name 'chitarra'
(or similar) has the qualifier 'alla Spagnola' (or similar) then in
Italy this always means a lute shaped instrument But, one of the
counter examples I mentioned earlier has clear evidence which is
contrary to your view: Valdambrini calls his instrument 'chitarra' ( no
'alla Spagnola' qualifier) which you say always means a lute-shaped
instrument in Italy, but the illustration in Libro primo (1646)
clearly shows a cherub playing a figure8- shaped instrument. As you
say, the music and the notation is in line with other collections of
music for 5-course guitar and it seems fairly certain that it is for
5-course guitar - but not, I should point out, for a lute shaped
instrument, as is the position you maintain, but for a figure8 shaped
one.
Regarding the 'chitarra Italiana' (or similar or even the 'alla
Napolettana'); this may mean a lute shaped instrument, but it might
equally serve to differentiate it from the 'chitarra' in other ways:
size, stringing (4 course?), manner of playing, as well as shape. I'm
aware that assertions persist (some in modern published books even) of
the identification of the the 'chitarra Italiana' as a small lute
shaped instrument - but the position remains that nobody, least of all
I, knows.
As also said before, let's hope fresh discoveries arise which will shed
more light.
regards,
Martyn
--- On Tue, 29/1/13, Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
From: Monica Hall <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Subject: Re: [LUTE] Re: 4 course guitar in Italy
To: "Martyn Hodgson" <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: "Lutelist" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Date: Tuesday, 29 January, 2013, 15:30
Contrary to what you suggest - we do know that "chitarriglia" is an
Italian
term for a small guitar. I understand that it is an Italianized
version of the
Spanish diminutive - guitarrilla. It is used to refer to the
instrument in 5-course
guitar books fairly indiscrimately - i.e. without necessarily implying
a
smaller instrument than usual. Pesori and Granata come to mind.
I am objecting to the translation of "chitarra" as "guitar" in the
passage
which you quote. I wouldn't translate the title as it appears on the
title
page at all. If I was translating the introduction on p.5 I would leave
the
terms "chitarriglia" and "chitarra" untranslated with a note explaining
possible interpretations of them. It is axiomatic that when
translating
terms like these that you try to find definitions of them in
dictionaries of
the period.
I have to say that when I saw Valdambrini's book for the first time I
did
wonder whether the description of the instrument on the title page as
"chitarra a cinque ordini" indicated that it was a different instrument
especially in view of the fact that he clearly says that that it has
a re-entrant tuning. However the illustration on the title page of
Book 1
shows a cherub playing a 5-course guitar with the courses and peg
holes clearly visible. The music and the notation is in line with
other
collections of music for 5-course guitar. It seems fairly certain that
it
is for 5-course guitar. Asioli's books were printed in the 1670s by
which time it seems that it was no longer necessary to include the
qualifier "spagnola".
What puzzles me is the way you seem to assume that it is self evident
that the term "chitarra" refers to a 4-course guitar when actually you
have
never put forward any positive evidence to support your view. As Stuart
pointed out we tend to look at things from an English point of view and
needless to say everyone from Alexander Bellow to James Tyler and your
good self, taking in Frederick Grunfeld and Harvey Turnbull and a few
others en route have simply assumed that anything called a chitarra or
guitarra must be a figure of 8 shaped guitar.
I am surprised that you appear to be dismissing Meucci's article as
"nothing
more than ad hoc speculation" just because it seems to undermine you
preconceived ideas about what these terms might mean.
Part of the problem may be that I have tended to refer to the chitarra
as a
"small lute or mandore". It would obviously be better simply to refer
to it
as a small lute leaving the mandore out of it. It's actual make up may
have
varied over the years.
As ever
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Martyn Hodgson" <[1]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
To: "Monica Hall" <[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Cc: "Lutelist" <[3]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:28 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: 4 course guitar in Italy
>
> Dear Monica,
>
> Some of what you say about Calvi's collection makes sense - that
the
> intabulated pieces are different from anything else in the 5-course
> repertoire.
>
> But I'm puzzled why you object to translating 'chitarra' as
'guitar' in
> the context of Calvi's collection which contains mostly Alfabeto
pieces
> and not just those later intabulated Sounate. Or are you suggesting
> that if the qualifier 'alla Spagnola' is not attached to 'chitarra'
> then it's always a lute shaped instrument! This seems an extreme
> position to adopt. By this test the 'chitarra' specified by, for
> example Calvi, Valdambrini and Asioli (which don't have the
qualifier
> 'alla Spagnola' or similar on their title pages) are all for the
lute
> shaped instrument. Note that I left ' chitarriglia' alone since we
> don't know what it was/is.....
>
> From what you say (below) about Calvi's instruments it seems you
> believe both were lute shaped instruments but one 'standard' sized
> (whatever that) and one smaller. Is this really your position?
>
> regards
>
> Martyn
>
> PS Why would anyone suggest translating 'vihuela' as 'guitar' (or
even
> 'guitarra', etc) - the etymology of the two are are quite distinct.
> But I recall at least one early English source (an inventory I
think)
> calls them vialls (viols)......
>
> M
>
>
> --- On Tue, 29/1/13, Monica Hall <[4]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> From: Monica Hall <[5]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: 4 course guitar in Italy
> To: "William Samson" <[6]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: "Lutelist" <[7]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, 29 January, 2013, 13:13
>
> Well as regards the instrument illustrated - I'll set the cat among
the
> pigeons and suggest that it might be tuned in the same
> way as the baroque guitar. It is very interesting that it is a
> lute-shaped
> 5-course instrument.
> As Martyn has pointed out, the second section of Calvi's
"Intavolatura
> di
> chitarra e chitarriglia" has a
> number of pieces in Italian tablature.
> Calvi says of these 'Le seguente Suonate possono servire anche per
la
> Chitarriglia, ma sono veramente per la Chitarra" .
> Martyn has translated this as 'The following Suonate can also
serve
> for the
> Chitarriglia, but they are really for the Guitar" .But he is
already
> reading his prejudices into what Calvi says by assuming that
"chitarra"
> in
> Italian means the same thing as "guitar" in English and that it is
> appropriate to translate it in this way. It is untranslatable.
> This is the problem with translating things as anyone who has tried
> will
> know. There are many circumstances when it is not possible to find
an
> exact
> equivalent for specialist terms. No-one would translate "vihuela"
as
> "guitar".
> The question is "Why should Calvi differentiate between a small and
a
> standard sized instrument when clearly both were capable of playing
> exactly
> the same music and often did"?
> The most important point is that the music in tablature is very
> different
> from anything else in the 5-course repertoire. Not only does it
not
> use
> alfabeto; there are no five part chords at all and no suggestion
that
> the
> four part ones should be strummed. The repertoire and the style of
the
> music is also a bit old fashioned.
> It seems unlikely that the instrument that Calvi refers to is a
> 5-course
> guitar; more likely to be a 5-course lute.
> Foscarini of course also included arrangements of lute music in his
> great
> work - and these are similarly different from what was considered
to be
> the
> appropriate style for the 5-course instrument.
> As ever
> Monica
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Samson" <[1][8]willsam...@yahoo.co.uk>
> To: "Davide Rebuffa" <[2][9]davide.rebu...@fastwebnet.it>; "Martyn
> Hodgson"
> <[3][10]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
> Cc: <[4][11]pie...@vantichelen.name>; "Monica Hall"
> <[5][12]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>;
> "Lutelist" <[6][13]lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 7:51 AM
> Subject: [LUTE] Re: 4 course guitar in Italy
> > Hi,
> >
> > [1][7][14]http://tinyurl.com/aped6x7 - on my Skydrive again.
> >
> > Not a 4c instrument this time, but one with 5 courses. Looks
like
> a
> > small lute, nothing definite can be said about the pegbox
shape.
> No
> > indication of octave stringing. The painting looks like first
half
> of
> > the 17th century, but I've no idea who the painter is. The
> presence of
> > an archlute suggests Italian, but who knows? - Some musicians
> travelled
> > widely and were no doubt intrigued by the instruments they
> encountered
> > in other countries. They might even have brought examples home
> with
> > them.
> >
> > The question is - How was it tuned and used?
> >
> > Answers on a postcard please, . . .
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > PS There's a surviving 5c instrument, not unlike this one,
shown
> on
> > page 91 of "The Lute in Europe 2".
> >
> > --
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> References
>
> 1.
[15]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
> 2.
>
[16]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to%C3%9Avide.rebuffa@fast
webnet.it
> 3.
>
[17]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co
.uk
> 4.
[18]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pie...@vantichelen.nam
e
> 5.
[19]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
> 6.
[20]http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
> 7. [21]http://tinyurl.com/aped6x7
>
>
> To get on or off this list see list information at
> [22]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
--
References
1. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
2. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
3. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
4. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
5. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
6. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
7. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
8. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
9.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to%c3%9avide.rebu...@fastwebnet.it
10. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
11. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pie...@vantichelen.name
12. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
13. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
14. http://tinyurl.com/aped6x7
15. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=willsam...@yahoo.co.uk
16.
http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to%c3%9avide.rebu...@fastwebnet.it
17. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
18. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=pie...@vantichelen.name
19. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
20. http://us.mc817.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=lute@cs.dartmouth.edu
21. http://tinyurl.com/aped6x7
22. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
