Thanks Martyn,
Most of the points that you mention were already discussed earlier so I'd
find it rather unnecessary to start it all over again. And it seems that
you've made your choice for a "strap/ribbon" thing ... Why not indeed(?!)
.. ):-)
Just to add to the list of the curiosities, here is a similar way of
arrangement of pegs (to that on the Dias) but this time on one of the
Russian mid-19th century guitar that I came across:
http://www.vihuelademano.com/current/pages/7strings.htm
I wonder what the central peg hole would look like if for the next 200 years
this guitar is used as a 6-string one (i.e. with the central peg taken out
etc and with the strap put through)?
---
Just a bit of comments to your last point. I tend to look at the feature of
string spacing of the 16-th century 6-course lutes / vihuelas (note, not
11 - 13-course instruments!) in a slightly different perspective. Perhaps
the very thought that we grew a bit bigger that our ancestors seems to me
rather spooky <:~)
Vihuelas, as well as contemporary to them lutes and viols came in different
sizes, i.e. families (How many vihuela sizes does Bermudo refer to? Can't
remember.) So regardless of the time scale, the logic of the instruments'
set-up parameters within the family would remain consistent in relation to
their sizes. On modern violin family instruments, for example (which is,
strictly speaking, the only surviving family of string instruments), the
difference in body size of the two neighbouring members of, say, 4/4 and 3/4
viola or cello is about 8 - 8.5%. This results in approximately the same
percentage difference in the string spacing on their nuts and bridges. You
may agree or not with this analogy but if a 60 - 64 cm string length vihuela
had, for example, 40 mm between the outer strings on the nut, the one with
56 cm could have had a few mm less than that. By the way, on the last
vihuela that I've made the outer string spacing on the nut is 37.5 mm and it
doesn't feel uncomfortable at all. It is only a matter of getting used to
it.
Regards,
Alexander
- Original Message -
From: Martyn Hodgson
To: Alexander Batov ; Lute Net ; Vihuela Net
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2005 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: Royal College Dias
Thanks fr yr thougt provoking paper Alexander. You asked for comments:
Firstly, congrats on marshalling new information and perpectives. I was
particularly struck with the Daret painting when you introduced to me some
months ago and I agree that the Diaz MAY have been built as a 6 course
vihuela but think that the weight of evidence is rather less conclusive than
you and on balance I still think it more likely to have been built as a 5
course guitar. A few points:
1. Decoration (presumably original) on the face of the Diaz peghead
specifically makes a feature of all the pegholes, except for the 'extra'
one; indeed, it even cuts through part of the decorative line. This
suggests to me that the instrument was not originally built with this
additional peghole.
2. Plate1 second from left (17thC guitar) shows an extra peghole in another
instrument. I wonder if this extra hole was not made to allow for an extra
string in the late 18thC to convert to a 6 course guitar (as you'll know
many early guitars were converted around 1800, but mostly to 6 single
strings so did not require additional pegs). Unfortunately, the absence of a
bridge ( Plate 4) does not allow us to date it on stylistic grounds and say
wether it was contemporary with the body of the instrument or a later
addition.
6-course guitar conversion is certainly a possibility
3. The very small ('pin') hole in the top of the Diaz peghead is very close
to the edge: do you really think it could have been made significantly
larger without splitting out at the top? This risk might have prevented it
from being used for a strap/ribbon and thus requiring another hole which did
not breach the makers cartouche or interfere with other pegs.
4. Small string spacing at the BRIDGE on multi course instruments is to do
with keeping the extreme courses within a reasonable span (it is, for
example, interesting that most 13 course lutes have significantly smaller
inter course separation than on 11 course instruments made around the same
time). With only 5 (or 6) courses the physical span of the extreme courses
is not an issue.
Having said this, it is clear that many extant early lutes (some of which
you note) do seem to have smaller inter course separation at the NUT; a
feature which, as you mention, we need to come to terms with. Do we know the
size of earlier hands? - were they smaller than present day (say, in
proprtion to overall height) or are they more indepedent (like inter-occular
distance which seems to have remained surprisingly constant inspite of
overall stature increase - I recall an overall figure of 15% increase from
16thC being quoted by Segerman). In short, do we need larger separation at
the nut because we have bigger/thicker fingers or becaus
