[VIHUELA] MS (CZ-Bm D 189) - life after death....

[mjlh...@cs.dartmouth.edu]

Martyn

Stewart McCoy once gave me some very good advice - 

"The person who insists on having the last word is the person who is in 
the wrong".

I'll leave you to have the last word.

Monica



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

[VIHUELA] Moravsky MS (CZ. Brno D 189) - life after death....

[Martyn Hodgson]

   Dear Monica,
   Oh good -  I see it's open again for business as usual.
   So why on earth did you write in your last "As far I am
   concerned the matter is now closed."?
   Ah well - on with the motley. I'll reply and send you my
   further comments on this and your previous in due course.
   But, meanwhile, thank you for finally coming up with your
   latest revised views of what you think the instruments
   required by this MS actually were. Included in these is
   your continuing unexplained assertion that the twelve
   course instrument with seven added basses was a
   mandora which, since there's no historical evidence
   whatsoever that such an instrument ever existed, is
   particularly strange - especially whilst the known
   arch/theorboed guitar is denied any place in your
   considerations! Is this because you cannot bring yourself
   to finally accept a more obvious and rational explanation:
   that the gytarra may have been nothing more than - gulp -
   a guitar and not a lute ?...
   regards
   Martyn
   PS To  what specifically unfair comment do you refer when
   you tell of the "600 words of unpleasant personal comments
   which have nothing to do with the mandora or gallicon"? Have
   you never actually read your own postings objectively?
   But, as said before, perhaps it's all in the eye of the beholder -
   others can be our judges.
   MH
 __

   From: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" 
   To: VihuelaList 
   Cc: Martyn Hodgson 
   Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018, 21:44
   Subject: MS CZ- Bm D 189 - the Last Post
   Dear Martyn
   I am sorry to have denied you the opportunity to fully reply to my
   message of 31 Jan and its various inconsistencies and
   'misrepresentations'.
   I prefer to consider my inconsistencies and "misrepresentation"s as an
   attempt to keep an open mind and examine different ideas about what we
   find in this manuscript before arriving at any tentative conclusions.
   (Incidentally the correct RISM siglum for the manuscript is CZ-Bm D
   189).
   In my final message I clearly stated â
   1. It is clear from the chart on f.48r that the "Gytarra" is a 6-course
   instrument. It may be synonymous with the 6-course mandora which Martyn
   says was common at the time. It is also clear that the section between
   the first two double bar lines on f.48v is a tuning check for the 6-
   course "Gytarra" on f.48r; the last bar shows that the open bass is
   tuned to the same note as the third course.
   2. The second section on the first stave shows the additional bass
   courses of the "Mandora" numbered 6-12 starting with G.
   3. It seems to me that these two instruments may belong to a very broad
   genus of lute shaped instruments with added basses but their precise
   identity is uncertain.
   4. The pieces from f.48v-f.59v are for the "Gytarra"; those from f.60r-
   f. 76r are for a 5-course "Mandora"; and those from f.76v-f.95r
   numbered 1-56 are probably for 5-course guitar.
   Your suggestion that we should now agree to disagree simply indicates
   that you are not willing to admit that anything you say is wrong.  A
   number of things you have said are nonsensical.
   1. The fact that the manuscript includes a piece by Losy does not
   indicate that it was copied during his life time. It could have been
   copied anytime in the 18th century, at least as late as the 1760s.
   2. Your comment -  "A multi-course theorboed mandora with twelve
   courses never existed in the period covered by the dating of D- 189."
   You may not have come across another reference to such an instrument
   referred to as a "mandora" in another 18th century source but this does
   not prove that such an instrument didn't exist in Rajhrad at the time
   the manuscript was copied. It may have been quite rare.
   3. Your comment- "Accordingly, the most likely, and reasonable,
   identification of the couple of works for an instrument with seven
   extra basses is the arch/theorboed guitar".
   It certainly is  not a likely and reasonable identification  â there
   are all sorts of other instruments which it might have been. It
   certainly doesn't prove that it was figure-of-eight shaped.
   4. Your comment - "Incidentally I don't know why the duet Boure (f.
   69v) for Mandora 1 and 2 does not employ the sixth course: perhaps the
   composer preferred this particular piece with these instruments this
   way or maybe they didn't have two guitars available? "
   No, you obviously don't know - The parts are labelled in that way to
   indicate that the two pieces are to be played as a duet rather than as
   separate pieces for a single mandora. Your suggestion that they didn't
   have two guitars available is a fairy tale. You just don't want to
   admit that that section of pieces is for a 5-course "mandora" not the
   5-
   course guitar.