Hi Goeran,
Let me see if I can straighten some of this out for you.
Maybe I'll do it in two messages. (This is no. 2)
And I'm having some difficulty with your questions.
Mainly because you attribute to me ideas I have never
formulated and beliefs I do not hold. You seem to have
misread what I wrote.
----- Original Message -----
From: "G. Crona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Arthur Ness" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Thursday, August 10, 2006 4:00 PM
Subject: [LUTE] F. da Milano [was: P H Lang: Music in
Western Civilization]
> Dear Arthur,
> 4. Speaking about Ms. mus. 266, you've argued that the
> Marco pieces could
> come from a lost print.
Where did I argue that? You must be careful in reading.
I simply said that the arrangement of pieces in the
Marco fascicle of Mus Ms 266 resembles the order found
in prints. I have never argued for a specific date or
place for such editions, if they ever existed.
And the resulting order suggested three lute books,
Book I: Ricercars and intabulations,
Book II: Ricercars and Venetian dances, and
BooK III (probably the earliest) Ricercars,
intabulations
"con la Battaglia."
But the pieces are too mature to date from the period
1500 to 1515, as you INCORRECTLY attribute to me. I
even note all of the Italian sources for the Sermisy
intabulations, the earliest of which is (IIRC) 1528.
> Denys Stephens reminded me privately, that Marco's
> privilege to print, was effective between 1505-1515
You have misquoted me. I NEVER wrote such a thing. Or
did I? If so, WHERE?
But many of the ricercars are too mature for that early
date, and
Sermisty's works were unknown then.
> "but quite a lot of the pieces in Munich 266 seem too
> late for this time
> frame, especially the chanson intabulations.
I know that, and knew that when I studied that
fascicle.. Why do you say otherwise?
He may have renewed his privilege at a later date. Or
perhaps someone entirely different issued a print with
Marco's music. I didn't even suggest a city and
publisher. How could I?
Only by chance do we know about the Sulzbach
print. Likewise for Gian Maria Alemani we only know
because it is listed in Fernando Columbus library
catalogue--his library was destroyed in the Lisbon
earthquake. Thus prints can disappear without a trace.
So lack of evidence does not really provide proof. And
the prints, if they ever existed, may have been
published in Bavaria, by Marco's friend, Hans Heinrich
Herwarth, whose family resided in the Fondaco dei
Tedeschi (now the Central Post Office in Venice).
Herwarth is the dedicatee of one pieceby Marco.
Actually it is only spculation. When and if they were
ever published. But the order in the manuscript is
exceptional.
> And if there had been a print,
> why didn't the pirate anthologists like Phalese borrow
> from it?" Does Denys
> have a point?
I don't know what Denys's point is. Well did they borrow
from Gian Maria Alemanni? I think
so, but it's just a hunch, nothing more. But if they
didn't pirate from Marco, what does that prove? They
didn't pirate Sulzbach, either. Or Spinacino (Lib. I),
or Bossinensis. Phalèse didn't take anything from the
Francesco prints of 1536 in his Des chanson/Carminum
series.
> (I don't like the "pirate" label very much,
> remembering that copyrights in
> those days sometimes only extended to a couple or so
> years. Phalese writes
> "colettore", which is more correct IMV, as they
> apparently didn't do
> anything illegal. Or did I get it wrong?)
In lingo of bibliographical studies, "pirate"
is the standard term for someone who makes unauthorized
reprints. It's a TECHNICAL TERM, not a term I coined.
To "pirate ... to reproduce without authorization."
If I called Pierre a "collectore" people would think I
was being facetious.<g>
> 5. You say, that Brown was unavailable as you worked
> with the F. collection,
> yet you quote him extensively in the sources, and his
> book had been
> published in 1965.
I started work on Francesco in 1962 or 63. Colin Slim's
dissertation
was especially helpful to Brown and to me. For Francesco
that was some
640
sources. That's a lot!
> You also both quote J. Ward as
> being the "catalyst".
Certainly Ward's was the concept that Howard took up and
brought to beautiful fruition. All of us who teach at
universities become the "catalyst" for many wonderful
projects our students bring to fruition.
> 6. In the last note, you mention a [1969] recent find
> of a complete copy of
> 36S. Was this neapolitan tablature ever modernly
> edited?
Yes, it was discovered too late to be included in the
HUP edition. The
Francesco edition was already in production. But I
knew it existed at one time. Did you see Footnote 2?
There is a facsimile for which Claude Chauvel and I
wrote the
preface and identified the piecves.. Alas the source is
a disappointment because
it has so many mistakes. I collated most, if not all,
of the pieces for the revised edition.
And much of the music is included in the Francesco
edition already, because Paris Ms 429
is a direct copy of the Neapolitan Sulzbach tablature,
recopied in Italian tablature. Even the running heads
are the same in Sulzbach and in Paris 429, "Recercata di
/
Francesco Milanese." Paris 429 is from Augsburg, as is
the Marco fascile in Mus Ms 266. The handwriting is very
similar.
But all the pieces were already known, except for the
first half of No. 95, which was on missing pages in the
Paris manuscript.
> Or was it as you
> say, resuscitated only to be buried again?
Where did I say that? I don't understand what you mean?
Once again you seem to be puitting words in my mouth.
>"new" Castelfranco (?) pieces?
Nope. That guy in Venice has
exclusive rights to them. Are there new pieces in
Castelfranco?<g> See Appendix 31.
> Just some more greenhorn questions, should you find
> the time ;)
Rather incisive questions, if you ask me. (And you
did.<g>) Oh yes, and a new source
attributes a work to Francesco da Milano detto "della
Viola."
>
> Best,
>
> G.
Likewise, A.
=================================
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
