Thanks for Sean's insights. The etymology of lute cannot, of course, be known as a cerainty, however the most likely explanation is that it is derived from the early medieval arabic word for twig or bent stick. Many scholars have erroneously used modern arabic false cognates. The naming convention makes perfect sense, just as we often meld the action of playing to the instrument itself, as in "percussion" or, as it is in this case "Pluckies"--or twiggies, I suppose, if you prefer a British flavour.
Another reason for this type of etymology is that there was a great diversity in the instrument types, so the unifying feature was the plectrrum. dt At 07:56 PM 9/4/2008, you wrote: >Dear Tom, > >This lute history you quote sounds so compressed that I wonder if >there are important details he left out for lack of space or they >simply didn't make it to his desk. Lutes and ouds could have >disseminated from the Iberian peninsula solely or through general >trade routes throughout any part of Europe. And those trades go back >at least to the 5th century BC. Its mingling w/ the kithara could >have occured often from the inception of the lute. There are >lute-like objects in Roman friezes. > >I don't think the word lute is derived from lyre + oud but from >al-oud (the article "the" + oud). Forgive me if I've misconstrued >"...rendering the Greek _lyre_ with the Arabic _oud_." > >For some reasons, real or imagined, the lute has had a lofty >philosophical symbolism and that concept seems to be repeat through >history. [I remember reading Hesse's _Magister Ludi_ when I was >first learning lute and trying to reconcile Joseph Knecht's divining >the lute masters' keys to The Arcane Secrets with my trying to pluck >out Packington's Pound.] Is it really the instrument of Orpheus >--real or symbolic? The vihuela could certainly lay equal claim and >in the hands of a master perhaps a renaissance guitar could as well. >(btw, I don't pretend to know any of this for certain or project any >post-renaissance ideals.) > >History is a funny thing especially when we try to project what >people thought. There were probably lute masters from every >generation from the 9th century forward and regarding any area, >city-state or employment. They were all individuals who thought >differently and played differently for audiences of different tastes >and erudition. Unfortunately, generalities are inevitable in >imagining what contemporaries wanted from their lutes, players and art. > >Most of them are as different as comparing any real two real people >you know to a textbook description of a human. > >>"Yet by tricks of fate and language, and through the vagaries of >>human sentiment and prejudice, it was the lute that came to >>dominate European court music" > >Then again, there were those who thought nothing could transcend the >beauty of the human voice (instruments in their own right and >assumed to be perfect since they were created by God and not man.) >As for 'guts hailing men's souls', there are divine descriptions of >Ficino's viol, Francesco's lute and Ludovico's harp as well as so >many players, instruments and moments we'll never know --including >Albert de Rippe and his little 4-course guitar. > >History is a wonderful thing but generalities of historians will >never come close to describing the catharsis of one person >transfixed by music --composing, playing or listening-- from >Lachrima to Strange fruit. > >So, was it really a philosophic battle or just an evolution of ideas >that surfaced through various people and their instruments of choice? > >Sean --the lute/[anything else] dichotomy is a red herring-- Smith > > >On Sep 4, 2008, at 10:03 PM, T.J. Sellari wrote: > >>Glenn Kurtz's _Practicing: A Musician's Return to Music_ has a >>rather surprising (to me, anyway) take on the history of the lute >>and the guitar, describing this history as a mostly philosophical >>battle that the lute won: >> >> >>"Between the ninth and the thirteenth centuries oud music slowly >>radiated out from Moorish courts into the Spanish countryside and >>so to the rest of Europe. There it mingled and ultimately merged >>with the traditions of kithara-playing left behind by the Romans. >>Both the lute and the early guitar were thus played throughout >>Europe during the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Both were >>popular and cultivated instruments, used to accompany love songs, >>work songs, sailing songs, and ballads of adventure. Yet by tricks >>of fate and language, and through the vagaries of human sentiment >>and prejudice, it was the lute that came to dominate European court >>music, while the guitar became an instrument of the common people. >>Like the kithara and the lyra, the guitar and the lute tangled in >>the limbo of cultural symbolism, and this time the guitar lost. >> In translating the works of Plato, Aristotle, and Pythagoras, >> Arab scholars used the words most familiar to them, rendering the >> Greek _lyre_ with the Arabic _oud_. As classical learning passed >> into the cultures of Europe, therefore, the lute, and not the >> guitar, inherited the lithara's mystical aura. Throughout the >> Renaissance, European philosophers, poets, and musicians would >> attribute to the lute the magical powers of Apollo, Amphion, and >> Orpheus. The lute became the philosopher's instrument, the symbol >> of neoclassical humanism, of learning and courtly love, while the >> guitar--though more closely related to the kithara--inherited the >> aristocracy's disdain for peasants and the Christian philosophers' >> mistrust of the body, women, and pleasure. " (p. 111) >> >> >>Wasn't it, however, more a question of phases of popularity, with >>the lute replaced by the viol, which was in turn replaced by the >>piano? Was the guitar ever a serious rival to either the lute or >>the viol in terms of plain popularity before the nineteenth >>century? It seems to me that the guitar is not mentioned often in >>Renaissance writings in English, especially compared to the lute. >>Does this disparity imply exactly the prejudice of the learned for >>the lute that Kurtz is claiming, or simply that guitars were not very popular? >> >>Another surprising (again, to me) claim is about the inadequacy of >>lute construction: >> >> >>"Renaissance lutes employed a complex system of cross-braces to >>counter the pressure of the strings. These braces were thin slats >>of wood glued across the grain on the underside of the soundboard >>to provide extra strength and stability. Cross-bracing adequately >>supported the soundboard against the pull of the strings. But it >>also dampened the soundboard's vibrations, restricting the lute's >>tone and sustain. Worse, cross-bracing interfered with the >>soundboard as it responded to changed in humidity. The stress from >>this uneven movement could cause the soundboard to crack, even if >>the instrument were left unstrung. This is why so few Renaissance >>lutes survive. The instrument's form contradicted its function. >> After the demise of the lute, however, the guitar continued to >> evolve. In the 1820's and 1830's, a new technique, called >> fan-bracing, emerged in guitar construction, and this led directly >> to the modern concert guitar." (pp. 139-140) >> >> >>"...restricting the lute's tone..." Really? >> >>Finally, I'd like to mention that the book has interesting >>descriptions of the author's experience studying classical guitar, >>and is, I think, worth reading. >> >>Tom >> >> >> >>To get on or off this list see list information at >>http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
