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.
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 because we are not doing something right?
In short, I still think the most likely reason for the extra hole in the Diaz
peghead is for a strap/ribbon, but..................
regards,
Martyn
Alexander Batov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've just published a full version of the talk "The Royal College Dias - guitar
or vihuela?" that I gave at the Lute Society meeting (16 April) including all
the information I had to omit because of the time limit. Your views and
opinions are always appreciated.
http://www.vihuelademano.com/rcmdias.htm
Alexander Batov
www.vihuelademano.com
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail
--
