Hello Martin, > Thank you for this. I think, however, you misunderstand my point: I was simply supporting your view (as understood) that the vihuela may have been made in a variety of body shapes which encompassed fluted and arched backs as well as flat backs - hence 'continuum'. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear.<
Oh Gosh! I do apologise (:-< In fact, we don't even need to guess; references to the types of bodies / backs that you mention are found in historical accounts (inventories, ordinances etc). > When you've got a minute, perhaps you could address the substantive points raised earlier, including Bermudo on body depth, Dias peghead decoration and possible increase in hand size since the 16thC.< I'm afraid I cannot rely on this Bermudo's evidence (i.e. two-three fingers). I only wish he were a bit of Praetorius in this respect. As for the hand size I'm sure that some vihuela players had their hands as big as ours, despite as you say, a possible increase in 15%. However it may not be excluded that the Dias was made for a young musician, with slender fingers and ... Feel like starting a short novel here ... >> 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.<< Dias peghed decoration is an interesting one. My initial idea was very much in line with yours: if the central hole in not surrounded with ornamental pattern then it is simply not original (this is still listed somewhere in my first publication on the Dias). However a few months later after the completion of my first copy of the Dias I actually had a somewhat different idea of why this may not be so. In short, the way this ornamental pattern is made (I call it "rope" pattern) is "responsible" that the central hole is not included in it. I'm planning to give a fully-illustrated "anatomy" of the Dias' instrument construction one day; I only wish I had a bit more time for this ... If you look at the peg head of the c.1590 guitar, for example, which carries virtually identical decorations you will see that there are three (instead of two) ornamental "beams", of which the central one is simply there, so to say, to fill the space, not for the peg holes (note also that the peg head itself is wider than that of the Dias). It may well be that these ornamental patterns have been pre-fabricated and used whenever there is a need; say, shorter length for peg heads and end block inserts, longer for fingerboards etc. For the explanation why the central hole cuts through part of decorative line see Image 6 of http://www.vihuelademano.com/vgcrossroads.htm plus relative part of the text. You can get an idea how slim the original pegs could have been from at least two surviving Portuguese guitars: Antonio dos Santos Vieyra c.1690 (Ashmolean museum), "IOZE / DOR / V" c.1740-50 (Edinburgh collection). In addition, on every second surviving 17th century guitar peg holes are cut through the decorative lines. Why early makers were so disrespectful of those I don't know. A few other peg holes on the Dias are also very close to the purfling ornament and there could have been a similar sort of breakages if the grain direction of the top veneer was different (i.e. short grain, as it is next to the central hole area). > Finally, on your interesting point (as I understand it) about wear around the strap/ribbon hole: many early 19thC guitars had such holes but they don't always show wear...............< Each particular case is unique and have to be treated accordingly. Regards, Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
