I just received this message. Those of you who are interested in Murcia will
be pleased that a decent image of "Cifras selectas" is now available.
"It is with great pleasure that I inform you that the manuscript "Cifras
selectas de guitarra" (1722) by Santiago de Murcia has recently been scanned
and is now available in the web site of my university library.
To access it you must enter the following link:
http://aleph.uc.cl/F/-/?func=file&file_name=find-b
Then you should write in the search box "Cifras selectas de guitarra" or
some related term. Then click on the item (i.e.the number 2 which brings up
the complete record) and, finally, in “Enlace a texto original
digitalizado” (Link to scanned original text)."
"In addition, the PDF includes a copy of the Resumen de acompañar la parte
con la guitarra, bound with the manuscript."
It took me a good half hour to download it but it is a much better image
that the published one - perfectly clear in fact.
Monica
________________________________________
De: Monica Hall [mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk]
Enviado el: lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2011 10:06
Para: ALEJANDRO PATRICIO VERA AGUILERA
Asunto: Re: Cifras selectas again
Dear Alejandro
Many thanks for the article. It was interesting to read it again
especially as a single article rather than two separate ones.
In my dissertation I compared Ms.1560 with the other Murcia sorces in detail
but I didn't conclude that it was copied by the same person! Perhaps the
work of a student or someone who knew him!
Best wishes
Monica
----- Original Message -----
From: "ALEJANDRO PATRICIO VERA AGUILERA" <ave...@uc.cl>
To: "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2011 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: Cifras selectas again
Dear Monica,
Among your examples, I think the “h” and the upper case Greek “E” show the
most striking resemblance.
Nonetheless, the “y” and lower case “p” are always different. Additionally,
in the tablature the number “5” is not same, and the quavers above the staff
are slightly different.
That’s why I think that Resumen and “Cifras” involved two different
copyists, even if making an engraving is different from writing free-hand.
Anyway, I share your opinion that there is not enough evidence to make
definitive assertions on the point. Currently, my hypothesis is that Murcia’s
manuscripts might have been copied by someone paid by him, but as you say,
new information can discard or confirm it.
I recall to have read in your dissertation that the hand in Ms. 1560 was
similar to that in Murcia’s “Passacalles y obras”. When I compared the two
sources, many years ago, the hand seemed different to me. Unfortunately, I
have not been able to find my copy of Ms. 1560 to make the comparison again.
But I hope to find it soon.
I send you a PDF copy of my article for Roseta. Apart from the S and one or
two other points, there is no new information in relation to Early Music
articles and the “Cifras” edition. But I hope it achieves to present some
topics from another perspective.
Best wishes,
Alejandro Vera
________________________________________
De: Monica Hall [mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk]
Enviado el: jueves, 15 de septiembre de 2011 12:12
Para: ALEJANDRO PATRICIO VERA AGUILERA
Asunto: Re: Cifras selectas again
Dear Alejandro
Thank you for sparing the time to reply to my message. I have the same
problem. Very few people in England have a scholarly interest in the
baroque guitar. I am still interested in Murcia although at the moment I
am concentrating on other parts of the repertoire.
Murcia’s signature is not very helpful. There appears to be an “o” before
the “g” and a double “tt” – “Santtiaog” with another “o” hanging from the
“g”. It is done in a fancy way for effect. The M is similar to his
signature to the Dedicatoria in Resumen.
You say that Resumen’s copyist is not the same as that of the three
manuscripts. Do you have proof that this is so? There is the extended
written passage at the beginning of Cifras selectas to compare with the text
in Resumen. Some of the very distinctive letters are the same in both
sources. In the Dedicatoria to Resumen
– the “h” and the little “d” in Haumadas
– the large lower case “r” in ricos , recive
– the large lower case “e” in execuciones , excepcion
– upper case Greek “E” in Ecatombes
all occur regularly in the introduction to Cifras selectas. Greek “Es”
occur in one or two titles in Passacalles and Saldívar. Compare the first
“E” in the Soneto in Resumen with the title Espanoletas in Saldívar.
There are some differences but making an engraving is different from writing
free-hand. It is done backwards and the letters are simplified.
Guitarists and lutenists did do their own engraving – for example, Sanz and
Corbetta and the lutenist Castaldi. A professional copyist could also have
done the engraving.
I don’t think his comment “salgan mis fatigas de la obscuridad de mis
borradores a las ahumadas luzes de la prensa” can be taken literally in the
sense that he always made rough sketches first, then fair copies. It is
typical of the sort of thing they all say in these Dedications. He is
speaking metaphorically. “With your help my humble unfinished compositions
are now facing an uncertain future in print”. There must have been a copy
of some sort for the engraver to work from. I know that Luis Gasser has
suggested that this is what the manuscripts were intended for. But these
would be working documents not elegantly produced copies. As you say the
manuscripts were probably copied to order for wealthy patrons, but there is
no obvious reason why Murcia should not have produced them himself.
Financially it makes more sense if he hoped to make some money out of it.
Mozart is a bit different!
That said, Murcia may have made sketches of at least some of the pieces
first. Have you seen the Mexican manuscript Ms. 1560? There are some
similarities between the handwriting and the contents and other Murcia
sources which I discussed in detail in my dissertation. Ms. 1560 could be
drafts of some of the pieces.
If more information about Murcia does come to light it will probably be
quite different from what we imagine! I hope I will be able to read your
article. It is not very easy to get foreign language publications in
England but I do have a friend in Spain who might send it to me.
Best wishes
Monica Hall
First of all I would like you know that I appreciate a lot this interchange
of viewpoints and opinions. Here, in my country, there is almost no scholar
interested in these topics so my opportunities to discuss them in deep are
dramatically scarce.
As explained in my edition, the hypothesis that Murcia copied these
manuscripts cannot be discarded. Among other things, there is a resemblance
between the “s” of his signature in his declaration of poverty and the “s”
in some piece-titles of “Passacalles” and “Códice Saldívar”. In a Spanish
article which I sent to Gerardo Arriaga (to be published in Roseta during
this year), I deal more with this resemblance (Office-Word version
attached). Nevertheless, it should also be noted that his “g” is always
different.
I think it is very possible that the two corrections you mentioned are by
Murcia. Nonetheless, such corrections could be written by him, but also by a
copyist working under his supervision. The latter option is possible since
we have some examples in both manuscript copies and prints by other
composers (Mozart copies from Salzburg studied by Cliff Eisen, for example).
So I think with the data available it is impossible to discard one or
another option.
Be that as it may, I don’t think that these manuscripts were copied by
Murcia as he composed the music, as you suggest (if I understood well). It
seems clear to me that these are not sketches, but fresh copies of
preexistent sources. This is obvious for works by other composers such as
Campion, but I think it can also be applied to Murcia’s continuous
variations. Sketches normally are less clear and include much more
corrections and deletions. “Passacalles”, “Códice” and “Cifras” seem elegant
copies probably intended for sale or gift (perhaps also for printing, as a
Spanish colleague suggested me some days ago). I also remember that Murcia
mentioned his drafts (borradores) in the dedication of his Resumen de
acompañar, making a difference between these and the printed copy (he says
that with Andriani’s help, his music passed from his drafts to the “smoked
lights of the press”).
Additionally, the fact that Resumen’s copyist is not the same of the three
manuscripts perhaps strengthens the hypothesis that Murcia worked with
copyists instead of copying the sources himself, but, as I said, there is
not conclusive argument yet.
Finally, I insist that Murcia barely had committed some of the mistakes
mentioned in my edition, even if I am aware that this point (as well as
others) can be debatable.
Best wishes,
Alejandro Vera
----- Original Message -----
From: "ALEJANDRO PATRICIO VERA AGUILERA" <ave...@uc.cl>
To: "Monica Hall" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, September 05, 2011 3:08 PM
Subject: RE: Cifras selectas again
Dear Dr. Monica,
First of all I would like you know that I appreciate a lot this interchange
of viewpoints and opinions. Here, in my country, there is almost no scholar
interested in these topics so my opportunities to discuss them in deep are
dramatically scarce.
As explained in my edition, the hypothesis that Murcia copied these
manuscripts cannot be discarded. Among other things, there is a resemblance
between the “s” of his signature in his declaration of poverty and the “s”
in some piece-titles of “Passacalles” and “Códice Saldívar”. In a Spanish
article which I sent to Gerardo Arriaga (to be published in Roseta during
this year), I deal more with this resemblance (Office-Word version
attached). Nevertheless, it should also be noted that his “g” is always
different.
I think it is very possible that the two corrections you mentioned are by
Murcia. Nonetheless, such corrections could be written by him, but also by a
copyist working under his supervision. The latter option is possible since
we have some examples in both manuscript copies and prints by other
composers (Mozart copies from Salzburg studied by Cliff Eisen, for example).
So I think with the data available it is impossible to discard one or
another option.
Be that as it may, I don’t think that these manuscripts were copied by
Murcia as he composed the music, as you suggest (if I understood well). It
seems clear to me that these are not sketches, but fresh copies of
preexistent sources. This is obvious for works by other composers such as
Campion, but I think it can also be applied to Murcia’s continuous
variations. Sketches normally are less clear and include much more
corrections and deletions. “Passacalles”, “Códice” and “Cifras” seem elegant
copies probably intended for sale or gift (perhaps also for printing, as a
Spanish colleague suggested me some days ago). I also remember that Murcia
mentioned his drafts (borradores) in the dedication of his Resumen de
acompañar, making a difference between these and the printed copy (he says
that with Andriani’s help, his music passed from his drafts to the “smoked
lights of the press”). Additionally, the fact that Resumen’s copyist is not
the same of the three manuscripts perhaps strengthens the hypothesis that
Murcia worked with copyists instead of copying the sources himself, but, as
I said, there is not conclusive argument yet.
Finally, I insist that Murcia barely had committed some of the mistakes
mentioned in my edition, even if I am aware that this point (as well as
others) can be debatable.
Best wishes,
Alejandro Vera
________________________________________
De: Monica Hall [mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk]
Enviado el: viernes, 26 de agosto de 2011 16:59
Para: ALEJANDRO PATRICIO VERA AGUILERA
Asunto: Cifras selectas again
Dear Professor Vera
Another comment on Cifras selectas...
I was very surprised that you have suggested that the three Murcia
manuscript may be the work of a professional copyist.
I don't know how familiar you are with Códice Saldívar no. 4 but there are
two pieces in which there are corrections to the music which must surely
have been made by Murcia himself.
The first is in the Gaitas which starts on f.40v. In the final variation on
f.42v he has indicated that one measure should be omitted - marking it "Este
no". Although musically works perfectly well if this measure is included,
the variation will be 9 measures long instead of 8 like the others and this
bar doesn't fit with the theme on which the variations are based and its
underlying harmonic scheme.
The second is in the Sarao on f.71. He has made a similar mistake in the
final variation on f.72v where he has marked one measure "este compas no"
and the next "aqui". The measure to be omitted doesn't fit with the
corresponding bars in the statement of the theme at the beginning.
I have attached transcriptions of the two passages with the corresponding
bars of the opening theme parellel. The theme and the variation should fit
together perfectly.
I don't think that a professional copyist would revise the music in this
way. In all probablility Murcia wrote the music out guitar in hand as he
composed it. Why should he pay someone else to do something he could easily
do himself? None of the errors that you have mentioned are at all unusual
in tablature.
Best wishes
Monica
==
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
