[LUTE] Re: part 2: Re: Respighi

[Roman Turovsky]

From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
on the former count, and the second simply is a reference to printed
record.  No, I have not called anybody a "liar".
You should also be careful not cause inference thereof.

I come to this issue without any grudges or material interests; 
personally,
I love everybody and consider myself to be on peaceful, even friendly,
terms with *almost* everybody (even both Arthur and Matanya), which is no
small feat in itself.
In fact. Considering that MO has lost virtually all of his erstwhile 
friends.


I believe there is very much *something* to these
tales.  I really wish I could know more.  However, until the document hits
publication or a more public collection--or a more formal report of the
document hits the peer-review literature where it can be easily accessed
and evaluated by the scholarly community at large--this codex remains no
more in the scholarly realm than any other anonymous eyewitness account:
the functional equivalent of rumor, even if true and whether specifically
named "rumor" or not.  Again, I don't believe a third-person (which is as
close as most of us have come to this story), anonymous eyewitness 
account,
even if wholly true, can be a solid basis for scholarship.  As a scholar
(of sorts) on my day job, I don't think scholarship in any field is served
if totally unverifiable eyewitness accounts come to be accepted as
scholarly evidence of anything at all.  It's sad if the selfish interests
of one or a few keep this knowledge from the interested public's greater 
good.
Lutenet is not an ademic institution, and little mentioned here would 
require peer review. This is both good and bad, as we are free to discuss 
the Chilesotti papers debacle, while having to tolerate Doug Smith's Lute 
History.
RT





At 05:04 PM 9/22/2008, Roman Turovsky wrote:
Not only semantics, it seems. There are still unexploded MO cluster
droppings lying around, and causing nonfatal if annoying accidents.
I do believe Arthur is correct, through my own intelligence channels.
There is little reason to wonder about the reasons to conceal, considering
the recent debacle concerning a few privately held late 18th century
archlute mss. that befell an Italian  (possibly the same?) lutenist, who 
had
to cancel an advertized concert and refrain from speaking of the mss.
RT

----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "List Lute" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:29 PM
Subject: [LUTE] part 2: Re: Respighi


Greetings Arthur (et al.),

We appear to only differ on semantics.  Exactly the thing that you are
calling an "eyewitness account", I am contending IS the equivalent of
"rumor" without something publicly verifiable by the scholarly community 
at
large (read my previous note for detail).  ...And no, this in no way 
should
ever be construed as me naming anybody "liar."  I am not nearly as adept 
at
the controversial turn of phrase as our old friend at Editions Orphee, 
but
I admit that I cannot find anything that disagrees with *either* of our
positions in the content of his note here:
<http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/rmcg/chilesotti.htm>.  I personally 
do
not feel at all contentious about our exchange or disagreement on 
language
here, Arthur.

Sincerely,
Eugene


At 10:39 AM 9/22/2008, Arthur Ness wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "howard posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "List Lute" <lute@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:40 PM
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Respighi

|I believe the remaining pieces are from the "Chilesotti Lute
| Book" (Da un Codice Lauten-buch), a book of musicologist Oscar
| Chilesotti's transcriptions of a lute manuscript, which was published
| in 1891.  The original lute book has not been available publicly, if
| at all, for more than a century.  Rumors of its whereabouts drift
| around from time to time.  Arthur Ness will doubtless have something
| to say on that subject.

<<<SNIP>>
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Hello, again, Howard
<<Contuned. Part 2>>

I first heard about the survival of the Codice Lauten-Buch at the 1997
Francesco conference in Milan. Not one but several persons told me 
about
it, and named the well known Italian lutenist who was hired to give a
private recital. His host brought out a 16th-century manuscript of lute
music, from which he was asked to play.  The lutenist immediately
recognized it as the Codice Lauten-Buch belonging formerly to Oscar
Chilesotti (1846-1916).  It was long thought to have been destroyed in 
a
fire.

Paul O'Dette did not attend that Francesco conference, but he
somehow independently learned about the manuscript being in a private
library in northern Italy a decade earlier, and reports that 
information
in the notes to his Ancient Airs CD, mentioning the conflicting (and
false) rumor about
the fire.

Furthermore, Thomas Schall reported on this list that he met the 
lutenist
who played the recital, and confirmed what I heard from several persons 
at
the Francesco conference.  This points not to rumors, but to an "eye
witness sighting of the manuscript."  Thomas wrote, and I see no reason 
to
believe he and the lutenist are not telling the truth:

        >As far as I can judge the story of the Chilesotti
        >Codice which survived
        >and about the lutenist giving a house concert
        >from it is true - I met
        >the lutenist in question and he confirmed the story.

        >It seems the manuscript is preserved in a
        >bank tresor (I've been told
         >there would be many treasures in tresors
        >because some people buy old
         >books for their insurance value which would
        >get lost if the owner would
         >make the manuscript accessible to the public). A pity!

What purpose is served to lie about this matter, and call the Italian
lutenist, Schall, O'Dette, Fabris and all the others liars?

The attitudes that some owners of rare books and music harbor are
unfortunate. Such bibliophiles often believe that by sharing their
treasures with others, for example in a facsimile edition, the value of
the books will be diminished (as Thomas hints in his comments). Some
collectors buy rare books as an investment (the stock market returns 
have
been demonstrated to be a better invenstment than old books). Even some
librarians hold such a view, and (to cite one of many instances) for
decades a librarian at the Fitzwilliam Museum would not permit the
Cherbury
manuscript to be published in facsimile.

Of course, not all collectors of rare music are so possessive, as the
example of the late Bob Spencer demonstrates.  He generously allowed
visitors into his home to view and freely use his collection.  He 
realized
that he was just a temporary
custodian of treasures that really belong to everyone.

And if it were to be come known,  a parade of visitors would surely
appear asking to see the Lauten-Buch. That might hurt current Italian
efforts to convince the owner to make the manuscript available in a
facsimile edition.

Otherwise we will just have to wait until the manuscript comes on the
auction market, and hope that it will be purchased by a pubic 
institution.
Until then Dick Hoban's re-intabulation will serve us well.  Other than
those pieces (five of the six*), the original tablatures of the pieces
orchestrated by Respighi are readily available, many in published
facsimile editions.

*P.S. Of the 22 pieces in Respighi's suites, only SIX are from the 
Codice
Lauten-Buch, and for one we have a published photograph of the original
page. <_Pace_ Eugene!>



To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html