We refer to the Cambridge consort manuscripts as if the four extant volumes
now in Cambridge belonged to one set of books. In fact it is more likely
that there were two separate sets, each of which had two of the extant
part-books. I can't remember off the back of my head how the books are
paired up. I should say that this is not my hypothesis. It was Ian Harwood
who worked it out, and told me about it before he died. Details will be in
his book on the English consort. The book was to have been published
posthumously, but I don't know if it ever was.
Stewart McCoy
-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Marie Poirier
Sent: Sunday, August 25, 2019 12:39 PM
To: Rainer
Cc: Lute net
Subject: [LUTE] Re: Dd.5.20
Lyle’s mistake obviously!
I have a good copy from the library and “Holburnes farewell” in on folio 6r!
Best,
Jean-Marie
Le 25 août 2019 à 11:26, Rainer <rads.bera_g...@t-online.de> a écrit :
Dear lute netters,
I wonder if anybody out there is familiar with the Cambridge consort books
and may be able to help me.
I have downloaded a digital copy of Dd.5.20/21 (bound together) from the
LSA web site.
Now I am comparing the books with entries in my Holborne edition and
Nordstrom's article published in the LSA journal in 1972.
Something is decidedly wrong here:
According to Nordstom (page 87 of his article) Holborne's Farewell appears
in Dd.5.20 on f. 5r.
In my digital copy it appears on folio 6r. My first thought was that the
MS might have two different foliations-one of them not visible in the poor
digital copy.
However: According to Nordstrom (page 82) Callinoe appears in Dd.5.20 on
folios 3, 5 and 6, which matches the foliation in my digital copy.
Any idea anybody?
Rainer
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
