Martyn – RE: CZ-Bm D 189 My Response to Your Message of 29th January
I will try to to be concise and stick to the point. I have deleted
sections from Martyn’s message which I think are irrelevant and
rearranged some of his comments to achieve a more logical appraisal of
the manuscript.
1. General Background
The manuscript belonged to and was presumably copied by someone at the
Benedictine Monastery in Rajhrad, a town in Brno-Country District in
Moravia. I have not been able to trace a detailed bibliographical
description of it and I have not been able to check RISM but even
entries in RISM are not always reliable. I have not seen the manuscript
myself and I don’t think that Martyn has either. A copy, however good,
still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The manuscript includes,
among other things, didactic material, arrangements of vocal and
instrumental pieces by Lully, other vocal music, a sonata for trombone
and music for viola da gamba. Some of the headings and text are in
Latin, some in Czech or German. I don’t know if anyone has identified
any of the other pieces but it would be necessary to do this before
deciding on a possible date for the manuscript.
2. Date
Martyn’s comment -
“1. DATE OF D-189
You stated that the MS could have been written "anytime in the
eighteenth century" - but with no evidence for this assertion. I do, of
course, understand why you favour such a wide range of dates since it
may help give some credence to employing a six course guitar
(developed, in fact, only later in the eighteenth century) for all the
plucked works in this collection”.
My comment –
I have NEVER suggested throughout this discussion that either of the
tablature charts or any of the music in this manuscript are for 6-
course early classical guitar. I pointed this out in my private e-mail
to Martyn but he has ignored this and most of the rest of what I have
said. This is a clear indication that he has not read my messages
before replying to them.
Martyn’s comment -
“However, others date the writing of this MS considerably earlier,
including:James Tyler - 'early 18th century';Gary Boye - 'beginning of
the 18th century';Ernst Pohlmann - 'um 1700' (around 1700); Jaroslav
Pohanka (Principal editor of Musica Antiqua Bohemia) - 'vor 1700
geschrieben' (written before 1700)”.
My comment -
Pohlman and Pohanska’s writings out of date and not entirely accurate.
Tyler and Gary Boye are probably just copying what these previous
writers have said.
Martyn’s comment –
“My own dating (based on stylistic traits and the piece attributed to
C. Loschi) is 1700 to 1720. Accordingly, to summarise, the best date
range estimate for compilation of this MS lies between 1690 and 1720”.
My comment –
You cannot date manuscripts in this way. Losy died in 1721. However,
there is no reason to suppose that the manuscript was copied during his
lifetime. Music by Corbetta was still being copied fifty years after
his death. Likewise, Losy’s music would still have been popular twenty,
thirty or more years after his death. Stylistic traits are no guide to
dating. As somebody said recently on the Lute List
“As a musicologist student, I learned that style criticism should be
avoided because it cannot be valid evidence”.
There is nothing distinctively early 18th century about the music, most
of which is quite trivial.
Perhaps, Dear Martyn, you should do a course in Musicology!
Ewa Bielińska-Galas, the most recent person to refer to the manuscript,
says in her article only that it is 18th century. She refers to it as a
manuscript of music for the mandora and has indicated in her table that
both versions of the Losy pieces are for mandora.
3. The Tablature charts
f.48v Fundamenta Gytarra
In his message of 4th of January Martyn said
“folio 48 …..gives elementary instructions for the five course guitar '
Fundamenta Chytarra'”.
I pointed out that the heading is actually Fundamenta “Gytarra”. This
is the only instrument mentioned in the heading. I think Martyn is
mistaken in claiming that these instructions are intended for a 5-
course guitar.
They are instructions on how to read tablature. The first segment
between the double bars shows the open courses of a SIX- course
instrument represented by letter “a”. These are clearly labeled 1-6
in descending order with the “a” for sixth open course placed below
the tablature stave in the last bar. This clearly refers to the
“Gytarra”; no other instrument is mentioned. This is followed by
segments illustrating the five stopped courses at the 1st-9th fret
represented by the letter b-k. There are also the signs for ornaments,
time signatures and note values.
f.48v Accordo Gytarra et Mandora
Martyn’s comment on this was –
“3. ACCORDO GYTARRA ET MANDORA
The tablature system with five lines on f.48v. between the first double
bar lines gives octave tuning checks in the usual manner. It shows
that the upper five courses of the gytarra and mandora were tuned in
the same intervals with an extra course indicated below the line for
the usual six course mandora of the period (the six course guitar not
then being known)”. ….. for the six course mandora and the five course
gytarra. The staff after this has numbers below for an instrument with
seven additional bass courses - but only two intabulated pieces out of
a total of 124 works have had these numbers added. I therefore believe
that this section was added later - perhaps when a novel theorboed
guitar was acquired (again note that the scribe couldn't be bothered
with adding these new low basses all the way through piece 45)”.
My comment –
I think Martyn is mistaken. It is clear from the chart on f.48r that
the “Gytarra” is a 6-course instrument. It may be synonymous with the 6-
course mandora which Martyn says was common at the time. It is also
clear that the section between the first two double bar lines on f.48v
is a tuning check for the 6-course “Gytarra” on f.48r; the last bar
shows that the open bass is tuned to the same note as the third course.
The second section on the first stave shows the additional bass courses
of the “Mandora” numbered 6-12 starting with G.
The Aria on the second and third staves is an example of how the low
basses are notated with figures below the stave. Without seeing the
manuscript itself it is not possible to tell whether any of this was
added at a later date but I don’t think that it was because the Minuet
which starts on the fourth stave continues on the next folio – f.49r.
The copyist is unlikely to have left two staves blank before copying
the minuet.
I do think that the open basses may have been added to the piece on f.
90r (I can’t read the title) at a later date. They have only been added
to the first part of the piece and seem to overlap in places with the
letters on the tablature stave.
The material question is - “What do the terms “Gytarra” and “Mandora”
refer to in this context?”
Martyn seems to think that as there are all these instruments in
museums identified today as “mandoras” any mention of a “mandora” in
any archival document must refer to an instrument of this kind.
It ain’t necessarily so. There are often references in manuscripts and
in literary texts to instruments, the identity of which is uncertain in
the absence of illustrations or more detailed information. What people
called these things in the past may be different from the way we
classify surviving specimens today.
One example that springs to mind is Mrs Jordan’s “lute” which is
apparently really a kind of “arch cittern”.
It seems to me that these two instruments may belong to a very broad
genus of lute shaped instruments with added basses but their precise
identity is uncertain.
4. The Music
Martyn’s comment –
“Firstly though, to summarise our respective positions: - as I
understand it from what you have written, your position is that the
vast majority (about 98%) of the some 124 works for plucked instruments
in this MS are for a six course gytarra and that just three are for a
mandora” (according to you a twelve course instrument with five
fingered courses and seven free basses - you stated that "The mandora
has seven unstopped basses" );
- mine is that the 28 pieces notated with a sixth course are for
mandora and that the remainder requiring just five courses are
principally for gytarra …..”
My comment
Looking through and playing the music – which took a considerable
amount of time – a number of ideas occurred to me, some of which I
discarded as I went along. What I said in my final message to the list
was
The pieces from f.48v-f.59v are for the “Gytarra”; those from f.60r-f.
76r are for a 5-course “Mandora”; and those from f.76v-f.95r numbered 1-
56 are probably for 5-course guitar.
Martyn said –
“PS Incidentally I don't know why the duet Boure (f. 69v) for Mandora 1
and 2 does not employ the sixth course: perhaps the composer preferred
this particular piece with these instruments this way or maybe they
didn't have two guitars available? “
This is disingenious. Martyn claimed that -
"Simply overlooked is that the majority of pieces after F. 67 are in
Keys wher e low G is at least as helpful as for the works on in the
following keys of G, F. Cand D - BUT the scribe writes the G at the
upper octave:"
"a distinctive feature of the guitar, but not not of the period
mandora, etc."
My comment
The material point is that this piece is clearly labeled as being for
two “mandoras” and there are skips of a 7th in the bass line. This is
unavoidable on a 5-course instrument in the key of D major and all the
pieces with this feature are in D major. It is not a feature only of
the guitar. With this in mind it seems reasonable to assume that the 5-
course pieces are for a 5-course “mandora” up to and including f.76r.
The pieces which follow form a separate section.
Martyn’s comments on the six-course guitar in Eastern Europe are
irrelevant as I have NEVER suggested that anything in the manuscript
refers to a six-course guitar.
5. Conclusions
Martyn’s comment
“5.1. A multi-course theorboed mandora with twelve courses never
existed and, indeed, even the rare mandoras with up to a maximum of
three basses are not known in the period covered by the dating of D-
189. Accordingly, the most likely, and reasonable, identification of
the couple of works for an instrument with seven extra basses is the
arch/theorboed guitar”.
My comment –
I think this is a very rash statement. The manuscript is undated. To
claim that the instrument with seven extra bases is an arch/theorboed
guitar is foolhardy. References to the theorboed guitar are few and
far between (are there any in Eastern Europe sources?) and often
ambiguous. It is not clear in many instances (including the
Stradivarius patterns) whether instruments referred to as a chitarra
atiorbata are lute shaped or figure of eight shaped. There was an
interesting mention on the lute list of a “citara tiorbata” in a piece
in P.P. Melli's Balletto del Ardito Gracioso (1616) which appears to
be a kind of cittern. One of the Stradivarius patterns is referred to
as being for the "citara tiorbata".
Clearly there were small lutes with up to seven basses aka mandoras.
James Talbot’s manuscript (GB:Och Ms.1187) dating from the end of the
17th century includes a description of an instrument owned by John
Shore which Talbot refers to as “Mr Shore’s abridgmt of Arch Lute”.
This had six courses on the fingerboard, the lowest octave strung, the
third, fourth and fifth double strung in unison and the first and
second, single strings, with seven single open basses descending
stepwise from the lowest course. Talbot supplies detailed
specifications for the instrument. The length of the strings on the
fingerboard is given as 48.3 cms. and that of the open basses as 108.0
cms. He indicates that the first course is tuned to c’’ which is
compatible with the string length of 48.3 cms. The instrument had
nine frets. Donald Gill classifies this as an “arch-mandore”. There is
no reason why the copyist of CZ-Bm D 189 should not have owned an
instrument of this kind and called it a "mandora".
Martyn’s comment –
“5.2. The six course guitar is not known in the period covered by this
collection (est. 1690 - 1720) and thus could not have been the
instrument employed for the pieces requiring a sixth course”.
My comment –
For the THIRD TIME - I have NEVER suggested that it was.
Martyn’s comment -
“5.3. The tuning chart 'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' gives the octave
checks for tuning instruments with up to six courses, and thus serves
for the upper five courses of both the gytarra and the mandora - but
only the mandora for the sixth course”.
My comment –
That is not their clearly stated purpose or what they actually
illustrate.
Finally, Dear Martyn – in my view it is ill-mannered of you to persist
in copying your messages to the Baroque Lute List when it has caused
problems for other people. Nothing you have to say is so important that
it needs to appear twice and if you were hoping that someone else would
join the fray to back you up you must have realized by now that they
are not going to. Perhaps I should start copying my messages as well –
I wonder what Wayne would think of that if he knew what was going on.
As ever
Monica
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
