> From: Stuart Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:54:35 +0200 > To: "Roger E. Blumberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] > Subject: [CITTERN] Re: Origin of the Portuguese guitarra > > Roger E. Blumberg wrote: >>> From: Stuart Walsh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 22:54:29 +0200 >>> To: ron fernandez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected] >>> Subject: [CITTERN] Re: Origin of the Portuguese guitarra >>> >>> (the citola is isn't meant meant to predate the Renaissance cittern is it?) >>> >> >> >> The "citole" does predate the cittern. >> Here's a medieval Portuguese citole (or what most people would call a citole >> these days in any even). I'd imagine it's late 13th to mid 14th cent. >> I don't think anyone knows for sure if they were wire or gut strung. >> http://www.TheCipher.com/Portuguese_medieval_citole.jpg >> >> >> >> > I understand that citoles predate citterns. And that citoles used to > be called (prior to the 1970s) gitterns, and gitterns used to be called > mandoras. And now nothing medieval is called a mandora, and a gittern is > a little lute/rebec thing and a citole is pretty much any other small > plucked thing that isn't a gittern. And that citoles disappear from view > (in the 14th century) earlier than gitterns. > > But the instrument in question was the 'citola' (not the citole) which > (as Ron Fernandez says that Pedro Cabral says...) was an instrument in > the Portuguese tradition - but seemingly without visible traces. Citoles > were around in many countries but Cabral seems to be wanting or - > describing -something uniquely Portuguese. >
I see. Well then, happy hunting for said citola, and maybe Ron can clarify whether or not it was supposed to have preceded citterns. Roger To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
