>Doc - of course, I can see your point. An English guitar is much more like
a cittern than a guitar. But there is no
>such .thing as a cittern essence.If people in the past wanted to
conceptualise the instrument as a guitar ('lesser
>guitar', 'common guitar' or whatever ) then I think we have to respect
that. Joseph Carpentier in France in the 1770s
>was absolutely adamant that the instrument was not a 'cistre' but a
'cythre' ('cythre ou guitharre allemande) -
>something quite different. And Pedro's distinction between the "english
Guittar" and the cittern reflects the same
>sentiment today.
I think you're missing an important point about language and fashion. I've
tried to be clear about it, but you're not
convinced. That's fine with me.
>Recently I found something from a long time ago, written by Jeremy Montagu
(Britain's grand old man of organology
>and ethnomusicology). Writing about the EG in FOMRHI: "If it doesn't look
like a cittern, then it isn't one. And it
>doesn't."
I disagree with Montagu completely on this point. It looks a lot more like
a cittern than a guitar. I also consider cittern
a family of instruments, not one instrument locked into time.
Back on the road...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
