----- Original Message -----
From: "Antonio Corona" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Alexander Batov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 5:48 AM
Subject: Re: Complete copy of the 6-course vihuela by Belchior Dias
> Dear Alexander,
>
> I looked with attention at the information on the
> website you mention. I'm afraid that it fails to
> convince me about the Dias instrument having had six
> courses and, sadly, speculation cannot substitute
> evidence.
If the information that I have provided failed to convince you I can't do
very much about it, can I? My "speculation" that is largely based on the
evidence found in surviving instruments and iconographical sources shows
that the positioning of pegs like that found in the Dias 1581 instrument was
an actual reality. Or should I not believe my eyes!? And I'm sure more
evidence
will come up to light to support this. One of the weakest points in my
"speculation" was (and still to a certain extent is) in finding enough
evidence which would help
to prove the rather tight string spacing on the nut and bridge for a
six-course (1x1 + 5x2) configuration on the Dias, as well as its practical
(from the player's point of view)
credibility. But there is a progress in this direction too and, in
addition to the already published information on the spacing of strings I'm
currently preparing more material for publication on my web site concerning
the string spacing on
the bridge of the fabulous 6-course (6x2) guitar by
J.Pages 1802 (which I'm currently restoring ). It shows that even in
late 18th - early 19th century Spain distances as close as 11mm in-betweeen
courses and 3mm in-between strings in courses were a reality. And this is on
the 66cm string length instrument (56cm is an approximate string length of
the Dias)!
In the introduction to the latest publication on the vihuela ("Aux origines
de la guitare: la vihuela de mano", Cite de la Musique, Paris 2004, p.7)
Joel Dugot mentions the following (I quote this for the sake of those who
haven't got the publication):
"A l'heure actuelle, seuls quatre instruments authentiques peuvent etre
ranges dans le type vihuela de mano: l'un appartient au Musee
Jacquemart-Andre, le deuxieme au Musee de la musique de Paris, le troisieme
.. a Quito, et le dernier se trouve au Royal College of Music de Londres,
il est signe "Belchior Dias" et fut fabrique a Lisbonne en 1581. Beaucoup le
considerent encore comme une guitare, bien qu'il possede de nombreuses
caracteristiques du type vihuela."
And in a footnote he adds: "L'interet pour l'instrument de Dias s'est
evidemment considerablement renouvele depuis la decouverte de l'instrument
E.0748 du Musee de la musique publiee en 1997, leurs techniques de
construction respectives etant tres voisines."
I couldn't say more, it was exactly this publication on the anonymous
instrument E.0748 (which
you yourself unquestionably classify as a vihuela, ... thanks to the
brilliant
research that has been carried out on this instument by the staff of the
Cite de la
Musique) which helped me to look in a different light at the Dias. And only
then I saw (in my madness perhaps!) that
it is a 6-course instrument. ... It still makes me shudder to think that the
peg hole in the middle might have been a bullet hole (:-(
> As for my reasons to consider a five-course instrument
> as a guitar in the hispanic environment of the
> sixteenth century, and therefore the five-course Dias
> instrument as a guitar, see "The Vihuela and the
> Guitar in Sixteenth-Century Spain: a critical
> appraisal of some of the existing evidence", The Lute,
> vol. XXX, 1990, pp 3-24.
>
> Best regards,
> Antonio
... I've got the publication that you mention today (many thanks to Stephen
Gottlieb who
sent it to me so swiftly!)
I don't think I ever doubted that "a five-course instrument" should be
regarded differently from "a guitar" anyway, at least in late 16th century
Spain ...
But nevertheless on p.9 of your article there is the following statement:
"By
1591 a five-course vihuela is mentioned alongside a six-course one in the
inventory of the goods left by a lady from Barcelona, which reads: 'there
are three viols, one of nine strings ... one of eleven strings and the other
one bowed' " Don't you think that in this particular context "one of nine
strings" is a guitar, "one of eleven strings" - vihuela and "the other one
bowed" - viola da gamba / violin?
On p.10: "The beginning of the guitar's rise into public favour can be
placed c.1580 (the date when the Dias guitar at the Royal College of Music
was made) ..."
Do you think that at this rising wave of the guitar's popularity the
five-course guitars (supposedly the earliest ever made) were
strung as your five-course guitar version of the Dias, i.e. with 5x2 courses
of strings? As contemporary
sources suggest (those that mention the number of strings, not
courses; you were repeateadly quoting them in your 1984 - 2004
articles), a typical five-course Spanish guitar in the late 16th century was
strung as 1x1 + 4x2, rather than 5x2.
1x1 + 4x2 stringing seems, in a way, quite logical in relation to the
stringing of the four-course guitar which, in turn, seems to have been
strung predominantly (if not always!) with seven strings, i.e. 1x1 + 3x2.
It is logical to assume that the five-course Spanish guitar accepted all
double courses towards the early 17th century when it became predominantly a
strummed instrument, for even for Amat (1596): "... five-course Spanish
guitar ... has nine strings in all, one on the first course ... and two on
the other courses, ..." not to mention his description of four-course (seven
string) guitar that you quote (p.9).
So if you serioussly insist on the five-course version of the Dias you have
to provide adequate evidence that the 5x2 stringing was a viable option at
the time of its creation.
Best regards,
Alexander Batov
www.vihuelademano.com
