Dear Alexander,
>From what you tell, I can gather that your argument
rests mainly on identifying the eleventh hole in the
head as designed to be fitted with a peg. There lies
the problem. We don�t know if it was part of the
original design, which to me seems rather unlikely. We
dont know if at some point the instrument underwent a
conversion and an extra peg-hole was drilled. We don�t
know if the hole was ever fitted with a peg. We don�t
know if a misguided owner drilled this hole to hang
the instrument on the wall. There are too many "ifs"
to consider this hole (rather crude and ill-placed in
an instrument of such exquisite facture) as definitive
proof that the instrument was strung - if ever - with
six courses. This is why I consider that your case
rests on speculation to make its point; sadly, there
is no way we can take it as proof of the instrument�s
identity as a six-course vihuela. As a matter of
curiosity, I should like to quote what you yourself
state on your website:
(Quote): "The inlay design on the peg head, however,
gives no �provision� for this additional peg and, as
we can see in both instruments, the peg holes are all
encircled in the rope-like purfling ornament which is
uniquely represented on the peg heads of both
instruments. Whether the lack of this �provision� is
conclusive enough evidence to say that the 11th peg
was added at a later stage (as a mean of conversion
from 5 to 6 courses) still remains the question to
answer." (end of quote).
In this I must agree, the matter remains open until we
know more - if we ever able to find anything else
about this particular instrument.
Furthermore, in your email you state:
> 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)!
>
I should like to contrast this with another statement
on your web site:
(Quote) "Neither of the 5-course configurations
presents any apparent problems with string spacing, at
least from the point of view of modern approach to the
reconstruction of early guitars and vihuelas, when
most of modern players seem to have been accustomed to
a rather wider spacing, both on nut and bridge, than
those found on original instruments. The adaptation of
the specifically lute-related �thumb-under� technique
to the vihuela by some players is also one of the
contributing factors here." (end of quote)
The lute-related spacing should not be dismissed
lightly, bearing in mind that the vihuela fulfilled
exactly the same musical functions as the lute, and we
have a testimony from Luis Venegas de Henestrosa
(1552)that it too was played thumb-under (he calls
thumb under "figueta extranjera" - placing the thumb
under the finger- as opposed to "figueta castellana" -
placing the finger under the thumb). There is no
"adaptation" of a technique at work here: playing the
vihuela thumb-under is perfectly justified in the
light of this evidence. Therefore, the criteria for
string spacing on historical lutes might prove to be
valid for the vihuela as well, and perhaps I should
add that, contrary to common belief, the lute was
widely played in Spain as well.
A furher point:
> 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."
In this same publication, in the article about the
organology of the vihuela, I stated (p. 16): "Malgr�
l�estime et la reconaissance incontestables dont elle
jouissait, seuls trosi instruments ont surv�cu, �
notre connaissance", and later on (p. 24): "on ne
connaisse que trois instruments � avoir surv�cu". Joel
had the proofs of this article in time to let me know
if he disagreed in this point; i must surmise he
didn't. Furthermore, I should like to stress that Joel
said "seuls quatre instruments authentiques peuvent
etre ranges dans le type vihuela de mano", that is, in
the family of the vihuela. Joel did not state the Dias
guitar was, in fact a vihuela. Even the statement
later on: "Beaucoup le considerent encore comme une
guitare, bien qu'il possede de nombreuses
carateristiques du type vihuela", is not conclusive,
stating instead merely that the Dias guitar shares
certain characteristics with the vihuela, again, Joel
does not state that this instrument might be a
vihuela.
Perhaps it would be interesting to mention what Carlos
Gonz�lez, author of the article about the Chambure
vihuela, "La vihuela anonyme du Mus�e de la musique de
Paris", in the same publication, has to say about this
matter (p. 63): "La 'd�couverte' de E.0748 par J.
Dugot constituerait un troisi�me exemplaire de cet
type d'instrument. Les nombreuses similitudes existent
entre ce dernier et celui de Dias, compte tenue de sa
date de construction (Lisbonne, 1580), ouvrent la port
a l'hypoth�se d'un quatri�me exemplaire de vihuela".
In other words, Carlos recognizes that there might be
enough similitudes between the Chambure vihuela and
the Dias quitar to postulate an hypothesis. Again, you
will not find a definive statement about the Dias
instrument being a vihuela. Carlos and Joel are
referring to certain characteristics of construction
and not to the stringing. Bearing in mind that what
distinguishes a vihuela from a a guitar was precisely
the stringing, I see no reason to consider this
hypothesis as supporting evidence for the case of the
six-course vihuela.
> 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) ..."
During most of the sixteenth century both the
five-course and six-course instruments were called
vihuelas, and it is precisely in 1580 that we find
evidence of the new playing technique associated with
the newly "developed guitar", the rasgueado. Miguel
S�nchez de Lima complaines in his _Arte poetica en
romance_ that "everything that is usually sung and
played nowadays is in the strung fashion, and nothing
is sung or played with understanding", and in the next
year Mateo Flecha, the composer, complained of the
common mob in his ensalada La Viuda, mentioning that
"it stretches its neck rather towards the ting ting of
a guitar than towards that which is marvellously
delicate." Evidence of this kind suggests that by this
time five-course instruments called guitars were
proliferating alongside with the new playing
technique. Bearing in mind the changing usage at the
time, you could perhaps argue that the Dias instrument
might have been called a five-course vihuela; I prefer
to consider it a guitar for the above reasons. It is
precisely in this light that we should understand the
hypothesis postulated by Joel and Carlos. These
considerations, again, have no bearing on the
speculation that the Dias instrument could be a
six-course vihuela.
> 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.
>
I still think that the usual stringing was 1x1 and
4x2. The single first is quite common and the fact
that you have ten pegs does not mean all ten of them
were used. Compare with certain lutes and with baroque
guitars which have a peg that does not accomodate a
second first string.
> 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.
>
As I mentioned above, I rather doubt that the first
course was double, but then, if you want to pursue
this line of reasoning, you should be able to prove
that six-course vihuelas, fitted with twelve pegs,
were strung 6x2. I very much doubt you can, while
there is evidence that a single first was used for the
six-course vihuela. Take, for example, the eleven
string viola from Barcelona you quoted from my article
In conclusion, I remain unconvinced of the identity of
the Dias instrument as a six-course vihuela and, while
it may be feasible to call it a five-course vihuela, I
rather think, taking into account the time when it was
made, and the changes that were occuring at that
point, that its most probable function was to serve as
a five-course guitar.
Best regards,
Antonio
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Informaci�n de Estados Unidos y Am�rica Latina, en Yahoo! Noticias.
Vis�tanos en http://noticias.espanol.yahoo.com
