Deear Alexander, I�m afraid I still remain unconvinced.
> Dear Antonio, > > I don't think I am trying to hide the fact that I > speculate here. I = > think I > put it quite clearly by simultaneously "disproving" > my own theory on the > nature and placement of the 11th hole. So there is > no need to point out = > the > curiosities here. If you prefer a version of the > "misguided owner's" = > rusty > nail in the wall, that's fine with me (I personally > prefer a bullet = > hole). > Don't you think that speculation is one of the main > tools for all of us = > - > in pursuing the truth. I agree that informed speculation can indeed be useful tool, but when the facts used as a basis for speculation are weak and inconsistent, we can hardly expect the result to be tenable. I will comment below on why I consider these facts as inadequate. However, if my memory serves me right, you stated categorically on your first mail that the Dias instrument is a vihuela. Please correct me if I am wrong on this point. > The interesting thing here is that your approach is > largely based on = > that > of an academician (forgive and correct me if I'm not > right but that's = > how it > seems to me after reading most of your articles) > while mine is mostly = > from > the point of view of a maker. As a matter of fact, even though it may sound unlikely, my approach is also that of a player interested in the proper reconstruction of vihuelas in order to have a historically reliable instrument to play with. A rather practical approach, I would think. Yet, I must thank you for your appreciation of the academic qualities of my work. Regarding the next paragraph of your mail about irregularities and the misaligned position of the eleventh hole, I didn�t mention this last fact because it is, in my opinion, irrelevant since it was most probably not part of the original plan of the instrument. I must remain adamant on this point until more conclusive evidence is produced. > So, to sum up, the 11th peg hole in the Dias is a > reality and has to be = > treated > on a serious basis. Even with its level of > imprecision that is still far = > beyond the=20 > level of DIY skills of your "misguided owner". The > way it appears today, = > with > degraded edges on the face side, may simply be > because it was most = > probably > left abandoned from the time vihuelas went out of > fashion in the early = > 17th century. > I agree that the hole must be treated a a reality, but calling it peg hole amounts to imposing a particular view as to its function, something we have already agreed is well within the realms of speculation. And if speculate we must, we have to concede as well the possibility that it was drilled some time after the instrument was finished, a position I find more sensible, and also accept the possibility that it may never have been used for a peg. Besides, I cannot see a clear conection between the degraded edges on the face side and a probable abandonment; if this were the case, I should think that there would be little or no degradation if the instrument was left alone and unused, especially if the degradation could be accounted for by wear. > Why it managed to escape the attention > of researchers (yourself included), I don't know. > The presence of an > unoriginal soundboard from the middle - late 18th > century conversion = > into a > five-course guitar has also played its role in > diverting attention from the > research into the instrument's true identity. I must assume that you are postulating that the true identity of the instrument is not that of a five-course guitar. This statement cannot be construed as speculation. > The centrally positioned hole has not yet been on > agenda of organolagical > studies either in relation to early guitars or, more > crucially, vihuelas. Given the paucity of cases where it occurs (only on the Dias case) I seriously doubt it may become a central point of the research agenda of the remaining instruments or iconographical evidence. > Among a fairly large number of surviving guitars I > only came across two > other cases of the hole positioned in the same place > as that on the Dias > (they are both illustrated on my web site) and one > of them also has eleven peg holes. > The remarkably detailed painting of Doret shows us > exactly how the central peg system > was utilised. It also shows how big "irregularities" > in the placement of pegs can be. > If you want to dismiss all these cases too, on > the "ifs" grounds that you are proposing, > then there is very little point to carry on with > this sort of dialogue any longer. I�m afraid I shall have to dismiss all this evidence as not being germane to the Dias instrument. The if's in this case are: the first specimen is, according to your web site: (Quote) "An interesting example of early-mid 17th century Italian 5-course guitar have recently been seen on one of the musical instrument auctions in France. This instrument seems to have been originally designed with just nine peg holes in its peg head, i.e. with 1x1 + 4x2 arrangement of strings in courses (see image 8)." (end of quote) I would hesitate to consider an instrument from another place, a later time and a different building school as providing adequate evidence, this is not metodologically sound. Further on you mention a painting by Jean Daret (c.1613-1668), a Flemish painter painting in the French style, active in the 1630s; the same methodological objections apply. There is another intrument that shares in the curious eleventh hole: (Quote) "One of the guitars which is on display in the Victoria and Albert museum London(5) has 11 peg holes in its peg head. Here again, as in case with the Belchior Dias 1581 instrument, there is a noticeable lengthening of the peg head in the area above the nut, so as to allow for the central peg to be positioned at the same distance (as that in-between the rest of the pegs) from the two pegs above (see image 9). I will give more in-depth analysis of this important instrument (which may well be another surviving late 16th � early 17th century vihuela!) on these pages in the near future." (end of quote) Your footnote 5 gives the following particulars: (Quote)"5) This instrument is listed as Italian mid-17th century guitar, with a possible attribution to Matteo Sellas workshop. This attribution is based entirely on the similarity of the floral patterns of its neck veneer with another guitar from the same collection. For more information see p. 57 of Anthony Baines, Catalogue of Musical Instruments, Volume 2, Victoria and Albert museum London, 1968" (end of quote) Are we to suppose that an instrument of probable Italian origin, dating from the midle of the 17th century and whose maker might be identified as Sellas, could be considered as a vihuela? This could only be accomplished by using the 17th century usage, where the term "vihuela" was used freely to describe a guitar (and that in a Hispanic environment), but we could hardly equate it with a 16th century six-course vihuela. Therefore, all this evidence, facinating as it is, cannot be adduced to support a hypothesis regarding an instrument which, as I mentioned above, was made well before the purported evidence itself came into being, at a different location and by members of different building schools. We would need to establish a connection with 16th-century Iberian makers in order to consider that this evidence furnishes adequate proof for the Dias six-course vihuela hypothesis. On the other hand, since you yourself consider further discussion pointless, I shall refrain from it and finish with your closing remark: > "Enough was said above already, so there is no point > in repeating it. > I wish that you remain happy with your version of > the Dias, as I am, for the time being, with mine." 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
