Dear bill,
Some final thoughts on this matter. Regarding the name
applied to the vihuela by the Quechua Indians, I
should like to quote what Robert Stevenson has to say
in this respect:
"So largely did the drum idea loom that when the
Spaniards introduced the guitarra and the vihuela the
Quechua called them ttinya, the same word which they
applied to any hand drum". (The Music of Peru, Los
Angeles, 1956 2/1960, p. 18)
In fact, what happened was that the natives, lacking a
word to designate the new instruments (there were no
string instruments in the pre-Columbian cultures of
America), applied the name of the instrument that it
resembled most, adapting it to describe them in the
closest possible terms in their own language. This
process happened as well in Mexico, where -according
to the Vocabulario en la lengua Castellana y Mexicana,
M�xico (Juan Pablos, 1555), a Nahuatl-Spanish
dictionary by Alonso de Molina- the string instruments
were called "mecahuehuetl", from "mecatl", string, and
"huehuetl", drum. We can find the same operation in
the Vocabulario en lengua Mixteca (M�xico: Pedro
Balli, 1593) by Francisco de Alvarado, where the
Mixtec term "�uu yoho" for string instruments comes
from "�uu", drum, and "yoho", string. In any case, the
Indians did not call the new instruments -which they
did adopt eagerly- charango, or cuatro or jarana, or
any other term currently in use for the popular
traditional instruments, but simply "string-drum" or
simply "drum".
About the differences between the vihuela and the
charango, I'll name just a few: materials, shape of
the back, size (vihuelas were made in various sizes; I
do not know of large charangos), stringing (five
courses vs six), tuning (re-entrant vs secuential),
musical function (accompaniment vs solo/acompaniment),
playing technique (mainly rasgueado vs punteado),
repertoire (fantasias/intabulations/songs vs dances
such as huaynos, carnavalitos, sayas, taquiraris,
etc.). More importantly, we have no evidence of an
instrument that behaves -in a musical sense- as the
charango does during the time of the vihuela's heyday,
while certain descriptions, such as the one Minguet
provides for playing the tiple in c.1752, stating that
to play it well it should be strummed fast in order to
make "noisy music" (para ta�erlo bien, es menester
hacer muchos redobles, y apriessa, sin salir del
comp�s, para que chille, � haga musica ruidosa) could
very well describe how a charango is played. If we
were to find any relationships between the charango
and some member of the guitar/vihuela family, I would
suggest that the Baroque guitar would be a more likely
candidate. All the facts mentioned above combine and
point to the change you mention as needed in order to
justify a different name, especially taking into
account your own statement about "their mutual intent,
the purpose of their being far outweighs any
differences in material used in their construction",
considering the purpose of their being as the key
factor: their musical function. If you wish to state
that a vihuela de mano made from an armadillo shell
can still be considered as a vihuela de mano, I would
have to agree from a purely intelectual perspective;
however, we have to face the fact that there is a
fault in this line of reasoning: as far as we know
there were no vihuelas made of armadillo shells.
Finally, I'm afraid that we cannot construct history
with an imaginary basis. As historians we can, and do
make educated guesses when lacunae or lack of
information prevent us from drawing firm conclusions,
but we never present these guesses as established
fact, much less pile speculation upon speculation in
order to arrive to the conclusion we desire.
Imagination is a useful research tool if we recognize
its proper use and limitations, but wishful thinking
cannot substitute for evidence.
It has been my pleasure as well to chat with you.
with best regards,
Antonio
P.S. I've never made a sweeping statement about the
vihuela and guitar's names being interchangeable. I
did mention that it happened on certain occasions,
notably at the end of the sixteenth and throughout the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, besides pointing
to the evidence that indicates a certain laxity in the
use of the term "vihuela" to designate a string
instrument. This does not imply that either instrument
recieved the other's name indistinctly. For more
information about this you can see: �The Vihuela and
the Guitar in Sixteenth-Century Spain: a Critical
Appraisal of some of the Existing Evidence�, The Lute,
Vol. XXX, 1990.
--- bill kilpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> dear antonio -
>
> thank you very much for your considerate and
> informative reply.
>
> what's needed here is a little imagination and i
> don't
> think historians are willing to inch themselves that
> far out on to the plank.
>
> we have a shipwrecked sailor with some carpentry
> skills who makes a stringed instrument from the
> shell
> of an animal. it could have been a violin but he
> doesn't mention a bow; it could have been a banjo
> type
> instrument but he mentions a sound board. the way
> he
> describes putting it together suggests that he made
> a
> small stringed instrument - very much like a ukulele
> made from a coconut shell.
>
> what sort of instrument would a sailor of the time
> carry with him to the new world? i suggest a
> vihuela
> de mano is the most probable but it could have
> easily
> have been a small guitar - in any case, as you and
> others have mentioned in the past, the terms were
> reciprocal
>
> how familiarity with these small stringed
> instruments
> was obtained throughout south america is such a
> short
> time can be explained by the presence of a culture
> bearer - the spanish. this particular "warrior"
> landed in mexico
>
> can a vihuela de mano made out of an armadillo or a
> coconut or some polyresina material for that matter
> (al� ovation) still be considered a vihuela de mano?
>
> why not? their mutual intent, the purpose of their
> being far outweighs any differences in material used
> in their construction.
>
> what changes (aside from the casa armonica made from
> an animal shell or assembled from different pieces
> of
> wood like a chillador) are lacking in a charango
> made
> entirely out of wood that differs enormously from
> the
> construction of a vihuela de mano?
>
> where did the charango come from if not the
> collective
> experience of making small stringed instruments like
> the vihuela de mano?
>
> to place your finger, figuratively speaking,
> somewhere
> between "vihuela de mano" and "charango" suggests
> there was a transition, a change that - when looking
> at the instrument - isn't there - at least not to
> the
> degree that warrants a new name.
>
> much like those drums that were used on galley
> ships,
> christmas bells are tolling and i've got a million
> things to do.
>
> a pleasure to chat with you.
>
> - bill
___________________________________________________________
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
