Dear All, As far as I know, all the talk about how wound strings dramatically improved the lot of the poor lute player as soon as they were invented (c.1660) is just wishful thinking. If there is evidence of the use of wound strings on any kind of lute before the 20th century I have not yet seen it (yes I know there are the fragments of open-wound strings, *possibly* dating from the 18th C, on the Mest lute). On the contrary: 1. Iconographic evidence suggests that wound strings were used on bowed instruments but not lutes (sorry I can't find the references, but Mimmo Peruffo has studied the iconography and has found paintings which show both types of instruments together, which seems pretty convincing). 2. Mace (1676) and Burwell (c.1670) make no mention of wound strings, only the usual "minikins" and "catlins". Mace of all people would surely have told us of this newfangled invention (and would probably have disapproved of it, especially if it had suddenly become fashionable). 3. The 13c "swan-neck" design, as Ed Martin has said, only makes sense if uncovered gut strings (of whatever type) were used.
Interestingly, the change (described by Burwell) from the 12c lute (with "two heads") to the 11c lute (with "a single head") in France was attributed at the time to the fact that the sound of the (long) basses was "too big" and "smothered" the sound of the other strings. In modern times (wishful thinking again) it has been attributed to the invention of wound strings which enabled the basses to be shorter! Best wishes, Martin To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
