"Bernd Haegemann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb: > > The burden of proof rests with the claimant, that much is true. Mr > > Buguete has shown adequate evidence IMHO that the instrument in question > > was the one which was used by Weiss.
Mr Burgute seems to have answered to the counterarguments raised by Barber and Harris, in his 2003 article. Unfortunately, the atmosphere between the two reknowned luthiers and Mr Burguete doesn't appear to be friendly. Not being an expert on this topic, I won't take sides in this struggle. Nevertheless I found it helpful to read what Mr Burguete had to say. -- Mathias > I found an interesting opinion - on the website of > Stephen Barber & Sandi Harris concerning that instrument: > > **** > The theorbo of Sylvius Leopold Weiss? > > > There have been recent claims by André Burguete that it was altered in the > early 18th > Century by Thomas Edlinger in Prague, for Weiss; the implication being that > it was altered > for German d-minor continuo playing, which involved shortening the lower > neck, and adding a > curved fingerboard. The first problem with this claim is that the 'Edlinger' > label is > handwritten and does not look like the only other known handwritten Edlinger > label (in an > instrument in the Shrine To Music collection, South Dakota). There is also no > documentation > whatsoever which proves that Weiss bought this instrument (presumably in > Italy) and took it > to Edlinger in Prague, or to positively link this instrument to Edlinger > having worked on it > for Weiss - let alone anything that unequivocally places the instrument as > having been the > property of Weiss. Burguete claims that Weiss was in Prague the same year as > the date on the > 'Edlinger' label (which is actually overlapped by the Tesler label - we do > not know what > André Burguete's explanation for that is) but this common date does not of > itself prove any > link between this instrument and Weiss - and that presupposes that the > 'Edlinger' label is > genuine, which is far from proven or accepted. And interestingly, when > Wildhagen tried to > sell the instrument around 70 years ago, there was no mention in the > surviving paperwork > (which now resides in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nürnberg) of an > Edlinger label being > present inside the instrument . . . > > It is unfortunate that it has been claimed as the theorbo of Sylvius Leopold > Weiss by > Burguete, a fanciful attribution with no proveable foundation. André Burguete > claimed in a > paper read to the Dresden Lautentage conference in April 2000 that the > instrument was > brought from Rome by Weiss; quite how he feels able to make this claim is > anybody's guess, > since when we first measured the instrument in Potsdam in the early 1990's, > its then > owners - a family who possessed many art treasures - had nothing in their > family archive > connecting the instrument to Weiss. Burguete has produced no documentation > which links this > instrument to Weiss, although we're interested in a recent suggestion that > the instrument > was bought for a 5-figure sum and sold for a 6-figure sum. Burguete has > recently written to > us and peevishly complained that we have questioned his claims regarding this > instrument; > however, we stand by what we say, and until Burguete produces genuine > documentation which > unequivocally links this instrument to Weiss (and explains why the > handwriting of the > 'Edlinger' label it bears is different to the other extant handwritten > Edlinger label) our > position is that this instrument cannot be regarded as having been in the > possession of the > great lutenist. Facts, evidence and proof are one thing - surmise and > fanciful conjecture > something else; this sort of sloppy 'scholarship' would not be tolerated or > accepted in any > other sphere of historical research. > > In response to a statement quoted by Douglas Alton Smith in the Journal of > the American Lute > Society (Volume XXXII, 1999, on page 58) that - according to Lynda Sayce - > the neck and > pegbox design of this instrument is "identical" to that of the 1615 theorbo > by Giovanni > Tesler, we would like to point out - for the record - that it is not > identical, it is merely > a similar design. The upper pegbox is indeed very similar, but the long neck > of the Harz is > plain, whilst the Tesler has a distinctive and unusual 'moulding' carved > along its sides, > they resolve into the lower neck in a completely different manner and the > handling, > detailing and and carving of the lower pegbox differs from one instrument to > the other. > Also, the Harz has 43 ribs, not 55 as stated in the article. > > There is simply not enough known for certain about the design of this type of > long neck and > pegbox arrangement to attribute it definitively to the early 18th Century and > the Edlinger > workshop, so it is wrong to state - as the article does - that the Harz in > its current > configuration dates from the same year as the Tesler's 'Edlinger' repair > label; furthermore, > the Harz is an archlute, not a theorbo! However, the shaping and resolution > between the > lower and upper necks of the rear surface of the Harz is extremely similar to > that of the > 'theatre theorbo' (No.22 below) two examples of which the whereabouts are > currently known > (three instruments are known to exist). This style can be seen in the images > of No.2 (above) > and No.16 (below). The Tesler upper neck, on the contrary, flows into the > joint with the > lower neck in a long, graceful curve, similar to that seen on many Venetian > instruments (see > No.14, below). > Moreover, the veneering of the front of the Tesler upper neck is a patchwork > of various > pieces of ebony of a very poor quality; is it really very likely that a great > player of > Weiss' stature would have accepted such rough work? If Edlinger was > responsible for this > veneering, it doesn't say much for the skills of his workshop. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
