Anthony, and all, I knew I would open up a can of works with these observations. There are many, many possibilities. We do not know if the original lutes were bass lutes, or if they were archlutes, or if they were theorbos, or if they were actually new lutes by Edlinger. The evidence seems to point to them being old renaissance lutes that were converted by Edlinger. It is undetermined, but it appears that if they are from the renaissance, that they are probably Fussen or Bolognese in origin.
Edlinger was in very high regard and esteem. When he did the 13 course conversions, he certainly would have made the lutes attractive, as he had great skills. All he would have to do is simply sand the top a little to make all those ugly scratches go away. It makes no sense to go to the trouble to convert and instrument, and then leave the top will multiple scratch marks...... that would be silly. The scratches are from after the conversion. No, all the sets of marks are both make by 13 course players, and they were made after the conversion. The nail like scratches were made using an interesting technique.... the thumb marks are close to the rose, where the finger marks are made quite a distance towards the bridge, which matches a technique that is evident in paintings, with the thumb sticking out quite sharply towards the neck. No, this was not in any way renaissance technique; as well, the scratches perfectly match the 13 courses that are on the lute now. The evidence of the "other" technique on that lute also suggests the thumb sticking out sharply towards the neck. Thanks! ed At 11:24 AM 2/6/2008 +0100, Anthony Hind wrote: >It is interesting that on the museum page, they say that the Edlinger >lutes were once thought to have been by Tieffenbrucker, and then baroqued >bt Edlinger, >but now it is considered that they were entirely built by Edlinger. >http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10213ItalianLute.html >http://www.usd.edu/smm/PluckedStrings/Lutes/10214ItalianLute.html > >However, I can't help wondering whether you are not right in returning to >the previous interpretation: the double traces, you mention, could well >indicate that this >was indeed a Renaissance lute, on which Renaissance traces were left when >it was later baroqued by Edlinger, and then after that the Baroque >technique traces might have been left. > " One player played >>near the bridge, due to smudge & dirt marks from the fingers, as well as >>the thumb. These marks were wide, and seemingly from finger marks. One >>player played close to the rose , and used a long nail, as there are >>multiple thin scrape marks (perhaps hundreds of these marks), from a long >>right hand nail. That player even played in front of the rose, towards the >>neck, on all the diapason courses! It tells me that on this particular >>instrument, there were more than one player using very different >>techniques. " Ed > >This sounds very much like a Renaissance technique. >In a previous message, I had wondered whether any such Renaissance traces >might not exist on a Baroque lute that might have kept its Renaissance >sound board. >I imagine it would be difficult to analyse these lutes to see how old the >soundboards are. Edward Martin 2817 East 2nd Street Duluth, Minnesota 55812 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] voice: (218) 728-1202 To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
