>Exactly-- the distinction is a modern one, the historical one semi-interchangeable based on time & region. The only way to "define" an archlute as distinct from a theorbo is to ignore the myriad historical examples where the terms are used interchangeably. This distinction is similar to calling the classical piano the "fortepiano"--it is not the precise historical term, it is what we choose to call it.
What we need is a new definition, and I'm happy to have you improve on mine, it is just a starting point. In its broadest sense, the term to me seems to me to refer to the neck, as in the theorbo-lute. An archlute then, is in its most general sense a theorbo (according to the people who played it), and in its narrow sense, as well as modern sense, a special type of theorbo, perhaps based more on the lute, perhaps several different instruments. I don't see how we can discount the historical record. The time for saying "they must have been mistaken", "they" being the eyewitnesses, surely is past. How can they have made hundreds of mistakes with the terms? The fact that the historical record does not reflect in any sense two types of instruments with two uniform terms should be interpreted, not discounted. I think a critique would be most helpful if followed by an improved definition. dt > > > > Theorbo > > A bass lute or renaissance lute with an extended neck enabling > > additional, unfretted bass notes: instruments based on, or developed > > from these models. > >This definition includes archlutes and most baroque-era lutes, which >makes it useful for persons who are not lute-literate and useless as >a term of art for us insiders. >-- > >To get on or off this list see list information at >http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
