Remember, this whole too-long, too-rehashed thread (which I hope most have the foresight to NOT enter) came about because in a very, very brief note, I naively made a couple assertions: 1) the notion of a tablature original of Chilesotti's codex to be rumor to have now passed into third-hand status and 2) O'Dette's published acknowledgement that those six pieces from the codex he recorded (from a recording that I myself have owned and enjoyed for almost two decades, comfortably before all this hoopla), he had reintabulated from the staff-notation publication because the existence of tablature originals came only through "unconfirmed reports" [or words to that effect]. I have explained my rationale in the use of such terminology on the former count, and the second simply is a reference to printed record. No, I have not called anybody a "liar" regarding this subject and have no reason to doubt the sincerity of anybody making reference to an alleged tablature original.
I come to this issue without any grudges or material interests; personally, I love everybody and consider myself to be on peaceful, even friendly, terms with *almost* everybody (even both Arthur and Matanya), which is no small feat in itself. I believe there is very much *something* to these tales. I really wish I could know more. However, until the document hits publication or a more public collection--or a more formal report of the document hits the peer-review literature where it can be easily accessed and evaluated by the scholarly community at large--this codex remains no more in the scholarly realm than any other anonymous eyewitness account: the functional equivalent of rumor, even if true and whether specifically named "rumor" or not. Again, I don't believe a third-person (which is as close as most of us have come to this story), anonymous eyewitness account, even if wholly true, can be a solid basis for scholarship. As a scholar (of sorts) on my day job, I don't think scholarship in any field is served if totally unverifiable eyewitness accounts come to be accepted as scholarly evidence of anything at all. It's sad if the selfish interests of one or a few keep this knowledge from the interested public's greater good. Any/All are welcome to write me directly if you'd like to carry on. I don't see any reason to rehash this here yet again. Best, Eugene At 05:04 PM 9/22/2008, Roman Turovsky wrote: >Not only semantics, it seems. There are still unexploded MO cluster >droppings lying around, and causing nonfatal if annoying accidents. >I do believe Arthur is correct, through my own intelligence channels. >There is little reason to wonder about the reasons to conceal, considering >the recent debacle concerning a few privately held late 18th century >archlute mss. that befell an Italian (possibly the same?) lutenist, who had >to cancel an advertized concert and refrain from speaking of the mss. >RT > >>----- Original Message ----- From: "Eugene C. Braig IV" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: "List Lute" <[email protected]> >>Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 2:29 PM >>Subject: [LUTE] part 2: Re: Respighi >> >> >>>Greetings Arthur (et al.), >>> >>>We appear to only differ on semantics. Exactly the thing that you are >>>calling an "eyewitness account", I am contending IS the equivalent of >>>"rumor" without something publicly verifiable by the scholarly community at >>>large (read my previous note for detail). ...And no, this in no way should >>>ever be construed as me naming anybody "liar." I am not nearly as adept at >>>the controversial turn of phrase as our old friend at Editions Orphee, but >>>I admit that I cannot find anything that disagrees with *either* of our >>>positions in the content of his note here: >>><http://www.guitarandluteissues.com/rmcg/chilesotti.htm>. I personally do >>>not feel at all contentious about our exchange or disagreement on language >>>here, Arthur. >>> >>>Sincerely, >>>Eugene >>> >>> >>>At 10:39 AM 9/22/2008, Arthur Ness wrote: >>>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>From: "howard posner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>To: "List Lute" <[email protected]> >>>>Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 9:40 PM >>>>Subject: [LUTE] Re: Respighi >>>> >>>>|I believe the remaining pieces are from the "Chilesotti Lute >>>>| Book" (Da un Codice Lauten-buch), a book of musicologist Oscar >>>>| Chilesotti's transcriptions of a lute manuscript, which was published >>>>| in 1891. The original lute book has not been available publicly, if >>>>| at all, for more than a century. Rumors of its whereabouts drift >>>>| around from time to time. Arthur Ness will doubtless have something >>>>| to say on that subject. >>>> >>>><<<SNIP>> >>>>oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo >>>>Hello, again, Howard >>>><<Contuned. Part 2>> >>>> >>>>I first heard about the survival of the Codice Lauten-Buch at the 1997 >>>>Francesco conference in Milan. Not one but several persons told me about >>>>it, and named the well known Italian lutenist who was hired to give a >>>>private recital. His host brought out a 16th-century manuscript of lute >>>>music, from which he was asked to play. The lutenist immediately >>>>recognized it as the Codice Lauten-Buch belonging formerly to Oscar >>>>Chilesotti (1846-1916). It was long thought to have been destroyed in a >>>>fire. >>>> >>>>Paul O'Dette did not attend that Francesco conference, but he >>>>somehow independently learned about the manuscript being in a private >>>>library in northern Italy a decade earlier, and reports that information >>>>in the notes to his Ancient Airs CD, mentioning the conflicting (and >>>>false) rumor about >>>>the fire. >>>> >>>>Furthermore, Thomas Schall reported on this list that he met the lutenist >>>>who played the recital, and confirmed what I heard from several persons at >>>>the Francesco conference. This points not to rumors, but to an "eye >>>>witness sighting of the manuscript." Thomas wrote, and I see no reason to >>>>believe he and the lutenist are not telling the truth: >>>> >>>> >As far as I can judge the story of the Chilesotti >>>> >Codice which survived >>>> >and about the lutenist giving a house concert >>>> >from it is true - I met >>>> >the lutenist in question and he confirmed the story. >>>> >>>> >It seems the manuscript is preserved in a >>>> >bank tresor (I've been told >>>> >there would be many treasures in tresors >>>> >because some people buy old >>>> >books for their insurance value which would >>>> >get lost if the owner would >>>> >make the manuscript accessible to the public). A pity! >>>> >>>>What purpose is served to lie about this matter, and call the Italian >>>>lutenist, Schall, O'Dette, Fabris and all the others liars? >>>> >>>>The attitudes that some owners of rare books and music harbor are >>>>unfortunate. Such bibliophiles often believe that by sharing their >>>>treasures with others, for example in a facsimile edition, the value of >>>>the books will be diminished (as Thomas hints in his comments). Some >>>>collectors buy rare books as an investment (the stock market returns have >>>>been demonstrated to be a better invenstment than old books). Even some >>>>librarians hold such a view, and (to cite one of many instances) for >>>>decades a librarian at the Fitzwilliam Museum would not permit the >>>>Cherbury >>>>manuscript to be published in facsimile. >>>> >>>>Of course, not all collectors of rare music are so possessive, as the >>>>example of the late Bob Spencer demonstrates. He generously allowed >>>>visitors into his home to view and freely use his collection. He realized >>>>that he was just a temporary >>>>custodian of treasures that really belong to everyone. >>>> >>>>And if it were to be come known, a parade of visitors would surely >>>>appear asking to see the Lauten-Buch. That might hurt current Italian >>>>efforts to convince the owner to make the manuscript available in a >>>>facsimile edition. >>>> >>>>Otherwise we will just have to wait until the manuscript comes on the >>>>auction market, and hope that it will be purchased by a pubic institution. >>>>Until then Dick Hoban's re-intabulation will serve us well. Other than >>>>those pieces (five of the six*), the original tablatures of the pieces >>>>orchestrated by Respighi are readily available, many in published >>>>facsimile editions. >>>> >>>>*P.S. Of the 22 pieces in Respighi's suites, only SIX are from the Codice >>>>Lauten-Buch, and for one we have a published photograph of the original >>>>page. <_Pace_ Eugene!> To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
