On Dec 20, 2009, at 3:00 AM, Stuart Walsh wrote: > How about the proposition that "there was no church in Italy in the > first half of the17th century in which the singers all performed in > the nude?" Well.. who knows? But how likely is it?
Neither likely nor apt as an analogy, since it doesn't involve filling in a gap in our knowledge. We know what the Church thought of public nudity; it might have called on the The Simpsons to express its view: > (Helen Lovejoy and Maude Flanders arrive at Marges doorstep) > > Helen: Get dressed, Marge. Youve got to lead our protest against > this abomination! (Shows Marge a newspaper with the Statue of David > on the cover) > Marge: Hmm, but thats Michelangelos David. Its a masterpiece. > Helen: (Gasps) Its filth! It graphically portrays parts of the > human body which, practical as they may be, are evil. > Marge: But I like that statue. > Maude: (Gasps) I told you she was soft on full frontal nudity. >> That the guitar was considered (by absolutely everyone?) a secular, >> even vulgar, instrument doesn't really get us anywhere. The same was >> true of the violin for a generation or two, but then became perfectly >> normal in church. >> > Any other examples of 'secular, even vulgar, instruments' becoming > accepted in the church? All of them. I'm guessing that just about any instrument would have been at one time too secular for Christian worship. Instrumental music had a long journey to become a part of Christian worship, which hasn't concerned us much in this discussion because it was well established by the Renaissance, and some of the new Protestant sects were eliminating it precisely because of its secularity and their desire to reject the "irreligious" aspects of Catholicism. So every instrument would have had secular skeletons in its closet: Trombones, cornetti and other winds were imported from town bands; trumpets had military connotations, violins were dance instruments. Even the organ took centuries to gain acceptance. FWIW, Wikipedia says "By around the eighth century it had overcome early associations with gladiatorial combat and gradually assumed a prominent place in the liturgy of the western church" Christian practice derives in large part from post-Temple Jewish practice, in which, traditionally, instruments are forbidden in services. Alexander points out that there are Biblical references to instruments in the Temple, and indeed, Psalm 150, with its references to instruments (including nevel and kinnor, both of which are sometimes translated as "lyre" or "lute"), is a common part of modern Sabbath morning services. The reasons given for it vary: some say it's because we're still in mourning over the destruction of the Temple, others that playing (or tuning, or carrying) instruments violates the Sabbath. When Salomon Rossi published a book of Jewish polyphonic "motets" in 1622-23, he included the opinions of five rabbis, who all said it was OK as long as instruments weren't used. Orthodox congregations today still forbid instruments. My lute- playing in my own congregation was the subject of some debate. BTW, a search through payroll records would not clear up the question of baroque guitars in churches; players were usually listed according to their primary instrument regardless of what they actually played. So we wouldn't know if "Clyde della tiorba" played guitar that Sunday. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
