Dear Ed, Martyn, and All,
As you lecture on this painting, and until now, I have only given it an
admirative, but casual look, may I formulate a few questions about the
significance of the stringing and the fretting, about which you may be able to
enlighten me?
The fretting appears to be equal and not stepped (which is quite different
from
Dowland's indications), but is this significant of typical stringing of the
time?
It could be that zooming in alters the perspective and gives too much
importance to this detail which the painter might have considered
insignificant; but it might also have been highly significant of the practise
of the time (around 1533), but not necessarily of good practise, as it was
deemed by those knowledgeable in luting.
The detail, as you say, is indeed extraordinary, which tends to give the
(possibly mistaken?) impression that the painting of the lute might be almost
as accurate as a photograph. Although, photographic accuracy is not
necessarily
informative per se, as the lute could still be painted from memory (doubtful?)
or an example of just one man's stringing, or even a lute strung up as a
painter's prop and not for playing; but in any case, certain details of
instruments in the painting (musical or otherwise) could have been focussed on
(at the expense of others), tweaked or altered, to conform with the complex
primary symbolic message conveyed.
For example, it seems to have been established that some of the instruments
are
misaligned, as possible symbols of impending chaos, or aligned to the date of
Good Friday 1533.
"But cleaning of the picture has established that each one of the instruments
to the right of the celestial globe - a cylindrical shepherd's dial, two
quadrants, a polyhedral sundial and a torquetum - are all curiously misaligned
for use in a northerly latitude. This is unlikely to have been an oversight on
the artist's part, since one of his closest friends in London was the
astronomer Nikolaus Kratzer (...)"
"The misaligned instruments are surely emblems of chaos, of the heavens out of
joint. The fact that they were intended to be read symbolically is suggested
by
the generally encrypted nature of the whole painting and confirmed by the lute
with a broken string on the shelf below (...)"
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/art-holbeins-inner-game-1291477.html
That the musical instruments are defective, in that one string of the lute is
broken and one of the flutes are missing from the case of flutes is evident;
but might it not also be possible that Holbein expected the would-be viewer
(just as for the sundial) to recognize that this instrument was not ideally
strung, according to the principles of the time (i.e. if those principles were
already the same as those at J. Dowland's time, around 1610)?
I note that the frets (fre t1 to fret 8), apart from being double, would appear
to be almost equal in thickness.
At the same time, it would appear that the strings are set as high as
possible in relation to the bridge-holes. Could this raised string height have
been used to compensate for the resulting raised fret height at fret 8 (due
to the equal fretting)?
The presence of both these features together, could argue against the
likelihood that the lute was fretted with unequal frets, and that the painter
had simply abstracted away from this; but possibly indicates that the painter
is "describing" an actual lute strung in this particular way; although if we
accept
that, can we be sure that this was a general practise at that time (1533), or
just one man's "lazy" habits, or more interestingly a pattern that those in
the
know would recognize as a badly strung lute which would be difficult to play.
If significant, this certainly would not correspond to the later suggestion by
Dowland (as pointed out by Martyn Hodgson), in John Dowland's 'OTHER
NECESSARIE Observations....' Varietie (1610). Here Dowland relates fret sizes
to strings of the lute,
Fret 1 and 2: countertenor ie 4th course
3 and 4: as Great Meanes ie 3rd
5 and 6: as Small Meanes ie 2nd
7, 8 and 9: as Trebles ie 1st
(PS I wrote the whole of this message, but then realised there was a flaw in
my
reasoning. If the general tendency around 1533 was to have equal frets, and
this called for raised strings at the bridge, why not simply make the bridge
higher? The raised strings at the bridge would have to be compensating for
something that was not expected when the lute was given its bridge.
Indeed, I used this solution on my Renaissance lute when I first added loaded
strings, as their large movement tended to touch the frets. Thus perhaps the
expected
fretting by the lute maker was frets decreasing in thickness, and the raising
at the bridge a compensation for the present "poor" equal fretting.
I also agree with you Ed, that the strings appear rather thin, particularly
relative to the lute holes, and even the smalles treble string, might be
thinner
than the 0.42 postulated by Martin Shepherd, as being the smallest possible
string at the time (if not made from gut strips); but I would point out that
some of these features, thin strings, for example, might also have been chosen
by the artist to underline the fragility of the harmony they represent, and
the bolder
thickness of the transverse frets might then have served to contrast this.
In this case the pattern chosen, equal thick frets and thin strings (possibly
both not ideal), might have been there to underline a symbolism, which is also
present in so many other structural elements in the painting, rather than
significant of a general practise.
These are just my attempts at organising my thoughts and perhaps simply show my
ignorance; indeed, perhaps I am the only one to see the fretting as equal; or
many of you use equal fretting for a lute that has a particular problem (I seem
to remember that might be the case), if so please do excuse my "balbutiements".
Regards
Anthony
----- Message d'origine ----
De : Ed Durbrow <[email protected]>
À : LuteNet list <[email protected]>
Envoyé le : Sam 5 février 2011, 3h 32min 30s
Objet : [LUTE] Re: Google Art project
I missed the beginning of this thread. Luckily I checked the link. Wow!
I'm so happy to have this link. What detail! I use this picture in my
academic lecture class at Saitama U. (not teaching one this year or
next unfortunately). It is always good for two or three 90 minute
lectures, what with all the tangents I go off on.
Those are quite thin strings on that lute. I wonder if he was using
carbon fiber. :-)
[3][1]http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/nationalgallery/the-am
bas
sadors
Ed Durbrow
Saitama, Japan
[2]http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/
[3]http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
--
References
1. http://www.googleartproject.com/museums/nationalgallery/the-ambas
2. http://www.musicianspage.com/musicians/9688/
3. http://www9.plala.or.jp/edurbrow/
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
