On Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:26:53 +0000, Ron Andrico wrote > Hello Ralf: > Besard's 1617 print is the result of engraving - the medium of > wood or copper or whatever matters less than the distinction of > typeset with moveable type versus engraved plates.
No, sorry. Please let's be a little less nonchalant. That print is a woodcut (block print) - as a matter of, fact, one of the last books produced in this by that time outdated technology. The drawing is _not_ engraved into a plate, the non-printing part is removed, and that has implications in regard of correctability: while in an engraving a certain (albeit small) amount of crrections can be done, in woodcuts material cut away can't be put back. But, as I wrote in my last mail, there's a substatial amount of errors that _can't_ be explained by the don-quichotesque printing medium. Those are the hard to explain but interesting ones. > As to whether > Besard was a professional musician, I think not and he probably > would have been insulted had anyone referred to him as such. He > was a gentleman and a scholar; his expertise in the field of music > for the lute was just one facet of the sum total of his learning > and the image he projected. On and off, during his lifetime he was teaching the lute. His (pratcial) lute instructions are used by Dowland and copied by Hainhoffer (personal friend of Besard, btw.). He probably studied with Laurenzini of Rome, one of the most famous artist of his time. Attributing the errors in the 1617 print to Besard's "unprofessionalism" seems strange to me. Cheers, Ralf Mattes To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
