On Oct 6, 2012, at 12:45 PM, Jaros³aw Lipski <[email protected]> wrote:
> Maybe, but then how will you explain a quote from Mace p.66: > "I have sometimes seen strings of a yellowish color very good; yet but > seldom; for that color is a general sign of rottenness, or of the decay of > the string. There are several sorts of colored strings, very good; but the > best was always the clear blue; the red commonly rotten." > As far as I understand red color is a most popular color of loaded string. If > this is so, how then they could be commonly rotten? There's a lot of speculation in your question. Here's more. Mace may have been describing minor differences in color. He could have been describing a string as "red" or "yellow" for all sorts of reasons: inherent color of the intestine, impurities in the processing, some microbial or fungal contaminant, the color of Mace's spectacles or the kinds of candles he used, the string maker cutting his finger while he made the string and twisting his own blood into the string (I think I just created the "Red Violin" theory of string making), Mace examining the string while the sun was setting--who knows? Obviously, I'm not inclined to regard Mace as a scientific observer; more like the eccentric uncle who makes dubious sweeping pronouncements at family dinners. Maybe he got one reddish string once and didn't like it, and generalized in a way that most of us do in casual conversation. Most of the gut strings I've used could be described as yellow, and none have been rotten. And what's with "clear blue?" -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
