Before I depart this subject, I should remind everyone what it is. It isn't about whether you should discredit everything Mace writes, which is not what I've suggested. The question was how to interpret Mace's statement that red strings were "commonly rotten." Here are three possibilities:
1. The first thing to do is figure out what he meant by "rotten." The OED attests a sense of the word as "weak" or "unsound" in Mace's time, and that's probably what he meant, rather than the modern sense of "spoiled" or "decaying." He may have simply meant he didn't like the way they sounded, and was expressing himself strongly, as he was inclined to do. 2. Assuming he meant red strings were usually false or otherwise unusable, do we simply accept his statement that the strings were "commonly" --typically or usually -- so? This seems unlikely, because if it were true, no one would buy them, they wouldn't be available, and he wouldn't need to write about it. Maybe he got a bad red string once or twice, and extrapolated to generality. This seems more likely, because you'd think Mace would stop buying them if he got some bad ones. This sort of hyperbolic generalization is very common --Jaroslaw has done it repeatedly with my comments about Mace, turning them into a statement that I don't believe anything Mace said because he was eccentric. I do the same thing all the time (though I try to avoid doing it in writing) and so did Mace. Here's an excerpt from Musick's Monument that I had pasted on one of my lute cases years ago (someone else's typing): > And that you may know how to shelter your Lute, in the worst of Ill weathers, > (which is moist) you shall do well, ever when you Lay it by in the day-time, > to put It into a Bed, that is constantly used, between the Rug and Blanket; > but between the Sheets, because they may be moist with Sweat, &c. > > This is the most absolute and best place to keep It in always, by which > doing, you will find many Great Conveniences, which I shall here set down. > > As First, for the Saving of your strings from Breaking; for you shall not > spend half so many Strings as another, who lays their Lute open in a Damp > Room, or near a Window &c. > > 2dly. It will keep your Lute constantly in Good Order, so that you shall > have but Small Trouble in the Tuning of It. > > [goes on to say the bed prevents decay and loose bars, facilitates higher > pitch and makes the instrument sound "more Lively an Briskly"] > Therefore, a Bed will secure from all These Inconveniences, and keep your > Glew so Hard as Glas, and All safe and sure; only to be excepted, That no > Person be so inconsiderate, as to Tumble down upon the Bed whilst the Lute is > There; for I have known several Good Lutes spoiled with such a Trick. > What jumps out is that he does not compare the advantages of a bed with those of keeping the lute in its case. But the word "case" does appear in Musick's Monument; nor have I seen in it the concept of a container built for and dedicated to holding the instrument. On page 57, he says that if it needs to be shipped to London for repair, "a convenient box, and Easie-going Horse, or a Coach, will be very needful." You could interpret this passage, in context, to mean that lute cases were rare and lutes were kept in beds, where they were often crushed; or you can conclude that Mace kept his lutes in a bed and crushed one once, or knew someone who crushed one once. I'm inclined to believe it happened once and Mace expanded for effect, but who knows? Maybe London was full of beds with splinters from lutes. But when you read a sweeping generalization from Mace, you need to be aware that he was inclined toward sweeping generalizations, and may have exaggerated for effect. If you want to read Mace as if he's peer-reviewed science (oops--exaggeration for effect there), be my guest. -- To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
