Dear Stephen Barber,
It has just been brought to my attention that your website contains a
scurrilous personal attack on me. Since the attack is based on a blatant
misrepresentation of observations I first made on an internet site, it is also
appropriate to copy my response there.
I'm told that you have a history of making such scurrilous and often
inaccurate allegations (including I'm also informed of accusations of theft by
other makers) and, indeed, your current website has more, including: your
English theorbo details being 'copied by another luthier'; a
'mutually-supportive rumour-mill' by those failing to agree with you about
Edlinger,etc. Some may, of course, choose to ignore your comments as appearing
to be deluded irrational rantings but others believe such public
misrepresentations should always be firmly addressed.
In short, you state that my description (and those of my 'cronies' as you put
it) of small theorboes as 'toys' is 'puerile, inaccurate and ill-informed';
and, indeed, it might well be if that is only what I wrote. In fact, if you
read what was actually written in the thread, you'll see that my comment about
'toys' only applied to small instruments (say, fingered string length in the
high 70s) being strung as double reentrant in the A or G tuning and I
specifically excluded single reentrant small theorboes or double reentrant
instruments at a significantly higher nominal pitch (eg the lesser French
Theorbo in D; or the tiorbino) from my comment. It is especially surprising
that you oppose my position since all the double reentrant theorboes in A and G
listed on your own website (other than your 'own design') are directly in line
with it! ie in mm: 930, 895, 860, 860, 890, 984, 900, 840, 865.
Further, as you will also know from reading the thread, the debate came about
because of a particular response to a query about the size of double reentrant
theorbos in A or G; this response stated that 'anything over 82 (cm) is a
speciality instrument only for people with huge hands or for those who only
ever play in high positions'. It is again surprising, my dear Stephen, that
you also now seem to support this view, since all the theorbos in A or G
(other than your 'own design') which you offer are for larger instruments than
82cm, and many much larger!
Perhaps, in my own case, your antipathy and clumsy personal attacks may stem
from my temerity some years ago in first privately questioning some of your
speculations. However, quite why you feel impelled to personally attack,
misrepresent and generally accuse so many others is a more worrying
characteristic.
Martyn Hodgson
PS You obviously missed my recent recital to the Lute Society and so you
also missed the opportunity to see my gallichon which many admired. It is
based on the 1773 Stautinger and it was in considering the identity of this
instrument which first led me to identify this entire family of instruments
(FoMRHI Quarterly 1979). I should be grateful if you would kindly cite my
paper on your website in the section on mandoras/gallichons. MH.
---------------------------------
Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! for Good
--
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
