Dear Monica,
Oh good - I see it's open again for business as usual.
So why on earth did you write in your last "As far I am
concerned the matter is now closed."?
Ah well - on with the motley. I'll reply and send you my
further comments on this and your previous in due course.
But, meanwhile, thank you for finally coming up with your
latest revised views of what you think the instruments
required by this MS actually were. Included in these is
your continuing unexplained assertion that the twelve
course instrument with seven added basses was a
mandora which, since there's no historical evidence
whatsoever that such an instrument ever existed, is
particularly strange - especially whilst the known
arch/theorboed guitar is denied any place in your
considerations! Is this because you cannot bring yourself
to finally accept a more obvious and rational explanation:
that the gytarra may have been nothing more than - gulp -
a guitar and not a lute ?.......
regards
Martyn
PS To what specifically unfair comment do you refer when
you tell of the "600 words of unpleasant personal comments
which have nothing to do with the mandora or gallicon"? Have
you never actually read your own postings objectively?
But, as said before, perhaps it's all in the eye of the beholder -
others can be our judges.
MH
__________________________________________________________________
From: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: VihuelaList <vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Cc: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Monday, 12 February 2018, 21:44
Subject: MS CZ- Bm D 189 - the Last Post
Dear Martyn
I am sorry to have denied you the opportunity to fully reply to my
message of 31 Jan and its various inconsistencies and
'misrepresentations'.
I prefer to consider my inconsistencies and "misrepresentation"s as an
attempt to keep an open mind and examine different ideas about what we
find in this manuscript before arriving at any tentative conclusions.
(Incidentally the correct RISM siglum for the manuscript is CZ-Bm D
189).
In my final message I clearly stated â
1. It is clear from the chart on f.48r that the "Gytarra" is a 6-course
instrument. It may be synonymous with the 6-course mandora which Martyn
says was common at the time. It is also clear that the section between
the first two double bar lines on f.48v is a tuning check for the 6-
course "Gytarra" on f.48r; the last bar shows that the open bass is
tuned to the same note as the third course.
2. The second section on the first stave shows the additional bass
courses of the "Mandora" numbered 6-12 starting with G.
3. It seems to me that these two instruments may belong to a very broad
genus of lute shaped instruments with added basses but their precise
identity is uncertain.
4. The pieces from f.48v-f.59v are for the "Gytarra"; those from f.60r-
f. 76r are for a 5-course "Mandora"; and those from f.76v-f.95r
numbered 1-56 are probably for 5-course guitar.
Your suggestion that we should now agree to disagree simply indicates
that you are not willing to admit that anything you say is wrong. A
number of things you have said are nonsensical.
1. The fact that the manuscript includes a piece by Losy does not
indicate that it was copied during his life time. It could have been
copied anytime in the 18th century, at least as late as the 1760s.
2. Your comment - "A multi-course theorboed mandora with twelve
courses never existed in the period covered by the dating of D- 189."
You may not have come across another reference to such an instrument
referred to as a "mandora" in another 18th century source but this does
not prove that such an instrument didn't exist in Rajhrad at the time
the manuscript was copied. It may have been quite rare.
3. Your comment- "Accordingly, the most likely, and reasonable,
identification of the couple of works for an instrument with seven
extra basses is the arch/theorboed guitar".
It certainly is not a likely and reasonable identification â there
are all sorts of other instruments which it might have been. It
certainly doesn't prove that it was figure-of-eight shaped.
4. Your comment - "Incidentally I don't know why the duet Boure (f.
69v) for Mandora 1 and 2 does not employ the sixth course: perhaps the
composer preferred this particular piece with these instruments this
way or maybe they didn't have two guitars available? "
No, you obviously don't know - The parts are labelled in that way to
indicate that the two pieces are to be played as a duet rather than as
separate pieces for a single mandora. Your suggestion that they didn't
have two guitars available is a fairy tale. You just don't want to
admit that that section of pieces is for a 5-course "mandora" not the
5-
course guitar.
5. Your comment - " the majority of pieces after F. 67 are in Keys
where low G is at least as helpful as for the works on in the following
keys of G, F. C and D - BUT the scribe writes the G at the upper
octave:" "a distinctive feature of the guitar, but not of the period
mandora, etc."
Clearly it is a feature of the 5-course mandora for which these pieces
were intended - unavoidable in the key of D major. All the pieces in D
major exhibit this feature.
Observations of this kind would not be acceptable even in undergraduate
work.
I think I have said on several occasions that I do not think the fact
that this manuscript (or any other source) includes music for both
mandora and 5-course guitar has any bearing on whether the low octave
string(s) were placed on the thumb side of a course on the 5-course
guitar in Germany or elsewhere. We simply don't know.
I am sorry if you feel you are being bullied. At least I only send my
messages to the Vihuela List. I don't send them to other lists with the
intention of discrediting someone with whom I happen to disagree, so
that as many people as possible can read them.
There is no justification for sending 600 words of unpleasant personal
comments which have nothing to do with the mandora or gallicon to the
Baroque Lute List.
Because you persist in doing this means that I have no choice but to
send my messages to both lists too to ensure that my views are fairly
represented.
As ever
Monica
Dear Monica,
That's a shame since, due to all these baroque manoeuvrings around the
mandora and gytarra, we've never actually got round to properly
considering the original issue I raised! This, you may recall,
was whether the widespread use in the seventeenth century of the high
octave on the bass (thumb) side of a guitar octave pair
actually continued to be the general practice in the eighteenth century
- especially in German speaking and Nordic lands (for example, in works
by Diesel, say, as well as pieces contained in D-189).
Your earlier postings have been carefully perused but, unfortunately,
are sometimes contradictory over theparticular central matter of what
instruments you now believe are required for the pieces in this
MS. Accordingly I had thought that, because of these previous
inconsistencies, you'd welcome an opportunity to make a final and
unequivocal statement as to your latest position. Clearly, without
knowing precisely what this now is, it's simply not possible to make
further headway. So, perhaps, drawing a line may be appropriate -
though I do feel rather denied the opportunity to fully reply to yours
of 31 Jan and its various inconsistencies and 'misrepresentations'.
Nevertheless, as I first suggested quite a few postings ago, let's
therefore now agree to disagree...............
Finally, I'm a bit taken aback about 'bullying' since, to be quite
frank, I felt very much the one on the receiving end! Indeed, I've
generally aimed to maintain polite exchanges where possible. Ah well,
perhaps it's all in the eye of the beholder - others can be our judges.
regards,
Martyn
PS. Sorry - but, to quickly pre-empt another red herring in the
offing, I'm obliged to mention that the mandore and the mandora
are actually two entirely different instruments.......
=====================================================
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Cc: Martyn Hodgson <hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Saturday, 10 February 2018, 11:34
Subject: Re: MS CZ- Bm D 189
Dear Martyn
If you had taken the trouble to read the message that I sent to the
Vihuela
list on 31st January you would know what my conclusions about this
manuscript were. There is no need for me to clarify my position
further
and I do not believe you are interested in composing a constructive
reply.
It seems that all you are interested in is bullying someone who
disagrees with you by misrepresenting what they have said and by
posting offensive personal comments about them to as many people as
you
can.
As far I am concerned the matter is now closed.
Monica
============================================
From: [1]hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
Date: 10/02/2018 10:07
To: "[2]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk"<[3]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>, "Baroque Lute
List"
<[4]baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Subj: Re: Further to Re: Moravsky MS (CZ. Brno D 189)
- a fresh tack! 2
Dear Monica,
Your earlier message of 31 Jan is, in fact, below - simply
scroll down to find it......
Rather than this Trumpesque bluster and obfuscation would
you now please simply and, is it too much to hope, politely
answer the direct question put to you. As carefully explained,
this will provide you with the opportunity to properly clarify
your precise position over the instruments required for the
pieces in this MS and will then enable a constructive reply to
be composed.
Here's the relevant question again:
'- as I understand it from what you have earlier written, your
position is that the vast majority (about 98%) of the some 124
works for plucked instruments in this MS are for a six course
gytarra and that just three are for a mandora (according to
you a twelve course instrument with five fingered courses and
seven free basses - you stated that "The mandora has seven
unstopped basses" )'
Is this still a correct statement of your position?
regards
Martyn
PS I copy this to the 'Baroque Lute' list since the mandora is a
lute family instrument ( - and a baroque lute to boot!) and such
messages are therefore entirely relevant on that list. If the
mandora were a guitar I wouldn't.
=================================================
__________________________________________________________________
From: "mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk; "vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu"
<vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2018, 17:39
Subject: Re: [VIHUELA] Re: Further to Re: Moravsky MS (CZ.
Brno D 189) - a fresh tack! 2
Dear Martyn
The message which you have attached below is NOT the message which I
sent to the Vihuela List on the 31st January.I suggest you retrieve
this
from the Archives and ACTUALLY READ IT CAREFULLY. It is the second
down below your latest message.Frankly I am not
really interested in
anything that you have to say about this as it is clear that you do
not know
what you are talking about. You are only interested in disseminating
your
own cranky ideas.
Re copying things to the Baroque Lute list - when I signed up I
received a message saying that cross-posting was not allowed. I don't
think that anyone on that list interested in anything you have to
say. I don't want to receive three copies of every message you see
fit
to send. I may query this with Wayne if you persist.
As ever
Monica
==================================================
From: Martyn Hodgson <[5]hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To: "[6]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <[7]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>;
VihuelaList
<[8]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>; Baroque Lute List
<[9]baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2018, 14:26
Subject: Further to Re: Moravsky MS (CZ. Brno D 189) - a fresh tack2!
Dear Monica.
Thanks for your latest of 31 Jan (below) and forgive the delay in
replying - it's only today risen to the top of my current 'to do' list!
I note what you say and will respond in due course. However, to
enable me to do this properly, it will be helpful if you would now
confirm precisely what your position is on the instrument(s)
required for the pieces in this MS.
In my last of 29 Jan (- also below) I wrote:
'- as I understand it from what you have earlier written, your
position
is that the vast majority (about 98%) of the some 124 works for
plucked instruments in this MS are for a six course gytarra and
that just three are for a mandora (according to you a twelve
course instrument with five fingered courses and seven free
basses - you stated that "The mandora has seven unstopped
basses")'
Is this a correct statement of your position?
regards
Martyn
PS I copy this to the 'Baroque Lute' list since the mandora is a
lute instrument - and a baroque lute to boot!
============================================
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Martyn Hodgson <[10]hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
To: Monica Hall <[11]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>; VihuelaList
<[12]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>; Baroque Lute List
<[13]baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Sent: Monday, 29 January 2018, 17:01
Subject: Moravsky MS (CZ Brno D189) - a fresh tack!
Dear Monica,
As you now know, I haven't yet replied to your latest open
mailings since these had both ended by saying that you
'were going to leave it for now' and I therefore took this as
meaning I might soon expect something further. Accordingly,
not wishing to respond in a piecemeal and disjointed manner,
I deliberately delayed replying and awaited your further thoughts.
However, I shall do so now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding copying things to other lists, just to be quite clear, I
generally copy things to other of Wayne's lists if they're relevant
there. Hence why gallichon/mandora stuff (but usually not guitar)
can find its way onto the lute lists (or, indeed, elsewhere) - it's
not a fiendish plot of any kind! But on with the motley..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Our exchanges of 'textual analysis' have clearly failed to persuade
each other of our respective cases and therefore, to make any
progress, another tack is now required: one more forensic perhaps
and closer related to contemporary organological, musicological and
source evidence.
Firstly though, to summarise our respective positions:
- as I understand it from what you have earlier written, your
position is
that the vast majority (about 98%) of the some 124 works for plucked
instruments in this MS are for a six course gytarra and that just
three
are for a mandora (according to you a twelve course instrument with
five fingered courses and seven free basses - you stated that "The
mandora has seven unstopped basses" );
- mine is that the 28 pieces notated with a sixth course are for
mandora and that the remainder requiring just five courses are
principally for gytarra (although,as I was at pains to point out
earlier,
any passably competent mandora player would easily be able to add
a low sixth where suitable in the guitar pieces and similarly, in many
cases, a guitarist would be able to play the errant low bass an
octave
up by employing the open third course). The couple of pieces which
have the seven additional free basses notated also have a left hand
fingered bass notated in the usual register and, whilst we've not
discussed this so far, I believe these additional low course
numberings are therefore simply later additions to these two pieces
(note also that the scribe left off adding these low basses half way
through the piece numbered 45).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1. DATE OF D-189
You stated that the MS could have been written "anytime in the
eighteenth century" - but with no evidence for this assertion. I do,
of course, understand why you favour such a wide range of dates
since it may help give some credence to employing a six course
guitar (developed, in fact, only later in the eighteenth century) for
all the plucked works in this collection.
However, others date the writing of this MS considerably earlier,
including:
James Tyler - 'early 18th century';
Gary Boye - 'beginning of the 18th century';
Ernst Pohlmann - 'um 1700' (around 1700);
Jaroslav Pohanka (Principal editor of Musica Antiqua Bohemia) -
'vor1700 geschrieben' (written before 1700);
My own dating (based on stylistic traits and the piece attributed to
C. Loschi) is 1700 to 1720.
Accordingly, to summarise, the best date range estimate for
compilation of this MS lies between 1690 and 1720.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
2. CALLICHON/MANDORA
Around 70 extant historical mandoras/gallichons have been identified
made between 1688 and 1780 (most are listed in Dieter Kirsch's 'La
mandora au XVIII siecle): the vast majority (97%) of these are six
course
instruments but a couple have more courses - one is 8 course and one
9 course . These two are both later eighteenth century and thus too
late
to be the sort of instruments originally employed for D-189. Extant
instruments also well reflect contemporary iconography showing the
overwhelming predominance of the six course mandora; and similarly
with extant tablatures - though a very few do contain some pieces for
8 or 9 course mandora (such as Univerzitna Kniznica Bratislava Ms
1092 which contains galant/classical music c.1770 requiring a
mandora with eight courses). Note that these mandoras basically had
these few additional courses on the same peghead (like earlier lutes)
and did not employ the much longer extensions as found in the theorbo,
archlute or, for that matter, the arch/theorboed guitar known from the
seventeenth century onwards.
Historically, the upper five courses of the usual six course
mandora/callichon were tuned in precisely the same intervals as those
of the guitar. The mandora sixth course was commonly tuned a tone
below the fifth (as, of course, found in D-189), or a third or
a fourth
below it. Tablatures show that the additional basses of the rare 8/9
course instrument merely fill in the notes between thefifth course and
the sixth a third or a fourth below it and do not extend the range any
further downwards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. ACCORDO GYTARRA ET MANDORA
The tablature system with five lines on f.48v. between the
first double
barlines gives octave tuning checks in the usual manner. It shows that
the upper five courses of the gytarra and mandora were tuned in the
same intervals with an extra course indicated below the line for the
usual six course mandora of the period (the six course guitar not then
being known). The telling example of the Rondeau (C. Loschi),
originally
for a six course instrument but later arranged for just five courses
(Rondon 75), very well illustrates the differences required
in intabulating
the same work for the six course mandora and the five course gytarra.
The staff after this has numbers below for an instrument with seven
additional bass courses - but only two intabulated pieces out of a
total
of 124 works have had these numbers added. I therefore believe that
this section was added later - perhaps when a novel theorboed guitar
was acquired (again note that the scribe couldn't be bothered with
adding
these new low basses all the way through piece 45).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
4. SIX COURSE GUITAR IN BOHEMIA, MORAVIA AND AUSTRIA IN THE
EIGHTEENTH CENTURY
Six course guitars first appeared in Southern Spain in the 1760s
and a
little laterin Italy in a six string form, but only appear in German
speaking
lands from the 1780s (the earliest extant one being by Michael Ignaz
Stadlmann, Vienna 1787). In c.1810. the Viennese guitarist Simon
Molitor also tells us that around 1790 the guitar entered Austria
'where
earlier it had been very rarely seen' and that at the same time a
sixth
string/course was added.
As an aside, Molitor also tells of meeting a mandora player in Vienna
(perhaps Joseph Zincke?) around 1800 (they were still around then!)
who said that he now used single strings instead of double courses
since he found it easier to tune...........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
5. CONCLUSIONS
5.1. A multi-course theorboed mandora with twelve courses never
existed and, indeed, even the rare mandoras with up to a maximum of
three basses are not known in the period covered by the dating of
D-189.
Accordingly, the mostlikely, and reasonable, identification of the
couple
of works for an instrument with seven extra basses is the
arch/theorboed
guitar.
5.2. The six course guitar is not known in the period covered by
this collection (est. 1690 - 1720) and thus could not have been the
instrument employed for the pieces requiring a sixth course.
5.3. The tuning chart 'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' gives the octave
checks for tuning instruments with up to six courses, and thus serves
for the upper five courses of both the gytarra and the mandora - but
only
the mandora for the sixth course .
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Finally, when I first came across this MS some years ago,
I wondered
if Gytarra (or Chytarra) might be a colloquial Bohemian/Moravian
synonym
for the Mandora. But there was no independent supporting evidence and,
moreover, strongly against this proposition is the precise wording of
'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' (ie tuning of gytarra AND mandora)
which
requires two clearly different instruments - but both having the same
basic
tuning for five courses. As mentioned earlier, if it had said ' Gytarra
aliter
Mandora' (or similar) things might be different.......................
regards
Martyn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--
PS Incidentally I don't know why the duet Boure (f. 69v) for Mandora
1 and 2 does not employ the sixth course: perhaps the composer
preferred this particular piece with these instruments this way or
maybe they didn't have two guitars available? The last is not as
daft as it may seem: at this time the mandora was immensely popular
in this part of the world with almost all known mandora makers
working in this area of Bohemia, Moravia, upper Austria and South
Bavaria (roughly bounded by Wurzburg, Innsbruck, Linz and Prague)
- see Kirsch. MS sources with music for mandora outnumber those
forguitar from this area. Also note Molitor's report.
Similarly, regarding f. 48r with the 'Fundamenta Gytarra', this simply
contains common thoeretical information for beginners as frequently
found in tablature books from these lands. They generally (as with
D-189) cover the generic principles of notation (tablature letters),
time
signatures, note values and tablature flags, ornaments, etc. and, as
in this case, apply to all the plucked instruments represented in the
following tablatures - here the mandora, gytarra, and theorboed
guitar.
Obviously, a seperate 'Fundamenta' page is not needed for each
plucked instrument represented in the same MS!
The practical information overleaf ('Accordo Gytarra et Mandora')
gives the more specific information on tuning, etc.
MH
====================================================
From: "[14]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk" <[15]mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk>
To: VihuelaList <[16]vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu>
Cc: Martyn Hodgson <[17]hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, 31 January 2018, 20:41
Subject: CZ-Bm D 189 unpicked
Martyn à ¢ RE: CZ-Bm D 189 My Response to Your Message of 29th
January
I will try to to be concise and stick to the point. I have deleted
sections from Martyn's message which I think are irrelevant and
rearranged some of his comments to achieve a more logical appraisal
of
the manuscript.
1. General Background
The manuscript belonged to and was presumably copied by someone at
the
Benedictine Monastery in Rajhrad, a town in Brno-Country District in
Moravia. I have not been able to trace a detailed bibliographical
description of it and I have not been able to check RISM but even
entries in RISM are not always reliable. I have not seen the
manuscript
myself and I don't think that Martyn has either. A copy, however
good,
still leaves a lot of unanswered questions. The manuscript includes,
among other things, didactic material, arrangements of vocal and
instrumental pieces by Lully, other vocal music, a sonata for
trombone
and music for viola da gamba. Some of the headings and text are in
Latin, some in Czech or German. I don't know if anyone has
identified
any of the other pieces but it would be necessary to do this before
deciding on a possible date for the manuscript.
2. Date
Martyn's comment -
"1. DATE OF D-189
You stated that the MS could have been written "anytime in the
eighteenth century" - but with no evidence for this assertion. I do,
of
course, understand why you favour such a wide range of dates since
it
may help give some credence to employing a six course guitar
(developed, in fact, only later in the eighteenth century) for all
the
plucked works in this collection".
My comment à ¢
I have NEVER suggested throughout this discussion that either of the
tablature charts or any of the music in this manuscript are for 6-
course early classical guitar. I pointed this out in my private e-
mail
to Martyn but he has ignored this and most of the rest of what I
have
said. This is a clear indication that he has not read my messages
before replying to them.
Martyn's comment -
"However, others date the writing of this MS considerably earlier,
including:James Tyler - 'early 18th century';Gary Boye - 'beginning
of
the 18th century';Ernst Pohlmann - 'um 1700' (around 1700); Jaroslav
Pohanka (Principal editor of Musica Antiqua Bohemia) - 'vor 1700
geschrieben' (written before 1700)".
My comment -
Pohlman and Pohanska's writings out of date and not entirely
accurate.
Tyler and Gary Boye are probably just copying what these previous
writers have said.
Martyn's comment à ¢
"My own dating (based on stylistic traits and the piece attributed
to
C. Loschi) is 1700 to 1720. Accordingly, to summarise, the best date
range estimate for compilation of this MS lies between 1690 and
1720".
My comment à ¢
You cannot date manuscripts in this way. Losy died in 1721.
However,
there is no reason to suppose that the manuscript was copied during
his
lifetime. Music by Corbetta was still being copied fifty years after
his death. Likewise, Losy's music would still have been popular
twenty,
thirty or more years after his death. Stylistic traits are no guide
to
dating. As somebody said recently on the Lute List
"As a musicologist student, I learned that style criticism should be
avoided because it cannot be valid evidence".
There is nothing distinctively early 18th century about the music,
most
of which is quite trivial.
Perhaps, Dear Martyn, you should do a course in Musicology!
Ewa BieliÃ
ska-Galas, the most recent person to refer to the
manuscript,
says in her article only that it is 18th century. She refers to it
as a
manuscript of music for the mandora and has indicated in her table
that
both versions of the Losy pieces are for mandora.
3. The Tablature charts
f.48v Fundamenta Gytarra
In his message of 4th of January Martyn said
"folio 48 à ¢à ¦..gives elementary instructions for the five course
guitar
'
Fundamenta Chytarra'".
I pointed out that the heading is actually Fundamenta "Gytarra".
This
is the only instrument mentioned in the heading. I think Martyn is
mistaken in claiming that these instructions are intended for a 5-
course guitar.
They are instructions on how to read tablature. The first segment
between the double bars shows the open courses of a SIX- course
instrument represented by letter "a". These are clearly labeled 1-
6
in descending order with the "a" for sixth open course placed below
the tablature stave in the last bar. This clearly refers to the
"Gytarra"; no other instrument is mentioned. This is followed by
segments illustrating the five stopped courses at the 1st-9th fret
represented by the letter b-k. There are also the signs for
ornaments,
time signatures and note values.
f.48v Accordo Gytarra et Mandora
Martyn's comment on this was
"3. ACCORDO GYTARRA ET MANDORA
The tablature system with five lines on f.48v. between the first
double bar lines gives octave tuning checks in the usual manner.
It shows that the upper five courses of the gytarra and mandora
were tuned in the same intervals with an extra course indicated
below the line for the usual six course mandora of the period
(the six course guitar not then being known)".
The staff after this has numbers below for an instrument with
seven additional bass courses - but only two intabulated pieces
out of a total of 124 works have had these numbers added. I
therefore believe that this section was added later - perhaps
when a novel theorboed guitar was acquired (again note that
the scribe couldn't be bothered with adding these new low
basses all the way through piece 45)".
My comment à ¢
I think Martyn is mistaken. It is clear from the chart on f.48r that
the "Gytarra" is a 6-course instrument. It may be synonymous with
the
6-
course mandora which Martyn says was common at the time. It is also
clear that the section between the first two double bar lines on f.
48v
is a tuning check for the 6-course "Gytarra" on f.48r; the last bar
shows that the open bass is tuned to the same note as the third
course.
The second section on the first stave shows the additional bass
courses
of the "Mandora" numbered 6-12 starting with G.
The Aria on the second and third staves is an example of how the low
basses are notated with figures below the stave. Without seeing the
manuscript itself it is not possible to tell whether any of this was
added at a later date but I don't think that it was because the
Minuet
which starts on the fourth stave continues on the next folio à ¢ f.
49r.
The copyist is unlikely to have left two staves blank before copying
the minuet.
I do think that the open basses may have been added to the piece on
f.
90r (I can't read the title) at a later date. They have only been
added
to the first part of the piece and seem to overlap in places with
the
letters on the tablature stave.
The material question is - "What do the terms "Gytarra" and
"Mandora"
refer to in this context?"
Martyn seems to think that as there are all these instruments in
museums identified today as "mandoras" any mention of a "mandora" in
any archival document must refer to an instrument of this kind.
It ain't necessarily so. There are often references in manuscripts
and
in literary texts to instruments, the identity of which is uncertain
in
the absence of illustrations or more detailed information. What
people
called these things in the past may be different from the way we
classify surviving specimens today.
One example that springs to mind is Mrs Jordan's "lute" which is
apparently really a kind of "arch cittern".
It seems to me that these two instruments may belong to a very broad
genus of lute shaped instruments with added basses but their precise
identity is uncertain.
The Music
Martyn's comment
"Firstly though, to summarise our respective positions:
- as I understand it from what you have earlier written, your
position is that the vast majority (about 98%) of the some
124 works for plucked instruments in this MS are for a six
course gytarra and that just three are for a mandora"
(according to you a twelve course instrument with five
fingered courses and seven free basses - you stated that
"The mandora has seven unstopped basses" );
- mine is that the 28 pieces notated with a sixth course are for
mandora and that the remainder requiring just five courses are
principally for gytarra (although, as I was at pains to point out
earlier, any passably competent mandora player would easily
be able to add a low sixth where suitable in the guitar piece
and similarly, in many cases, a guitarist would be able to play
the errant low bass an octave up by employing the open third
course). The couple of pieces which have the seven additional
free basses notated also have a left hand fingered bass notated
in the usual register and, whilst we've not discussed this so far,
I believe these additional low course numberings are therefore
simply later additions to these two pieces (note also that the
scribe left off adding these low basses half way through the
piece numbered 45)."
My comment
Looking through and playing the music à ¢ which took a considerable
amount of time à ¢ a number of ideas occurred to me, some of which I
discarded as I went along. What I said in my final message to the
list was
"It is a reasonable assumption that the 5-course pieces at least as
far
as f.76r are for a 5-course mandora. The most likely explanation seems
to me to be that the "gytarra" is a 5-course mandora with one
additional
unstopped bass. The pieces from f.48v-f.59v are for gytarra; those
from f.60r-f.76r are for a 5-course mandora; and those from
f.76v-f.95r
numbered 1-56 for 5-course guitar."
Martyn said à ¢
"PS Incidentally I don't know why the duet Boure (f. 69v) for
Mandora 1 and 2 does not employ the sixth course: perhaps
the composer preferred this particular piece with these
instruments this way or maybe they didn't have two guitars
available? The last is not as daft as it may seem: at this time
the mandora was immensely popular in this part of the world
with almost all known mandora makers working in this area
of Bohemia, Moravia, upper Austria and South Bavaria
(roughly bounded by Wurzburg, Innsbruck, Linz and Prague)
- see Kirsch. MS sources with musicfor mandora outnumber
those for guitar from this area. Also noteMolitor's report.
Similarly, regarding f. 48r with the 'Fundamenta Gytarra',
this simply contains common thoeretical information for
beginners as frequently found in tablature books from these
lands. They generally (as with D-189) cover the generic
principles of notation(tablature letters), time signatures, note
values and tablature flags, ornaments, etc. and, as in this case,
apply to all the plucked instruments represented in the following
tablatures - here the mandora, gytarra, and theorboed guitar.
Obviously, a separate 'Fundamenta' page is not needed for
each plucked instrument represented in the same MS! The
practical information overleaf ('Accordo Gytarra et Mandora')
gives the more specific information on tuning, etc.
This is disingenious. Martyn claimed that -
"Simply overlooked is that the majority of pieces after F. 67 are in
Keys where low G is at least as helpful as for the works on in the
following keys of G, F. Cand D - BUT the scribe writes the G at the
upper octave:"
"a distinctive feature of the guitar, but not not of the period
mandora, etc."
My comment
The material point is that this piece is clearly labeled as being
for
two "mandoras" and there are skips of a 7th in the bass line. This
is
unavoidable on a 5-course instrument in the key of D major and all
the
pieces with this feature are in D major. It is not a feature only of
the guitar. With this in mind it seems reasonable to assume that the
5-
course pieces are for a 5-course "mandora" up to and including f.
76r.
The pieces which follow form a separate section.
Martyn's comments on the six-course guitar in Eastern Europe are
irrelevant as I have NEVER suggested that anything in the manuscript
refers to a six-course guitar.
5. Conclusions
Martyn's comment
"5.1. A multi-course theorboed mandora with twelve courses never
existed and, indeed, even the rare mandoras with up to a maximum of
three basses are not known in the period covered by the dating of D-
189. Accordingly, the most likely, and reasonable, identification of
the couple of works for an instrument with seven extra basses is the
arch/theorboed guitar".
My comment à ¢
I think this is a very rash statement. The manuscript is undated. To
claim that the instrument with seven extra bases is an
arch/theorboed
guitar is foolhardy. References to the theorboed guitar are few and
far between (are there any in Eastern Europe sources?) and often
ambiguous. It is not clear in many instances (including the
Stradivarius patterns) whether instruments referred to as a chitarra
atiorbata are lute shaped or figure of eight shaped. There was an
interesting mention on the lute list of a "citara tiorbata" in a
piece
in P.P. Melli's Balletto del Ardito Gracioso (1616) which appears to
be a kind of cittern. One of the Stradivarius patterns is referred
to
as being for the "citara tiorbata".
Clearly there were small lutes with up to seven basses aka mandoras.
James Talbot's manuscript (GB:Och Ms.1187) dating from the end of
the
17th century includes a description of an instrument owned by John
Shore which Talbot refers to as "Mr Shore's abridgmt of Arch Lute".
This had six courses on the fingerboard, the lowest octave strung,
the
third, fourth and fifth double strung in unison and the first and
second, single strings, with seven single open basses descending
stepwise from the lowest course. Talbot supplies detailed
specifications for the instrument. The length of the strings on the
fingerboard is given as 48.3 cms. and that of the open basses as
108.0
cms. He indicates that the first course is tuned to c'' which is
compatible with the string length of 48.3 cms. The instrument had
nine frets. Donald Gill classifies this as an "arch-mandore". There
is
no reason why the copyist of CZ-Bm D 189 should not have owned an
instrument of this kind and called it a "mandora".
Martyn's comment à ¢
"5.2. The six course guitar is not known in the period covered by
this collection (est. 1690 - 1720) and thus could not have been the
instrument employed for the pieces requiring a sixth course".
My comment à ¢
For the THIRD TIME - I have NEVER suggested that it was.
Martyn's comment -
"5.3. The tuning chart 'Accordo Gytarra et Mandora' gives the
octave checks for tuning instruments with up to six courses,
and thus serves for the upper five courses of both the gytarra
and the mandora - but only the mandora for the sixth course".
My comment à ¢
That is not their clearly stated purpose or what they actually
illustrate.
Finally, Dear Martyn à ¢ in my view it is ill-mannered of you to
persist
in copying your messages to the Baroque Lute List when it has caused
problems for other people. Nothing you have to say is so important
that
it needs to appear twice and if you were hoping that someone else
would
join the fray to back you up you must have realized by now that they
are not going to. Perhaps I should start copying my messages as
well à ¢
I wonder what Wayne would think of that if he knew what was going
on.
As ever
Monica
Virus-free. [18]www.avast.com
--
References
Visible links
1. mailto:hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
2. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
3. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
4. mailto:baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
5. mailto:hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
6. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
7. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
8. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
9. mailto:baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
10. mailto:hodgsonmar...@cs.dartmouth.edu
11. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
12. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
13. mailto:baroque-l...@cs.dartmouth.edu
14. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
15. mailto:mjlh...@tiscali.co.uk
16. mailto:vihuela@cs.dartmouth.edu
17. mailto:hodgsonmar...@yahoo.co.uk
18.
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
Hidden links:
20.
https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail
21.
file://localhost/net/ifs-users/lute-arc/L6132-9786TMP.html#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2
To get on or off this list see list information at
http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
