Alexander, Thank you for this. I think, however, you misunderstand my point: I was simply supporting your view (as understood) that the vihuela may have been made in a variety of body shapes which encompassed fluted and arched backs as well as flat backs - hence 'continuum'. I'm sorry if I did not make that clear. When you've got a minute, perhaps you could address the substantive points raised earlier, including Bermudo on body depth, Dias peghead decoration and possible increase in hand size since the 16thC. Finally, on your interesting point (as I understand it) about wear around the strap/ribbon hole: many early 19thC guitars had such holes but they don't always show wear............... regards, Martyn
Alexander Batov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Martyn Hodgson wrote (Tuesday, June 07, 2005 1:39 PM): >Further to this, I forgot to mention that I do so agree with you that was clearly a continuum of instruments between the 'classical' 16thC vihuela (whatever that was - will we ever know in view of the irritating lack of Spanish iconography) and the 17thC 5 course guitar. In particular, as you say, the Dias is a very good shape to base an instrument on. Perhaps you have your own explanation of the evolution of musical instruments ... something like the Big Bang theory. I can't see a continuum between, say, the classical Oud (whatever that was) and the Chinese pi-pa but at least I can explain why, well ... because I don't know very much about it. But if the available iconography and all the passages (often mentioned on this list) from Bermudo, Covarrubias, vihuelistas' books and the historical accounts (two of them are quoted at the beginning of my last article) are not enough for you to get an idea of the continuum it is simply beyond my reason to understand your point. So maybe next time when I see 17th century hapsichord converted in the mid-18th century into hammered clavier I will just pretend that it was in fact originally a harp with the soundboard attached horisontally ... >Regarding arched/fluted back vihuelas, I recall there's a passage in, I think Bermudo, where he says the depth of a vihuela is 2 or three fingers ie very shallow - has this anything to tell us - perhaps not arched/fluted? Or perhaps his fingers too fat? ... > Finally, I'm still not convinced that the Chambure instrument is such a good model: even if it was a vihuela its very odd body shape must surely make it attypical. However unconvinced you are, important thing to remember though is that the maker of the Chambure knew what he was doing. Regards, Alexander To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html --------------------------------- Yahoo! Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PCcalling worldwide with voicemail --
