> Professor John Griffiths is widely recognised as one of the top two or three > academics specialising in the vihuela. I have just received this from him. > > Rob > > ''The Dias copy is an excellent choice. I know it's controversial, but I > have found a heap of documentation on vihuelas that has not yet been > published, including the names of numerous 16th century makers that are not > listed in Romanillos' book. The documentation that I have assembled leaves > no doubt in my mind that what today we tend to call respectively "guitars" > and "vihuelas" were all made in the same workshops by the same makers using > exactly the same technology and aiming for the same aesthetic result. The > difference in name has more to do with the way the instruments were played. > Romanillos maintains that it is legitimate to continue calling guitars > "vihuela" up until the advent of single strings. In some parts of Latin > America, the guitar is still called vihuela. In the south of Chile, for > example, the instrument is called "vihuela" when used for playing folk music > and "guitar" for playing classical/ concert repertoire.''
Well - it's not very surprising that vihuelas and guitars were made by the same makers, or similar in construction but that doesn't prove that the Diaz guitar was originally a 6-course instrument. And as for as the music which they play, there is not much to chose between that for 4-course and 5-course instruments in the vihuela books and that for 6-course instrument. Incidentally what proof is there that the Quito instrument dates from the early 17th century other than that it is supposed to have belong to S. Mariana de Jesus? Monica > > > > > > To get on or off this list see list information at > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html >
