No.

47 April 1987 Elena Dal Cortivo

FOMRHI Quarterly
BULLETIN 47 2
Bulletin Supplement 7
COMMUNICATIONS
7 8 1 - REVIEWS: The Writings of Joseph Marx: An Anthology, ed G. Ziegler} V I M
786 (Jews Harp Journal) 3; Chanter! The Journal of the Bagpipe Society, v o l . 1 ,
part 2} Leve Langeleiken!, by P. A. Kjeldsberg', March f o r Two Pairs of
Kettledrums, by A. & J . Philidor! NOTICE! Voices St Instruments of the Middle
Ages, by C. Page! English Bowed Instruments from Anglo-Saxon to Tudor
Times, by M. Remnant J . Montagu 6
787 Review! Playing Practice and Instrumentation around 1500 as represented by
Sebastion Virdung's "Musica Getutscht" (Basel 1511) by Gerhard Stradner
R. A. Chiverton 10
788 New Grove D o M I ! ES no.8! G entries E. Segerman 14
789 A catalogue of surviving instruments G. Lewin 16
790 On the zangelmass R. Shann 17
791 Computer programmes for the conversion of cents-hertz R. Goodwin & A, M i l l s 18
792 Thoughts on Comm 755 C. W i l l e t t s 21
793 On chemical analysis of the wood of historical bowed instruments R. Gug 22
794 Inductive meter to determine wood thickness of unopened musical instruments
F. Manders 32
795 The bowed s t r i n g N. Meeus 39
796 Vihuela/Jose Romanillos H.Hope 41
797 The 17th century g i t t e r n and b e l l g i t t e r n D.Gill 42
798 Was the English guitar a guitar or a cittern? S.Walsh 43
799 A method for the construction of the rib template for a lute D.Kershaw 48
800 A technical database-management program for woodwind-instrument makers
A. Powell il
801 A reed-scraping tool D. E. Owen 54
802 The Bassano/HIE(RO).S./!7Venice discussion M. Lyndon-Jones 55
803 Restoration of an early clarinet C.Wells 62
804 "A p r o f i l e of Mr Ling" or English oboe reeds around 1800 G. Burgess 68

FELLOWSHIP OF MAKERS AND RESEARCHERS OF HISTORICAL INSTRUMENTS

Hon. Sec. J . Montagu, c/o Faculty of Music, St. A l d a t e ' s ,

Oxford OX1 1DB, U.K.
bull.47, p.2

FELLOWSHIP of MAKERS and RESEiLRCBEES of HISTOSICAL IISTBUME1TS

Bulletin 47 April, 1987

Nobody has complained that this type size is too small, so I'll stick to it
until someone does so. I have at last got the carbon ribbons, which should
help. What I've not yet got (anybody familiar with computers knows the RSI
syndrome — Seal Soon low, which means anytime in the next six months) is
the new Locoscript which will allow me to put any accents on any letter; I
am Just hoping that it might arrive before I do the List of Members so that
I can give our Czechoslovakian friends and a few others their correct names
without having to remember to write the accents in by hand.
You will find the annual List of Menbez-s with this Q. Check your entries
please and let me know if I've spelled you wrong (each year I catch one or
two when it's too late), left you out of any of the instrument lists you
should be in, and so on. I try to limit all entries to two lines, so a few
of you have a shortened list of instruments in your main entry, but you
should appear everywhere relevant in the organological index. Remember to
use the list — I get a bit shirty sometimes when someone asks me to send
a letter on to someone who is in the list; it makes me feel that I've been
wasting my time. Remember, too, to take it with you when you travel; the
geographical index is there to help you see whom you might like to meet.
There's no DOMI review from me this time; I've been away and don't want to
hold things up while I write it. Anyway, we've got a mass of material this
time and the Q will be long enough without it.
A REQUEST FROM ME: Please send things for FoMRHI to me at the address on
the front of the Q, not to my home (which is in the List of Members). I run
FoMRHI from here (the Bate) and there's always the risk of things getting
lost between the two when they arrive at home.

FURTHER TO: C O M . 770. Peter Holman writes:

The Meaning of 'Consort' - Peter Holman

In the middle of his review of the New Grove DoffI (Coram. 770) under Flpple
Eph lets slip the remark ' I am not going to get people to stop using
"consort" for a set of instruments of one type, ' implying, as Warwick
Edwards and others have done, that 'consort' was only used to describe mixed
ensembles in England In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. While
Edwards assembled a good deal of evidence in his thesis [ The Sources of
Elizabethan Consort Music, (Ph. D. Diss., Cambridge University, 1974) to
show that the word was frequently used in this way, there are sources that
show that the four instrumental groups in the royal music - recorders,
flutes, shawms/trombones and violins - were also called 'consorts.' One of
them was actually quoted by Edwards: on January 1 1605 Cecil gave New Year's
gifts to royal musicians listed as 'the consort of viols,' 'the consort of
flutes' and 'the consort of hoboys and cornetts'. [Edwards, op. clt., I, 361
Others are in the records of the Lord Steward's department in the PRO. In a
list of carts needed to carry the court on progress in 1604 and 1605 CL.S.
13/168, pp. 139, 1841 the 'Muslcons' are given one cart while 'The
Consorte<.s>' are given three. 'Muslcons' are almost certainly the
miscellaneous group of lutenists and singers who performed in the Privy
Chamber, while the 'Consortes' can only be some or all the wind groups
and/or the violin band. Another Lord Steward document [L.S. 13/301 of 1629
deals with food allowances for 'the Consorts' and 'the Voyces when they are
comaunded to Wayte.' Evidently, to the courtiers who dealt with royal
musicians, 'consort' could mean a group playing a set of instruments of one
type.
 bull.47, p. 3

MEETIIGS: There will be another FoMRHI MEDICAL STRUG IISTRUME1T COIFE-

RBICB on Saturday 4th July, here at the Bate Collection. It will start at
iftr 10.30 am for coffee and run till it finishes. It will be based on a dis-
cussion of two recent important books, Chris Page's and Mary Remnant's (see
a short notice of them elsewhere in this Q), but if it's anything like the
last one, it will range far and wide over, and sometimes off, the subject.
Chris will be here, and Mary hopes to come if she can. The other partici-
pants I know of so far are Eph, David Fallows, Laurie Wright and me. It
will help, but it's not essential, if you can let me know if you're coming;
it's only a matter of how many chairs to get out (last time I hadn't asked
the caretaker to get out enough and I did my back fetching more; I'd like
to avoid that this time). Remember our new phone number: 0865-276139.
We owe you an apology over the last one in February; what with illness at
NRI and delays at the printer, you had very little notice of it. It was
very successful, and those who came seem to have enjoyed it very much, suf-
ficiently so that we decided to run this one in July.
Do please remember that FoMRHI Conferences are not confined to Manchester
and Oxford; there are plenty of other places where there are enough of you
within reach of each other to run one. You can either do it with your own
mailing in your own area, or let me know long enough in advance to get it
into the Bulletin (that's the better way, so that people further away can
travel to you if they want to).
AMIS have asked me to let you know that their 17th AGM will be at the Ken-
neth G.Fiske Museum of Musical Instruments, Claremont College, Claremont,
California, on March 3-6, 1988 (ie next year). For further information con-
tact Andre Larson or Margaret Banks at the Shrine to Music Museum, Vermil-
lion, SD (605-677-5306). Albert Rice, the Curator of the Fiske Museum, has
been sending me lists of their instruments, and there should be plenty of
interesting things to see as well as people to listen to and to talk to.

EIBIBITIOI: The Eighth Exhibition of Early Musical Instruments will be at

the Horticultural Hall in London on Friday to Sunday, 30th October to 1st
November, 10.00-6.30 (to 5.30 on Sunday). We shall have a stand there as
usual (Richard Wood has promised me a small corner somewhere) and I hope to
see many of you there. Any of you who want to exhibit should get on to
Richard as soon as possible (Early Music Shop, 28 Sunbridge Road, Bradford
BD1 2AE) if you've not heard from him already. The normal small stand, 7 x
7 foot, costs £2.30 per square foot plus VAT — too much, even with the
20% discount for previous exhibitors, for FoMRHI which does not reckon to
make money by getting new members or by giving you an easy way to renew
your subscriptions, which is why Richard has very kindly offered a small
corner. I've often heard complaints that it's not worth the cost because of
little or no sales, but remember that this is the chance for the public to
compare all the different makes, and to order later the ones they liked.

COURSES, ETC: There are three Bate Collection Weekends in the pipeline:
JAVAIESE GAMELAI on May 16th 4 17th, for anyone who wants to try playing
the very approachable music of another culture — advance booking is
essential as there is only a limited number of places at a gamelan.
REIAISSAICE FLUTES for Players and Makers with Lewis Jones on May 30th 4
3lst — advance booking is useful but not essential for this and the next.
BAROQUE * CLASSICAL OBOES, mainly for Players, with David Relchenberg,
Lorraine Wood and Dick Earle, on lovenber 7th a 8th. Reed making will cer-
tainly be covered; how much instrument making will be covered will, as
always, depend on who's there and what they want.
b u l l . 4 7 , p. 4

They a l l s t a r t a t 10.30 f o r c o f f e e on t h e Saturday and f i n i s h , u s u a l l y , be-

tween 5 and 6 on the Sunday — time enough t o g e t home. The c o s t i s the
usual £15 for the Weekend or £10 for e i t h e r day (reduced for f u l l - t i m e
s t u d e n t s , u s u a l l y t o £10 and £ 7 . 5 0 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .

The Centre de Musique Anclenne Geneve i s running a whole l o t of courses.

Some appear t o be l e c t u r e c o u r s e s (eg Culture Musicale); o t h e r s are p r a c t i -
c a l (eg Enseables; Initiation a l'accordage des clavecins; Pratique des
Instruments a anche de la Renaissance; Cuivres anciens, e t c ) . Some are
weekends, some are longer. If you're i n t e r e s t e d , t h e i r address i s 8 rue
Charles-Bonnet, CH-1206 Geneve, Switzerland.

The F e s t i v a l Musica Antica a Magnano, whose p r e s i d e n t i s our member Bernard

Brauchli, i s g i v i n g a s e r i e s of Five Candlelight Concerts on August 22nd
and 28th and September 3rd, 4th and 12th. If you're t h i n k i n g of I t a l y as a
p o s s i b l e summer h o l i d a y venue, bear i t in mind. Their address i s Via Roma
48, 1-13050 Magnano ( V e r c e l l i ) , I t a l y .

THUGS 0 1 OFFBB, ETC: John Wilson has a spare s e t of photocopies of Qs 1-11

which Uta Henning made for him. They are c o p i e s of the Q a s i t s t a n d s , with
pp.2 _ 3 on one s h e e t , 4 & 5 on the next and s o on. John wanted t o s t a p l e
them up, s o he rexeroxed them (2 & 55, 3 & 54, or whatever) and a s he f e e l s
i t would be wasteful and ungrateful j u s t t o t o s s U t a ' s c o p i e s a f t e r a l l the
t r o u b l e she went t o , t h e y ' r e a v a i l a b l e t o the f i r s t comer who a s k s him for
them for the c o s t of t h e i r postage.
Ardal Powell i s now importing Myford l a t h e s i n t o the USA under an arrange-
ment with the f a c t o r y t h a t a l l o w s him t o s e l l them for only s l i g h t l y more
than l i s t p r i c e , s e v e r a l hundred d o l l a r s cheaper than the b i g firms. He can
a l s o supply Emco FB2 v e r t i c a l / h o r i z o n t a l m i l l i n g / d r i l l i n g machines. He
o f f e r s f e l l o w FoMRHI members a further 2.5% d i s c o u n t . He has s e t up a sepa-
r a t e company from h i s flute-making b u s i n e s s t o handle t h i s , so p l e a s e con-
t a c t Barnes Brook P r e c i s i o n Machinery, POBox 341, Lee, MA 01238, t e l : (413)
243-4826.
There's a new computerised firm c a l l e d Databoard for buying and s e l l i n g Mu-
sical instrunents etc. They send computer p r i n t - o u t s t o any enquirers.
Commission r a t e s are not t o o bad (from 0% for t h i n g s under £50 t o £60 for
t h i n g s c o s t i n g between £10,000 & £ 2 5 , 0 0 0 ) . If you want t o t r y them, t h e i r
address i s 75 London S t , Faringdon, Oxon SI7 7AG and they are o n - l i n e from
1.00 t o 7 . 3 0 pm, Mondays t o Fridays on 0367-20093.

REQUESTS: Paul Madgwick i s trying to get bold of a copy of the article by

Osmond entitled 'The optimum Breath Pressure For the Recorder' that appear-
ed in Recorder A MUsic Vol. V no. 7. Can anyone provide him with a copy?
Dave Weidon w r i t e s :
CLAVICHORD RESEARCH
I am u n d e r t a k i n g a m a j o r s u r v a y of h i s t o r i c a l c l a v i c h o r d s a s a
r e s e a r c h f e l l o w of t h e D e p a r t m e n t of M u s i c a l I n s t r u m e n t T e c h n o l o g y
a t t h e L o n d o n C o l l e g e o f F u r n i t u r e , w i t h f u n d s p r o v i d e d by t h e
L e v e r h u l m e T r u s t . The o b j e c t i s t o c r e a t e a d a t a b a s e c o n t i n i n g
a s much i n f o r m a t i o n a s p o s s i b l e a b o u t a l l e x t a n t h i s t o r i c a l
i n s t r u m e n t s . W h i l e some o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n t h e p u b l i c domain
a g r e a t d e a l o f i t i s n o t . I f e e l s u r e t h a t t h e r e a r e meny more
i n s t r u m e n t s h i d d e n a w a y t h a n a r e on v i e w .
I w o u l d l i k e t o a s k a n y museum or p r i v a t e p e r s o n w i t h a c l a v i c h o r d
t o c o n t a c t me. I w o u l d a l s o be g r a t e f u l f o r a n y who knows o f t h e
p r e s e n c e o f a c l a v i c h o r d t o b r i n g t h i s s t u d y t o t h e a t t e n t i o n of
t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p e r s o n . Any a d d i t i o n a l p u b l i c i t y f o r t h e p r o j e c t
w o u l d be e s p e c i a l l y w e l c o m e .
 bull.47, p. 5

it is my intention to make this data base generally available at

the end of the study, but I can assure private individuals who
contact me that their names and addresses will not be published
without their consent.
Please write to:-Mr. David Weldon
London College of Furniture
Department of Musical Instrument Technology
41 Commercial Road
London El
England

MUSEUMS: Arnold Myers has sent me a copy of the Progress Report for 1986 of
the Edinburgh Collection of Historic Musical Instrunents. Of particular
interest is that they have acquired an Anton Schnitzer sackbut of 1594 and
two early English clarinets, one by John Hale and the other marked Mursus
as on the Stanesby bassoon, among other things.
By the time you read this I hope that the Bate Collection will at last have
16 proper postcards (black _ white photos). The problem has been do I spend
£700 on something that might make us a profit, but equally might not if
they don't sell, or do I buy an instrument; I have at last decided that
this is something we really ought to have. Pictures include the Bressan
treble _ 4th flute, the Galpin _ a Milhouse Newark oboe, a Mil house Newark
& a Kusder bassoon, the Tauber contrabassoon, the Lavigne oboes, the Boehm
conical _ cylinder flutes, a Courtois hand horn & a Rodenbostel trumpet,
the Goudot jeune 2-valve _ the Callcott omnitonic horns, the Key 7-key ser-
pent played at the Battle of Waterloo, the Zetsche tuba, the Hofmaster
horns from the Zoffany Sharp Family, the Miller clarinets from the same
picture, the three ex-Morley-Pegge 1814 trombones, the Halari valve trom-
bone, and a couple of mixed woodwind: Streitwolf flute, Schlegel oboe &
Baumann clarinet, and Bressan/Harris treble recorder & flutes by Bizey,
Schuchart, Potter senior _ Bernard. I hope that they'll appeal to the gen-
eral public, which is why they are rather a mixed bag. They cost 20p each,
the same price as the Miniplans, which will remain available.

MY TRAVELS: I hope to be in Moscow and Leningrad with the Galpin Society

at the beginning of September, and look forward to meeting some of our
Soviet members then. I had hoped to be in East Berlin with the ICTM in
early August, but the costs were too high. There is an archaeomusicology
conference in Liege in early December, and a possible lecture tour in
Poland later that month. Nearer home, I shall hope to see many of you at
the Horticultural Hall in November.

DEADLINE FOR IEIT Q: July 1st for things for the Bulletin, please; if you
are coming to the Strings Conference on July 4th, you can bring Comms with
you, but if I'm slick the Bulletin will be finished by then so that Eph can
take it back with him.

That's the lot for now. Enjoy the spring.

Jeremy Montagu
Hon.Sec.FoMRHI
FoMRHI Co_D_ 761 Jeremy Montagu

Review of: The Writings of Josef Marx: An Anthology, Vol.1 compiled _ edi-
ted by Gloria Ziegler. IcGlnnls & Marx, POBox 229, Planetarium
Station. lew York NY 10024. 160 pp.

I first met Jo Marx (I always thereafter thought of him as Jo, but I never
called him that; he may not have been tall, but he was never diminutive. He
had great dignity, and was always Josef) in 1970 when I was Visiting Pro-
fessor at Grinnell College in Iowa. I had been rung up from New York and
invited to appear on the Today Show, an early morning television programme
that thought so well of itself that it expected people to travel 1500 miles
or so, at their own expense, to be seen on it. Brought up by our own dear
BBC, which will as a matter of course pay your expenses (and often a fee)
if you only have to cross the road, I had been about to tell them to take a
running jump when the college phone operator broke in to tell me not to be
hasty, and in fact the college shared the Today Show's opinion sufficiently
to pay my fare to New York and to put me up at the Hilton because it was
only a stone's throw from the studios where I had to be at 5 am to prepare
for a 7 am live broadast. In the event they hardly got their money's worth
because the programme, which does an odd leap-frog across the country with
it all going out live in the Eastern time-zone, the second hour going out
live in the next zone, followed by the first hour on tape, the whole thing
on tape in the original order in zone three, reverse order in zone four and
so on, did something funny, and my bit was cut out in favour of a Thanks-
giving Day parade in the Iowa zone, and so nobody anywhere near Grinnell
saw their college getting a boost anyway.
I wrote to Jo, whom I'd known from his famous GSJ article 'The Tone of the
Baroque Oboe' (which is in this anthology), and if I remember rightly from
some correspondence as Galpin Society Honorary Secretary, which I then was,
and asked if we could meet. He was a bit cautious, very sensibly not want-
ing to get stuck with this strange Englishman for longer than necessary,
and suggested a down-town lunch rendezvous (at an excellent Argentinian
restaurant, my first experience of the quality of their meat). In fact we
got on like a house on fire, had a protracted lunch, spent the afternoon
touring his favourite haunts and possible sources for odd instruments (we
both had the collecting mania in its most extreme form — the desire for
instruments of all sorts which would teach or show us anything we did not
know already) and we eventually wound up at his apartment about three hours
after Angelina, his wife, had expected him back alone.
It had been a wonderful day, and when a few years later he came over to
England on a concert tour, his first visit for thirty or more years, he
stayed with us in Dulwich. We gave a party for him so that he could meet as
many as possible of the friends that he had made by correspondence but had
never met in person. Not only did most of them come, but they all brought
their oboes, and there was our sitting room awash with all the best baroque
oboes in the country. Philip Bate was there with the anonymous Galpin, the
oldest oboe in this country, Eric Halfpenny with his Stanesby senior, James
MacGillivray, Guy Oldham, Chris Bradshaw, and I'm sure others and other
oboes that at this range I can't remember but I'm not sure that it didn't
include both the Horniman Stanesbys. An incredible occasion. One of its
results was that when Eric came to sell his Stanesby, I wrote to Josef and
asked if he wanted me to bid for it for him. His reply is reprinted in this
anthology under the title of 'An Old Collector', a nostalgic statement of
his philosophy as a collector at the end of a long life as player, scholar,
teacher and collector.
But enough of my past history. Josef was not only a first rate oboist but
also a publisher. He published a good deal of material from the baroque
and claslcal periods (see Coram. 767 in the last Q and another in this one
for two examples), but he also published, and played, much modern music
which he thought should be better known, especially the music of Stefan
Wolpe. I won't say that he had no regard for profit, but very certainly his
first criterion was 'is it worthy of publication?' — he never published or
played anything that he did not believe in heart and soul, a publishing
policy which Angelina has continued since his death.
One of her publications is this anthology, a collection of Josef's articles
from various sources, including record sleeves, lectures and reviews as
well as periodicals such as GSJ (not FoMRHIQ — he joined us in 1976, but
he never wrote for us before he died in 1978). One of the more interesting
articles, 'Battle Page', is a follow-up to a review of Evelyn Rothwell's
OUP book on Oboe Technique, a detailed defence against her strictures of
the techniques of continuous (circular) breathing and of double tonguing.
The article 'Murder by Encyclopaedia' is a typically spirited defence of a
neglected composer whom Josef thought worthy of proper attention. Of more
immediate relevance to us are his article, already mentioned, 'The Tone of
the Baroque Oboe' which appeared in GSJ 4 in 1951 and is still often refer-
red to today, and his 'Preliminary Report on the Baroque Oboe', a fascina-
ting account of his first experiments with playing the thing on American
television. Josef was also a great teacher, not only an oboe teacher but
on organology in general, and several of his lectures and other teaching
articles are here.
Josef was a great man by whom I was proud to be regarded as a friend and a
colleague. If you want to sample his character and the range and quality
of his his work, here is your opportunity. For myself, I can only say that
I treasure his memory, that I value this anthology highly, and that I can
only hope that it will be followed by further volumes of his writings.

BULLETIN SUPPLEMENT E. Segerman

As w i t h last year, t h i s A p r i l issue i s of bumper size. I suspect that contributors have

rather more time than usual over the Christmas holidays and the January submission
date is too early t o get the finished work i n . To keep costs down i t has been suggested
that I hold back my Comms f o r the next issue. This I have done, except that since the
number of pages must be a multiple of 4, I could include my DoMI ES 8 w i t h no increase
in cost. What I've held back i s a rave review of Page's new book, a cool review o f
Crookes's Praetorius translation and a Comm on the consort which w i l l need a b i t o f
r e w r i t i n g t o address i t s e l f directly t o the contribution of Peter Holman on B u l l 47 p.2
above.

At the FoMRHI Conference in Oxford no-one took the responsibility f o r w r i t i n g up a

summary. The apparently hot issue of rounded bridges on medieval f i d d l e s (which I had
hoped had been cooled some by my discussion in Comm 770) was largely deferred u n t i l
people could read Remnant's new book. The same approach was taken t o t h e
accompaniment o f monophonic song w i t h respect t o Page's new book. The most
substantial contribution was David Fallows's summary of a c.1400 Northern I t a l i a n poem
"la Prudensani" which included many details about music making. Other topics
considered were! instruments in Christian worship, the v a l i d i t y of iconographic
evidence, the structure of medieval recorders, and the a b i l i t i e s of medieval instruments
to i m i t a t e (and therefore s u b s t i t u t e for) the voice. Much of what was said could and
should be developed into publications. Most of the participants found the discussion
very s t i m u l a t i n g , and we decided on another conference on 4 July (see B u l l e t i n p.3
above),
2

FoMRHI Co: 78Z Jeremy Montagu

Review of: Vlerundzwandzigsteljahrschrift der Internationalen Maultrommel-

vlrtuosengenossenschaft 3, 1987, 930 Talwern Ct, Iowa City, IA
52240, USA.

The latest issue of this spasmodical has arrived Just in time to be noted
here briefly. Briefly because I've not yet read it, but only skimmed it
through. There was a longer review of no. 2 a year ago (Comm. 691), and a
briefer note on no. 1 in Q 31 (April, 1983). In this issue there are what
look like several important and useful articles on Soviet Union jews harps,
and a very useful survey-review of ten Jews harps tutors. The article on
'The Jew's Harp in the Soviet Union', with illustrations from, and text
translated from, the Vertkov et al. Atlas looks excellent.
This Journal is highly recommended. The subscription to nos. 4 & 5 will
cost $12.00, and a reprint of nos.1-3 in the grossly inaccurately called
'perfect binding' (though I'll say for this that none of my separate num-
bers have fallen apart yet, but I'm sure that you all have had experience
with this system) will cost about $15.00 and in hard cover about $25.00 —
don't send money now for the reprints but tell Frederick Crane at the above
address that you'll want them when available; he may only print the number
ordered, so don't leave it to chance. You can, indeed should, send the
money now for nos. 4 & 5, and you are asked to do so by check (sic) on an
American bank or by postal money order.

FoMRHI Coi 78 3 Jeremy Montagu

Beview of: Chanter: The Journal of the Bagpipe Society, vol.1, part 2,
Autunn/Winter '86-87.

This too has Just arrived, and I can now tell you how to get it: The
membership secretary is Dave Van Doom, 49 Osborne Road, Hornchurch RM11
1EX, and the editor is Peter Stacey, 62 Seymour Street, Splott, Cardiff CF2
2NS. Either can supply it, but Peter hasn't told me what it costs, nor
what the subscription to their society is. Again at a quick skim, it looks
like a useful journal if you're interested in bagpipes. Unlike VIM (the
acronym for the jews harp Journal above), there is usually (judging from
two issues) a maker's section and some music — it's a much more overtly
player's Journal.

FoMRHI Coi 784 Jeremy Montagu

Review of: Leve Langelelken!, Rlngve Museui Trondheij Exhibition

Catalogue, 1987.

Again at a quick glance an excellent and well-illustrated historical

booklet by Peter Andreas KJeldsberg on this type of zither, but I warn you
it's in Norwegian. There is also available a record/cassette "Pa
Langeleik" (Nkr.85) and a full-size construction drawing of a langeleik by
Leif Lechen (Nkr.20). Peter hasn't told me what the Catalogue costs, but
he's In the List of Members if you want one.

Apologies to him, to Peter Stacey, and to Frederick Crane for such brief
and cursory descriptions of their good work.

_fe
FoMRHI Conn. 7 3 5 Jeremy Montagu

Review of: March for Two Pairs of Kettledrums, Andre h Jacques Philidor,
McGinnis _ Marx, 1984 (second printing).

The solo or duet repertoire for timpani was never extensive, neither in the
1680s, when this work was written, nor in 1956 when Caldwell Titcomb first
published it in GSJ 9, nor yet today. It is a surprisingly effective piece
of music (I don't think this is just a timpanist's prejudiced opinion) and
a rare and interesting example of music for this instrument. It is scored
for one pair on E and high G and another on C and low G, and of course
itshould be played with wooden sticks on smallish drums with thick skins; I
have heard it played on modern timpani with felt sticks when much of the
rhythm and quality went for nothing). The Philidor brothers were members
of Lulli's band at the Court of Le Roi Soleil, and Andr_ was the King's li-
brarian. This work survives in the Royal Library at Versailles in his beau-
tiful handwriting, and my only regret with this edition is that it could
not be a facsimile of his original manuscript. This is a piece that all
timpanists should have in their library, both for their own pleasure and as
a teaching work.

FoMRHI Conn. 7 8 6 Jeremy Montagu

Notice of: Christopher Page, Voices A Instruments of the Middle Ages, Dent,
316 pp, £20, and Mary Remnant, English Bowed Instruments from
Anglo-Saxon to Tudor Times, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 182 pp, 155
illus, £40.

This isn't a proper review, mainly for lack of time on my return from
Jerusalem already after the deadline for this Quarterly, but I must draw
your attention as soon as possible to these two excellent books. Both
cover a•similar field, and both are essential reading for any of us who are
interested in early string instruments, for their approach and their
coverage are quite different.
Christopher Page's book is a superb scholarly discussion of the role of
string instruments, and of which instruments they were, involved in the
music of the mediaeval period, covering also their terminology, stringing
and tuning. I am lost in admiration for the excellence of the writing, the
continual felicities of phraseology, and the author's skill in making so
readable a discussion of so complex a subject.
Mary Remnant cannot wear her knowledge and scholarship so lightly, but she
approaches the subject from a player's point of view. She has studied the
iconographic evidence, a vast amount of which she gives us in her well-
chosen plates, with an eagle eye which can discern the smallest shreds of
evidence to help us in our understanding of the instruments.
Both Eph and I will return to these books in more detail in July, and they
will form the subject of the next FoMRHI Conference here in Oxford on July
4th (see the note on this in the Bulletin herewith), but any of you working
with string instruments should, by then, have acquired them for yourselves
if you possibly can, or at least have besieged your nearest library for
them.
I hope that both you and the authors will excuse so hasty a preliminary
notice.
to

FoMRtn Cow,*- 787

Playing P r a c t i c e and Instrumentation around 1500 as represented by
Sebastian Virdung's "Musica Getutscht" (Basel 1511)
by Gerhard Stradner

R.A. Chiverton

This book is Volume 4 of the Researches into Early Music History

published by the Institute for Musical Scholarship of the University
of Vienna. It is in two parts; the first cover;? Virdung's life very
briefly, then discusses the three editions (Al, A2 and B) and the 15
known copies of his book and then proceeds to a very full discussion
(some 400 pages) of the instruments described in the book. The second
part (a separate volume) contains some 2000 footnotes, a discussion of
tablature and a comparison of the versions of "0 Heilige", a large
bibliography (mentioning the FoMRHI quarterly) and an index.
There is much detailed discussion, to which it would be difficult
to do justice without writing possibly at unacceptable length, but
Herr Stradner helps by providing a summary of his major points at
the end of the first volume. They include the following:
(a) geometrical investigation of the woodcuts can yield new insights
into the employment of some of the instruments.
(b) Virdung's system of classification of instruments largely corr-
esponds to the Hornbostel-Sachs system. The four groups are there in
Virdung, ie before Luscinius.
(c) Virdung gives the first Western evidence of sympathetic strings.
(d) The clavicytherium may have preceded the harpsichord.
(e) The short octave was probably not around in Virdung's day.
(f) Virdung may have chosen g2 as the upper end of the keyboard to
be able to use a tablature consisting of the 23 letters of the alphabet.
(g) Virdung uses the Guidonian soale for theory but letter tablature
for practice.
(h) Virdung notes eight Clavichord types differing generally in com-
pass. The most important has a compass of F-g2. The virginal, with
the same compass, has metal strings. The drawing called "Clauicimbalu"
belongs to the "Harfentiv", which was a harp-virginal using gut strings
with hooks to cause a buzz. The comDass was H - d3.
(i) In Virdung's time, the tunings of individual members of a family
of fretted instruments belonged to a iundamental tuning valid for
 II

the whole family. Starting from a particular instrument, larger and

smaller versions were provided with "extended notes", ie a lower
string provided a downward extension and so on.
(j) The rebec was called a "little" fiddle (Geige), because its pitch
was low for its size and string length.
(k) Virdung provides the first evidence for wind instruments with
more than eight fingerholes. Afiifcr the six holes, the thumbhole pro-
bably came next and then the little finger hole. Recorders were pro-
bably bored cylindrically but had a slightly reduced final aperture.
Around 1500 they were used in their upper ranges.
(1) The tower horn (T_rmerhorn) was a slide trumpet with an angle of
60 degrees between its loops.
(m) The pitch in the 15th century was a minor third higher than now.
This is connected with instruments having six fingerholes, and is
illustrated by the Halberstadt organ. In the 16th century, the pitch
dropped by a tone, possibly in connection with the seventh fingerhole.
In the 17th and l8th centuries the pitch dropped by a further tone,
possibly due to the gradual take-over by stringed instruments.
(n) The tuning fork was known in Southern Germany in the 14th century.
LuHZ-
(o) The Old German,Tablature is valid for the whole of the desired
family of instruments. Changing the size of the instrument requires
no change in the tablature. This tablature did not evolve but was
invented, by Paumann.
There are, of course, a lot more points than these, but I am not
sufficiently knowledgeable to assess their relative importance, and
have therefore only selected some which I suspect may be somewhat
controversial and thus heighten interest in this very impressive book.
It is not, however, merely the conclusions reached which are of inter-
est, but also the arguments deployed and the incidental information
bestowed on the way through them. I had never realised, for example,
that the practical upper size for a clavichord with eight strings
tuned to the same note is three octaves. It had not occurred to me
to consider whether scales were looked on primarily as going up or
down (in Virdung up precedes down - have I read somewhere that Greek
scales went down?).
It may, therefore, be of interest if I try to show the variety
of thought which leads to the Ergebnisse soma of which I reflect so
baldly above.
 To do so, I turn to the section on the recorder, one of the three
main instruments in Virdung's analysis (the others being the lute nd
the viol). Herr Stradner notes the characteristic in Virdung's treat-
ment that the sizes he discusses are separated by a fifth, which en-
ables the same tablature to be used for all three. This, however,
generates difficulties when other sizes are added because of the re-
moter keys in which these recorders are pitched, and the author notes
the benefits in Praetorius' separation by fifths and fourths. The
basic concept of universalness appears elsewhere in the book. For exam-
ple there is a middle or "home" lute, to which an upper string is
added to produce a higher lute, say a descant to a tenor, while the
bass to this tenor has a string added at the bottom. Discussion of
the tablature signs O (bottom note), O (all holes open) and O
(upper register) concludes that they are hard to explain given Vir-
dung's use of numbers for the holes which are to be opened. Were
these numbers used for the holes which are to be closed, the three
symbols could be explained more easily. This leads to the interest-
ing conclusion that Virdung did not know how to play the recorder.
It is pointed out that he did not know how to play the lute either
(Lenneberg, JAMS 10, 1957)5

A further consequence of Virdung's tablature for recorder is

that it is unsuitable for other wind instruments. A point made here
is that instruments of the period with a little finger hole should
be considered ae having their range extended downwards compared
with those having six holes. Herr Stradner considers the recorder
tablature to have been taken from another in which the holes to be
closed (and hence the closing fingers) were numbered, suitable for
instruments with 6-8 finger holes. Further arguments lead the author
to the theory that this tablature, involving ten symbols (1-7,O,O
and /e\ ), did not evolve but was introduced as a wholef in this con-
text it is suggested that the little finger hole was a development
which followed the development of the thumb hole and overblowing.
If one uses the fingering chart used by Virdung on surviving
16c. instruments, says Herr Stradner, citing shawms, pommers and
dulcians, one finds that between fingering 1 (all fingers down) and
3 (two lowest off) there is a major third in Virdung but a minor
third in these instruments. This constitutes a rearrangement of
 13

fingerholes. The author quotes a personal communication about two

crumhorns pitched a tone apart, one with the major third and one
with the irinor third fingering. The latter fingering makes it
easier to play in a key a tone higher than the subsisting key, with
the advantage of a higher top note /~©f A. Baines, Woodwind Instru-
ments and their History, p270__7. He considers that the two finger-
ings developed at about the same time.
It would be easy to go on giving examples of the imaginative
care with which Herr Stradner examines details which many might have
taken for granted, since there are so many, but one must stop some-
where to sum up. A judgement as to the validity of some of the ar-
guments and conclusions in this book must await a greater expertise
than mine, but it seems to me of great value in the intelligent
questioning which produces answers of absorbing interest from
apparently unrewarding material. In particular, I find I now regard
Virdung with much greater respect than before, impressed by what
appears to have been a synthesis-creating approach of a very high
order. At the same time I get a picture of a synthesis formulated
not so very long before the growing requirements of composers and
the development of instrument technology began pushing the limits
of what was possible out in all directions, as if Virdung were look-
ing back rather than forwards.
I believe I have not misrepresented Herr Stradner apart from
the effects of abbreviation, but such complex matters "clothed in
the decent obscurity of a foreign language" can give rise to mis-
interpretation - if so, blame me first. I would be happy to comment
further on what must be an important boo_i in response to queries,
or to give a hand if someone else would like to tackle it.

(_on+mu__ -fvow, p \~l Co>*|i*| 7 9 o

Footnote: I append here (since it clearly does not merit a Comm number of i t s own) a
comment on comm. 777, Nicholas Meeus asks if the alleged contrasting purpose of the
Ruckers double is for song accompaniment, No, a contrasting instrument would be useful
for many s o r t s of music - particularly perhaps solo music. On the other hand a
transposing feature would not be made available for solo pieces, rather for
accompaniment and ensemble work, so Nicholas' efforts in the earlier Comm. were
rnissdirected.
/4-

7
FoMRHI Comm &^ E. Segerman

New Grove DOMi: ES No 8! G entries

Gaqliano (by C. Beare)

This i s another example of the omission of double basses amongst the products of
famous makers.

Geiq (by D.D. Boyden)

The author unfortunately carefully avoids mentioning the fact t h a t t h i s term ever
applied t o a rebec-shaped instrument.

Gerle Georq (Anon)

An i n t e r e s t i n g v i o l by him i s in the Brussels Conservatoire Museum.

G i t t e r n (by L. Wright)

The influence of the bowed and plucked 15th century vihuela on the development of the
Renaissance guitern i s not mentioned. I t was possibly t h i s instrument, not the
Renaissance guitar (as Wright writes) t h a t was T i n c t o r i s ' s " v i o l a " . I have seen two
drawings from about 1500 showing what by dress seems t o be a comedian plucking a
4-course f i d d l e , so t h i s i s possibly another direction of influence, especially for the
peg-plate of the Renaissance g u i t a r .

Besides the lute-shaped g u i t a r s t h a t existed in the 17th century onwards, one should
note t h a t a bulging ribbed back which was common on Renaissance and baroque guitars
could i n i t i a l l y have been considered as a compromise between the flat-backed design and
the o r i g i n a l g i t t e r n round back.

The c i t t e r n - b o d i e d 17th century g u i t t e r n needs an entry on i t s own.

Guitar ( 1 , 2 , 6 , 3 Anon} 3, 4 by H, T u r n b u l l / J . T y l e r ; 7 by T. Bacon)

1. Structure of the modern classical quitart The l i s t of materials in "instruments of the

highest q u a l i t y " implies more standardization than modern makers actually f o l l o w . I
doubt whether the "Spanish method [ o f joining the neck t o the body] i s more d i f f i c u l t to
achieve" than the d o v e t a i l method. The quote continues: "but i t r e s u l t s in a stronger
joint ... and i s hence preferable as t h i s i s an area of great t e n s i o n " . Too many people
today equate "stronger" w i t h " p r e f e r a b l e " . A well-made dovetail joint i s certainly
adequate f o r normal use. The only advantage of additional strength i s to hold against
the unusually high forces of an accident. There i s a small range of forces in which a
stronger joint w i l l hold w i t h no other damage, while a weaker joint w i l l break. In most
accidents the force is larger than t h i s range, and i t w i l l cause damage elsewhere which
can be more d i f f i c u l t to repair. Most stringed instrument designs in the past have made
sure t h a t p i n t s were not made stronger than necessary, The reglueing of opened joints
is preferable to reglueing broken wood. Design for ease of repair is just as important in
musical instruments as i t is in motor cars.

2. O r i g i n s ! The assumption in t h i s entry i s t h a t guitar ancestors were plucked

instruments w i t h a shape similar to the Renaissance g u i t a r . This c r i t e r i o n is confused
by the medieval fiddle often having such a shape, and we do not know to what extent
fiddles were plucked as w e l l as bowed (some plucking, such as pizzicato on the modern
v i o l i n , would be expected). Better c r i t e r i a are the tuning and the names given to the
instruments at the time. Following Wright would be preferable.
 15

3. The four-course guitar! This entry omits an apparent change in the French
instrument between the f l u r r y of published books in the early 1550s and the Phalese
book in 1570. The earlier instrument was just l i k e the Spanish one w i t h a neck long
enough f o r 10 f r e t s and a pegplate with pegs entering from the back. The later
instrument had the neck shortened to accommodate only 8 f r e t s (like the lute) and had a
curved pegbox (like the I t a l i a n viola a mano). Phalese's tuning instructions were an
adaptation of Vreedmann's instructions for tuning the c i t t e r n that Phalese published
two years earlier. As they stand, they don't make sense. The most probably sources of
the errors are careless execution of the editor's instructions by the typesetter and lack
of subsequent proof-reading. This would lead to missing words and neglecting t o make
some of the indicated changes from the cittern instructions. As shown in LSJ X V I
(1974), making two such neglected changes and replacing a few words from Vreedmann
that were l e f t out makes Phalese's instructions perfectly clear. They lead t o the same
tuning as the tablatures imply, and indicate that the 3rd course was an octave pair
(making the high octave s t r i n g a minor t h i r d higher in pitch than the f i r s t course). Many
more errors of more drastic types would have to be assumed to end up w i t h a unison
third course, so t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , leading to an octave third course, i s historically
much to be preferred. The shortening of the neck and octaving of the t h i r d course could
well be r e l a t e d , with the body size and course pitches remaining approximately the same.
I t i s a pity that Tyler has been unable to appreciate the logic and historical
appropriateness of this solution to the problem of Phalese's instructions. He has
preferred to ignore these instructions, dismissing them as incompetent. This is poor
historical method. I suspect that there is a bias behind t h i s , trying to keep the history
of musical instruments as neat and simple as possible. This makes l i f e easier for the
early musician, but i t does the study of history an injustice.

Another omission is that there are occasional pieces in the French publications that call
for a l u t e - l i k e tuning with the t h i r d course tuned down a semitone. When Praetorius
reported g u i t a r - l i k e tunings for the small English c i t t e r n , he called t h i s l u t e - l i k e tuning
"corda v a l l e " . This is d i f f e r e n t from the French guitar books in which "corde avalee"
involved standard tuning for the 3rd course but a tone-lower tuning for the 4 t h .
Praetorius's informant was more of a g u i t a r i s t than a c i t t e r n i s t , and probably knew the
French books. His use of the term was inconsistent with t h e i r s , but not necessarily in
error. The term could well have meant "my favourite lowered-string scordatura".

The statement that " I t is not clear whether t h i s instrument [ t h a t Playford published
music f o r ] , the g i t t e r n , is wire-strung l i k e the c i t t e r n or whether the term ' g i t t e r n ' was
s t i l l used at t h i s late date to indicate the guitar" is puzzling. There i s no evidence for
the l a t t e r and clear evidence (Playford' i l l u s t r a t i o n to s t a r t with) for the former. I s
this another example of the above-mentioned bias?

7, Variants of the classical guitar! I t is not mentioned that the action of the Flamenco
guitar is often lower than that of the classical guitar. A slapping of the s t r i n g s against
the f r e t s can be desired, as was the case with the early 16th century l u t e (as mentioned
in the "Capirola" lute ms).

I t is stated that the arched-top s t e e l - s t r u n g guitar was f i r s t commercially developed in

the USA in the 1920s. In the same author's entry on Gibson i t i s stated that Gibson was
making arched-top guitars w i t h oval soundholes before the turn of the century, and that
in 1923-4, Gibson marketed the f i r s t f - h o l e guitar. Were not the earlier arched-top
guitars 'commercially developed'?
16
FoMRHI Comm. Ifd Greg Lewin

A Catalogue of Surviving Instruments

The comments of Nicolas and Jeremy about the possibility of a

catalogue of surviving instruments [ bull. *l6, p3] arrived on my
breakfast table just as I was considering writing to FoMRHIQ to
suggest a similar project.

As part of my investigation of the history and repertoire of the

curtal/dulcian/fagott I have built up a computerised data-base of
information concerning renaissance and baroque wind instruments.
I have found this to have been so useful, and the computer method to
be so easy and flexible, that I have been considering the possibility
of beginning other data bases.

The idea of a catalogue of surviving historical instruments seems to

be ideally suited to the computer method. The advantages that such a
catalogue would have include the ability for complex searching, eg.
"Find all the instruments by a particular maker which are now in the
U.K." or "Find all recorders made of ivory" etc. A computer catalogue
would also be as up to date as is possible and could easily originate
text for printed catalogues and updates. A further advantage would be
the ability for serious researchers to gain access to the most up-to-
date information on the computer by 'phone from their own computer
terminals.

The main problem with the idea is the scale of information gathering
involved. If this was to be the work of one researcher it would
probably be some years before a data-base started now would be of much
use. If FoMRHI members would be willing to act as a network to pass on
details of any instruments which they come across, we ought to be able
to amass a considerable amount of material in a much shorter time. I
presume that most people who are collecting information about
instruments are probably members of FoMRHI or are in contact with a
member.

The equipment needed to maintain a check-list type catalogue would not

be extreme. The main task would be setting up and maintaining the
catalogue. I would be happy do this using my present equipment and
software.

My idea at present, would be to build up a check-list of surviving

instruments made up to about 1800. [I suspect that the quantity of
instruments from after this date would be unmanageable, though these
might be included as a seperate data-base]. Initially, the catalogue
would be a supplement to the published inventories and would include
only new or corrected material. Later I would hope to add details of
the anonymous instruments which are included in museum catalogues but
are often omitted from general inventories. Other material which is at
present available in published sources could be added as soon as it
was checked.

The information could be made available in several ways:-

1. Printout of the whole catalogue could be printed in book form.

Regular updates could be printed in FoMRHIQ.
2. Individual searches could be made eg. 'all recorded Instruments by
16th century Spanish makers which are now in Germany'. Such requests
could be made by 'phone or post and the results forwarded. As an
alternative, researchers could come and interrogate the computer
personally. At present, for practical reasons, the individual search
options would probably have to be confined to 'corresponding members'
who had provided data for the project.
 17
3- Individual searches could be made by accessing the computer by
'phone. Initially, it would only be possible to 'download' ready
prepared data. This could include yet unprinted updates or any
material specifically requested by 'phone. Later, as the necessary
software was written or acquired, this could include full interactive
searching.

Before the system was set up it would be necessary to know what

information we want to include. For wind instruments I would suggest
the following:-
a. Type
b. Size [soprano, bass etc.]
c. Overall length
d. Number of pieces
e. Present location / owner [details of private ownership can
be included in the data-base, and yet be kept private at
the owner's request].
f. Museum/collection identification number(s).
g. Maker or mark
h. Place of origin
i. Materials of body
j. Materials and number of keys.
k. Sources of published information [measurements, drawings,
photos, etc].
1. Source and type of unpublished Information [anything of
interest which you are willing to make available],
m. Any other data.

I would welcome your comments on this proposal. For the sake of speed,
please contact me directly. I would also welcome suggestions for
alterations or additions to the above list, or for lists for other
instruments. If the response is favourable, I will draw up specimen
report forms for the next issue.

FoMRHI Comm 7 9 0 On the Zangelmass Richard Shann

In his Comm 766 Remy Gug has once again presented us with a lot of valuable historical
data to get our teeth into. I hope it won't seem churlish if I concentrate on what seems
to me to be an important error in his analysis - already one issue has slipped by without
any comment at all on such a useful Comm. (FoMRHI is not strong on feedback - except
perhaps in comparison with other journals - yet without it people won't bother to
publish).
As I understand the Comm, Remy is arguing that old wire drawers were capable of
achieving accuracies of the order of microns by using the Zangelmass to check the
extension of the wire at each drawing. To illustrate this he considers using the
Zangelmass on a two inch length of wire of diameter 0.200 mm. He observes that an
easily seen 3mm error in observing the extension with the Zangelmass would lead to a
difference of diameter of only 5 microns. What he seems to have forgotten is that this
process has to be repeated for each pass through the drawplate so that the error is
compounded - if you follow through the arithmetic you find your error rapidly renders
the method entirely useless for determining the total extension (and hence the gauge)
obtained.
The Gold-wire drawer's Reel which Remy describes could be used with some precision. It
depends for i t s accuracy on the determination of the density of the particular specimen
of the alloy being drawn, on the perimeter length of the reel, the feed-tension (taking
into account the elasticity) and of course the care in avoiding slippage, wandering, and
misscounting, The result is the average diameter - the Zangelmass would be needed to
avoid getting wire which tapers unduly in length (due to wear on the hole), and something
else (a 'twang test'"'"' 7 ) to avoid an overly oval cross-section. Whether anyone would
have gone to the trouble of checking music wire this way is another question, [Ctnt. p. \3)
I-

P*©MRH I C.K.V- "79 I

COMPUTER PROGRAMMES FOR THE CONVERSION OF CENTS-HERTZ

Robert Goodwin
Alan Mills

In t h e J u l y 1986 q u a r t e r l y , Jeremy p u b l i s h e d four programmes i n Amstrad

B a s i c f o r t h e c o n v e r s i o n of H e r t z t o Cents and v i s a v e r s a , (Comm. 7 3 2 ) .
The f o l l o w i n g programmes a r e a t r a n s l a t i o n i n t o BBC and Apple Basic
of t h r e e of t h e four he p u b l i s h e d . The programme i n Apple B a s i c a r e
for Apple I I P l u s and l i e c o m p u t e r s .

These programmes have been e d i t e d i n t o a b e t t e r p r i n t format and o t h e r

f e a t u r e s have been added for more e f f i c i e n t u s e . For t h o s e of you
who do n o t wish t o t y p e t h e s e programmes i n t o your machine o r want
an " e r r o r t r a p p e d " copy, send $15.00 A u s t r a l i a n t o Dr Robert Goodwin,
M a g i l l Campus, South A u s t r a l i a n C o l l e g e of Advanced E d u c a t i o n , Magill
S.A. A u s t r a l i a 5072 and he w i l l p r o v i d e you w i t h a floppy d i s c containing
t h e programmes.

10MODE 3
20REPEAT BBC
38CLS
40PRINTTAB<2,2>; ^Program t o c o n v e r t h e r t z t o c e n t s "
58PRINTTAB<2,5) ; " E n t e r l a r g e r f r e q u e n c y i n H e r t z "
_.0 INPUT L
78PRINTTAB<2,8) ;"Enter smaller frequency in Hertz"
88INPUT S
?0R=L/S
10 0C=1200*LOG<R)/LOG<:2)
1 10CLS
120PRINT"LARGER"."SMALLER",,"CENTS"
130PRINT"FREQUENCY","FREQUENCY"
140PRINTL,S,,INT<C+.5>
150PRINTTAB(2,20);"Do you want a printout Y / N "
160INPUT P*
170 IF LEFT*<P*,1)="N"GOTO 230
180WU 2
l?0PRINTTAB-:2,2) ;" LARGER" ," SMALLER" , , "CENTS"
20 0PRINTTAB<2,3);"FREQUENCY","FREQUENCY"
210PRINTTAB(2,5);L,S,,C
220*v»DU 3
230PRINTTAB(2,20) ;" Do you want another calculation Y / N "
246 INPUT A*
250UNTIL LEFT*<A*,1> = "N" OR LEFT*<A*,1)="n"
2<_0 END
 \9

19M0DE 3 BBC
l l
20REPEAT
30CLS
40PRINTTAB<2,2) ; 'Proqrain to convert cents to hertz*
50BH = 220 "
60PRINTTAB<2,5);"Enter cents • ;
70INPUT C
80R=2 A <C / 1200)
90H = R * BH
100PRINTTAB<2,8);"CENTS = ";C," HERTZ = ';INT(H + .5)
119PRINTTAB<2,15);"Do you want a printout Y/N ?"
120 INPUT P*
130IF LEFT*<P*,1>="Y" OR LEFT*<P*,1)="y" THEN PROCprint
140PRINTTAB<2,20);"Do you want another calculation Y/N '
150INPUT A*
160UNTIL LEFT*<A*,1) = "N'' OR LEFT*<A*,1)="n"
170END
1S0DEF PROCprint
190C1DU 2
20 0PRINTTAB<2,2);"CENTS = n ;C," HERTZ = ";INT<H + .5)
210UDU 3
220ENDPROC
10 MODE 3
20 DIM L(30),C(36)
30 REPEAT
40 CLS
50 PRINTTAB(2,1);"Program to calculate scale of cents to hertz"
60 PRINTTAB(2,3);"Name of scale" "
79 INPUT N*
80 PRINTTAB(2,5);"Enter base hertz"
90 INPUT SM
100 PRINTTAB(2,7);"Enter number of notes"
110 INPUT NS
120 FOR X=l TO NS
130 PRINTTAB<2,2*X+10);"Note ";X;" in cents = ";
140 INPUT C(X)
150 R=2/S(C(X)/1200)
160 L(X)=R*SM
170 NEXT X
180CLS
190 PROCscreen
20 0PRINTTAB(2,22);"Do you want a printout Y/N"
210 INPUTP*
220 IF LEFT*<P*,1) = "Y" OR LEFT*<P*,1> = "y" THEN PROCprinter
230PRINTTAB<2,22>;"Do you want another calculation Y/N "
240INPUT A*
250UNTIL LEFT*<A*,1) = "N" OR LEFT*<A*,1) = "n"
260 END
270DEF PROCprinter
280'v'DU 2
290 PROCscreen
300 VDU 3
305 CLS
316ENDPROC
320DEF PROCscreen
340PRINT" CENTS"," HERTZ"
350 FOR X=l TO NS
360PRINT C(X>, INT<L(X)+.5)
370NEXT X
380ENDPROC
20

10 PEM HERTZ TO CENTS 5 REM SCALE OF CENTS TO HERTZ

20 HOME APPLE 10 HOME : CLEAR
30 ».TAB 5 20 PRINT "PROGRAM TO CALCULATE S
40 PPINT "PROGRAM TO CONVERT HER CALE OF CENTS TO HERTZ"
TZ TO CENTS"
50 i/TAB 12 30 VTAB 5
40 PRINT "ENTER LARGER FREQUENCY 40 PRINT "NAME OF SCALE"
IN HERTZ" 50 INPUT N*
70 INPUT L 60 PRINT "ENTER BASE HERTZ"
80 PRINT "ENTER SMALLER FREQUENC 70 INPUT SM
Y IN HERTZ" 80 PRINT "ENTER NUMBER OF NOTES"
90 INPUT S 90 INPUT NS
100 R = L / S 100 DIM L<NS),C(NS)
110 C = 1200 * LOG <R) / LOG (2 110 UTAB 12
•>
120 FOR X = 1 TO NS
120 HOME 130 PRINT "NOTE ":X;" IN CENTS =
130 VTAB 5
140 PRINT "LARGER" ,"SMALLER" , "CE 140 INPUT C(X)
NTS" 150 NEXT
150 PRINT "FREQUENCY"."FREQUENCY 160 FOR X = 1 TO NS
II

180 R = 2 " (C(X) / 1200)

160 PRINT 190 L(X) = R * SM
170 PRINT L.S.C 20 0 NEXT X
180 VTAB 12 210 HOME
190 PRINT "DO YOU WANT A PRINT 0 220 GOSUB 400
IJT Y/N" 230 PRINT "DO YOU WANT A PRINT 0
20 0 INPUT P* UT Y/N"
210 IF LEFT* <P*,1) = "N" GOTO 240 INPUT P*
280 250 IF LEFT* (P*,1) = "N" GOTO
220 PRINT CHR* <4>;"PR«1" 290
230 PRINT "LARGER"."SMALLER","CE 260 PRINT CHR* < 4) : "PR*»1 "
NTS" 270 GOSUB 400
240 PRINT "FREQUENCY"."FREQUENCY 280 PRINT CHR* <4):"PR«0"
II
290 PRINT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER
250 PRINT CALCULATION Y/N"
260 PRINT L,S,C 300 INPUT A*
270 PRINT CHR* <4);"PR«0" 310 IF LEFT* <A*,1) = "Y" GOTO
280 PRINT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER 10
CALCULATION Y/N" 320 END
290 INPUT A* 40 0 REM PRINTING SUBROUTINE
30 0 IF LEFT* <A*.l) = "Y" GOTO 410 PRINT N*;" BASE HERTZ = ": SM
20
10 REM CENTS TO HERTZ 420 PRINT : PRINT "CENTS","HERTZ
20 HOME ll

30 UTAB 5 430 FOR X = 1 TO NS

40 PRINT "PROGRAM TO CONVERT CEN 440 PRINT C(X). INT (L<X) + .5)
TS TO HERTZ" 450 NEXT X
50 VTAB 12 460 RETURN
60 BH = 220
170 IF LEFT* (P*.l) = "N" GOTO
70 PRINT "ENTER CENTS" 210
80 INPUT C 180 PRINT CHR* <4);"PRM1"
90 R = 2 * <C / 1200) 190 PRINT "CENTS = ":C,"HERTZ ="
100 H = R * BH ;H
110 HOME 20 0 PRINT CHR* <4);"PRttO"
120 VTAB 5 210 VTAB 20
130 PRINT "CENTS = "jC,"HERTZ = 220 PRINT "DO YOU WANT ANOTHER
" ;H CALCULATION Y/N"
140 VTAB 12 230 INPUT A*
150 PRINT "DO YOU WANT A PRINT 0 240 IF LEFT* <A*,1) = "Y" GOTO
IJT Y/N" 20
160 INPUT PS
 21

FoMRHI CtMWt 7^2.

Thoughts on Comm 755 Carl Willetts

"What's gone wrong with Early Music"
Bill Samson has raised some very valid points which both myself
and playing friends have been muttering about for some t_me.
For many years the cause of _.arly Music hud to be promoted against
a background of disbelief or at best apathy from the establishment.
In the early 70s the breakthrough was achieved such that now almost
every classically oriented record shop has some Early Music and there
are regular spots on the BBC. 'Authentic' instruments for the
performance of Baroque music are now becoming the nor,'j in London and
on the radio. The case has been partly won so we have sat back and
stopped pushing.
In some ways it is good that Early Music has been integrated into
the rest of our musical heritage. The 'Folk Club' idea may have kept
it as a minority exclusive specialised interest. Io recent years
folk clubs' attendance has been falling and their clientele ageing.
The cause of Baroque music seems to be in capable hands with several
excellent ensembles which we did not have 10 years ago. But what
of Renaissance and medieval music? Professional performances are now
highly polished gems but the excitement has gone, with an exception
in the UK, I dare to sug est, of performances by the York V.'a _ts.
Why have we lost the excitement? Answer: we lost our trailblazers.
Musica Reservata, whose sound was always exciting, faded and vanished.
David Munrow died. Although we may now criticise some of his
scholarship in the light of recent discoveries, his verve was unquest-
ionable. He was our best ambassador in the BBC, with record companies
and to the general public. We need a new figurehead, a publicist, a
populariser.
Early Music Magazine has become more and more academically oriented
and the Register of Early Music, a great help to amateurs, was
discontinued. I agree with Bill Samson that the roots of Early Music,
the amateur players, must be nurtured to support the professional
superstructure. The Regional i_arly Music Fora are helping to provide
short courses, playing sessions and local information on concerts etc.
U.E.M.A. is promoting at a national level in areas such as education.
The Register of _arly Music, which was started in 197*1 privately by
Christopher Monk and the late Eric Hedger before it was published by
OUP, is being revived by J.E.M.A. Its iorm is yet to be decided but
should include the lists of useful contacts and an instrument 'buyer's
guide' as formerly. FoMRI will be kept informed of developments.
A basic message to those of us who perform: continue to do so. Make
it fun lor the audiences. We are part of the entertainment industry
so don't be afraid of some brash showmanship to wake the audience up.'
22

FoMRHI Comm. 7 9 3

ON CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF THE WOOD

OF HISTORICAL BOWED INSTRUMENTS

Remy GUG

Transl. A. EHLERS & D. WRAIGHT.

(French version in Musique Ancienne, 22)

Few topics stir the fancy of our craftsmen, artists or scholars as

much as the search for the (so-called?) secrets o f . t h e old masters. During
the last few decades most promising scientific and technological methods of
analysis have been developed. In so far as i t is possible to analyse the
materials of the early works in our laboratories, we can sometimes take a
very close look at them. Such analyses can certainly give us very precise
information, telling us what kind of material was used. It cannot, however,
teach us how the ancient masters went about their work nor why they
proceeded in their way.
In order to interpret the laboratory results, we often resort to
some rather mystifying concepts. We glean them from our collective
memory, ready to involve techniques that we classify all too quickly as
alchemical. Thus we ignore the existence of a valuable scientific discipline
whose great benefits for organology have not as yet been fully recognized :
the history of science and technology.
The amount of literature devoted to old musical instruments is
growing from year to year. There is no doubt that most of it is of great
significance, and yet it seems that all these studies have been written from
the point of view either of the history of A r t or of musicology. The topic
has never, to our knowledge, been tackled from the standpoint of the
history of science and technology. We hasten to specify that the technical
descriptions of old instruments or the precious accounts of restauration can
by no means, be considered to be the works of historians of science and
technology. These studies rather describe the results attained by the old
masters, classify and compare facts, in short, they give an answer to the
question "how is it?".
The history of science and technology must, on the other hand,
help us to find an answer to the question "how was it made?" and "why is
i t as i t is?". It views an ancient musical instrument not only as a work of
art or as a "tool" designed for a certain form of artistic expression, but
also as the merging of thought (knowledge) and processes (know-how) both
of pure technical nature.
To achieve this, we shall have to take into account all the
factors that played a role during the process of creation and construction,
factors which have changed in the course of time. From this point of view
it w i l l be impossible to separate the study of musical instruments from
that of other "technical objects" of a given era.
Let us condider two examples. We know that the modifications in
metallurgical processes during the 19th century made possible the
development of the piano as it is known today : better control of the
technique of melting steel and, among others, of making strings very
different from those of the 18th century. Here different technical domains
interact.
 23

We may go even further. A technical object also illustrates the

characteristic approach of a region or for a people and thus expresses a
certain view of the world. The second example is significant in this
respect. When the technique of ship building is studied, one is struck by
the differences which exist between the "building style" of the
Scandinavians and that of the Mediterraneans. In the first case, the hull
was constructed first, with the inner frame added afterwards in order to
reinforce and support it. This technique, inherited from the Vikings and the
Saxons and in use till the beginning of the 15th century, is not found on
the Mediterraneans coast. Here one used to begin with the fabrication of
the inner frame, on which the planks which were to form the hull were
then fastened. This is exactly the same approach as that made by the
harpsichord builders of that time, who created the first instruments of a
"type": the construction "from outside to inside" by the Nordic School (e.g.
Flemish) and vice versa for the Italian instruments. Whe have here two
very different and yet parallel approaches in areas as remote (for us?) as
ships and harpsichords.
Let us return to the subject of our paper.

The problems which we wish to call to mind are of a more

limited scope that those of the preceding paragraph. The way in which they
are usualy tackled cause us to doubt whether clear answers are to be
found. How can we ask the old masters, when we claim so often that
they left no printed documents or manuscripts that we can understand or
that are worth our attention? Thus, we ignore that many more documents
have survived than this popular but nevertheless wrong idea would make us
believe. We neglect that in their technological works they deal with very
down-to-earth questions of daily practice. Most of the time, especially from
the 18th century onwards they used a language that everyone today can
easily understand, if he is willing to go to the trouble of informing himself
about the meaning of the terms used, about the methods of reasoning and
the physical and intellectual tools of a given era.

The Data

The laboratory provides us with coded data. There remains the

problem of interpretation.
The history of science and technology places at our disposal a
body of knowledge drawn from ancient documents (not to be confused with
the ancient knowledge...!) and a methodology that allows us to reach the
core of the matter. The art of the historian of science and technology
consists not only of finding the ancient sources, but of the attempt to
understand them, while avoiding the pitfalls of a fallacious interpretation.
This latter danger is always lying in wait for the researcher who all too
often succumbs, against his will, to the temptation of using documents of
another time to corroborate or contest a theory, confirm or invalidate a
system, both of which were construted by and for our time. The historical
data was produced by a logic or a system very different from our own. We
must be able to put it back in its place, instead of using it for purposes
for which it was not intended.
If we proceed very carefully, eliminating doubt by continual
crosschecking, we will sometimes be led to discover, not without
satisfaction, procedures forgotten up till now. The circle closes again when
the results of the analysis corroborate the historical data, or, what is
essentially the same, when the laboratory results reveal their full meaning
in the light of the historical studies.
24

Although the formulation of a general rule may appear

presumptuous, let us say that the results of calculation or of laboratory
analysis must be interpreted in the light of historical studies. Without this
precaution we will always be in danger of attibuting our own ways of
thinking and our own intentions to the Ancients without even noticing it. In
many cases they approached a given problem quite differently than we do
or would ever think of doing today.

Analysis of old woods

We consider two recent publications concerning the question of

how the old violin makers treated their woods (1). The results of the
chemical analysis of chips of wood from historical instruments published in
these papers are in good agreement. We are told that "Professor Nagyvary
succeded in obtaining two pieces of wood from two violoncellos built by
Guarneri, which he examined under an electron microscope and which he
analyzed with modern chemical and biochemical methods. He was surprised
to learn that the mineral content was very different from that of natural
spruce or maple wood. The concentration of silicon, aluminium, iron, gold,
and manganese was higher, that of sodium was lower"(2). The German
instrument maker Karl Schnur gives us additional information : "We
analyzed a wood shaving from an old violin bridge. The results, to our
great surprise, showed that mixed with the silicon and calcium, two
elements of which traces are usually found in wood, there was sulphur and
copper. This could only be from copper-sulphate (CuSO^)"(3). Karl Schnur
continues by alluding to the use of this substance in viticulture. We still
know it today in France by the name of "Bordeaux mixture" (Bouillie
bordelaise)**.
The analysis does not stop there. In fact, Karl Schnur was also
able to detect some alum (KA1SCH) as well as some sodium chloride (NaCl)
(common table salt).

These analyses demonstrate the existence of unusual elements in

the woods of ancient instruments. In this paper we will consider only two
of them : vitriol and alum. As we have already emphasized, these analyses
do not inform us about how the old craftsmen impregnated these substances
in the wood nor about the reasons of the old masters for working in this
way.
We must therefore turn to the history of science and technology
in order to find an acceptable interpretation of these laboratory results.

Vitriol

Various reliable old sources testify to the use of vitriol in

treating wood.
For the reader's information we reproduce the print from the
great work of Georg Agricola(^) that shows how vitriol was prepared in the
16th century. Prepared solutions of sulphuric minerals were poured into the
vats which can be seen in the background of the print (Fig.A). After a
certain length of time crystals of vitriol gather along the pieces of string
suspended in this solution. After removing these crystallizations in clusters

••Translator's note: Bordeaux mixture is still used in viticulture; it is

sprayed on the vines to counteract oidium and mildew. (DW)
 25

they were re-dissolved in order to give them, with the help of moulds, a
shape that was commercially practical (Fig.B). Already at t h a t time they
were available in three kinds : blue, green and white. The color of these
"cakes", a green or blue of great beauty according to the authors, was of
course determined by the nature of the mineral they started with.

Fig.A. Fig.B.

As a member of the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences, the

scholar Joh.Jul. Salberg studied around the year 17^0 the use of vitriol in
treating wood. His writings, published orignally in Swedish in the records of
the Academy, later translated into German, provide us with some very
useful information. Having explained that vitriol possesses a very special
"power", capable on the one hand of preventing all decomposition, on the
other hand insensitive to weather changes, especially changes in the
humidity of the air, and finally capable of fighting effectively against
woodworms, the Swedish scholar evokes the following facts : "Everyone who
has an uninhabited room on the ground floor, closed off from all fresh air,
will have remarked on the appearance of mushroom-like formations along
the cracks and holes made by nails in the floors. If one applies a highly
concentrated vitriolic water to these cracks and holes, after having taken
care to remove all mushrooms and to leave certain spots without this
t r e a t m e n t , one will note that these formations will reappear during the
next three weeks (if there is no fresh air) at the spots that were not
t r e a t e d . This proves the efficiency of this means of defence against this
nuisance"(5).
Salberg knew that vitriol was as effective in fighting
xylophagous insects. He went to the trouble of publishing a recipe that, as
he grants, increased the prospect of success of this t r e a t m e n t : "Take 5 or
6 colocynths, their pulp and seeds reduced to small pieces with your
fingers, before boiling them in water until the bitter juice is well
e x t r a c t e d . Add to this water 1{ pounds of common vitriol and let boil a
second time, until the vitriol is completely dissolved. Daub the cracks and
joints with this mixture, as hot as possible. It is evident that it is more
active the more it has been boiled. You will see the certain result, that
not one insect will come to live in a construction of fresh wood treated
thus. Note that the wood appears slightly grey after the daubing, but that
is preferable to the presence of these vermin".(6)
26

The use of t h e colocynth as a purgative and worm t r e a t m e n t , a

plant from the family of the Cucurbitaceae was popular in ancient
medecine. A very b i t t e r powder named Socotin was e x t r a c t e d already in
the 15th c e n t u r y . The history of science has taught us t h a t the Ancients
often reasoned by analogy instead of thinking, as we do, in experimental
scientific t e r m s . In medecine, the efficiency sometimes depended on their
faith, but this was not always t h e case and very often they hit on it. Their
view of the world and its various phenomena was really very different from
ours. The n e a t boundary lines wich we draw between t h e supernatural and
the natural, between medecine, physics, astronomy, astrology... all shattered
into a myriad of specialities and sub-specialities with sometimes
impenetrable borders, between organic and mineral substances for example -
these boundary lines were practically not in existence, or a t least were
only becoming so at the t i m e which interests us. The idea that minerals,
plants, and animals were all subject to the same laws of life and death can
still be encountered late in the 18th century. The fact t h a t certain rocks,
with t h e exception of c e r t a i n others, can give birth - in t h e real meaning
of this t e r m - in particular to worms, fits perfectly into the logic of the
t i m e . It is thus logical to perfect a t r e a t m e n t based on these mineral
e l e m e n t s and to apply it to the human body as well as to a material :
wood, also part of a g r e a t living body (the tree) growing year after year in
its own rhythm, its own illnesses. Now does the success of the t r e a t m e n t
of tapeworms and of woodworms with the colocynth testify t o the faith of
the Ancients, to a perfectly well founded antibiotic procedure or both ? In
the last two cases, the reasoning by analogy would have the same value as
our "scientific" approach...!
Ancient medicine also used vitriol, obviously in appropriate
concentrations to fight against the same t e n a n t s , just as undesirable in
humans. The dictionary of Chomel (7), explains under the item "vitriol",
t h a t "all the spirits of vitriol are suitable against worms".

The boiling of wood

Surface t r e a t m e n t prevented all larvae from developing on the

wood. Another technique was necessary, however, to make the vitriol or
other concoctions p e n e t r a t e deeper into the material in order to fight
effectively dry rot or other wood deterioration. A very simple, and
apparently efficient method, consisted of boiling pieces of wood in vitriolic
w a t e r . Let us listen to Salberg again : "It is well known that the wheels of
wagons and carriages always begin to rot at the outer parts of the hub as
well as in the places where the spokes are fitted into the rim. (...) After
preparing each piece of wood needed to make a wheel, rimming the hub
with steel and piercing the rim, (...) take it all apart and put the pieces
one by one in a big iron pot, until there is no place left. Fill the cauldron
with w a t e r , such that each Kanne [see below] contains one and a half
pound of dissolved vitriol. Boil the pieces of wood in this liquid for 3 to 4
hours to enable the penetration of the vitriolic w a t e r . After this, take them
out, let them dry in the heat for several days and then assemble them to
make the wheel". (8) Could this be a method also used by the ancient
instrument makers to t r e a t the pieces of their instruments ?
We are dealing here with a clear document describing a technique
typical for c a r t w r i g h t s . Let us transcribe these old data into modern
figures for your information. 1 "Kanne", an ancient measuring unit for
liquids, corresponded in Sweden to 2,61 litres. The Swedish pound equals
425,1 grammes. Thus Salberg's prescription gives a concentration of 244 g
of vitriol for each litre of w a t e r . Let us add that, because of very
 27

different techniques, the vitriol extracted at that time did not have the
same degree of purity as our sulphates of copper, iron, or zinc of today,
which are pure chemically. Might this explain why traces of so many other
metals were found in the analyzed woods (cf. Nagyvary)?

Very old procedures ?

Another general rule of the history of science and technology

teaches us never to confuse the date of publication of a process or an idea
with its actual date of appearance. These two moments can sometimes be
far apart in time, especially in an era in which the written word was not
(yet) as important as we are used to thinking today. We do not know if the
Swedish scholar described a process currently in use, which he was able to
observe in the local crafts, or if, on the contary he wanted to share with
his fellow-countrymen a solution practised elsewhere and unknown in
Sweden : description, discovery or rediscovery ?
Reading a short text written prior to the date of publication of
the works of the scholar of Stockholm justifies our caution. The history of
the Royal Academy of Sciences of Paris contains in the volume of 1705
(9) a paragraph dedicated to the problem which concerns us here. We learn
"that an esteemed person in the Provence, not knowing how to treat a
parquet floor that would not be eaten up by worms in only a few years, as
was usual in that country, was advised to soak his parquet in water mixed
with a ^corrosive sublimate> [see the appendix to this article], which had
succeeded very well".
A German work describes a similar technique a few years later,
in 1761, in a chapter devoted to woodturners, Johann Samuel Halle (10)
gives us the advice "to boil the green wood, once it is cut up and
trimmed, in a slightly Cconcentrated liquid» for an hour to avoid its
cracking. After letting it cool down in this liquid, one must let it dry in
the shade. Every kind of wood, especially such of considerable dimension,
will crack if it dries unevenly, due to the fact that the outer parts lose
their water much fasteer than those at the centre, which stay humid
longer". It is a pity that he does not specify which type of solution or
concoction he is calling for. Do not let us think immediately of a secret.
Once more ! Maybe it is simply a preparation known to everyone so that
the author did not think it necessary to give any details. Has this
knowledge, which was widely diffused at that time become a secret for us
today ? We will have to investigate further.

In the present phase of our studies it is clear that the Ancients

used vitriol for at least three reasons : as a fungicide, as an insecticide
and, finally, as an aid in stabilizing wood.

Nonflammable wood

Before definitely concluding that we have found the reason, or

rather the three reasons, for the presence of vitriol in several woods used
in old instrument making, we must, however, stop once more to ponder
still another writing, again from Germany, written in 1777 (II). An
anonymous text tries to give an answer to the following question : "Wie
weit gehet zur Zeit der Gebrauch des weipen Vitriols bey Kiinsten.
Manufakturen und Handwerkern ?" (How wide-spread is the use of white
vitriol in the arts, crafts, and manufacturing at the present time?).
28

This author also calls t o m i n d , i n c i d e n t a l l y w i t h a r e f e r e n c e t o

the Swedish studies, t h a t v i t r i o l is an e f f e c t i v e fungicide t h a t "makes the
worms f l e e t h e pieces of wood once i t is applied t o the holes" (12), but his
w r i t i n g s go beyond this e f f e c t . He mentions a f o u r t h i m p o r t a n t advantage
obtained by t h e use of v i t r i o l : a decisive i m p r o v e m e n t in the resistance of
wood t o f i r e . This same p r o t e c t i o n can also be obtained by using a second
substance which has a t t r a c t e d our a t t e n t i o n :

Alum

The knowledge of the f i r e p r o o f i n g properties of alum is much

older than we would dare to imagine. In a w o r k published in Copenhagen in
1674, by the author Olaus Borrichius (13), we discover t h a t they were
already w e l l known to the ancient Egyptians : " A l u m e n , copiosius inspersum
muris i n t e r a e d i f i c a n d u m , i t e r a t a a r c e t incendia, quod f i e r i M i t h r i d a t i s
exemplo d i d i c i m u s , sic, t r a d e n t e Herodoto in Euterpe, Amasin Aegypti
regem iis, qui T e m p l u m D e l p h i c u m , f o r t u i t o incendio haustum, de novo
m o l i b a n t u r , donasse m i l l e A l u m i n i s T a l e n t a " . ( A l u m , generously spread on
the walls a t t h e t i m e of c o n s t r u c t i o n , prevents the returns of f i r e , as we
learn f r o m the example of M i t h r i d a t e . As t o l d by Herodot, in his book
Euterpe, Amasis, K i n g of Egypt, made the g i f t of a thousand Talents of
Alum to those who r e b u i l t the Temple of D e l p h i , which had been
a c c i d e n t a l l y destroyed by f i r e ) .
The w o r k of another member of the Swedish Academy presents a
counterpart to this e x c e r p t . Jacob Faggot occupied himself w i t h this
question around 1730.
The story which he
himself experienced is worth
quoting c o m p l e t e l y here : "A few
years ago I was in the A l u m mines
of Lofwer in the province of
C a l m a r . Since several staves f r o m
vats and wooden pails t h a t had
been used to prepare the alum
(see our Fig.C) (15) had become
too old to be used f u r t h e r , they
were set on f i r e so as t o get r i d
of them. But these pieces of
wood, soaked w i t h a l u m , would not
burn, not even a f t e r lying in the
flames for some t i m e . They were
simply penetrated by the heat and
cooked by the f i r e . F i n a l l y , a f t e r
a long t i m e , we could see them
f a l l apart in the great heat of the
oven, but w i t h o u t a simple f l a m e .
This story c l e a r l y demonstrates the
cause of this phenornenon"(14).
The fact that wood
soaked w i t h alum does not burn
has been widely employed t o make
e n t i r e houses fireproof and, using
the principle of f i r e p r o o f walls, to
delay the spreading of fires by
placing them judiciously in the
streets.
 29

Is it really that simple ?

The presence of certain elements discovered by the analysis of

woods used in old instrument making may have been explained in the
preceding paragraphs. Nevertheless we must ask which reason or reasons
the instrument makers of the past could have had for treating their wood
against the risk of flames. Did they want to protect their stocks ? There
being no serious document regarding this question, we should refrain from
speculating, as our methodology obliges us to do. The historian of
techniques is not called upon to solve problems posed by ancient
civilisation. One of his tasks is to discover paths leading to trustworthy
sources which, if we succeed, will guide us to the answers that the
Ancients found to their questioning.
Let us return to a few remarks made by the authors of the two
publications our contribution is based on. The old texts, quoted above, only
in some points go in the same direction as what we read concerning
Nagyvary's work : "This t r e a t m e n t mineralizes the wood, makes it resistant
to insects and humidity, and makes the grain come out again. It is logical
to think, says he, that the instrument makers were as shrewd as the
cabinet makers and also used treated wood" (16). Karl Schnur, likewise,
says that "it is clear, given the results of all our analyses, that the violins
of the Masters have been treated with solutions containing one or several
salts. Unfortunately, the names Stradivarius and Guarnerius are still missing
in this picture" (17). This does not prevent Karl Schnur from being certain
that "the ancient Masters of the 17th and 18th centuries, accidentally or
quite intentionally, treated the woods used in instrument making with salts"
(18). The old texts which have been quoted in this paper would lead us to
believe that the Ancients treated their woods quite intentionally.
If this is true, a central point is raised : we are talking of
musical instruments and not of pieces of furniture. The instrument makers
unquestionably took over techniques used by related crafts that also worked
with wood. We still do not know whether the instrument makers t r e a t e d
their woods in order to avoid the troubles mentioned above or, on the
contrary, to achieve an improved resonance.
Should we conclude with Nagyvary, stating that "this
mineralisation of wood makes the tone that is produced, clearer ?". (19)
This experiences reported by these two modern instrument makers, if we
believe them, encourage us to affirm this. Karl Schnur assures us that he
obtains a definite increase in sound volume from violins built from "salted"
wood. I do not wish to doubt the value of these affirmations. The historian
of techniques is nevertheless obliged to enter yet further into the problem
and to ask if the Ancients, or at least those who worked with these
procedures, had the declared goal of a "greater clarity" of tone or of a
"clear increase in sound volume". Did they try to reach this same point
that we are trying to accomplish today, two or three centuries ago ?
The historian sometimes notes that major motives for us, living in
the 2 0 t h century, or for the mentality of another particular era, were
completely secondary for a person living in a third epoch and vice versa. It
is very difficult for us to know which of the five reasons mentioned above
was most important to the mind of the ancient instrument maker. It would
probably be necessary to differentiate according to different epochs, to the
various schools of instrument making or to the instrument makers
themselves. One could well imagine that one of these five reasons was of
primordial importance in the beginning, which it had to cede to another
one in the course of time. We will probably have to admit - and are
inclined to do so - that, as so often in the case of ancient techniques, the
t r e a t m e n t reviewed here was so successful with the craftsmen because of
30

the m u l t i t u d e of positive e f f e c t s registered over the centuries : f u n g i c i d e ,

insecticide, fireproofing, stabilizing effects, and (probably) acoustic
benefits (excluding those we s t i l l ignore !). This d i v e r s i t y , c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
an epoch t h a t thought in a universal w a y , is opposed t o the fashion of
today, t h a t is so sure of f i n d i n g the secret : the f o r m u l a or " t r i c k " , t y p i c a l
f o r our era of " p r e s s - b u t t o n " machines and coded recipes. The ancient
know-how combines personal genius w i t h an overabundance of t r a d i t i o n s ,
sometimes a thousand years o l d , because they have proved their value in
many areas. They c o n s t i t u t e the huge fund shared by all members of a
c i v i l i s a t i o n , of an era or a region, and in w h i c h everyone can make the
desired marks.

Conclusion

One thought imposes i t s e l f : the ancient Masters who used these

procedures or similar techniques certainly did not notice major
disadvantages as t o the sonority of the i n s t r u m e n t s . They would surely have
given up the m i n e r a l t r e a t m e n t s if the result had been disappointing.
A second r e f l e c t i o n leads us t o say t h a t this mineralisation of the
woods in i n s t r u m e n t m a k i n g can d e f i n i t e l y not be regarded as an exclusive
secret of t h e i n s t r u m e n t makers. The techniques w e r e , as we have shown,
widely known at the t i m e and in use in many d i f f e r e n t c r a f t s .
T h i r d l y , i t is f i n a l l y impossible t o t e l l now whether the so-called
" i m p r o v e m e n t " of sound is the most i m p o r t a n t (as we today would like i t
t o be) in t h e hierarchy of t h e f i v e known e f f e c t s . K a r l Schnur thinks t h a t
" i t is m e r e l y due to one or t w o strokes of luck t h a t the I t a l i a n violins of
the 17th and 18th centuries can s t i l l be played today : the f i r s t being t h a t
the solutions of salts used t o f i g h t the wood worms were applied in a
f o r t u i t i o u s way, the second being the f l o a t i n g the wood in the sea in order
to transport it."(20)
We have not considered this last question in the present
p u b l i c a t i o n . We are t h i n k i n g of r e t u r n i n g t o i t l a t e r . For now, l e t us only
remark t h a t the e f f e c t of the sea salt on t h e longevity of the wood was
not the only advantage the Ancients knew about in this area.
This leads us t o t h e f o l l o w i n g conclusion : w e know t h a t the old
masters were p e r f e c t l y conscious of a t least four of the e f f e c t s of the
t r e a t m e n t described above (not one document, t o our knowledge, confirms
t h a t they knew about an a m e l i o r a t i o n [according to their scale of values
and t h e i r t a s t e ] of acoustic q u a l i t y ) . The historian thus proposes t o reverse
the r e m a r k made by K a r l Schnur and t o ask if the Masters of times past,
f u l l y knowledgeable of cause and e f f e c t , m i g h t not have had the a i m of
ensuring a great l o n g e v i t y , in addition to the w o n d e r f u l sonority, of their
nonetheless b e a u t i f u l works. With the s p i r i t of v i t r i o l , resistant even " t o
the r o t t i n g of secretions", the t r u e f o r c e of l i f e and d e a t h . . . and w i t h
a l u m , one could not do b e t t e r f i g h t against t h e degradation by the fingers
of T i m e and to confer thus to the works the (salty... ?) taste of E t e r n i t y !

Notes

1. a) D O R O Z Y N S K Y , A. "Les secrets de Stradivarius...," in : Science et

Vie, May 1984. p.72-75. Although w r i t t e n in the popular j o u r n a l i s t i c style,
this work deserves our a t t e n t i o n . It r e f l e c t s q u i t e w e l l the s t a t e of mind of
most of our professionnals. These l a t t e r do not in the least r e f r a i n f r o m
supplying the media which is always in search of the sensational and
spectacular for a public always w i l l i n g t o listen to i t . The researcher must
nevertheless t a c k l e these questions in a quite d i f f e r e n t manner !
 31

b) SCHNUR, K a r l . "Klangholz-Analysen", in : Das Musikinstrument,

H e f t 8, August 1985, p.61-62. The great advantage of this work is t h a t i t
was compiled by the author of the mentioned studies, who is himself an
instrument builder.
2. see l a ) , p.73.
3. see l b ) , p.61.
4. AGRICOLA, Georg, De Re Metallica, Libri XII. Basilea, 1556, Cap.XII.
5. SALBERG, 3.3. "Vom Gebrauch des V i t r i o l s . . . " , in : Abhandlungen der
Koniglich-Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Stockholm aus dem
3ahre 1742, Hamburg, 1751, Band I I I , p.278.
6. SALBERG, 3.3. "Vortsetzung v o m Gebrauche des V i t r i o l s . . . " , in :
Abhandlungen der Koniglich-Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Stockholm aus dem 3ahre 1743, Hamburg, 1751, Band V, p.287.
7. C H O M E L , N. & M A R R E T , 3. Dictionnaire Oeconomique..., C o m m e r c y ,
1741.
8. see n°6, p.42.
9. in : Memoires de l'Academie des Sciences, Paris, Annee 1705, p.38.
1 0 . H A L L E , 3ohann Samuel, Werkstatte der heutigen Kiinste, L e i p z i g , 1761,
Band III, p.79.
11. in : Hannoverisches Magazin, 3ahrgang 1777, p. 1228-1231.
12. i d .
13. BORRICHIUS, Olaus, Hermetis Aegyptorum et C h y m i c o r u m Sapientia,
Hafniae, 1674, Cap.5.
14. F A G G O T , 3acob, "Versuch welcher beweiset, dass Holzwerk vom Feuer
nicht angeziindet werden kbnne, wenn es vorher ein sal f i x u m oder solches
Salz in sich gesogen, das seiner natiirlichen Beschaffenheit nach
unverbrennlich i s t " , in : Abhandlungen der Koniglich-Schwedischen Akademie
der Wissenschaften in Stockholm, aus dem 3ahre 1739, Hamburg, 1749, Band
I, p. 194.
15. Excerpt f r o m the work of A G R I C O L A , see n°4.
16. see l a ) , p.74.
17. see l b ) , p.62.
18. id.
19. see l a ) , p.74.

Appendix

The f o l l o w i n g t e x t is meant to c l a r i f y the t e r m "corrosive

sublimate" [sublime c o r r o s i f ] . It is drawn f r o m the second volume of
"Experiences de Physique" published in Paris in 1734 and w r i t t e n by M.
PIERRE POLINIERE (4th e d i t i o n , p.60)
In order t o make a corrosive sublimate, put the same weight of
quicksilver and of spirit of saltpeter into a vessel of glass or stoneware.
The s p i r i t of saltpeter w i l l dissolve the quicksilver". Pierre POLINIERE then
explains t h a t the m i x t u r e must be dried at low heat, then one must regain
the " w h i t e mass l e f t at the b o t t o m " , t u r n this t o powder in order to mix i t
w i t h the powder of " V i t r i o l dried in f i r e u n t i l w h i t e and as much seasalt
dried in a pot in the f i r e " , also as a powder. This m i x t u r e must endure
seething heat for six hours. A f t e r this the vessel is broken and " t h e
corrosive sublimate w i l l be a w h i t e mass attached t o the upper part of the
vessel, f r o m which it must be detached".

Good luck to those who want to try !

32

p_MKBl Co-,*, -"764- F\-i«--l M_^<--*-_

I n d u c t i v e m e t e r t o d e t e r m i n e wood t h i c k n e s s
of "unopened m u s i c a l instruments

Preface

Peter Tourin describes in FoMRI comm. 205, bull, no 15

April 1979 a meter for measuring thickness of musical
instrument soundboards.
This device which makes use of a Hall Effect sensor and
a magnet, has been built and tested.
It appeared that a rather large magnet was necessary.
Consequently the applicability of this meter was restricted
to rather large instruments such as bass-gamba and such like.
It came to my knowledge that Honeywell produces an inductive
sensor which takes a metal disc the size of a coin.
Applying this Honeywell sensor I developed a meter to
measure woodthickness of unopened musical instruments
 33

1. Introduction
The thickness of the wood of musical instruments is usually
measured by means of a long-jawed caliper with a mechanical
indicator. The disadvantage of this method is that it can
only be applied when the parts of the instrument are defached
The maximum size of the part to be measured is furthermore
restricted to twice the depth of the jaws of the caliper.
In order to measure historical or recent instruments, for
example, it is therefore necessary to open them at least
partially - a destructive procedure.
The inductive meter described below makes it possible to
measure the thickness of the wood of "closed instruments"
without them having to be opened.
The method is thus non-destructive.

2. Possible applications
This inductive method of measuring can be applied when there
is room on one side of the wood for an inductive sensor
measuring 30 mm in diameter by 50 mm long, and when a coin-
sized metal disc can be brought into contact with the other
side of the wood (through one of the soundholes, for example)
so that it rests on the area of wood to be measured.
By locating the metal disc with the inductive sensor one can
measure the thickness of the wood at that point. The disc is
located by determining a minimum value on a digital voltmeter.
This minimum value is proportional to the thickness of the
wood in millimeters, which can be found in a conversion table.
The photo shows the meter with the accessories.
To measure the thickness of a different section of the wood
the disc can be moved by means of a magnet such as those used
to clean aquarium glass. A new measurement can then be carried
out.
In certain applications a large area can be scanned in one
operation by appying a piece of aluminium foil to the other
side of the wood. A voltmeter reading can then be taken without
a minimum value having to be determined.
In the case of thin, flexible wood, a flat piece of sheet iron
of between 1 mm and 3 mm thick can be used as a measuring
surface. In such cases the inductive meter must be recalibrated.
In none of these cases is there a limit to the size of the
area of wood which can be measured.
Since the metal disc is shaped like a discus and the sensor
can be provided wath a variety of convex extension "lenses",
34

it is possible to take measurements of both the concave and the

convex arched sections of the belly and back of a stringed
instrument.
The choice of a suitable disc and extension makes it possible
to adjust the range of measurements according to the thickness
of the piece of wood concerned.

~5t Principles
The inductive sensor used delivers a high-frequency electro-
magnetic field to the sensitive surface of the sensor.
(This field can be visualized as a fountain in a pond.)
When an electrical conductor (metal disc, aluminium foil, etc.)
is introduced into the field, eddy-current losses are produced
in the metal. The closer the metal is to the surface of the
sensor (i.e. the stronger the field), the greater these eddy-
current losses are.
The eddy-current losses are picked up by the sensor and
converted into D.C. voltage (at the outlet of the sensor)
which is proportional to the distance between the metal and
the surface of the sensor. This output voltage is indicated
by the digital voltmeter. 0,01 Volt corresponds to 0,or>6 mm.
The relation between the output voltage and the distance is
influenced to a considerable extent by the dimensions and the
specific resistance of the metal. The magnetic properties
of the metal also have an important effect on the precision
of the measurements.
The whole process is quite complex and calls for considerable
technical knowledge and experience.
The manufacturer specifies the properties of the sensor taking
ordinary sheet steel as his standard material. The correction
factors for other metals are also given.
The sensor requires recalibration whenever a different metal
is used.
NB: This method of measuring can be applied not only to wood
but also to plastics and other non-conductive materials.

4 # Construction
The meter consists of:
a. Honeywell inductive linear output sensor, type 924 AB4W - L?P
b. K.R.P. transformer 535 AM ( + 15 Vdc, + 30 mA)
c. Digital panel meter Lutron DP 9630 A (19,99 Vdc)
d. Various accessoires, case, base KT?3, terminating resistor
The whole operates off 220 Volt Ac mains current.
 i
35

In order to take measurements of various concavities,

convexities and thicknesses of wood, and in order to make
:•••
calibration possible, the accessories shawn in sketch
are also necessary. These make possible the following ranges
of measurements:
0 - 5,5 mm thickness of wood with a max* curvature of R = 23 mm
1,5 - 7,0 mm „ „ „ „ „ „ „ „ R = 35 mm
3,0 - 8,5 mm „ „ „ „ „ „ „ ,, R = 90 mm
4,5 - 10,0 mm „ for flat sections
1,5 - 7,0 mm M „ „ „
The calibration of the various ranges is carried out using the
following perspex standard measures:
'.'.:•

3,00 mm - 3 pieces
1 ,00 mm - 2 pieces
0,20 mm - 5 pieces
The magnet serves to move the disc around inside the instrument.
The calibration results are given in the table in 0,1 mm steps.
These values have been arived at by interpolation from 0,2 mm.
The calibrations have been carried out for a particular meter
and accessory and are therefor^ not necessarily applicaple
to other aquipment.
::
The sensitive part of the sensor is made of ceramic material
and is liable to be broken and made useless if jotted or
dropped.

5. Precision
The following tolerances are important for the total precision
of the meter:
- Temperature drift: according to the specification 2 mV / oC / mm.
This means that during the 30 minute warming up period the
inaccuracy in practice is less than 0,025 mm.
Thereafter it is less than 0,01 mm.
- Assymetry of the disc: less than 0,01 mm.
- Inaccuracy of the extension "lens": .less than 0,01 mm.
- Inaccuracy of the perspex standard measures: less than 0,005 mm.
- Reading inaccuracy of the digital voltmeter: less than 0,01 mm.
The total reading inaccuracy is therefore less than 0,05 mm,
so that one can be certain of measuring to within an accuracy
of 0,1 mm.
36

The greatest inaccuracy will be produced by errors in the

manipulation of the aquipment when determining a minimum
value on the voltmeter display. In order to determine the
minimum, the sensor must be placed as close and as vertical
as possible to the disc.
The higher the value read on the voltmeter, the less critical
is the precision with which the sensor has to be placed.
The small disc is more critical than the large one.
The graph shows the linearity and other specifications.

6. Operating procedure
The meter is plugged into the mains ( 220 Volt Ac ).
The musical instrument must be placed so that the disc lies
on the upper surface of the wood which is to be measured.
At the lower surface the magnet is used to place the disc
in the correct position, after which the sensor is used to
measure the thickness of the wood by determining a minimum
value on the voltmeter. The reading and the location of the
measurement are noted. The values recorded can then be read
off in millimeters from the table.
Epilogue
The meters in use have already supplied a wealth of
information about the construction of historical instruments,
Some exercise is needed to handle the sensor correctly.
Once on that level it produces quickly, accurately and
reliably the information you want.
fin investment worth-while making.
10 mm
Specification Fried Manders
9 Honeywell type 924AB4W-L2P Oosterhout
using steel 37 The Netherlands
8 at:20°C 15Vdc
1k ohm terminating
resistor.
7 . ref.point

6 -
ensitivjty Of6?Smm/Vdc

/_ s

3
2

0
0 4 5 6 7 8 10
Vdc output
 '•• 'r

passive magnetic field

Inductive meter to determine wood thickness
of unopened musical instruments active magnetic field
scetch ] shunt plate (steel 37)
felt N S

magnet
(ferroxdure)

I
aluminium disc 26mm disc.20mm disc 30mm standard measures
foil 0,01mm
r steel 37 steel 37 5 x
0,2 mm
J.
\A i '-
2 x
L= 1 ,0 mm
3 x
sensor \ extension 'lenses'\( perspex) / / 3,0 mm
Honeywell
924
4,5 - 10mm 3,0-8,5mm 1,5 - 7mm 1 ,5 •• 7mm 0 •• 5,5mm range
38*• ,
Aluminium Disc —
Disc Without
foil 0,01 26 mm 20 mm extension extension extension extension
Volt DC
•
Volt DC Volt DC "lens" "lens'M ,5 "lens"3,0 "lens"4,5
thickness thickness thickness thickness
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)
... ___,_ — 10,0 8,5 7,0 5,5
9,39
9,26 9,9 8,4 6,9 5,4
9,13 — _ _ _ 9,8 8,3 6,8 5,3
8,90 9,7 8,2 6,7 5,2
8,87 9,6 8,1 6,6 5.1
8,73 _. _.—— 8,0 6,5 5,0
9,5
8,60 _._>_>_. — 9,4 7,9 6,4 4,9
8,47 9,84 — 9,3 . 7,8 6,3 4,8
8,34 9,69 _ 9,2 7,7 6,2 4,7
8,20 9,54 9,1 7,6 6,1 4,6
8,07 9,40 9,0 t,5 6,0 4,5
7,93 9,25 ____. 8,9 7,4 5,9 4,4
7,80 9,10 ___._ 8,8 7,3 5,8 4,3
7,66 8,96 ____ 8,7 7,2 5,7 4,2
7,53 8,81 ____ 8,6 7,1 5,6 4,1
7,37 8,65 _ 8,5 7,0 5,5 4,0
7,21 8,48 ____ 8,4 6,9 5,4 3,9
7,05 8,32 _ 8,3 6,8 5,3 3,8
6,90 8,16 9,78 8,2 6,7 5,2 3,7*
6,74 7,99 9,62 8,1 6,6 5,1 3,6
6,58 7,83 9,45 8,0 6,5 5,0 3,5
6,42 7,66 9,28 7,9 6,4 4,9 3,4
6,27 7,49 9,11 7,8 6,3 4,8 3,3
6,11 7,32 8,94 7,7 6,2 4,7 3,2
5.95 7.15 8.78 7.6 6.1 4.6 3.1
5,80 6,98 8,61 7,5 6,0 4,5 3,0
5,64 6,81 8,44 7,4 5,9 4,4 2,9
5,47 6,63 8,26 7,3 5,8 4,3 2,8
5,31 6,45 8,08 7,2 5,7 4,2 2,7
5,14 6,27 7,90 7,1 5,6 4,1 2,6
4,97 b,09 7,72 7,0 !•> ' 4,0 2,5
4,81 5,92 7,59 6,9 3,9 2,4
4,64 5,74 7,36 6,8 5,3 3,8 2,3
4,47 5,55 7,16 6,7 5,2 3,7 2,2
4,29 5,36 6,96 6,6 5,1 3,6 2,1
4,12 5,17 6,76 6,5 5,0 3,5 2,0
3,95 4,98 6,57 6,4 4,9 3,4 1,9
3,77 4,79 6,37 6,3 4,8 3,3 1 ,8
3,60 4,60 6,17 6,2 4,7 3,2 1,7
3,43 4,41 5,96 6,1 4,6 3,1 1,6
3,25 4,23 5,76 6,0 4,5 3,0 1,5
3,08 4,04 5,55 5,9 4,4 2,9 1,4
2,91 3,85 5,34 5,8 4,3 2,8 1,3
2,73 3,67 5,14 5,7 4,2 2,7 1,2
2,56 3,48 4,93 5,6 4,1 2,6 1,1
2,38 3,29 4,72 5,5 4,0 2,5 1 ,o
2,21 3,09 • 4,51 5,4 3,9 2,4 0,9
2,03 2,90 4,30 5,3 3,8 2,3 0,8
1 ,85 2,71 4,09 5,2 3,7 2,2 0,7
1 ,68 5,51 3,89 5,1 3,6 2,1 0,6
1 ,50 2,32 3,68 5,0 3,5 2,0 0,5
1,31 2,13 3,47 4,9 3,4 1 ,9 0,4
1 .13 1 ,93 3,27 4,8 3,3 1 ,8 0,3
0,94 1 ,74 3,06 4,7 3,2 1 ,7 0,2
2.85 4,6 1 ,6 0,1
0 75
0,57
1 f 55
1,35 2,65 4,5 1'i
3,0 1 ,5 0,0
 39

FoMRHI Comm. 7 9£T Nicolas Meeds

THE BOWED STRING

The announcement of a Conference on the Acoustics o-f Bowed

Instruments (Bull. Supp1. 46) prompted me to writing the
following questions about the New Grove DOMI article by J.
Schelleng and C. Hutchins on the acoustics of bowing (vol. I,
pp. 69-73), in the hope that the Conference (which I won't be
able to attend) might provide answers.

"To a first approximation, the authors write, the string under

the bow takes the form of a sharply bent line, a phenomenon
noted by Helmholtz" (p. 69b). Is that all what ought to be
said about Helmholtz whose 'Analysis of the Motion of Violin
Strings', Appendix VI of his Sensations of Tone, is the source
of much of what the DOMI article has to say about the bowed
string? What is "the Helmholtz approximation" to which the
article repeatedly refers (e.g. p. 70b or 72b)? Why is Helm-
holtz not mentioned in the Bibliography?

The DOMI article also states that "the 'stick-slip' action of

the bow on the string, though somewhat similar to the chatter-
ing of a piece of chalk on a blackboard or the squeaking of a
chair leg across the floor, is more complicated". It seems
rather pointless to explain what the action of the bow does
not ressemble, until one realizes that the source of the
statement is Benade (in Horns. Strings and Harmony), who
shares with Helmholtz the honour not to be included in the
Bibliography. Is a Grove article the right place for settling
such accounts?

The action of the bow is explained as follows: "As the dis-

continuity, or kink, moving from nut to bridge, passes the bow
it dislodges the string from the hair to which it has been
clinging and reverses the string's motion. When the disconti-
nuity returns from the bridge it restores the forward motion
of the string, which again sticks to the hair. The bow is thus
freed from the string not as a result of the gradual increase
in stress between the rosined hair and the rosined string, but
because the kink has arrived to set it loose".

What about bowed rods or plates? Do they also form a kink

under the bow? Besides, isn't the kink merely the point of
maximum stress between the string and the hair, and the point
at which the restoring force pulls the string? What other
effect could the kink exert on the string, if not a stress?
Why would the string direction be reversed, if not because
that is the direction in which the stress (or the restoring
force) acts? What is wrong with the idea that as the string is
pulled aside by the bow the restoring force increases until it
surpasses the friction force? The kink cannot start moving
along the string before the string first was freed from the
bow: the movement of the kink is not the cause of the vibra-
tion, it is one of its consequences! The fact is that the kink
+0

most probably synchronizes the movement of the string; but

this is not what the authors say, and it is far from obvious.

The DOMI article compares the effect of plucking a string with

that of bowing: "When the string is plucked, the pull of the
finger creates a kink, or discontinuity, that divides the
string into two straight sections. On release, a dynamic
condition is set up in which two discontinuities travel in
opposite directions, one towards the bridge and one towards
the nut. These are identical to the modes of motion described
for the up-bow and down-bow action in the bowed string. Since
they are now both present at the same time, however, the wave
shape of the force exerted on the bridge is radically differ-
ent from that of the bowed string" (p. 7 2 b ) .

In Dther words, the in itial shap e of the plucked string is

basically the same as that of the bowed string (two straight
lines and a kink), but things di verge when the vibration
starts. In the plucked str i ng, the kink divides into two
halves that travel in opposi te directions. In the bowed
string, on the other h and, we are made to believe that the
kink sort of chooses the d i rect ion in which to go. Even more,
as the vibration of the plucked st ring, with two kinks moving
in opposite directions , is descri bed as a combination of the
modes of motion for the up-bow and for the down-bow action, we
apparently have to swal1 ow that the kink takes one direction
(say, toward the bridge) in up-bow action and the other (say,
toward the nut) in down- bow act ion! A closer consideration of
the problem would show t hat if the DOMI description were true,
the kink would have to f irst move toward the nearest end of
the string in any case; but this is not what is said, and I
wonder how the kink know s which end of the string is nearest.

It must be stressed that there is very little new in Schelleng

and Hutchin's description, which basically is Helmholtz's.
They may be aware of the shortcomings of this description,
which would explain why they call it "the Helmholtz approxima-
tion". It is unfortunate, however, that they make no attempt
to improve on it. The figure hereby (from Sensations of Tone,
p. 387) summarizes the "Helmholtz approximation"; it is a
compact version of DOMI's fig. 35. "The motion of the string,
Helmholtz writes, may be
briefly thus described. The
foot d of the ordinate of its Fin. 63.
highest point moves backwards
and forwards with a constant
velocity on the horizontal
line ab, while the highest
point of the string describes
in succession the two parabol-
ic arcs acib and bc 2 a, and the
string itself is always
stretched in the two lines ac_
and be i or a c 2 and bc_t".

The "highest point of the string" is what DOMI calls the kink:
it moves in one direction along a parabolic path. What puzzles
me is that this figure of the string motion is fully symmetric-
 41

al while the system string-bow obviously is not. One would

e x p e c t t h a t , a t t h e p o i n t of b o w i n g a t l e a s t , t h e d i s p l a c e m e n t
of t h e s t r i n g w o u l d b e l a r g e r i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e bow t h a n
in t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t i o n . One w o u l d a l s o e x p e c t s o m e d i s s y m -
m e t r y t o r e s u l t -from t h e f a c t t h a t t h e b o w i n g p o i n t i s not in
t h e c e n t r e . Such d i s s y m m e t r i e s do o c c u r , a t any r a t e , in the
c a s e of a p l u c k e d s t r i n g .

The "following bow" experiment described by S c h e l l e n g and

Hutchins might be taken to d e m o n s t r a t e that the vibration is
a s y m m e t r i c a l . As t h e y e x p l a i n , t h e f o l l o w i n g bow m o v e s i n t h e
s a m e d i r e c t i o n a s t h e d r i v i n g bow i f i t i s n e a r t o i t , in t h e
opposite direction if i t is nearer the other end of t h e
s t r i n g , " t h u s i n d i c a t i n g t h e d i r e c t i o n of s t r i n g m o t i o n d u r i n g
the longer i n t e r v a l of e a c h v i b r a t i o n " ( l e g e n d t o their fig.
37). I wonder however whether what the experiment really
demonstrates i s not that the displacement of t h e string is
l a r g e r i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e bow n e a r t h e bow, l a r g e r i n t h e
opposite d i r e c t i o n at the other end.

To sum u p , H e l m h o l t z ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e m o t i o n of t h e bowed

s t r i n g , which S c h e l l e n g and H u t c h i n s r e p r o d u c e , seems to me
quite unbelievable. It I missed something important, I'd very
much l i k e t o b e t o l d ; a n d i f a b e t t e r description exists, I'd
v e r y much l i k e t o know ( I think that Benade's d e s c r i p t i o n of
t h e m e c h a n i s m of t h e bow i s b e t t e r , b u t i t s a y s v e r y l i t t l e of
t h e m o v e m e n t s of t h e s t r i n g ) .

FOMRHI Comm 7 9 ( 5 V i h u e l a / J o s e Romanillos Harvey Hope

I r e p o r t e d i n t h e FOMRHI Q u a r t e r l y , B u l l e t i n 43 A p r i l 1986 Comm 710

t h a t t h e l u t h i e r J o s e Romanillos has been d e l v i n g i n t o t h e a r c h i v e s
i n S p a i n . In ' C l a s s i c a l G u i t a r ' magazine F e b . 1986, he claimed t h a t
he had u n e a r t h e d evidence " t o d e f i n i t e l y prove t h a t t h e v i h u e l a in t h e
1 6 t h and e a r l y 17th c e n t u r i e s had a v a u l t e d b a c k " . He a l s o r a i s e d a
number of q u e s t i o n s i n t h e same a r t i c l e r e g a r d i n g t h e o r i g i n of the
Jacquemart-Andre Museum ' v i h u e l a 1 , and i t s p r e s e n t s t a t e . These
f i n d i n g s have now been p u b l i s h e d i n a well-documented f o u r page a r t i c l e
i n ' C l a s s i c a l G u i t a r ' magazine March 1987. His main c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t
t h e P a r i s i n s t r u m e n t has none of t h e f e a t u r e s t h a t he would e x p e c t t o
f i n d which would conform t o h i s d i s c o v e r i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
of t h e v i h u e l a i n S p a i n . He c o n s i d e r s " t h e s u r v i v i n g i n s t r u m e n t by
t h e P o r t u g u e s e B e l c h i o r Dias i s a t y p i c a l example of t h e t y p e of v i h u e l a
t h a t was being made i n Madrid by the members of t h e c r a f t g u i l d " . Less
well-known r e f e r e n c e s i n c l u d e t h e B a r b i e r i p a p e r s no.14017, B i b l i o t e c a
Nacional Madrid; P r o t o c o l o 863 f o l i o 467 Madrid; P t o t o c o l o 864 Madrid
17th Aug.1588; and P r o t o c o l o 2740 f o l i o 5 2 0 , 7 t h J u l y 1622. No doubt
h i s f i n d i n g s w i l l i n s t i g a t e c o n s i d e r a b l e d i s c u s s i o n and I have w r i t t e n
t o J o s e Romanillos t o s u g g e s t t h a t t h e a r t i c l e should a l s o appear i n
t h e Galpin S o c i e t y J o u r n a l a n d / o r i n FOMRHI Q u a r t e r l y . Copies of t h e
magazine ' C l a s s i c a l G u i t a r ' can be o b t a i n e d from Ashley Mark P u b l i s h i n g
Co., TVTE, Gateshead NE11 OUR, p r i c e £1.40 • p o s t a g e .
4Z

FoMRHI Count 7 9 7 D.Gill

The 17th century Gittern and Bell Gittern

The Gittern

Conn 774 cane at a time when I had been studying the _s

(Mus.Is.App.1548) in the Dresden Sachsische Landesbibliothek which is
mentioned in its last paragraph. Eph and I were told about this ras
years ago by Tim Crawford, who has lent me his microfilm of it. I
hope it will be possible to publish an article about it in due course
but in this Comm I want to make some comments on the light it throws on
the 17th century gittern or small English cittern of Praetorius.
The four line French tablature section is part of the autograph book of
Elias Valther of Arnstadt in Thuringia, and dates from 1664 to 1670.
It contains 106 pieces with numerous concordances, one of which is with
a piece in Playford's IEM Lessons for the Gittern (1652). The
instrument required by the --tabulations is one with twelve frets, and a
tuning similar to a present day ukelele. The Praetorius small English
cittern (with the tuning f"b\ d"g") fills the bill. The layout of the
intabulation points to the use of a plectrum. The Playford (1652)
gittern tuning differs only in that the i-tabulations, such as they are,
require the fourth course to be at the low octave to work.

The Bell Gittern

The Leycester inventory (see L.S.J. XXI (1979-81) p.101) shows that one
of his instruments was a 'Gittyrne with Vyre-Strings of a Triangular
fforme' . Was this an early bell gittern ? Possible early pictorial
evidence for the bell gittern exists in Early Music (Hov. '84) p.529,
where there is a reproduction of an etching of decorative festoons of
-usical instruments made by John Dunstall, dated c. 1660. Amongst the
many instruments is a bell gittern with a single rose.
Leycester's instrument presumably had four courses but by Talbot's time
the bell gittern had five courses. In the same period the tunings
moved away from those of the four-course guitar to the tunings one finds
in the Hamburg cithrinchen tablatures. Leycester was aware of variant
tunings. The last line of his paragraph on the 'Gitterne' surely reads
'...the Tuninge which may also be j_aryed ...at pleasure" in both the
gittern and the cittern.
 4-3

Is the English guitar a Ruitar or a cittern? Stuart Walsh

The English guitar was undoubtedly the most popular sort of plucked
instrument in Britain in the second half of the eighteenth century. A
substantial amount of music was composed and arranged for it ranging from
the simplest possible transpositions of popular songs through to lessons
and sonatas for solo guitar, duets, sonatas with thoroughbass and trios
with violin and cello. Rees' Cyclopaedia (1819) talks about the 'guitar
paroxysm' of some fift^years earlier and remarks that '...its vogue was
so great among all ranks of people, as nearly to break all the harpsichord
and spinet makers...'. The English guitar was especially popular with
wealthy women (though men played the instrument too) and there are portraits
by Gainsborough and Reynolds of society folk, with their guitars.

At the time of its popularity in Britain the English guitar was most
commonly referred to in publications as a guitar or guittar. Quite often
it was known as a cetra or cittra (citra, citera). Sometimes in the titles
of publications one finds the instrument described as a 'guitar or cetra'
or some similar expression conjoining guitar/guittar with cetra/cittra.
Giacomo Merchi, in his publications for the instrument, usually refers to
it as a guitar or a guittar but in his works with Italian titles (but
published in London) such as his Dodici suonate (1766) he calls it a
chitarra. Pasqualini de Marzi's Six Sonatas (c.1750) are for the 'cetra
or Kitara'. As far as I know there is only one publication where the
instrument is called a cittern. This is the Ladies Pocket Guide (c.1750)
which is subtitled '...or the Compleat guide for the guittar and on a
separate page goes on to give 'Instructions for playing the cittern or
guittar'. Although the most usual name was guitar or guittar this is
sometimes qualified as in Geminiani's The Art of Playing the Guitar or
Cittra (1760) where it is also described as a 'lesser guitar' and in Rees'
Cyclopaedia (1819) where it is called the 'common guitar'.

Nowadays the instrument is known as the English guitar but authoritative

texts usually add that the instrument is not a guitar - or not a real
guitar - at all. The instrument, it is said, is really a cittern. James
Tyler in The Early Guitar (1980) says: "This instrument [the English
guitar] is vastly different from the gut-strung guitar and was actually
a revival of the cittern.'. Anthony Baines in European and American
Musical Instruments (1966) classes the English guitar as a 'late cittern'
alongside other wire-strung instruments popular in the eighteenth century.
(Curiously,though, Baines excludes contemporary German examples from this
category).

Now one feels there ought to be a definite answer to the question: is the
English guitar a guitar or a cittern? Of course there is no absolute rule
that a question must have a definite answer but this particular question
seems reasonable enough. On the one hand the instrument is, and was, widely '
known as a guitar/guittar/English guitar but on the other hand it is said
to be really a cittern. It might be tempting to dismiss the question as
futile - perhaps by pointing to similarities of etymology - but that would
deny the fact that cittern-type instruments and guitar-type instruments
have quite distinct traditions of construction and use traceable back at
least as far as the sixteenth century and no doubt further. Both, of course,
are fretted, stringed instruments but the briefest description of a typical
cittern (whilst acknowledging many diJ_Eerj_nt sorts of cittern) would have
to include its having metal frets and wire strings that pass over a 'floating'
or maveable bridge. The body of a typical cittern is more or less pear-
shaped and is quite shallow. There are other typical features but these will
44

suffice. In contrast a typical guitar - a Spanish guitar - is very different,

The guitar (at least up until the beginning of the nineteenth century) has
gut frets and gut strings attached to a fixed bridge. Its body is usually
described as having a figure-of-eight shape and it is much deeper than a
typical cittern's. It is obvious which of the two the English guitar most
looks like; it looks much like a cittern and not at all like a guitar. A
typical English guitar has a cittern's more or less pear-shaped body and
metal frets and wire strings. There are, it is true, some important
differences between English guitars and typical citterns of earlier times.
The body of an English guitar is much deeper than that of a traditional
cittern and this, along with differences in internal barring, is no
doubt connected with another difference - a difference not in construction
but in use - and that is that the English guitar was played with the
fingertips whereas traditional citterns were almost always played with a
plectrum. In fact the popularity of the English guitar in the eighteenth
century seems to be a revival of the tradition of orpharion and bandora
playing; that is to say, of wire strung instruments plucked with the fingers
not a quill. These and other differences in construction and use seem to
indicate that th&English guitar is certainly a special sort of cittern but
they give no reason for taking the instrument to be any sort of guitar.

It would seem then that the English guitar really is a cittern but if
that is so it follows that to call the instrument a guitar is wrong or at
least somewhat perverse. Yet in eighteenth-century Britain the instrument
was commonly described as a guitar or as a guittar. Does it follow that
people in those times who called the instrument a guitar or guittar t«Jere
wrong? That conclusion may seem a bit hard to swallow. One cannot, it
might be argued, condemn such a widespread practice. Whilst it may be
justified at times to look back in history at individuals and appraise
their ideas about such things as musical instruments one cannot do
likewise with a whole community's practice. So if people in Britain
\~ere in the habit (for at least half a century) of calling what we call
the English guitar a guitar or a guittar we today cannot say they are
wrong. In such a light it might seem attractive to return to eighteenth-
century usage and call the instrument a guitar or a guittar. But to call
the instrument a guitar risks endless confusion with the Spanish guitar
which is so much more well known. Why not, then, call the instrument a
guittar? And just this suggestion has been made by James Tyler in the
catalogue of the Galpin Society's 40th Anniversary as reported in Comm.
752 - though here the suggestion is to call the instrument the guittar
(italicised). To do so would be historically accurate in that the instrument
was commonly described as a guittar. But more: as 'guittar' is a variant
spelling of 'guitar' are we not committing ourselves to the idea that the
instrument ^£ a sort of guitar? Jeremy Montagu hints at this in the same
Comm: 'If we could all adopt it [i.e. the use of guittar in place of English
guitar] it might mean the end of the use of cittern or other le,s accurate
terms for that instrument.'.

Do we now have a different answer to the question 'is the English guitar
a guitar or a cittern?'? The instrument is a guittar (= guitar). But this
isn't convincing. There i_s something very strange about finding fault with
the musical tastes of another period of history - something like a
failure of imagination - but that is not the case here. The issue here is
simply usage. If the instrument is a guitar it has to be said that it looks
a lot like a cittern and, as far as stringed instruments go, nothing like
a guitar. Furthermore, as was pointed out in para.2, although the instrument
was most commonly referred to as a guitar or a guittar it was quite, often
 45*

referred to as a cetra and this is just the Italian for 'cittern'.

'Cittra', 'citra' and 'citera' are variants of 'cetra'. This guitar/cetra
ambiguity is reflected in title pages such as A_ choice collection of
psalm and hymn tunes set for the cetra or guittar by Frederick Hintz (c.1760)
or Compositions for the Cetra or Guittar by G.B. Marella (1762) or
Geminiani's publication mentioned earlier. Contemporary usage was, to
stretch the meaning of the word somewhat, ambivalent and to resolve to
call the instrument the guittar evades this ambivalence.

There are other difficulties with the proposal to call the English guitar
the guittar. Although 'guittar' was a common spelling in eighteenth-
century sources the other spelling 'guitar' was equally common. People on
the ground, as it were, would not have made any distinction between the
two; both words would have been taken as referring to what we now call the
English guitar. And there are instances of the 'guittar' spelling in the -
seventeenth century where the instrument in question is a Spanish guitar.
The use of 'guittar' could also risk confusion with the spelling 'gittar'
also common in seventeenth-century Britain and which also refers to the
Spanish guitar.

There is also the difficulty that one cannot distinguish between 'guitar'
and 'guittar' when speaking rather than writing about the instrument. If
the proposal were adopted speakers would still have to qualify 'guittar' with
'English' (guittar) or 'wire-strung' (guittar) or some such thing.

Perhaps calling the instrument the English guitar is not so bad after all.
The instrument was described as such in Edward Light's A short account of
the newly invented: Harp-Lute-Guitar (c.1805) where it is listed as one of
the fashionable instruments suitable 'for Ladies accommodation'. Even at
the time, if not the height, of its popularity it was known in Britain
as the English guitar. And at the very height of its popularity in Britain
it was known in France as the guitthare angloise. Referring to the instrument
as the English guitar reflects the eighteenth-century belief that the
instrument is, in a qualified way, a sort of guitar but not a Spanish
guitar. But it also marks another important contrast - with the German
guitar or guitthare allemande. To put in a rather convoluted fashion: the
English guitar is not only not a Spanish guitar it is also not a guitthare
allemande. The practice of calling cittern-type instruments guitars was
by no means confined to Britain in the eighteenth century. There was a fashion
in France too for a wire-strung instrument similar to, but in some ways
different from,the English guitar. This instrument was most commonly referred
to in French publications as the cistre ou guitthare allemande.There are
variations on the spelling of 'guitthare' and one of the most prolific of
the composer/arrangers for the instrument always insisted on calling it
the cythre (or cytre) ou guitthare allemande.This rather unwieldy expression
cistre (or cythre) ou guitthare allemande is almost always given in full
on title pages.*One reason, no doubt, for this is that the Spanish guitar
was much more popular in France than in Britain at the time and there would
have been a more urgent need to avoid confusing the two instruments.
However 'cistre' (cythre) or 'guitthare allemande (but not both) would
have done just as well to distinguish this instrument from the Spanish
guitar. But no; French practice seems to have been to make the guitar/cittern
ambiguity quite explicit. Nevertheless the instrument is being referred to
as a guitar even if in a rather qualified way. It is perhaps these two
wire-strung instruments - the English guitar and the cistre ou guitthare
allemande - that are the basic models of what could be called wire-strung
guitars popular throughout Europe in the second half of the eighteenth
century.

It was the English guitar that was taken up in Portugal at the very end of
46

the eighteenth century. There the instrument became known simply as the
guitarra. There is an illustration of a Ruitarra in Antonio da Silva
Leite's Estudo de guitarra (1795) and it is exactly like a typical English
guitar. Probably the reason why the name guitarra caught on (with no
hint of cittern/cetra etc) is that in Portugal the traditional name for
the Spanish guitar was, and remains, viola.

To return to the question: is the English guitar a guitar or a cittern?

There is no fact of the matter other than usage. Guitars and citterns are
artefacts not features of the natural world; no one will discover that
despite all appearances the English guitar belongs to the natural
classification guitar and not cittern. And so if usage is the criterion
then it must be noted that the instrument was usually referred to as a
guitar or a guittar in eighteenth-century Britain. Very similar instruments
to the English guitar were also known as guitars In other parts of Europe.
But: a) eighteenth-century practice is ambiguous. It is manifestly so in
those publications mentioned earlier that have the expression
'guitar or cetra' (or something very similar) in their titles. And
looked at more generally eighteenth-century practice is ambiguous
in that sometimes (more commonly) the instrument was known as a
guitar or guittar and other times (less commonly) as a cetra or
cittra.
b) if usage is the criterion then we have to look at the widespread
historical practice throughout Europe of distinguishing between
cittern-type instruments and guitar-type instruments. Cittern-type
instruments are known as citterns, cistres, cetras etc and guitar-
type instruments are known as guitars, guitthares, chitarras etc.
(It is true that the Portuguese called their version of the English
guitar a guitarra but I do not think that citterns in sixteenth or
seventeenth-century Portugal were known as guitarras. Enthusiasm
for the English guitar spread from Britain to Portugal and the locals
simply took over the British habit of calling the instrument a guitar.)
Against this wider historical practice of quite sharply distinguishing
between two sorts of plucked instruments with quite separate traditions of
construction and use it would seem that conventional wisdom is entirely
correct; the English guitar really is a sort of cittern. Baines' classification
of the English guitar as a 'late cittern' is exactly right.

Does this finally force the conclusion that eighteenth-century usage - the
very common practice of calling the instrument a guitar or guittar - is
wrong? Well... once the habit of calling the instrument by that name was
established competent speakers of English at that time can't be said to have been
talking incorrectly. But looked at more generally the communal practice does
seem wrong or at the very least perverse. After all there must have been people
around at the time with a knowledge of instruments of the previous two
centuries and they must have known of the separate traditions of citterns
and guitars. Classification of instruments, at least at this basic level, is
not a twentieth-century phenomenon. The interesting question is why the
practice should ever have arisen of calling cittern-type instruments guitars.
Once started no doubt momentum carried it along. I suspect the answer to
this question is closely connected to the question of the origins of the
English guitar, or more broadly, of the origins of the cittern in its
distinctive eighteenth-century form. (And I would characterise the distinctive
eighteeenth-century form of the cittern as: a deep bodied instrument, wire-
strung with its four upper strings in pairs and a number of single bass
strings. The instrument is tuned chordally (or nearly so) and it is played
with the fingers of the right hand, not with a plectrum.)

Another interesting question is raised by eighteenth-century usage. Why

didn't people at the time consider the English guitar to be simply the
latest form of cittern? But not only was 'cittern' hardly ever used (the
 47

only instance I know of is in the Ladies Pocket Guide mentioned in para.2)

it seems to have been positively avoided; instead the instrument, if it
wasn't described as a guitar/guittar, was referred to as a cetra or cittra
(citra, citera). A possible solution to this puzzle comes from France. In
his Premier Recueil (1770) for the cythre ou guitthare allemande Joseph
Carpentier writes: './instrument dont il est icy question, s'appelle cythre
par corruption du moi Cithara; Mais non pas Cistre ny Sistre comme le
disent ou l'ecrivant une infinite de personnes'. Carpentier seems to be
talking about both the guitthare allemande and the guitthare angloise in
his discussion of cythres. The cythre, according to Carpentier, has its
origins in high antiquity not in the previous couple of centuries. Perhaps,
then, there is a more ancient tradition than the post-Medieval wire-strung
cittern/gut-strung guitar that is in question. If the English guitar and
the cythre ou guitthare allemande are thought of as revivals of the ancient
cithara, the instrument from which - at least etymologically - it is sometimes
said that both 'cittern' and 'guitar' spring, then one can understand the
cittern/guitar ambiguity. The eighteenth-century embodiment, as it were, of
the cithara ideal is both a cittern and a guitar and yet neither a cittern
or a guitar (i.e. neither a 16th/17th-century cittern or guitar).Contemporary
yearnings for things classical was also manifested in the revival of lyre-
like instruments. It might also be seen as significant that one of the
earlist publications for the English guitar (as mentioned in para.2) was
de Marzi's Six Sonatas for the 'cetra or Kitara'.

However ther is no evidence that makers, composers and enthusiasts in Britain

did think that the English guitar was a revival of the cithara. And Carpentier
in his Methode (1771)answers criticismof his use of the term 'cythre' Most
of the other composer/arrangers for the guitthare allemande referred to
it in the titles of publications as the cistre ou guitthare allemande.

One final thought about the use of the term 'English guitar'. Enthusiasm
for the English guitar was not confined to England. English guitars were
made in Scotland and music for the instrument was published there. Perhaps
the only extant MS of English guitar music comes from Scotland and it
is full of Scottish tunes. English guitars were made (and presumably played)
in Dublin and the harpist John Parry of Ruabon wrote some simple airs for
the instrument. Should the instrument rather have become known as the British
guitar than the English guitar? There would be some justification for the
usual name if it could be shown that the English guitar was a specifically
English development of the traditional cittern. However contemporary sources
suggest that the instrument was imported from Europe. For example G.B.
Marella in his Compositions for the Cetra or Guittar (1762) says:'...the
vogue it has acquired in England is no more than it had long since obtained
in other parts of Europe.' The use of the word 'English' in English
guitar is probably intended to indicate the place where the instrument
flourished rather than its place of origin. Yet the instrument flourished
in Scotland and probably Ireland and Wales as well as in England. However it
does seem to be the case that most of the instruments were made and most
of the music was published in England - and mostly in London.

References
(1) Not (c.1740) as is usually given.
(2) e.g. Easie Lessons on the Guittar for young practitioners by Seignio
Francisco recorded in 1677. This reference comes from Harvey Turnbull
The Guitar from the Renaissance to the Present Day (London 1974)
(3) See 'Sprightly and Cheerful Musick ' J.M. Ward LSJ XXI 1979-81
(4) It was described as such by Joseph Carpentier in his Premier Recueil
(1770) and his Methode (1771). An entry in L'Avantcourer 30 September
1771 refers to 'M. Ungelter Allemand, maitre de cistre...(aussi appelle
cythare,guitarra allemande ou anglaise).1 This reference comes front
Die t ionaj_re u e s Instruments de Musique (Batley Bros 1941) |7UJ.'.„t^ -*j>._~Q
4_

FoMRHI Comm "7 3*3 D.Kershaw

A method for the construction of the rib template for a Lute

Ian Harwood, in his contribution to "Musical Instruments"

describes an ingenious method for constructing a template for
the ribs of a lute. No doubt this is how the ancient luthiers
set about solving the problem but a little trigonometry and a
pocket calculator can be used to provide a simpler and more
precise solution .

Diagram 1 shows the template for half the fingerboard:

A N B
Diagram 2 is that of the template for half a rib:

Then for a lute with nine segments the width L of half the
rib at the point P is given by the formula:

L = Rxsin{10°}= Rx0.174

where R is half the breadth of the fingerboard at the point P

which is at a distance D from A measured along the curved
side of the fingerboard.
If there are 2xn+l ribs in all then the formula changes to:

L =Rxsin{90°/(2xn+l)} .

(Note: the sine is that of the angle measured in degrees)

 49

The following table gives the ratio L/R for nine, eleven,
thirteen and fifteen ribbed lutes:
Number of ribs L/R
9 0.174

11 0.142

13 0.121

15 0.105

To see this suppose that the template for the fingerboard is

fixed so that it can rotate around the centre line AB,and
imagine looking along the axis of rotation.

Then the template has to rotate 20° for a lute with nine ribs
to get from one edge to the other. The length L is half the
base of an isosceles triangle whose sides are of length R and
whose vertical angle is 20°,and so the ratio L:R is sin[10°].
Apart from the actual construction of the template the only
other dificulty is that of finding the value of D,the distance
along the outline from A to P. One way to do this is to follow
\ Ian Harwood's advice which is to mark off distances from A
along the profile at 1cm. intervals. Then at the point P at a
distance D from A drop the perpendicular to AB to meet it at N
| (a set square or a carpenter's square will be useful here),
the length PN of this perpendicular will then be R.
This has to be done for each of the points P which have been
marked on the outline.
A more accurate method which I have used is to draw a line on
a strip of gummed paper and mark on it points at intervals of
one centimeter.This is then stuck to the edge of the profile
and the marks for the intervals are then transferred to the
edge of the template.With the aid of a square draw a line from
each point marked on the profile to the centre line,then the
length of this line is R.
50

Each method will tend to become inaccurate near B since the

curve of the template is nearly vertical there. To avoid this
problem the tangent line to the curve should be drawn at B,
this makes an angle of 10° with the centre line. The curve of
the rib profile can be smoothed into this line.
Although this angle can be drawn with the help of a protractor
the pocket calculator will again provide a more exact answer as
follows.
I
Draw at A a line AC perpendicular to AB of length

ABxtan{10°)=ABx0.176 ,
•;
then the angle between BA and BC wil be 10°. In general if there
are 2xn+l ribs then we have the following table:
Number of ribs AC/AB=tan{90°/(2xn+l)}

it
9 0.176
il
11 0.144
B
13 0.121

15 0.105
I
For practical purposes the two tables are identical since for
small angles the tangent and sine are almost the same, and a
discrepancy of one or two parts in a thousand will probably be
filled with glue anyway.

C»"t'h«_i TV**w o 41 Co**** ~7_ 8

(5) Joseph Carpentier - who wrote a Methode in two parts, eight Recueils
and other miscellaneous pieces.
(6) Perhaps the only exception is Michel Corrette.
(7) National Library of Scotland MS 5449.
 St

FoMRHI Comm. ^ 0 0 Ar(jal p 0W ell

A Technical Database-management Program

For Woodwind-Instrument Makers.

Having learned all I know about computers in the last 3 months, I have
never read a program description before, let alone written one. But this
is an attempt to pass on to anyone who might be able to find a use for
such a thing the program I am using to keep track of the various bore
measurements I have records of, and of the reamers that are supposed to
reproduce them in the Folkers & Powell workshop.

We sometimes use one-piece reamers for production work, but a large amount
of bore-cutting, especially when working on new designs, is done with
short reamers - 35-80mm. cutting length. This means that very often the
same reamer can do a useful job in making several different kinds of
flute. In general, the advantage of short reamers over one-piece ones is
that you can make as many adjustments to the bore as you like without
going to all the trouble of making a new reamer each time.

Hitherto, when working on a new design, I would sit on the floor

surrounded by bits of paper: a graph of the new bore, a list of the
reamers already existing (about 50 of them), and graphs of many other
flutes marked with the reamers proper to them, so that it was possible to
see roughly what shape a reamer might be expected to cut between its
maximum and minimum diameters. This method is tiring to the brain and
causes stiffness in the joints, besides leaving a lot of room for error
and inaccuracy.

The program described below draws graphs on a computer monitor (it does
not print them yet since we have only a daisy-wheel printer) and
manipulates them in the following ways:

[A] draws a graph of a section of a flute from information input at the

keyboard.
[B] draws a graph from disk files and gives the option of selecting
reamers, drawing their graphs on the same screen, and shuffling them
across to compare the shape they will cut with the shape of the bore
graph.

[C] compares the bores of two similar (or not-so-similar) sections of

flute. This is a short-cut to the procedure described above for finding
old reamers for a new design, since many flutes have bores that are quite
similar in parts. It is also very nice to be able to compare different
instruments by the same maker etc.etc. without having to draw lots of
graphs on tracing paper. If you have a colour monitor, the program could
easily be adapted to display more than two at a time, but with only 2
colours the screen soon becomes cluttered.

[D] draws graphs whose coordinates are given in steps of 0.2mm. We have
some information in this form, but I prefer to use steps of 0.1, so I took
this section of the program no further.

[E] reads, writes or updates the files of bore dimensions or reamers.

Even with such an efficient system as this, it is still occasionally
necessary to make a new reamer!
52. The program consists of 700 lines of GWBASIC, and 2 random-access files:
#1 "Graph data", and #2 "Reamers". For those who have a computer but no
familiarity with BASIC, I should say at this point (so that you do not
have to read any further) that I would be quite happy to send a program
disk to anyone who might think they have a use for it - you will have to
adapt it to your own use to the extent of writing your own directories of
graph names and reamer dimensions, but that is easily explained and very
easily done. For those who do write BASIC, I will go into a little detail
to save you time if you write a similar program yourself.

The monitor is set to extended high-resolution graphics (720 X 348 pixels)

with the statement SCREEN 3. The frame and axes are drawn with the
following lines:

DRAW "BM0,0"
LINE -(710,320),,B
LINE(100,8)-(607,30),,B' this is a frame to put
the title in
DRAW"BM40,300"
FOR K=1 TO 22
DRAW "R30"
DRAW "ND3"
NEXT K

DRAW "BM40,300"
FOR K=1 TO 9
DRAW "U30"
DRAW"NL3"
NEXT K

You can take the graph's title (T$(R)) from the directory at the same time
as the program is reading its coordinates from disk, and place it in the
box at the top of the page like this:

V-LEN(T$(R)):P=40-(V/2)
LOCATE 2,P:PRINT T$(R)

Each set of dimensions is supplied with a maximum and a minimum diameter:

this information goes in the first 2 fields of each record on the disk
files. To get the correct calibration on the vertical axis (the
horizontal is always calibrated 0-220, which is about as long as flute
middle-joints get) the max. is called Z and the min. A.

IF Z-.5<INT(Z) THEN Z1=INT(Z)+.5

IF Z-.5>INT(Z) THEN Z1=INT(Z)+1
IF A-.5<INT(A) THEN A1 = INT(A)
IF A-.5>INT(A) THEN A1 = INT(A) + .5

The axis is then labelled according to whether A1=INT(A) or A1=INT(A)+.5.

If Z1-A1>5, it is too big for the scale provided, and the program tells
you so.

To get a graph onto the screen according to the calibrated axes, the
fol'.owing few lines find the starting point, plot it, and then draw a line
connecting the rest of the points.

A10-A1*10:A11=A*10
W=(A11-A10)*6
H1=Z*10:H2=A11:H=(H1-H2)*6
N-300-H-W
 53
PSET 40,N
FOR K=1 TO H/6
S4-D(K)*3:R-S4+40
N=N+6
LINE -(R,N)
NEXT K

What this means is that having calculated the starting point (N) by
subtracting the vertical distance from the origin (pixel 300) of the
difference between the graph minimum and the lowest calibration (W) and
the difference between the graph max. and min.(H), points are plotted
against the vertical scale, decrementing by 0.1mm. at each step, by values
on the horizontal scale, stored in D(K).

These same few lines can then be used to put other graphs on the screen,
and by taking out and storing initial and final values of R and N, it is
easy to move lines around without waste of memory space by means of GET
and PUT statements. If you are moving a line representing a reamer across
the screen until it coincides with a bore graph, you can put a counter on
the screen to tell you how many mm. into the imaginary flute your putative
reamer has penetrated. This figure is simply the cutting length in pixels
of the reamer added to the distance in pixels it has travelled, less the
distance, also in pixels, from the horizontal axis to the left-hand edge
of the screen, times the horizontal scale factor.

If anyone can think of other tricks this program might be persuaded to

perform, let's add them on to make something that could have a more
general usefulness.
S4
F-MRHI CO*-*. 001 A Reed-Serap,-g T_ a | "Djv.ek E.. Owen
At t h e r e c e n t Bate C o l l e c t i o n Baroque & Classical Bassoon
Weekend there was much discussion ( & practice ) of early reed
making. Any discussion of reed making ultimately leads to dis-
cussion of reed making tools & Jeremy asked me to describe my
method for scraping the inside of gouged cane.

The scraping tool is a traditional scratch stock which I

originally made for Italian type harpsicord mouldings ( see also
Comms. 476, 571 & 586). The blades are easily made for any
internal scrape diameter.

The gouging bed is a block of hard wood, in my case pear

wood. The channel is cut with the nearest (smaller) round
moulding plane & finished to the profile of the outer cane dia-
meter with the scratch stock. The cane is held from moving
longitudinally by i. the fixed block at the 'away' end & ii. the
adjustable block at the near end.

I find it convenient to hold the gouging bed in my bench

vice so that I can use two hands to the scratch stock. As the
scratch stock will cut equally well in either direction one
doesn't need to keep turning the cane round. In order to
facilitate cutting/scraping in both directions take care to
grind (or file) the cutter edges dead square.

I wonder if this method ever existed as an intermediate

method between freehand gouging & Triebert's gouging machine ?

<Uilow_ iwXUxe* cu/Xkr k-^ewr-e sok

SofluiVcuJtUr-atM**XC*A <&£**. oJfcd#e-

}
w4r'

COMC frlO^S tip .

Scrt**)i
B-sU>fc
 ss

FoMRHI Comm. 802. Maggie Lyndon-Jones

The Bassano/HIE(RO).S./!!/Venice Discussion
A number of recent articles in learned publications have continued the discus-
sion of the Bassano family of instrument makers and their possible connections
with the marks !! and/or HIE(RO).S. (D. Lasocki 'The Anglo-Venetian Bassano
Family as Instrument Makers and Repairers' GSJ XXXVIII; G. M. Ongaro '16th-
century Venetian wind instrument makers and their clients' Early Music August
1985; D. Lasocki 'The Bassanos: Anglo-Venetian and Venetian' Early Music
November 1986). In the hope that the discussion and research can be continued
further among FoMRHI members I would like to set out as follows some of
the current observations (including some new ones):-

1. Jeronimo Bassano, who came from Bassano del Grappa near Venice,
had six musical sons called Alvise, Gespero (Jasper), Zuane (John), Antonio
(Anthony), Jacomo and Baptista. The family is thought to have been Jewish,
although their Christian names would seem to indicate otherwise? The brothers
are known to have called themselves 'de Jeronimo' before settling in England.
2. Anthony, Jacomo and Alvise were definitely instrument makers.
They all made instruments while in London, and Jacomo also made them in
the Venetian area: unlike his brothers he did not stay in London for long.
It is likely that some of the brothers were instrument makers before leaving
Venice for London in 1540 at Henry VIII's request, when they brought with
them 'all their instruments'.
3. Jasper and John may also have made instruments as they shared
the houses where Anthony had a workshop between 1542 and 1567. There
is no evidence that Baptista was a maker.
4. With up to five of the brothers and some of their sons making instru-
ments for so many years it is extremely likely that a fair number of their
instruments would have survived. None have ever been positively identified
as having been made by them, but there are several which may have been.
These are stamped HIE.S., HIER.S. or HIERO.S., all contractions of the name
Hieronymus, an alternative for Jeronimo, which is the name the brothers gave
themselves before leaving Venice.
5. Only about 25 instruments survive bearing the mark HIE(RO).S. so
perhaps the Bassano family were also or alternatively the makers of the instu-
ments bearing one of the two most common marks found on extant instruments
of the period, namely !! in various groupings. The original Jewish ghetto in
the Venetian area was on the island called Spinalunga (later known as Giudecca)
which has the shape ! and could be made into a distinctive maker's mark by
adding its own mirror image. It could then signify 'made by a famous family
of Jewish origin from Venice'.
6. There is a marked similarity between certain instruments bearing
the mark HIE(RO).S. and others marked !!, for example the recorders now
in the collection in Vienna. This suggests that they were either made by
the same person(s) or to the same plans. It is known that Jacomo and his
son-in-law made the same kinds of wind instrument in Venice as his brothers
made in England (shawms, cornetts, crumhorns, recorders and probably curtals).
Perhaps the HIE(RO).S. mark was used by the Venetian workshop and the !!
marks by the London workshops, which would have had larger outputs as most
of the brothers spent most of their instrument-making careers there.
56

7. There are, no known instruments bearing both !! and HIE(RO).S.

A number of people have been mislead by F. von Huene's article 'Maker's
Marks from Renaissance and Baroque Woodwinds' GSJ XXVII, in which he gives
HIER.S. as the mark found on a mute cornet in Leipzig, and !! !! underneath,
thus giving the unintentional impression that both marks are found on the
same instrument. In fact there are four mute cornetts in Leipzig, of which
two bear the mark !! !! (1559 & 1560) and two bear the mark HIER.S. (1561
& 1562).
8. The recorders illustrated by Mersenne bear a noticeable similarity
to surviving examples marked !! or HIE(RO).S. He says that they were made
in England. There are other mid-16th century references to instruments being
made in England, including crumhorns, recorders and curtals.
9. There is no positive evidence to link the mark !! with rabbits' feet.
The mark may also look like hare or deer spoor, but this is probably co-
incidental.
10. Has anybody made a study of makers' marks on stringed instruments?
They are less likely to survive essentially unaltered than wind instruments,
but there may be some somewhere with the original mark. The Bassanos are
known to have made viols and lutes as well as woodwind instruments.
11. The set of crumhorns marked !! several times on each instrument
are said to be in their original case. Has anyone ever looked inside the lining?
There might just be a copy of the invoice giving the maker's name and address!

There now follows a provisional checklist of all the instruments I have found
mentioned which are marked !! etc or HIE(RO).S. No attempt has been made
to distinguish between the subtle variations in the shape, size and colour of
the marks found on different instruments. If any FoMRHI member has seen
any of the instruments in this list and knows that the mark is listed incorrectly
please let me know as there are sometimes discrepancies between various
sources. Also I've probably missed out a lot more instruments - please let
me know if you can think of any others.

NB I have included instruments marked KM because it is likely that these

are in fact !! !! marks impressed rather more deeply that usual into the wood
or leather.
 57

Mark Collection No. Provenance etc. Reference

Cornett, curved

it Musee Instrumental CM 1209 Pietro Correr, Museum Catalogue

de Bruxelles Venice
CM 1211

Museum fur Hamburg 1924.201 Mus. Cat.

ische Geschichte
1924.202

Victoria & Albert 26/2 Mus. Cat.

London
Kunsthistorisches 4076/A241 Schloss Ambras, Schlosser p - S ^
Museum, Wien Innsbruck (Mus. Cat.)
8591/C245 Schloss Catajo,
Venice

it II Stadtisches Museum 85 GSJ XXVII p. 34

Braunschweig

Bruxelles CM 1204 P. Correr Mus. Cat.

Hamburg 1924.200 Mus. Cat.

it
1924.203

Wien 4077/A242 Ambras Mus. Visit

II
8589/C243 Catajo Mus. C a t . p . ^ 0
II
8590/C244

!! !! Braunschweig GSJ XXVII p.34

II
Christchurch College ?Purchased in 1605 GSJ XXXIV pp.
Oxford V for £2.13s. 44 - 50
n II

II II Accademia Filarmon- 13.265 Mus. c a t . p. 58

and ica di Verona
II II 13.266
13.267
13.268
13.269

Cornett, torti

II II Braunschweig 66 Baines

!! !! Castle Museum,
II Norwich

II II Ace. Fil. Verona 13.295 Mus.

Mus. Cat.
v_at. p.
p. i61
and II
13.296
II II
I
S8

II II A c e . Fil. Verona 13.292 Mus. C a t . p. 60.

II

and
II II n 13.293 II
II

and
11 II n 13.294 .. f.6l
II

C o r n e t t , strai)Jht

M Bruxelles CM 1189 P. Correr Mus. Cat.

n CM 1191 n
n CM 1192 II
n

Biblioteca C a p i t o - 13 Mus. C a t . p. 91
lare de Verona
it
14

it 11 S t a d t i s c h e Kunst- 3006 GSJ XXVII p.34

sammlungen, Augsburg

Museo C i v i c o , LM n. 28 Mus. Cat.

Bologna

Bruxelles CM 2451 Barbieri, Madrid ?

Musikinstrumenten 1559 Mus. Cat.

- Museum, Leipzig
II
1560

A c e . Fil. Verona 13.258 Mus. Cat. p. 64

II II
13.259
II
13.260 n P. cz
II
13.262 II

II
13.263 II

Wien 4065/A236 Ambras Schlosser p. 89

n II
8586/C238 Catajo

II II n
Wien 8585/C237 Catajo
M II II n
8587/C23?

Crumhorn

Treble !! !! Bruxelles 610 Valdrighi, originally Boydell p. 141

II possibly from E s t e ,
and near Venice
II II
it II
II
Tenor 611
II ii
n 612
II it
it
613
n n II
Bass 614
II II
it
Great bass 615
 59

Curtal

Bass HX Historisches Museum, 4259 Also stamped 1605 Mus. Visit

Frankfurt
Treble X H Augsburg 3017 Mus. Visit
M
Tenor II
3016 n

Bass Wien 4026/A194 Ambras Mus. Visit

Bass !! Gberbsterreichisches W125 Mus. Visit

!! !! Landesmuseum, Linz W127 n
u
Wien 8581/117 Mus. Visit
n n
8574/118

FLute

Tenor !! B i b l . Cap. Verona 9 Mus. C a t . p. 89

II
10 n
Bass n 3 ii f.<\0

Tenor !! !! Bruxelles CM1064 P. Correr Mus. Visit

II it ti
CM1065

II
Wien 4079/A185 Ambras

Bass n
Bruxelles 1088 Head joint only

Recorder

Treble !! Wien 8522/C14 6 Catajo Schlosser p. 77

II
8533/C14 9 n it
II
/C15 7 n
n
Musikinstrumenten- 659
Tenor museum, Berlin Mus. C a t .
Wien 8536/C16 0 Catajo GSJ X X V p. 31
ti
8537/C16 1 it n

Conservatoire National (2)376 GSJ X X V p. 34

Bassett de Musique, Paris

B i b l . Cap. Verona 1 Mus. C a t . p. 86

A c e . F i l . Verona 13.250 Mus. C a t . p. 37

II
13.251
11
13.252 » f. _s
ii
13.253
it

Bass Hamburg 1924.206 Young 'Look of

Music' p. 36

A c e . F i l . Verona 13.246 Mus. C a t . p. 4 0

it
Great bass 13.242 Mus. C a t . p. 41
60

Descant !! !! _
Bruxelles 1025 P. Correr GSJ XXV p. 34
Treble Paris E1935 ti

Wien C158 Catajo Schlosser p. 77

Tenor Dayton C. Miller, 1240 Bought from Rudall Mus. Cat.

Washington Carte

Bassett Bruxelles CM 1033 P. Correr Mus. Cat.

it
M4358 II

Bate Collection, 0117 Mus. Visit

Oxford

Shrine to Music ? \
Museum, Vermilion

Ace. Fil. Verona 13.254 Mus. Cat. p. 39

ti
13.249 it

Wien 8550/A176 Ambras GSJ XXV p. 31

Schlosser p. 79
Bass Ace. Fil. Verona 13.244 Mus. Cat. p. A-0
ti
13.245 ti

V & A, London 20/1 Mus. Cat.

n 20/2 it

Great bass Bruxelles 188 Hanseatic Consulate

Antwerp
? Size Ferdinandeum, I GSJ XXV p. 32
Innsbruck

Bass XX Berlin 650

II Muzej Muzykalnych GSJ XXVII p.34
M II Instrumentov Teatra,
Leningrad

Tenor !! !! Wien 7350 GSJ XXV p. 32

II
?Tenor Germanisches Nation- MI/145 tt

museum, Nurnberg

Tenor Museo degli Stru- ? Mus. Visit

nenti Musicale, Rome
Bass II
? ti

Extended bass II
? ti

Quart bass it ? tt

Tenor !! !! Wien 8538/C162 Catajo Schlosser p. 78

II
___ —__ ___. _— . | , , •" — __• _r _r _r .
1 _.___.
it Wien 8544/C174 Catajo Schlosser p. 79
and
!! !!

Bass Berlin 2818 GSJ XXV p. 33

 6»
Bassett !! !! Wien 4027/C175 Catajo GSJ XXV p. 31
II Schlosser p. 79
and
!! !!

Contra- !! !! Ace. Fil. Verona 13.243 Mus. C a t . p. 41

bass •!
and
II
!! !!

Shawm

Schalmei !! !! Wien 8563/C190 Catajo Mus. Visit

Alt- ti n
4025/A191 Ambras
pom mer
it
Bruxelles M2326

Cornet, straight

HIER.S. Leipzig 1561 Also marked with a Mus. Cat.

(de Wit 567 ) double-headed eag e
II it it
1562
(de Wit 568 )

HIE.S. Rome ? Mus. Visit

it it

ti 9 ti

ti 9 •i

ti 9 n
Curtal

Octave HIERO.S. Augsburg 3012 Mus. Visit

bass II
ti
Quart 3013
bass
ti
HIER.S. Wien C198 Catajo
it ti it
C199
tt it tt
Bass C196
ti
HIERO.S. Augsburg 3014
tt
Tenor Nurnberg M124 P. Correr
ti
HIER.S. Bruxelles M990

Recorder

Great HIE.S. Wien C180 Catajo GSJ XXV p.

bass

Bassett HIER.S. Bibl. Cap. Verona 2 Mus . Cat. p. 87

Bass HIE.S. Wien C177 Catajo GSJ XXV pp.31

it
it C178 - 41
ti it
ti C179
ti
Tenor ti A170 Ambras
it A171 n tt

it
HIER.S. it C172 Catajo
it tt
it C173
ti
Alto it C153
ti
Descant it C143
:
i _i
62

FoMRHI Comm 8<>3 Charlie Wells

Restoration of an Early Clarinet.
The instrument in question is a clarinet in C by George Miller and is
in the Bate collection. Jeremy Montagu first showed me it in Nov.1984 and it
was in a very sorry state. At that time I knew very little about the clarinet
early or modern, and in any case I was a novice to the restoration of early
instruments. I therefore felt that it was too dificult for me to take on. I
kept the project in mind though and about a year later, having tackled a
number of other minor restorations, become more interested in the clarinet
and needing a project for my final assessment at the London College of
Furniture, decided to look at it again. Jeremy still felt that the instrument
was worth restoring and could be brought to playing condition, and as he was
prepared to entrust it to me I decided to have a go.
This clarinet is fairly typical of quite a number of surviving instru-
ments by George Miller, one of a number of London woodwind instrument makers
of the second half of the 18th century and a pioneer of the English clarinet.
The most famous of his instruments is the pair of B flat clarinets, now also
in the Bate collection(nos.4008 & 4009), one of which is depicted in
Zoffrany's painting "The Sharp Family on the Thames at Fulham". It is a 5
keyed instrument in light brown stained boxwood with ivory mounts and brass
keys. The long, open E key is stamped IH on the reverse, the initials of
John Hale, another contemporary instrument maker who obviously specialised
in the then quite new, long clarinet keys, because his keys turn up on the
clarinets of most of the London makers of the time. The F sharp key and the
mouthpiece were bpth missing and all the surviving wooden parts were in poor
condition, but the 4 surviving keys appeared to De original and in good
condition. There are no special features about the clarinet which is simply
turned and probably Miller's standard, everyday model.
To bring tne clarinet to playing condition the following work would
be needed:
(a) Top .joint.(LH fingerholes) There had been a previous attempt to repair
the tenon at the top end with a replacement wooden sleeve which may have
altered the outside profile and had certainly reduced the bore diameter at
this point. Also some open cracks had previously been filled. The replace-
ment tenon could be retained but the bore would need reaming. Apart from this
all that was needed was minor work such as re-lapping the tenons and replac-
ing the keypina.
(b) Bivided lower .joint.(RH fingerholes) This was seriously damaged and
 63

would require a new socket as the wood had disintegrated. Fortunately though
the ivory mount surrounding it was in good condition and could be replaced
around the new socket. There was also wear and compression on the tenon at
the opposite end but probably not such that repair would be justified.
(c) Integral lower joint and bell. The F sharp key and the large ivory
bell mount were missing. The other two keys (E _ G sharp) both had rusted
iron pins (obviously not original). The lower key boss on the E key had
broken away, perhaps due to the rusting, and had been repaired by fitting a
brass saddle. The top socket had cracks and on closer inspection had
previously been replaced by counterboring down beyond the right little
fingerhole and inserting a wooden sleeve. The top ivory mount may also be
a replacement and had a small crack. The conical bell had a number of open
cracks, some of which had previously been filled with resin.
(d) Mouthpiece. This would probably have been integral with the barrel and
would need reconstructing from data gathered from another similar instrument.

Was restoration justified? The above catalogue of defects, some serious

and others more routine,immediately begged the question whether a success-
ful restoration was possible and if so, whether it could be justified on
conservation grounds. A number of issues needed to be considered:
(a) Is the instrument particularly rare or of historical importance?
(b) Is the repair work irreversible? ie. will the work materially disturb
the parts as they existed before restoration in such a way that they cannot
be returned to their original condition?
(c) Is any of the work likely to involve the risk of further damage to the
instrument?
(d) Is the aim of the restoration (ie. to bring the clarinet to playing
condition) reasonably attainable?
I arrived at the following conclusions:
(a) Having discussed the first point with Jeremy Montagu we decided that
the clarinet was neither particularly rare nor historically important. Even
so, it would probably have been made within 15 to 20 years of the first
English clarinets.
(b) Fortunately most of the work would be easily reversible. The replacement
parts, ie. mouthpiece and F sharp key,present no problem and items which
are stuck on can be fixed with a low melting point adhesive to enable
future removal if necessary. The one major repair which could not be re-
versible is the replacement of the socket of the divided lower joint. This
G4

would entail counterboring the joint beyond the depth of the existing
socket and inserting a boxwood sleeve. This could easily be considered
too drastic an operation on an early instrument, however, two similar
repairs had already been undertaken, one on the bell joint, apparantly
quite early in the instrument's life, and the other on the top joint
tenon, a more recent repair.
(c) The main risk would involve the replacement socket discussed above.
To counterbore this joint accurately would entail holding it securely in
a lathe chuck and rotating it at speed an operation requiring great
care. None of the other repairs need cause any particular risk to the
instrument if handled carefully.
(d) Provided the instrument was a good working clarinet in the first place
and the mouthpiece is successfully reconstructed, then there is no reason
why it cannot be restored to satisfactory playing condition. Heavy useage
in the past must be a good indication that an instrument played well, other-
wise it would soon have been discarded. In this case there are plenty of
indications of previous heavy use: wear around the fingerholes and where
it is supported by the thumb of the right hand; the numerous previous
repairs, some major, indicating that the instrument had had extensive use
and was worth repairing to its owner. Those museum instruments which have
survived in mint condition show none of this evidence, which must beg the
question as to why they were hardly used in their early life.
The main problem concerning the justification of restoring this
clarinet lies with the repair to the socket of the divided lower joint.
An alternative to repairing it would be to construct a totally new joint.
On balance, however, in this case we decided that the repair was justified
especially in view of the number of other previous repairs.

The restoration itself.

We have already established that this clarinet is not particularly
rare, historically important or therefore valuable. Nevertheless it is over
200 years old and has many of the features of the earliest English clarinets
and therefore worthy of very careful handling. I considered it an honour
to be entrusted witn restoring it. In describing the restoration work I
shall omit the routine tasks such as cleaning, oiling and repaddinft- and
concentrate on the main repair work.
(a) The top joint. The bore at the top tenon, a recent replacement, was
reamed out by hand using an expanding reamer (standard engineering type)
 65

so that it matched the bore of the rest of the joint. The newer wood around
and just below this tenon was much lighter in colour and so was carefully
stained with concentrated nitric acid whilst staining the new mouthpiece.
(b) The divided lower joint. First the ivory mount was removed by gentle
warming well above (at least 10 cm) the flame of a spirit lamp. The diff-
icult task of holding the joint in the lathe in order to counterbore it
was solved by first turning a wooden sleeve to fit the joint closely but x

not tightly, and then making a longitudinal saw cut in it. A relatively
soft but resilient wood was needed for this and sycamore was chosen. The
joint was put into the sleeve and tightened with a "jubilee" or hose clip.
The assembly could then be held safely in a 3-jaw chuck. The counterboring
<7u_M_r_r Cc/*-~_/Ofw was done with an end milling
OARtHer J0(NT
/ -^ cutter held in the tailstock
of the lathe, and was taken
down as far as the edge of the
first fingerhole. The new tenon,
Sm/cjT" s»frd^»0 5-_** of boxwood, was stuck in with
epoxy resin and the original ivory mount replaced. The result was quite
invisible externally and should prove to be strong, especially as early
clarinets of this type had a particularly thick ivory mount in this position.
(c) The integral lower joint and bell.First a new ivory mount for the base
of the bell was made. I am generally against the use of ivory for ecol-
ogical reasons, but was prepared to make an exception in this case as any
substitute would look out of place. Having bought a disc of the correct
diameter and thickness for this bell mount, I managed to cut a smaller
disc from the centre for the mouthpiece mount. I modelled the bell mount on
those fitted to the pair B flat clarinets by Miller, already mentioned. It
was deliberately made to fit fairly tightly in order to close up the cracks
in the bell itself. These were glued with epoxy resin at the same time as
fixing on the mount.
The other major task with the bell joint was to make an F sharp key.
This is a long key operated by the left hand little finger, placed along-
side the E key which is even longer. The earliest English clarinets have a
straight F sharp key whose touch is some distance i'rom that of the E key,
making it a little awkward to operate. Later instruments had a "crank" in
the F sharp key to bring the touch closer to the E key. I first made a
straight key but afterwards found that the original had almost certainly
been cranked. This was because the instrument had a cut-away boss just
66

I. sr«At<;Hr

ScTWk CoT~ AWAV

ftvoT Potm ftoss -

above the spatula which acts as a guide for the key shank, necessary
because of the tendency to twist caused by the crank. I therefore made
a second F sharp key with the crank, and it was certainly more comfortable
to play.
This fact also helped to date the instrument. The conical shape of
the bell and the integral bell and lower joint suggest a fairly early
clarinet made well before the end of the 18th century. The cranked F sharp
key, however, only began appearing on instruments made towards the end of
the century. It was possibly, therefore, one of the earliest clarinets
with the cranked key, and I would date it around 1770, give or take up to
10 years.
(d) The mouthpiece/barrel. This clarinet would probably have been built
with an integral mouthpiece and barrel as the separate barrel only became
common at the very end of the 18th century. I therefore made an integral
mouthpiece. This created a problem as the only available mouthpiece of
this type by George Miller was on one of the pair of B flat clarinets
mentioned earlier. This C clarinet would almost certainly have had a
shorter mouthpiece with a narrower bore. Any reconstruction would entail
some guesswork but to cut this to a minimum I compared as many as possible
of the dimensions of the B flat clarinets with the corresponding dimensions
of the C clarinet. I used this information to calculate 3 conversion
factors: a ratio of the longitudinal measurements; a ratio of the bore
measurements; a ratio of the outside diameters.
Length ratio: 0*893 Bore ratio: 0*97 Diametric ratio: 0*95
(cf. theoretical ratio for raising pitch by 2 equal tempered semitones
ie. fl flat to C = 1/^2* = 0*691 )
I applied these 3 ratios to the dimensions of the B flat clarinet
mouthpiece to produce a shorter, slimmer mouthpiece for our C clarinet. I
also copied as closely as possible the voicing details. Getting the above
information together took many months because I needed more details of the
B flat mouthpiece tnan was given on Alan Mils's plan. The actual instru-
 67

ment was at that time in the Handel tercentenary exhibition at the NPG
and therefore unavailable until it was over. I then made up a number of reeds
whose dimensions fitted the table of the new mouthpiece but with varying
thicknesses, lengths of scrape etc. The reed which played the instrument
most comfortably throughout it's range gave a reasonable sound but over-
wide intervals and particularly sharp throat notes. This suggested that
my mouthpiece was too short, so I made a second one with a length midway
between the first one and that of the B flat clarinet.
This second mouthpiece, with slightly longer reed, produced far
better tuning than before, and although we shall never know how near it
is to the original one, I decided I could go no further, fitted the
ivory mount and used these dimensions in my plan of the instrument.
The eventual reeds I made were 40mra long, cut from 25mm tube cane
(bassoon cane) to a thickness of l«5mm and width around 11mm. Scrape
lengths were tried between 20 and 30mm but the most successful had a
scrape of around 25mm, gradually thinning to about •2mm at the tip.
1 am no clarinettist and at the time no one was available who could
play the instrument well, but I found the pitch to be around A.=420hz.
Interestingly, a couple of players of modern single reed instruments who
tried the clarinet had considerably less success at blowing it than I did.

Note: For the historical details I relied heavily upon "Early English
Clarinets" by Eric Halfpenny, Galpin Society Journal XVIII (1964/5)
68

Po^RVH Cow,*,. 804- Geoffrey B.-ges_

"A Profile of Mr Ling"
or
English Oboe Reeds around 1800

The route to original oboe reed sources is fraught with

confusion, red herrings and closed doors. Due partly to the
extreme fragility of the items and partly because their
usefulness has been recognized only recently, examples of pre-
20th century oboe reeds are as rare as the proverbial hen's-
teeth. The paucity of original specimens has led 20th century
oboists relying more heavily on empirical investigation in
their searches for reeds to suit historical oboes. While this
has certainly yielded positive results, the extent to which
authenticity has been compromised remains a moot point.
Particularly the method by which the old reeds were scraped
suggests a preferred tonal quality much brighter and more
strident than today's idea of the tone of historical oboes.
Once I had received Bruce Haynes' store of data on original
reeds and before I could launch into the field, all the
locations of reeds he listed had to be checked. In fact, this
job is still incomplete. Appendix A lists all locations of
original reeds known to me. There will inevitably be one or
two dead-end paths to be eliminated and other sources to be
added to the list. Please help if you know - or have just the
slightest suspicion - of the whereabouts of any old oboe
reeds.
This is the first part of what I hope will become a
series of articles describing all known original oboe reeds
made before the emergence of the narrow-bored Romantic oboe
developed by the Triebert line. Described here are three
important English collections of oboe reeds dating from around
1800: to my knowledge the oldest in England. They are held
in the Bate Collection, Pitt-Rivers Museum and in a private
collection in Cambridge owned by Dr Nicholas Shackleton.
Thomas Ling's work is represented in each collection; there

1. See H. Vas Dias, "Making Reeds for the Baroque Oboe",

JIDRS, 9, (1981), p. 48 and B. Haynes, "Making Baroque Oboe
Reeds", EM_, 4, (1976), pp.31 and 173 for models of 20th
century styles.
2. Updating his article "Early Double Reeds: Prospectus for a
Survey of the Historical Evidence", JIDRS, 9 (1981), pp.43-47
and with H. Lange, "The Importance of Original Double Reeds
Today", GSJ, 30 (1977), pp.145-51.
3. I have taken this as a cut-off point because it was then
that reeds similar to those still in use were developed.
"Since 1830 the fundamental concept of tone production becomes
almost identical to our own day." (L. Goossens and E.
Roxburgh, Oboe, Yehudi Menuhin Music Guide, London, 1977,
p.18.) The invention of the gouging machine c. 1845 also
revolutionized the technique of reedmaking.
 69

are more reeds by him than any other maker. William

Bainbridge commented on his work in Observations on the Cause
of Imperfections in Wind Instruments thus: "... I have seen
very good Oboe reeds made by Mr Ling... I know the great
reputation which Mr Ling's reeds bear among professors."
Little is known of his life except that he lived at 8 Helmet
Court and voted in Westminster elections, registered as a
musician, in 1774, 88 and 90; that he probably played the oboe
in York Festivals of 1823, 25 and 28; made bassoon reeds for
Essex church in 1828 and that he lived at 35 (or 31?)
Cirencester Place, Fitzroy Square until his death in 1851.
His wife seems to have continued his business for a while
after his death.

This is the first time that detailed measurements of old

reeds will be available in print. My principal wish is to
describe these important sources with sufficient accuracy so
players of historical oboes may be able to reconstruct an
authentic "set up" as closely as possible. I have taken the
criteria established for measuring bassoon reeds by Paul
White as a basis for my documentation, amending where

4. London, 1823, pp.14-15.

5. Details from M. Byrne, "Reed Makers", GSJ, 37 (1984),

p.100.

6. In his article "Reconstructing an 18th Century Oboe Reed",

GSJ, 35 (1982), pp.100-111, Frederic R. Palmer described Bate
reed no. 2. His aim was to outline practical ways of copying
this reed, which he believed suits many 18th century oboes.
His paper has a number of shortcomings. Firstly, as will be
proven later, the reed dates from 1799 at the earliest, so
using it to play 18th century instruments is anachronistic.
While it is true that this reed is amongst a small number
which are "the closest link to reeds that were used during the
first half of the 18th century" (Palmer, p. 100) in terms of
original specimens, the similarities between the oboes and
reeds they require from the beginning of the century with
those from the end in no way outweigh the differences. Reeds
for both "Baroque" (e.g. Denner, Stanseby, Schlegel, Richters,
Rottenburgh models) and "Classical" (Milhouse, Collier,
Cahusac in England; Grundmann, Delusse, Anciuti on the
Continent) oboes need to respond easily to overblow octaves
and produce cross-fingered notes. It is the shorter and
narrower bores affecting the balance of registers and
intonation of the later oboes which place different demands on
reeds. As his conclusion, Palmer tabulates the pitches of 9
oboes from the Bate Collection when played with his copy of
the Ling reed. In several cases, these results go against the
opinions of makers and players who have worked extensively
with originals and copies of the same models. To give two
examples: Schlegel oboes are known to play best lower than A
= 415, not anywhere near 435; similarly oboes by Stanesby Jr.
are generally played at 415 or slightly lower, not 421. I
point out othor problems in Palmer's methodology under
relevant headings.
70

necessary.
Any oboist will agree that trying to describe reeds and
hypothesize on their performance without actually playing them
is an almost impossible job. Reeds are made to be played and
should be judged on this - not their appearance. As it is
unknown what damage could be done by wetting and playing these
reeds, those in the Bate Collection and Pitt-Rivers museum are
permanently withheld from use. While Nick Shackleton is in
favour of allowing his reeds to be played, he is waiting until
forensic tests can be carried out to determine how many people
have used the reeds. Moreover, how much can be learnt from
playing them is open to question: time would surely have
affected them adversely. So we have to rely upon visual
examination and results from facsimiles. As Ling's work was
highly regarded, the original quality of his reeds need not be
doubted.

Dating
All reeds examined are associated with one or more oboes.
When were they "associated" and by whom? Were the reeds
necessarily made at the same time as the oboe? They could
have been made or bought anytime later. Thus association is
not necessarily a clear-cut method for dating. By plotting
the intersection of the careers of oboe makers and known reed-
makers an approximate dating can be suggested. A quantiative
test for a reed's appropriateness to a given instrument is
still lacking. Such a test might come from a statistical
analysis, but would still be valid for only one player. For
the sake of comparison, I have included measurements (less
complete) of other reeds roughly contemporary with the three
collections. This demonstrates the variety of oboe reed
styles prevalent in Europe at this time - due, no doubt, to
the diversity of oboe types in concurrent use. The
development of the wider Baroque reed (8.5-1Omm) suited to the
wider bore (favouring darker colour and low register) of the

7. See "Early Bassoon Reeds: A Survey of Some Important

Examples", AMIS, 1985, pp.69-96.
8. Despite this Michel Piquet is proud of one old reed in his
collection which still plays "as new."
9. Benade may well have formulated theories related to this
problem. (See P. Bate, The Oboe: An Outline of its History,
Development and Construction, 3rd ed., N.Y., 1975, p.14.)
10. See Appendix B.
11. Other means of placing these reeds in context could be
found in Bruce Haynes' "Double Reeds 1660-1830: A survey of
surviving written evidence", JIDRS, 12, (1984), p. 14 and work
stemming from his "Preliminary checklist of iconography for
oboe-type instruments, reeds, and players, c.1630-c.1830" ,
FOMRHI, Bull 45, comm. 764.
 71

early 18th century oboe, into the narrower reeds (7-8.5mm)

with lighter tone and easier top register for Classical and
19th century oboes was not uniform. Changes took place in
different centres at varying times and at differing rates.
From the evidence presently amassed, it seems the "Classical"
oboe was born in Italy. Narrower-bored instruments at pitches
higher than other countries had been favoured there throughout
the 18th century. Italian musicians travelled to Germany
with the new music and their instruments. In France, the
galant had less impact, so Classical instruments were slow to
develop. It was from the Germans that England learnt of
Classicism. J.C. Fischer took the Classical oboe with him
to London. While the English were still content with the
early German Classical instruments, makers such as Grundmann,
Floth and Bormann in Dresden and Sellner in Vienna were making
further developments to the oboe. The achievements of the
Eastern side of Europe were soon outdone by the Triebert
Dynasty in Paris from the 2nd quarter of the 19th century. It
was then that the oboe lost any vestige of its former military
associations and was "effeminized", acquiring (in the words of
Berlioz) "...un caractere agreste; plein de tendresse, je
dirai mime de timidite. The English caught up with these
developments thanks to Barret's trans-channel connections.
Consequently, it must be remembered that the English oboe reed
in the first decades of the 19th century was "old fashioned"
in terms of Continental developments, at any rate with regard
to the width of the cane. "In England, the broad reed seems
to have persisted longer than anywhere else."

Staples
A reed's intonation and response can be affected as much
by staple design as by the treatment of the cane. So, even if
the technique of forming staples from sheet metal has changed
little, modifications to the construction of oboes since the
18th century have necessitated different staple dimensions.
Brass (of thickness 0.25-0.5mm) seems always to have been the
most commonly used material. It is curious to find one reed
made on a rusting staple.
Even though the full length of the tube was sealed with
12. See A. Bernardini, "Oboe Playing in Italy from the Origins
to 1800", unpub. dissertation, 1985.
13. "Crone, later Sattler, early Grenses?". B. Haynes, "A
Preliminary Checklist".
14. Traite d'Instrumentation et d'Orchestration, Paris,
[1843], repr. Gregg, 1970, p.104.
15. Bate, op.cit., p.14.
16. See Goossens, op.cit., p.35.
17. Pitt-Rivers no.4.
72

thread, Ling soldered his staples. Whether the staple is

soldered or not changes the tone of the reed little: it is
more the thickness and temper of the brass which affect this.
The harder the brass, the more ringing and projecting the
tone.
End dimensions and length are the most important
parameters of a staple. A slight variation in one of these
will change playing characteristics. For example, by
retaining the end dimensions and lengthening the staple, its
conicity is reduced, resulting in narrower octaves. 8 I
cannot support Bate's opinion that staples were not carefully
tailored to particular oboes in the 18th century because their
tuning "...was intentionally marginal". 9 When using a
double staple - one brass cone placed inside another - a
further complication is introduced: the resistance to the air
caused by the step at the top of the lower tube. Compound
staples, even when their end dimensions and conicities are
identical to a one-piece system behave quite differently. As
yet their mechanics are not fully understood: what can be
said is that they are different.
With the cane and binding intact, it is very difficult to
measure staples accurately. The length of the binding cannot
always be taken as an accurate indication of their length.
It is possible to measure the bottom diameter and the
thickness of the metal, but the aperture of the top of the
staple is more difficult to ascertain. This is compounded by
the fact that the tube becomes oval-shaped towards the
narrower end and, in old reeds, is often blocked with dirt.
Regretfully, readings for this measurement are not as accurate
as I would have wished. Staple tops of reeds in the
Shackleton Collection could be compared by eye with no.4 which
was accurately measured when dismantled. As there is minimal
variation in more easily observable details in the Ling reeds,
I assume the staples are more-or-less the same.

The Prepartion of the Cane

It is impossible from measurements of width and thickness
alone to tell how a reed sounded. An account of which strata
of the cane are exposed is needed. Cane is made up of
18. For more details see B. Haynes "Making Reeds for Baroque
Oboe". This fact should be kept in mind when considering
Palmer's recommendation for a modified "copy" of the Bate reed
no.2 which uses a staple of different conicity.
19. Op.cit., p.19.
20. Palmer's "reconstructions" of Ling staples should be
viewed with this in mind.
21. See section on "Tying On".
22. This summary is derived from R.E. Perdue "Arundo-donax --
Source of Musical Reeds and Industrial Cellulose", Economic
 73

concentric strata of varying densities. Below the single

layer of cells which comprises the bark is a series of
tightly-packed fibres of whitish colour. Their appearance is
easily distinguished from the smooth, yellow complexion of the
layer immediately below - the dermis. These strata are the
hardest parts of the cane and give the plant support. Closer
to the centre of the cane is the parenchyme in which can be
seen the fibrous vascular tissues. These become less closely
spaced further away from the bark. Thus the parenchyme has
been divided into'dense' and * broad' for the sake of labelling
the sketches of the reeds below, although there is no definite
division between these 2 areas.

The most marked difference between 20th century and 18th

century reeds lies in the density of the cane left in their
scraped portions. Old reeds use more of the harder cane close
to the bark; in modern reeds, this tends to be discarded. How
that is achieved depends upon the way the gouging of the cane
from the inside and scraping of the outside are balanced. The
blades of 2 reeds may be exactly the same thickness but one
may have been gouged thinner - leaving the harder cane near
the bark. All cane being equal, it will have a brighter tone,
faster response and be more stable in tuning.
I know of no reliable method for calculating the diameter
of the tube of cane from which a reed has been made. Once the
cane is bound onto the staple, its original shape is lost.
What may be able to give a rough idea of the diameter is the
size of the vascular bundles. Being monocotyledonous, the
vascular tissues which transport nutriments up the stalk of
arundo donax are spaced irregularly in the parenchyme, not
grouped together in an outer ring, as in dicotolydons (such as
trees). Thus cane has no growth rings, nor does the spacing
of the fibres become any different as the plant ages.
Instead, they expand and become woodier. The coarseness of
the grain increases with the diameter and age of the cane.
For the musician, the cane's texture, resulting from the size
of the vascular tissues, is critical. Finer-grained cane
produces reeds of brilliant, projecting quality, more stable
in intonation (not always a positive factor) and which tend to
last longer (because the harder cane is more resistant to wear
and tear and acidic breakdown by saliva). Fred Palmer found
that cane of tubes diameter 24-25mm was best for making copies
of Ling reeds. In my experience, this size of cane, which is
used for bassoon reeds, does not give the tone quality nor
stability required for historical oboes. Also, none of the
reeds I have seen (including Bate No.2 which Palmer copies)
could have been made from cane of this type: they all show
fine-grained wood from tubes of 14-18mm.

Botany, 12 (1958), pp.368-404; J.M. Heinrich, "Le Probleme de

l'Anche: Aspect Botanique et Microstructural", Bulletin du
Groupe d'Acoustique Musicale, Universite de Paris VI, 71/2
(1974); P. White, op.cit.
23. Op.cit., p.107.
7*

As all the reeds examined were made before the invention

of the gouging machine, the reed maker would have used tools
similar to those pictured in Gamier's Me";the*, to eliminate the
softer layers from the middle of the cane. In the 18th and
19th centuries, thicker gouges than those used by makers of
reeds for historical oboes today seem to have been favoured..
(Old reeds vary between 0,65 and 1.0mra at the thickest part of
cane; Schaeftlein and the Viennese Baroque oboe reed style
favours gouges as thin as 0.55; Dutch makers prefer 0.6-0.7).
When gouging by hand it is possible to vary the thickness of
different areas of the cane (intentionally or not!). From the
exposure of dermis and bark at the edges of the scrape on some
old reeds, it can be concluded that the cane was gouged
thinner at the sides. This was confirmed when Shackleton reed
no.4 was taken apart. 14mm from the tip (beyond the end of
the scrape), the cane was 0.7mm at the centre and 0.54 and
0.56 on either side. These measurements, taken 3.5mm from
the centre give a variation of +n.043mm/mra width. Also, by
gouging more cane from the centre of the length of cane than
either end, harder cane will remain close to the tip. This
could be observed in the fibres of the inside of the
dismantled reed.28
The edges of some of the old reeds were bevilled to allow
a perfect fit when tied onto the staple. Viz.

Ling always did this as well as thinning the ends of the cane
to avoid cracks when tying on. He also wrapped an 8mm strip
of goldbeaters's skin around the folded cane. This was
partially covered by the binding and guarded against leaks at
this point.

Tying On
The cane of most modern reeds is tied onto the staple as
tightly as possible, so it is held firmly against it to the
tip of the tube. Old oboe reeds can differ from this in two
24. According to W. Waterhouse, c.1845 (White, op.cit., p.74).
25. J.F. Gamier, Methode raisonne pour le hautbois, Paris,
c.1800; illustration reproduced in T.E. Warner, "Two Late 18th
Century Instructions for Making Double Reeds", GSJ 15 (1962),
p.25; B. Hatfnes, "Survey of written evidence", p.24 and "Oboe"
by E. Halfpenny in New Grove.
26. On blade opposite that with Ling's stamp.
27. A technique not available with gouging machines.
28. A possibility ignored by Fred Palmer.
29. This technique seen in bassoon reeds of this time, too.
(See White, op.cit., pp.73-4.)
 75

respects. 1 ) No all makers felt it necessary to stop the

binding exactly at the top of the staple. When Shackleton
reed No.4 was taken apart, it was discovered that the binding
was short of the end of the staple by +/lram. X-ray photographs
of the other reeds will confirm my suspicion that this was
regular practice for Ling at the time he made these reeds.
Other examples from the same collection were overbound: this
can be seen in the presence of binding over the end of the
scraped cane. The extra thread was probably added to control
the aperture of the reed.30 2) The shaped edges of the cane
were not always bound to meet the staple. In some examples,
the width of the cane at the top of the binding and the
(assumed) top opening of the staple would indicate that a gap
was left, viz:

To what extent this space affects the performances of the reed

is difficult to tell. From my own experience, the parameter
most directly affected is the relative response of
fundamentals and their harmonics.

The Scrape
The most significant differences between early and modern
reeds are to be found in the way they are scraped. Modern
reeds are strengthened by a central spine which continues to
within 1-1.5mm of the top of the reed; this is thicker than
the edges and tip, and contains harder cane. In many old
reeds the hardest cane is to be found at the edges of the
scrape. They have no distinction between "tip" and "heart"
(or spine) - the scrape is much more uniform.

The cross-section of the The cross-section of the

centre of a modern oboe centre of the blade of a
reed blade. Ling reed.

Notes on the Measurements

The two blades of each reed were measured using a dial
gauge mounted with a tongue which slips inside the reed.
Readings in increments of 2mm were taken from the tip along
the edges, centre and midway between the edge and centre on
30. See Shackleton reeds 12 and 13.
31. See Haynes, "Making Baroque Oboe Reeds". This practice is
still followed by makers of Northumbrian pipes as evidenced by
specimens in the Pitt-Rivers Museum.
32. Accuracy +0.01 mm, but because of the softness of cane this
tolerance must be increased.
76

either side. Care was taken not to damage the cane by forcing
the tongue too far into the reed. In some cases the reed had
already been damaged in such a way that allowed the tool to
extend further into the reed.33 Also, it should be noted that
because of the curvature of the cane, this gauge becomes less
accurate further down the reed. Consequently, the given
thickness of gouge (i.e. the thickness of centre of cane where
bark is exposed) of most reeds must be viewed with some
suspicion. They will always be somewhat bigger than reality.
Note that Shackleton no.4 and Pitt-Rivers no.1 were able to be
accurately measured. To give an idea of the inaccuracy
factor, I have included measurements of Shackleton no. 4 taken
before it was dismantled.
A sketch of the cane of each reed is provided to show the
exposed strata. My representation is uniform with Paul
White's, except for the identification of the tightly-packed
white strands immediately below the bark.

Bark Dermis Dense _• Broad

Parenchyme

In an area as small as the scrape of an oboe reed, it is

difficult to distinguish these areas. They often merge into
another: something difficult to show in the sketches. The
drawings are all enlarged in the following scale (mm).

o »o zo _<\

IllllllllllllllllMlllllllltlll
Photographs would be more accurate, but this will have to wait
until high quality photographic reproduction is possible. I
cite locations of photographs of three of the reeds which are
reproduced in standard reference works.
Each reed's blades are labelled to avoid confusion. For
the Ling reeds, the side stamped with his name is termed 'L',
the reverse '0'. On other reeds, sides 'A' and 'B' are
identified by markings on the cane, splits, differences in the
scrape, the way the binding is tied or the location of the
twist of the wire.

A. The Shackleton Collection.

Dr Nicholas Shackleton bought his collection of reeds
33. E.g. Pitt-Rivers no.1.
 77

from a dealer in Canterbury who had apparently acquired them

together with a flute, two oboes - one by George Miller,34 the
other by W. Milhouse. The collection consists of the 13
oboe reeds described here, two bassoon reeds (one by J.
Gerrand of London) and a single reed and mouthpiece for oboe.
The presence of the bassoon reeds suggest a bassoon was at one
time part of the set of instruments: if in fact all items can
A
be traced to the same provenance. 4>- the reeds were
purchased in an elyptical wooden box. Five 36 of the oboe
T.LING
reeds are stamped LONDON and are remarkably consistent
but for the scrape of no.3 which was extended, probably by a
hand other than Ling's, because the long V-shape scrape of
this reed is a-typical of the proportions of any other reed by
this maker. Any identification of the makers of the anonymous
reeds is speculation, nevertheless, it is tempting to
attribute no.6 to Ling as its appearance is very similar to
nos.1-5. Also, no.7 may be by J. Gerrand as it uses the same
type of binding and finish over the thread. Gerrand may have
supplied it at the same time as the bassoon reed but because
it is smaller was unable to stamp it. Nos.9 and 10 may have
been modelled on the Ling reeds: the attempt of a less
skilled hand. Also, 8 and 11 could originate from the same
maker as they are both narrower reeds bound onto longer
staples. 12 and 13 form another pair, characterized by their
wide, short blades clumsily over-bound.

Apart from nos.9-12, all the reeds are probably playable.

It is not possible to use the amount of twine at the base of
the staple to draw conclusions as to which oboe each reed
belonged to. They all appear to have been inserted 17-18mm.

1. staple (4.7/4.8) x (2.5x1.3?)*

[42]
* (Measurements of staples given as follows:
(bottom max./min. diameter)x(top max. x top min. dia.)
length
Lengths in brackets indicate length of binding. All reed
measurements are in mm unless otherwise stated.)

0.25mm brass; all Ling reeds have green/brown (linen?)

thread.

34. Known mainly as a clarinet maker, 3rd quarter of 18th

century; sold to Nora Post who subsequently re-sold it.
35. Post 1800. Now owned by Clare Shanks.
36. Not four as recorded by Byrne, op.cit., p.100.
 78

thickness of cane (1/1000's mm).

18 20 20 15 20 20 21 18
25 23 24 26
36 34 40 28 28 30
52 42 50 52 33 47
62 50
78 86
5[l 8 2
110
cane length 21.5
scrape length L-12; 0-13 scraped slightly to right on
each blade.
shape minor width distance
axis from tip
(all in mm )
9.8 0

9.0 5

8.3 10

7.0 15

6.3 18

4.5/5.4 21 .5

2. staple (4.4/4.6) x (2.8x1.3?)

39
0.25mm brass; smaller at top than no.4.

20 20 20 20 20 20
22 22 22 22 22 30
26 24 36 22 26 34
37 35 35 38 33 40
61 55 60 60 60 59
80 .80
12[ 95 12 •95
L 0

cane 22
scrape 12

_
 79

shape 10 (with corners trimmed)

9.3 5
8.4 10
7.5 15
6.4 18
4.4/5.5 22

staple 4.65/4.8) x (2.7x2.8?)

[42]
0.25mm brass; top tiny bit smaller than no.4.
23 20 19 22 22 23 20 20 20 22
22 20 22 23 22 26
32 22 24 38 24 28
52 41 44 55
70 75
85?
L 0
cane 20.5
scrape L-16; 0-18
more cut off corners than others; looks like scrape has
been extended.

shape 9.4
9.0 5.0
8.2 10.0
7.0 15.0
6.3 17.5
4.5/5.5 21.5

Dismantled for examination.

staple (4 .5/4 .8) x (2.8x1.9)
41.5
soldered brass c. 0.25mm thick; flecked to make cane and
twine grip; 8mm band of gold-beater's skin wrapped around
cane before tying on; wrapping covers just the bottom of
the band; green wrap (linen?) 39.6mm - so not to top of
staple; 16mm of cane under binding of which 12/11.5mm is
80

thinned to +.25mm.

20 25 21 25 20 *20 24 29 26 20
22 30 24 29 22 21 30 30 32 20*
•24 35 32 31 30 23 32 32 32 27
28 40 35 38 36* 31 38 40 40 40
34 55 39 51 41 48 49 50
70 68 62 65 52 58 60
70 52 64 68
80 54 70 56 (on bark)+
L 0

* indicates point to which bark extends on sides of reed,

cane 24

scrape 12.5

shape 9.5

9.2 5

8.2 10

7.0 15

5.8 20

4 .5/5.1 24

+ Measurements of blades before reed was taken apart:

26 -- 22 -- 25 28 23 -- 27

35 -- 30 -- 33 33 -- 32 -- 32

41 -- 45 — 47 40 -- 38 -- 40

— 65 68 60 — -- 60 59 62 —

78 80 78 _* on bark -> 76 63 76
L 0

5. staple (4.65/4.7) x (2.8/2.7x1.9)

[40.8]
0.25mm brass; top about same as no.4.

22 22 22 22 22 25 22 22 22 27
22 24 22 29 22 25
29 24 27 30 26 30
35 30 32 42 29 41
52 40 50 34
55 48
70 (end of scrape) 62
L 0
 81

cane 21 .5
scrapej L-12.5 (+.3) 0-13
shape 9.25
9.0 -5.0
8.3 5.0
7.2 5.0
6.0 3.5
4. 6/5.5 3.0

staple 5.5 x (2.5 x 2.4)

[43]
0.4mm brass; top smaller than no.4; thinner thread than
nos.1-5; edges of cane bevilled.
24 22 21 22 25 25 23 22 23 27
30 32 37 34 30 32
36 36 40 40 32 37
45 42 50 45 40 55
58 57
68 75
-- (mark on cane)
A B
cane 20
scrape 13
shape 9.0
8.9 5
7.7 10
6.7 15
6.0 18
4.3/5.2 20

staple (4.6/4.7) x (2.6/2.7 x 1.8/1.9?)

[35.6]
0.3mm brass; top smaller than no.4; linen (?) binding
with black lacquer-like covering similar to J. Gerrand
bassoon reed in same collection; edges of cane bevilled.
82

25 22 22 23 20 25 27 22 29 20
thinner 25 27 23 28 29 30
than B 29 23 ??](sic!) 29 27 31
40 24 36 42 34 44
60 46 50 57 55 68
76 80
1 95 100
SA (binding)
B
cane 26
scrape 12/11.5
shape 11.25
10.75 5
10.30 10
10.00 13
7.75 18
7.00 23
3.7/5.75 26

8. staple 4.6/4.7) x ?
[49.2]
0.3mm brass; top considerably smaller than no.4.
edges of cane not bevilled; criss-cross binding of waxed
linen (?)

24 27 28 27 24 23 30 30 29 28
32 35 31 34 32 37
28 40 38 38 35 27 39 37 43 39
45 39 49 48 44 52
52 43 58 59 49 61
48 70 70 55
83 59
78 82
A B

cane 20

scraped to bi nding
 83

shape 8.5 (with frayed edges)

8.0 10
7.2 10
6.3 1.5
3.5/5.5 20

9. staple 4.8 x 2.2

[46]
0.4mm brass; because of dirt in reed, hard to see size of
top of staple; wire at top of wrapping; cane tied on
loose at throat.

10 20 20 — 26 32 31
21 30 22 40 37 36
40 36 27 51 41 40
50 45 33 62 49 52
60 59 50 80 55 56
68 70
80 84
-—Jff (wire)
A
cane 20; blades are incomplete,
scrape B-17
shape 10.5
10.0 5
8.9 10
8.2 15
4.0/7.3 20

10, staple (4.8/5.0) x (2.7?)

[31.6]
0.4mm brass; brass collar 6-7mm above binding - over
goldbeater's skin; edges of cane probably not bevilled.
34 30 22 22 15 36 28 23 19 20
35 29 30 37 23 23
44 38 39 48 35 35
52 55 50 52 55
61 60
70 72
A B
8+

cane 27.25
scrape A-9, B-8
shape 11.5
11.5 ' 5.00
11.0
10.0 15.00
9.5 20.00
7.0 25.00
5.0/6.3 27.25

11. staple 4.6 x ?

[50]
0.3mm brass; impossible to tell size of top because of
dirt; quite likely overbound; tips are badly broken.
20 15 from 23 23 23
binding 23 27 25
30 28 30 11 from 27 27 27
45 34 38 binding 32 28 34
45 39 42
A 65
B
cane A-15; B-15.3
scraped to binding
shape 7.3 5
6.5 10
3.5/5.5 15

12. staple 4.3 x ?

[48.5]
0.25mm brass; staple seems to be bent/damaged; cane also
bent; splits from throat up sides of blade A; top of
staple too dirty to measure; lossely wrapped twine over
ends of cane and scrape.
 8_

28 30 30 20 20 36 35 34
35 30 33 45 43 49
48 36 52 60 51 68
65 47 74 70
60 83
65 86
78
A B
cane 14 (top» missing?)

scraped to under binding.

shape 11. 0

10. 0 5

8. 8 10

4.5/7. 0 14

13. staple (4x2.3) x ?

[50]
0.2mm brass; top smaller than no.4; similar to no. 12 but
wrapping different; edges of cane bevilled.
19 14 18 20 20 20
30 19 26 27 24 30
44 22 40 30 33 45
59 31 60 45 45 60
58 74
81
90
A B
cane 12.5; although very short, seems to be complete,
scrape to below binding,
shape 8.6
7.9 5.0
3.5/6.5 12.5

B. Bate Collection.
The two Ling reeds in the Bate Collection were bought by
Morley-Pegge in Norwich, probably with the W. Milhouse oboe
no.203. A photo of the 2nd reed is reproduced in A. Bairnes
Woodwind Instruments and their History, (Faber and Faber,
London, 1957, pate VI, reed 2). The address 337 Oxford Street
86

appears on the bell of the oboe where Milhouse is known to

have lived from 1799 to 1828. (See L. Langwill, Index of
Musical Wind-instrument Makers.) The pairing of these reeds
with the oboe is more certain than with the Shackleton
specimens because it is known they fit well into the top of
the oboe. It is quite possible that Ling made them to be sold
with this instrument or that they were bought anytime up to
his death in 1851. He was registered as a reedmaker only from
1835, but does this prove that he did not make reeds before
that date? Already in 1774 he appeared in electoral lists as
"musician" - a term which could have been intended to embrace
a number of activities, including reed making. Thus, the
incongruity of the association of this "late eighteenth
century oboe" and reeds from a maker "...active in first and
second quarter of the nineteenth century" may not be as great
as Maurice Byrne suggests. ("Reed Makers", p.100.)
These two reeds - apart from their slightly longer
scrapes - are characterized by the same proportions and fine
workmanship as the Shackleton Ling reeds. The greater lengths
of scrape seem to be authentic and can be accounted for by the
changing whim of the maker, or necessity because of
differences in the cane he was using.
Because the cane of reed no. 2 is longer it may be
suspected that either the tip of no.1 is missing or that Ling
made two reeds to play at different pitches. In the event of
the first possibility, one would expect the scrape of no.1 to
be shorter - instead it is marginally longer, and Ling's
proportions are retained in the scrape. That the second
played flatter is supported by the fact that it protrudes
slightly further out of the oboe. But it must be emphasised
that it is impossible to predict the pitch a reed will play at
without being able to test it. Measurements can tell one only
so much.

1. Blades are shorter than no.2.

staple (4.5/4.4) x (2.8x1.9 ?)
[41.6/42]
0.25mm brass; seam on minimum axis of oval; exposed
length of binding when in oboe 28.4
13 15 19 20 17 13 20 20 20
25 22 25 24 22 24
33 30 35 28 28 29
40 40 42 48 30 33
52 44 52 60 33 48
60 55 58 50
62 58
80 78
L 0

in profile, the scrapes are visibly different

 87

cane 21 .5

scrape 15
shape 9.0
8.7 * *5.0

7.9 10.0

7.3 15.0

6.2 18.5

4. 5/5.0 21.5

2. staple (4.5/4.4) x (2.6x1.9 ?)

[41.55]

0.25mm brass; seam is off centre of minimum axis of oval;

exposed length of binding when in oboe 29.

20 20 20 22 20 20 22 21 21 15
27 27 24 29 26 29
34 24 28 34 27 32
41 29 30 48 32 37
48 39 42 55 36 48
65 52 52 47
70 end of scrape 52
90 on bark
L 0

cane 23.3

scrape 14.5/14.8

shape 9.0

8.7 5.0

8.3 10.0

7.4 15.0

7.0 20.0

4.4/5.1 23.3

C. Pitt-Rivers Museum.

A leather-covered papier-mache box owned by the Pitt-

Rivers Museum holds four reeds in its compartments (cat. no.
1900.67.1. 1, 2, 3 and 4 ) . They were bought by Balfour at the
Bateman Saleroom in 1900 with an oboe by W. Milhouse
88

(no.1900.67.1). The oboe dates from the period 1788-98 when

Milhouse worked from 100 Wardour Street, Soho, which is
stamped on the instrument. It is presumably from this
information that Philip Bate described the reeds as "some
important though damaged specimens in the Pitt-Rivers Museum
in Oxford [which] can be dated by association at c.1770." If
the reeds were made at the same time as the oboe they would be
older than those in either of the other collections. Two of
the reeds have been photographed: No.1 is shown in A. Baines,
Woodwind Instruments and their History, plate VI, reed 1; and
no.2 is reed a) in plate 12 of P. Bate's article on the oboe
in the New Grove.

All the reeds are badly damaged, which accounts for the
inconsistency of my documentation. Sometimes the existing
cracks have allowed more extensive measurements than normal to
be taken; at others, missing sections of the reed necessarily
leave gaps in the measurements provided.

Reed no.3 differs from others made by Ling because of the

greater area of the scraped cane; there is also a larger
surface of exposed dermis. A "bump" normally found at the
transition from bark to dermis is more apparent where dermis
meets parenchyme. The cross-section of the scrape exposed by
the split '0' side is a-typical. Like the Shackleton
Collection, this is a curiously mixed-bag to be associated
with a single instrument.

staple (4.4/4.2) x ?
[49]
3.0/3.5mm brass; the bottom of the staple is not cut
straight; top quite oval; probably soldered; white thread
covered with brown (linen?) thread; also fine (cotton)
from 11mm from bottom

26 30 25 23 --
33 30 27 28 -- 19
25 29 28 34 22 22 40
35 39 41 42 43 39 40
48 50 50 49 50 49
60 53* 60
70 60 70
85 62 <$- on bark 85
A B
these measurements
possible because of
crack

cane 19

scrape 15 cane is very yellow/orange

 89

shape (of blade A)

7.7

7.3 5

6.8 10

6.4 15

3.4/5.4 19

badly broken.

staple (5/5.3) x ?
[46>]
0.3mm brass; quite oval at top; unsoldered white binding
and bottom wrapped in brown (linen?) thread.
__ „ 28 -- --
32
40
48
55
62
82
97 (on bark)
A

cane only 13.5-14mm survive; impossible to tell how

much is missing.

scraped to within 1-2mm of binding

shape 9.0

8.9 3.5

8.2 8.5

3.2/6.0 13.5

(flattened?)

By Ling; also damaged

staple ("4.6/4.4) x (2.8x1 .9)

43

0.25mm b r a s s ; same brown l i n e n t h r e a d a s S h a c k l e t o n Ling

reeds; NB b i n d i n g i s 42 ( t h e c r a c k e x p o s e s end of
staple).
90

28
-- 30 30 34 --
*49 38 40 „ b
¥
„ 0
59 53 50
68 65 62
82 69 70*
80
95 (on bark) Austr
L
•bark extends this far on edges.
cane 15 remains.
\
scrape to within 1-2mm of binding.
shape 8.2
7.5 5

6.6 10

5.9 12

4.8/5.0 15

4. staple 5.1 x ? _j
43.5
rusted!; badly damaged and blocked with rust; thread is
brown and waxed, extends 6mm above end of staple.
little cane remains.

36 -- __
41
48
60 —
70 --
(90) at binding (70)
A B

shape 7.5 at binding.

 9

APPENDIX A.

AN INTERNATIONAL CHECKLIST OF LOCATIONS AND CITATIONS OF EARLY

OBOE REEDS AND ACCESSORIES.

Austria

Gratz, Joanneum Abteilung fur Kunstgewerbe

3 oboe reeds a) 8mm wide, 65 long, scrape 10, b) 8
wide, 68 long, scrape 9, c) 8 wide, 7 long, scrape
12; from G. Stradner, Musikinstrumente in Grazer
Sammlunger, Vienna, 1986, p.38. Old reeds?

Linz Museum
reed associated with Ludowic oboe no.118;
information from P. Hailperin; catalogue soon to be
released.

Stift Kremsmunster
Cor anglais reed, information from Paul Hailperin.
?Vienna, Zuleger's shop, Phorusgasse
any early oboe reeds? Bate relates how E. Halfpenny
discovered Zuleger's cor anglais reeds worked well
in English Baroque oboes. (The Oboe, p.14)

Canada

Vancouver Guido and Mirella Gatti-Kraus

2 oboe reeds from a larger collection (now
dispersed) of reeds in the Collezione Ethnografico-
Musicale, Firenze (catalogue published, 1901) put
together by Alexander Kraus between 1875-1912;
information from P. White.

England

Broadway, Gloucestershire, Snowshill Manor

1 staple and 1 reed associated with 3 early oboes.
Cambridge, Collection of Dr Nicholas Shackleton
13 oboe reeds and a single reed and mouthpiece for
oboe; once associated with oboes by G. Miller and W.
Milhouse.

Chesham Bois: Edgar Hunt

reed case providing a maximum width of 10mm for oboe
reeds; mid 18th century? (Bate, op.cit., p.13)

?IIaddon Hall, Derbyshire

reeds, (including oboe?) found under the floorboards
during restoration.
92

xLondon, Brixton, Mr J. Payne

"REED OF AN OBOE, 'very old and curious"', lent for
special exhibition 1873; Catalogue of the Special
Exhibition of Ancient Musical Instruments, 1873,
Science and Art Department of South Kensington
Museum, p.29.
Sotheby's
reeds sold with an Astor oboe at an auction just loll*
prior to Dec. 1974; information from M. Piguet.
, Putticks
report of sale of Grenser oboe complete with cane
and reed box in 1935; information from W.
Waterhouse.
, Dr W.M. Stone Italj
6 reeds which "belonged to the oboist who
accompanied Rossini on his first visit to this
country in 1823" and pictured in "Oboe" in Grove's
Dictionary, 3rd ed., 1927. Present whereabouts
unknown. Description credible? Exceptionally wide
for reed of 19th Italian oboist.
Oxford Bate Collection
2 reeds by T. Ling associated with W. Milhouse oboe
no.203.
, Pitt-Rivers Museum
4 reeds, 1 by Ling, associated with oboe by W.
Milhouse, 1900.67.1.
?Twickenham, Sussex, Kneller Hall Instrument Museum
bassoon reeds perhaps oboe; see L.J. Intravia, "A Jap
History of Bassoon Reed-making from the Late 17th
Century to the Late 19th Century", JIDRS, 1976,
pp.2-7.
Warwick, Warwickshire Museum
Halfpenny reeds and reed tools, oldest mid 19th
century; GSJ, 1, p.25, and 32, p.2.' ft

France
Paris, Musee Instrumental du Conservatoire National
Superieur de Musique
tools used by Delusse and possibly Brod.
Germany
Bonn, J. Zimmermann Collection
2 reeds with H. Grenser oboe no.97 (2/10 keys);
collection formerly at Duren; measurements from P,
Hailperin.
 93

?Cologne, Musikhistorischen Museums von Wilhelm Meyer

reeds from Firenze collection? (see entry under
Vancouver)
Munich, National Museum
Late 18th century reed case with 4 reeds (no.147MW)
incomplete measurements from P. Bate.

Holland
Amsterdam, Collection of Han de Vries
reeds associated with oboes by Grenser, Triebert
and Koch.

Italy
Naples, Conservatorio
oboe reed without staple.
Parma, Conservatorio
c.30 oboe reeds; some measurements from P. Grazzi.
Rome, Private Collection, formerly Hortus Musicus music
store
bocal and reed associated with Lesti oboe of c.1820.
, Museo degli Strumenti Musicali
staple with Anciuti oboe dated 1718; reed with
Biglioni oboe.

Japan
Musashino, Music Academy Instrumental Museum
6 reeds associated with 2 oboes by C. Palanca;
measurements and photographs from Masahiro Arita.

Switzerland
Basel, Michel Piguet collection
at least 2 staples and one 18th century reed;
details to be published in Baseljahrbuch later this
year.
Berne, Historical Museum
reed associated with Fornari oboe, 1814; staples
with Buhner and Keller oboe no.5448; measurements by
M. Kirkpatrick.
?Binningen, Mr Ernst Buser-Fruh
owns early oboe reeds?
94-

Lucerne, Tribschen Wagner Museum

2 reeds with Schlegel oboes nos.125, 126; possibly a
misassociation: oboe da caccia reeds?; reed with
English Horn by C. Lesti of Ancora, no.123;
information from S. King.

USA
Cincinnati, OH Art Museum
reed found with Denner oboe d'amore; thought to be
18th century, but not to belong to the d'amore; P.
Hailperin "3 Oboes d'amore from the time of Bach",
GSJ, 28, p.36 and 30, p.153.
Washington DC, US National Museum
brass tube with Grassi oboe; from Museum handbook
and J. Grush, "A Guide to the study of the Classical
Oboe", DMA thesis, Boston University, 1972, p.121.

APPENDIX B
MEASUREMENTS OF OTHER OLD OBOE REEDS.

French
Gamier's reed, to play on Delusse oboe; measurements
from scale drawings in Methode (c.1800).
staple 5x3.4

cane 23
scrape not shown
shape 8.0 tip
8.5 at widest
4.0 binding
tied loosely onto staple

Italian
6 reeds with Palanca (fl.1719-83) oboe in Musashino
Museum, Japan.
 95

staples 4.6/5.0) x (1.4x3.1)

[50.6]
(4.9/5.0) x (1.4x3.1)
[52.8]
others of similar end dimensions with binding lengths
49.1, 45.4, 47.2
top measurements only by eye.
H-^-4 a 14.3
a' 15.7
b 4.8/4.9
c 7.4, 7.7
d 5.25, 5.5, 5.05
e (minimum axis a
3.6, 3.35, 3.25.

Reed with Feonari oboe, Berne Historical Museum, dated

1814. Detailed measurements by M. Kirkpatrick.
staple (4.9 x (2.9x1.75)
42.4
0.4mm brass; +_ 1mm longer than binding; binding is green
(cotton?) above, linen (?) below; good fit in oboe; reed
extends 52.8mm.
thickness of blades at tip +. 0.22
cane 23.8 y
scrape 13.5
shape 8.6
7\
8.25 13.5 ?!
6.0 20.0
5.1 23.8

German
One of 2 reeds associated with H. Grenser oboe in
collection of Dr J. Zimmermann, Bonn; instrument has 10
keys, 2 of which P. Hailperin considers were part of the
instrument's original equipment.
96

Damaged reed associated with an oboe by J.G. Ludovitz

(end 18th century?) in Linz Museum; although damaged, p\
Hailperin was able to play it.

0.4 mm brass staple

0 5.1
5-
10 4.3 x 4.7
20 3.6 x 4.2
30 3.2(?) x 3.4
gauge + 0.7mm

much wood scraped from the middle; i.e. probably similar

to Ling scrape.

An Anonymous (18th century?) oboe reed in M. Piguet's

collection, Basel.
staple 4.6 x (3.1 x 2.2)
44 5
- *5-.
a 0.3
r~z
b 0.6

c 1.0
V¥
d 0.6

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank particularly Bruce Haynes for
giving me leads to much of this data; Jeremy Montagu and
Helene La Rue (curators of the Oxford Collections), and
Nicholas Shackleton for allowing me access to the reeds;
William Waterhouse and Paul White for their camaraderie
and all those who have donated information.