francoisdenis

Good, I feel less alone

hi Paul I realised one day that I could varnish on a white background and get a nice color- it all depends on how I cooked the varnish

Not at all, I'm not defending anything in particular about it - it's just a question of terminology - It is true that, in a restrictive sense, "vesica" can only be understood as a synonym of "lens" referring to the measure of the "mandora". The expression "vesica pisci" is then reserved for the historical symbolic meaning of a 1-1-1 partition relationship. It remains that when we talk about "vesica" and geometry the reference that comes to mind is the "vesica pisci" (google makes the same mistake) - at least that's what happened to me - Sorry to missed this subtlety.

David, It seems that you definitely don't want to take account that there is only one symmetry specific to the vesica (1-1-1) since this specificity is the reason for its symbolism and moreover the "mandora" never appears in the violin shape.... the other figures you mentioned are nothing more than the interaction of two circles. To use an analogy may be you will grasp that the perfect circle being a specific kind of ellipse it would be very strange to speak of ellipse as "a large range of circles"... I have to say that it's not the first time that I try to draw your attention about this inappropriate use. May be should try to find a term to nominate this relation between the radius and the centers of two circles "symmetry" "cadence" "series" "rhythm" "division" "partition" even "ratio" would avoid this confusion. I know this is probably a detail for all readers here but a person as expert as you are in geometry can no longer afford this kind of mistake.

Hi David, what do you mean exactly here? The "vesica pisci " was a pythagorean symbol of trinity and symmetry connected to the division of a width into 3 equal parts "1-1-1" , It has been "recycled" afterward (for its trinity property) by the catholics (and lately by the new-age as a feminist symbole of the fertility ). An upper part of a violin made following this symmetry will look very weird !

thank you

I think you misunderstood me. It is you who evoke a "more instinctive system closer to the mode of operation of the ancient Cremonese". Personally I do not defend such a thing, I simply note that the argument does not support the hypothesis. I'm sorry but the asymmetries of the corners are not correlated to the way of attaching the neck. Experiment and you'll find, depending on the method you support, that it's entirely possible to make the small adjustments needed while still positioning the corners symmetrically (I spoke of a "myth" because we have here "a bad answer to a good question about the origin of something, I mean asymmetries. I agree that the qualification is exaggerating... it's more of a kind of analogy). Various types of fixings were used - necks attached to the ribs or being part of them existe since medieval times, the use of nails also predates the invention of the violin since this is how lute neck were fixed. In the history of the revival of the medieval instrumentarium during the Renaissance, the relatively late appearance of the violin clearly depends on these two traditions (mass carving and bending of light elements). It is reasonable to consider that the mold of the violin is linked to the technique of making the lute probably imported from some Saxon or/and Spanish luthiers into Italy. The terminology can also enlighten us, the luth makers therefore the "luthiers", systematically distinguished the "body" and the "table", the latter being precisely the internal dimension of the "body" that is to say, the distance between the blocs. Following this tradition a neck is nailed on the "body" which is then closed by the "top". This is following this logic that luthiers imbued with this tradition of making would have reasoned. It's one good reason (for me) to pay some attention to this possibility of a technique that is part of the extension of a tradition. Without being strictly correlated to the previous one, the axiology of the neck is not an "obvious" question either, since in both traditions we find necks which are not placed in the axis of the instrument but in the alignment of the chanterelle. In short, there are many interesting questions to ask about this story and I can't be stuck to a single "instinctive" explanation if I consider that it is, may be true or not but obviously ill-founded.

"That seems like a pretty plausible method" Yes, I agree, this is the strength of the proposal and it is for this reason that it caught the attention but, unfortunately, the asymmetries of the corners are not properly explained in this way. To be more precise, this proposition is not necessary to explain the shape and position of the corners. This absence of correlation has already been observed for a long time. "Your approach seems good to keep everything exactly as planned" the idea being to set the neck in the axis I guess that any method which leads to an opposite result should be rejected. "I don't think there is one correct and historical way of doing this and we cannot know exactly how it was done in ancient Cremona" How many "correct and historical" ways do you imagine possible? In fact, I don't think talked about that, just saying that the historicity of the method is supported for a wrong reason, nothing more.

Personally the most comfortable method (for me) is to glue the sides on the bottom first, then adjust the neck and drill the holes in the block then, I glue the heel first which allows easy control of angles and axes and I end introducing the glue in the gap between the handle and the block ; the nails are placed last. The story that the asymmetry of the corners would be due to the alignment of the neck is a pure invention. If we get rid of this myth more relevant processes can be considered.

Am I to infer from this post that you agree with me that the most logical method is to drill the holes in the block first then glue the heel and then nail the neck?

Hi David, It seems to me that, during the Renaissance, the interest in music theory went beyond Brescia. With regard to the construction of musical instruments, music being, let us remember, a Major Art, it is quite improbable that theoreticians neglecte the manufacture issue during this period of rapid evolution . The case of Lorenzo Gusnasco shows that some manufacturers were also quite learned (he was, for example, one of the guests at the presentation of the famous Lucas Paccioli's book). The question is to understand the passage from musical theory (which we can still know if we are interested in it) to the making.

David , what you are describing is nothing less than the usual way of formulating measurements in the Renaissance using unit fractions 1/2 - 1/3 -1/5 -1/5 etc.. These unit fractions are clearly visible in plate twenty-one of "Theatrum instrumentorum seu sciagraphia" by Praetorius where the well-known half-foot of Brunswick appears. But once you've said that, you're not much further ahead. If the theoretical research of a Gioseffo Zarlino or a Giovanni Lanfranco inspired the luthiers of their time, it is necessary to explain what were the theoretical links between these two worlds, that of the theoreticians and that of simple craftsmen (note that Lorenzo Gusnasco remains a major exception in this area, which should be kept in mind). It is certain that, from the middle of the 15th century, a treatise like that of Zwolle testifies to the concern to establish a bridge between the major and minor arts by showing how these so-called "major arts" are closely involved in achievements of complex mechanisms relating to the measurement of time (planetary clock) or music (harpsichord, organ and lute). Furthermore, It was precisely at this time that the medieval instrumentarium was profoundly overhauled, giving way in a few decades to families of viols and violins. The least likely hypothesis is that all of this happened by chance - no, at that time there was intense theoretical research in all areas of architecture, mechanical goldsmithing, etc.... the exercise of music being at the tip of these changes it would be totally incongruous to think luthiers completely outside of this movement. Of these crucial decades, we only have fleeting traces left to our interrogations, it is, in all modesty, our own bigbang I wish the better success in your research

OK I misunderstoud you

Thank you for answering Is somebody knows if a CT scan of this violin existed?

Mickael, I find that to be a rather reckless statement - It's hard to believe that Andrea Amati (who never learned to build violins) did things by chance especially since the Renaissance is an era totally obsessed with questions of measurement and the search for aesthetic canons.