FoMRHI Comm.

John Downing

The Guitar and Praetorius’s Finger.

Marin Mersenne in 1536 provides the following engraving of a four course ‘Guittere’ (Note 1)

The engraving appears to be a perspective drawing but actually represents a ‘full face’ view of
the front of the guitar and the sides drawn at full depth (as Mersenne notes ‘the left side shows
the depth’). Therefore, the width of the neck joint is proportionally equal in dimension to the
depth of the body. Assuming the neck joint width to be a minimum of 37 mm and scaling from
the engraving, the depth is also 37 mm and the string length is 457 mm.

There are two 17th C sources that refer to ‘Fingers’ in defining the depth of a guitar body. (Note
2) The first is in a manuscript ‘Traite des Instruments’1640, written by French lawyer and
instrument collector Pierre Trichet (Paris, Bibliotheque Sainte- Genevieve, Ms.1070). Trichet,
according to one source, describes the guittern as “an instrument played a great deal in France
and Italy but more so in Spain having a flat back with a depth of between 3 and 4 fingers and a
neck a mere 3 fingers wide. He also mentions five courses – four double with a single
chanterelle…” (Note 3)

In ‘Syntagma Musicum II - De Organographia’ (1614-1620) by Michael Praetorius refers to the

dimensions of a guitar or ‘Quintern’ as follows:
 “The Quinterna or Chiterna (guitar) is a four course instrument …. Its back is completely flat …
the sides are at most two or three fingers-breadths in depth … See Plate 16 in Sciagraphia” (Note
4).
Praetorius also mentions a five course version of this instrument – but not one with six courses.
Confusingly, the engraving of a Quintern in ‘Sciagraphia’ – supposedly drawn to scale - shows
an instrument with six courses (5 double and a single chanterelle). This is assumed to be an error
in the engraving, so casting doubt on the absolute proportions of the instrument as represented.

Many of the engravings of instruments in ‘De Organographia’ are drawn in relative proportion to
a scale represented by the following ruler measuring half a ‘Schuh’ (‘Shoe’) or ‘Fuss’ (‘Foot’)
which is a quarter of a Brunswick (Braunschweig) ‘Elle’ there being twelve ‘Zoll’ (inches) to a
‘Fuss’. On this ruler each of the six ‘Zoll’ is further subdivided into two, three, four, five and six
equal parts. (Note 5) It is not known if the scale was originally printed full size so as to allow its
use as an accurate measure.

A Brunswick ‘Fuss’ was equal to 285.37 mm and so a Brunswick ‘Zoll’ was equal to 23.78 mm.
Scaling from the engraving gives a string length of about 475 mm. The neck joint width is about
two Brunswick ‘Zoll’ or 47.6 mm – too wide for a four course gut strung instrument but just
wide enough for 5 courses (and too narrow for six courses).

An ‘Elle’ unit of linear measurement in the German States, prior to Unification in the late 19th C,
was generally (but not always) equal to two ‘Fuss’. However, the value of a ‘Fuss’ varied widely
from State to State measuring from 250 mm in Hesse-Darmstadt to 301.8 mm in Bohemia (Note
6). There were no unified standards of measurement in Europe at this time the situation being
more or less chaotic particularly in France where almost every town or village had its own
standards of measure.
The linear measurements used in Europe were derived from Roman standards which, in turn
were influenced by the ancient measurements of the Middle East. Roman measures were
standardized by Agrippa in 29 BC and applied consistently throughout the Roman Empire, the
Roman ‘Foot’ (or ‘Pes’) being equal to 296 mm. (Note 7) This ‘Foot’ was divided either into 16
‘Finger’ or ‘Digit’ (‘Digitus) units equal to 18.5 mm or, at a later period, into 12 ‘Inch’ (‘Uncia’)
units of value 24.6 mm (and so a ‘Finger’ was equivalent to three quarters of an ‘Inch’).
Although the ‘Digit’ or ‘Finger’ does not appear to have been accepted as a measure of
commerce in Europe it may have continued in an unofficial specialised use – familiar only to
artists. Leonardo da Vinci’s so called drawing of ‘Vitruvian Man’ dated 1487 (Note 9) is based
upon the work of Roman architect Vitruvius, 1st century B.C., and gives the relative proportions
of a ‘perfect man’ in cubit measure – his height being four cubits, the length of the man’s foot
being equal to the width of 16 ‘Fingers’ (there being 24 ‘Fingers’, or six ‘Palms’ to a cubit
measure). Da Vinci - a cosmologist (as was Mersenne) - considered the symmetry and
proportions of the human body to be ‘part and parcel’ of a universal harmony. The height of
‘perfect man’ was four cubits so was, in Roman measure, equivalent to 177.6 cm (or 5’-9 3/4”
modern Imperial measure) or the average height of a North American male today.

Praetorius was part of the literate elite of his time, writing in Latin and Greek. He broke with this
convention when he wrote ‘De Organographia’ in German because he reckoned that to write in
Latin would require the invention of many technical terms and because most makers and players
of instruments could not read Latin..
Like Mersenne and Trichet, Praetorius – for some unknown reason - attaches particular
importance to specifying the depth of a four course guitar body (but not of other flat backed
instruments like the Bandora or Orpharion or even the ‘baroque’ style five course guitar). Oddly,
he then chooses to give this dimension – not precisely in Brunswick ‘Zoll’- but in ‘Fingers’.
Although the precise value of the Roman standard measures is known today (Note 7) it may be
that neither Praetorius nor Leonardo da Vinci had knowledge of its value and so were working
strictly by the proportions of the body – both men assuming that their stature, as well as scholars
and artists of their time, was ‘perfect’ and so, proportionally identical. This idea seems to be
supported by the observation that Praetorius is referring literally to a human finger width in
giving a range of two to three fingers for the depth of a guitar (human fingers being only in
whole units).
This being the case, what might have been the width of Praetorius’s finger? Impossible to say,
given the variability of the human anatomy, but if Praetorius considered himself to be of ‘perfect’
proportions (and so of average build) it may be possible to deduce his finger width from recent
anthropometric studies and evidence of the average height of 17th C European man from
measurement of skeletal remains.

Today, the full range of possible finger widths of the human anatomy can be determined from
International standard jewelers gauges (covering both male and female ‘ring’ finger sizes – the
size ranges overlapping). The American gauges measure from 11.6 mm inside diameter (gauge #
0) to 24.6 mm inside diameter. (gauge # 16). The average ‘ring’ finger size today for a North
American male of average height 177 cm is 19.8 mm (gauge # 10).
By way of comparison, a recent typical hand anthropometry survey (Note 8 ) for males of
average height 177 cm gave an average width of the middle finger as 20.5 mm + 4% (range
gauge # 9 ½ to 12). This correlates approximately with a ‘ring’ finger size in the range gauge # 8
½ to 11 – the ‘ring’ finger usually being somewhat smaller in diameter than the middle finger.
Studies of human skeletal remains from Europe indicate that the average height of a male by the
17th C had fallen to a minimum value of 172 cm (5’ 7 ¾”) before increasing again to the present
day. This shorter stature might imply that the actual average width of Praetorius’s middle finger
would have been less than the modern average by possibly at least one gauge size i.e. between
gauge # 8 ½ to gauge # 10 or from 18.5 mm to 19.8 mm.
On the other hand (!) if Praetorius was of average height for his time and determined finger
width by proportion from the da Vinci model then his height of 172 cm (?) being equivalent to
four cubits and there being 24 finger widths to a cubit gives his finger width as 17.9 mm.

Taking 18.5 mm (the mid range value between 17.9 mm to 19.8 mm which happens to be equal
to the Roman ‘Finger’ unit) as the dimension for Praetorius’s finger width, the estimated depth of
the Praetorius guitar is between 37 mm (2 finger widths) to 56 mm (3 finger widths) the former
dimension being appropriate for a four course instrument if Mersenne’s proportions of body
depth equals neck joint width applies.

Turning to Trichet , he gives the dimensions of a guitar as three to four fingers deep with a neck
barely three fingers wide. So either Trichet’s guitar was proportionally bigger than the German
instrument or his fingers were thinner than those of Praetorius – or both options apply. Assuming
Trichet is referring to a four course guitar, a neck joint width of 37 mm gives his finger width as
only 12.3 mm (equivalent to gauge # 1 size) – not impossible but far outside the normal size for a
male finger so unlikely. Alternatively if Trichet is referring to a five course version of the
guittern that has a practical neck joint width of, say, 48 mm then his finger width becomes about
16 mm (gauge # 5 ½) – still rather narrower than the masculine norm (typical for a woman’s
hand) nevertheless quite possible if Trichet was of small stature, slender build and with small
hands. The depth of Trichet’s guitar then falls between 48 mm and 64 mm – overall a bit larger
than the guitar of Praetorius but falling within the same general size range.

Notes
1) ‘Harmonie Universelle’, Paris, 1536. Book II Proposition XIV. This engraving also
appears in the Phalese/Bellere guitar book of 1570 “Selectissima in Guiterna Ludenda
Carmina …”
2) Thanks to Donald Gill – whose memory is better than mine – for kindly taking the
trouble to search through his notes and identify the Praetorius and Trichet sources.
3) It is not clear from this interpretation if Trichet is referring to a four or five course guitar-
the original manuscript not being to hand to allow verification of this translation.
4) ‘De Organographia’ translated and edited by David Z. Crookes, Early Music Series 7,
Clarendon Press, Oxford. A version (in German) – Parts I, II, III and IV - published in
1884 by Trautwein, Berlin is also available as a free download from Google books. The
font used in this version is not a facsimile of the original and the ‘fold out’ pages of
instrument engravings in the ‘Sciagraphia’ are not fully represented.
5) Interestingly this system of subdivision of ‘Zoll’ on the ruler is the same, in principle, as
found on surviving cubit measure standard rods from ancient Egypt - the ‘Finger’ units
being subdivided in the sequence half, third, quarter, fifth, sixth and so on up to a
sixteenth.
6) According to “Weights, Measures and Money of all Nations” by F.W. Clarke, 1891, D.
Appleton and Co, New York. Seventeen different values of a standard ‘Fuss’ or ‘Schuh’
are listed. (Copy available as a free download from Internet Archive at
http//:www.archive.org). There is no reference here to a ‘Finger’ as a standard unit of
linear measurement.
7) The value of the Roman foot is established by modern statistical analysis to be 296 mm +
0.5 mm. determined from surviving Roman standard measuring rods. None of the old
German ‘Fuss’ standards appear to be equivalent this value.
8) ‘Hand Anthropometry Survey for the Jordanian Population”, Mandahawi, Imrhan, Al-
Shobaki and Sarder, 2008 – range quoted from 25 percentile to 75 percentile.
9) ‘Vitruvian Man’, Leonardo da Vinci, circa1487, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice.