A Case Study of Hapsichord Identity

EUCHMI (4302): A Case Study of Harpsichord Identity
Author(s): DARRYL MARTIN

Source: The Galpin Society Journal , May 2010, Vol. 63 (May 2010), pp. 17-47, 226-227
Published by: Galpin Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753656
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Galpin Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The
Galpin Society Journal
This content downloaded from

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DARRYL MARTIN
EUCHMI (4302):
A Case Study of Harpsichord Identity
nsigned historical instruments often present Collection of Historic Musical Instruments. Formerly
particular issues for modern researchers, in the collection of Raymond Russell, it was included
especially if the example is of particular amongst the gift of his collection to the University
interest because of a connection to a particular maker by his mother in 1964. It appears as number 2 in
or school, or because attribution would give a much the original catalogue (1968),1 re-numbered as
greater understanding of instruments of that type HS1-A1620.2 at the time of the initial web-based
in regard to the geographic or time spread for that data sheet lists,2 and numbered (4302) following the
form of construction or model, or for its potential amalgamation of the University's musical instrument
musical use. One field of organological study which collections into a single entity (EUCHMI) in 2004.
has received considerable interest, particularly in The harpsichord has a single keyboard, present
the past several decades, has been that of Italian compass C-d"\ with two registers at 8' pitch. In
keyboard instruments. Even with the studies by its construction it is entirely consistent with an
Italian origin, consisting of an inner instrument
many highly-respected writers it is clear that there is
no consensus about some of the methodologies used, with a cypress case and softwood (probably fir)
much less the results which have been concluded soundboard which is placed in a painted deal3 outer
from them. Rather than any attempt to provide an case, resting on a similarly-decorated stand made of
overview of the various research approaches in a lime or poplar (Figure la in the colour section).
systematic way, this paper will provide a study of an Including the casework (but not the applied
unsigned Italian harpsichord belonging to Edinburgh mouldings), the harpsichord is 1872 mm long,
University considering various approaches with the 775 mm wide across the front of the instrument and
intention of identifying which methods stand up to is 193-194 mm high. The cheek/bentside, bentside/
scrutiny with this example, and hopefully leading to tail and tail/spine corners are mitred, and the
a logical and sound attribution. decorative scrolls at either end of the keyboard are
thickened by added pieces. The wrestplank is made
A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTRUMENT of walnut, topped with cypress which has its grain
EUCHMI (4302) (Figure 1 in the colour section) is an parallel to the spine. The top of the soundboard
unsigned harpsichord in the Edinburgh University and wrestplank is 62-65 mm from the top of the
1 Sidney Newman and Peter Williams, The Russell Collection of Early Keyboard Instruments (Edinburgh, 1968).
2 These are individual data sheets which were mostly written by the then Curator/Director Dr Grant O'Brien. The
data sheet for this particular instrument was made public on 14 October 2000.
3 The term 'deal' is used to refer to a softwood used for parts in which its tonal qualities are not important. It might
be pine, spruce or fir.
17

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
18 The Galpin Society Journal
case. The baseboard (around which the case sides was part or the original nut), and there is a multi
are attached) is of deal, as are the liners, internal tiered parchment rose. The present nut is a cypress
framing, and upper and lower bellyrails. The bridges replacement made at the time of the last historical
are of beech (the present bass bridge is parallel to the alteration. The nut is in two straight sections, butt
distal end of the main bridge and, as shall be shown, joined between long and short bb.
The present keylevers date from the last historical
alteration, although the keyframe (with the ex
ception of the top part of the balance rail and rack)
is original, as are almost all of the touchplates.4 The
natural plates are ivory and the accidentals are ebony
which sandwiches three paler lines, the two outer
ones of ivory and the centre one of a paler hardwood
than ebony (possibly boxwood). See Figure 2 (in the
colour section).
The inner instrument has been oiled and is, with
the exception of the mouldings, undecorated. The
outer case has an almost-full-width gessoed vinework
decoration over a dark green base, as does the top of
the lid. The lid interior has a landscape-and-figure
painting of low quality, probably dating from the
late-nineteenth or twentieth century. The carved,
scrolled stand is decorated in the same colours as the
sides of the outer case and is probably contemporary
in its date of construction and decoration.
Table 1. The present string lengths and plucking points.

Long 8' Long 8' Short 8' Short 8'
string plucking string plucking
length point length point
113 63% 106% 39
c 129 67% 123 43%
1981/2 80% 188% 56%
c" 265% 91% 254 66%
y_
c'
386
517%
103%
112
368
492
79%
88
768 122 742 98
c 1011 129 973% 104
F 1412% 136 1376% 114
C 1529% 142% 1492% 119%
HISTORICAL STATES OF THE INSTRUMENT

? The instrument was originally made with a
C/E-f" compass, with divided accidentals for F#,
G#, eb',g#'and eV\ (57 notes in total) giving
a broken octave in the bass and extra accidentals
Figure 1. EUCHMI (4302) - top view. to allow d# and ab notes (in the lower octaves)
Copyright: The Friends of St Cecilia's Hall. to be played in addition to the more common
4 Strictly speaking there is no way to determine that the natural touchplates are original. However, the likely
originality of the accidental touchplates is due to their being entirely consistent with the evidence of the instrument's
alterations, and it is most plausible that if the accidental touchplates were re-used, then so to would be the naturals.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Martin - EUCHMI (4302) 19
do as the same musical result could be achieved
Table 2. String lengths and plucking points from the
instrument s original state5 by simply tuning both parts of the divided
Figures are given using the straight-nut line as discussed enharmonic accidentals to the same pitch, so there
must also have been a desire for the instrument
below. There is not enough room for the actual nut to be
straight all the way to the bass, so the second set of figures to play at a different pitch.9 If it was different
(in brackets) assume there was a knick in the bridge at c' from the original, it would now be impossible to
and that the nut pin for F was 55 mm from the proximal reconstruct the nut position.
edge of the wrestplank. The measurements were taken ? The instrument was altered by a member of the
using the main bridge position on the instrument itself,
Cristofori workshop tradition, possibly by Feroci
rather than being a 'best-fit' calculation.
but probably by Ferrini, in the first half of the
Long 81 Long 8' eighteenth century.10 This work was considerably
string length plucking point
more invasive. The wrestplank was altered,
106% 63
possibly including routing a section under the
145% 73 new nut position, and certainly including adding
212% 87 a new cypress capping over the top, plus an extra
289 98% piece (36 mm wide) through which the new tuning
427 114% pins passed, and making a new nut. The original
nut was re-used to make a separate bass section
570% 126
to the bridge (replacing an earlier, presumably
/ 820 (810) 141% (131%) mitred section) which was parallel to the distal
1079 (1061) 153 (135) end of the main bridge. That this is the original
1578% (1549%) 170% (141%) nut is confirmed by the presence of plugged pin
C/E 1587% (1557) 172% (142) holes over too long a distance to be the original
mitred bass bridge. The tail was altered so the
meantone-friendly keys.6 The original state forms strings would pass through the case to be hitched
the main discussion of this article. to the outside of the case (Figure 3). New upper
? The harpsichord was modified, probably at some and lower registers (of cypress) were made, as was
time in the later seventeenth century to remove a new keyplank and rack. The keyframe balance
the divided accidentals, but retaining the broken rail was reduced in height and capped with beech.
octave and same keyboard extremes (C/E-f"), The touchplates were, once again, re-used as far
reducing the compass to 52 notes.7 The bridge as possible.
and nut were re-pinned and new registers and Although restored to playing condition, the
keylevers must have been made.8 harpsichord is still musically in this last historical
At first sight this seems a ridiculous thing to state. It is now a comparatively typical example
5 The likely original state will be discussed in detail below as it is dependent on the original nut position. The
measurements given in this table assume that the analysis given below is correct. The plucking points have also been
measured from the presumed nut position to the present rear (right plucking) quill line.
6 The initial identification of the original and second states was made by John Barnes, and his arguments can be
found in his unpublished report, Italian Harpsichord c. 1600 Russell Collection No. 2., written May 1975 (kept in the
archives of the Edinburgh University Collection). He also discusses the instrument in some detail in his article 'The
specious uniformity of Italian harpsichords', Keyboard Instruments: studies in keyboard organology, 1500 - 1800, ed.
Edwin Ripin (Edinburgh, 1971), pp. 2-3.
7 As Barnes, (1990: 2) shows, this is confirmed by an X-ray of the balance rail showing balance pin holes from the
first and second states.
8 Barnes' 1975 report was written before a second set of X-rays were taken which showed that the second (52 note)
state included re-pinning the wrestplank and, presumably therefore, re-pinning the bridge. These X-rays can no longer
be found in the Russell Collection archives, but the various balance and tuning pin positions were mapped onto
drafting film which has been preserved in the archives.
9 The other logical alternative ? than a different-feeling keyboard was desired ? can be effectively eliminated as
the balance rail position is unaltered and the octave span remained the same (as the touchplates were re-used). It is
remotely possible that the original keyboard was badly damaged and needed replacing, but against that is the fact that
the touchplates were able to be re-used and that there is no evidence of damage to the casework.
101 would like to thank Denzil Wraight for this attribution, based on a comparison of the moulding profile of the
nut with other instruments.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
20 The Galpin Society Journal LXIII (2010)
of an early instrument converted to what is now
described as a 'continuo harpsichord'.11
HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS

? The harpsichord has never been attributed
to a particular maker. It is not mentioned in ^^^^HL . . ^u^^a^H
The Harpsichord and Clavichord by Raymond
Russell12 even though the instrument formed part
of his collection.
? Sidney Newman and Peter Williams13 write that
the instrument is 'Italian c. 1600' without any
attempt to justify the attribution.
? In his 1971 article and his restoration report (both
. >?^H
cited above), John Barnes retains the attribution
and date given by Newman and Williams, again
without comment. Barnes also illustrates the
harpsichord in 198014 as an example of restoration
practice, limiting his attribution to 'Italian
Figure 3. The tail ofEUCHMI (4302)
harpsichord, c 1620'. This date came following a
further examination of the instrument. A note in Photo: Darryl Martin.
the EUCHMI files, written by Barnes reads 'Part instruments while also mentioning
of a date is written on the parchment backing of of a Roman origin. It should be po
the lowest part of the rose, which has evidently Wraight's discussion of the harp
come from a legal document. It reads 'Vij Octobris paper 'A construction principle
MDCX...' indicating a year between 1610 (MDCX) harpsichords'17 should not be co
and 1649 (MDCXLIX) (Figure lb in the colour attribution in favour of a Roman
section). Legal documents were probably at rather as support for the argumen
least 10 years old when used for roses giving the the main subject of his paper.
harpsichord an earliest date of about 1620'.15 ? Grant O'Brien has attributed th
? In his doctoral thesis16 Denzil Wraight describes to 'Naples, c. 1620' on the basis of
the instrument (his No. W325) as 'possibly a measurements. This appears on the
Roman harpsichord judging from the case style, added to the University of Edinbur
a Florentine origin is also possible, and probably 14 October 2000, and on his per
more likely considering that the instrument where his arguments are given in
appears to have been modified in Florence'. claviantica.com/Neap_sch_files/Ce
Wraight retains his attribution on his website and elsewhere on the same site used
listing the harpsichord amongst Florentine of a Neapolitan instrument.20 Mos
11 The present author does not necessarily agree with that view. AC- d'" c
music up to and including that of J. S. Bach. The compass was also very
decorated Hamburg-made harpsichords and clavichords by Hass, Zell an
Specken, who is believed to have worked with Gottfried Silbermann.
12 Raymond Russell, The Harpsichord and Clavichord (London, Faber and
13 Sidney Newman and Peter Williams, (1968).
14 John Barnes, 'Does Restoration Destroy Evidence', Early Music, Vol. 8, N
15 The author would like to thank Denzil Wraight for bringing this to his
16 Denzil Wraight, The stringing of Italian keyboard instruments c. 1500 -
Belfast, 1997, Part II, p. 327.
17 Paper given at the Edinburgh Early Keyboard Instrument Symposium, S
available in printed version from his website <www.denzilwraight.com/CP
18 Wraight uses (4302) to show that the principle he is presenting can
geographical locations. This principle, and its application to (4302) will be
19 <http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/russell/instruments/hslal6202/datasheet
20 For example, <www.claviantica.com/Neap_sch.htm>, and <www.clavian
claviantica.com pages accessed 4 April 2009).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
this Journal21 O'Brien refers to the instrument as under Spanish rule) which led to identical musical
an 'Anonymous Neapolitan harpsichord' without capabilities, or an instrument tradition which was
any mention of this being an attribution. taken from one area and copied elsewhere.
? Eleanor Smith, in her MMus thesis, attributes the Further, the use of O'Brien's methodology and
instrument to Florence,22 without giving specific the subsequent presentation of the instrument as
reasons for this attribution. Her discussion section an exemplar of a typical Neapolitan harpsichord,25
on the instrument does not attempt to show how in a discussion which is predominantly concerned
the instrument may have been designed. with stylistic features, supports the attribution of
? The present author has, when writing concert other examples to Naples.26 This could result in the
programme notes (rather than any published attribution of instruments to a location with which
paper), previously described the instrument they have no connection, having implications for
as being possibly Roman', based on the future research and instrument characterisation.27
correspondence of the baseboard measurements
to the Roman oncia.23. In this paper he now rejects THE MAKING OF ATTRIBUTIONS
that view. Historical objects such as musical instruments
are subject to scrutiny concerning their authorship.
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THESE ATTRIBUTIONS There are generally two types of issues which need
The attribution of the harpsichord to a Florentine to be addressed - whether the signature and/or date
or Roman origin would not present any special on the object is actually what it claims to be (in other
issues other than those of a specific organologically words, is the label or inscription correct) and/or can
academic nature. Likewise, the attributed date an unlabelled (or incorrectly labelled) example be
of c. 1620 is uncontroversial. Signed and dated shown to be the work of a known individual, school,
instruments from both Florence and Rome at location and/or time. It follows that some objects
that period have an identical divided-accidental may be subject to both issues; a violin may bear a
arrangement to EUCHMI (4302), as does an earlier label of Stradivarius which is deemed incorrect,
(probably late-sixteenth century instrument by an but the instrument still might be attributable to
unknown maker) harpsichord from Venice.24 particular maker.
Grant O'Brien's attribution of the harpsichord There are essentially two approaches which can
to a Neapolitan maker raises several important be used as the basis for an attribution. The first is
issues. If the attribution is correct it alters the connoisseurship, where an acknowledged expert
previously-held view that instruments with 14 notes on in the particular field will make a judgment
per octave are only found in Rome, Florence and based (largely) on stylistic evidence. This method
Venice, suggesting a much wider musical practice is predominantly used in fields such as the
which required these instruments. It also implies identification of bowed-stringed instruments,
either a separate building tradition in Naples (at musical works (e.g. newly-discovered manuscripts),
that period, and for more than a century previously, and in non-musical contexts such as fine art.
21 Grant O'Brien, 'The Single-Manual Italian Harpsichord in the Royal College of Music, London, Cat. No. 175: An
Organological Analysis', Galpin Society Journal LX11 (2009), pp. 72-73. In his footnote 35 O'Brien uses the former
rather than the present catalogue number. It should be pointed out that the original state of (4302) had 57 notes, and
there was a second state with 52 notes, so O'Brien's statement that the present registers (with 51 notes) are re-used
original boxslides is incorrect.
22 Eleanor Smith, A Discussion of the Use of Divided-Accidental keys in Italian Strung-Keyboard Instruments pre 1700,
MMus thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2008.
23 This will be discussed in detail below.
24 See Denzil Wraight, 'Checklist of Italian harpsichords and virginals with split sharps' <www.denzilwraight.com/
ChecklistSplitSharps.rtf>, (accessed 4 April 2009). It should be pointed out that the listed Roman instruments only
reach c'", rather than/'" as in (4302).
25 <www.claviantica.com/Characteristics.htm>
26 For example another anonymous instrument, formerly in the possession of Grant O'Brien, now owned by the
Markiezenhof Museum, the Netherlands. See Grant O'Brien 'Determination of the Centre of Construction, Anonymous
Single-manual harpsichord, Property of Grant 0'Brien',<www.claviantica.com/Neap_sch-files/Cen_GOB.htm>.
27 Although Grant O'Brien, (2009: 70) states that 'the most compelling reason ... is the use in its design and
construction of the unique workshop measurement...', he also gives similarities of stylistic features between RCM 175
(the subject of his paper) and other instruments which have been attributed to Guarracino.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
iror keyboard instruments, identification by distinctive flaw. Most instruments have more than
'connoisseurship' mostly applies to construction a single moulding profile, which helps the process
features and the comparison of mouldings. by enabling cross-referencing. The drawback of
Basic construction features including materials, this method is the possibility that mouldings were
compass, disposition, stringing materials, and produced outside the maker's workshop or that the
scantling thickness provide a broadly-likely tools were passed from master to apprentice. The
location (even if only a country) and date.28 More latter is certainly possible and examples can be used
detailed consideration may include a comparison to support it, but the former is unlikely.30
of positioning-holes, scribed lines, bevels on inner The second approach ? the one used in particular
case parts etc. which might lead to a more precise by keyboard organologists with a practical back
identification, even of the maker. This process is ground?starts with trying to identify how the
more difficult with harpsichords than many violins instrument was initially designed and use that as a
(for example) because of the lesser numbers of basis from which an attribution might be possible.
surviving examples from most workshops. It is of course true that attempting to discover the
The use of mouldings (and keyboard arcades) as a design methods is not necessarily going to help with
means of identification has been discussed in great an attribution31 but it can be seen as a laudable end in
depth by Denzil Wraight.29 To summarise briefly, itself. It is equally true that the interpretation of the
the mouldings were produced by a cutter which acts, design must be plausible if it is to be used to provide
in effect, as a 'fingerprint'. Using the method it is support for identification.
possible in some instances to say conclusively that Many of the problems of this type of research
two mouldings were produced by the same cutter. are well-rehearsed, but need to be discussed here,
The method relies (as does fingerprint comparison however briefly.
or dendrochronology) on the skill of the 'expert', ? Is there actually a design method? This may seem
the database of exemplars and, even more, on the an odd initial question to pose, but, of course,
moulding itself; a large or intricate moulding is it is not necessary for the maker to actually use
much easier to attribute reliably, as is one with a any measured or pre-determined lengths in
28 This relies, of course, on the assumption that the characteristics used are actually representative of a single location
rather than giving a number of possibilities. Grant O'Brien lists a number of characteristics of Neapolitan harpsichords
<www.claviantica.com/Characteristics.htm>, a number of which apply to instruments from many parts of Italy. The
lack of signed (rather than attributed, thus creating a circular argument) Neapolitan harpsichords of the sixteenth- and
seventeenth-centuries means that even some of the features one would accept as Neapolitan might actually be better
defined as, perhaps 'south Italian' at best. Other characteristics might be entirely meaningless, such as (using O'Brien's
list) cypress case sides, tail angle, rose construction, panelled nameboard, two straight bridge sections and decorated
sharps. O'Brien points out, when discussing (4302) that it is missing many Neapolitan characteristics, mentioning
only the nameboard. Even that is found elsewhere: the Venetian harpsichord by Bernardinus de Trasuntinis, EUCHMI
(4471), presently displayed next to (4302), has an identical nameboard construction, as also does the 1627 Bolcioni
harpsichord (EUCHMI (4304)). In practice, study of the broad construction features alone is not enough to determine
the location.
29 Denzil Wraight, 'The Identification and Authentication of Italian String Keyboard Instruments', in The Historical
Harpsichord Volume 3, ed. Howard Schott, (Stuyvesant, NY, 1992).
30 The fact that Cristofori's tools were passed on impedes the use of this method for identifying instruments by
members of the Cristofori school. It can also be shown that a large moulding (a flaw in the profile proves it was made
using the same cutter) was used on English virginals by Philip Jones (1671, Tabley House, Cheshire) and Stephen
Keene (1675, Private Collection, Cheshire). However, these two instruments are closer in design and style to each
other than the two surviving Keene virginals, and the virginal by Jones was made four years after he completed his
apprenticeship. It can be safely assumed that Jones was working in Keene's workshop at the time and that, probably,
Keene passed the order to Jones. The possibility that the instrument bears a false signature and is actually by Keene can
be discounted as no other mouldings match (whereas they do on the two Keene virginals, which date either side of the
Jones example. This agrees with our later knowledge of Keene, who went into 'partnership' (co-signing instruments)
with both Edward Blunt and Charles Brackley. Therefore it cannot be used as evidence to support the idea of specialist
moulding makers. Further evidence that suggests mouldings were made in-house (by the maker or, as may also have
been the situation with Cristofori, a sub-contracted case-maker) is the lack of correspondence between mouldings by
makers working in the same town and period, whereas roses (and possibly jacks and other parts) do appear to have
come from a common supplier.
31 There is no reason why the design should be expected to provide tangible proof which can be used in identification.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
an instrument. If, for example, he started with ? Are the correct things being measured? This
the jackguide which involved the use of a fairly is obviously related, to some extent, on the
accurate jig he would know that the overall string interpretation being correct. In some instances
band might, for the sake of argument, be 25 units. it is possible to clearly show when this does not
He would then know that the case width needed to occur, for example measuring the outside of
be 25 units plus a 'suitable' clearance, which could the case when the case sides were applied to
be done by eye rather than actually measured in the baseboard.33 But, to give several plausible
any way. The length could be equally imprecise. examples which cannot be simply answered:
? Is the maker accurate enough? There is no Was the cheek length actually a measured length
question, of course, that historical makers were determined by the maker, or was it the result of
'accurate enough' when it came to action details, an extrapolation of the bridge position? Was
for example, since the instrument would not play the spine length measured from the front of the
properly otherwise. However, there is no reason instrument or perhaps to the front (proximal)
why the same care would have been taken over less edge of the wrestplank?
critical parts. Even if the case width was designed ? Is the interpretation correct? Even if the correct
or intended to be 30 inches (for example), how things have been measured is there only one
can a researcher feel certain that the maker would reasonable interpretation; and if not, how can one
have ensured it was within, say, one millimetre, determine which is the correct one. It should be
rather than a tolerance of four or five millimetres? mentioned that, even if a solution can shown to
This becomes particularly important when small be the simplest, it is no proof o? actually being the
subdivisions are used such as quarter-units. It right one.
is shown below that by accepting a reasonable
tolerance it is possible to describe instruments as THE NEAPOLITAN ATTRIBUTION OF (4302)
having been designed in several different units. Using the measurements of the baseboard, Grant
Frequently one can see that parts of a historical O'Brien has attributed the location of manufacture
instrument which would be expected to be to Naples. This is, as described, at odds with other
identical (the distance from the spine to cheek at opinions (only Denzil Wraight (cited above) has
the case front and bentside corner, for example) toargued coherently for other particular cities), but
differ by several millimetres or more. It is evidentshould stand unless there are compelling reasons
that the method of construction is likely to play a to doubt its accuracy. O'Brien's measurements and
part in the accuracy found in the instrument.32 interpretation are summarised in Table 3.34
? Has the instrument been measured accurately In the light of matters discussed above, several
enough? This is fairly self-explanatory. It is issues need addressing. The first is whether small
common to see measurements of an instrument inaccuracies in the raw measurements given above
by different researchers differ by several could be enough to skew the figures, and second,
millimetres. Many instruments are examined whether another interpretation is possible using
under less than ideal conditions, often with time the same evidence and methodology. A final issue is
and physical-access constraints, which makes whether the maker's own inaccuracy might need to
accurate measurement very difficult, and repeated be taken into consideration. This is applicable here
measurement (for confirmation) unrealistic. There because O'Brien's measurements35 are 762% mm for
is also the possibility of misreading or incorrectly the front of the baseboard, and 764 mm (presumably
writing figures. a typographical error for 765 mm) for the width at
32 This point is made in Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, 'Why Didn't Historical Makers Need Drawings? Part
II - Modular Dimensions and the Builder's WerkzolV, Galpin Society Journal LV (2002), p. 189, when discussing the use
of a trammel. Such a method would almost certainly be observable since, even if any arcs were subsequently erased
(by planing, for example), the centre around which the trammel was rotated would leave a comparatively deep point.
However, as they also point out in 'Geometric Methods in Stringed Keyboard Instrument Design', Galpin Society Journal
LIV (2001), p. 276; there is no need to actually make any arcs, the trammel being used simply to transfer distances. This
would not necessarily leave any visible marks, but is prone to a larger risk of inaccuracy in the transfer process.
33 This point has been made by Grant O'Brien 'The use of simple geometry and the local unit of measurement in the
design of Italian stringed keyboard instruments: an aid to attribution and to organological analysis', Galpin Society
Journal LII (1999), p. 111.
34 <www.claviantica.com/Neap_sch_files/Cen_Russ.htm>.
35 <http://www.music.ed.ac.uk/russell/instruments/hslal6202/datasheet.html>, (accessed 18 March 2009).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 3. Interpretation of the baseboard measurements by Grant O'Brien.

millimeters once Error in mm36 (using average oncia)
Spine 1860 85 3.337
Baseboard width 765 35 + 0.5
Cheek 434 20 -2.9
Tail component in direction of spine 93 4y43 + 0.2
Tail component perpendicular to spine 147 6% -0.4
Maximum height 196 -0.6
TOTAL 3495 160
AVERAGE 21.844
TOTAL ERROR 7.9 mm
the cheek/bentside join. Arguments can be made for the present author, and by others at the author s
either of the measured points reflecting the design request;40 seven separate sets of figures were so
intentions of the original maker.39 obtained. In examples where the same figure
In addressing the first of the above issues, the occurred on at least four occasions this mode figure
baseboard was measured a number of times by both was used, and where this did not occur the average
(to the nearest quarter-millimetre) was used. In this
Table 4. The mode or average measurements of the
baseboard using the same components as measured by way the following measurements were derived.41
O'Brien Using the same six components (spine, cheek,
Spine 1860 mm baseboard width, height, and tail parallel and
Baseboard width
perpendicular to the spine) as O'Brien (to ensure
764% mm (cheek/bentside join)
the methodology is identical) gives a total number
761% mm (front)
of millimetres of 3490% using the front baseboard
Cheek 433% mm
width, or 3492% using the baseboard width at the
Tail length 173 mm
cheek/bentside join. Both results are less than
Tail component in 93 mm the figures of O'Brien and would, using the same
direction of spine nominal inches, give respective figures of 21.814
Tail component 146 mm mm and 21.830 mm for the oncia. Both of these
perpendicular figures are even closer to (different) Neapolitan
to spine oncia measurements than the figure found by
Maximum height 196 mm O'Brien (Table 3) which would, at first view, appear
36 The error distance has been calculated using a linear (Lx) method rather than a Euclidian distance (L2) which is the
sum of the squares of the errors. The linear distance is more robust'. I would like to thank Prof. Joseph Kung, Dept. of
Mathematics, University of North Texas for his advice on this issue.
37 A negative sign indicates that the measured figure is smaller than the calculated equivalent and vice versa.
38 O'Brien, (1999: 164-5) (Table 11) shows that the historical sources all point to the Neapolitan once being divided
into five rather than four. On that basis it is historically unlikely that the original maker would have divided his once
into another subdivision for the baseboard design.
39 There are two very reasonable scenarios by which a difference can be explained. The first is that the maker is
simply inaccurate with his work, reducing the width at one end of the cheek by too much. There is no reason one
particular end is more likely to be reduced that the other. The second possibility is that the baseboard shrinks across
its width after being planed to size. If the lower belly rail was glued in place early after being planed the width would
be established there (the baseboard width would be determined by the length of the lower belly rail, which would not
shrink along its length) but the front could shrink further. Alternatively, if the keyboard front batten was glued early
in the process it would be the front that was stable, whereas there could be shrinkage at the cheek/bentside corner. Both
scenarios are plausible. The risk of shrinkage is notably greater with freshly prepared (ie. thicknessed) planks.
40 I would like to thank Matthew Hill and Eleanor Smith for their assistance in taking these independent
measurements. On no occasion was the instrument measured by the same person twice in a single day. On each
occasion two people were involved in taking the measurements, the second acting to ensure that the other end of the
tape measure or ruler did not move before the figure was read.
41 Including Grant O'Brien's figures listed in Table 3 (making eight sets in total) does not alter the results presented
in Table 4.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 5. Measurements of (4302) using the figures taken from Table 4, and the assumed number of once as determined
by O'Brien, using the case width as measured from the front of the case
Millimetres once Error in millimetres
(using average oncia)
Spine 1860 85 + 5.8
Baseboard width 761% 35 -1.7
Cheek 433% 20 2.8
Tail component in direction of spine 93 4% + 0.3
Tail component perpendicular to spine 146 6% 1.2
TOTAL 3490% 160
AVERAGE 21.814
TOTAL ERROR 12.1 mm
by O'Brien, using the case width as measured from the cheek/bentside corner
Millimetres Error in millimetres
Spine 1860 85 + 4.5
Baseboard width 764% 35 + 0.2
Cheek 433% 20 '3.1
TOTAL 3492% 160
AVERAGE 21.830
TOTAL ERROR 9.9 mm
to confirm the attribution. his instrument so that a quarter of an oncia was the
However, do they represent two different historical chosen incremental accuracy, no error should be
oncia7. That they represent different figures for the greater than ? % of the oncia, i.e. more than 2.6 mm.43
same location would seem to imply there is no issue, Put another way, 1860 mm has an error of 3.3 mm
yet there is no reason why the figures could not assuming it is intended to represent 85 once at 21.844
represent different cities.42 To proceed in a logical mm each, but only 2.2 mm if it represents 85% once.
fashion it is necessary to reverse the process and The calculated average oncia, and thus the error in the
compare the errors. Table 5 assumes the baseboard other measurements, would be different; this needs
width at the front represents the intended dimension, to be taken into account. Whereas a smaller error
Table 6 assumes it to be the cheek/bentside corner may accrue by altering the interpretation, the idea
width. that a maker would deliberately design an instrument
It can be seen that although the calculated average to be 85% once long is somewhat unattractive. An
oncia is closer to published historical figures, alternative, concentrating on the measurements
both individual and total error discrepancies have taken by and for the present author, would be that the
increased, (in both of the tables) to methodologically cheek was intended to be 19% once rather than 20.
unsound amounts. Given an oncia of 20.844 mm, Tables 7 and 8 work on that assumption.
and accepting the principle that the maker designed On the basis of the above calculations it can be
42 Related to this is the question whether various figures from the same location that are close to each other actually
represent different standards or simply slight variations of the same standard. This cannot be fully addressed here.
However, using O'Briens list the figures for the Neapolitan once include 19.363, 19.813, 19.834, 19.835 and 19.973.
Almost certainly the three middle figures represent the same actual nominal length.
43 This is, of course, an issue of methodology rather than of instrument-making practice.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21ff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
by O'Brien (with the exception of 19% rather than 20 once for the cheek), using the case width as measured from the
front of the case
Spine 1860 85 + 2.9
Baseboard width 761% 35 2.9
Cheek 433% 19% + 2.0
TOTAL 3490% 159%
AVERAGE 21.848
TOTAL ERROR 10.0 mm
by O'Brien (with the exception of 19% rather than 20 once for the cheek), using the case width as measured at the cheek/
bentside corner
Spine 1860 85 + 1.6
Cheek 433% 19% + 1.7
TOTAL 3492% 159%
AVERAGE 21.864
TOTAL ERROR 6.8 mm
seen that Table 8, in which the width is taken from This argument has been raised by previous
the cheek/bentside join, and the cheek length is authors. In particular, Denzil Wraight44 shows
assumed to be 19% once gives the best fit (even being convincingly that an unsigned clavichord ('Leipzig
a better fit than the figure found by Grant O'Brien) No. 2') can be expressed in both the Frankfurt inch
and can be said to represent (fairly closely) a quoted (as earlier proposed by Herbert Heyde45) and the
Neapolitan inch. Vicenzan inch.46 Whether or not the measurements
We wish to avoid being bogged down by further used by Heyde represent those designed by the
minutiae that would be of no advantage to the original maker is immaterial here, the point is that
questions posed in this article, so as the above tables on the basis of measurement alone the attribution
show that (4302) can be expressed in Neapolitan once of this clavichord to a particular location cannot be
using O'Brien's methodology, this approach will not substantiated.47 Wraight comments there is always
be pursued further here. Next, the second issue raised some other unit of measurement which can be found
above ?whether there is another interpretation that will fit the available millimetric dimensions
using the same methodology? will be considered. reasonably well.48
44 Wraight (1992) See in particular pages 69-76.

45 Herbert Heyde, Musikinstrumentenbau (Wiesbaden, 1986).
46 Heyde gives 22.4 mm for the Frankfurt inch, 29.75 for the Vincenzan inch.
47 It is now generally accepted that the clavichord in question was actually made in Naples, a possibility mentioned
by Wraight (and others before, including John K?ster) although Wraight deliberately avoided using the Neapolitan
inch as a comparison.
48 Wraight, (1992: 69). His tongue-in-cheek suggestion is that this may become known as Wraight's Law.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 9. Measurements of (4302) using the figures taken from Table 4, and assuming a spine length of 100 once. The
case width as measured from the front of the case
Spine 1860 100 + 1.0
Cheek 433% 23% + 1.3
Tail component in direction of spine 93 + 0.1
Tail component perpendicular to spine 146 -2.7
Maximum height 196 10% + 0.8
TOTAL 3490% 187%
AVERAGE 18.590
TOTAL ERROR 6.3 mm
case width as measured from the cheek/bentside corner
Spine 1860 100 -0.3
Cheek 433% 23% + 1.0
Tail component in direction of spine 93
Tail component perpendicular to spine 146 -2.8
Maximum height 196 10% 0.7
TOTAL 3492% 187%
AVERAGE 18.603
TOTAL ERROR 6.3 mm
Spine 1860 95 -0.2
Cheek 433% 22 2.7
Tail component in direction of spine 93 4%
Maximum height 196 10 + 0.2
TOTAL 3490% 178%
AVERAGE 19.581
TOTAL ERROR 5.9 mm
For the attribution of (4302) to Naples to stand This can be tested by assuming other inch values.
up, at least on the basis of the currently-discussed For the purposes of argument it has been assumed
methodology, it would need to be shown that the that the spine length will be an integral number
Neapolitan oncia is the only reasonable solution. of inches.49 Using the tables of values published by
49 Although O'Brien gives examples in which he assumes that the spine length could be half-inches (for example in
his analysis of the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord, and his analysis of the Markiezenhof Museum harpsichord as shown in
Table 15), using integral inches is all that is required to prove the point here.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 12. Measurements of (4302) using the figures taken from Table 4} and assuming a spine length of 95 once. The
Spine 1860 95 1.5
Cheek 433% 22 + 2.4
Tail component in direction of spine 93 4% 0.1
Maximum height 196 10 + 0.1
TOTAL 3492% 178%
AVERAGE 19.595
TOTAL ERROR 5.2 mm
Spine 1860 90 + 1.3
Cheek 433% 21 0.2
Tail component perpendicular to spine 146 + 1.4
Maximum height 196 9% -0.2
TOTAL 3490% 169
AVERAGE 20.652
TOTAL ERROR 5.6 mm
Spine 1860 90 0
Baseboard width 764% 37 -0.4
Cheek 433% 21 -0.5
Tail component in direction of spine 93 4%
Tail component perpendicular to spine 146 + 1.3
TOTAL 3492% 169
AVERAGE 20.667
TOTAL ERROR 2.5 mm
Grant O'Brien50 the smallest Italian-inch value is using other units of measurement, with inch sizes of
approximately I8V2 mm, which would give 5" for the 18.590,18.603,19.581,19.595,20.652 and 20.667 mm.
tail component parallel to the spine. Comparison of these figures with Table 11 in O'Brien
As the above tables show, the methodology that (1999) it suggests that Rome (18.563 or 18.619) and
led O'Brien to conclude the instrument was made Genoa (20.674) are other locations which, strictly
in Naples can also be used to show it was made on the basis of the measurements and total error
50 Grant O'Brien, (1999). The tables in question appear on pages 164 - 171.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 15. Calculation of the local unit of measurement for the Markiezenhof Museum harpsichord, using the same six
component measurements as for the previous tables and O'Brien's assumed number of once
Spine 1989 90% -1.7
Baseboard width 747 34 0.9
Cheek 478 21% -0.4
Tail component in direction of spine 67 + 1.0
Maximum height 190 8% + 3.0
TOTAL 3657 166%
AVERAGE 21.997
TOTAL ERROR 8.0 mm
Table 16. The same figures as Table IS, but assuming a spine length of 96 rather than 90% once
Spine 1989 96 -0.1
Baseboard width 747 36 + 1.1
Cheek 478 23 +1.5
Tail component in direction of spine 67 3% 0.3
Tail component perpendicular to spine 186 0.5
TOTAL 3657 176%
AVERAGE 20.720
TOTAL ERROR 5.2 mm
are more likely.51 The net result of these calculations IS THE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT NECESSARILY
is that the methodology does not allow that Naples THE LOCAL INCH?
is the only possible place of manufacture of (4302). That (4302) can be described as closely matching
That Rome has been suggested on stylistic grounds the Genovese oncia figure (with a much smaller
by other researchers including Denzil Wraight,52 and error than any other result) presents another issue
that its oncia fits the measured dimensions better which must be considered, particularly in light of
than any of the Neapolitan figures, implies that it is another unsigned instrument which also (by the
the most likely place of manufacture. same methodology) has a Neapolitan attribution.
However, it would be unwise to make a Roman This harpsichord, formerly in the possession
attribution merely because it fits better than Naples. of Grant O'Brien (now in the collection of the
It can be shown that all the potential locations Markiezenhof Museum, the Netherlands) has a
give results which are within the accuracy that the calculated construction oncia of 21.995 mm,53
original maker achieved himself, since the difference essentially identical to a recorded Genovese oncia
in baseboard width between the front and cheek/ of 21.994 mm. If one is restricted to the same six
bentside join shows that anything less than 2Vi mm component measurements as used above a similar
produces, effectively, no error. figure results, but, like (4302) an alternative inch
51 The 19.595 mm figure does not closely relate to any unit of measurement, the nearest being Naples (19.363). Of
course, that the instrument was made in Naples using that published figure cannot be excluded from the possibilities.
52 Denzil Wraight, (1997: Part 11:327).
53 <www.claviantica.com/Neap_sch-files/Cen_GOB.htm>, accessed 26 March 2009. The determination of this unit
of measurement used more than just the six components described above and should, therefore, be more accurate,
assuming all of the added measurements actually represent the original design intentions.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Figure 4. 7b/? view o/?/ze octave spinet labelled Petrus Michael Orlandus anno 1710 (EUCHMI (4311)).
Photo - Copyright the Friends of St Cecilia's Hall
unit can also be determined.54 of the instrument' is more striking when compared
Table 16 gives a calculated figure which is closest with (4302) than any signed instrument. That both
to Rome (20.749), or a slightly large Genovese oncia harpsichords can be shown to fit the Genovese
(20.674). It should be noted that this measurement oncia better than any other unit might be used
for the Genovese oncia is different from the one as evidence to support a relationship between the
calcuated in Table 14.55 O'Brien argues against two instruments, but does not, as has been shown,
Genoa as a plausible location of manufacture, guarantee a Neapolitan origin.
stating 'Although Genoa also used a unit near to It is possible that the methodology discussed
that found here the fact that no seventeenth-century above accurately reflects the design intentions
harpsichord makers are known to have worked there of the makers, but that the unit of measurement
and the similarity of the instrument to those made was not the local inch. If it can be shown that the
in the Neapolitan tradition excludes Genoa as the measurement is totally unrelated to the place of
centre in which this instrument was made.'56 manufacture then the whole approach becomes
There are three important points here. First, questionable. This argument has been presented by
although there may be no known makers of the Birkett and Jurgenson58 who argue that the builder
period working in Genoa it cannot in itself rule out used a convenient workshop inch (or werkzoll) which
that location (a point made by Grant O'Brien (1999: might have no relationship whatsoever to the local
150) where an unsigned instrument is suggested unit of measurement. This will be discussed in
to have been made in Urbino), especially since it further detail below, but it is germane to give here an
is known that non-keyboard instruments (guitars example of a related unit of measurement being used
and violins) were made in Genoa, albeit perhaps in an instrument.
later. Second, as O'Brien argues was the case with An Italian octave spinet which also forms part of
the Raymond Russell Collection (EUCHMI (4311))
Giovanni Natale Boccalari,57 the unit used by the
maker might be associated to him by something has a modern inscription59 reading 'Petrus Michael
other that his place of work. Third, the 'similarity Orlandus anno 1710' on the back of the nameboard.
54 The raw measurements have been taken from O'Brien, ibid. As seen in his figures, the baseboard width varies
from 747 mm at the front to 742 mm at the bellyrail. Although both figures were tried it was found that the 747 mm
baseboard width gave a smaller error. Another inch of 19.122 mm (assuming a spine length of 104') also fits very well,
but has not been shown because it does not further the argument.
55 It is not entirely obvious whether this is purely coincidental or not. It is more likely to be coincidental that both
this instrument and (4302) can be described in units from Naples, Rome and Genoa.
56 O'Brien, ibid.
57 Grant O'Brien, (2009: 68).
58 Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, (2001) and (2002).
59 Probably by Mabel Dolmetsch at the time the instrument was restored in the Dolmetsch workshop.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Table 17. EUCHMI (4311) described in a possible once

Spine Angled, not included
Treble case side 338 16% -0.6
Treble faceboard 72% 3% + 1.1
Treble keycheek 82 + 0.1
Keyboard width 633% 31 -0.9
Bass keycheek 82% + 0.6
Bass faceboard 73 3% + 1.6
Bass case side 101 1.3
Height 142 1.2
TOTAL 1524% 74%
AVERAGE 20.463
With the exception of one other instrument (in for an attribution (at least of an approximate date
the Horniman Museum, London, also formerly in and location since identical roses can be found in
the possession of Arnold Dolmetsch), Orlandus is instruments from different maker's workshops that
otherwise unknown. As the instrument s inscription are contemporary in date and of similar location).
is not historical and does not give a location, the There is no Florentine soldo (= oncia) which is
baseboard measurement methodology might near the calculated 20.463 mm measurement, and
be a convenient starting point in an attempt to likewise no Florentine unit comfortably fits the
understand its design. baseboard measurements on the instrument.63
The resulting figure in Table 17 for the oncia Although this realization would seem to support
suggests, using O'Briens table, that the instrument the viewpoint of Birkett and Jurgenson that the
could be made in either Palermo (20.232) or Genoa builder could use a measurement that is totally
(20.674). That Genoa is a possible location with this unrelated to the local inch, a possible related-inch
instrument is perhaps less surprising in the light of explanation can be found. John K?ster, writing in
the two instruments mentioned above. this Journal,64 shows that in some parts of present
However, a recent re-examination of the day Spain there were two related measurements
mouldings by Denzil Wraight60 carried out at (i.e. the pulgado and dedo) which are both, in effect,
the request of the present author, shows that the inches. In the case of Valladolid, for example, 12
EUCHMI and Horniman Museum instruments with dedos is the same as 9 pulgadas, so that 1 dedo is
Orlandus labels can be attributed to the same maker. three-quarters of a pulgado. By using a similar
In the case of the Horniman Museum instrument approach to the Orlandus/Poggi (4311) octave spinet,
he has previously been identified as Poggi,61 a maker and assuming the calculated figure of 20.463 mm to
who can be shown to have worked in Florence. It be the Florentine equivalent of the dedo, it would
has also been shown by Sheridan Germann62 that give a figure of 27.284 mm for a 'pulgado*, which is
the rose in octave spinet is almost identical to one very close to the quoted 27.341 mm for a Florentine
in a virginal by Poggi, providing further support soldo.65
60 Private Communication, 2006.

61 Denzil Wraight, (1997: Part 11:234).
62 Sheridan Germann, 'Harpsichord Decoration - a Conspectus', The Historical Harpsichord, Volume Four, ed.
Howard Schott (2002), p. [98].
63 O'Brien, op cit, gives 27.341, 27.406 and 27.560 as possible lengths for the Florentine soldo.
64 John K?ster, 'Traditional Iberian Harpsichord Making in its European Context', Galpin Society Journal LXI (2008).
65 There does not, of course, need to be any actual record of a 'name' for the small unit. It would be a simple task
for a maker to divide three standard soldi into four 'small soldi and then to further divide that into halves etc. There
is, of course, no reason why a maker must use three 'old' into four 'new'. As shown by John K?ster, 'Towards the
Reconstruction of the Ruckers Geometrical Methods', Kielinstrumente aus der Werkstatt Ruckers, ed. Christiane
Rieche (Halle, 1998), p.37, the Ruckers family would divide their voet (foot) length into both eleven (the normal duim)
and into twelve (to create a smaller duim).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTCTC
mis case shows that an instrument which can replaced wrestplank capping means that the
potentially be described as fitting the Genovese oncia original nut position is uncertain. However, a
can be attributed to an early-seventeenth-century straight nut would allow Pythagorean-scaled
Florentine maker,66 and the same method can be string lengths at long /" and /"' with string
applied to the other two harpsichords discussed lengths (at f")67 between approximately 209 and
above. The Markiezenhof Museum (ex-O'Brien) 214 mm.68
instrument (using the 20.720 mm figure) would have The bass section of the original bridge is missing
a calculated soldo of 27.627 mm, and (4302) would be but the distance from the spine for the highest
27.556 mm, almost identical to a recorded soldo of identifiable original pin on the main bridge is
27.560 mm. Although it would appear (in principle) 721 mm (long /'"), and of the lowest long string
less likely that a 'small soldo would be used, the 85 mm (long G). This spacing gives 636 mm in 52
'OrlandusVPoggi octave spinet shows that there is spaces, which would give a register width (distance
arguably a precedent in Florence (during the first from one side of the lowest to the same side of the
part of the seventeenth century) for exactly that, and highest register slot) of 684.9 mm.
allows for Florence as another potential location of The main bridge is a constant distance from
manufacture. the bentside. Table 18 gives the distance from the
Consequently, all that can be said with certainty bridge-pin line to the inside of the bentside:
is that, assuming the baseboard measurement
Table 18. Distance from the bridge pins to the inside of
methodology is correct in representing the design
the spine (= edge of the baseboard)
intentions of the maker, it does not enable the
Note Distance
definitive attribution of EUCHMI (4302) to Naples,
(present arrangement) (in millimetres)
Rome or Florence (or, indeed, Genoa).
Top (treble end) 100
FURTHER MEASUREMENTS OF (4302) 100
The baseboard alone is not enough to distinguish 98
between the recent attribution to Naples and 96
alternative possibilities so the instrument must 97%
be examined in more detail, for which additional
97
measurements are required. Increasing the number
97%
of measurements increases the likelihood of finding
some which fit a proposed unit of measurement, so 99
only dimensions which are reasonably likely to relate 96%
to the measurement-critical aspects of the design 94%
process must be used. These measurements can be 90%
divided into three groups: string lengths, keyboard
Bottom (Eh) 90%
details, and construction layout,
AVERAGE 97.6
a) String lengths and stringband.
(from A - treble end)69
Although the (re-pinned) bridge is original, the
66 This assumes, of course, that the attribution to Poggi is actually correct. There has never been, to the present
authors knowledge, any question over the attribution of the Horniman Museum instrument to Poggi, and there is
nothing about the Edinburgh octave-spinet which is inconsistent with the attribution to Florence. It might well be the
case that Dolmetsch also made a connection between the two instruments, which would explain the false signature
on (4311).
67 Although the majority of keyboard-instrument catalogues quote the 'scale' as the string length of the note c", this is
not the note that was always historically used. In particular, Italian instruments with a C/E -/"'compass appear to have
laid-out the string band from notes rather than 'c'. This allows the top and bottom of the range to be set, rather than
finishing a half-octave from the top. Some instruments, for example the 1627 Stefano Bolcioni harpsichord (EUCHMI
(4304)), have both the f and c notes marked on the soundboard and register. There is no clear evidence on (4302) itself
about which notes were used, but the compass and the evidence presented in this article suggests it was from 'f. For
further information about the laying-out of Italian harpsichords see Denzil Wraight, (1997: Part 1:121-2 and 186-7).
68 The divided meantone accidentals in the/' -/" octave (but not the upper octave) means that it is impossible for all
of the notes within that range to be Pythagorean-scaled.
69 If the top two figures and the lowest (A) are excluded as possible outliers the average is essentially unchanged at
97.4 mm.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
The distance from the bridge pins to the front edge This implies that it is unlikely
of the wrestplank and the case is as follows (in design. Indeed, based on other
millimetres, to the nearest half-millimetre): with a Florentine or Roman
divided-accidental instrument
Table 19. Distance of the probable layout-note bridge common), there is no rea
pins to the front of the wrestplank and front of the case
harpsichord is in any way unusu
f f r r Measurements of the front
876509%
To proximal side 322239 positions of the wrestplank an
of wrestplank provide evidence of the maker
To front 984 617%
of case 346
429% There is a difference of 1% mm
from the bass and treble ends
b) Keyboard details. the front of the case, which is
mm difference
The keyplank is not original, between the c
but the touchplates
are. The present keyboard has a full width
and cheek/bentside of
join.73
One
696 mm, and there is a space of immediately noticea
700% mm between
the endblocks (which are construction layout The
probably original). measur
original keyboard width mustbetween
distance have been
the very
front o
lower
close to the present, perhaps belly-rail
with extremes is
of essentiall
695
- 697y2 mm. from the front of the wrestpla
c) Action-space layout. case. Related, and probably mo
The front of the wrestplank is 108%
the cheek mm
length (bass)mm)
(433%
to 107 mm (treble) from thedividable
being front edge
into of thethe fi
four,
baseboard. The wrestplank
theis 160%of
front mmthewide. The
wrestplank,
front of the lower belly-rail
markingis the
323 front
mm (bass) to
of the lower
322 mm (treble) from the front
This of the that
suggests baseboard.
the instru
made
The distance between the front according to a series
of the wrestplank
and front of the lower
onbelly rail is
a module therefore
which is essentia
214% mm (bass) and 215(433%
mm (treble).
/ 4). The possibility is i
by the width of the baseboard
FURTHER BASEBOARDthe
ANALYSIS
module size, and possibly ev
Makers sometimes used the baseboard
perpendicular as a
to the spine, w
drawing board for the instrument.
the module.Although there
To anticipate evid
is minimal evidence of this
this on (4302),
article, theit certainly
distance from a
occurs on other examplestosuch as the of
the front 1627
theStefano
wrestplan
Bolcioni harpsichord (EUCHMI (4304)).70
one module Wraight
(and, therefore, two
has plausibly suggested71ofthat
the makers
case). A might have
plausible argum
made more detailed drawings
the case on
was the baseboard
built with a 4 (c
when an instrument departed from
: 17 (spine a previous
length), or perhap
series (assuming
design. This would be consistent the case'
with both O'Briens
conclusions regarding thetheunusual
front compass of the
of the wrestplank,
1627 Bolcioni harpsichord,
addedand with
at the the
front lack
for theof
keyb
drawn details on (4302). contradicted by the bridge-lin
It is conceivable that which
all thecould,
above-mentioned
without creating
features could, on a prototype,
made one have been (rather
module indicated
than
on the baseboard as part string
of thelengths
design conception.
of the layout n
70 See Grant O'Brien, 'Towards establishing the original stat

Florence, 1627, in the Russell Collection of Early Keyboard Inst
71 Denzil Wraight, Construction Principle in Venetian harp
Instrument Symposium, St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh, 25 Oct
<www.denzilwraight.com/CPinVH002.pdf> (accessed 26 Mar
72 This should not be taken to imply the instrument could no
73 This IV2 mm difference must, as it occurs along the grain, be
It is not possible to determine whether it is an error in measu

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
front of lower belly-rail
rear of wrestplank
I spine cheek|
front of wrestplank
front of baseboard
- 7x -M
Figure 5. Schematic of the front end of the instrument, illust
been designed so that the WAS THE BASEBOARD

Pythagorean notes were TH
THE DESIGN?
1, 2 and 4 modules (or, alternatively, that the chosen
Much of
module was the/'" string length, thestrings
if the above would
argumen
otherwise have been too long to comfortably reach init
the baseboard was designed
the desired pitch level);process,
and the tail
and component
that the action a
parallel to the spine could'fitted to the
also have baseboard'.
been, without If thi
any particular difficulty,then
designed to be one
it is possible thatmodule
several (o
component
or a simple fraction. Evidence measurements
that these parts were are
not designed in a modular rather
manner than design.
even At least
though it on
the parallel
would have been straightforward to dorelationship
so, seems to bet
outweigh that in favour ofbentside,
a modularstrongly
design. suggests th
That all of the measurements cannot be
fact designed expressed
around the action
as a module or simple fraction is perhaps
It is useful not the
to pre-empt
complete
surprising given such a large moduleevidence
size, but and
if itthe f
here attribute the instrument
is assumed that the supposed module' represents a
multiple of a whole numberevidence will be
of inches presented on
(realistically
only either four or five) belief
it wouldthat the builder's
suggest an 'inch' sold
of approximately 27.3 mm smallest
(four) of
or those
21.8 mmlisted by O'B
(five
This
inches). Pursuing this line ofinformation can be t
reasoning further
measurement
is futile, since it only suggests units by of
the possibility the rea
as desired.
additional units of measurement for the baseboard.
74 Grant O'Brien, (1999: 165).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Martin - EUCHMl (4302) 35
PROPOSED DESIGN LAYOUT OF (4302) width (based on the original bridge-pin positions) is
As has been suggested by Birkett and Jurgenson,75 very close to 685 mm (25 soldi is 683% mm).
the likely starting point for building an instrument The relationship of a 25 soldi register width and a
might well be the keyboard. This does not restrict a 25% soldi keyboard width corresponds to the evidence
maker to a single possible width - there are many presented by Birkett and Jurgenson who show that
instances of a maker using different keyboard widths the number of notes plus one equals the number of
in extant instruments.76 It is perfectly plausible that half-inches for the feyboard width.80 This would only
a maker might have a usual' keyboard width, but apply in this instance assuming that the number
would vary it upon request. What is important, of notes did not include the divided accidentals.
however, is that variation of the keyboard width However, unlike the argument presented by Birkett
does not have undesirable repercussions. There is, and Jurgenson, it is clear that the maker of (4302) did
to the present author's knowledge, no evidence that not create a special werkzoll or new schuch81 defined
historical makers ever thought in any keyboard terms by two register spaces (either (685/49)x2 = 27.96 mm,
other than the complete keyboard (or keyspace77 - using a putative 50-note compass, or (685/56)x2 =
the gap between the endblocks) width. If they did so, 24.46 mm, if the divided accidentals were taken into
most likely they would consider the octave span.78 account), but instead simply used his local inch.
Related to the keyboard width is what may be termed This 25 soldi register-width is identical to that of
the register width, that is, the space spanned by the the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord, and that instrument
registers which generally (in an Italian harpsichord) provides strong clues to suggest the register was
cannot exceed the keyboard width because of the made first.82 Box registers are almost invariably
full-depth wrestplank support blocks. made by gluing the spacing blocks to one of the sides
The original keyboard (but not the touchplates) using a spacer (probably one of the jacks) to ensure
and registers have been replaced on (4302), but each slot is the same width. A maker could either
their measurements can be calculated with suitable make the register without regard to total width83 or
accuracy. It has already been shown that the keyspace make regular checks' and alter the block thickness
width (between the endblocks) is 700% mm, and the accordingly.84 If, as proposed by O'Brien,85 Bolcioni
present keyboard is 696 mm wide. If the original was making each register-space even (i.e. 13.18 mm
keyboard was 697 mm wide it would be 25% soldi?9 It per jackslot, his presumed design being 24 soldi for
has also been shown above that the original register 51 jackslots (= 50 spaces)) it would be expected that
75 Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, (2002).

76 For example, Domenicus Pisaurensis. See Denzil Wraight, (1992: 92) or Construction Principle in Venetian
harpsichords', paper given at the Edinburgh Early Keyboard Instrument Symposium, St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh, 25
October 2008, available in printed version from his website <www.denzilwraight.com/CPinVH002.pdf> (accessed 26
March 2009); and Stefano Bolcioni, see Grant O'Brien (2000:183).
78 This would measure the width of eight naturals, not seven as given when Octave width' measurements are quoted.
Most likely the maker would ask the customer to place both hands in an octave stretch position and measure the
distance, making allowance for a little clearance at each end.
79 According to Denzil Wraight (private communication, 2009), a keyboard width of 25/4 soldi is commonly used
in Florentine instruments with a 50-note C/E -/"'compass. This suggests that the maker of (4302) used his normal
keyboard compass and crammed more notes (for the divided accidentals) into the register space.
81 See John K?ster, (1998). The werkzoll as described by Birkett and Jurgenson, and the new schuch as described by
K?ster are identical in concept.
82 In practice it is almost certain that the jacks were actually made before the register which was then made to fit
as pointed out by Denzil Wraight, A Construction Principle in Venetian harpsichords', paper given at the Edinburgh
Early Keyboard Instrument Symposium, St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh, 25 October 2008, available in printed version
from his website <www.denzilwraight.com/CPinVH002.pdf> (accessed 26 March 2009). He is discussing Venetian
instruments, but the same principle applies. This is irrelevant for the further arguments here.
83 In which case a slight error of each block (only 0.1 mm) could easily amount to a culmative inaccuracy of five or
so millimetres over the complete register, see Wraight, ibid.
84 It is probable that original makers would use a thicknessing jig which would allow them consistency between
individual blocks as well as the flexibility to alter the thickness if needed (by adding shims).
85 Grant O'Brien, (2000:194).

163.178.ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
the measured figures would appear more-or-lessW and off positions without danger of the jacks
randomly either side (but comparatively close to) being lifted by adjacent keylevers). A safe margin of
the calculated figure. In other words, when listing at least 2 mm each side would mean that the total
the figures in groups of four, the results should be width of the rear of the keyboard must be around
around 52.7 across the full compass. This can be 69772 mm, which is consistent with a calculated 25%
compared to the measurements taken by O'Brien: soldi keyboard width (= 697.2 mm).
Table 20. Register-slot spaces of the 1627 Bolcioni The final action part to be designed is the layout
harpsichord, arranged in groups of four for the strings, both laterally (their position in
relation to each other and a datum line such as the
Notes 1-5 (bass) 50.6 29-33 53.3
spine), and lengthwise (the speaking lengths of the
5-9 51.4 33-37 53.5
strings and the position of the bridge in relation
9-13 52.3 37-41 53.0
to a datum line). These two datum lines provide
13-17 52.3 41-45 52.9 and y coordinates respectively for the string-band
17-21 52.9 45-49 53.2 arrangement.
21-25 52.1 49 - 53 (treble) 52.3 The spacing of the original bridge pins from
25-29 52.9 TOTAL 1 - 53 682.7 the spine is not very even, which suggests that
the register itself was used to mark the bridge-pin
Table 20 shows that the spacing in the bass is positions. In the first instance this would only be
closer than towards the treble, and is fully consistent done for the layout notes (probably all the 'f ' strings).
with Bolcioni starting in the bass and working in There is no clear internal evidence about how the
groups of four86 (probably marking check' points on register was used. Presumably, it was set so that one
the register with a pair of dividers), using a gradual of the register holes was a particular distance to a
increase of block thickness until the middle of the virtual spine, although one can only speculate which
register. There he found the distance between his one was used.88 It is, however, evident that the strings
desired and actual position was closing, and he then are not placed centrally between the spine and cheek
used more-or-less the same block width to the top but instead, the outer (long) bass string is closer to
of the register.87 For the 57-note register of (4302), the spine than the outer (short) treble string is to the
the maker would be required to divide his proposed cheek. The initial layout process must involve both
25 soldi register width into 56 spaces, which can be the register (if it was that) and a long marking-out
very simply done with check points every four, seven stick to determine the bridge position in relation to
or eight notes. the front datum line. This could be either a standard
Assuming the outer edges of the lowest and ruler or a graduated stick.
highest keylevers were intended to be parallel, simple In determining the original string lengths and
geometry shows that the keyboard width must be layout, and in the absence of any evidence of the
greater than the register width. Returning to the original nut, there must be a starting hypothesis. In
dimensions of (4302), to a register width of c. 685 this case, it is that if, assuming a straight nut (in the
mm needs to be added the thickness of the jackslot treble at least), the layout notes can be Pythagorean
(c. 4.5 mm) and some extra clearance at each end (to scaled, it is likely to reflect the original intentions.
ensure the registers can safely slide between their As discussed above, the notes f, f" and can be
86 Although the 52 spaces can be divided into groups of four evenly, and the measurements as recorded by O'Brien
are consistent with Bolcioni using groups of four, there is no reason why it may not have been a different grouping
(perhaps five, six or eight).
87 Aside from the evidence shown in the table, it is very much simpler to assume Bolcioni intended the whole register
width to be 25 soldi rather than to assume he desired 50 spaces to be 24 soldi. Although 50 spaces (51 notes) corresponds
to a C/E - c'" compass, with divided D/F#,E/G# and four higher enharmonically divided notes (see Denzil Wraight,
'Checklist of Italian harpsichords and virginals with split sharps' <www.denzilwraight.com/ChecklistSplitSharps.rtf>),
the additional two bass notes would, particularly if they were side-by-side as proposed by O'Brien, create layout issues
which would make it more sensible to design from scratch, as implied which the numerous scribed lined and points
elsewhere on the instrument.
88 One possibility is that the left (bass) side of the F register slot was set at 2 soldi from the bass end, and that the
register had prick-marks on it (like the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord) to guide the long string position. Other possibilities
include that the register was set to position the long/string SV2 soldi from the bass end, or set to position the long/"
string 21 soldi from the bass end.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
Pythagorean-scaled with f" string lengths between Table 2L Probable layout-note distances from the bridge
209 and 214 mm.89 It is also likely that either the pin to potential datum lines
bridge or nut position was designed to be a simple
distance from the datum line.
Bridge pin position f f f" r
to the...
Once again, the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord 984 617% 429%
front of baseboard92 346
(EUCHMI (4304)) provides evidence of a plausible
proximal side of 876 509% 322 239
layout process. As reported by O'Brien,90 the 1627
wrestplank
Bolcioni has a scribed line along the width of the
distal side of 715% 349 161% 78%
baseboard marking the original nut, and small marks
wrestplank
on the soundboard for the original bridge layout
position. The scribed nut of the Bolcioni is straight discussed above, figures between 209 and 214 mm
along its full length, whereas (4302) probably had for/" were used. On the assumption that the maker
two sections (assuming the Pythagorean-scaled would use his local unit of measurement as a starting
treble it would mean that the distance between the point (which does not, in principle, exclude any of
nut-line and the proximal edge of the wrestplank Florence, Rome or Naples, all of which give an f
would only be about 25-30 mm in the bass).91 The string length between 212 and 214 mm), these figures
fact that it was marked in full suggests that the bridge can be combined with the datum-line measurements
position was marked relative to the nut, which itself and entered on a spreadsheet. From this a best-fit
was positioned first relative to a construction-based table emerges (Table 22).
datum line. In the 1627 Bolcioni O'Brien has inferred
that the datum was the front of the case, whereas Table 22. Best-fit units for the string lengths and nut to
datum line distances
on (4302) it is most likely the proximal edge of the
wrestplank. f f r r
Because of the enharmonically-divided accidental String length 819 427
(mm) 213.5 106.75
arrangement, it is not possible for all the design-layout soldi 30 15% 7%
notes to be a simple distance from the nut to the case Nut-line to proximal 57 82.5 108.5 132.25
datum point. In any case, this is not required as a side of wrestplank93
straight nut-line only requires the generation of two soldi
points. A hypothesis is that the same measurement
system, be it a local unit of measurement or a specific Table 22 includes a column for f, which cannot
workshop unit, would be found in both the string (in this instrument) be Pythagorean-scaled, but it
lengths and the bridge or nut layout, and that this does help support the interpretation. The octaves
will be evident in two of the three top notes {f\ f-f and /'-/" both have two divided accidentals, so
f" and/'"). In practice, assuming the hypothesis is there is a clear relationship between a straight nut
correct, the geometrical considerations of a straight line and the proximal side of the wrestplank. The
nut-line in relation to both a straight datum line and string length is one soldo less than it would be if the
a curved bridge-line are such that workable solutions scaling continued to be Pythagorean that far down
are few, something which can easily be tested by any in the compass (or, in other words, twice the length
reader wishing to manipulate the figures presented of/', less one soldo). In practice it is likely that the
in Table 21.
maker would have used /and/" to generate the nut
From these figures must be taken the string line, as the distance is greater than a single octave.
sounding lengths, assuming Pythagorean scalings The bridge position would then be generated from
for the above notes in the top two octaves. As the nut. The bridge position of the f" string is, as
89 Those figures give a calculated maximum error of less than 0.6 mm, which is clearly much more accurate than the
original maker could have worked to. In practice the actual 'Pythagorean-scaled' range might be larger.
90 Grant O'Brien, (2000:177).
91 The possibility that (on both instruments) a straight nut was used in the layout process, but a two-section nut
actually used in the finished instrument cannot be excluded. This would only have a minute consequence for the string
lengths in the bass, and this difference would be tonally insignificant.
92 The distance between the front of the baseboard and the proximal side of the wrestplank is VA mm greater in the
bass than the treble.
93 Strictly speaking it is possible that the front edge of the baseboard was the datum line as, in theory it is 4 soldi
from the proximal side of the wrestplank. The inaccuracies of construction may deceive the interpretation's validity.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
position of / pin in relation to the spine position of f" pin in relation to the spine
proximal side of wrestplank
Figure 6. Method of laying-out the nut position from the datum line (the proximal side of the wrestplank for (4302).
described, half the length of/". Florentine soldi) from the straight-nut line, which
The generation of the bridge position for the itself was derived by the datum line at the proximal
F string must be somewhat conjectural, but a side of the wrestplank.
plausible solution can be proposed. Denzil Wraight
has suggested94 that some Venetian instruments THE BASEBOARD GEOMETRY AND LAYOUT
had their lengths derived along the F string, rather That the baseboard dimensions as a whole do
that the spine, this length (from the front of the not conform to the 27.341 mm measurement97
case or proximal side of the wrestplank to the tail (regardless of fitting the 'small soldo' of the 27.560
along the line of the / string) being eight times the Florentine measurement) suggests that it was laid-out
length of the f" string length. Although this method using another method, possibly as a consequence of
would ?if the maker started his design from this needing to be built around the action and stringband.
length which was then used to generate the other For this to be viable it should fit a series of 'rules'
string lengths ? probably be within acceptable limits as suggested by John Koster,98 in particular that it
(as he demonstrates), it would not be plausible if the should be repeatable on other instruments. One of
design method was as described above. However, it is the problems with examining instruments that are
possible that a variation on this method was used,95 in the sole-known example of a particular maker's
which eight times the length off" (8x7% = 62 soldi) work is being able to show that the details are due
is, to within a millimetre or so, the distance from to design rather than chance. Despite the apparent
the straight-nut line to the tail along the F string.96 excellent fit of many of the figures presented earlier
In this way, all of the layout notes can be shown in this paper there can only be one (if any) which
to have been generated (and can be described in can, by definition, be correct. It would, however,
94 Denzil Wraight, Construction Principle in Venetian harpsichords', paper given at the Edinburgh Early Keyboard
Instrument Symposium, St Cecilia's Hall, Edinburgh, 25 October 2008, available in printed version from his website
<www.denzilwraight.com/CPinVH002.pdf>.
95 Although there is precedence in Venetian instruments, the present author is not aware of any other Florentine
instrument which follows any variation of the same method.
96 This is not, of course, the actual string length, which must be shorter (even assuming a straight nut-line was used)
by the distance from the tail to the bridge along this line. This is discussed below.
97 Or, alternatively, that the internal dimensions do not coincide well with any of the prospective baseboard inch
unit measurements.
98 John K?ster, (1998: 22).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
be remarkable if makers from the same geographic wood. If this method was used it implies that the
area (remembering that many builders worked in baseboard was marked-out at a comparatively early
the same street as their colleagues, rather than on stage of construction, and certainly before the edge
opposite sides of town) laid-out their designs in for the spine was actually planed straight. If the spine
ways that were greatly different in approach to one was already planed it is likely the maker would have
another. moved the centre' position slightly which would
It has been shown above that the cheek could be introduce a little inaccuracy. In practice it would be
seen as consisting of four sections averaging 108.38 difficult, if not impossible, to verify any additional
mm long. It is therefore possible, at least as a starting inaccuracy caused by this. It should, of course, be
point, that each of the sections represents a distance remembered that any error set in a pair of compasses
of 4 soldi, which should, in theory, be 109.36 mm or trammel will be multiplied each time it is used,
long. This error is less than that found in other even if the correct end-point is used.
parts of the instrument." It has already been shown It is possible to suggest an alternative baseboard
that the register-space and keyplank-space are design and construction approach which answers
both simple units of the Florentine soldi, and it can the criticisms to both the above points, and is
equally be shown that the baseboard width (varying consistent with the evidence found on (4302). This
from 761%-7641/4 mm) can be defined in the same method diverges from the constructive geometry
way ? 28 soldi is 765.55 mm long ? although greater method as described by Birkett and Jurgenson105
than the widest measured distance, it is within the in that the geometry (or, perhaps more correctly,
maker's shown working error limits.100 the proportions derived from the geometry) taken
As the proximal side of the wrestplank has been from an initial unit, cannot be used to describe the
shown to be the likely datum line, it raises the entire baseboard layout. In particular, the 'keyboard
possibility that the length of the instrument was rectangle', a rectangle of which two of the sides are
calculated for there rather than the front of the the front of the case and the cheek, must have had its
baseboard, and it is, in fact, a possible 64 soldi.101 lengths decided prior to the geometric application.
However possible it may be, this could be fortuitous Although in some instances the two lengths may
rather than part of the design, as it would require a have an irrational-proportion relationship such
different working method from that proposed above as V2:l (which may be deliberate) it should be
in which the F line is eight times the/" length.102 presumed that it could be used because the maker
An alternative solution to determine the basic was previously aware it would work, rather than it
length parameter of the instrument uses geometry being a starting point of the design. Further, if the
rather than modular measurement. This method is builder had previously made an instrument with a
similar to those proposed by Stephen Birkett and 25% soldi-wide keyboard he would not need any
William Jurgenson,103 and by John K?ster.104 A portion specific design method in place to know that an ideal
of the Birkett and Jurgenson article discusses the baseboard width is 28 soldi as past experience would
accuracy to be expected using a trammel, pointing have informed him.106 In this way one can assume
out that errors should be within a millimetre, even the width, the distance from the datum line to the
over the length of a full instrument. They do not cheek/bentside corner, and the distance from the
fully address a potential flaw in their approach, front of the baseboard to the datum line to have been
namely that for a trammel or pair of compasses to determined, and presume that the maker would have
work effectively, the centre point (around which the prepared his baseboard with an over-long spine and
tool is theoretically rotated) must be placed in solid over-long case front which was planed at a right
99 It is also only a single error in practice, assuming that the distance was set on a pair of dividers rather than being
marked-off on a ruler.
100 This might also, in fact, be an argument in favour of the baseboard being subject to shrinkage across the grain as
discussed above, rather than representing any error.
101 The length from the datum line is 1860 - 108% = 1751% mm, which, divided by 27.341, gives 64.06 soldi.
102 The two possibilities are not entirely mutually exclusive as two points are needed to construct a tail line.
104 John K?ster, (2008).
106 And, by extension, if he reduced the keyboard width to 25 soldi he might well have made a similar reduction (by
a ha\?-sold?) to the case-front width - in this example to 27% soldi.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
40 The Galpin Society journal LXIII (2010)
angle to the spine. half-so/do narrower than the keyboard.
Rather than using a trammel, the same approach 2) On an overlength baseboard with the spine {AG}
might be taken with nothing more than a straight and front edge {AB} planed straight and square,
piece of wood ? perhaps, but by no means the baseboard width [28] is chosen to give
necessarily ?a graduated ruler. The geometry of enough clearance at either end of the keyboard
(4302) (see Figure 7) itself is quite simple: mark and then an overlength cheek-side {BC} planed.
length HC107 then place one end on {H} to locate 3) The datum line {HI} (proximal edge of the
point {D}, transfer this distance (length HC = DH) wrestplank) is marked from the front edge of the
starting on {D} to get point {E}. This point {E} defines case [4], the same unit being used to divide the
the tail-end of the bentside on the line of the spine. cheek into four parts. The third part gives the
This leaves only the tail shape to be defined.108 position of the front edge of the lower belly-rail
There is a number of geometrical methods that {J}, and the last gives the position of the cheek/
work, so the exact method cannot be determined. bentside corner {C}.
It has been noted that the bentside is, essentially, 4) (Probably) using a register as a lateral marking
parallel to the bridge, so it would be plausible that out guide the nut-line positions of/and/" are
the maker would just continue a smooth bentside marked relative to the spine,/marked [2] and
curve to the (virtual) line defined by point {E}. /" [4] from the (wrestplank-front) datum line.
However, it can be seen above that the bridge and The nut-line is, at this time, straight, although
bentside get closer and become only 90 mm apart it would be knicked when the nut is fitted to
(bridge-pin line to inside of bentside) at the bass remove the bass end away from the proximal
end of the main bridge rather than 97 mm. One side of the wrestplank.
can only speculate on the reasons for this, although 5) A string-length stick (or ruler) is used to mark
it is easy to rule out basic measurement; if they out the bridge position for the long strings, with
remained parallel the tail component perpendicular Pythagorean scaling for/' [15%],/' [T?] and/'",
to the spine would be about 153 mm (= 5% soldi), and the length of/being ((2 xf) - 1) [30]. The
which is easy enough. The actual figure, 146 mm, length of F is not measured itself, but a length
is the equivalent of 5% soldi, still a plausible figure, which is (8 xf") may have been measured along
given that the soldo is divided into twelve denari, the 'F-string line' to give a tail-hypotenuse
but the process is complicated. A much more likely position {K} [62].
scenario is that the distance is four-thirds of the 6) The bentside position is set [3%] from the bridge.
cheek module' or one-third of the total cheek length 7) The position of the bentside/tail line is
(both easily found with dividers). We may, however, calculated by proportional geometry. With
be imposing a system on something that was done a trammel, ruler or stick, the length of the
simply visually.109 diagonal from the bass end of the datum line
It is possible to digest the above into a coherent to the cheek/bentside join {HC} is marked. An
design-layout method (in which some of the order arc is swung (keeping the bass end {H} as the
can be altered according to personal preference) centre-point) to the spine {D}, and then rotate
as follows [the figures in square brackets are the around 180? {HD} centred on the new spine
actual measurements in soldi found on (4302)] (see point {D} to get the bentside/tail line point {E}
Figure 7): on the spine.110
1) Suitable keyboard [25%] and register-space [25] 8) The perpendicular component length of the
widths are chosen. The register-space width is a tail {EF} is set along this line at VsBC [5%]. The
107 The letter designation used in this paper will be the same for all instruments as a convenience. It does mean
that not all letters will be used in each example. This alternative seems better than having, for example, the letter 'E'
signifying the perpendicular tail component point on the spine on one example, and the actual tail point on another.
108 Two possibilities - an 'F-line' length being 8 xf", which would give one point on the tail triangle 'hypotenuse', or a
front datum line to tail point of 64 soldi, to give point {G} have already been mentioned, and it would even be possible
to join those lines together so that the tail was defined by this line until it reached a line perpendicular to the spine
from point {E}.
109 The consistency (in all the instruments discussed here) with which the length of EF (F being the bentside/tail
corner) or GF can be described as a simple fraction of either the case-front (AB) or cheek length (BC) suggests the
measurement was deliberately designed.
110 The phrase 'swinging an arc' is almost certainly a misrepresentation of the maker's actual working methods.
Although it is possible builders did, on occasion, actually rotate a trammel or graduated stick, the actual method

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
bentside curve in the bass must be slightly
altered in the bass to meet point {F} with a List of relationships: BI =l?BC (HI is the datum line)
smooth curve. HC == HD = DE
9) The tail is marked by extending a line from {F} EF == HBC
through {K} to the spine to get point {G}.
10) The bass-bridge section is determined by taking
a line parallel to the tail, the same distance that For clarity, the above processes have been divided
the main bridge is from the bentside [3%]. into several illustrations to show the process:
G K Gr^
C /^1C
-^ ^) I -1 2s 4s
A- A1-1
Figure 7. Method layout drawings for (4302). The illustration on the left shows the derivation of the straight nut line, and
the string lengths of the layout notes (which gives point {!<}). The illustration on the right shows the baseboard layout.
no (continued) wou\? probably have been simply linear. For example, once the length HC had been marked on a stick (be
it a trammel, graduated ruler or a mark on a piece of wood - the principle is identical), one end would be placed at {H}
from which point {D} was noted, and then the stick was moved up so that this point {D} became the new end point to find
point {E}. No physical rotation' is actually required.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
If it is, for the sake of argument, accepted that the
described method is correct, it would confirm the
use of the proximal side of the wrestplank, rather
than the front of the case, as the datum line for
(4302). There appears to be no reason to assume an
alternative explanation ? that the use of HC rather
than AC was a case-length issue ?as the spine
length would be an insignificant 6 mm longer if the
above layout process was followed using AC rather
than HC to create the positions of {D} and {E}.111
THE LAYOUT GEOMETRY OF CONTEMPORARY

FLORENTINE HARPSICHORDS
As discussed above, however simple and plausible
the layout might be, without supporting evidence
from other similar instruments (repeatability), the D^-?
methodology used cannot be considered satisfactory
Clearly a geometry-based approach such as this
would not be duplicated in the same format in
every instrument (even by the same maker), since
otherwise they would all have the same proportions
and the individual makers would not be able to
vary the designs, but it is possible to keep to the
same framework and still have more than enough
flexibility to alter aspects of the design as wished.
The baseboard geometry of the unsigned
Markiezenhof Museum (ex-O'Brien collection)
harpsichord can be expressed in the same manner.
The following analysis does not include the bentside
curve derivation or other internal parts. In this
instrument the bentside is not parallel to the bridge,
being further away towards the bass.
A \\/^// -1
Figure 8. Possible layout method for the Markieze
1) On an overlength baseboard with the spine {AG}
Museum harpsichord.
and front edge {AB} planed straight and square,
the baseboard width is chosen. 7) Point {G} (the end of the spine) could have
2) Line parallel to spine line {BC}. worked out in a variety of plausible ways.112
3) Line for the front of the wrestplank {HI}, an
appropriate distance from the front of the case. List of relationships: AC = HD
4) Line, length AC, centred on {H}, swung to the DC = DE
spine to get point {D}. EF = y4AB
5) Line, length DC, centred on {D}, swung to the
spine to get point {E}. Both (4302) and the Markiezenhof instruments
6) Point {F}, giving the perpendicular component are unsigned, so our finding that that both have a
length of the tail {EF} is set from point {E} at a similar baseboard geometry does not prove that
distance of %AB. such a working method was used in Florence in the
111 The position of point {E} would actually be 12 mm closer to the front of the instrument using AC, a large enough
difference to make it impossible to argue that the method cannot allow a differentiation between the two choices. The
overall case length would be longer as point {K} is in the same place, and the line {FK} is a more acute angle to the spine.
112 Some of the possibilities include that the distance EG is 2% soldi, that EG is VA times the register gap width, that
it is in an 11:4 ratio with EF, or (most likely of these options) a 3:1 ratio of FG:EG. Other possibilities derived from
the internal layout (as proposed above for (4302) might also exist but have not been considered and are not needed to
prove the point.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
first half of the seventeenth century.113 For this one perpendicular to the spine.
must look again at the instruments of Bolcioni. As 6) Line, length ViBC, centred on {F}, swung to spine
reported above, O'Brien has shown that the original to get point {G}.
compass of the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord (4304)
had an unusual compass including enharmonically List of relationships: AC = AD = DE
divided accidentals, and two extra notes (of FG = ^BC
indeterminate nominal key assignment) below a
C/E broken octave in the bass. In contrast, the 1631 1627 Bolcioni (EUCHMI (4304))
Bolcioni (now in Yale) is comparatively standard in 1) On an overlength baseboard with the spine {AG}
all respects. It is also noticable that the tail angle on and front edge {AB} planed straight and square,
the Edinburgh instrument is much more acute than the baseboard width is chosen.
the Yale example, so much so that if the mouldings 2) Line parallel to spine line {BC}.
did not match it would be difficult to connect the two 3) Line for front of wrestplank {HI} at an
instruments. As with the Markiezenhof harpsichord, appropriate distance from the front of the case
the system below does not attempt to derive the (probably 4Y2 soldi).115
4) Line, length AC, centred on {H}, swung to the
bentside shape of either Bolcioni instrument.114 Also,
as with the Markiezenhof instrument, there are a spine to get point {D}.
number of ways in which the tail 'triangle' may have 5) Line, length AC, centred on {H}, swung to the
been designed, especially if the design-approach spine to get point {L}. This process could also
commenced with the action and stringing, as has simply be done by marking point {L} so that DL =
been argued was the situation for (4302). AH.
6) Line, length LH, centred on {L}, swung to the
1631 Bolcioni (Yale University) spine to get point {G}.
1) On an overlength baseboard with the spine {AG} 7) Line, length DH, centred on {D}; swung to a
and front edge {AB} planed straight and square, point 8 soldi116 from the spine to get point {F}.117
the baseboard width is chosen. Using a graduated square would negate the
2) Line parallel to spine line {BC}. requirement for a specific point {E}.118
3) Line, length AC, centred on {A}, swung to the
spine to get point {D}. List of relationships: AC = AD = HL = HG
4) Line, length DA, centred on {D}, swung to the AH = DL
spine to get point {E}. DH = DF
5) Point {F}, set 7% soldi from point {E}, (EF) = 2/7AB
113 Other than the relationship between the two instruments suggested by O'Brien (see above), no evidence is
presented here to show that the Markiezenhof harpsichord is Florentine. Although the instrument has been seen by
the present author it has not been measured or otherwise examined in detail, and all the measurements have been
taken from the published work of Grant O'Brien.
114 The measurements from which this analysis of the 1631 Bolcioni has been derived have been taken from Grant
O'Brien, (1999). The measurements of the 1631 Bolcioni have been taken by the author (in collaboration with others)
in a similar manner to that reported for (4302) above. It should be noted that the present author agrees with O'Brien's
arguments for the compass and his expectation that the keywell was the same depth as the 1631 instrument at Yale.
Likewise, the author agrees with O'Brien's evidence for the bridge line. However, the present author's examination of
the keywell shows that the only line found on the instrument itself which could indicate the front of the wrestplank is
122 mm from the front edge of the present baseboard, suggesting the instrument has not been shortened in length as
suggested by O'Brien. The analysis presented here has been tested on the original instrument.
115 It is, of course, quite possible that this step was also taken in the 1631 Bolcioni at Yale, but it has not been included
in the analysis as it has no bearing on the later processes.
116 It is possible that rather than thinking in terms of 8 soldi, Bolcioni intended the distance to be 2/7AB. The actual
dimensions (EF = 221 mm, AB = 759 mm at the case front) are well within an acceptable accuracy, particularly if
dividers were used. This would be consistent with all of the other instruments described in this article which have
either EF or GF as a simple fraction of AB or BC.
117 Both of the Bolcioni harpsichords could, in principle (and with a different tail-triangle derivation), have used the
distance EG rather than EF designed as a specific number of soldi. However, doing so would not take into account the
string layout. By designating EF as a particular distance, Bolcioni would be using a variation on the same approach as
used by the makers of (4302) and the Markiezenhof Museum harpsichord.
118 A set-square can be positioned perpendicular to the spine on which the distance 34 A has been marked.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
3
CONCLUSIONS
The ABOU
comparat
METHOD DESCRIBED
Florentine A
vir
Four instruments
of are
harpsichorn
Florentine Museum
harpsichords inst
fr
century ? then
but it is a reason
enough o
conclusions. The
the number
surviving
can bedemonstrated
described toas h
ha
during the The
first method
half of t
is quite nothing
small; mor
combining
of Boalch119 with
compass, updated
wher
Wraight120 more thanfewe
produces a gr
It is reasonable
on a to assum
number o
instruments mostwill also be
importan
of whethersame(4302) and
maker. th
A
harpsichords are
(exceptamongst
{D}121 w
that the numbers
exist on would
the ins
119 Donald Boalch, Makers of

120 Denzil Wraight, (1997).
121 And point {L} for the 162

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
'three rules'122 can be shown to apply to this method. design that is consistent with the instrument being
The flexibility of the method allows makers to built using the Florentine inch, using a methodology
adapt the design. By swinging an arc of length AC that is repeated in other contemporary examples
using point {H} (rather than {A}) as the starting point from the same city
to get point {D} it is possible to make an instrument There is some conjecture involved in the proposed
in which the spine length is longer in proportion to layout, for example in the assumption that the string
the width.123 An instrument's length can be reduced lengths of the layout-notes and the distance of those
by (as Bolcioni did in his 1627 harpsichord) using notes from the nut to the datum line should both use
the method to designate point {G} rather than {E} the same modular inch.127 However, this inch is also
on the spine. This might well have been done in found in the consistent distance of the bridge-pin
harpsichords which were designed for a higher pitch line to the bentside (and probably tail), the keyboard
standard.124 width and the register width, as well as being used
It should be emphasised that the tail shape (the to define the case front width and position of the
triangle EFG) is not derived from the proportional wrestplank front (more correctly, the case front, as
geometry. Although it is possible that (as has been the wrestplank front is the datum line) and the front
shown with most examples) the length of EF or FG of the lower belly rail, all within the accuracy that
is related to the case front or cheek, this may be a can be shown, internally, to have been achieved by
simple convenience used by the maker and does not, the maker himself.
in principle, represent an extension of the method.125 This inch is different from others which can be
Further, if point {F} was derived as the crossing of used to describe the case components,128 although it
two other pre-determined lengths, this would again does appear in both the case front and cheek lengths,
be a used convenience, rather than being integral to which are essential to the design approach. It has
the design. been shown that the case components can, in fact, be
Although the same methodology can be applied described using various different inch measurements,
to an instrument which is demonstrably not which points to that methodology not being suitable
Florentine,126 and a Florentine instrument of c. 1700 as a method of instrument identification (at least
(see the appendix), there is no reason why such a for the examples discussed here). The evidence also
method would be used in a different geographic suggests that a modular design approach was not
region or time period. Nor should it be expected that used, even though a very similar instrument could
all Florentine instruments of this period should have have been constructed by that method.
had their length determined with this method as a That this inch (very close to 27.34 mm129) matches
basis. a standard unit of measurement used in Florence,130
combined with the lack of anachronistic stylistic
CONCLUSIONS features and the identifiable use of the enharmonic
This article has identified a probable location keyboard in other Florentine examples of the period,
for the manufacture of EUCHMI (4302). It has shows that there are various reasons for making an
demonstrated a viable approach to the complete attribution to Florence, c. 1620.
122 John Koster, (1998: 22).

123 The 1627 Bolcioni baseboard spine length is 1958 mm (accepting O'Brien's argument that the keywell was
essentially the same depth in both the 1627 and 1631 instruments), and the Markiezenhof Museum harpsichord is
1989 mm. By comparison, the 1631 Bolcioni (using A as the centrepoint to get D) is 1827 mm, and (4302) using length
HC centred at H is 1860 mm. The actual baseboard spine-length to baseboard-width proportions are irrelevant here as
figures as different compasses and octave-widths have been used.
124 The 1627 Bolcioni could, assuming iron treble stringing, reach a higher pitch (by about a tone) than (4302).
125 In all instruments there are a number of plausible methods for deriving the 'tail triangle'.
126 RCM 175, described by Grant O'Brien, (2009: 55-99), works with a similar analysis as described here to get point
{G}, having AC = AD = DG. The tail triangle could be formed as a 3:4:5 triangle where FG = V2AB.
127 And, in terms of making an attribution, the failure of the present author to find another modular inch from which
the string lengths and any datum-line to the nut or bridge could be described.
128 In the sense of meaning the six components which form the starting point of the analysis approach as used by
Grant O'Brien.
129 This has not been calculated as the result of any 'average'. There is, in practice, only a small variation from this
figure which can be tolerated before the results become implausible.
130 Grant O'Brien, (1999).

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
The lack of concurrence of the mouldings, arcades G

and keywell-side profiles between (4302) and any E
other instrument131 makes an identification of the
maker impossible, although it might rule several
out.132 Despite not being able to attach a particular
makers name to the instrument, it is well-made
and was built by someone who was clearly sure of
his working methods. Judged by the ivory naturals,
inlaid accidentals, carved stand, rose and finely
moulded nameboard, it was built to be a prized
possession.
APPENDIX
Although this design approach has been

demonstrated above only on instruments which are,
or can reasonably be argued to be, Florentine from
the period c. 1610 - c. 1640, it would be incorrect
to use it as a method of attributing unsigned
instruments to Florence (from that period) without
further supporting evidence. The design approach
may have been more widespread in place and period
than demonstrated. This can be seen in harpsichord
attributed to Antonio Migliai, Florence, c. 1700,
(EUCHMI (4472)).
THE MIGLIAI HARPSICHORD133

The harpsichord attributed to Migliai obviously
has different proportions, the spine length being
much longer in relation to the width, mostly as a
result of its large F'G'-c'" compass. This is an example
of an instrument which might be immediately
suggested to support an argument that the above
design approach must be comparatively limited.
Although it is evident that the diagonal length
AC will not, when doubled, provide the position
of {E} or {G}, the same approach (as above) works
when an extra step (adding HAC) is included. A A
single possible tail derivation is included because Figure 10. Possible baseboard layout metho
it is almost identical to that suggested for the harpsichord attributed to Antonio Migliai (Flor
Markiezenhof Museum harpsichord. c. 1700), EUCHMI (4472).
131 See Denzil Wraight, (1997: Part 11:327).

132 For example Bolcioni, Querci and Poggi. It stands to reason that if those makers
consistently enough that a number of their instruments can be identified on that basis they
an instrument using totally different cutters.
133 This approach has only been tried on one of the surviving 'long' Migliai harpsich
instruments by the same maker in Leipzig and Halle will, hopefully, be examined and com

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
1) On an overlength baseboard with the spine {AG} List of relationships: AC = AD = DL
and front edge {AB} planed straight and square, LG = HAC (=HAD = HDL)
the baseboard width is chosen. EF = HAB
2) Line parallel to spine line {BC}. EG = HEF
3) Line, length AC, centred on {A}, swung to the
spine to get point {D}.
4) Line, length DA, centred on {D}, swung to the ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
spine to get point {L}. The author would like to thank Edward Dewhirst,
5) Line, length V2AC, centred on {L}, swung to the Matthew Hill, John Raymond and Eleanor Smith
spine to get point {G}. for assistance with examining the instruments in
6) A triangle, the sides adjacent to the right angle in Edinburgh. He would also like to thank John K?ster,
a ratio of 3:1, can be used to create the tail angle, Denzil Wraight and Paula Woods for comments on
the distance EF134 being HAC. earlier drafts of this article.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barnes (1971): John Barnes, 'The specious uniformity of Italian harpsichords', Keyboard Instruments:
studies in keyboard organology, 1500-1800, ed. Edwin Ripin (Edinburgh, 1971).
Barnes (1975): John Barnes, Italian Harpsichord c. 1600 Russell Collection No. 2., unpublished
restoration report, written 1975 (EUCHMI archives).
Barnes (1980): John Barnes, 'Does Restoration Destroy Evidence', Early Music, 8/2 (April 1980).
Birkett and Jurgenson (2001): Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, 'Geometric Methods in Stringed Keyboard
Instrument Design', GS/LIV (2001).
Birkett and Jurgenson (2002): Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, 'Why Didn't Historical Makers Need
Drawings? Part II - Modular Dimensions and the Builder's WerkzolV, GSJ, LV (2002).
Boaich (1995): Donald Boalch, Makers of the Harpsichord and Clavichord 1440-1840, third edition,
ed. Charles Mould (Oxford, 1995).
Germann (2002): Sheridan Germann, 'Harpsichord Decoration - a Conspectus', The Historical
Harpsichord, Volume 4, ed. Howard Schott (2002).
Heyde (1986): Herbert Heyde, Musikinstrumentenbau (Wiesbaden, 1986).
Koster (1998): John K?ster, 'Towards the Reconstruction of the Ruckers Geometrical Methods',
Kielinstrumente aus der Werkstatt Ruckers, ed. Christiane Rieche (Halle, 1998).
Koster (2008): John Koster, 'Traditional Iberian Harpsichord Making in its European Context', GSJ
LXI (2008).
Newman and Williams (1968): Sidney Newman and Peter Williams, The Russell Collection of early Keyboard
instruments (Edinburgh, 1968).
O'Brien (1999): Grant O'Brien 'The use of simple geometry and the local unit of measurement in
the design of Italian stringed keyboard instruments: an aid to attribution and to
organological analysis', GSJI?I (1999).
O'Brien (2000): Grant O'Brien, 'Towards establishing the original state of the three-manual
harpsichord by Stefano Bolcioni, Florence, 1627, in the Russell Collection of Early
Keyboard Instruments, Edinburgh', GS/LUI (2000)
O'Brien (2009): Grant O'Brien, "The Single-Manual Italian Harpsichord in the Royal College of Music,
London, Cat. No. 175: An Organological Analysis', GS/LX11 (2009).
Russell (1959): Raymond Russell, The Harpsichord and Clavichord (London, Faber and Faber, 1959).
Smith (2008): Eleanor Smith, A Discussion of the Use of Divided-Accidental keys in Italian Strung
Keyboard Instruments pre 1700, MMus thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2008.
Wraight (1992): Denzil Wraight, "The Identification and Authentication of Italian String Keyboard
Instruments', in The Historical Harpsichord Volume 3, ed. Howard Schott,
(Stuyvesant, NY, 1992).
Wraight (1997): Denzil Wraight, The stringing of Italian keyboard instruments c. 1500 - c. 1650, PhD
thesis, Queen's University of Belfast, 1997.
134 As with the 1627 Bolcioni harpsichord, the point {E} is not actually found on the instrument, and does not need
to be. The triangle can be positioned perpendicular to the spine using a graduated square on which the distance %AB
has been marked.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
DARRYL MARTIN
EUCHMI (4302): A Case Study of Harpsichord Identity
Figure la. EUCHMI (4302). Photo: Darryl Martin.

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC
U

163.178.101.95 on Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:05:59 UTC

A Case Study of Hapsichord Identity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Case Study of Hapsichord Identity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EUCHMI (4302): A Case Study of Harpsichord Identity

Author(s): DARRYL MARTIN

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20753656

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 1. The present string lengths and plucking points.

HISTORICAL STATES OF THE INSTRUMENT

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

HISTORY OF PREVIOUS ATTRIBUTIONS

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 3. Interpretation of the baseboard measurements by Grant O'Brien.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

44 Wraight (1992) See in particular pages 69-76.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Table 17. EUCHMI (4311) described in a possible once

60 Private Communication, 2006.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

70 See Grant O'Brien, 'Towards establishing the original stat

This content downloaded from

been designed so that the WAS THE BASEBOARD

74 Grant O'Brien, (1999: 165).

This content downloaded from

75 Stephen Birkett and William Jurgenson, (2002).

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

proximal side of wrestplank

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

THE LAYOUT GEOMETRY OF CONTEMPORARY

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

119 Donald Boalch, Makers of

This content downloaded from

122 John Koster, (1998: 22).

This content downloaded from

The lack of concurrence of the mouldings, arcades G

Although this design approach has been

THE MIGLIAI HARPSICHORD133

131 See Denzil Wraight, (1997: Part 11:327).

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

EUCHMI (4302): A Case Study of Harpsichord Identity

Figure la. EUCHMI (4302). Photo: Darryl Martin.

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

You might also like