Renatus Harris, organ-maker, his challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, organ-maker

Renatus Harris, organ-maker, his challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, organ-maker

Table of contents

Renatus Harris, Organ-maker, his Challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, Organ-maker.

[Page]

Renatus Harris, Organ-maker, his Challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, Organ-maker.

IT might seem odd that I should make the publick defiance to Mr. Smith, which hereafter follows, if I did not inform the World of the occasion. The sole Motive is the Justifying my Self and Organ in the Temple-Church, against his Scandalous aspersions; and of the making it publick, that I may (if possible) provoke him this way to answer my Challenge, since he has already declin'd it, when sent him privately. I could have rested Content under my great loss with the Decision of the two Houses, and the acceptance of Mr. Smith's Organ by the plurality of four Voices; and the rather, for that it was declar'd, at the same time, that notwithstanding that Determination of theirs, mine might be as good or a better Organ then Mr. Smith's; And indeed it could not be expected, that those Gentlemen could be such Criticks in Musick as to be the proper Judges which were the better Instrument. But when my Reputation in my Profession is call'd in Question, and his detraction might be injurious to me in the Employment I have under his Sacred Majesty, and otherwhere; I hope I'm Excusable in taking this method for my Vindication: All my fear is, that Mr. Smith, who (during the whole Contest about the Organs) could never be brought to a tryall of them before Masters of Musick, though several times there were appointments made for that purpose, will decline this Challenge, notwithstanding it's propos'd so much to his Advantage; Yet if he be that man of Art he pretends, and Values his Reputation or Profit, he will accept it.

Now my Challenge to him is this.
That both Organs standing as now they do, upon equal advantage, to play every Individual Stop of my Organ against every Stop of his, of the like Denomination, for ten pounds each stop; and that if he Values one or more of his stops more then the rest, to double upon that or them. I propose that the Judges be Skillful Organists, who being by us equally Chosen, may, if there be occasion, elect an Umpire. That they be requested to take a Voluntary Oath, to declare their Opinions, without favour or affection, according to the best of their Skill; and we be obliged to stand to their Determination. Lastly, that we Article as far as shall be Necessary to render this Proposition Compleat.

Information about this book

Title statement

Renatus Harris, organ-maker, his challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, organ-maker

Harris, Renatus, 1640?-1715?

Edition statement

1680

Publication

Publisher

Text Creation Partnership,

Place of publication

Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :

Date

2009-03 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).

ID [DLPS]

A45652

ID [STC]

Wing H867A

ID [STC]

ESTC R7967

ID [EEBO-CITATION]

12193989

ID [OCLC]

ocm 12193989

ID [VID]

55961

Availability

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.

Series

Early English books online.

Notes

(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A45652)

Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 55961)

Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 101:11)

Source

— Renatus Harris, organ-maker, his challenge to Mr. Bernard Smith, organ-maker, Harris, Renatus, 1640?-1715?, Smith, Bernard, 1630?-1708..

Extent

1 sheet ([1] p.)

s.n.,. [London? :: 168-?]. (Place and date of publication from Wing.)

Creation

Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.

Editorial practices

EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.

EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).

The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.

Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.

Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.

Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.

The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.

Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).

Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site.