Chapter III: Part II

BIOGRAPHICAL.
VIOLIN MAKERS OF THE OLD SCHOOLS.

I.—ITALIAN.

ALBANI, MATTHIAS, born at Botzen in the Tyrol, 1621, died there 1673. He adopted the Stainer model, and produced some very fine instruments.

ALBANI, MATTHIAS, son and pupil of the foregoing. He afterwards went to Cremona to study the art in the Amati school, and afterwards adopted that model with great success.

AMATI, ANDREAS, born about 1520, died about 1580. Founder of the Cremonese school. It is conjectured that he was a pupil of Gasparo da Salo. He adopted rather a small model, built rather high in the centre. Backs cut on the layers, deep golden varnish, and perfect finish, are the chief characteristics of this maker.

The tone is sweet and sympathetic, but lacks brilliancy; they are therefore valued more on account of their historical associations than as a musical medium.

AMATI, ANTONIUS and AMATI, HIERONYMUS, flourished 1570-1635. These two were sons of Andreas. They worked together it is presumed for some time, and produced many instruments of great beauty. The wood was well chosen and handsomely figured. The model selected was not quite so high as that adopted by the father. The _f_ holes are of beautiful shape, and the backs are cut variously in the whole or slab. The purfling, which is of exquisite quality, is inserted with the utmost skill. The tone of the instruments made by this ancient firm is sweet and pure, but is deficient in power.

AMATI, NICOLAS, born 1596, died 1684. He was the son of Hieronymus, and the best artist of his family. His first efforts were simply copies of the firm last mentioned. His most celebrated fiddles are known as “Grand Amati’s.” He somewhat flattened the model of his father, and continued the arching nearer the sides, where it forms a sinking in round the edges. The _f_ holes are exquisitely cut, and the corners are long and strongly pronounced. The wood chosen for the bellies has a fine even grain, and the backs are beautifully marked. The varnish used by Nicolas was deeper and richer than that used by the other members of the family.

The following is a facsimile of an authentic ticket of this great maker.

BERGONZI, CARLO, Cremona, flourished 1718-47. This maker was the best pupil of Stradivarius. He at first copied his great master, but subsequently started a model of his own; rather broad and heavy, and flat arching. The scroll is strongly pronounced and finely cut. The _f_ holes, which are unusually long, are placed low in the body, and very near the purfling. The wood is carefully selected and the general workmanship is of superior finish; only equalled by Nicolas Amati or Stradivarius. The varnish used by Bergonzi was reddish brown, rather thickly applied.

BERGONZI, MICHAEL ANGELO, Cremona, 1720-60, son of Carlo, made good instruments, but they certainly suffer on comparison with those of his father. This maker had two sons called respectively Nicolaus, and Zosimo, who followed the same calling from 1739-65.

CAPPA, GIOFREDO, an early maker who worked in Cremona about 1590 to 1640. He was a pupil of Hieronymus and Antonius Amati, when those brothers were in partnership. In 1640 he proceeded to Piedmont and founded the school of Saluzzio, and formed there many good pupils. Cappa succeeded best in the manufacture of violoncellos.

GAGLIANO, ALLESSANDRO, born about 1640, died at Naples in 1725. He is said to have commenced operation in Cremona, working under Stradivarius. His instruments are flat in model, rather large, and generally of fairly good tone throughout. Varnish light yellow. The badly cut scrolls tend to mar the otherwise symmetrical proportions of this maker’s instruments. Label as follows:

GAGLIANO, GENNARO, son of Allessandro, born about 1695, died 1750. He is considered the best maker of the family, and his instruments are, as a consequence, much sought after. He exercised great care in the selection of his wood, and used a much finer varnish than either his father or brother Nicolas. Whether or not he was a prolific maker is uncertain, but instruments of his are rarely to be met with.

GAGLIANO, NICOLAS, another son of Allessandro, was born about 1665, died 1740. He was a finer workman than his father, paying more attention to the outward appearance of the instrument, the tone of which is pronounced very fine in his best examples. Besides violins he made a large number of violas and violoncellos. His tickets usually run: “Nicolaus Gagliano filius Alexandri fecit Neap.”

The remaining members of the family are: Ferdinando, born 1706, died 1781, eldest son of Nicolas; Guiseppe, died 1793; Giovanni, died 1806, also sons of Nicolas; Raffael and Antonio, sons of Giovanni. Antonio died in 1860. Label of Ferdinando:

GRANCINO, PAOLO, 1665-90, was instructed by and worked under Nicolas Amati. His instruments are of large model, light yellow varnish, large sound-holes, negligent purfling, and carelessly finished corners. The arching is flattish, and the scrolls coarse. The tone of his instruments, however, possess great power and is of good quality. Other members of the family worked in Milan.

GRANCINO, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, a good maker of the same school, probably a son of Paolo. Label as follows:

GUADAGNINI, LORENZO, Placentia, 1695-1760. This maker worked for several years with Stradivarius, whose instruments he copied with more or less success. The wood chosen was generally of fine quality, and the workmanship is evidence that the maker fabricated his instruments with extreme care. The tone of a genuine Lorenzo is most brilliant in the upper register, but somewhat weak in the lower. They are much sought after by performers where the possession of a Cremona of the first order is unattainable. The varnish used was a rich amber or yellowish red of fine quality. A ticket of this maker is as follows:

GUADAGNINI, GIOVANNI BATTISTA, was a brother of Lorenzo. He made some really good instruments, dividing his attention between the Stradivari and the Amati models. Giambattista was a son of Lorenzo, and reputed pupil of Stradivarius. He afterwards went to Piacenza and subsequently settled in Turin. His instruments are also much prized. Guiseppe, son of Giovanni, worked successively in Milan, Como and Parma. Other members of the same family also made violins, but little appears to be known of them or of their works.

GUARNERIUS, ANDREAS, born about 1626, died 1698.

The founder of this celebrated family of violin makers was a pupil of Nicolas Amati. His instruments are estimable for good workmanship somewhat in the style of the Amati, although marked by certain peculiar details, by which indeed they are recognised. His varnish is either golden yellow or brownish red. Andreas left two sons, Peter and Joseph.

Ticket as follows:

GUARNERIUS, GIUSEPPE, usually called “Joseph,” son of Andreas, born 1666, died about 1739. Although he may have been a pupil of Andreas, he has not followed his model. Some say he followed Stradivarius, whose contemporary he was, and subsequently followed his cousin, also called Joseph, of whom we shall speak presently. He has consequently varied both in his patterns and in the details of manufacture; but his instruments are of good quality and much esteemed, and are more elegant in form than those of his father. The colour of his varnish is a brilliant red.

A ticket of his reads:

GUARNERIUS, JOSEPH ANTHONY, the most renowned of this family, was born in 1683 and died about 1745; his period of activity dating from 1725. According to M. Fétis, his father was John Baptist Guarnerius, who was a brother of Andreas.

He is usually known by the surname of “del Jesù,” because many of his labels bear this device.

Most authorities agree in dividing his working career into four periods. His first attempts were not marked by any characteristic sign of originality, except in the indifferent choice of material, form and in the varnish. In the second period, his instruments are found to be made with care; the wood used for the sides and back being of excellent quality, and cut on the quarter (_sur maille_); the deal of the belly has been well chosen; the varnish of fine complexion and elastic quality. The pattern is small, but of beautiful outline. The arching is slightly elevated and falls off towards the purfling in a graceful curve. M. Fétis in his criticism of these instruments, points out an obvious defect, namely, the too great thickness of the wood, especially in the backs, which tends to impede the freedom of vibration, and consequently the brilliance of sound. In the third or grand period of his career, Joseph Guarnerius, says the same authority, presents a still more surprising variety in the forms of his instruments. During this period he produced instruments of large pattern, made of excellent wood cut (_sur maille_); and conformably to the best conditions possible, in respect to arching and degrees of thickness. A beautiful varnish of a lovely orange shade, remarkable for its fineness and elasticity, protect these excellent instruments, which are considered equal to the most beautiful productions of Anthony Stradivarius. We now arrive at the fourth period, which, it is sad to observe, forms a striking contrast to the glorious third. Here we have evidence of a lamentable falling off. The master seems to have worked carelessly, the wood is poor, as is the varnish.

Reports have been handed down to account for this apparent degeneration of talent, but as it is impossible to verify the same, it can serve no good purpose to here relate them. It only remains to be said, concerning this great master, that he has built up a reputation that is not likely to suffer by mere rumour.

Paganini possessed one of the finest examples of a del Jesù, which was presented to him by a M. Livron, a French merchant of Leghorn. At his death, 27th May, 1840, Paganini bequeathed it to his native town, Genoa, where it is preserved in a glass case in the museum.

GUARNERIUS, PIETRO, Cremona, eldest son of Andreas, born 1655, and lived to an advanced age. His first productions, which are of flat model, are dated from Cremona, but later on he established himself at Mantua, where he manufactured a great quantity of instruments of undoubted merit, but have the fault of too high an arching, and some there are wanting in brilliancy of tone. His tickets usually run:

This maker had a nephew also called Pietro, who worked at Mantua from about 1725 to 1740, and subsequently in Venice till about 1755. He was a pupil of his uncle, but his work is less esteemed.

LANDOLPHUS, CARLO, Milan, 1750-1775, reputed pupil of Guarnerius. This maker was decidedly original in his pattern. Although his instruments are not characteristic of great beauty as regards outline, they possess a very pleasing tone. He is one of the last of the old Italian school, consequently his instruments are rapidly increasing in value. The most striking point observable in his work is the extremely weak and small scroll. He left a number of instruments unpurfled and otherwise in an unfinished state. Those with the light red varnish are considered the best. He also made some violoncellos of small size. Ticket:

MAGGINI, GIOVANNI PAOLO, born 1580, died about 1640. This distinguished maker is the second representative of the Brescian school, and reputed pupil of Gasparo da Salo. According to recent researches, Maggini was born in Botticino Sera, a small village not far from Brescia.

Maggini’s instruments are in general of large pattern; their proportions are similar to those of Gasparo da Salo, and the style of workmanship almost identical. The swell or arching is decided, and reaches almost to the edges. The sides or ribs are narrow; the bellies very strong and of good quality, the backs generally thin, with the wood cut on the layers. The varnish, which is remarkable for its delicacy, is of a yellowish light brown colour; sometimes, however, he used a brownish red varnish. In either case it is of excellent quality. The extended dimensions, and the proportion of the arching relative to the various thicknesses of the wood, impart to most of these instruments a superb, grave and melancholy tone.

Another characteristic of this master’s productions is found in his ornamentation. He generally affected a double row of purfling and various other decorations, and although Maggini was not alone in this respect, he appears to be the last maker who relinquished the practice of introducing any ornate addition, which, anterior to his period, was considered so essential to the finish of an instrument.

Maggini is credited with being the first maker who paid any real attention to the inside of the instrument, having, it is said, introduced the side linings and corner blocks, which have ever since been a _sine qua non_ of construction.

De Beriot, the great violinist, was an admirer of Maggini’s violins.

Tickets of this celebrated maker are not dated. The following is a copy of one:

MONTAGNANA, DOMINIC, Cremona and Venice, 1700-1740. He was probably a pupil of Nicolas Amati, whose model he at first copied, but subsequently modified this for one of his own, of a somewhat large pattern. The scroll is larger and more powerful than that of his reputed master and in the sound holes he also differs. As regards the arching and outline, the Amati type is at once apparent. The varnish is superb, and of golden brown transparency. The wood chosen is always the very finest, and the workmanship is all that can be desired. He also made some very fine violoncellos. His best instruments, which are of great rarity, are dated from Venice.

RUGERI, FRANCESCO (Ruger or Ruggeri), Cremona, 1670-1720. This excellent maker was a pupil and follower of Nicolas Amati (some writers say Hieronymus). His instruments are much sought after, and, as a consequence, are extensively copied and passed off as genuine. His varnish is generally dark golden brown.

RUGERI, GIAM-BATTISTA, supposed to be a brother of the foregoing, pupil of Amati, born at Cremona, 1660. He subsequently went to Brescia, where he worked from about 1670 to the end of the century. Ticket:

SALO, GASPARO DA (or Gasparo di Bertolotti), born 1542, died 1612. This is the earliest maker of whom any reliable record is extant. He is said to have been born at Salo in Lombardy, and afterwards to have settled in Brescia. Gasparo is generally credited with the honour of inventing or producing violins in their present shape. He seems to have devoted his early period to the manufacture of lutes and viols, and subsequently to have turned his attention to the violin, which he greatly improved, thereby founding the Brescian school of violin makers; the earliest known. The violins of Gasparo which have now become very scarce, do not, it is true, exhibit that indication of finish so observable in the instruments produced by his reputed pupil, Maggini, but his model is excellent and the tone good, being somewhat analogous to that of the tenor. The fact that Gasparo never dated his labels, makes it difficult to determine with certainty the exact period of his activity.

Facsimile label as follows:

SERAPHIN, SANCTUS (Santo Seraphino), 1710-1748, worked in Venice, and is considered one of the most careful and painstaking makers of the Italian school. His wood is beautifully figured and well selected. His purfling is excellent, and he used a fine brilliant varnish. He usually branded his instruments near the button. Ticket as follows:

STORIONI, LORENZO, Cremona, 1780-1798. The last of the old Cremonese school. He sometimes copied Joseph “del Jesù,” at others, he followed his own originality. His instruments exhibit great variation; notably in the position of the sound holes, which he never placed twice alike. He used a poor varnish which clearly indicates the change of process which was then taking place. Although these instruments are far from being graceful in outline or beautiful in appearance, they are capable of producing a good tone; in fact, in Italy a good Storioni is highly spoken of. This maker does not appear to have made many violas or violoncellos. Ticket:

STRADIVARIUS, ANTONIO, the king of fiddle makers, born at Cremona, 1644, died 1737. This great master was an apprentice in the workshop of Nicolas Amati. At the age of twenty-three years he produced some violins, the exact reproductions of his master, and into which it is said he placed the labels of Nicolas. In the year 1670 he signed his instruments with his own name. From that date, until about 1690, he produced but few instruments, and it is conjectured, that during this period of twenty years, his labours and researches were more in the nature of experiments than of commercial enterprise.

From the year 1690 the individuality of Stradivarius began to assert itself. It was then that he began to give greater amplitude to his model. He reduced the high arching hitherto prevailing, and determined with much nicety the various thicknesses of wood, but he still retained many of the chief characteristics of his master. The productions of this period are called “Long Strads.” From 1700 to 1725 Stradivarius was in the full lustre of his fame. During this period he made those masterpieces known as the “Grand Pattern.” “He no longer felt his way, but being certain of all that he did, he carried his manufacture, even to the minutest details, to the highest possible finish, especially with regard to the varnish, the quality of which is fine and extremely supple.”

“The workmanship of the interior of the instrument displays no less perfection; all is there finished with the greatest care. The degrees of thickness are adjusted in a rational manner, and are remarkable for a precision which could not have been attained except by long study and experiment. The back, the belly, and all the parts of which the instrument is composed, are in a perfectly harmonious relation. It was, doubtless, repeated trials and diligent observations, which also led Stradivarius, throughout this period of his productive career, to make the blocks and sides of his violins of willow, the specific lightness of which surpasses that of every other wood. In short, everything had been foreseen, calculated, and determined with certainty, in these admirable instruments. The bar alone is too weak, in consequence of the gradual rise in the pitch, from the beginning of the eighteenth century; the inevitable result of which has been a considerable increase of tension, and a much greater pressure exercised on the belly. Hence the necessity has arisen for re-barring all the old violins and violoncellos.” Such is Fétis’s description of this grand period.

From 1725 to 1730, Stradivarius produced fewer instruments than he had previously done in the same period of time. Although they are very good, the workmanship no longer displays the same perfection. The arching becomes more rounded, which tends to impair the clearness of the sound, and the varnish is brown.

After the year 1730, the master exhibits a decided falling off. Stradivarius, in his eighty-sixth year, still, however, continued at his bench, assisted by his two sons, Omobono and Francisco, and his pupil, Carlo Bergonzi, who partially, if not wholly, kept the business going. Stradivarius signed many of his instruments as having been made simply under his direction. After the death of this great maker, many instruments which remained unfinished in his workshop were completed by his sons. Most of these instruments bear the father’s name.

Stradivarius died at the great age of ninety-three years, and he was buried in the Cathedral of Cremona.

Facsimile of a written ticket:

Facsimile of a printed ticket:

STRADIVARIUS, FRANCISCO, Cremona, born 1671, died 1743. STRADIVARIUS, OMOBONO, born 1679, died 1742. These two were sons and pupils of the great Stradivarius, and the only members who followed their father’s calling, with whom they worked until his death; the father during the latter period of his life, signing the instruments “sub disciplinâ Antonii Stradivarius.” After the death of their illustrious father, they each worked on their own account. Francisco is reputed to have manufactured some good violins from 1725 to 1740; his brother chiefly occupying himself in repairing. The productions, however, of these two brothers sink into insignificance when compared with those of their renowned father.

TECHLER, DAVID, Rome, 1680-1740. He is said by some to be a pupil of Stainer, from the fact that he produced instruments of that type. He first worked at Salzburg, then at Venice, and finally at Rome, where he gained much experience. Instruments of this latter city are of the Italian model. His work proves him to have been a careful and studious maker. The varnish is usually deep yellow. Label:

TESTORE, CARLO GUISEPPE, Cremona. Flourished 1690-1720. He produced instruments of good quality both as regards finish and tone; his model being Guarnerius. His instruments are eagerly sought after by those who desire to become possessed of a good old Italian instrument, but are unwilling or unable to give a fancy price. These instruments are, however, gradually rising in value.

TESTORE, CARLO ANTONIO, Milan, 1730, and TESTORE, PAOLO ANTONIO, Milan, 1740, sons of Carlo Guiseppe. They made excellent instruments after the model of their father, and the tone is good. Paolo frequently left his instruments unpurfled.

II.—GERMAN AND TYROLESE.

BACHMANN, CARL LUDWIG, of Berlin (1716-1800). This maker was one of the most celebrated of the German school. He made his instruments rather strong in the wood, but now that age has been at work on them, they possess the advantage of being formed into first-class instruments by skilful repairers.

BENTE, MATTEO. A maker of the Brescian school, flourished about 1580. He made some good violins, which are chiefly to be found in collections.

BUCHSTETTER, GABRIEL DAVID, a native of Ratisbon, flourished in the latter part of the eighteenth century. He copied the Cremonese makers and used a brown varnish. His wood is rather coarse-grained, consequently his instruments are not very highly esteemed.

BUCHSTETTER, JOSEPHUS, son of Gabriel David. Made some instruments of good quality and tone, and adopted a flat model.

EBERLE, ULRIC, of Prague, about 1750, an eminent German maker, whose instruments at one time were considered nearly equal to the best Italian makers.

HELMER, CHARLES (CAROLUS), of Prague, a pupil of Eberle. He made some very fine instruments. Otto says: “They have, however, the fault that the three upper strings improve greatly by being played on, but the G string, in most of them, remains so far inferior, that while the tone of the former is such as may be expected from a full sized violin, that of the latter only resembles a child’s toy-instrument. Yet an experienced maker would find no difficulty in correcting this fault.”

HOFFMANN, MARTIN, one of the earliest representatives of the German school, flourished in Leipzig in the latter part of the seventeenth century. He was better known as a lute-maker. He made violins possessing excellent tone, but they do not find much favour by reason of their ungainly appearance.

JAUCH (or JAUG), of Dresden, early part of eighteenth century. The best description of this maker’s instruments is that contained in Otto’s treatise. “Jauch,” he says, “has manufactured very good violins on the model of the Cremonese, and displayed, in his beautiful and excellent workmanship, a thorough knowledge of the wood, and of the due proportions of strength required in the respective parts of the instrument. But his violins produce a very weak squally tone, when they have been carelessly repaired; though even in this case they may be often restored and brought nearly to equal the Italian, by placing them in the hands of an experienced maker, possessing a knowledge of mathematics and acoustics, without which they will be completely spoiled.”

KLOTZ FAMILY. This group represent well-nigh a century of activity, i.e., from about 1670 to about 1760.

KLOTZ, EGIDIUS. Born in Mittenwald. When young he quitted his native village and placed himself under Stainer at Absam. Having learnt the art under this celebrated maker, he returned to his native place and set up in business on his own account, and soon gained considerable renown as a maker of superior instruments, so much so that his productions for some time almost eclipsed those of his master. Even now a sound specimen—which is rarely seen, is not lightly passed over. His instruments possess a fine and powerful tone.

KLOTZ, MATHIAS, 1653-1745. Worked for about twenty years in Mittenwald, during which period he produced instruments of an unsatisfactory nature. He appears to have been aware of this, and with the object of increasing his knowledge, he undertook a journey to Florence and Cremona and other centres of violin industry. With his newly-acquired experience he returned to his native place and established himself in rather a large way.

KLOTZ, SEBASTIAN, son of Mathias (1700-1760). The instruments of this maker are a decided improvement, both as regards pattern and tone. He adopted a somewhat flat model and coated his instruments with a superior varnish to that previously used by the family. His instruments are highly valued.

With regard to the other members of the family, great confusion exists in the minds of writers as to how they stood in point of relationship one with the other. In name they are: George (1723-1797), Joseph (1730-1760), Joan Carol (about 1780), Michael (about the same period).

Spurious instruments bearing the name of Klotz or Clotz flood the market, and the uninitiated should regard them with grave suspicion, unless or until the advice of a competent expert has been obtained as to their genuineness or otherwise.

RAUCH, THOMAS, of Breslau. Made some very good violins in the early part of the eighteenth century. He worked on an original model, and made instruments noted for their powerful tone.

RUPPERT, of Erfurt, a maker who worked on an extremely original model. He made all his instruments very flat in model, and dispensed with the side linings and corner blocks, and omitted the purfling. The front and back tables were, however, made with due regard to thicknesses, which redeemed them somewhat from the defects above mentioned. The instruments possess a good tone and fine examples are highly priced.

SCHEINLEIN, MATTHIAS FREDERICK, of Langenfeld (1730-1771). Made fine instruments which, in his time, were in great demand. He made them too weak, consequently many of them are now practically spoiled by subsequent repairing.

STAINER, JACOBUS, born at Hall, near Absam—a short distance from Innsbruck—July 14, 1621, died at Absam, 1683. This maker is the most renowned of the German school, concerning whose early career the following account has been handed down. A priest residing in the district of Absam took a fancy to young Jacob, and had him sent to Innsbruck to learn the art of organ building under one Daniel Herz. This calling not suiting the youth’s inclinations, his master advised him to learn the art of violin making. Stainer then went to Cremona, and placed himself under Nicolas Amati, who soon recognised the talent of his young pupil, and took great pains in instructing him in the secrets of the art. He then quitted Cremona, and for a short time worked in Venice under Vermercati, who at that time was a maker of some merit. With an accumulation of experience gained in the best schools of the time, Stainer finally returned to Absam and settled there as a maker of violins on his own account. In the year 1645 he married a Margaretha Holzhammer, by whom he had several children. His renown as a violin maker rapidly increased, but for some reason or other he found it difficult to provide for the wants of himself and family, and he was compelled to travel about the country in order to dispose of his instruments. However, in 1658, he was appointed court violin maker to the Archduke Leopold, and in 1669 received the distinction of “Maker to the Emperor”; but all these advantages and honours contributed but little to raise him from his chronic state of poverty. He now began to experience some bitter reverses. A certain creditor of his, named Solomon Heubnar, with whom he at one time lived (Stainer left him without paying for his board) lodged an information against him charging him with the crime of heresy. He was seized and thrown into prison, and remained there six months, at the expiration of which he found himself utterly ruined and poverty stared him in the face. He was then persecuted by Count Albert Fugger for certain dues which it was customary to levy on court tradesmen. Stainer petitioned the Emperor to waive this claim, but to no purpose, his supplication being ignored, it is thought, in consequence of his previous conviction for the alleged heresy. Stainer then fell into a state of abject misery, neglected his work, and finally died out of mind. It will therefore be seen that this renowned maker worked under most distressing conditions, and it is a marvel that he was able to produce anything worthy of subsequent copying. Stainer’s house is still pointed out, and, it is said, the bench to which he was bound when mad.

Another story which has gained currency in some quarters, but in others said to be mythical, recounts that at the latter period of his life he abandoned his calling and became an inmate of a Benedictine monastery. Here, with the assistance of a brother monk, he contrived to get together sufficient materials for the manufacture of sixteen violins of great beauty. These apparently fabulous fiddles are known as the “Elector” Stainers from the circumstance that each Elector was supposed to be the recipient of one of these instruments, the remaining going to the Emperor of Germany. For information concerning the instruments made by this unfortunate fiddle maker, the best is that contained in the treatise of Jacob Augustus Otto, maker to the Court of the Archduke of Weimar, translated from the German by Thomas Fardely, of Leeds (1833), and since then by the late Mr. Bishop, of Cheltenham (William Reeves, London).

Otto says: “The instruments made by Jacob Stainer differ from the Cremonese both in outward shape and in tone. They are higher modelled, and their proportions of strength are calculated quite differently. The nearest comparison which can be drawn between a Cremonese and a Stainer is this: a Cremonese has a strong reedy, sonorous tone something similar to that of a clarionet, while a Stainer approaches to that of a flute. The belly is modelled higher than the back. The highest part of the model under the bridge extends exactly one half of the instrument towards the lower broad part and then diminishes towards the end edge. It decreases in a like manner at the upper broad part towards the neck. The breadth of this model is uniformly the same as that of the bridge, from which it diminishes towards the side edge. The edges are very strong and round. The purfling lies somewhat nearer to the edges than in the Cremonese, and is likewise narrower than in the latter (the Cremonese) in which it is very broad. The _f_ holes in Stainer instruments are very beautifully cut, and the upper and under turns are perfectly circular. In length they are somewhat shorter than the Cremonese. The neck is particularly handsome, and the scroll is as round and smooth as if it had been turned. Some few have lions’ heads, which are extremely well carved. The sides and the back are made of the finest figured maple and covered with a deep yellow amber varnish. In some the screw (peg) box is varnished dark brown and the belly deep yellow. The above are the most accurate marks by which the genuine Stainer instruments may be distinguished. They are rarely to be found with any labels inside, but in the few which are to be met with of the genuine instruments bearing any inscription, they are simply written, not printed. In the Tyrolese imitations of Stainers they are all printed. In the genuine Cremonese instruments they are likewise invariably printed.”

Genuine Stainers with labels have this written inscription: “Jacobus Stainer in Absam prope Œnipontum h-fis 165-.” The following is a facsimile:

III.—FRENCH.

BOQUAY, JACQUES. Paris, about 1700-1735. One of the earliest of the old French school. Under whom he learnt the art of violin making is not known, but his instruments, as also those of his contemporaries, clearly indicate that the Italian influence was suffusing itself in no uncertain manner. It appears that about the middle of the sixteenth century, one Nicolas Rénault, a French viol and lute maker, travelled into Italy and became associated with Andreas Amati, and even assisted that maker in the manufacture of certain instruments for the chapel of Charles IX, in 1566, and, after a somewhat lengthened stay in Italy, he returned to France the gainer of considerable experience. Here, perhaps, may be the explanation why Boquay and the rest of the early French school principally adhered to the Amati model. Later on Boquay sought to become original, notably with regard to the sound holes and the scroll. The tone is sweet, but lacks power.

COMBLE, AMBROISE DE, Tourney, Belgium (1730-1760). The best maker of the old French school, and reputed pupil of Stradivarius. Although the instruments of de Comble cannot be said to be on the model adopted by the great Cremonese maker during his best period, there is nevertheless some indication to lead to the belief that he endeavoured to follow the renowned artist in the matter of varnish. In this respect he was fairly successful. His instruments are rather flat and of large pattern, somewhat on the lines of Stradivarius’s later productions, and although they are not characteristic of refined workmanship, the material chosen was of the best quality. He made his instruments strong in the wood, consequently they possess a very full and rich tone. De Comble also made some excellent violoncellos.

LUPOT, NICOLAS, born at Stuttgart, 1758, died in Paris, 1824, founder of the modern school of violin making. His father, also a maker of some merit, removed to Orléans in the year 1770, and in this town instructed his son in the art which was destined to make his name famous. During his pupilage Nicolas set himself to study the instruments of the great Italian makers, especially those of Stradivarius, and in the result he elected to adopt the model of this master, from which he seldom, if ever, departed. With such diligence and enthusiasm did he labour to produce something akin to his ideal that he soon was able to turn out an instrument that suffered but little on comparison with the Italians of the first water. Thus a most beneficial influence in the art of violin making became propagated. In 1798 Nicolas quitted Orléans for Paris and established himself in business, and there for twenty-six years he carried on a labour of love which, as well, produced considerable pecuniary benefits. Lupot had not been long in Paris before his work claimed the attention of the Conservatoire, then but recently formed, and he was accordingly appointed violin maker to that excellent institution: he was similarly appointed to the Chapel Royal. It is not difficult to imagine that Lupot endeavoured to revive the lost art of making the old Italian varnish, judging from the various qualities with which he was wont to cover his instruments. In this respect, however, he cannot be said to have been successful, but what he did use ranks high as a modern varnish. The instruments of this maker are highly prized, especially those made between 1805 and 1824. An impetus was probably given to the value of Lupot’s violins from the circumstance that the celebrated Spohr played for a long time on a Lupot, the tone of which he declared was “full and powerful”; in fact, the great virtuoso only parted with this instrument on becoming possessed of a Strad. Lupot appears to have been almost as uncertain about his labels as he was concerning his varnish. At Orléans he adopted a Latinised inscription, and in Paris, three labels have been noticed variously worded. The following are copies of some labels:

N. Lupot fils, Luthier, rue d’Illiers, à Orléans, l’an 17—.

Nicholas Lupot, Luthier, rue de Grammont, à Paris, l’an 17—.

Nicholas Lupot, rue Croix des petits champs, à Paris, l’an 1817.

Nicholas had a brother named François, who became celebrated as a maker of bows.

VUILLAUME, JOHN BAPTISTE, born at Mirecourt, October 7, 1798, died February 19, 1875; the greatest violin maker and copier of modern times. It is not precisely known under whom he received his first instruction in the art of violin making. Some say his father, one Claude Vuillaume, born at Mirecourt in 1771, died 1834, whilst others maintain that the father was not a fiddle maker, but a carrier between Mirecourt and Nancy. At all events, at the age of nineteen, he was engaged by François Chanot, a violin maker of repute, who had just about that period established a workshop for the manufacture of a new-shaped violin, which had been patented, so it is not unlikely that François Chanot was his first real master. He next engaged himself with one Lété, an organ builder, who dealt in violins, and ultimately became a partner in the concern. In 1828 he parted from Lété and continued in business alone. During this period he found great difficulty in disposing of his instruments; the rage being for those of Italian manufacture. He thereupon took to fabricating copies of the old masters, and his operations in this line appear to have been attended with great success. As a large number of old instruments, Italian and others, passed through his hands for repair, Vuillaume had ample opportunity afforded him for studying and ascertaining the inward and outward conditions necessary for the production of good tone, and this advantage he was not slow to avail himself of. Fortified with a vast amount of experience, combined with much knowledge gained by experiment, Vuillaume was in course of time enabled to produce an instrument in all but one point equal to the greatest Italian masters, the condition wanting being that of age. In some cases, possibly through stress of trade, Vuillaume endeavoured to supply this deficiency by giving to his instruments an appearance of wear and long usage. In his latter years, however, he relinquished this pernicious practice. The climax of his skill as a copyist was reached on the occasion when he reproduced a facsimile of Paganini’s famous Guarnerius, entrusted for repair. This copy was so marvellous in its similarity with the original, both as regards appearance and tone, that the great virtuoso himself failed to recognise his own instrument, and Vuillaume had to point it out to him. In addition to his high capabilities as a violin maker, Vuillaume was renowned as a bow maker, and effected some improvements in that important adjunct, and on the whole proved himself a genius of uncommon order.

IV.—BRITISH.

WILLIAM ADDISON—THOMAS COLE—EDWARD PAMPHILON—PEMBERTON—THOMAS URQUHART—CHRISTOPHER WISE.

This group represents the early English school and the principal makers existing during the seventeenth century. It may reasonably be inferred that they were more at home with the viol than with the violin as known to-day. Little can be said concerning their early productions, as they are now all but extinct; a great portion of them probably perished in the great fire of London in 1666, in which city some of them were supposed to have worked.

Christopher Wise is said to have made some fairly good instruments of a highly decorative nature.

Jacob Rayman was the better artist, and some instruments attributed to him reflect great credit on this early school.

Thomas Urquhart was a still further advance, his outline and varnish places him in the front rank of the period.

Edward Pamphilon made instruments of a very tubby appearance, but they are said to possess a clear and penetrating tone; age, too, has imparted a very rich colouring to the varnish.

Several other names have been handed down, but as they are minus the instruments, nothing of importance can be said on the subject.

Aldred and Bolles are mentioned in Mace’s “Musick’s Monument.”

ADDISON, WILLIAM, was a maker of viols and early violins in the middle of the seventeenth century. He worked in Moorfields, London.

AIRETON, EDMUND. A London maker about the middle of the eighteenth century. He copied successively the instruments of Stainer, Amati and Stradivarius, but those on the Amati model are most admired.

BANKS FAMILY. They rank among the best makers of English violins, and genuine specimens are eagerly sought after and realise good prices.

BANKS, BENJAMIN. Born July 14, 1727, died February 18, 1795. Accounts differ as to the place of his birth, but as his parents were living in Salisbury in the year 1725, it is generally supposed he was born in that town.

Banks has been justly termed “the English Amati,” and this comparison is well deserved. His fiddles are faithful copies of the great Italian, both as to model and varnish. These instruments are, however, very rare, and fiddles of this model offered as genuine Benjamins should only be purchased with the advice of experts.

Benjamin also made instruments for the then well-known music-firm of Longman and Broderip in London. These were made on a different model, somewhat after the Stainer model, and they are greatly inferior to his favourite Amati fiddles, the finish and varnish indicate hurry and carelessness. These fiddles are labelled with the name of the firm for whom he worked. I have seen many fiddles bearing the name of Longman and Broderip and said to have been made by Benjamin Banks. The majority of them are, however, spurious. It has been the custom of many dealers to cut off the name of Longman and Broderip from the bottom of the published music of that firm and insert these in fiddles, and as Benjamin Banks was known to have worked for them, some show of genuineness is thereby implied.

Banks made a number of violas and violoncellos. The latter instruments stand pre-eminent for workmanship and tone and are particularly well adapted for the performance of solo and chamber music. This maker adopted a variety of methods for stamping and otherwise labelling his instruments. Below the button was the favourite place.

The labels mostly seen are:

Made by Benjamin Banks, Catherine Street, Salisbury.

Benjamin Banks, fecit Salisbury.

Benjamin Banks, Musical Instrument Maker, In Catherine Street, Salisbury.

B. Banks, Sarum. “B. B.” stamped under the button.

The varnish used by Banks varied from a deep red to a yellow brown.

One word of advice, beware of the unredeemed pledge.

BANKS, BENJAMIN. Son of the preceding; born at Salisbury, 1754, died in Liverpool, 1820. He worked at first for his renowned father, afterwards removing to London, where, possibly, he assisted in making the Longman and Broderip instruments. He then went to Liverpool and worked there until his death. Very little is known of him or his works, though it is possible that many of his instruments have been passed off as the work of his father.

BANKS, JAMES and HENRY, two other sons of the great Benjamin, and successors to the business at Salisbury, where they were both born, James about 1756, died 1831; Henry, 1770, died 1830.

James was the violin maker of the concern, while Henry devoted himself to tuning pianofortes and repairing instruments. Sometimes, however, they collaborated in the production of violins and violoncellos. They also extended the sphere of their operations to music selling and dealt in other musical instruments. The fame of the Banks family as violin makers declined at this period.

BARRETT, JOHN. A London maker, who worked about 1725. He made some good instruments which are dated from the Harp and Crown in Piccadilly. He followed the Stainer model. His varnish is unsatisfactory.

BETTS, JOHN, London, born at Stamford in 1755, died 1823. This excellent maker was a pupil of Duke, and adopted the Amati model. He was not himself a prolific maker, his time being principally occupied in the study of old Italian instruments, the result of which enabled him to become a very successful dealer and connoisseur. Betts, or “old John,” as he was most commonly called, carried on an extensive business in the construction of violins, and employed in his workshop such men as John Carter, Edward Betts, Panormo, Bernhard Fendt, all of whom subsequently succeeded in making good instruments on their own account. Betts’s shop was No. 2 near Northgate of the Royal Exchange, and after his death the business was continued by his descendants till within a few years ago.

DUKE, RICHARD, London, about 1765-1791. Probably no violin of English make has attained such popularity as have the instruments of this maker, hence it is that he is so extensively imitated. Who instructed him in the art of making violins, etc., is not positively known, but his instruments are of the highest order in all respects but the varnish, in which he was not always successful. Duke followed both the Stainer and Amati models, the latter being his best. His violoncellos are rather high in model, long in pattern, yellowish varnish and rich in tone. For his violins he used a dull brown varnish, very elastic and transparent. During a considerable period Duke worked in the vicinity of Holborn. Many of his instruments are stamped near the button “Duke, London.”

Labels, mostly written in pen and ink, are as follows:

Richd. Duke, Londini, fecit 1767.

Richard Duke, Maker, Holborn, London, Anno 1777.

The following is a copy of a printed one:

“Richard Duke, Maker, near opposite Great Turn-Stile, Holbourn, London.”

FENDT, BERNHARD, born at Inspruck, in the Tyrol, in 1756, died in London in 1832. He was at first instructed in the art of violin making by his uncle in Paris, who spelt his name Fent, a maker there of some reputation. Bernhard then came to London and entered the service of Thomas Dodd, the bow maker, and remained with him several years, working in conjunction with John Frederick Lott. They were never entrusted to carry their work beyond the white, and the instruments turned out by this pair were delivered to their master, who applied the varnish with his own hand, the secret of which he kept carefully to himself.

FORSTER, WILLIAM, known as “Old” Forster, born at Brampton, Cumberland, May, 1739, died in London, December 14, 1808. The name of Forster in connection with violin making includes a family whose operation extended over a very considerable period, but the artist under notice was _the_ fiddle maker of the group, and his instruments to-day reflect great credit on the British school of a century ago; indeed his instruments, whether they be violins, violas or violoncellos, are pre-eminent amongst the productions of this country. His father pursued two occupations, viz., that of spinning-wheel maker and violin maker and repairer; instructions in which handicrafts were duly imparted to the son, who also became tolerably proficient as a violinist. In consequence of some family differences, the young man quitted his native village and proceeded to London, arriving there in 1759. His first endeavours in the metropolis were unsuccessful, and he was forced to accept some employment offered him by a gun-stock maker. However, he did not forsake the art he loved, and his spare time was occupied in making violins, which he disposed of to the music shops. During this time he suffered great hardship and privation, the effects of which were never afterwards entirely eradicated. At length he obtained employment as a violin maker at a music shop on Tower Hill kept by one Beck, and the violins he made during his two years’ engagement there, gaining much recognition, he not unnaturally demanded an advance in wages. This was refused, and Forster consequently left him. In 1762 he commenced business on his own account at a house in Duke’s Court, and there his artistic abilities procured for him the attention and patronage of the musical dilettanti. He then moved into St. Martin’s Lane, and added music publishing and selling to his business, and at this period he was wont to cut his name from the title-pages of his soiled or unsold music and use it as a ticket for his instruments. In 1781 he entered into negotiations with Haydn for the supply and publication of certain pieces of music for the string family, which resulted, it would appear, in a great success all round. About 1784, Forster opened in the Strand—No. 348, and here the climax of his success was attained, even to the extent of receiving Royal patronage. From the year 1762 to 1770 he adopted the Stainer model, and applied to his instruments some sort of dark stain, completing the operation with a coat of varnish. From 1770 or thereabouts he affected the Amati pattern with greater success, and this refers particularly to his violoncellos, as they are really grand instruments, better varnish is used and greater attention is paid to detail. Robert Lindley, the famous violoncellist, used one of Forster’s instruments at the Italian Opera for nearly forty years; he named it “The Eclipse.” Crossdill had a famous one, and Cervette the younger had another. Only four double basses are known to have been made by William Forster. His commoner instruments are devoid of purfling. Ticket: “William Forster. Violin Maker in St. Martin’s Lane, London.”

FORSTER, WILLIAM, son of “Old” Forster. Born 1764, died 1824. He was a violin maker and repairer of some merit, but never attained the reputation of his father. He left his instruments unpurfled.

KENNEDY, ALEXANDER, came from Scotland about 1700 and established himself in London, He was a painstaking workman, and gained a good reputation. He followed the Stainer model and used a light amber varnish.

KENNEDY, JOHN, nephew and pupil of the foregoing, followed the same model, and produced some good violins and tenors.

KENNEDY, THOMAS, the best known of the family. He made a large number of violins and ’cellos.

NORMAN, BARAK (1688-1740). He was chiefly a maker of viols, but has made violas and violoncellos, and a few violins on the Stainer model; his best productions being copies of Maggini. He was probably a pupil of Urquhart, if one may judge from their respective works. As a maker of viols he was much esteemed in his day; all his instruments of this class indicate careful workmanship. As no British violoncello has been discovered anterior to those manufactured by Norman, it is thought that he may have been the first maker of that instrument in this country. They are splendid instruments and much valued. His violas also are fine specimens, and consequently highly prized by performers on that instrument. Between the years 1715 and 1720 Barak Norman entered into partnership with one Nathaniel Cross, at the sign of the “Bass Viol,” St. Paul’s Churchyard. Barak resorted to various methods in order to distinguish his instruments, sometimes his monogram is purfled in the centre of the back, and occasionally, in the case of violoncellos, on the top table under the wide part of the finger-board. When he became associated with Cross, the joint monogram was used. The following is a copy of a printed label used by the firm:

“Barak Norman and Nathaniel Cross, at the Bass Viol in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, fecit 172—.”

WAMSLEY, PETER, London (1727-1760). He was at one time considered a clever maker of violas and violoncellos, but having resorted to the unfortunate practice of thinning the wood in his endeavour to secure a freer tone, his instruments at the present day lack power and sonority. They are, however, capable of great improvement in the hands of a skilful repairer. He adopted the Stainer model, and at times proved himself to be a first-class workman. Most of his instruments have only ink lines instead of purfling. Wamsley made a few double basses, but they are now very scarce. The best instruments of this maker are those covered with a dark brown varnish. For a great number of years Wamsley carried on business in Piccadilly, and used labels, copies of which are as follows:

Made by Peter Wamsley at the Harp and Hautboy in Pickadilly, 1735.

Peter Wamsley Maker at the Harp and Hautboy in Piccadilly, 17 London 51.