CONTENTS
TRANSCRIBER’S NOTE

VIOLIN TONE AND
VIOLIN MAKERS

VIOLIN TONE AND
VIOLIN MAKERS

DEGENERATION OF TONAL STATUS. CURIOSITY VALUE
AND ITS INFLUENCE. TYPES AND STANDARDS OF
VIOLIN TONE. IMPORTANCE OF TONE IDEALS.
ANCIENT AND MODERN VIOLINS AND TONE.
AGE, VARNISH, AND TONE. TONE AND
THE VIOLIN MAKER, DEALER,
EXPERT AND PLAYER

BY

HIDALGO MOYA

TOGETHER WITH AN ACCOUNT, BIOGRAPHICAL
AND CRITICAL, OF THE PRINCIPAL VIOLIN MAKERS OF
THE VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND THEIR WORKS

BY
TOWRY PIPER,

JOINT EDITOR OF HART’S “THE VIOLIN, ITS FAMOUS MAKERS
AND THEIR IMITATORS”

LONDON
CHATTO & WINDUS
1916

PRINTED IN ENGLAND BY
WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED
LONDON AND BECCLES

All rights reserved

TO

THE KING OF INSTRUMENTS

AND

HIS FAITHFUL SUBJECTS IN ALL COUNTRIES

THIS HUMBLE EFFORT ON BEHALF OF

TONE

IS RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY
THE AUTHOR

INTRODUCTION

For many years those who advocate the principle that Tone is the only thing that matters in a violin have been few in number, but earnest in purpose, and it would appear their efforts have not been barren of result when we find it admitted, where one would least expect it, that the day of the toneless old fiddle has passed for ever.

But this is not enough. Players of the violin, and especially those who seek refinement of tone in the instrument, still remain under the thrall of systems, methods, influences and errors which must also pass away before the road to tone is freely open.

An understanding of the relationship between tone and the instrument, and between the instrument and the various toneless interests by which it is surrounded, is vitally important to the player or the buyer of a violin—unless the instrument is being acquired as a curiosity, in which case tone need not, of course, concern the purchaser to any marked extent. But to the player these relationships matter very much indeed, and the understanding of them is rendered difficult owing to the invisible nature of tone, there being no material evidence to indicate its presence in one violin or its absence from another, a fact of which full advantage is taken in certain quarters. In the classifying of violins according to present methods, tone finds no place, having neither status nor any standard by which it may be judged; well may the player be uncertain whether he is acquiring a musical instrument or merely an antique. The very reason why the violin possesses a tone has not yet been satisfactorily explained, present opinion on the subject being near to chaos, some holding that it is due to the wood, others that it lies in some secret of construction, a few that it results from varnish, and many that it is created by age—but none, so far as I am aware, thinking it is due to an Ideal; material and construction being merely the means through which it finds expression. There is enough here to explain the uncertainty which surrounds the subject of tone and its connection with the violin, a connection which I shall attempt to explain in these pages by dealing with the instrument and its makers, whether ancient or modern, and with its history, manufacture, sale and use, solely from the point of view of Tone.

With tone at the mercy of caprice, and the violin in no better case, it is not unlikely that the general uncertainty extends to its makers—especially to the old instruments and their builders—notwithstanding the number of books which catalogue their names and indicate the nature of their work. Some few of these books are fairly exhaustive, authoritative and reliable, but the point of view from which the violin is approached is that of the connoisseur and collector rather than that of the player, whilst the rest are mainly unreliable and partial copies of the first.

In order to provide a sufficient account of those makers who, for one reason or another, are worthy of attention or likely to be the subject of inquiry from players, the second section of the volume, containing reliable and valuable information—much of which is now published for the first time—has been placed in the hands of Mr. Towry Piper, whose aid I have been fortunate enough to secure, and who needs no introduction to fiddle lovers. To those new to matters connected with the violin, it is sufficient to say that Mr. Piper is widely known as a writer and expert, one of the editors of Hart’s classical work on the violin, a recognised judge of fiddles and tone, and a capable player of the instrument.

H. M.

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

ANOMALOUS POSITION OF THE VIOLIN

PAGES

Its dual status—More of a curiosity than a musical instrument—How the curio interest originated—Its pernicious influence—Tarisio and the formation of the Fiddle Cult—Exploitation of violins of small tone value—Consequences to the player | 1-6

CHAPTER II

A TONELESS METHOD OF VALUATION

How the old violin is judged—Valued without reference to tone—Bought and sold by the same method—Examples—Why the method should be abolished or modified—A guarantee for tone-value needed—Small tone-value of many old violins—The violin’s proper position as a “work of art”—A toneless pariah | 7-13

CHAPTER III

TYPES OF STANDARD VIOLIN TONE

Amatisé, Bergonzian, Brescian, “Cremonese,” Guarnerian, “Italian,” Stradivarian—Other ancient makers and standard tone | 14-18

CHAPTER IV

THE OLD MASTERS AS VIOLIN MAKERS

Violins frequently made by workmen and “pupils”—Finished and tone-developed by the master—Two entirely distinct arts—Tone the result of ideal—Effect of model on tone—Methods of tone development still in use—Only possible means of creating a tone to an ideal—Reasons—Why the great masters attracted pupils—Tone versus cabinet making—Why pupils succeeded and failed—Most striking tone-feature of the old masters—Construction no guarantee for tone
19-26

CHAPTER V

THE DECLINE OF TONE

Position of violin makers after 1750—Difficulty of sustaining supreme ideals—Overshadowing influence of the great violins—The demand for low-priced fiddles—A few tone-builders always living—The art abandoned by all save the few—Attempts at a revival of the “lost” art—Mechanical efforts of Savart—Scientific experimenters—Scientific side of tone unknown to the old masters—Results following “attuning” process of Savart—Copyists, old wood theorists, and varnishers
27-34

CHAPTER VI

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A NEW VIOLIN AND TONE

No mystery about construction—Tonal results of mere construction—The tone of a new fiddle likened to raw material—Its refinement and the result—What a satisfactory relationship between violin and tone depends upon—Tonal position of the modern violin—Influences that have worked to its detriment—Its survival—Its test of merit—Idolaters of the fiddle and tone seekers
35-42

CHAPTER VII

OLD TONE AND NEW—A CONTEST

The Paris competition of 1912 reported by the Daily Mail correspondent—The more extended report of Mr. D. I. Cardozo and its particular interest—Six old violins compete with six new violins—How the competition was arranged—The violins and their makers—The result of the contest—The winner’s advice to violin makers—Obvious criticisms on the contest—The result decisive—Great strides in tone since the contest—The importance of these comparisons to the violinist—Comparison between the ancient and modern violin maker
43-50

CHAPTER VIII

A

-BARRELLED THEORY

A consideration of some of the pitfalls besetting the tone-seeker—The accommodating qualities of age—The permanency of tone—Why the age theory is advanced—Sowing the seeds of suspicion—The result | 51-52

CHAPTER IX

THE EXPERT DEALER

Two kinds of dealers—The “expert” dealer’s first consideration—His stock-in-trade—Why he does not exploit new violins—His one serious trouble—His view of tone—What he considers violins are not purchased for—Why he prospers—The type of dealer that is opposed to him—The genuine dealer and expert—The reliability of famous houses—Hazards confronting the buyer and how they may be avoided
53-57

CHAPTER X

IMITATION OLD MASTERS

Ancient copyists—Genuineness of their work—Forgery thrust upon them—The substitution of labels—All the great makers copied—Difficulties of detection—Genuine labels of the masters in the copies—Tone of the copies—Another class of copyist—Those who imitated age—Their object in so doing—Process of ageing destructive of tone—Honesty of these “fakes”—Another class: the factory imitation—Deceive only the ignorant—Another class: those intended to deceive—Their victims—Their danger to the player—A quotation from a letter and its lesson
58-61

CHAPTER XI

LITERATURE OF THE VIOLIN

The authoritative histories of the old makers—Their chief value—Their status as guides to tone—The impressions they convey—The limitations of the authors—Their attitude towards the modern builder—The modern builder’s “revenge”—The one idea which the player absorbs from these histories—The good faith of the authors—Their honesty of purpose—Their renown as connoisseurs and judges—The wide-spread influence of their work and its effect—Books on violin making—What they do and do not teach—A classical work—Instructions on how to play the violin—Their service—Their neglect of tone—The periodical literature of the fiddle—Its interest and value—Wherein it fails—A warning—The “Lives” of famous old makers—Their value
62-67

CHAPTER XII

WANTED: A TONE GUARANTEE

The business of the dealer—What he guarantees—His attitude towards tone—The dealer’s guarantee of no tone value to the player—The fiddle warranted but not its tone—Why the dealer should give a tone guarantee—How it could be done—Mere statements regarding tone not enough—An independent judge needed—The present situation reviewed—The perfect violin model—The modern maker’s relation thereto—How the critics view his work—The player without a guide to tone—His procedure under the circumstances—No standard of tone recognised by experts—The resulting difficulties—Capable judges of tone—The unsatisfactory judge
68-76

CHAPTER XIII

HOW TO TEST A VIOLIN’S TONE

An infallible method—The violin weighed in an impartial and accurate balance | 77-79

CHAPTER XIV

EFFECT OF AGE ON TONE

Most theories held as mere beliefs—Mellowness of tone and age—Reasons why age is not responsible for mellowness—How mellow tone is created—The real effect of age on the instrument and its tone—Its effect purely mechanical—An appeal to violin lovers | 80-85

CHAPTER XV

VARNISH AND TONE

A controversial subject—Effect of varnish on tone—Why it is misunderstood—Why experiments fail—The governing factor—The effect of a fine oil varnish—How the effect of the best varnish may be nullified | 86-89

CHAPTER XVI

TONE AND THE VIOLIN PLAYER

Relationship between player and violin—The inexpert, beginner, amateur, artist, and tone—The player’s relation to tone: an illustration—The gulf between player and fiddle—Artist and player—Why players fail or succeed in tone | 90-94

CHAPTER XVII

THE IDEAL TONE

The ideal tone—How a famous violinist secured his ideal—Difficulties of tone selection—What the average player seeks—Statement by a pupil of Joachim | 95-97

CHAPTER XVIII

HOW TO ACQUIRE AN IDEAL TONE

The appeal of technic and the appeal of tone—Importance of tone—The development of tone-sense—Subjects for tone-study—What the student should avoid—The tone of technic—Tone of technic and ideals combined—Progress of the student explained—Advice to the beginner | 98-102

CHAPTER XIX

TWO STYLES OF TONE PRODUCTION

The artist of the bow and the artist of the brush: a comparison—The delicate style of playing—Its dangers—The robust style—How the player is handicapped—The difficulties of judgment—Importance of the robust style | 103-105

CHAPTER XX

MODERN VIOLIN MAKERS

Attractions of violin making—Makers who have discovered the “secret” of Stradivari—Violin makers and tone—Modern view of art and artists—Fiddle-makers and advertising—Worth of testimonials | 106-110

CHAPTER XXI

NOTES ON TONE

Carrying Power: Carrying power distinct from loudness of tone—True toned violin rarely seems loud to the player—How such violins are abused—What players do not always realise—Carrying power and its relation to tone explained. Quantity versus Quality: A quotation very much to the point—A warning to be remembered—Importance of good tone—The player’s limits in tone—How the violin’s tone-capacity affects the player. Flexibility of Tone: The meaning of flexibility—What the tone loses without it—Its importance to the student and artist. Tone Failure: Violins which “lose their voice”—Conditions responsible—Reasons suggested for the failure in old violins and new. Fiddles Classified: Difficulties of tonal classification render results only approximately accurate—May be roughly divided into four groups: (1) Superior tone—The violins possessing it; (2) Excellent tone—Where it is found—Difficulties of selection—Ancient and modern fiddles—Human limits and consecutive reproduction of superior tone; (3) Good tone—Wide range for selection. Where this tone is usually found. Expert advice essential in selection; (4) “Just Fiddles”—What they are—Their legitimate place—Those to whom they bring pleasure. A Strange Belief: A quotation and comments thereon—“Stradivari as a failure if living to-day!” Tone Health: Some habits and fallacies—Fresh air and the fiddle—Musty fiddle cases—The carelessness of violinists—A suggested vandalism. Tonal Misjudgment: A few instances—A professional violinist and two violins—The opinions of himself and those of his hearers—A Stradivari violin and a talented amateur—His mistake and the result—An artist, an expert, and a poor toned violin—The result—Some great players and their tone—Where it fails—A player of ability and a factory fiddle—Its “suitable” tone—Accessories and tone—The important accessories of the violin—The sound post—What it may do and what the player should do—The bridge—How to keep it in the correct position—Strings—Some simple advice—The bow—A few remarks on its selection—The fiddle doctor—Deceptive simplicity of the violin—What to do in the case of accidents, etc.
111-126

Conclusion | 127
Account of the Principal Violin Makers | 129

VIOLIN TONE AND VIOLIN MAKERS

CHAPTER I

ANOMALOUS POSITION OF THE VIOLIN

It would be difficult to present the subject of tone in a manner calculated to inspire both appreciation and confidence without first making an effort to rescue the violin from its present position of uncertainty, and the player from influences detrimental to an impartial judgment of the instrument as a tone-producing medium. This position has been forced upon the violin gradually; has become more menacing with the passing years; and is due to the addition of an interest which it did not originally possess, and which has finally become so paramount that tone, when considered at all, actually plays second fiddle in a dual value. The violin may still be the “King” of instruments, but this added interest has made it of even greater value as a curiosity. Thus has its position come to be extraordinary and without counterpart in the world of art.

This dual interest is, of course, well known. When associated with certain special instruments it is harmless enough. But what is not fully appreciated by players is the pernicious influence this world-wide curio interest exercises over all violins when the attempt is made to value them from a purely tonal point of view.

Mr. Hart says in his book, “The Violin, Famous Makers and their Imitators:” “In those days when the old Brescian and Cremonese makers flourished, the only consideration was the tone-producing qualities of their instruments; the violin had not then taken its place among curiosities.” So, then, tone was once the only value considered, presumably because the instrument was originally made to satisfy the requirements of players, and not the curiosity-hunting instinct of collectors. And the player’s interest in tone has never wavered. It still overshadows every other consideration, and is the object of constant search. Tone being the player’s elementary necessity, the desire for tone has always eclipsed interest in the merely curious. But being a curiosity, the old violin with the finest tone is placed practically beyond the player’s reach, and this has made the pursuit of even good tone, in all old violins, an uncertain and financially hazardous enterprise.

Let us now explain how this curio value originated; how it advanced; the mighty interests surrounding it; how it usurped the position of tone; and how it has come about that the old violin is valued, bought, and sold entirely regardless of its tonal capacity.

Between the years 1550 and 1875 there worked in Italy and elsewhere some seven hundred makers of violins and kindred instruments who were sufficiently well known to warrant the inclusion of their names in modern books of reference. As a large number of existing old fiddles are by unknown makers; as no amount of research will unearth all who made violins during that period, it is safe to add as many more as would make the total nine hundred. Among these nine hundred makers two take the first rank, closely followed by three or four who take second place, and a dozen or so who occupy the third position as creators of really great tone in the violin. Let us say the total is twenty, and we shall then have eight hundred and eighty violin makers of olden times who simply “made fiddles.” Upon the violins turned out by the twenty who rank as “Old Masters;” whose instruments, and especially choice specimens of them, were always few in number when compared with the productions of their more numerous confrères, and are to-day almost priceless; upon these violins was founded a cult, pioneered by one Luigi Tarisio in the early years of the last century. Tarisio was a carpenter by trade; never made a violin, and could play the instrument but indifferently. In due time, however, he began the collection and sale of violins by the famous old makers of Italy and became the chief instrument in spreading the cult over France and England. Originally founded upon the great master violins, first one and then another of the lesser known makers has been embraced, until now all old fiddles of every country are included, whether the maker be known or not, and regardless of whether the instrument has anything other than age to recommend it. This cult is scarcely distinguishable from any other cult, whether of furniture, pottery, or stamps. It differs only in the object upon which it is founded. It has its experts, dealers, collectors, and its host of followers. It is due to the scarcity of fine old master violins that the more plentiful supply of minor old fiddles, many of which are tonally worthless, is so diligently exploited. Without them the cult could not now be kept alive for a single day.

Among experts, dealers and collectors—but not among players—there has always existed a tendency to deal with the old violin more as a curio than as a musical instrument, and this tendency has brought it perilously near the status of old furniture, the value being centred in the object rather than in any tone merit which the object may possess. This view of the commoner old fiddle, so widely held by dealers of the present day, is due to the fact that the really fine toned old master violins, upon which the cult was founded, did possess some rare type of tone which, with much confidence upon the part of everybody concerned, could be taken for granted, and there was no need, even if an expert could be found capable enough, to pass any judgment upon its tone-value. In most cases the tone was there. It was absent only when visible evidence in the form of cracks, etc., indicated otherwise. It was sufficient to secure the object and tone of the right sort followed as a matter of course. Here, then, the expert acted not without reason in basing value upon what could be seen rather than upon what could be heard.

Therefore, when the violins of the masters were succeeded, for the purpose of trade, by those of lesser tonal worth, it was but natural that this method of valuation should be extended to these fiddles. It was the time-honoured custom, and remains to this day the only system of valuation in existence. It had always satisfied the collectors, for whom it was invented, and who collect for reasons other than tone because, in many instances, they could not play the violin at all. The great players accepted this toneless method of valuation with some show of reason. They were thoroughly competent judges of tone; could select their ideal from the works of the masters with unerring accuracy and, if they paid a high price for curio value, it was to secure what was of much greater importance to them, tone value. But how about the more numerous section of tone lovers: the aspiring young artists, the leaders of orchestras, the ambitious students, and the amateur soloists? To these tone is of importance, to say the least. Many a promising career is jeopardised through the lack of it, and progress in a difficult study retarded for the same reason. A poor toned violin will bind the soloist to a commonplace voice, and may even set up for the beginner a false standard as an ideal of tone. It is this great body of players who are obliged, under existing circumstances, to place their tonal wants at the mercy of a system not intended to cater for their needs, but to the needs of the curio-hunter. Let us now explain this method of valuation more fully in order that the violin player may see exactly where he stands in relation to a system under which he is, perforce, obliged to secure his tone.

CHAPTER II

A TONELESS METHOD OF VALUATION

It is the business of those who value old violins to determine the age, maker (if known), country of origin, “school,” genuineness and condition of various parts, and, from the result of these observations, to place a money value upon the instrument. All this is done without any reference to the tone; without placing a bow to the strings; without, in fact, there being any necessity for the expert to be able to play at all. An equally reliable opinion will be given if the old violin be without strings, finger-board, tailpiece, bridge, soundpost or bassbar, the top separated from the body, and the neck dislocated; that is to say, if the fiddle be utterly unplayable.[A] This is precisely the system of valuation under which the dealer in old violins acquires his stock, and when that stock is put into a saleable condition, it is the system of valuation under which it is sold. Whatever tone the old fiddle may or may not possess (and as to this the buyer may satisfy himself), the curio value remains intact. It is the predominant asset, and is unaffected save by considerations involving the object. Let anything connected with the object prove questionable and down goes this curio value at once. Here is an example: A violin, supposed to be by a famous old maker, was well known in Europe for years. Its value was a thousand pounds. It carried many of the ear-marks of its supposed maker, and contained his genuine label. In due time it came into the possession of a celebrated London connoisseur who had doubts. Removing the label, he found beneath the label of the famous maker’s son. The violin was then valued at five hundred pounds, the curio value of the son’s best work. But the tone remained the same! This example deals with the known great violins; those of tonal repute. Let us see how it affects the commoner old fiddle; those that come the way of most tone seekers. A fine-looking old violin is acquired at a supposed bargain price of twenty pounds. Its faded and tattered label reads:

Jacobus Stainer in Absam
prope Oenipontum. 1664.

After possessing this instrument with much pride for a time the owner takes it to an expert to ascertain its real value, and is told at the first glance that it is a modern imitation, made in Germany, and its value is thirty shillings. Here again the tone remains unaltered, but the instrument is not old. As to these imitations, most deceive only the inexperienced. Others, however, are more ambitious, being carefully doctored by expert “fakers,” and the old masters imitated—in everything save tone—with diabolical ingenuity. We are constantly reading how paintings and other works of art, supposed to be the product of some ancient and gifted hand, are finally discovered to be spurious; but not before they have succeeded in imposing upon the experts of national museums! These things are judged solely by their appearance, just as the violin is judged, and so long as this system continues, just so long must every one relying upon it be prepared for deception in two directions; the imitation old master on the one hand, and the genuine old fiddle of poor tone on the other. Would it not be a move in the right direction to rely upon tone alone; upon something which, at least, is capable of speaking for itself?

It must not be supposed from the foregoing that the great expert and connoisseur knows nothing of tone. He often knows very much about it—more, perhaps, than many who actually make violins. This knowledge he has gained through a unique experience, covering a wide range of instruments by many old masters, and because he is often a player of the violin himself. But all experts are not great, nor are all of them players of the violin. There is, indeed, under such a system, no need for them to possess a knowledge of tone, or any ability to produce it from the instrument. If, therefore, the old violin is not judged and valued from the standpoint of its tone it is not the fault of the expert, but the fault of the system under which he exercises his calling. This system offers protection only to the collector and, in the interest of all players (who receive from it no tone protection whatever), should be abolished, or at least modified to include as binding a guarantee for tone value as, without hesitation, is given for curio value.

If the lover and seeker of tone has some experience of the matter; if he is so fortunate as to number among his friends a candid and impartial dealer; he is aware that the bulk of old fiddles possess but small tone value; that it is age, repute, or appearance that sells them. Many players have purchased old violins which are genuine enough, but practically worthless in tone; such tonal glories as they possibly once possessed having long since departed. But the maker’s name remains; the instrument is still the veritable production of an old maker. In the case of paintings the ravages of time detract from a single asset, and matter little. Your painting may be chequered with cracks and otherwise show that time has passed across it no gentle hand. Its crumbling canvas may be bolstered up from the back without any detriment to its single value as a work of art, and it may slumber in the mansion or the museum secure from every hurt save the desiccating influence of the passing years. According to the experts the violin should be similarly situated and have but a single asset: that of an artistic object. If it were not called upon to exercise the function of a musical instrument all would be well. It would, like the painting, remain a rare work and nothing more. As such it would repose in its cabinet without ever a bow being drawn across its strings. As a curiosity that would be its legitimate place. Should any player drag it forth to fulfil another purpose, his must be the risk. Should he find this purpose accomplished, well and good. If not, he must be satisfied in the possession of a curiosity, and accept, with what patience he can command, the lack of tone.

For a century or more the toneless pariahs among “genuine old” fiddles have roamed from place to place, and from country to country. Like the Wandering Jew, they are never at rest. Countless amateurs have owned them, treasured them, found them out, and sent them forth again. Some bear the scars of fruitless operations, for it is the fashion among the inexperienced to attribute the lack of tone in all violins to faults of adjustment. In one way or another the attempt is made to accomplish what the maker of the fiddle failed to do. As to this, there is a difference between adjusting a fine-toned violin, and trying by the same means, or by any means whatsoever, to create tone in a fiddle that never possessed any. The many aids and improvers of tone may, indeed, alter for the better that which could not well be worse, but to say that any of them will “create the tone of a fine Italian” is a statement very far from fact.

I have now defined the position of the old violin as a musical instrument, and as a curiosity. The new violin has no status which the expert can recognise, because it is worth nothing as a curio. Unlike the ancient fiddle, it has but one asset, tone, and, according to possession of this attribute, is its value high or low. Being outside the calculation of the expert valuer, tone has neither standard nor status, nor any recognisable money value. The system under which the old violin is judged, therefore, cannot and does not apply to the new. In fact, there is no existing method of valuing a new violin! As I deal with the modern fiddle in another place, let us proceed with the consideration of the old and acquaint the reader with the Standard and Types of that grand tone against which all violins, whether new or old, should be measured.

CHAPTER III

TYPES OF STANDARD VIOLIN TONE

In order to distinguish the types of tone which, at various periods, have been looked upon as Standard—that is to say, representing an ideal of perfection, and at all times have had adherents,—I set out below five types that may be said to represent the five great groups of tone. Violins embraced by any one of these groups will vary in the perfection with which they present the type according to the tone-developing skill of the maker; according to his ideals of perfection, and according to the condition of the instrument. It is unlikely that two makers, engaged upon the development of the same tone-type, would succeed in copying each other exactly. Individuality would be sure to assert itself in tone as it does in handicraft. As to this individuality, it is somewhat difficult to describe, but may be said to be a sort of uniform peculiarity noticeable in the tone of all violins produced by a certain luthier.

Amatisé.—Sweet, sympathetic, and more or less lacking in power. Found in the violins of the numerous Amati family, Jacob Stainer, those of Antonio Stradivari prior to 1667 and his smaller instruments made after that year, and in the violins of the followers of these makers. Plentiful.

Length of body | 13¾ | to | 13⁷/₈ | inches
Width across lower bouts | 7¹³/₁₆ | to | 7¹⁵/₁₆ | inches
Width across upper bouts | 6¼ | to | 6³/₈ | inches
Arching elevated. |

Bergonzian.—Virile, powerful, partaking of the qualities of Stradivari and Joseph Guarnerius del Gesù to some extent. Rare.

Length of body | 13⁷/₈ | to 14 inches
Width across upper bouts | 6⁹/₁₆ | inches
Width across lower bouts | 8³/₁₆ | inches
Arching flat to medium. |

Brescian.—Dark, sombre, “brilliantly melancholy.” Any violin possessing a tone sombre in character is said to be Brescian, frequently without much regard to other characteristics. Found in the violins of G. P. Maggini, and da Salò, which are rare, and in less perfection in a number of instruments by other makers, both ancient and modern.

(Maggini) | Length of body | 14⁹/₁₆ | inches
| Width across lower bouts | 8⁹/₁₆ | inches
| Width across upper bouts | 6¹⁴/₁₆ | inches

“Cremonese.”—Not a type, but a generic term, used to designate the general superiority of tone produced by violin makers of Cremona, prior to about 1775,[B] over instruments produced in other centres.

Guarnerian.—A tone distinguished for its remarkable qualities of clearness, brilliancy, virility and intensity. Peculiar to the violins of Joseph Guarnerius del Gesù. Rarely imitated with any degree of success. Rare.

(Guarneri) Length of body 13¾ to 13⁷/₈ ins.
Width across lower bouts      8¹/₈  ins.
Width across upper bouts      6⁹/₁₆ ins.
Arching variable but tending to flatness.

“Italian.”—Not a type, but an expression, used to distinguish the tone of ancient Italian violins from those made in other countries. Now rather loosely applied to any instrument possessing tonal qualities above the average.

Stradivarian.—Rich, mellow, sympathetic and powerful. The favourite with most players although Guarnerian tone is preferred by some—to quote the opinion of one celebrated expert, “The tone of a good Joseph beats that of the average ‘Strad’ into a cocked hat!” Stradivarian tone has been said to combine the good qualities of both Brescian and Amatisé. It possesses in a marked degree that rich woody quality admired by connoisseurs. To appreciate the meaning of “woody” quality, one should hear an organ containing both wood and metal pipes and note the difference in tone quality between them. The best organ of this kind I know of, and one of the richest toned instruments it has ever been my pleasure to hear, is located in the Tabernacle at Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A., and was built by an Englishman, Joseph H. Ridges (1826-1914) about sixty years ago.

(Antonio Stradivari 1700-1724 period.)
Length of body | 13¹⁵/₁₆ to 14¹/₈ inches
Width across lower bouts | 8¼ inches
Width across upper bouts | 6½ to 6¹¹/₁₆ inches
Arching variable but always tending to flatness.

Of all the five types of tone Stradivarian is the most plentiful. Apart from the violins of Stradivari, which are more numerous,[C] perhaps, than that of any other famous old maker, the type is found in a high state of perfection in some of the instruments of his followers, and in not a few violins by modern makers.

It may be thought that other great makers should be credited with the creation of a tone-type; but I think their violins will, in tone, be found to fall into one or another of the groups named above, varying only according to the ideals and individuality of the several makers.

I shall now investigate the relationship between tone and the old instruments, and explain why a master of tone was not always a master of handicraft, and why many excellent workmen were unsuccessful as creators of a grand tone. In the next chapter, therefore, I deal with the old masters as violin makers.

CHAPTER IV

THE OLD MASTERS AS VIOLIN MAKERS

There is a “Life” of Stradivari[D] by Messrs. Hill which contains a deal of valuable and reliable information of the utmost importance to those interested in violin tone. It does not, indeed, deal with the subject from the point which we are now about to approach, but it makes such a fitting prelude to our theme that I regret my inability to quote this work extensively. I therefore earnestly advise my readers to procure a copy of that work if they are not already acquainted with it, as, in dealing with the subject of tone from my own point of view, I am prevented, through considerations of space, from giving much information which would add background and perspective to this discussion, and thereby add materially to its interest and understanding. With this digression I will now proceed.

The old masters divided the art, or work, connected with the manufacture of a violin into two parts. The first was that of preparing the various pieces of wood and combining them into a more or less finished violin, and the second consisted in so manipulating these parts as to control the tone and cause the instrument to give forth, when finished, exactly the quality, intensity, flexibility and refinement of voice which the maker intended. The resulting violin would, within human limitations, embody the tone ideal of the master. The great tone builders, for the most part, were surrounded by workmen and pupils whose duty it was partly, if not wholly, to prepare the wood and bring the instrument to a more or less rough state of completion. In addition to developing the tone the master designed the moulds and determined the exact size and shape of the instrument, this being a work having much to do with tone as, upon the perfection of the design, depends the type of tone which the master will produce in the instrument. It is probable that some of the Amatis were as well equipped with ideals of tone as Stradivari, but the model which they used prevented them attaining such good results, although producing tone of much refinement. Here is seen one reason for the never-ending changes which the masters made in the shape of their instruments. They were seeking the best possible base upon which to build tonal ideals, and not endeavouring to design a violin which would, in itself, possess these characteristics—an impossible task, as I shall presently show. Equipped, therefore, with high ideals of tone and a splendid model in which to develop and control every essential that makes for the creation of the perfect voice, it is not difficult to understand why certain makers were able to create, with remarkable uniformity, a great toned instrument; or others, with an equally good model, but not so gifted with ideals, a violin inferior in tone; while others again, like the copyist of form, without ideals, or the ability or desire to apply them if he possessed any, turned out a violin lacking in those essentials of tone which characterise the perfect instrument.

The violin has figured in the minds of its devotees as a curio for so long that points relating to its great asset, tone, cannot well be left to a mere statement of fact. Especially is this the case in dealing with matters forming the base of that cult to which they belong, for their knowledge of the instrument, its history, and its makers is profound, and embraces an intimate acquaintance with the many theories and experiments advanced and tried during the past hundred and fifty years to account for and unravel the mysteries of tone. While the reason for tone which I advance in this work is not only obvious, but actually in use at the present day, achieving consecutive results identical with those named in this chapter, it may not be amiss to set forth here, for the benefit of those who may be interested, some arguments in favour of the fact that tone in the violins of the great masters was due to their ideals of tone, and to no other reason. The process employed in developing these ideals was in no sense a secret with these masters. Great results in all art are due to the talents of the artist. Method and process, being but means to an end, may be imparted to another by precept and example, but the ability to express a high ideal was never the outcome of any “secret” in constructing a violin, or the preparation of canvas and pigment, or due to any special virtue contained in mere wood, paint, or marble.

If, therefore, those responsible for the grand tone in the old violins did no more than make the instrument, or supervise its manufacture by the workmen and pupils by whom they were, in most cases, surrounded; if the creation, regulation, and control of tone were due to any set, or even variable, rule of design, construction, arrangement of parts, manner of applying varnish, or method of selecting wood, then the pupils of, say, Stradivari, by following these rules, etc., could not fail to obtain like tonal results. But tone equal to that of Stradivari, or of any other great tone-creator, has never followed the copying of anything that could be discovered by the most painstaking measurement and study of their instruments.

Again. It has always been supposed the old masters attracted pupils desirous of learning from them the purely mechanical art of constructing a violin. With this idea I entirely disagree. There is nothing about the mere making of a fiddle to warrant the supposition. If these pupils were attracted because they wished to acquire, as nearly as possible, the high tone ideals of the masters, and become versed in the delicate method of its embodiment in a violin, for the purpose, in short, that has always attracted pupil to master in all art, the matter becomes clearer. Pupils of the masters frequently stated the fact on their tickets, and it is hardly possible they did so merely to advertise the source of their cabinet-making knowledge. Modern builders, more often than not, work to satisfy connoisseurs of form rather than exponents of tone; but, with the earlier makers, we are assured by an authority of the highest eminence that “tone was the only consideration.”

To hold any other view of tone-creation leads but to confusion. If mechanical construction alone attracted pupils they would certainly acquire all necessary knowledge with the same facility as knowledge is acquired to-day in all branches of mechanical art. There would be nothing connected with the matter that could not be seen with the eye and reproduced with the hand. Even if they failed or were at times careless in the last degree as carvers of wood, we know by the work of Joseph Guarnerius del Gesù, this is no bar to tone.

Yet we have makers taught by the greatest masters, heirs to their models and, in the case of the sons of Stradivari and Bergonzi, to patterns, tools, wood, and even partly finished instruments, but who still failed to produce the tone of their teachers and fathers. Surely no clearer evidence than this is needed to indicate that it was high ideals alone that placed the masters above others—even their own sons—as poets in tone. Let me repeat that this is no mere theory. Violins are developed to ideals to-day, and I believe it has been done since the days of da Salò by one maker or another. By no other process is it possible to create, as the masters did, a tone characteristic of the maker. No mechanical process will produce this result, whatever else it may accomplish, and however complicated, “secret,” or scientific it may be.

I believe experts agree that the most striking characteristic of the old masters’ violins is not simply the grandeur of their tone, but the extraordinary regularity with which this tone was reproduced in successive instruments. It is said that consecutive reproduction of any kind of tone is the most infrequent as well as the most difficult thing in present-day fiddle making. So far as the instrument is concerned, nothing has occurred to make this more difficult to-day than in 1725, when Stradivari, Guarneri, and Carlo Bergonzi were accomplishing their consecutive tonal marvels. The fiddle itself has no secrets which can be hidden. It does not defy analysis, and to add that the mere building of a violin never has given and never will give consecutive tone results, is but to say what is already known and has been repeatedly demonstrated for more than a hundred years. Lest it be supposed that any method is, in itself, a never-failing producer of grand tone, let me say positively it is nothing of the sort. With the highest ideals even the masters did not produce a stereotyped tonal grandeur. A fine tone was, with them, the rule, and a tone of lesser worth the exception—but there were such exceptions. With others less gifted tone of a lower grade was the rule, and fine tone the exception—and here, again, there were exceptions. In both, however, is found the unmistakable and individual character of tone personal to the maker, and inimitable. It is for these reasons that I should condemn any method of tone creation which is purely mechanical; which depends upon method rather than upon ideals, as being entirely outside the system of tone-creation used by the great makers of old time.

While dealing with the old masters and tone, we may as well continue with their immediate followers and devote a chapter to the decline of grand tone after the period of decadence was reached.

CHAPTER V

THE DECLINE OF TONE

As we have seen, tone had an auspicious beginning about 1550; suffered a rather lengthy relapse, but began to recover during the latter years of the next century; took a new lease of life about 1700; and was in full maturity and vigour during the first half of the eighteenth century. It then suffered a second relapse, more extended and more serious than the first, which all but terminated its existence.

A plentiful number of theories have been advanced, all more or less ingenious, to account for the decline of tone after about 1750. The known facts are few and simple. On the one hand we have the sons, pupils, and followers of the masters, while on the other we have the fact that they failed to secure such consecutive tonal excellence—to put it very mildly. To the many theories to account for this another may be added without any great harm. As the decline was in tone, let us look at it from that point.

In purely mechanical affairs progress follows experience and the passing of time. That no such progress followed in this case would seem evidence enough to eliminate the mechanical, or violin-making, factor, and substitute tone-ideals in its place. This, however, by the way. So great were the last three tone creators that there is some excuse for their sons, pupils, and followers failing to equal them. Between 1750 and 1800 there was, doubtless, little demand for fine-toned violins from the makers who were then alive, owing to the large number of master violins handed down from the earlier half of the century. The living makers might well have been forced to compete among themselves for such trade in low-priced violins as they could get. With them it was probably not so much a matter of tonal art as of bread and butter—or macaroni. We are aware that, in all ages of violin making, a demand has existed for the low-priced instrument, numerically in excess of the demand for those of higher price and better tone. Overshadowed, therefore, by the great masters this may well have been about the only demand upon the builders of that time. The question of high tone quality does not enter largely into this demand, but the question of price is vital.

Here, then, we have conditions which would appear to foster a decline in high standards of tone, especially when we consider that the models, as perfected by the masters, even without any special regulation or adjustment, produced a tone which satisfied the bulk of players of that day, just as the same fiddles, now ranking as “old,” satisfy the bulk of players of the present day. Some few makers of that and succeeding times, however, did not appear content to forego ideals. If they did not succeed in reaching the highest standards, they at least kept the wavering flame from dying altogether. We have, for instance, Thomas Balestrieri in 1750, J. B. Guadagnini in 1780, François Fent, 1780, Januarius Gagliano, 1770, Nicholas Lupot in 1820, J. F. Pressenda in 1840, and J. B. Vuillaume in 1870, to mention some of the best known, and not those of more recent times. Thus builders were always turning out fiddles, some of which fell little short of the highest standards, from 1750 down to the present day, for, as will be seen in the chapters devoted to modern violins, some of the instruments produced in these days, regulated to ideals in the old-fashioned manner, uphold the highest standard.

But if grand tone was not extinguished its creators were, and are, sufficiently few in number to warrant the statement that tone has suffered a serious decline. Especially is this realised when the few really great toned fiddles are compared with the number, less notable from this standpoint, produced since 1750. But there is nothing to be gained by labouring this point. It would appear to have been fully appreciated early in the last century, when we find the celebrated experimenter Felix Savart busily engaged in demonstrating, by mechanical methods, the reason for tone; and efforts at a general revival have continued ever since. The fact that tone cannot be seen, while the violin containing it is visible enough, has stimulated curiosity to discover a supposed “lost secret,” which in reality was the method I have named, probably abandoned for the reasons and in the manner already suggested, by all save a few. And it is not difficult to imagine these few, clearly appreciating their advantage, keeping the method of tone regulation and control very much to themselves and, by producing fairly consecutive tonal excellence (while the more numerous contemporary makers were doing the reverse), spurring the investigators to fresh efforts and the scientists to new explanations. Some of these theories dealt with acoustics and are extremely complicated and interesting, but it has never occurred to me that art has anything in particular to do with science, and I certainly do not believe the old masters knew overmuch, if anything, about the scientific side of tone. If the results they achieved have since been found of a highly scientific nature, there is good reason to believe they were unaware of it at the time. We read in Messrs. Hill’s “Antonio Stradivari,” p. 189: “That Stradivari was guided ... by a knowledge of science as applied to the construction of instruments, we do not for one moment believe.” And to this I would add that neither was he so guided in his creation of tone. Savart, in his efforts to unearth the “secret” by the use of some sort of mechanical means, was the first to “attune” the plates and thus produce the best mechanical method yet devised; a method having nothing to do with ideals, but much to do with science. Its outstanding feature is that it produces with uncanny regularity a type of tone which, like the process, may be characterised as mechanical. It is only fair to say of this method that it does, on occasion, result in a tone of much brilliance. Just why it should do so is probably a puzzle to those who employ the process. If they were aware of the reason for this occasional good tone, they could doubtless make it the rule instead of the exception. The reason, however, lies beyond the scope of the method employed, as we explain in the chapter devoted to varnish and tone. None the less, tone produced by “attuning” the plates is not by any means to be derided, although the general results attained do not warrant the high claims made for the process. Among others who laboured towards a revival of tone were the copyist, who let tone take care of itself; the old wood theorists, who considered that tone-quality lay in old wood,[E] and the varnishers, who believed that the “secret” of tone is in varnish.

Curiously enough, amongst those who have so laboured, the elucidation of the problem seems never to have been approached from the standpoint of Tone itself, and they have not regarded tone as an expression of ideals, but a sort of natural result following upon some peculiar or particular virtues to be found in wood and varnish, the maker of the violin being a kind of human machine achieving tonal results by rote and rule. Wood, construction, and varnish do, indeed, seem to indicate the possible avenues through which investigation may be carried. In them undoubtedly lies the reason for tone which, if discovered, would still leave the process by which it was achieved as profound a difficulty as ever. We view the paint upon a pictured canvas without special interest. We know it is paint and leave it at that. Aside from the ideals of the artist we know it possesses no virtues leading towards the creation of a work of art. We have no illusions regarding a combination such as this. If we desired to produce a similar picture we are quite aware that similar paints placed upon canvas of equal size would not be enough. We fully appreciate the fact that colour and canvas are but the means through which ideals are rendered visible, yet, when we turn to the violin, we find this truth abandoned. By the token here expressed all the virtue lies in canvas and paint. To achieve an artistic result is to use a cloth similar to that of, say, Rembrandt (of the same age, if possible), cut to the same size, and apply thereto similar colours—carefully gauging the thickness all over with a micrometer! With all this care we get a picture, but not a Rembrandt. As everything has been done that Rembrandt did, and the result is not exactly what we desire, we take refuge in the only hypothesis left, and agree that a picture so produced must wait for perfection until it is as old as Rembrandt’s. To produce a picture by any such means appears ridiculous, yet it is exactly the means by which it is sought to produce an ideal of tone in the violin. It is not considered that materials and construction are merely the means through which the tone ideal of the builder finds expression, but through some mysterious influence (not yet discovered!) the materials are expected to create some magnificent quality of tone at which the builder must be prepared to stand aghast.

Having now become fairly well acquainted with the old violin, and reviewed the progress of its tone through the past three hundred and sixty-six years, we may consider we have arrived at a point where the modern violin can be admitted, with the object of defining its position from a tonal point of view; first making an investigation into the relationship existing between a new fiddle and tone.

CHAPTER VI

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN A NEW VIOLIN AND TONE

Fiddle-making may be either a hobby or a business. Sometimes it is both. It is also more or less of an art, but only the connoisseur is able to explain wherein and why. To the “man in the street” a fiddle is just a fiddle, as like any or all other fiddles, as one pea is like another. Sometimes it is red, sometimes yellow, and sometimes brown. Therein do they differ.

There is nothing about the making of a violin which calls for our special notice. This has been set forth in many exhaustive works, described and illustrated at great length. In a work on tone it would be useless to devote space to cabinet-making. The relation between making a fiddle and tone is all that need concern us here. Let us see just what that relationship is. In order to make the subject clear we must generalise. We cannot go into the numberless and complicated details that affect the sound in one way or another—for good or evil—because it is not sound, not the mere noise a violin will emit, that interests the tone-lover. We procure, let us say, suitable wood and a book on fiddle-making and set to work. In due time, with the exercise of patience and such skill as we can command, we produce a violin—our first—built carefully to the measurements and along the lines of, say, the immortal Stradivari. When the varnish is dry enough we string it up, and not until then do we know what its tone is like! And what, by the way, is it like? The answer is simple enough: it is like the tone of any other fiddle so constructed. We have accomplished tone results no greater and no less than any other copyist has achieved in the past hundred and fifty years, because we have done no more than they have done and no more than any one can do. We have made a box about fourteen inches long, a little over an inch deep, eight inches or so in its widest part, and with an irregular outline. We have slightly arched the top and bottom of this box, and provided it with various fitments and strings. Every box so made will, without exception, produce a sound of some sort, whether made by Antonio Stradivari in 1720, or John Doe in 1916. Sometimes that sound is loud, and sometimes it is weak, often it is both, and again it is neither, depending upon matters which the makers may, or may not, appreciate and, perhaps, alter for the better or worse within these narrow limits. This, then, is the relationship between the raw fiddle and tone.

Both the violin and such tone as it will naturally, or we might say mechanically, possess, is but the crude material which the tone-builder uses. By means of the one he refines, regulates, and develops the other. Manifestly the result depends upon what he considers a fine and telling tone. There can be no guess-work about it, and nothing can be left to chance. He must know exactly when he has reached the result he desires, and the higher his ideals the better the tone. As the raw material in the shape of unrefined tone is, to a greater or lesser extent, filled with flaws, these must be eliminated; as the violins in their undeveloped state ever present tone problems infinite in variation—no two being alike—the tone builder can follow no set rule, and no mechanical method. To achieve, therefore, a thoroughly artistic and satisfactory tonal relationship between the instrument and its voice depends, first, on high ideals and, second, a process elastic enough to meet, successfully, conditions which are always changing.

As to the tonal position of the modern violin, there is no denying the fact that it has long been an object of suspicion. The wonder is not that this suspicion should exist, but that a new fiddle should have any tonal repute left at all. Let us review some of the causes responsible for this condition of affairs.

In the “good old days” of violin making, say in 1725, when the most famous of all makers were working, surrounded by many who, if less famous, were able to hold their own, there were no fiddle factories swamping the market with machine-made trash, belittling and depreciating the (then) new and less numerous hand-made instrument. There were no dealers in, say, the violins of da Salò, Maggini, and the first Amati, to the exclusion of the new ones of Stradivari, Bergonzi, and Joseph Guarnerius del Gesù. There were no collectors of the old and rare who disregarded the work and tone of the living builders. There were no books on the history of the violin devoting sixteen pages to, let us say, Duiffoprugcar, who worked two hundred years previously, and indicating the living makers thus: “Stradivari, Antonio, now living”—when mentioned at all. There were no “Journals devoted to the interests of violinists,” in which Carlo Bergonzi might have read an article on the work of Antonio Amati, filled with fulsome praise and flattery of the old, but containing little, or nothing, about what was being done there in Cremona at the time. There were no players of the violin who preferred a battered fiddle, made by some unknown maker in 1592, to one made in his home town of Cremona three years previously—in 1722. Having none of these things to contend against, their lines were truly laid in pleasant places if we compare them with the builders of 1916, who have all these things, and many more besides, against the popularity of their instruments. In passing, it is worthy of note that, whatever influence there is against a just consideration of the modern tone work,[F] this influence does not in the least affect the sale of factory fiddles. These are still sold at the rate of some hundred thousand instruments per annum to those who never read fiddle books or literature; to whom a fiddle is just a fiddle; who place all old fiddles in one class, and all new fiddles in another—and this kind of buyer is far more numerous than might be supposed, if figures did not place the matter beyond doubt. But every worker who builds his violin by hand, selecting costly materials and doing his work with loving and painstaking care, knows what this influence means. He knows there are surrounding him many influences, all of which lead the tone-seeker in one direction, namely, towards the old.

Yet the fine modern instruments still survive, and are growing rapidly in tone repute. In spite of everything they still find players whose only consideration is TONE, just as TONE was the only consideration in the days when the old makers flourished. If the new violin can, in the face of all that is against its popularity, still find this favour, it must, indeed, have tone merit so exceptional as to be far in advance of many of those old violins whose praises are so persistently advertised. Everything considered, this strikes us as a happy augury for the immediate future of the new fiddle. I venture to predict that its makers will not be compelled to spend a century or so in the tomb before their good work is appreciated. That these new violins are becoming a factor seriously to be reckoned with is not lost upon those whose interest it is to foster the trade in old instruments of less tonal value. After all, it is tone value that will decide the question between the old and the new, and it is possible the day is not far distant when old violins (outside those by the famous creators of grand tone) will have to stand or fall upon their tone-merit, rather than upon the claim of having been made by some obscure or unknown maker in an equally uncertain but ancient day. Meantime modern makers must expect new work to be ignored by all save those who have no old axe to grind; to be condemned, or “damned by faint praise;” all of which it has stood and will continue to stand. Its claim is founded upon a tone-base too substantial to be shaken. All it requires is a fair trial and comparison with the products of the old masters; and the more famous the old master the better the test; for it may easily prove itself superior to an ordinary old violin without being in any respect remarkable in tone. In order that no question may arise as to the accuracy of this statement, I give, in the next chapter, the results in a contest of tone between six old master violins, and six new instruments by living makers.

I believe that most of us who are lovers of the fiddle began as idolaters of the instrument, rather than of its tone. Of such lovers this may be said: in our early faith we were prone to accept many strange and uncouth gods; but, as we grew older, we became more particular; we selected for our allegiance one out of many; but as even idols cost money, we were not always privileged to possess the one which was our heart’s desire, but worshipped it from afar, meantime living in hope and consoling ourselves with a less potent fetish. It is said of the Chinese that, when an idol ceases to answer requirements, it is chopped in pieces and another purchased. Our progress with fiddles is not dissimilar, only we sell our idol. And thus many of us spend our lives—and money—seeking fiddles when, in reality, it is tone we are after. That we so seldom find it is due to the fact that we make up our minds beforehand where it will abide. Never, I believe, has imagination played me such scurvy tricks as when it caused me, during the years of my novitiate in tone, to invest some ancient and tubby “gourd” with the dulcet voice of a “real Cremona.” I look back upon those distant days with real humiliation. And I recall the assurance with which I clung to my faith!—mainly because I had no such illuminating guide to tone as the one presented in the next chapter.

CHAPTER VII

OLD TONE AND NEW—A CONTEST

On June 22, 1912, the London Daily Mail published the following from its Paris correspondent: “A contest took place in Paris last night which seems to vindicate the contention that modern violins are as good in tone as those of ancient make, for which thousands are paid by enthusiasts. A number of violins were played in a dark room, and at the end of the competition a vote was taken from the numerous musical and artistic audience present, with the result that the finest was judged to be a Belgian instrument dated 1912; the second was a French 1911 violin, and not until the third came a Stradivarius, valued at more than £3000.”

There are lacking in the above report many details which cannot fail to interest the tone-seeker. I am, therefore, indebted to Mr. D. I. Cardozo, of Amsterdam, for a more extended communication on the subject, which I print in full. While this, as well as similar contests, are extremely interesting, the lesson which they convey has already been learned by those who keep abreast of matters relating to tone. The present contest will serve to keep this lesson before violinists, and future competitions will spread further afield the high tone repute of the modern violin.

A point in this communication worthy of careful note is contained in the statement that the winning violins were both produced by a system which enabled their makers to control the tone. I have dealt with this subject at considerable length in previous chapters, but the bare statement of the fact in this communication is incomplete without adding that the maker not only controls and regulates the tone, but creates its quality as well. Manifestly he could “control” with equal facility a poor tone, and, if he possessed no ideals of what a fine tone should be, his regulation of it would still be barren of satisfactory results. Mr. Cardozo writes as follows:—

“Are the violins of the great Italian violin makers of the glorious time of their art—the Stradivarii, Guarnerii, Amatis, Grancinos—without rivals, and are the world’s famous violin players right in paying fabulous prices for such rare instruments and to prefer them to those of modern make? Or have the modern makers brought their art to such perfection that the preference for the old instruments is nothing but a prejudice; that a man with common sense must admit some makers are producing such beautiful instruments, with such a rich tone, that they are by no means inferior to the most beautiful old instruments known?

“This is not a question of yesterday nor of to-day, but the solution has come somewhat nearer since the competition held in Paris some weeks ago. Continuing the competitions of 1909 and 1910, when in both cases the violins and violoncellos of modern makers were awarded the first prize and the Stradivarii were beaten, the Monde Musical has opened this year a new competition.

“Twenty-seven modern violin-makers, viz. eighteen French, two Belgian, two German, two Italian, one Dutch, one English, and one Russian had together sent in forty-two instruments which had to struggle against six old Italian: one Stradivarius (valued at £3000), one Guarnerius del Gesù, one Maggini, one Gand, one Joseph Guarnerius (son of Andrea), and one Grancino.

“The competition was so regulated that the public, consisting of well-known artists, could not see what violin was being played upon at any given moment. The same artist played, behind a curtain in the dark, the same piece on the different violins, which were numbered, and which numbers were acquired by casting lots. Between the playing of two numbers the lights were switched on for a moment to enable the audience to make their remarks and put down the points on their lists.

“On the first night only the new violins were played, in order to select from them the best, and, as a result, twenty of the forty-two instruments were deemed worthy to compete with the old violins. From this twenty the six best were again chosen, No. 1 being a Dutch violin with 112 points, and of the five others four were French with 87, 73, 67, and 51 points respectively, and one Belgian with 47 points.

“On the next night these six modern violins had to compete with the six old ones. There was a large public attendance, and a hundred and sixty-one artists were selected to do the voting. Two well-known violinists, Simonne Filon and Jean ten Have, played, one after the other, on the twelve violins. The voting produced the following result:—

(New) 1 | Auguste Falisse, Brussels | 423 | points
(New) 2 | Chenantais-Kaul, Nantes | 422 | “
(Old) 3 | Antonio Stradivari, Cremona | 401 | “
(Old) 4 | Paolo Grancino, Milan | 369 | “
(New) 5 | Deroux, Paris | 351 | “
(New) 6 | Poisson, Lyons | 327 | “
(Old) 7 | Joseph Guarnerius (del Gesù), Cremona | points not given
(Old) | 8 Joseph Guarnerius (son of Andrea), Cremona | points not given
(Old) | 9 Francois Gand, Paris | “ “
(Old) 10 | G. P. Maggini, Brescia | “ “
(New) 11 | Angard, Paris | “ “
(New) 12 | Kunze, The Hague | “ “

“The two violins which gained the first and second place, and which received a good number of points more than the Stradivarius, were built according to the system of the French physicus, Dr. Chenantais. Kaul, a pupil of the doctor, is a friend of Falisse, and it was while staying in Brussels that he explained to Falisse the principles of Chenantais,[G] and advised him to follow them. Falisse took this advice and entirely succeeded. The violin with which he succeeded in winning the first prize was finished on the 15th of June, the contest being held on the 21st of the same month.

“The principle of Dr. Chenantais is that the maker must not continue to copy the violins of the Italians, nor bother about why there is so much variation of form.[H] The doctor does not pay much attention to the varnish. The main point is the verifying (“relage”—regulation) of the tone, and his success shows that he is right. In 1909 a violoncello on this principle of Chenantais-Kaul was awarded the first prize, and now again by means of two of his pupils he wins place over all new and old violins.

“It may be that such competitions are not completely conclusive; that the old violin may be played the best, as the artist is more used to playing upon it. In any case it is not true to say the old violin-makers cannot be improved upon in tone.”

The obvious criticism of this report is, of course, that the world seems to have been scoured to find the six new violins, and, after all, only two of them succeeded in beating all the old instruments in tone. It may also be said we are given no indication of the tonal repute of the six old violins, but are left to assume they were representative of their makers. We have also no explanation of the peculiar fact that, when the new fiddles were tested against each other, the winner of that contest found itself among the “also rans” in the final—and bringing up the extreme rear, to boot. We have no doubt, however, the result was arrived at in a thoroughly honest and reliable manner, capable critics having decided (without knowing what instrument they were voting for) that the new violins were equal, and in some cases superior, to the violins of the old masters. Since 1912 the new violin has made rapid strides, an ever-increasing number of artists providing themselves with new violins of fine tone, instead of old ones with questionable tone, thereby increasing the pleasure of those who hear them play and adding to their own renown. That these violins exist should be a source of gratification to all lovers of the instrument, and especially to those who are unable to invest the large sums demanded for the great-toned violins produced by the masters of Cremona and elsewhere. To these the fact that a violin, equally great in tone, is actually within their means may well be accepted with incredulity. This incredulity is, under all the circumstances, natural. It is, therefore, accepted and respected by every maker of a great-toned new instrument. Not only so, but every facility will be given for testing the new against the old, to the end that modern tone may become better known and appreciated, for it is only by this means that the sentimental influences which have so long worked against the new violin can be overcome.

“Are, then, all modern makers creators of great tone?” No, they are not, nor has this been the case in any period of violin making. Yet—and this may well be worthy of attention—there is scarcely a maker of to-day, even to the copyist, who has not his tonal counterpart among the builders of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. His violins are as good as those produced by his more ancient prototype. They may, indeed, be more worthy of the attention of players, as our modern is apt to follow a model superior to those adopted by many of the older copyists.

Having, so far as the magnitude of the task and my own limitations permit, made this effort to reinstate the modern violin in a position of which, but for circumstance, it would have never been deprived, let us consider some of the pitfalls besetting the pathway of the tone-seeker—especially if he be so daring as to venture his quest towards new pastures, leaving that pre-empted field wherein, some would have us believe, tone can only be found. In plainer terms, if he seeks, or finds, tone among new fiddles instead of old ones.

CHAPTER VIII

A DOUBLE-BARRELLED THEORY

A frequent contention against the new violin, especially when its high-tone quality is so overwhelmingly apparent as to confound even the unreasonably prejudiced, is the statement that this fine tone will disappear in time. This appears strange when we remember it comes from those who say tone is found only in the old violin! According to this theory age seems a most accommodating adjunct. It not only gives tone, but takes it away also—it all depends upon whether the maker is dead or not! But the seeker of tone need not be alarmed when such double-barrelled wisdom is solemnly imparted. The tone of the great new violins is absolutely permanent. It does not owe its origin to age, or to anything that time can alter any further than it can alter the tone of any other great violin. Its continued existence is subject to the same conditions as govern the existence, or tone-life, of the finest old Italian instruments. If time influences it at all it is only to make it better. Whatever effect age may have upon a fiddle constructed of green wood, upon the factory-made article, or upon those unsuitably varnished, where it is conceivable something unexpected may occur to the sound such instruments are capable of emitting, nothing of this sort happens to violins constructed by either old or new masters of tonal art.

This tone-disappearing theory is not only ridiculous, it is mean. Unable to deny tone as a patent and present fact in a new violin, suspicion must be created and the possessor frightened with the bogey of its ultimate and certain loss. The tone-seeker’s interest must be struck in the tenderest spot. Even if not immediately effective, the seed of suspicion is sown, with the result that (in effect) the tone-lover sits at the bedside of his (supposed) ailing fiddle applying home remedies and patent nostrums without avail. At last the doctor, usually a quack, is sent for and, without more ado, gives the tone its coup de grâce. But this need no longer be the case. Fortified with knowledge and fully aware of the purpose for which this entirely false theory is advanced, the new violin possessing fine tone may be treasured with confidence in the permanency of its brilliant voice.

CHAPTER IX

THE EXPERT DEALER

While there are numerous experts and dealers of great renown and unquestioned repute, there is no denying the existence of those who would do well to drop the “and” from this title and thus become what they really are, “Expert Dealers”—experts in acquiring old fiddles (usually of low grade), experts in advertising their praise, and experts in selling them.[I]

The first consideration of this type of dealer is to keep alive the interest in old fiddles—the type of old fiddle that is acquired for a few shillings and sold for as many pounds. New violins, even of the finest-tone quality, are nothing to him. They cannot be purchased cheaply, or sold at an extravagant price. The new violin has but one asset—Tone. Its value depends upon the quality of its tone and nothing else, while the old, even the very cheap old, is lifted above tone because it is a curio as well as a fiddle, although it may be downright flattery to say its tone is third rate.

This dealer has but one serious trouble, namely, to keep his patrons satisfied with the species of “tone” which, when the glamour of owning a “fine old violin” has worn off, begins to whine for attention. His ability to meet this issue really justifies his claim to the title of “expert.” He is full of advice regarding adjustment, alteration of bridge, post, bar, etc., or an exchange for another fiddle if these prove unavailing. Whatever he may advise it will not be to try a new violin. He does not realise the gulf that is fixed between himself and the purchaser of the instrument. His interest is centred in the sale of a fiddle, while those who patronise him are interested in the purchase of tone. This type of fiddle merchant sometimes admit, with cynical candour, that “people do not buy violins for their tone (sic) nowadays.” If so, the fault lies with the dealer rather than with the “people.”

But if violins are not bought for their tone, what are they purchased for? If the dealer and his patron were in agreement that a violin has no other mission than to pose, like a Chippendale chair, as a curiosity, the tone of the instrument may well be relegated to a secondary position. It can, like the chair, be used; from its time-stained interior a sound may be produced which, if it does nothing else, at least proclaims the thing to be a fiddle. And that is all it is bought for!

It is doubtless quite true that the majority of violins are not “bought for their tone nowadays;” but the only one perfectly aware of the fact is the dealer himself, and he is, perhaps, justified in making the statement, for he knows what the instrument is bought for if the purchaser does not. It might have been more accurate to state that violins are not sold for their tone, but for their age or appearance. It is only the dealer who buys an old fiddle simply because it is old.

This kind of dealer prospers because few people realise that fine tone is not to be acquired cheaply in an old violin; that age and tone are not synonymous terms. They are misled through the spell cast over all old fiddles by the masterpieces of Cremona. Tone of superfine quality seldom comes their way. It is rare their acquaintance with it is close enough, or frequent enough, for them to appreciate more than its superficial beauties. Age, or its simulation, is visible to the eye, and tone of some rare sort is therefore considered an assured thing. Their ideas are stronger than their ideals and their imagination superior to both, with the result that the progress of many talented students, and not a few good players, is seriously retarded through the use of some “genuine old” but poor-toned violin.

Opposed to this type of dealer are the genuine dealers and experts, men of a vastly different class. It need hardly be said that, while the first are many the last are few. Still, they may be found in most great cities of the world, the two most famous houses being located in London. Here one may find all kinds of old violins and new ones as well, the last being, in most cases, produced in their own workshops. Through these houses have passed the most famous violins known, and there one may be sure of finding old instruments of fine tone and undoubted pedigree and repute. It is from this kind of dealer that most of the world’s greatest players have purchased their instruments, and it is here they send them for adjustment or repair. As it is extremely hazardous for the ordinary buyer to rely upon his own judgment when purchasing an old violin, he cannot do better than place his wants in the hands of one of these specialists. In most cities and towns are also to be found reputable dealers and repairers. Their stock of old instruments is, however, necessarily limited.

CHAPTER X

IMITATION OLD MASTERS

When certain of the more famous old violin makers were still living, when they had achieved through the splendour of their tone and the perfection of their model a wide-spread fame, there came into being a class of fiddle builders who devoted their energies towards copying, as closely as possible, the work of the great luthiers of their time. It is only fair to state that the majority of them were honest, and without desire or intention to create what might be considered a forgery. But some unknown hand has accomplished the feat for them by removing the label of the real maker and substituting the ticket of one more famous. Thus we have many genuine old violins sailing under colours to which they have no legitimate right, and deceiving—not only the unwary, but sometimes those who are very wary indeed.

Jacob Stainer inspired more copyists, perhaps, than any other builder, although Nicholas Amati seems to have been a very good second, while none of the great makers escaped altogether. As these copies were manufactured when the originals were new they were not artificially aged. Time, therefore, has dealt with them just as it has dealt with the violins of any other maker of old times. Their ancient appearance is perfectly genuine, and therefore the detection of fraud rendered more difficult in the close copies—especially as some contain labels which were removed from authentic old master violins. As to the tone of these instruments it is sufficient to say that a select few were produced by makers who were really good regulators and developers of tone. If their violins had been untampered with and allowed to sail under true colours instead of false, their repute would have been of no mean order. Others, however, possess a tone of the meanest description, being merely unregulated copies.

Another class of imitator consisted of those makers of considerable reputation, as builders of fine-toned violins, who indulged in the habit of ageing their instruments by artificial means, led thereto by a keen appreciation of the fact that a fiddle which has the appearance of age will sell more readily than one that is frankly new. Connoisseurs have always condemned this practice, not only because it detracts from the intrinsic value of the instrument, or because the processes employed are destructive to tone, but because there is added to the violin that which is false, and therefore hateful to all lovers of the fiddle, save, indeed, those for whom these imitations were intended—the age-worshippers. The makers did not intend these instruments to pose as old masters. They were produced as honest “fakes,” if such a thing can be imagined. Most contain the label of the builder, and were artificially aged merely to hasten their sale. As works of tonal art they cannot be recommended.

The next class of imitation is composed of those new-old, machine-made abominations turned out literally by thousands by the German fiddle factories. Why these should be made to imitate the old is a mystery, for they deceive nobody—unless it be those absolutely ignorant of fiddle matters. They are bought by dealers and sold for just what they are; with “case, bow, instruction book and resin,” all for a sovereign! These need not detain us, nor need we mention their “tone.”

The last imitations to claim our notice are those intended deliberately to deceive, and they find victims among that class of fiddle player who appears ever willing to “take chances.” Some of these forgeries are clever enough, and well calculated to catch the eye of the novice. No wonder the pawnshops are festooned with them! From every point of view they are worthless. Without any pride of ancestry, from posterity they can hope for nothing. Their forte, if not their purpose, is to retard the progress of those who struggle hopefully with a splendid but difficult art; to lay the foundations of failure for many talented players, and bring the most earnest effort towards tone to an untimely or unsatisfactory end. It is said that a poor workman blames his tools, but many excellent players blame themselves when it is the fiddle that is at fault. These fiddles make them incapable of appreciating fine tone, and throughout their lives they allow a worthless instrument to impose its strident voice upon them. Let us close this review of the imitations with the following quotation from a letter I received not long ago, written by the head of a world-famous firm of dealers in old violins: “It is easier to sell an imitation old violin than a new one of better tone.” The italics are mine, but the lesson is unmistakable, and should be seriously considered by every seeker of tone.

CHAPTER XI

LITERATURE OF THE VIOLIN

While the literature of the violin deals with every phase connected with the subject—its history, manufacture, repair, music, old masters, great players, celebrated instruments and many instructions on how to play the fiddle, the most celebrated and authoritative works are those which contain a historical reference to all the ancient makers, so far as known, and their work. Their chief value lies in the fact that they catalogue the names of over six hundred old violin makers and give much information regarding their fiddles. So far as the known old makers are concerned they are not only reliable, but invaluable guides to all dealers in and lovers of the old instruments. As guides to tone, however, they are hopelessly out of date. The best of these books were originally published about thirty years ago, and while their value as a list of old makers is in no way depreciated, the passing of time has, in some other respects, rendered little honour. From them one gains the impression that the fiddle, and especially its tone, belongs to an age that is past; that its best days are gone, never to return. While tone is rarely mentioned, we are led towards the supposition that the art of its creation is as dead as the dodo; that it stopped short (like grandfather’s clock) a very long time ago. The idea is conveyed that, since that time, no maker has succeeded in producing a really worthy fiddle. In fact, all other makers are definitely stated to be imitators, which shows their authors were entirely ignorant regarding tone creation, however versed they were in the lore of fiddle manufacture. Yet there is no intentional slight cast upon the modern, nor is he singled out for obloquy. He is considered merely as a living nonentity. The idea seems to prevail that, to become famous, the fiddle maker must die, and the longer he is dead the more worthy he becomes of inclusion among the immortals. His sin is not that he cannot make a good violin, or even that he cannot create a tone equal to the antiques, but that he cannot, by any means whatever, make an old violin. Some of these “imitators” have, however, revenged themselves by almost accomplishing the feat;[J] at least they have succeeded so well as completely to deceive some of the age worshippers. They have baked or stained their fiddles to the colour of ancient wood, grafted the head, counterfeited wear; created and repaired cracks, and even reproduced the label in facsimile—and sold the result at a fine “old” figure! Without any doubt these fiddles are treasured by more than one player to-day through absorbing from these books one conclusion over-mastering every other—the age value of a violin.

These histories voice sentiments which have been dear to the collectors ever since the fiddle “took its place among curiosities.” And these sentiments are honestly held and expressed in good faith. The authors were men of renown in the fiddle world. There is no mistaking their enthusiasm for the old instrument and everything connected with it. They were connoisseurs, experts, dealers, and great judges of tone; also, in some instances, fine players of the instrument, and they covered the field of the old fiddle so completely that most books of a like kind which have appeared during the past twenty-five years are founded upon their efforts. In absorbing the facts, however, these later works have also absorbed the fancies of their mentors, and thus we have the old fallacies multiplied and spread further afield until the influence of the old instruments has come to be truly amazing. Consider the fabulous sums now cheerfully paid for them; the advertisement they receive from painters, poets, and novelists; their possession by the greatest players; the interest attached to certain rare examples, and note the effect of all this upon the more humble followers of the fiddle cult, who have come at last to see every old instrument—even the imitation—glowing with a brilliance reflected by the beacon-lights of Cremona! These books hold an important place in violin literature, but not as guides to tone.

Books on violin making are of two kinds: those that instruct and those that amuse. Fortunately the last are few, but still plentiful enough to cause trouble—not because the writers were unskilled in their art, but because the reader is told very much less than enough of some matters and too much of others. The excellent work of Mr. Ed. Heron Allen,[K] however, does not suffer in either of these respects.

Instructions and books on how to play the violin are almost numberless, and the technic of the art is covered at every point. With hardly an exception they are of real service, although woefully neglecting the matter of tone—save from the necessities of technic. I have endeavoured to repair this omission in Chapter XVIII.

There are a few monthly journals, or magazines, devoted to the interests of those who play the violin and kindred instruments. Their subscription price is exceedingly moderate, and they deal with subjects most of which the earnest student can hardly afford to miss. Amongst all the literature of the fiddle these journals are of most value and interest to the player. Their columns are, naturally, open to correspondents and some valuable letters appear, while others are interesting if only to indicate the peculiar working of the speculative mind when applied to the violin and matters connected therewith. The work of modern builders is occasionally reviewed, this being faithfully and fairly done, although not, perhaps, entirely dissociated from considerations binding the reviewers to other and older interests.

It is surprising that, in this progressive age, with many thousands of violin makers scattered throughout the world, there has not appeared a periodical which, while catering to the needs of the modern player, would also weigh the work of the modern builder in a balance more evenly held between himself and his ancient competitor. It is a simple fact that the present-day builder receives but scant encouragement from practically all fiddle literature, while any nondescript is lavishly (and freely) advertised if he should happen to be ancient—which, more often than not, is the extent of his virtues. The modern is becoming impatient of the perpetual insinuation that he is inferior, as a creator of tone, to the worst old fiddle-maker that ever died, and as he forms no inconsiderable section of the fiddle community, with an influence and patronage not to be despised, his interest would naturally trend in the direction where he found that justice which is his due.

One other type of fiddle literature is of interest to the lover of violins. The “Lives” dealing with famous makers singly. In practically all cases these deal with the creators of a standard of tone. These should find a place in every fiddle fancier’s library, not because everything they contain may be taken as absolute truth, but for the light cast upon the maker’s work and times.

CHAPTER XII

WANTED—A TONE GUARANTEE

It is the business of the dealer in old violins to seek out, purchase, restore, advertise, and sell old violins; to guarantee the instrument to be made by, or attributed to, a certain maker (as the case may be), and to be made in or about, a certain year—this last to settle the fact that it is old. It is also his business to have this instrument equipped with the necessary tackle to make it playable, otherwise it would not be saleable. If he does not know who made the fiddle it is simply guaranteed as “genuine old.” No dealer of repute will sell an imitation-old fiddle for other than what it really is.

Tone, however, is not a part of the old violin the dealer will guarantee to be other than what it happens to be.[L] If the instrument is by a well-known maker he may, indeed, say the tone is characteristic of that maker, or better (or worse) than the violins of another maker, but he will not guarantee a certain refinement or quality of tone to follow upon a certain amount of age in an old violin; or the tone of an old instrument made, say, in the year 1721, to be equal to that of any violin made in that year, or any other year.

It has always seemed to me remarkable that dealers in old violins, especially instruments ranging in price from fifty to two hundred pounds, do not give some sort of tone guarantee; especially when the purchaser intends to use the violin for the production of musical sounds. Why should the player be asked to accept a document which does not guarantee the thing for which he is making the purchase, but something entirely different? As a curio the fiddle may be genuine enough, and as most of its value lies in the fact that it is a curio, it is only right that this part should be fully guaranteed. Tone, however, is the thing of most value to the player, and he should have for that equal protection against mistakes of judgment.

I have always, in common with all lovers of the fiddle, paid my ungrudging tribute to the masterpieces of past times, but if all old violins are really better in tone than some of the new ones, as some would have us believe, those who hold this opinion should not only be willing, but anxious, to back their view. If they have so much confidence in the tonal superiority of the old instrument, a tone guarantee could be issued that would challenge comparison with any new instrument. This would be more convincing than the present habit of simply saying that the tone is “grand,” or even that it is “magnificent,” as such expressions have no tangible value, and are allowed to a dealer just as poetic license is allowed to a poet.

The dealer could remedy this state of affairs, should he choose to do so. He could, for instance, issue a guarantee with old violins, other than those by the known great creators of tone, stating that the tone of the instrument is warranted superior, or even equal, to any new violin at the same, or a lower, purchase price. By some such means could the question as to whether the instrument is bought for its age or its tone be more clearly defined. If this cannot be done then let the dealer clearly intimate that the old violin is sold mainly as a curiosity and as such is fully guaranteed as to value. The present system by which some dealers (not all, be it understood) make their sales should be discouraged. Mere statements regarding tone, if not backed by a guarantee, are too elastic when issued as a verbal opinion. Even dealers are not infallible, being as prone to mistakes as the rest of us.

An independent expert in tone is sadly needed. Some of the most reputable of experts are not dealers at all; they do not buy or sell old fiddles, but, for a reasonable fee, will pass judgment upon the maker, age, and curio value of the instrument. Among them are many who are skilful performers on the violin, and, although tone is not the point of view from which they approach a valuation of the old violin, they are thoroughly competent judges of tone as well as of fiddles. They have a wide experience of fine old violins by the greatest makers, and an opinion from them as to tone could be relied upon with confidence. Troubled owners are constantly sending their old instruments to these experts for curio valuation and judgment and receive what they ask for. Why cannot one of these experts let it be known he will also impartially judge tone; that he will, from that standpoint, value any and all fiddles, new as well as old? I believe I express the wish of most tone-lovers when I ask for such an expert. The difficulties in the way are, of course, considerable, and (as usual!) would come from those receiving the most benefit. But I think my readers will agree that something should be done. For the sake of clearness, let me review the present situation.

At a rough estimate there are some fifty thousand genuine old violins in existence,[M] including a large number of clever forgeries of the old masters, most of which are also ancient. Of factory fiddles there is no end, and handmade new violins are numerous enough. All these instruments are accurately classified; the old and the old forgeries (or close copies) according to their makers, or, if the makers are unknown, according to their “school,” country, or age to which they belong. The imitation-old (save in the few cases where famous makers “aged” their violins), and the factory-made instruments are brushed aside by the experts as unworthy of notice. The hand-made new violin occupies a position so extraordinary that we may be pardoned a short digression in order to indicate more clearly the attitude assumed by experts towards the modern violin builder.

It is freely admitted by all makers and connoisseurs of the instrument that certain of the ancient makers developed the body of the violin to a standard of excellence beyond which no improvement is possible, as a base upon which may be built, regulated, and developed a grand tone. Now observe. If the modern maker employs any of these models he is an “imitator.” This term carries with it an air of reproach, indicating that the modern fiddle-maker is content to pose as a mere copyist and let tone take care of itself; a supposition very far from fact. On the other hand, should he try to avoid this reproach; should he endeavour to placate the captious, and, perhaps against his better judgment, devise a model upon original lines, he is again condemned, this time not without reason. In either case it is not tone which counts with the expert, but fiddle.

So far as tone is concerned, the player is left to his own devices. He has plenty of guides to the instrument, but none to tone. He may seek the advice of some fiddling friend who, being also without any guide or standard, expresses merely his own opinion. Should he fall back upon his own resources he cannot but hesitate. The new violin he views with suspicion. It is an “imitation,” so the experts have said, and who would have an imitation when the “genuine” is available! Should the tone of this “imitation” happen to be of exquisite quality, he is unconvinced. He is apt to think there is a mistake somewhere, or that his judgment is at fault. He will come at last to the “genuine” (or to the imitation) old instrument, in both of which he finds something tangible, something he can see. Here is something the experts have bothered themselves about; something with an ancient name and much history; something the mere possession of which is an inspiration! When all this is wedded to a grand tone he has, indeed, found a prize. But the tone is not always there. Often it is but a pale reflection of a former glory. In any case he has no guide to it, and usually accepts its visible and historical features and takes his chance on the tone.

With no existing Standard of Tone recognised by experts or dealers there is no violin, old or new, which the player can accept without question. Each, therefore, sets up a standard of his own, together with endless ways and means of “trying” a fiddle, in the process of which it is usually forgotten that a strange violin, even though it be a master instrument, will present (ofttimes in its most desirable tone-elements) an uncomfortable feeling when first tried, merely because these elements are foreign to the player’s idea of tone and “touch.” Dealers and experts are continually, and rightly, warning purchasers against any reliance upon their own judgment regarding the genuineness of a violin, but no one warns them against possible mistakes in tone. If they are not a judge of the one, why should they be considered a judge of the other? Nine players out of ten are not a judge of either, and are guided by the name, fame, or appearance of the instrument rather than by any confidence in their ability to judge tone for themselves.

Any really good player with a wide experience of all sorts of fiddles is a good judge of tone. The great soloists and those experts who are also players are excellent judges.[N] The thoroughly competent judge is one who regularly plays upon many violins, possessing tone of all sorts, and is specially informed and experienced with the tone of the masters. He is then equipped with what may be termed an “Average Standard” and not bound to any one type.

The worst possible judge of tone is the player whose experience extends to one violin only. Whatever the tone of this instrument may be, it certainly does not embrace all the virtues and faults of tone. Such as it has, however, it transmits to its owner, with the result that the violin to be tested is not judged on its merits, but according to its agreement with a preconceived notion. Again, violins are rarely alike in the arrangement of their equipment. The curvature of the bridge differs. The strings are spaced differently. The “stop” is not the same. It may also possess important tonal elements which, if not understood, may be ignored, or even condemned. It is partly for these reasons that players so seldom admit a strange violin is equal to their own. They are accustomed to their own violin and its tone. Its use has become second nature and, without meaning to be so, they are prejudiced in its favour. In the next chapter I indicate a method of testing tone.

CHAPTER XIII

HOW TO TEST A VIOLIN’S TONE

The method of testing tone which I have used for many years, with uniform success, is this: I procure a fine-toned old master violin, a really first-class solo instrument and one possessing those qualities of voice and carrying power most desired by artists. I then secure the services of a competent critic. The old master and the violin to be tested are then played under two environments: in a large hall, and in a room, carpeted, furnished, and curtained. The piece to be played is selected with a view to placing upon both instruments (which are tuned to exactly the same pitch) a severe tonal and operative test, and this piece is played successively upon both violins. The critic is never allowed to know which fiddle is being played, but must judge by the tone, and decide which possesses (1) the best carrying power, (2) the greatest depth and richness on the lower strings, (3) the most incisive and telling qualities of clearness and brilliancy in the upper register, and (4) which of the two violins conveys the best general impression of tonal refinement.

Where the slightest doubt exists regarding the flexibility of tone, that is to say, the ease with which it can be produced under the bow, I submit the violin to some great player. This last is a very important test, for it determines the playing possibilities of the instrument. If the violin passes with honour through these trials it is a very fine-toned and satisfactory fiddle indeed. Should it fail to equal the old master on any tonal point, or not prove perfectly satisfactory to the artist as a responsive instrument, the points wherein it is at fault are clearly indicated.

Those who wish to settle the question of a violin’s tone, therefore, should carry out the test upon these lines, or follow them as closely as circumstances permit. Thereafter the instrument may be treasured or condemned with equal confidence, for it has been weighed in an impartial and accurate balance. The violin submitted to test must, of course, be in proper adjustment and equipped with suitable strings. If there is doubt about this, place it in the hands of a qualified expert in such matters.

Since age is so universally invoked; since it is this element which gives to the old violin its greatest value and (so it is said) to tone its quality and mellowness, let us endeavour to determine just what relationship exists between age, the violin, and tone.

CHAPTER XIV

EFFECT OF AGE ON TONE

It has always seemed to me that theories dealing with the effect of age upon the tone of the violin are lacking in conviction, and that most of them are held as mere beliefs, founded upon a larger experience of the old violins than of the new. Many celebrated players have expressed the opinion to me that age alone gives to a violin its mellowness, or richness, of tone; some, indeed, adding that the instrument must also be much played upon. As to this last, it would appear disproved when we consider the few magnificent examples of the old masters’ work which have come down to our times almost untouched, and with the tone of which we have heard no complaint. Manifestly, then, the theory refers to the age of the violin, that is to say, the age of the wood of which it is constructed. To accept this theory would be to say the old violin had no mellowness, or richness, of tone when new, a statement impossible of proof, as no living man has seen or heard it when fresh from the maker’s hands. Documents exist which go to prove that the violins were quite satisfactory from a general tone point, and were much sought after solely on that account, even when their makers were living. But if we take refuge in the hypothesis and say that age of wood is responsible for mellowness of tone, how do we account for the failure, in this respect, of violins constructed from materials one to two hundred years old, and in some cases even older? Everybody knows these fiddles are not one whit better in mellow, or any other kind of tone, than those made from new, but thoroughly seasoned, wood.

It is because of these contradictions between theory and fact that we cannot accept the idea that age is solely responsible for mellowness of tone—even were we not possessed of concrete evidence to the contrary. There is no denying the lack of mellow tone in many new violins. One would hardly expect it in machine-made and spirit-varnished factory fiddles with plates arched by compression between hot iron moulds, and I shall presently indicate the reason why it is so seldom found in handmade instruments of a higher grade; but to say the bulk of new fiddles have little or no mellowness of tone is, after all, only what may be said regarding the bulk of old violins, and brings us no nearer a solution of the problem.

Mellowness, softness, richness, or whatever it may be termed, appears to me as merely one of those elements which, like purity, adds one to the total of desirable features which we look for and expect in a violin of Quality. It may appear reasonable to assume that time might improve one or all of these features, provided they originally existed, or act with more potency on the quality of mellowness; but it is against experience, as well as reason, to say that time is an unfailing creator of them, else mellowness would not be absent in the tone of hundreds—not to say thousands—of hand-made violins constructed prior to 1800. Furthermore, should we accept this theory we must be prepared to believe that the greatest makers of the olden time were not the masters of tone we have always supposed them to be. Again, how does it come about that time has selected the violins of certain old makers, and not always the best workmen either, while the violins of others just as old, or even older, remain untouched by this miraculous, mellow-producing elixir? If it be said that certain conditions in the structure of the instrument are unfavourable to the action of age, is it too much to ask that these be pointed out to us?

This question of age and tone is but one of the many and much-debated aspects of the violin which resolves itself when considered from the standpoint of tone-creation advanced in these pages. In whatever age a violin maker (if he be also a capable tone-builder) may work, he will construct his tonal edifice according to his ideals. He may hold every desirable element as an ideal save mellowness, while another may develop much of that quality and little else. To hold the balance evenly between all the desirable elements of tone is, therefore, no easy task, and we may well marvel at the genius of the great ones who accomplished the feat, and even admire those who succeeded only partially. We can also understand why the copyists, those who work without tone ideals, fail so often in the production of a mellow quality, and, on the occasions when they do produce it, remain in ignorance as to how it was done.

I do not think many will object if I state that it takes a certain length of time for a newly made violin to settle down to its work; that the fullest measure of its tonal beauties become available to the player only after the instrument becomes accustomed to the tension of its strings, and when the varnish is settled and seasoned. All this is purely mechanical. There is no creative force at work. It is simply an adjustment of the various parts to the work for which they are intended, and, after much experience, I find the time required for these beneficent changes to be from three weeks to three months, depending on the season. I have even known instances where they became operative within the space of a few days. After this the violin may be expected to improve slowly, or not to improve at all, for about a year, depending upon the instrument, and the amount of time required to put the final seasoning touch to the varnish, and accomplish the last adjustment of its various parts under the strain of concert pitch and use.

The effect of age on tone is, therefore, practically nil. It does not and never has created it. The instrument may, indeed, be consumed by the rotting of its wood, or fall to dust through the corroding influence of time, or be totally splintered by an accident, or even injured by fire when, without any doubt, its tone will disappear. I have indicated wherein and why time may be of some aid to tone, but the idea that it takes a lengthy period to “bring out the tone” in a finely constructed and properly tone-developed violin, in whatever age its maker lived, I characterise as sheer nonsense.

Let me make this appeal to all lovers or owners of a violin, old or new, or to all who contemplate the purchase of either: Do not allow the inexperienced, self-constituted expert, who usually appears in the guise of a “candid friend,” or one who possesses that type of knowledge which is little and dangerous, to lead you astray on this matter of age and tone. If your violin is a year old you may consider its tone has acquired from age all it is ever likely to receive. If the instrument be heavily built it may be extended to eighteen months. In any case, such improvement as the tone will receive after this will be so small as to be scarcely worth considering. Remember that tone is not created by age, nor has age any power (other than that which I have indicated) to destroy it. In a word, if your fiddle be well built, its tone (whether good or bad) may improve slightly, and it will not deteriorate if the instrument receives ordinary care.

CHAPTER XV

VARNISH AND TONE

Among the attributes which constitute the finished violin, varnish holds the premier position as a controversial subject. For more than a century it has provided an unfailing source of argument, speculation, experiment, and theory, waged around two issues, the material itself, and its effect on tone. The first is concerned with efforts to discover the formula[O] of the “old Cremona” varnish, and the second with the effect of all varnish on tone. Notwithstanding the claims which appear (and disappear) with unfailing regularity that this “secret” of the old Italian varnish has, at last, been found, the world remains unconvinced, and the subject therefore remains very much where it was. And where, for my part, I am quite content to leave it.

The effect of varnish on tone would appear to be equally uncertain if we are to judge by the statements we see in print from time to time. We are confronted with such widely divergent statements as, on the one hand, the effect of varnish on tone is absolutely nil; and, on the other, that varnish actually creates the tone. There is an indication here that investigators have not yet succeeded in convincing each other, and, until some closer agreement is come to, they can hardly blame the public for its attitude of profound and uncompromising scepticism towards individual statements and theories. I believe most violin makers have solved this problem to their satisfaction and in their own way. Those with much experience of fiddles “in the white,” as well as instruments coated with various kinds of varnish, are well enough aware of the effect of varnish on tone. Experiment in this matter is particularly ineffective, especially when it seeks to determine a result which may be considered uniform, for the reason that, while the cause is well enough understood, the effect is not. The cause is varnish and the effect is its influence on tone, and the elements of tone are never exactly the same in any two violins, and are rarely affected by varnish in the same manner. The effect of varnish on tone cannot, therefore, be considered in the light of exact science.

It is for this reason that failure so often follows the second application of a successful experiment; or a series of failures may be punctuated with a few successes varying from partial to full. If the varnish and method of application be the same, it is fairly obvious the failures, as well as the successes, can only be due to the different tonal conditions presented by the instruments. Yet it would seem this is not appreciated, and investigators are led astray through efforts to produce a varnish capable of meeting all these changes—an impossible task. Tone is the determining factor and not varnish. A good, modern oil varnish will leave unaffected all the varying conditions which tone presents, provided the latter be carefully regulated so as to offer, as far as it is humanly possible, a uniform tonal combination in each violin.

If the tone of a violin be developed to a rich, telling, and vigorous quality, with the element of vigour slightly in excess of what is required (particularly in the lower register), experience indicates that such a tone would be best preserved and most (if at all) improved by the application of a fine oil varnish. The best varnish will, however, affect one or another of the elements of tone to its detriment if wrongly applied. It is the fashion among many violin makers to aim at the production of a fine mirror-like surface. While this undoubtedly adds to the appearance, the “rubbing down” and polishing necessary to its achievement is bound to affect the texture of the varnish and, under certain tonal conditions, the voice of the violin. In our opinion it is better to sacrifice this superfine surface and allow the varnish to remain as applied, with all its natural softness undisturbed. It is unlikely the old masters acted otherwise; the fine, flat surface which their varnish now presents, being due to use.

CHAPTER XVI

TONE AND THE VIOLIN PLAYER

Let us first briefly consider the relationship between the player and the violin. Here we find a condition unlike that existing, to the same degree, in any other combination of player and instrument. While it would be far from fact to say the piano, for instance, produces its tone-quality quite independently of the player, it does, none the less, produce its tone mechanically. That is to say, one may believe that a person inexpert in playing upon the instrument and unable to execute even the simplest of airs, capable of striking one key and producing a tone of more or less quality and refinement—depending upon the instrument. This is far from the case with the violin. In the hands of the inexpert even the finest-toned violin will produce only a vile, scraping noise; if it produces anything at all. Everybody is aware that the beginner draws forth a miserable and irritating noise; the amateur will achieve anything from very bad to very good, and the artist a tone of ethereal beauty—all from the same instrument! Let us look into the reasons for this. The first fact to be noted is that the violin does not produce its tone mechanically; the second, that a really fine instrument, although it possesses all the possibilities, gives forth only that tone which the player is capable of demanding from it.

In considering this subject it is extremely difficult to cite anything in the nature of a clear illustration, but we may be allowed to liken the tone of a good violin to the inanimate clay from which the sculptor models a figure. One may suppose the perfection of this figure to depend on the sculptor’s idea of perfection in form. If his clay be of good, even colour, and of fine, plastic quality; if his ideals be high and his ability as an executant well seasoned by experience, one can hardly expect anything save a satisfactory result. This result, it is true, may be bizarre, unusual, grotesque; may carry the marks of genius gone awry, but it will not be amateurish, or lacking in any of the elements of a profound and settled purpose. The player of the violin is confronted with a somewhat similar proposition. The tone of his instrument may be likened to the sculptor’s clay, yielding to nothing save ideals and the ability to express them. In both technical skill is necessary, but it is a mistake to suppose this does more than remove obstacles in the way to a free expression of ideals. One more illustration. It does not require a deal of technical ability to play a simple aria on the violin. Many amateurs are capable of giving a marvellously good rendition without doing anything which the hearer considers at all remarkable; but a great violinist will play the same thing, without embellishment, and in quite the same simple manner, and then the aria becomes remarkable!

Here is seen that gulf which always exists between player and fiddle; that obstacle which only the few appreciate, many ignore, while others are unaware of its existence. It is the gulf dividing the artist from the player. Every devotee of the fiddle comes to it sooner or later, and there most of them remain, unaware that their progress towards tone has come to a dead stop. A clear understanding of the nature of this obstacle and the manner in which it may be bridged will go further towards assisting the player to a grand tone than years of laborious practice. Indeed, neither practice nor experience will, of themselves, lead a single step in that direction.

To continue the illustration, let us say (for our purpose) both the amateur and the artist employed the same simple fingering as well as the same violin and bow in playing the aria, and that both played in the same hall before the same audience. To what, then, is this difference in tone to be attributed? Is it that one has more experience than the other? Is it due to some virtuosic but invisible touch of bowing or fingering? Or is it that one has a higher conception of tone-beauty? Let us see. Many violinists of long experience are utterly incapable of producing a really beautiful tone from any violin; years of playing has given them a technical equipment, but the results aimed at are not achieved. Furthermore, they can play practically anything, to say nothing of a simple aria, and yet they remain only a degree superior to a fair amateur, so far as tone is concerned.

Nothing, then, is left to account for this difference save that it is due to ideals. If one player possesses higher ideals than another it seems reasonable to say all his experience and technic will (perhaps unconsciously) be directed towards the expression of them. Thus will tone-beauty be constantly demanded from the instrument, while those without ideals simply play the fiddle, asking for nothing more in the way of tone than that the violin be in tune. We cannot do better in closing this chapter than quote the following from Messrs. Hill’s “Antonio Stradivari,” p. 162:—

“That the sense of beauty or distinction of tone is to-day cultivated to the same extent as formerly is, we venture to think, more than doubtful. The custom in modern orchestral scoring of sacrificing the individuality of the instrument in order to obtain effects of greater sonority, or of technical dexterity, and the abuse of the full-sized concert grand pianoforte in chamber music, seems to be largely destructive of the feeling for beauty of tone.”

CHAPTER XVII

THE IDEAL TONE

The ideal tone is that which satisfies the player and also “holds the audience spell-bound.” It is said of a very famous violinist that he one day entered the shop of a celebrated London dealer and heard, in the room above, the tones of a violin with which he was instantly fascinated. This instrument he determined to possess, and succeeded, after much trouble, in finally becoming its owner at the handsome price of two thousand pounds. This violinist made his choice of tone through being, for the moment, a spell-bound audience of one, and not through playing upon the instrument himself. It is impossible adequately to judge tone by playing upon the fiddle; the player is too close; he cannot tell whether the tone is “carrying” or not; its beauties, or frailties, are, like a picture, only appreciated at a distance, and the violinist can no more get away from his tone than a singer can get away from his voice. But he has this advantage over the vocalist: he can become, so to speak, an audience and hear the tone-quality inherent to a given instrument produced by another; but not, bear in mind, as he will produce it. None the less he may, by this means, select his voice with a measurable degree of certainty, if he has some idea of what constitutes an ideal of violin tone. There are few matters connected with the violin approached more lightly and with less understanding than this question of ideals of tone, whether in the violin or the player. As we have seen in previous chapters, some violin makers ignore it entirely, being content simply to make the fiddle, just as some players ignore it, and are content merely to play the fiddle. These are continually seeking the instrument which, through the perfection of its tone, will turn them into virtuosi—a thing it never will do.

Although the great artist never hears himself as others hear him—even on the gramophone!—much experience enables him to know something of the tone effect he is producing. We studied this matter with a favourite pupil of the late Dr. Joachim for a subject, whose opinions on tone are interesting. “The most an artist can do,” he says, “is to study the tone of his violin with painstaking care, and, by constant practice, fit such tone ideals as he may possess to those of the instrument. This must be done with such thoroughness that the two ideals become one, otherwise he will be continually at conflict with his violin, and unable to devote an undivided attention to the expression of tone and technic in a manner which experience will teach him is most impressive to the hearer. This ‘manner’ of expression becomes in time, and in its turn, second nature, and only when this final point is reached is the artist entirely unconscious of possessing either a violin or method, and the expression of tone becomes untrammelled as the expression of thought—to which, indeed, it may be likened. This is the only ‘secret of tone,’ and, until it is accomplished, no player can truthfully say he understands, or is able to express, the true tone of the violin—or even such ideals as he may possess.”

I will now devote a short chapter to the method by which a tone ideal may be cultivated and acquired. It would certainly be too much to say this method (or any other) is an unfailing producer of virtuosity. It is but one of many guides, and, as such, I believe it cannot fail to interest every keen student of Tone.

CHAPTER XVIII

HOW TO ACQUIRE AN IDEAL TONE

To give expression to an ideal tone one must possess a tone ideal. If not a natural gift, it may, under favourable circumstances, be acquired. It is not given to all to appreciate art in its higher forms, and the purely technical side of violin playing may be cultivated to such an extent as to appeal, finally, only to the few; whilst tone, no matter to what extent it is cultivated, appeals invariably to the many. It is that quality in violin playing which holds the attention of the major portion of the audience, and, whilst a sound technical training is a necessary part of every player’s equipment, it is the fault of some amateurs that they rely too much upon it. So frequently is the “show piece” offered, full of fiery technical gymnastics, that violin playing has been looked upon (by more people than is generally supposed) as a sort of exercise in string-plucking and bow-jumping. It is said of Dr. Johnson that he once complained of this very thing, and was told that the piece was extremely difficult, to which he replied that he wished it was impossible!

The cultivation and building up of a tone ideal is divided into two parts. First, the development of tone-sense; the ability to appreciate what is meant by purity, delicacy, grace, tenderness, appeal, depth, and power in tone—not only from the violin, but from every source. As the student cannot see his model it must, perforce, be carried as a memory and the mind trained to recall, and remember with as much accuracy as possible, the exact impression and “aspect” of such tone as may be the subject of study; for it is necessary to study, not merely to hear, all tone.

The best subjects for tone-study are these: A really fine organ—not one of the “brassy” instruments now so frequently erected. The human voice, particularly the singers of operatic music, and most particularly the soprano singers in grand opera, this being preferable to hearing the same singers on the concert platform, where, it has always appeared to me, the singing loses much of its purpose, and consequently something in richness and colour. On the other hand, the concert should be visited when violinists of renown appear on the programme, for then will be heard tone to its greatest advantage. The novice should, as far as possible, avoid hearing the violin except when played by the famous artists. Later he will become immune, and the sounds produced by the most tone-deaf of fiddle players will leave his ideals unsullied—may, indeed, become useful lessons in what to avoid. Confine attention to tone, and not the method of its production. Do not allow the mind to be diverted from its object. Much advantage may accrue by not looking at the player at all. Everything in the nature of tone should be carefully studied; not only the tone of instruments, but the sounds heard in field and forest.

Now, it must not be supposed the pupil should attempt to reproduce, parrot-like, anything he may have heard—least of all the tone of the great players. The purpose of tone-study is to create original ideals, and not to imitate the ideals of others. What he should try to produce from the violin is simply the best tone he is capable of demanding from it. This will be his ideal—when he begins to possess one. It need hardly be said that practice should be continued, for, without ability to play the fiddle, even the highest ideals could not be expressed; but, until these ideals of tone begin to take form, it is as well to confine the practice solely to technic, under a good teacher. Why? Let us endeavour to explain.

There is a difference between the kind of tone which the violin will yield to technic alone and the kind it will yield to technic and ideals combined. The first may be likened to an outline drawing, and the last to the same filled in with colour. However perfect the former, its appeal is small and its influence evanescent, and it is a mistake to give such tone any consideration apart from that technic to which it owes its existence, especially whilst engaged upon the spade work preparatory to the expression of something higher. As the student progresses this technical tone naturally improves. The “drawing,” so to speak, becomes more forceful and accurate. To the enthusiastic novice it appears, in time, almost virtuosic, or at least pointing the road to supreme artistry. Herein is found the reason for that absence of really great tone which characterises so many players who, otherwise, are excellent and accurate performers on the fiddle. Such tone as they possess is solely and purely technical in character, good enough, or even perfect, as a succession of correctly phrased sounds, but so far removed from the tonal requirements of solo playing as to make efforts in that direction almost a travesty.

For these reasons it is advisable that the beginner should, when practising the violin, confine his whole attention to technic. When not thus engaged, and when opportunity offers, let him hear and carefully study the tone-picture presented to him by music from one or another of the sources I have indicated. In due time he may begin to wed his ideals to his technical abilities, selecting a simple aria, and I venture the assertion that both he and those who hear him play will be highly gratified with the result.

CHAPTER XIX

TWO STYLES OF TONE PRODUCTION

The player of the violin is an artist in tone no less than his confrère of the brush is an artist in colour, and each has his methods of conveying the impressions which he desires to produce. He of the brush may paint an exquisite picture, fine of line and detail; delicate in colouring, as in a miniature, a picture capable of bearing the closest scrutiny. Again he may pile the pigment upon his canvas as with a trowel, and those who view such work at close quarters will marvel how so much seeming roughness, lack of detail and carelessness can mean anything. But when this picture is viewed at a little distance, order comes forth from chaos; there is unfolded a landscape of surpassing loveliness.

It is the same with the artist in tone. The violinist, for instance, may produce his tone-picture as the painter does the miniature, by the most painstaking attention to every detail of shading and expression, giving to each individual note his idea of colouring. The effect of such a tone-picture is, like the miniature, best appreciated at close quarters, and, like most delicate things, is easily marred, the dividing line between the tender and the “finniky” being very narrow. It takes an artist of rare talent and sound ideals to achieve the one and avoid the other. There are more failures than successes in this style, and it is perhaps for this reason that the majority of players affect what may be called the robust style—and seldom get further than the robust; producing a great deal of sound and very little music. It takes much experience, and judgment of a high order, to weave a coarse fabric of tone which, at a distance, develops the infinite possibilities of the graceful and beautiful in music. The player of the violin is always handicapped by inability to get away from his tone. He cannot, so to speak, hear himself. In the delicate style he may, indeed, have some excuse for thinking he is able to do so, but in the robust style he has none. He cannot, like the painter, step back a few paces and criticise his work. He must possess the ability to know how this bold and vigorous treatment of tone will sound at, say twenty paces, the while he produces it at arm’s length—indeed, at a distance measured by inches! A difficult thing it is to acquire, but worthy of every effort towards attainment, and every earnest student of the violin should make the attempt. It is the only means by which, like the plastic style in painting, effects of the noblest and most impressive character are attained.

CHAPTER XX

MODERN VIOLIN MAKERS

Never have makers of the leading instrument been more numerous. The mystery and romance of that wonderful tone, enclosed within the apparently simple, box-like affair called the violin, has proved an irresistible attraction, and the reward awaiting those who discover the connection and its utilisation as in past times, has fired the zeal of honest builders, and drawn to the art a host of amateurs, experimenters, and theorists. Never has the violin been more earnestly considered at every point; the material for its construction selected with greater care, or workmanship executed with more deliberate attention to tone. The modern builder may justly claim the title of artist and, but for the lingering miasma of exploded theories, have much reason to congratulate himself.

But his troubles do not always come from those outside the pale. Within his ranks is a small section, large by virtue of their insistent clamour, upon whose shoulders the mantle of Stradivari has fallen; those who have discovered the “secret” of his tone and varnish!—not, we may remark, for the first time in fiddle history. Fortunately the green-eyed monster is rampant among them; each is impatient of the claims of the other. Their amateurs are tarred with the same brush, while theorists indulge their bitterness and sarcasm in letters to the fiddle Press. Thus, like the famous cats, are they likely to destroy each other, and bring to naught their cupidity and ability to trade upon prevailing ignorance.

It is the fashion to consider that the mere maker of a violin cannot, with much authority, tell the player anything about tone. To some extent this is due to the ridiculous claims of the mountebanks; to the wearers of the Stradivarian mantle. I admit the opinion is fairly general, and I also admit the claims of the great experts and connoisseurs as unequalled judges of tone. For obvious reasons they would give a fairer criticism on the tone of Joseph Guarnerius, for example, than Joseph would have been able to render on the tone of his contemporaries. But is the connoisseur capable of creating the tone which he judges with such accuracy? He is not. It is a feat entirely beyond his powers, just as it is beyond his power to fashion the replica of a violin upon which is exercised his skilful criticism. The creation of tone is a work belonging to the maker of the violin, and his experience of the subject differs from that of the experts and judges. His work fixes upon him a set of obligations and responsibilities with which connoisseurs and players never come in contact. He has, so to speak, an inside knowledge, while that possessed by others is, in its very nature, superficial; that is to say, they judge, hear, and use the tone of a violin, but remain in ignorance as to the process of its creation. This, of course, refers to the new fiddles. With the old the question of tone does not arise.

Criticism is frequently expressed upon the published claims of the modern makers, especially upon the brazen announcements of those to whom the minds of the old masters are as an open book! It has sometimes appeared to me that, in this age of brilliant commercialism, art is too frequently relegated to the status of a pastime devoid of serious purpose; unworthy of exploiting for the benefit of anybody; that the artist is also looked upon as a sort of drone within the industrial hive, or his occupation the laborious but useless pursuit of a kind of ignis fatuus. Yet art survives commercially, if only as veneer upon the surface of crude utility, proving beyond doubt that dilettantism, at least, still lives! Thus do art and commercialism come closely in contact, and if the artist would exist he must make his appeal after the only manner which the age understands and—advertise! However it may have been in other times, in these days patrons are too busy to make a “beaten path” in the wilderness. If they do not demand, they at least expect the vendor of the beautiful to announce himself.

With some makers the desire for favourable opinions upon tone amounts almost to a passion, leading them to all manner of mistakes. There is little objection in making public the opinions which may be expressed upon the tone of a violin, particularly if made in the Press, or some authority other than the player, but it is well to remember that the value of such opinions is thoroughly nullified by exploiting on their strength violins less worthy. “Testimonials” have been given for violins which, in the bulk, were tonally worthless. An instance is recent history, the makers profiting largely by exploiting examples which they seldom, if ever, duplicated—with results no less disastrous to themselves than to their credulous patrons. “Testimonials,” therefore, are worthless. They refer to one violin only, and not to others by the same maker; a statement which cannot be too often repeated, or too well remembered.

How obviously, then, is indicated the pathway to lasting success; to the satisfaction of all patrons; to fame built upon a solid tonal foundation.

CHAPTER XXI

NOTES ON TONE

Carrying Power.—Here we have that phase of tone which is most elusive. A violin seemingly loud, full and even brilliant, to the player, may, at a little distance, be thin and wailing. Such a violin is lacking in carrying power, and when played with a small orchestra, is rarely heard in the lower register by any save the player. The voice of a true-toned violin is rarely loud to the player, and, in the hands of many, such an instrument never has a chance to display its ability to lead the accompanying instruments. Those unused to such an instrument are charmed, it may be, with the purity of tone, but disappointed with its supposed lack of volume which, in their misguided efforts to produce, is all but destroyed. It is seldom such players can be brought to realise that carrying power is due to purity and not to mere loudness; that a tone which strikes the player as loud and the hearer as weak possesses elements of a conflicting nature which, in their efforts to dominate each other, all but destroy the carrying ability; that tone, when “pure,” is divested of these elements, or most of them, and is naturally less in quantity, or loudness, but greater in penetrative ability; and, finally, that pure tone requires no forcing, or undue pressure, to create a carrying power entirely beyond the possibilities of most loud-toned fiddles. These facts are rarely appreciated save by artists, whether players or singers, and it is seldom that amateurs, or some who rank as professionals, understand purity of tone sufficiently well to recognise what degree of carrying power it will possess. In fact, a loud-toned violin, although lacking the finer elements, is more suited to such players than a purer-toned instrument. It is better that they possess a fiddle with the tone with which they can be satisfied than another which is belaboured with the bow in the vain effort to create what is considered an effective, or “big,” tone. In justice to the player it must be said he is not wholly to blame. Wrong ideals of tone and carrying power are easily formed through the use of an unsuitable instrument. And it must be remembered a player can never “hear himself as others hear him.”

Quantity versus Quality.—“Ruggeri,” writing in the Strad for February, 1913, says: “There seems so often a tendency among violinists of the present day to forget that it is not quantity, but the ‘quality’ of tone that holds the audience spell-bound.” This warning should be remembered by all devotees of the fiddle. While the possession of a beautiful toned violin does not, ipso facto, make a tone-poet of its owner, it is the essential part of his equipment. Tone of superfine quality can only be freely and easily produced from a pure and flexible toned violin, and the importance of such a violin to those who would express the highest ideals in a masterly manner cannot be over-estimated. However sound the player’s theory may be, however high his ideals, he is, in practice, bound to limits of expression which are set by the instrument. Long association and use of a particular violin create a feeling that the limit of the player’s ability to produce quality of tone, and the capacity of the violin for giving it forth, are one and the same, whereas they are entirely different; the player’s ability is constantly growing and expanding, but the capacity of the violin remains always the same. Should this violin capacity be of a low order the player is bound to a dead level of tonal mediocrity, although rarely conscious of the fact. On the other hand, a violin which is practically limitless in capacity for expressing quality of tone places no obstacle in the way of the player whose ambition is to “hold the audience spell-bound.”

Flexibility of Tone.—By flexibility is meant ease of production, the instant tone-response to the lightest touch of the bow—not only in the first, but in the high positions. Without flexibility tone loses its tenderness, most of its qualities of appeal, and delicate shades of expression become next to impossible. Its absence adds to the technical labour of the student and robs the soloist of his main source of inspiration—the command of a supple voice.

Tone-Failure.—It is sometimes remarked by players that certain violins and other bow instruments “lose their voice” after being played for a time under certain conditions. This would appear to take place in heated and crowded rooms and halls. It would further appear that it is certain old violins which are most affected, but new instruments are not entirely exempt, although less susceptible. There is, without doubt, a scientific reason for this, but I have not seen any explanation of the phenomenon in print. I mention it only as an eccentricity of tone, and one which would appear to present difficulty in regulating, and it may be said that an instrument possessing this peculiarity must, indeed, be near to tonal collapse when heat, humidity, and general heaviness of the air are sufficient to produce such a fatal effect. Old wood is spongy in nature. When too old it is dark brown in colour and almost crumbles to the touch. It is not difficult to imagine old wood, particularly if affected with some slight degree of dry rot, absorbing moisture which, together with heat, would cause it to become leathery and lose the crispness it would possess under opposite conditions. If the new violin is affected the cause may possibly be found in the fact that its tone is, under the most favourable conditions, hanging on the very brink of failure, which the mere touch of a heavy atmosphere is sufficient to consummate. If this be the reason for tone failure we should expect the old violin to become affected after some exposure to the conditions stated, and the new instrument immediately.

Fiddles Classified.—It is a task of extreme difficulty to classify violins according to their tonal value; while they may be dealt with singly, any attempt to separate them into well-defined groups, in which certain makers are associated with certain tone characteristics, will yield a result which, for reasons that are well understood, can only be considered approximately correct. Yet they may be roughly divided into four groups which I may be allowed to indicate as follows:—

(1) Superior Tone.—This must be sought for among the violins of the old Italian masters; among those produced by one or two old makers in other countries, and among the instruments produced by the best makers of the present day. The first are the most difficult to obtain, and by far the most expensive, due to their scarcity and to the fame of their builders. Owing to the ravages of time, to the influence of damp, wear, accident, much repairing (not always skilful), and the vandal efforts of “improvers,” many violins by old masters have greatly depreciated in tone.

(2) Excellent Tone.—The lesser lights of the “Palmy Days” turned out an occasional great violin, worthy to rank with the master fiddles of any age, and the same may be said of some of the great copyists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These are rare examples, and so mixed with others of less tonal worth by the same makers as to render their discovery possible only to the expert. Consecutive reproduction of superior tone is such a difficult part of violin construction that only masters can accomplish the feat successfully. The celebrated old makers are known to have succeeded, and so have a select few of the living makers. Mr. Towry Piper, writing in the Strad, says of a modern builder: “He can build a fiddle with a certain quality and volume of tone, and within human limits, repeat the process ad lib.” It need hardly be pointed out that the old masters also laboured “within human limits.” Apart from the specially good examples, the old violin makers of the second class produced in their instruments a quality of tone in every respect worthy of being termed Excellent.

(3) Good Tone.—Within this category is a wide range of fiddles suitable for all ordinary uses, made in all ages of the art, but usually found among violins by old makers of the third class in Italy, those of the second class in France, Germany, and England. The tone of some of these violins deserves to rank as excellent, but here, again, is found a wide difference in fiddles by the same maker. In this class the inexperienced will also find difficulty in making a selection, and the advice of an expert should be secured.

(4) “Just Fiddles.”—Nameless, but “old” Italian, French, German, or English fiddles. Violins of all sorts, old and new, bearing unfamiliar names. The age-baked imitations by makers with and without repute. “Pawnshop” fiddles, manufactured to catch the eye of those seeking the rare but unrecognised! Factory-made “copies” of Amati, Guarneri, Stradivari, Stainer, etc. Numbered by thousands, such fiddles as these are carefully avoided by the knowing seeker after tone. Because one or the other rarely fail to deceive the well-meaning but uninformed, it does not follow that they lack any legitimate place in the world of fiddles. When sold on their merits, or by dealers of repute, they are low in price. On them one may “whack out” a lively tune of sorts and bring pleasure to the uncritical atmosphere of many homes—may, indeed, be a direct lead to better things. The King of Instruments rules over the pleasures of the great, and the little princes of his house bring an equal happiness to those whose lives and tastes are humble. Thus may these instruments bring music to the forecastle and the farm, and pleasure to those who, by one circumstance or another, are barred from better things.

A Strange Belief.—As an illustration of the extraordinary beliefs held regarding tone and its connection with the violin, I quote the following from a recent issue of an American journal: “If Stradivarius were living to-day and was a violin-maker ... he would be just as big a failure as our best modern makers are to-day ... he builded better than he knew.” The writer of this is without first-hand knowledge, either of Stradivari or the “best modern makers,” else he would cite a different explanation of failure. But what are we to say of such beliefs—long since exploded—being revived in a modern journal? Unfortunately for the accuracy of this theory, time has not dealt in a like manner with Stradivari’s sons. They did not build “better than they knew.”

Tone Health.—It is said a violin should always be kept in its case when not in use. While small objection can be found with this advice, I believe good fresh air is beneficial, and it is my practice to make the fullest use of this reviving and antiseptic influence on suitable occasions. I hang the violin away from the wall if indoors, and in a shady place if in the open, so arranged that it will not strike against anything should it swing about through the action of a passing breeze. Violinists are apt to neglect their cases, which should also be kept well aired and dry, together with the cloth used to cover the instrument. The function of a case is to keep out damp, not to keep it in, but I have seen some cases so musty and damp that steam has risen from the covering cloth when held before the gentle warmth of a fire. No wonder violinists are troubled with their tone by thus neglecting the first principles of hygiene. It may be thought superfluous to add that the violin should be kept perfectly clean, but every one experienced in these matters is aware that many players are exceedingly careless, while others actually look upon dirt as an ornament. The interior of the instrument may be cleaned by pouring a handful of rice through the soundhole, shaking it about, and emptying through the same orifice. On the exterior use a very soft cloth or chamois leather, and remove every trace of dust and dampness. This last is deposited from the hands, and may prove fatal to the varnish because of its saline properties. Where the hand touches the body of the instrument most frequently it is not uncommon to see, particularly in the old violins, the varnish entirely removed and the bare wood left to absorb, not only moisture, but grease, which is difficult to extract without injury to the wood. I am aware that, even to mention such a thing, is to suggest something in the nature of vandalism, but I do say these bare places should be carefully cleaned and revarnished—but only where the hand touches when in the high positions, a chin-rest will protect the other end of the violin. The owner of the violin may, however, do as he pleases; it is merely a question whether health in tone or wealth in fiddle is to have the most consideration.

Tonal Misjudgment.—The violin presents many strange difficulties, and, in order to indicate that the judging of tone is no simple or easy matter, I will cite a few cases to show how some excellent and experienced players have been deceived. A professional played upon two violins at a public entertainment—his own, an old Italian which cost one hundred and eighty pounds, and a modern instrument worth about thirty pounds. He played the first half of a selection on the Italian and the second half on the modern, the change occupying but a few seconds. The numerous audience were unaware of any test being made. The instant he began playing the modern instrument the surprise was general, the contrast being extraordinary, the intensity, richness, and telling qualities of the new fiddle’s tone completely eclipsing that of the older violin, which, in comparison, seemed weak and wailing. Note the sequel. Immediately the piece was finished the player, who was unaware of the impression created on his hearers, observed to a friend: “The new fiddle is good, but too weak. I could never lead with it!”

A Stradivari violin, once the property of a celebrated artist who used the instrument until his death, playing in all the great cities in Europe, was borrowed by a very talented amateur for the purpose of playing a solo at his farewell concert, as he was about to live abroad. He did not use this violin, however, the excuse being that he did not think it would carry sufficiently well to fill the hall, not by any means a large one. He used, instead, another instrument, the property of a local player, and, it is hardly necessary to add, treated his hearers to a tone not only less in quantity, but with no quality whatever.

It is the belief among a certain class of players (who are not by any means always amateurs), that an ear-splitting sound indicates a violin possessed of all the requirements of a first-class fiddle. When they discover such an instrument it is treasured above pearls, notwithstanding their progress and popularity are in no wise enhanced by its possession. An artist once called upon a continental expert with an old French fiddle. It had cost a considerable sum, and was looked upon by its owner as perfectly ideal in tone. The expert differed, however, but expressed his opinion as mildly as possible, merely observing that the tone was hardly suited to the artist’s talents! This opinion the said artist received with some show of pique. Later, this violinist began studying under a celebrated master, who condemned the thing in language both forceful and picturesque; and a better toned instrument was procured.

While most of the great violinists use instruments with which no tone fault can be found, others are not so happy in their possession, although, doubtless, quite satisfied themselves. Among these last are two whose names are household words, and the fault lies in the two lower strings of their violins, the sounds from which are scarcely audible in a fair-sized hall, although the hearer may sit only some thirty feet distant—axioma medium!

There are players so accustomed to the tone of one violin that they are utterly incapable of correctly judging the tonal qualities of another. I once met a player of no mean ability who owned and played upon a factory-made instrument which emitted a miserably flat and thin tone. Yet this fiddle had been treasured and used for twelve years! No other violin “suited” so well! although many excellent instruments had been tried. Such extreme cases of self-deception as this are, fortunately, rare, but they are occasionally met with.

Accessories and Tone.—So far as the player is concerned, the important accessories are the strings, bridge and sound post, and with these it is not advisable to experiment. The post and the bridge are usually correctly proportioned and in their proper positions. The former may fall when all the strings are loose, and because of this it is well to keep them fairly taut always. When the violin is not in use I consider the E and G strings may be slightly lowered, the first to prevent unnecessary breakage and the last to prevent thinning of the core and consequent “buzzing.” When a string breaks put a new one on at once. If the instrument is to be restrung throughout, change one string at a time. It is well for the player to bear in mind that resetting the sound post may seem a simple matter, but that it is not so simple as it appears. Not one player in a thousand can accomplish this operation properly, or without some damage to the instrument. The position of the post should be marked on the back of the violin by inserting a thin pencil through the right-hand sound hole and marking as far as possible, and faintly, around its lower end. If the post falls, take the instrument to the nearest repairer.

The bridge is almost indestructible if it receives proper attention. It is important that it should lean slightly towards the tailpiece, never be upright, nor lean towards the finger-board. Watch the bridge frequently when tuning up, or when putting on a new string. The E string is a particular offender owing to its high tension and the frequency of its tuning and renewal. It pulls the upper right-hand corner of the bridge forward. Pay constant attention to the bridge and keep it in the correct position. This pulling forward may be somewhat overcome if the nicks wherein the strings rest are leaded, using the sharp point of a soft pencil.

Every player should possess a string gauge on which is marked the sizes most suitable for the violin. Tone is greatly influenced by the hardness, softness, or size of the strings, and the player should ascertain by experiment what is most suited to the instrument and keep to that. It is rare that two violins are exactly alike in their string requirements, and they also differ in temperament: that is to say, one may demand a certain size and kind of string before the best results are obtained, while another will respond very well without more than ordinary care in selection.

The Bow.—This important accessory should be selected with care. It has an important part in the production of tone, to say nothing of that technic which belongs to it. It is said that a really good bow of correct balance, flexibility and weight, is more difficult to find than a good toned violin. Only the few can afford a bow by Tourte, or other famous makers, but really fine modern bows may be obtained at reasonable prices from most of the dealers, and especially from those who are, in addition, bow-makers. Just as one may become used to a violin of faulty tone, so also may the player become used to a bow which adds to his tonal and technical difficulties. A good “stick” is a treasure and should be well cared for. When not in use the tension should be entirely removed. The stick should be kept perfectly clean, especially on the under side, and the screw oiled occasionally.

The Fiddle “Doctor.”—The simplicity of the fiddle is deceptive. It is not only not so simple as it appears, but of all musical instruments requires the most knowledge and skill in its repair and adjustment. Any player may apply the means by which tone can be preserved, and this is best accomplished by keeping the violin in a cleanly condition and healthy surroundings; but “accidents will happen,” or something peculiar in the tone will indicate the need of attention, and in either case, it is the luthier and not the fiddle “doctor” who should be consulted. Skilful repairers are to be found in practically every city in the world, and in their hands the ailing violin may be left with confidence.

CONCLUSION

And now a few words regarding the process of regulating and developing the tone of a violin. It would in my judgment serve no useful purpose to attempt to publish details of the means employed, as I am satisfied that nothing short of practical exposition and demonstration (coupled with experience) will suffice to convey the knowledge which must be acquired by any one desiring to command anything like uniform success. “Thicknessing,” as it is termed, upon which such success is very largely dependent, is a variable and complex operation and cannot be learned from books; and the most that can be said is that after a violin is built its tone can be fundamentally altered, regulated, and developed by internal and external means to give such final results as the maker, or operator who develops the tone, may consider to be ideal. This is well enough understood by the best makers, but, for reasons which are fairly self-evident, those who practise it are very few indeed.

As much more is required of the student of tone development than a mere acquaintance with the means can give, a thorough working knowledge, leading to successful application, is best acquired by personal instruction from one acquainted with the complicated and ever-changing tonal problems presented by the newly-made violin, and experienced in dealing with them—just as I believe this art was imparted to pupils by masters in the “golden period” of violin-making; the measure of success achieved depending always upon the tone ideals of both the master and pupil, and the skill with which the process is employed to obtain his results. I hope a return will be made to the methods of that period, when tone reached its fullest perfection, to the end that the world may become richer in instruments possessing that quality of tone which is now almost exclusively associated with the violins produced by the “old masters.”

NOTICES

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL

OF THE PRINCIPAL VIOLIN MAKERS
OF THE VARIOUS SCHOOLS AND OF THEIR WORKS

By TOWRY PIPER

PREFATORY NOTE

In the following pages the author has endeavoured, so far as limitations of space and other circumstances would admit, to incorporate the results of observations made during a very long period of years.

Since the year 1877 he has been a more or less assiduous student of old violins and kindred instruments, and has had perhaps exceptional opportunities of handling and examining some thousands of examples of the different schools of violin-making.

Though the work does not, perhaps, come appropriately within the definition of a dictionary of the subject of which it treats, it will be found to contain notices of a considerable number of makers who have not been dealt with in previous English works on the violin.

In deciding the somewhat difficult question as to what names should be included and what rejected, the author, who has for several years been a contributor to the Strad magazine, has found his experience of the correspondence department of that journal of frequent assistance in arriving at a conclusion, as it has been possible in the light of such experience to form some sort of estimate of the nature of the information most likely to be of use to violin players and owners of stringed instruments generally.

Most of the previous works of this kind will be found to contain numbers of names of old viol and lute makers who are not known to have made violins, such as Dardelli, Duiffoprugcar, and many others; but by omitting these, almost in toto, it has been possible to include a number of minor workmen whose instruments possess merit, without unduly increasing the bulk of the book.

To deal in anything like detail with the huge army of makers of German origin is a task which no English writer has had the temerity to attempt, nor would any useful purpose be served by so doing in a work intended for English readers. Those who desire more precise information on that branch of the subject than is hereinafter conveyed are recommended to refer to the two portly volumes of the German writer, von Lütgendorff, who, with characteristic Teuton thoroughness, seems to have hunted up nearly every one of his countrymen who ever made a fiddle. The work in question is indeed a monument of literary industry and research.

A number of the more recent Italian makers, whose work has come into prominence during the past twenty-five years, have been noticed in somewhat more detailed fashion than has usually been adopted in books of this kind, and an attempt has been made to deal in the same way with a few makers of the French school whose names, for some reason or other, have previously received somewhat meagre attention.

Stradivari, and some of the other Italians of the first rank, have already been handled so fully in works which will be found mentioned in the text that the facts already published concerning them have been digested so far as possible, to enable them to be succinctly presented, and to make room for other matter.

Bexhill, August 21, 1916.

ABSAM, Thomas.—Wakefield; nineteenth century to about 1850; said to have been of Tyrolese birth. Worked for Pickard of Leeds, and on his own account.

ADAM.—Mirecourt. A family of bow-makers of whom the best was Jean Dominique, who worked to about 1860.

AIRETON, Edmund.—London. Died about 1807. A maker of the style and period of Peter Wamsley. Worked for the dealers, Norris and Barnes.

ALBANI.—Late seventeenth and first half of eighteenth centuries. A family of violin makers originating at Botzen in the Tyrol. The chief maker, and the founder of the family, was Matthias, who was born in 1621, and died at Botzen in February, 1712. Most authorities mention two different individuals named Matthias, but it seems to be established that there was but one. Matthias Albani’s work belongs chiefly to the school of Stainer, but the later and better examples show distinct traces of Italian influence, and are built upon lines more approximating to the Amati school. The arching is much less pronounced than that of older specimens, in which it is often extravagantly high; outline and sound-holes, though never losing entirely their German cut, are more Italian-looking, and the varnish, usually a brilliant red-brown, is either identical in composition with that used by Italian workmen of the period, or closely allied to it. The tone of his better instruments is excellent. The wood used is of good quality and frequently handsome. Examples with lion and other ornamental heads occur. He made violins, tenors, and basses, and the larger instruments are held in high esteem amongst players. Tradition has it that he worked for some time at Cremona or elsewhere in Italy, but anything like tangible evidence in support of this appears to be lacking. His name has been made free with by forgers and imitators, and may be seen in all sorts of worthless fiddles, ancient and modern. Spurious labels, dated in the year 1690, abound. His ordinary label reads, “Matthias Albanus fecit Bulsani in Tiroli,” with date. Other makers of the family were Michael, a son who worked chiefly in Gratz, where he died in 1730; Joseph, a younger son, who assisted him, and died at Botzen in 1722; and Joseph Anton, a nephew, who died at Botzen in 1771.

ALBANI.—Mention is made of makers of this name working in different parts of Italy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One, named Paolo, is said to have operated in Palermo, Rome, and Cremona.

ALDRIC.—Paris. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Was living in 1843. One of the best of the French makers of the Lupot School. He was also well-known as a dealer. Excellent work and material. Stradivari model, and usually rather dark red varnish. Instruments frequently rather heavy looking in build. He used chiefly printed, but also written labels, and worked in Paris at various addresses. His violins and other instruments have sometimes been relabelled and sold as the work of Nicholas Lupot.

AMATI.—The family name of the founders of the celebrated school of Cremona. Their record as makers begins about the middle of the sixteenth century, or perhaps a little later, and ends in 1740. The pioneer of the family was Andrea, the date of whose birth is unknown, but there is evidence in the Archives of Cremona showing that he was alive in 1611, and buried his second wife in that year. The appearance and general character of his works point to Brescia as the school from which he derived his inspiration, but beyond tradition there is no evidence to prove that Bertolotti (known as Caspar da Salò) was his actual master. Very little of his authentic work is now in existence. A few violoncellos, and some bass and double bass viols survive, and a very few violins of small or three-quarter pattern. A wellknown example of these last was put up to auction in London recently. The arching of the instruments is high, the sound-holes, of Brescian type, are rather wide open, the wood and workmanship good, the backs of the violins generally in one piece cut slab wise. The labels seem to be dated in Roman numerals. It was this maker’s sons, Antonius and Hieronymus, more especially the latter, who produced the type of violin which will ever be associated with the name of Amati. They worked in partnership during their joint lives, but their individual workmanship is distinct; Antonius, the elder brother’s instruments retaining certain Brescian characteristics which were wisely discarded by Hieronymus, who produced examples of great elegance of form, and possessing a tone which for beautiful quality has never since been surpassed. The date of Antonius’s birth has not been discovered, nor that of his death, but it is generally believed that the latter occurred after the year 1640. Hieronymus’s birth-year is also undiscovered, but there is an entry in Cremonese registers, proving that he died of the plague in November, 1630. The violins bearing the label of the firm vary in size, and a considerable number still survive, the larger and rarer specimens, measuring about 14 inches in length of body, being of more value than the smaller patterns. The usual label of the firm is “Antonius & Hieronymus Fr. Amati Cremonen Andreae fil. F. 16....” The brothers are credited by Messrs. Hill, of Bond Street, with having been the earliest makers known to have produced violas of the smaller dimensions, measuring about 16¼ inches long, which is now accepted as the standard length for the viola. Their violoncellos were of large size—well over 30 inches long—but appear to have been all, or almost all, reduced, to fit them for modern playing. In the violins slab backs in one piece are frequently seen, but many of them, especially those of later date, have jointed backs, the wood of which is cut “on the quarter.” Numbers of labels exist or are cited in books, bearing dates long after the deaths of both brothers must have occurred. No very satisfactory explanation of this seems to be forthcoming unless we assume that Niccolò Amati, the son of Hieronymus, and the most celebrated maker, continued to use the style and tickets of the firm for a long period before finally adopting his own label. We may now turn to Niccolo Amati, who was born in Cremona on December 3, 1596, and died there on April 12, 1684. An earlier Niccolò is mentioned as having been a brother of Andrea, and the name has been copied time and again by successive compilers of lists of makers. Nothing whatever appears to be known of such a person, and there is no good reason for supposing that he ever existed. Niccolò, son of Hieronymus, closely followed his father’s pattern and teachings for a considerable time, and does not seem to have begun to use the ticket with his own name until about 1640, by which time he would be forty-four years of age. He made violins of varying sizes, the ordinary type being about 13⁷/₈ inches long. His sound-holes are generally similar in design to those of his father, but in later work the opening is frequently rather wider, and the angle at which it is set in the instrument a trifle more slanting. He also extended the arching in some of his work, carrying it nearer the sides, and somewhat diminishing the grooves running around these. The term “Grand Amati” which is associated with his name was at one time well understood to apply to a type of violin 14 inches long, with rather produced corners, and a somewhat sudden dip beginning not far from the centre of the back and belly, forming in fact a distinct ridge in the long axis of the instrument. But the term “grand” appears nowadays to be loosely applied to almost any Niccolò Amati violin of somewhat larger size than the ordinary pattern above mentioned. In addition to greater length measurement, the Grand Amati exhibits considerably greater width, which is especially noticeable in the upper portion of the body. On these large violins the enhanced fame of this great maker chiefly rests, and their money value is much greater than that of the smaller forms. They are very scarce, and there is strong reason to suppose that some of the few which exist were largely, if not altogether, the handiwork of pupils, amongst whom may be mentioned Andrea Guarneri, although that maker in his own signed work does not very often follow that pattern. It has been adopted with success by several other makers of high repute, e.g. Francesco Ruger, Sanctus Seraphin of Venice, Jacobs of Amsterdam, Banks of Salisbury, Vincenzo Panormo (rarely), and hosts of other copyists. Stradivari does not seem to have been attracted by it, and only in one or two minor features do any of his known works exhibit any resemblance to it. Niccolò Amati’s varnish is generally of the yellow type associated with the works of earlier members of his family, and the wood used for the backs and sides is of native growth and small, though often very handsome, figure. In some later work wood with a broader curl may be seen, but examples are rare. The violoncellos were originally of large size, but are seldom or never seen uncut. Niccolò Amati had numerous notable pupils and followers, the most important being, of course, Antonio Stradivari. Of these there is not space to append a list, but their names and work will be found noted in the following pages. There is good reason to believe that for at least ten years prior to his death he did not take much active part in the business of his workshop. Hieronymus Amati II., born 1649, died February 21, 1740, was the third son of Niccolò, and apparently the only one who was a violin-maker. It is now well recognised that he was a workman of much ability, and there is no room for doubt that numbers of the instruments made in the latter part of his father’s lifetime were either wholly or partially his handiwork. Many violins dating from about 1670, and bearing genuine Niccolò Amati labels exist, which exhibit a very high degree of finish, great neatness of workmanship, and other characteristics which do not appear in examples by other workmen employed by Niccolò, but which, when compared with instruments admittedly made by Hieronymus II. after his father’s death, are sufficient to proclaim their authorship. In these the cutting of the scrolls and sound-holes is clearly the work of a maker in the full maturity of his powers. The varnish on some, at least, is of a somewhat redder hue than the typical Amati yellow, and the rise of the arching more gradual. The instruments are not after the grand pattern in their design and proportions. Messrs. Hill suggest that Stradivari may have been concerned in the making of some of them, as probabilities point to that maker having continued to work for Niccolò (besides working on his own account) down to the time of his death. Hieronymus II. continued to produce and repair instruments after his father’s death, and his label, stating that he executed repairs, may still be seen in a few old instruments. The writer has seen more than one such. When he first began to insert his own labels in his work does not seem to be clear, but most of those cited in books, and all seen by the writer, have been dated after 1700. In most of his tickets he states that he was Niccolò’s son. For some reason—possibly because his father’s death left him in easy circumstances—specimens made by him after that event are by no means plentiful, and the information about them contained in most of the books on the violin is meagre, unreliable, and quite fails to do justice to his undoubted abilities. A fine violin of his make, dated 1710, is figured in the last edition of the work on “Violin Makers” by the German writer, von Lütgendorff.

AMATI, Nicolaus.—Bologna; about 1720 to 1740; commonly called “Dom Nicolaus Amati;” was a priest who made violins and other instruments of moderately good workmanship and fair tone. The writer has met with two or three violins and a viola of his make. It is not known if he was related to the Cremonese family.

AMBROSI, Petrus.—Rome and Brescia; first half of eighteenth century. According to labels the maker was a Cremonese, and in some the name is spelt “Ambrogi.” Moderate workmanship and varnish. Rough Stradivari pattern. The name may not unfrequently be seen in common fiddles, such as are sold in pawnshops.

ANDERSON.—At least three makers of the name worked in Scotland during the nineteenth century; one named John was a pupil of Matthew Hardie and a prolific workman. He lived chiefly in Aberdeen, and died there in 1883.

ANTONIAZZI.—The name of several makers in Italy in the last century. Gaetano (died 1897 in Milan) was a good workman, and obtained medals for his productions; another, Romeo, was working in Cremona recently, and makes instruments in various styles, but has a model of his own.

AUDINOT.—A Mirecourt family of the nineteenth century who have made many useful instruments. The best known is Nestor Dominique, born in 1842, who is in good repute both as a maker and repairer in Paris.

BAADER, J. A. AND Co.—Mittenwald; contemporary. A well-known firm who manufacture instruments of various classes on an extensive scale.

BACHMANN.—The name of several German makers; the two best known, Anton and Karl Ludwig, worked in Berlin in the eighteenth century.

BAGATELLA, Antonio.—Paduna. Died in 1829. Instruments scarce. Writer has seen one or two double-basses of some merit which were assigned to him. Best known as the writer of a pamphlet, published in 1782, on scientific violin making.

BAILLY, Paul.—A well-known modern French maker, who worked in Mirecourt, Paris, and London. He was a pupil of J. B. Vuillaume, and died recently.

BAIRHOFF, Giorgio.—Naples; latter half eighteenth century. Like several other makers working in Naples he was of German origin. Has produced useful instruments of the Gagliano type.

BALDANTONI, Joseph.—Ancona; 1784-1873. Was a clever mechanic and an inventor in a small way; he has left a number of well-made instruments of good form and tone.

BALESTRIERI, Tommasso.—Mantua; appears to have worked until after 1770. His instruments have long been appreciated amongst players on account of their tone, which is usually of a rich sonorous quality. He was an unequal workman, some of his violins and basses exhibiting a high amount of finish, whilst others leave a good deal to be desired in this respect. On some specimens the varnish is of excellent quality, but there are others in which it is much inferior both in appearance and texture. He seems to have used a variety of labels, from which it appears that he was a native of Cremona. Spurious tickets are fairly plentiful. The form of his violins bears a rough general resemblance to some of those of Stradivari, but he is no longer accounted a pupil of that maker, as was formerly the case. He is said to have worked in Cremona until 1757, when he removed to Mantua. The writer has seen a considerable number of his instruments, but does not recall meeting with specimens dating from Cremona. Messrs. Hill, in their monograph on Stradivari, state that he was a pupil of Peter Guarneri (“Peter of Mantua”). Some of his violoncellos are exceptionally good. Another Balestrieri, named Peter, worked in Cremona, and in his tickets calls himself a pupil of Stradivari.

BANKS.—The name of a Salisbury family of makers, of whom the best was Benjamin, born 1727, died February, 1795. His work belongs to the school of Wamsley. Copied Amati with uncommon skill, and instruments have sometimes been re-labelled, and passed as the work of Niccolò. He used on his best productions a very fine reddish-brown varnish, which resembles Italian. Violins and violoncellos are substantially built, and have stood wear well. The violoncellos are splendid instruments, and the larger ones fetch high prices; some of the violins are also excellent, and the resemblance to Amati work is close. In the sound-holes he did not always succeed in catching the true form of the originals he copied. They bear a resemblance to those of Stainer, and the scrolls in all his work are German in character and cut. He stamped the blocks and interiors of many of his productions with his initials, but some of his finest efforts are unstamped. He was assisted by various workmen, including three sons: Benjamin, who also worked in London, and Liverpool, where he died in 1820; Henry and James, both of whom died in Liverpool in 1830 and 1831, respectively. He made instruments of inferior quality for the trade, some of which bear the stamp of Longman and Broderip.

BARNES, Robert.—London. Died 1794. Principally known as a dealer, and member of the firm of Norris and Barnes.

BARRETT, John.—London; to about 1740. Long-bodied, high-built instruments, having ink lines in place of purfling. Tone small, but generally of good quality.

BARTL (or Partl).—Vienna. The name is usually spelt “Partl” in labels. Several makers of this name worked in Vienna in the eighteenth century. In some specimens the work is good.

BARZONI.—The trade name of a well-known class of modern cheap instruments made on the Continent. They are well made, and the tone is usually good.

BAUSCH.—Dresden and Leipzig; nineteenth century. A family chiefly noted as makers of bows, many of which are highly esteemed, but there are many spurious specimens about.

BEARE, John and Arthur.—London; contemporary. Well known dealers and repairers. Arthur Beare is an excellent repairer, and a sound judge of old instruments.

BELA, Szepessy.—Contemporary. Born in Buda Pesth, and well known amongst English amateurs.

BELLOSIO, Anselmo.—Venice; eighteenth century. Said to have worked with Serafino. Tone usually good, but instruments are of unequal merit and workmanship.

BERGONZI.—A celebrated Cremona family of makers, the last of whom, Benedetto, died in 1840, and seems to have been chiefly occupied as a repairer. Carlo, an artist of the first rank, was born in or about the year 1686, and is said to have died in 1747. The date of birth was discovered by the late Signor Sacchi, who ascertained from the Registers of the suppressed Church of San Matteo in Cremona, that Carlo Bergonzi was living in 1746 in the house formerly occupied by Stradivari, and his age was stated to be sixty years. Two of his sons, Michael Angelo and Zosimo, were then living with him. He worked with and for Stradivari, and in some of his instruments copied him with great exactness. In other examples he introduces modifications of the great master’s patterns; these are chiefly noticeable in the form of the sound-holes, which are of slightly pointed form, and the corners, in which a decided droop is observable. The boss of the scroll is frequently more prominent than in Stradivari violins. The arching varies, but the declivity is generally inclined to flatness. Wood usually very handsome, and varnish of different shades, from amber to deep red. It is of beautiful quality, and apparently similar in composition to that of Stradivari. The violins are from 13⁷/₈ to 14 inches long, and, so far as writer’s experience goes, he did not exceed the latter measurement. The tone of great beauty, but distinct from that of Stradivari. His fiddles have been repeatedly relabelled and sold as the work of Guarneri, del Gesù, and genuine labels are not very plentiful; even in his own work the dates and tickets cannot always be relied on, as they have in some instances been inserted to replace forged Stradivari and Guarneri labels, attached by unscrupulous dealers and others. Some of the better judges question the existence of either violas or violoncellos of his make, but very fine examples of both forms of instrument exist which have been assigned to him by connoisseurs of the first rank. The same remark applies to a few double-basses of great merit whatever their authorship. Strange as it may seem, none of his sons would appear to have used varnish of the true Cremonese type. Carlo’s name and label may be found in many instruments, both genuinely old, and of the “modern antique” class, with the making of which he had nothing to do. Nicolò, his eldest son, is supposed to have worked until about 1782. He was a good workman, and seems to have made many instruments, but they are very inferior in style to those of his father. Wood and varnish are of second-rate quality, the latter, judging by appearances, being of a hard alcoholic nature. Michael Angelo Bergonzi, the second son, was born, according to the registers quoted from by Sacchi, in 1722, and worked until about 1765-70. The finish is very passable, but pattern generally inelegant, the corners in some examples being elongated in unsightly fashion. The third son, Zosimo, born 1725, worked until about 1780, according to dates in instruments. It is said that his violoncellos are his best instruments. The writer has not met with any, but has seen a few violins of good tone, large pattern, somewhat high arching, and outline of Amati character. The varnish, a somewhat dull dark red, of soft quality. A second Carlo, who died about 1820, and was a son of Michael Angelo, seems to have been chiefly a guitar maker, and repairer of instruments.

BERNARDEL.—A well-known family of makers and dealers who carried on business in Paris in the nineteenth century, and were associated with the equally well-known Gand family under the style of Gand and Bernardel. The founder was Auguste Sebastien Philipp, born at Mirecourt in 1802, died 1870. Worked with Lupot, and later with the elder Gand. A clever maker whose instruments are in high esteem. Other members of the family were Ernest Auguste, died Paris, 1899; Gustave Adolphe, born 1832; and Leon, born in Paris, 1853. All these have continued to follow the style and traditions of Nicholas Lupot.

BERTOLOTTI.—Brescia; sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. The chief member of this family was the celebrated Gaspar da Salò, born at Salò (province of Brescia) in or about 1542, died in City of Brescia, April, 1609. He certainly made violins, usually of rather small form, at least a dozen of which are recognised by the best authorities as authentic; but it is by no means clear that he was the first man to make a fiddle strung with four strings and generally of the form in which the instrument is now seen. The authorship of the true violin has been assigned to others: e.g. Duiffoprugcar, a viol maker, whose claims have long since been dismissed by competent judges as unsupported by evidence of any value. Gaspar’s violins, as might be expected, are of primitive appearance and character. One of them, belonging to the late Lord Amherst of Hackney, and of unquestioned authenticity, was seen many years ago by the writer, and is the only violin by da Salò of undisputed genuineness with which he has met during a long course of years. Several violas of large size (“tenores”) still exist, but the majority have been reduced, often very unskilfully, in size. Of those seen by the writer all have been remarkable for their fine tone. A number of large bass viols (violoni) still survive. They were built to carry a number of strings, but have mostly been converted by modern repairers into three or four string double basses. A very fine and perfect example of these is in the possession of the Reverend Leigh Blake. It is said that he made violoncellos, but this is probably incorrect. Instruments of various types formerly assigned to him are now recognised as the work of his pupil and follower, Gio. Paolo Maggini. Interesting information relating to him, including the date of his death, was discovered, and published in 1891, by Cavalier Livi, who also ascertained that his father was a viol maker, and that a son Francesco, who died in 1614, assisted him. Gasparo’s genuine labels are undated.

BERTRAND, Nicholas.—Paris; circa 1685-1730. Best known as a viol maker. Writer recently saw and repaired a violin by him with manuscript label, date 1710, of good workmanship and sweet tone; arching high. Some examples are branded.

BETTS.—London. A well-known family of makers and dealers in old instruments. The founder of the business was John Edward Betts, “Old John Betts,” born Stamford, 1755, died London, March, 1823. Worked with Richard Duke, and made some instruments, but employed in his own business the best workmen of the day: Bernhard Fendt, John Carter, Vincent Panormo and his sons, together with several others. The instruments made for him generally bear his stamp under the button, and this has been forged of recent years in the most wholesale manner; it may be seen, in pawnshops and elsewhere, on instruments of the commonest class and foreign make. Betts was a first rate judge of old Italian work and many fine examples passed through his hands. A nephew, Edward, was associated with him; he was a careful workman and made some good copies; he died about 1820. Other members of the family were at one time or other connected with the business, amongst whom may be mentioned two named Arthur Betts, the first a brother of John, and the second a nephew.

BIANCHI, Niccolò.—1796-1881. Born in Genoa, died Nice. A clever workman who was employed by several makers of repute, including Bagatella, G. B. Ceruti, and Pressenda. He was for some years in Paris; his own instruments are said to be very good, but he was much employed as a repairer.

BIMBI, Bartolommeo.—Siena and Florence; second half of eighteenth century. Violins usually of rather small pattern, high built, and with very pretty red-orange varnish.

BINDERNAGEL, Johann Wilhelm.—Gotha. Died 1845. Instruments highly valued in Germany. Copied Amati pattern chiefly, but also Stradivari. Was a pupil of Ernst.

BISIACH, Leandro.—Milan; contemporary. Is regarded as one of the cleverest workmen and imitators of old instruments now working in Italy. His best violins and other instruments display very fine workmanship, have generally an excellent tone, and are already in much request amongst players.

BITTNER, David.—Vienna; died 1887. A good copyist of Italian work.

BLAIR, John.—Edinburgh; to about 1820. Worked with M. Hardie. Instruments branded “J. B.”

BLAISE, Joseph.—Mirecourt and Geneva; died 1882. Little known, except as instructor of P. and N. Silvestre of Lyons.

BLANCHARD, Paul François.—Lyons. Born Mirecourt 1851. Worked formerly for Silvestre’s firm. Has made some excellent copies with good varnish.

BODIO, Gio. Battista.—Venice; to about 1830. Moderate work. Examples scarce. Writer has seen a violin with belly inlaid with ebony at edges of sound holes. Seems to have made instruments with ornamental heads.

BOIVIN, Claude.—Paris; about 1840. Chiefly guitars and similar instruments. Violins rare.

BOOTH, William.—Leeds. Died 1856. Little known. Said to have been a good workman.

BOQUAY, Jaques.—Paris. Worked until about 1735-40. One of the better makers of the older French school. Violins in two sizes, the pattern resembling Amati. Good wood, dark red-brown varnish. Back usually stamped with initials. Tone frequently very good. Very well cut scrolls, but original heads are often absent, having been transferred to old instruments by other makers.

BOULLANGIER, Charles.—London. Born Mirecourt, 1823; died London, 1888. A well-known and excellent maker. Worked in Paris with Vuillaume and Gand. In 1849 employed by Edward Withers, senior, with whom he remained until 1856. Copied both Stradivari and Guarneri with skill, and employed red varnish of different shades.

BOUMEESTER, Jan.—Amsterdam; seventeenth century. One of the best of the older Dutch makers, but his labels are not very often seen. It has been surmised that in many cases they have been removed and the tickets of Italian makers substituted.

BOURGEOIS, Séraphin.—Geneva; about 1830. A few years ago a large violin by a maker named Bourgeois was the subject of a law-suit, certain “experts” having declared it to be the work of Guarneri, del Gesù.

BOVIS, François.—Nice; contemporary. Maker to the orchestra at Monte Carlo.

BRAGLIA, Antonio.—Modena; about 1800. A good bow-maker.

BRANDILIONI, Filippo.—Brescia. Said to have worked there in latter half of eighteenth century. Work is described as resembling that of Mittenwald rather than Italy.

BRANDNER.—Name of numerous family working in Schönbach in the last century.

BRANDSTAETTER, Matthäus Ignaz.—Vienna; died 1851. Maker and excellent repairer.

BRAUN.—There were numerous German makers of this name in the last century.

BRETON, Le.—Mirecourt; died 1830. Good work, but rather commonplace in style. Instruments branded on back, and stamp may be seen on many spurious examples. An earlier Breton worked in Paris.

BROWN.—London; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Makers of the name worked principally for the dealers. The best known is James Brown, “Brown of Spitalfields,” a good workman, who died about 1830.

BRUGÈRE.—Nineteenth century. A well-known Mirecourt family who worked in Paris, Marseilles, and elsewhere. The best known is Charles, born in 1865. A careful workman; frequently uses a large ornamental ticket.

BRUNO, Carlo Colombo.—Turin; contemporary. Has obtained medals for instruments in Paris, Turin, and Marseilles.

BUCHSTETTER, Gabriel David.—Ratisbonn; second half of eighteenth century. Instruments not often seen in this country.

BUTHOD.—Mirecourt; nineteenth century. A maker of the name worked for J. B. Vuillaume. Labels may be seen in large numbers of cheap violins, etc., of the “factory class.”

CABROLY.—Toulouse; about 1740. Said to have come from Milan. Instruments seemingly scarce.

CAHUSAC.—London; eighteenth century. The label may be seen in many old fiddles which were obviously the work of different makers, but he seems to have made some himself. Writer has seen examples of Amati outline, and with very pretty varnish.

CALCAGNI (Calcanius), Bernardo.—Genoa; to about 1750. Medium size violins, slightly arched and with very pretty reddish-yellow varnish. General workmanship well finished.

CALVAROLA, Bartolommeo.—Bergamo; circa 1750-1770. Instruments scarce. Medium workmanship without much character. Yellow and yellow-red varnish. Pattern looks rather narrow. Scrolls small and of poor design.

CAMILLI, Camillo.—Mantua; to about 1760. A maker whose instruments have rapidly risen in value of late years. They are of unequal merit and workmanship. In good examples the wood and form are handsome. Sound-holes rather short and wide open. Varnish red, of varying shades and good texture. The tone usually excellent. The pattern usually seen bears some resemblance to violins of Stradivari. Labels both written and printed.

CAPPA, Goffredo.—Saluzzo; born 1647, died August, 1717. It is important to note the dates of birth and death, as in most books on the violin these appear as having occurred fully a century too early. Cappa’s name and work have been the subject of almost wholesale fraud, forgery, and misrepresentation. His own genuine labels are very rarely seen, and the frequent appearance of Amati tickets in his instruments gives some colour to the theory, propounded in Hill’s work on Stradivari, that he himself inserted them. Whatever may be the truth, the resemblance to Amati in his smaller pattern violins is very marked, both in form and choice of material. The varnish also is of similar quality and colour. The sound-holes, which are much more slanting than in Amati fiddles, at once betray the maker to the experienced eye; and the heads are quite unlike the type associated with the Amati name. The violins of larger build are rare, and those seen by the writer have differed so materially in form and build from those just described that they might easily be taken to be the work of another hand. Violoncellos of good form and style exist, and generally command high prices. Other makers of the name and of very doubtful existence are mentioned by different writers.

CARCASSI.—A Florentine family of makers of the eighteenth century, numbering about half a dozen members. Of these the principal workmen were Lorenzo and Tomaso, who worked both independently and in partnership from about 1740 onwards. The pattern belongs chiefly to the school of Amati, though no very close resemblance exists. Work in some cases well finished, arching fairly high, pretty wood, and varnish of good colour and texture. The name is one of those which have been freely used by forgers, and a number of spurious examples are to be met with.

CARTER, John.—London; about 1790. Worked on his own account in Wych Street, but was chiefly employed by Betts.

CASINI, Antonio.—Modena. Seventeenth century, to about 1690.

CASTAGNERI, Andrea.—Paris. Worked to about 1750. He was of Italian extraction, and his genuine violins are Italian in style. Flat arching. Outline of Stradivari type. Tone generally powerful. An earlier maker of the name is said to have been his father, and to have worked in Paris.

CASTELLO, Paolo.—Genoa; latter half of eighteenth century. Well built violins of good form and tone. Middle bouts sometimes appear rather narrow.

CAUSSIN, François.—Neufchâteau. Also spelt Coussin. Worked between about 1845-81. Was a very clever imitator of old Italian work and varnish, and his instruments have frequently been sold as originals. Pattern varies.

CELONIATI, Gian. Francesco.—Turin; circa 1730-50. The work somewhat resembles that of Cappa. Outline generally of Amati character. Varnish clear and of yellow or yellow-brown colour. Instruments generally well finished, and the tone of good quality.

CERIN, Marc Antonio.—Venice; about 1790.

CERUTI.—Cremona; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family well known to modern players. Giovanni Battista, the earliest of the name, worked with Storioni, and succeeded to his business, dying somewhere between 1817 and 1820. Made a large number of instruments of varying patterns, in some of which the characteristics of more than one of the classic makers are combined. The wood of the backs and sides is often of native growth and small figure, and the varnish varies both in colour and quality. Tone frequently excellent. He used a label with an ornamental border, and containing a monogram within a circle. His son Joseph died in Mantua in 1860 and was a clever workman. He worked with his father, whose label has been found in his earlier productions. A younger son, Enrico, died in 1883. Instruments well made and of varying form. He obtained exhibition medals for some of his work.

CHANOT.—A name famous in the annals of fiddle-making. The first maker of the name was Joseph, a native of Mirecourt, who died about 1830. François, an engineer, was born at Mirecourt, 1788, died at Brest, 1823. He experimented much upon the form and construction of the violin, and made, amongst other things, guitar shaped fiddles. Georges Chanot I. born at Mirecourt, 1801, died Courcelles, 1883, was the most celebrated maker of the family, and worked in Paris. He was one of the best judges of old instruments of his time. His best violins and basses are beautifully made and chiefly of Stradivari and Guarneri pattern. They command at the present day good prices and are rising in value. A son, Georges II., worked for many years in London, and was also well known as a dealer and repairer. He died in 1893. His sons, George Adolphus, Frederick (died 1911), and Joseph Anthony, have all become known as makers. G. A. Chanot lives in Manchester, and Joseph Anthony is established in Wardour Street, London.

CHAPPUY, Nicholas Augustin.—Paris, Mirecourt; 1750-90. Instruments of unequal merit, some being of a very common class, inferior varnish and finish. Good examples have generally a tone of good quality and considerable power. What may be described as his own pattern is inelegant, flattish model, short corners, and broad in the waist; yellow and yellowish-brown varnish.

CHARDON.—Paris; contemporary. A well-known firm. Joseph Maria Chardon was a pupil of Georges Chanot, whose daughter he married.

CHARLES, J.—Marseilles; about 1780. Pretty work in style of Guersan. He was a nephew of that maker.

CHERPITEL, Nicholas Émile.—Paris; died 1893.

CHEVRIER.—Nineteenth century. A Mirecourt family who worked there and in Paris.

CHRÉTIEN, Hippolyte.—Lyons, Paris; contemporary. A good maker. Nephew of Silvestre, whose name he assumed. Firm Silvestre and Maucotel.

CLAUDOT.—Nineteenth century. Mirecourt family numbering several makers. Charles Claudot, 1794-1876, adopted the brand often seen on the backs of instruments, “Marquis de l’air l’oiseau.” Other members of the family branded their names on their work.

CLÉMENT, Jean Laurent.—Paris; about 1800-48. Substantially made instruments with good varnish, usually red-brown, and handsome wood. Large pattern violins.

COLLIN-MEZIN, Charles Jean Baptist.—Paris; contemporary. Born Mirecourt. Some of the instruments made about thirty years ago are esteemed and possess a good tone. Later specimens seem to be of the “factory class,” and are of little account.

CONTRERAS, José.—Madrid; eighteenth century. Little known in this country. Instruments frequently handsome, and work Italian in character. A good many seem to have been re-labelled with the tickets of better known Italian makers.

CORSBY, George.—London; nineteenth century. A well-known dealer in Prince’s Street, Leicester Square. Seems to have been himself a workman, but employed others to make instruments for him. Another Corsby of Northampton made some good double-basses.

COUTURIEUX, N.—Toulon; about 1840. Made useful instruments of flat pattern. Branded inside with initials “N. C.”

CRASKE, George.—Born 1795, died, Stockport, in 1888. Worked in Bath, Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, and elsewhere. Made a huge number of instruments of varying patterns, but readily identifiable after seeing a few examples. Work sometimes good, but more frequently only passable or indifferent. Tone not usually of good quality.

CRISTOFORI, Bartolommeo.—Florence; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Pupil of Niccolò Amati. Instruments very scarce, but some fine violoncellos, and at least one double-bass, are known. Is with some probability identified with Cristorfori who is usually accounted the inventor of the pianoforte.

CROSS, Nathaniel.—London; to about 1745-50. Some well-made violins and basses exist, which exhibit a pattern and characteristics of German style. Yellow varnish. He was associated with Barak Norman (q.v.).

CUYPERS, Jan.—The Hague. Born 1723-24, died about 1810-12. In several violins of late date he states his age, which in 1806 was 82. Instruments have risen rapidly in value of late years. They are soundly made, of good wood, and with yellow varnish of good quality. Pattern, shape of sound holes, and outline vary considerably. Scrolls heavy and boldly cut, but not handsome. The name is met with in books on the violin with the spelling “Koeuppers,” presumably copied from labels. Writer has not seen such.

DALINGER, Sebastian.—Vienna; latter half of eighteenth century. Stainer pattern, dark varnish. Some examples have lion heads.

DALLA COSTA, Pietro Antonio.—Treviso; about 1740 and later. Prints his name as “a Costa” in some of his tickets. Genuine instruments not very often seen. Generally Amati outline, good red or red-brown varnish. Well-finished work.

DALL’ AGLIO, Joseph.—Mantua; nineteenth century to about 1830.

DARCHE.—Nineteenth century. A well-known Mirecourt family working in Brussels and Aix. Their instruments are of the style and character of Vuillaume.

DAVIS, William.—London; to 1846. Was a dealer and repairer in a large way in Coventry Street.

DEARLOVE, Mark William.—Leeds; nineteenth century. The violoncellos and double-basses show good work and are in favour amongst orchestral players. He was for some time in partnership with John Fryer.

DE COMBLE, Ambroise.—Tournay; about 1735 and later. Reputed to have worked with Antonio Stradivari, which is unlikely. Work not usually highly finished. Varnish red, of fine quality. Well-cut scrolls. Labels are written. There seem to be more violoncellos than violins of his make in this country.

DECONET, Michele.—Venice. Seems to have worked until after 1780. There are, or were not long ago, a certain number of spurious “Deconets” in this country; one individual, well known amongst London dealers, is said to have “specialised” in such things. Deconet used a variety of labels, written and printed, and his name is frequently spelt with a small “d.” His work is not unlike that of Montagnana, by whom he is said to have been employed. Good (sometimes excellent) varnish of the Venetian type, and red or red-brown colour. It is said that in later life he worked in Padua.

DEGANI, Eugenio.—Venice; contemporary. A good workman who has obtained several medals for his instruments. Frequently uses purfling made in five strips (three black and two white) and works on a model of his own design.

DERAZEY, Honoré.—Mirecourt, Paris; to about 1875. Some of his copies are good sound instruments; chiefly Stradivari pattern. His son, Justin Derazey, was a manufacturer on a large scale, and bought the business of “didier” Nicholas from the latter’s widow.

DEROUX.—Mirecourt, Paris; nineteenth century. There were two makers of the name. Georges, died 1889 (Reims). Worked for Derazey, and Mougenot of Brussels. Work branded, and name sometimes pencilled in instruments. His son, Auguste, born 1848, worked with Hippolyte Silvestre, and Miremont. Is a good repairer and a medallist.

DESPINE, Alexander.—Turin. Worked until about 1845. Was employed by Pressenda, and made some fine violins which bear that maker’s ticket. Occasionally copied Guarneri, del Gesù. Piatti at one time possessed a violoncello made by him.

DE VITOR, Pietro Paolo.—Venice, Brescia; about 1740. Made some large fiddles of Maggini pattern.

DIEHL.—A number of makers of the name worked in Germany in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

DODD.—An English family, chiefly distinguished as bow-makers, in the late eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries. There were seven or eight workmen. John, born at Stirling, 1752, died in Richmond Workhouse, 1839, was the best-known bow-maker, and at least two Edwards, one of whom attained the age of 105 years, were also makers. Thomas Dodd, who died in about 1820, had a business as instrument dealer and maker in St. Martin’s Lane, London. He does not seem to have made instruments personally, but discovered a fine varnish which he put upon excellent instruments made for him by Bernhard Fendt, John Lott, and other workmen. These instruments, especially the violoncellos, are of great merit and handsome appearance, and realise good prices.

DÖRFFELL, also Dörffler.—The name of fully a score of German makers working in Klingenthal and Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

DOLLENZ.—Trieste; nineteenth century; there were two of the name.

DUCHESNE, Nicholas.—Paris; about 1750. Branded instruments of no great merit.

DUKE, Richard.—London; circa 1750-85. A celebrated English maker. Chiefly copied Stainer, but also Amati, and more rarely Stradivari. Well-finished work. Usually red-brown varnish of rather dull hue, but lighter shades are seen. Instruments commonly stamped under the button. Spurious and counterfeit “Dukes,” many not in the least resembling the originals, abound. His son, Richard, attained no distinction.

DULFENN, Alexander.—Leghorn; about 1700 and later. Specimens seen by writer were of wretched material and poor workmanship.

DVORAK.—Prague. Died 1890. A good copyist, who has left some well-made fiddles and violoncellos.

DYKES, Harry, and Sons.—London; contemporary. Well-known dealers and repairers. The sons, George and Arthur D., are both skilful workmen.

EBERLE.—Various makers of the name worked in Prague and elsewhere during the eighteenth century. The chief Prague maker was Johannes Udalricus Eberle, 1699-1768, a skilful workman who has left a good many instruments, generally on the lines of Stainer, with handsome wood and well-cut scrolls. Varnish on many of them is excellent and of considerable brilliancy. Tomaso Eberle worked in Naples down to about 1790. It does not appear whether he was related to the Prague family. There is little or no trace of German teachings in his violins, which are of the Gagliano class, and often bear Gagliano tickets. He may have worked with Niccolò Gagliano or some other member of the family. The varnish is similar to that used by that family; the work usually neat and well finished. Wood well-chosen and sometimes handsome.

EMILIANI, Francesco de.—Rome; eighteenth century. Rather high built. Work of the Tecchler school. He possibly assisted that maker. Scrolls very neatly cut.

ERNST, Franz Anton.—Gotha. Died 1805. Work little known in this country. Said to be of Stradivari pattern. He was also a violinist and composer.

EURY.—Paris; early nineteenth century. An excellent bow-maker.

FABRIS, Luigi.—Venice; 1860. Obtained medal in 1872 at Treviso.

FAGNOLA, Annibale.—Turin; contemporary. A maker whose instruments have lately attracted attention. His imitations of Pressenda and Rocca’s instruments are clever and not unfrequently pass as originals. Some are not well finished. Writer has recently seen a very good example made in the style of J. B. Guadagnini.

FENDT.—London; late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A gifted family of makers. The first, Bernhard Fendt, was a native of Innsbruck, born circa 1775; died, London, 1832. An admirable workman who copied the best features of the great Italian makers. He worked much for Thomas Dodd (q.v.) and in association with John Lott. Later he worked for old John Betts, continuing to work for the house after the death of that maker. Work so made bears Betts’s stamp. Bernhard Simon Fendt, his eldest son, died in March, 1852. Worked for Betts and was for some time partner with one Purdy (“Purdy & Fendt”). He was a wonderfully clever copyist, and made, amongst other types, instruments of all sizes, from violins to double basses, in imitation of the Brescian style (Gaspar da Salò and Maggini). These instruments have been constantly mistaken for genuine Brescian examples—particularly the double-basses, of which a number are in existence. Jacob Fendt, third son of Bernhard I., died comparatively young in or about 1849. His abilities were also of a high order. He worked for Davis, of Coventry Street, and for Turner, the dealer, producing “modern antiques,” chiefly of Stradivari type, in which the appearance of wear and time are most skilfully imitated. The tone of his copies is usually of excellent quality. Other members of the family were Martin, William, and Francis; all good workmen.

FENT, François.—Paris; circa 1760-91. Related to above family, and stated to have been uncle and instructor of the first Bernhard Fendt. In his labels he omits the “d” from his name. Said to have come from Innsbruck. His best work has never been surpassed and seldom equalled by any maker working in France. The violins are of Stradivari form, and the style is Italian throughout. Wood of handsome figure, and the finish irreproachable. Varnish, a beautiful red brown. The tone of very fine quality even in inferior examples. His instruments, unfortunately, were obviously made in different grades; and the commoner types, which frequently bear his name stamped in various places, are of relatively little importance and money value. Some of his varnish is much oxydised (almost black), and the wood of both backs and bellies worm eaten. His finest fiddles have sometimes passed as genuine Strads, and occasionally Lupot’s labels have been inserted; but the work is less heavy and more graceful than that of Lupot. His ordinary label has an ornamental border, bears no date, and contains errors of spelling.

FICHTL.—A number of German and Austrian makers of this name are mentioned. Two named Martin Matthias worked in Vienna in the eighteenth century and followed the Stainer pattern.

FICKER.—The name of fully a score of Markneukirchen and other German makers. Johann Gottlob, who died in 1832, is amongst the best known. Used a brand with his initials. Other Fickers followed the same practice.

FIORINI.—Two makers of the name may be mentioned. Raffaele worked in Italy, chiefly in Bologna, and died there in 1898. He made some well-finished instruments, amongst them a number of violoncellos. Varnish varies in colour, but is often a rather dark red. He was also reputed a good judge of old Italian work. Giuseppe, his son, migrated to Munich, where he was at work recently.

FISCHER.—Upwards of thirty German and Austrian makers of the name are enumerated.

FLORENO.—Bologna; eighteenth century. There appear to have been at least two makers who adopted the common practice of placing the surname first in their tickets. The Christian name, Guidantus, has therefore appeared as the surname in various books. Writer has seen a few specimens bearing the label, with brilliant varnish. High built, and outline of Amati character.

FONCLAUZE.—Paris. Died 1864. A most skilful bow maker. He worked for several others, including Vuillaume.

FORSTER.—A well-known English family, who came from Brampton in Cumberland. Three were named William, the second of whom died in 1808, and is best known as “Old Forster.” Very good work of Stainer or Stainer-Amati pattern. Oil varnish of a durable but not very clear texture. His violoncellos are more valued than the violins, though the work in the latter is often excellent. He employed various assistants, was patronised by Royalty, and his instruments commanded good prices in his own day. His grandson, Simon Andrew Forster (died 1870), was joint author with Sandys of a well-known history of the violin. A very readable, but not conspicuously accurate compilation, which has been humorously dubbed “the history of the Forster family.” He was himself a maker, and some of his work is of considerable merit.

FOURRIER, François Nicolas (known as “Nicolas of Paris”).—Paris. Born in 1758; died 1816. He was a first-rate maker, but is little known amongst English dealers and players, who are apt to confound him with “didier Nicolas,” a Mirecourt workman, and latterly a manufacturer on a large scale. Fourrier’s work is handsome, well finished, and he was evidently well acquainted with the characteristics of the classic Italian makers. Writer has met with violins, pattern rather large; excellent varnish of red or red-brown colour on a fine yellow ground. Sides sometimes rather shallow. Boldly cut scrolls. He was “luthier to the chapel of the Emperor,” Napoleon I.

FURBER.—London; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A numerous family, most of whom worked chiefly for the trade. The best of them was John, who died somewhere about 1845. He worked largely for Betts, and was a good copyist of Amati.

GABRIELLI.—Florence; eighteenth century. There were several makers of the name. Giovanni Battista (about 1740 and later) is the best known. Handsome wood and good varnish of yellow or orange colour. There is a resemblance to German work (Stainer) in the form of some instruments. The finish is neat and careful, arching frequently high. He used both written and printed tickets, in some of which he calls himself “de Gabriellis.” He also branded some of his work with the initials G. B. G.

GAFFINO, Joseph.—Paris; circa 1740-60. Was of Italian origin. Worked with Castagnery, and afterwards on his own account.

GAGLIANO.—Naples; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A large and important family of makers, who have left a considerable number of valuable instruments. The founder was Alessandro, who died between 1720 and 1730, and is reputed, upon very doubtful evidence, to have worked with Stradivari. In this country his genuine instruments are scarce, though numbers of Neapolitan instruments of varying patterns have been assigned to him. Though nearly all the family appear to have worked on lines more or less akin to those of Stradivari the resemblance between Alessandro’s violins and those of that maker is by no means close. In a few seen by the writer the arching has been of the ridgy character associated with some Amati instruments, but he also made examples of flatter arching. Varnish varies. In some it is of fine quality and soft texture, and quite distinct from the ordinary Neapolitan type. The scrolls of this maker, and of others of the name, are usually of poor, cramped style and workmanship. He made some violoncellos of considerable beauty and very fine tone. He seems to have used a variety of labels, some in manuscript. Niccolò Gagliano I. was the eldest son of the foregoing, and judging by the number of works still extant, was probably the most prolific maker of the family. The dates assigned to him in most books are quite unreliable; he seems to have worked until late in the eighteenth century, and probably died about 1780. Though his productions are of unequal merit, he was undoubtedly a workman of much skill. Sometimes he employed a fine red varnish of much brilliance and soft quality; in many cases, however, he used the clear yellow preparation, characteristic of the Neapolitan school. Arching generally pretty full, and sometimes rather high. Wood frequently handsome, the backs of the instruments being generally divided. In the violins the scrolls are generally poor and of insignificant cut. In the violoncellos they are somewhat better. In the latter the back of the peg-box sometimes has an aperture cut in it, to facilitate stringing. Outline based on that of Stradivari; sound-holes very well cut, and frequently placed a shade high in instrument. They are generally set very upright in the bellies. He made a considerable number of examples inlaid with black ornamentation. Niccolò II. was a son of Giovanni Gagliano (Joannes), and was a maker of no particular account. He died about 1826. Gennaro (Jannarius), circa 1720-75, was the second son of Alessandro, and is now usually reckoned the best maker of the family. Instruments much rarer than those of Niccolò. In his best work the finish is excellent; and his varnish (orange-yellow or red) is almost uniformly of a superior kind. The pattern more or less after that of Stradivari. The scrolls well cut and of bolder character than those of the other Gagliani. Some of his fiddles and basses have contained Stradivari tickets and have passed as originals. The tone is round, equal, and free from the nasal character which is often observable in Neapolitan fiddles. Ferdinand, 1724-81. Was the eldest son of Niccolò I. A good workman. Pattern rather broad-looking. Arching moderate. Finish frequently somewhat careless. Joseph: worked until about 1795, and was the second son of Niccolò I. He was associated with a younger brother, Antonio, and the instruments of the firm bear their joint label. His instruments are somewhat similar in appearance to those of his father, but usually inferior in style and finish. Giovanni, died circa 1806; was a nephew of Gennaro, and worked with him. Some of his examples are of good pattern, and well made. He occasionally ornamented them after the manner of Niccolò. There were several other Gagliani: Gaetano, Raffaele, and Antonio, who worked together in the last century down to about 1857; and others.

GAILLARD, Charles.—Paris; 1850-81. An excellent workman of the Paris school, whose instruments are rising in value. He worked with Gand. Strad pattern; sound-holes very well cut; set rather upright, and look a little wide open.

GAILLARD-LAJOUE, J.—Mirecourt and Paris. Died about 1870. Brother of the above, and also a fine workman. Worked with Gand.

GALRAM, Joachim Joseph.—Lisbon; 1769 to 1825. Work little known in England.

GAND.—Paris, Versailles. A famous French family of makers and dealers originating in Mirecourt. Charles Michael, the founder, was born there in 1748, and died in Versailles 1820. Charles François (“Gand père”) was his eldest son. Worked with Lupot, whose daughter he married, from 1802. Was an excellent maker, and one of the most skilful repairers who ever lived. He died in 1845. Charles Nicholas Eugène, the second son of Charles François, died in 1892. Was senior partner in the firm of Gand and Bernardel, who made instruments on an extensive scale, and held important appointments. The work produced by this house is of the Lupot class and traditions, and is of a high order of merit. There were other members of the family engaged in the violin business.

GAVINIÉS, François.—Bordeaux, Paris; eighteenth century. Instruments branded. The better class examples well made.

GEISSENHOFF, Franz.—Vienna; 1754-1821. By far the best of the Viennese makers, and a close imitator of the Stradivari pattern. All the details of the work are well executed, including the scrolls. Varnish usually a dark red-brown. The tone is round and of very good quality. He usually branded his work with his initials, under the button. The violoncellos are rare. His work has risen rapidly in value and to-day commands good prices.

GEMÜNDER, August.—Born 1814, Würtemburg; died New York, 1895. Made numerous instruments which are in high esteem in America. His brother George, born 1816, died 1899, worked first with Vuillaume in Paris, but went to New York in 1849. Made good copies in the Vuillaume style.

GERMAIN, Joseph Louis.—Paris. Died 1870. Worked with Gand and later with J. B. Vuillaume; afterwards on his own account. He was a clever maker and one of the best of Vuillaume’s workmen. His son Emile, born 1853, is well known in Paris, and has made a large number of instruments.

GIBERTINI, Antonio.—Parma, Genoa; nineteenth century to about 1850. Medallist at Milan. A neat workman. A few violins seen by writer were of Stradivari pattern, good wood and handsome red varnish. His work does not seem to be plentiful.

GILKES, Samuel.—London. Died 1827. A maker of much ability. Worked for Forster before establishing himself on his own account. The finish of his instruments is remarkable. They are somewhat scarce, and generally of Amati character, but he also copied Stradivari. A son, William, was well known as a double-bass maker.

GISALBERTI, Andrea.—Parma; eighteenth century, circa 1720 and later. Said also to have worked in Bozzolo, Rimini, and elsewhere. His existence has been doubted in some quarters, but violins by him undoubtedly exist, a few of which seen by the writer were of good tone, and not without character, albeit somewhat indifferent workmanship. Horace Petherick some years since wrote a book in which he sought to prove that Gisalberti was the instructor of Guarneri, del Gesù.

GLÄZEL.—Markneukirchen. For over a century a large number of makers of this name have worked in Markneukirchen and elsewhere in Germany.

GLASS.—Klingenthal. Another German family of whom much the same may be said as of the Gläzels.

GLIER.—Markneukirchen. Another large family of makers. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

GOBETTI, Francesco.—Venice; circa 1700-30. One of the finest makers of the Venetian school. There is nothing beyond tradition of a most unsatisfactory kind to prove that he was a pupil of Stradivari. His work in some cases suggests late Amati influence, both in form and style; it is frequently very beautiful in every respect, save the cutting of the scrolls. Handsome wood, beautiful red varnish, and tone of excellent quality. His genuine labels are by no means plentiful, the tickets of Francesco Ruger, Amati, and Stradivari, having been inserted in his instruments. The writer has met with two or three violins having a decidedly German outline which were assigned to this maker by judges of repute.

GOFRILLER.—Venice; to about 1740. A family, possibly of Tyrolese origin, whose work was until recent years little known in this country. The best maker was Matteo, much of whose work has been masquerading under the names of other makers, such as Joseph Guarneri, son of Andrea, Carlo Bergonzi, and Montagnana. The workmanship and style are good, wood sometimes, but not frequently, handsome, and the varnish, generally dark red, is of good quality. He seems to have made a good many violoncellos. The scrolls are well cut, but can hardly be described as of Italian type. Labels vary, and in some the name is spelt with a double “f.” Two other Gofrillers, Francesco and Antonio, are mentioned, but their work is almost unknown.

GOSSELIN, Jean.—Paris; circa 1820-30. An amateur. There are some fine violins of Stradivari pattern bearing his label. In some cases instruments made by another hand were varnished by him.

GOULDING.—London; about 1800. There are a good many violoncellos and violins bearing the stamp “Goulding,” some of English work, and others of obviously foreign make. Some of these are useful instruments, but there seems to be some doubt whether he was actually a maker.

GRAGNANI, Antonio.—Leghorn; circa 1740-1800. The best of the few makers dating from Leghorn. The violins bear some little likeness to the work of the Gagliano family, have a very good quality of tone, and the varnish is not unfrequently of good texture and appearance, though the colour is apt to fade. The scrolls are very poor. Instruments branded on the button, and sometimes in other places. Of late they have commanded some attention amongst players, and their value has increased considerably. There were two other makers of the name, but of no particular account.

GRANCINO.—Milan; late seventeenth and earlier eighteenth centuries. An important family of makers of whom there seem to have been upwards of half a dozen members. The earliest appears to have been Paolo, who was at work until near the end of the seventeenth century. The few of his instruments met with by the writer have been of Amati pattern, with yellow varnish, and wood exhibiting little or no figure. It is said that he was a pupil in Amati’s workshop. He certainly does not seem to have used varnish which can be compared with that of his master. His son Giovanni worked from about the end of the seventeenth century until 1730 or a little later, and has left a good many instruments of considerable value. The violoncellos perhaps take higher rank than the violins, but the finer specimens of the latter are not unfrequently handsome, both as to wood and varnish, and the tone is of full and telling quality. In some of his later work Giovanni discarded some of the Amati features seen in earlier examples. The arching is flatter, and the sound-hole assumes a somewhat pointed form, and is set more obliquely in the instrument. It has been said by writers that he imitated Guarneri del Gesù, a statement which is manifestly absurd having regard to dates. Instruments by him with the pointed sound-hole exist, which were made long before del Gesù’s admitted period of activity, i.e. 1725-45. Of the other makers of the name very little seems to be certainly known.

GRAND-GÉRARD.—Mirecourt; early nineteenth century. Branded instruments of rather large flat pattern and commonplace character. The tone is not unfrequently passable.

GRANDJON.—Mirecourt; nineteenth century. A family of makers. Instruments of moderate price and better class “factory” style of work.

GROBLICZ, Martin.—Warsaw; eighteenth century. The name is commonly printed “Grobitz” in books dealing with the violin. Examples scarce. Pretty work of Stainer pattern. Sometimes seen with lion-heads. The name is found in more modern instruments of a very common type, and with edges flush with the sides, instead of overlapping them.

GROSSMAN, Dr. Max.—Born Berlin. Contemporary. Is chiefly known as originator of a system of attuning the backs and bellies of instruments. This has been applied to modern examples made in Germany and sold under the name of the “New Cremona” violins, etc.

GUADAGNINI.—Piacenza, Turin, Milan, Parma; eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A very celebrated family originating at either Piacenza or Cremona. Lorenzo, the founder, claims in some of his tickets to have been a Cremonese. According to Hart and other writers, his dates run from about 1695 to 1740, or later. Much has been written about him, but in reality his genuine instruments are rarely seen in this country, and his work is imperfectly known, even amongst some of our better informed dealers. He also claims in some labels to have worked with Stradivari, but the veracity of the statement has been questioned time and again. The writer, during an experience of over thirty-five years, has seen very few authentic instruments by him. They are said to be of bolder design than those of his son Giovanni Battista, and the sound-holes are of varying form, sometimes resembling those of Guarneri del Gesù. All authorities are agreed as to the tone of his violins, which is described as large, and of excellent quality. He is supposed to have died at Milan. The most important maker of this family was Giovanni Battista Guadagnini, born apparently at Piacenza in 1711, died at Turin, September, 1786. He was Lorenzo’s son, and like him, states in some of the labels (those dating from Turin) that he was a Cremonese, and a pupil of Stradivari. Nearly all writers, British and continental, state that there were two G. B. Guadagninis, one of whom was Lorenzo’s brother, and of somewhat earlier date than the subject of this notice. The writer has seen a large number of instruments by G. B. Guadagnini of varying dates and places of origin, and is constrained to admit that violins dating from Milan and Parma present points of dissimilarity both in form, varnish, and the cutting of the scrolls, from those dating from Turin from about 1773 onwards. It is, however, the opinion of the best experts in this country, that there was but one G. B. Guadagnini, who changed his habitat several times. The facts of his life were collected by Count Cozio di Salabue, an Italian nobleman and collector, who died in 1824; he patronised Guadagnini and saved him in Turin from destitution. At the death of this distinguished amateur, something like fifty of Guadagnini’s instruments, with other valuable violins, were amongst his effects. Guadagnini seems to have worked first in Milan, then at Piacenza, later at Parma, where he was court maker to the duke, and lastly at Turin, to which city he migrated in 1772. There seems to be little doubt that he was acquainted with the composition of the celebrated Cremonese varnish, and used it, though comparatively infrequently, on some of his finest efforts. Some of his fiddles are models of good work, fine wood, and beautiful varnish, but his average instrument may fairly be described in less glowing terms. The varnish on most of those dating from Turin is a red, almost scarlet in some cases, of much brilliance, but less soft in texture than the true Cremonese. In earlier work the tints are less glaring, perhaps partly owing to the effect of time. The pattern resembles Stradivari’s. The sound-holes in many cases show rather a pronounced sweep in their upper turns. In a good many later examples, one is set a trifle higher than the other. The violins are generally rather under fourteen inches long, and the violoncellos almost always measure about twenty-eight inches or a trifle over. Very high prices have been paid in recent years for his best examples. The finest violin of his make ever seen by the writer, was sold by Mr. Hart about two years since for £800; and higher figures have been reached more recently still. Giuseppe Guadagnini (Joseph), circa 1736-1805. Was second son of the foregoing maker, and worked at Milan, Como, and Parma. Work heavier-looking than that of his father. The violins are apparently of somewhat larger pattern. The arching generally flat and the sound-holes broad in the stem. Seems to have made a good many instruments, including violas and violoncellos. The tone is frequently large and of good quality. It is said that he in many cases used the label of his father. Gaetano, another son of Giovanni Battista, worked at Turin to about 1831. He is said to have been chiefly a repairer. Writer has seen some violins (one or two of good workmanship and pattern, and prettily figured wood) bearing his label, but his work is very little known. Other members of the family, Francesco, Carlo, and Antonio, have been employed in the violin business. One Francesco was at work quite recently.

GUARINI.—Vide Mennesson.

GUARNERI.—Cremona, Mantua, Venice; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. The founder of this celebrated family was Andrea, born 1626 in Cremona; died there in December, 1698. An undoubted pupil of Niccolò Amati, by whom he was employed as late as 1653; he was at first a close imitator of his master. Later he altered the style of his work somewhat. It is stated in many books that he was fellow-workman with Stradivari, by whose style he became influenced. Dates certainly do not tend to confirm the statement. Stradivari was not born until 1644, and even if he was employed by Amati while Andrea Guarneri was in that maker’s workshop, there are instruments by Andrea in existence which were made before Stradivari could possibly be of an age to exert any influence, and which exhibit modifications in the pattern, form of sound-holes, and arching, showing clearly enough that the maker had begun to work on lines of his own. Occasionally, Andrea adopted the “Grand pattern” of Amati, and it is probable he assisted in the making of some of the violins of that type. One very beautiful violin, bearing his own label, is known to the writer, which might well pass for a Grand Amati. The sides of Andrea’s heads are usually more deeply grooved than those of Amati. Very few violas or violoncellos seem to be known. Messrs. Hill state that they have met with one of the latter of smaller dimensions than the usual violoncello of the period, but that other examples had been cut down from their original size. Joseph Guarneri, son of Andrea, was born in November, 1666, and appears to have been alive in 1738, but the date of death has not been ascertained. He worked for some time with his father. The beauty of the varnish on many of his violins has not been surpassed by any other maker. Some of his backs show a broad curl, others have wood of smaller figure, but considerable beauty. The pattern of his violins varies considerably, as also the amount of arching in the plates, which is commonly flatter in late than early specimens. Some examples show a long and somewhat stiff curve in the waist, or middle bouts; in others the curve is more pronounced, and resembles that seen in the instruments of his celebrated relative, Del Gesù. In the heads also a resemblance may now and then be traced, and the peg-box is somewhat cut in at the throat. The fiddles are usually about 13⁷/₈ inches long. The sound-holes set a trifle lower and nearer the edge of the instrument than is usual, and in certain examples the form of the sound-holes is very slightly pointed at the ends. This form is not seen in earlier specimens. His violas and violoncellos are scarce. A few fine examples of the latter are recognised. Pietro Giovanni Guarneri (“Peter of Mantua”), the eldest son of Andrea, was born in Cremona in February, 1655. Date of death not ascertained. He also employed most beautiful varnish of a deep orange, or red orange tint, and has left some charming examples of his work. The general style of his instruments belongs to the Amati school. Arching usually somewhat full, very fine scrolls, and sound-holes which are set almost perpendicularly, and very decidedly arched at their upper and lower turns. The fiddles usually of medium size, but larger examples are occasionally met with. A very fine violin dated 1686, with ornamental purfling, is figured by von Lütgendorff. The date when he went to Mantua does not seem to be known, and the writer is unable to find any satisfactory proof that he worked also in Venice, as has been frequently stated. Pietro Guarneri II. (“Peter of Venice”) was a son of Joseph, son of Andrea. He was born in Cremona in April, 1695, and appears to have worked in Venice until after 1760. In his labels, which have an ornamental border, he calls himself son of Joseph. He is stated to have worked for some time with his uncle, Peter of Mantua, in that city. The writer is not well acquainted with his instruments. Giuseppe Guarneri (“Joseph, del Gesù”) was born at Cremona in October, 1687. Date and place of death are unknown. The latest date seen in a violin is 1745. The correct birth date was ascertained by an Italian writer (de Piccolellis), and first published in 1886, notwithstanding which several subsequent writers have persisted in stating that the event took place in 1683, the date formerly supposed to be correct (on the authority of J. B. Vuillaume). According to Hart, whose view is generally followed by the best modern authorities, del Gesù’s probable instructor was his relative, Joseph, son of Andrea, and there are features in some of his work which certainly support this theory. The earliest date found in his admittedly genuine violins is said to be 1723. In that year he would be at least thirty-six years old, and no very satisfactory explanation of the absence of authentic specimens of earlier date seems to be forthcoming, unless we suppose that he did not begin to follow the art in which he was so conspicuously successful until pretty mature manhood. Horace Petherick, in 1906, published a book (illustrated) in which he claimed to have discovered that del Gesù’s master was Andrea Gisalberti of Parma (q.v.), a little-known maker of no great account. However, neither Mr. Petherick’s arguments, nor the examples by which he strove to support them, were seriously accepted by most judges of the first rank, and the difficulty may be said to be still unsolved. Neither violas nor violoncellos which can unhesitatingly be accepted as the work of del Gesù have come to light. Instruments of both types have from time to time been put forward as authentic, but have been rejected as spurious by all the best-informed authorities.

Much misapprehension—some at least of which may be traced to general and loosely worded descriptions in books—has existed in regard to the size of del Gesù’s larger violins. His more massive looking instruments give the impression of being of greater size than is found on careful measurement to be really the case. The widths are full, but the bodies measure only 13⁷/₈ inches, or a minute fraction over, in length, and, so far as the writer is aware, no properly verified exception to this rule has as yet appeared. A number of his earlier works are only 13¾ inches long, but nevertheless possess a volume of tone which is astonishing, considering the relatively small size of the instrument. It has been customary to classify his works into distinct types, varying with the period of their production. Though in the main a convenient system, the dates found in his violins do not by any means always square with it. Two illustrations of this will suffice. The “Hart” Joseph, now owned by the great artist Kreisler, is of the bold massive build which he is supposed to have adopted not earlier than 1740; but it dates, according to the label, from the year 1737. Paganini’s famous instrument (now in the museum at Genoa) is dated 1743, and the splendid example known as the “Le Duc” was made in 1745. Neither of these instruments exhibits the exceptional finish and elegance of form which may be seen in a few examples made between about 1734-38, yet each is a remarkable work of art, though dating from a period when his handiwork has been said to betray a lamentable falling off in design, workmanship, and varnish. There is no doubt that del Gesù did occasionally produce instruments which in some features, such as the form of the sound-holes, are uncompromisingly ugly; but, in the writer’s view, there are not sufficient data to assign these specimens to any particular period of his working life. His handsomest and most exquisitely finished violins seem to have been made approximately between the dates above stated, 1734-38. Instruments of this class are rare, but will in every way bear comparison with those of Stradivari. Three notable fiddles of this type may be mentioned: the D’Egville, dated 1735; the “King” Joseph (now in America), and the “Gillott,” both dated 1737. These, with perhaps a dozen others, are reckoned amongst connoisseurs as the most finely formed and finished specimens of this great master’s work. In early examples a distinct resemblance to the works of his cousin, Joseph, son of Andrea, is traceable, and instruments now properly assigned to that maker have pretty frequently been labelled and passed as the work of Del Gesù. The sound-holes of his violins exhibit much diversity of treatment both in the form and the angle at which they are placed, and it is evident that in the cutting of them he rarely had recourse to patterns, or templates. It is generally supposed that he revived the “pointed” form associated with the school of Brescia. In many cases there is little or no suspicion of a “point” visible, and in no case known to the writer is the peculiarity accentuated to the absurd extent exhibited in swarms of copies which may be met with. His arching varies considerably, but the rise of the plates from the edges to the centre is usually gradual. In the outline of his more robust type of instrument there is a resemblance to the violins of Maggini, but that maker’s large dimensions—his ordinary fiddle is about 14¼ to 14½ inches long—are never approached by del Gesù. His varnish is almost always of fine quality and Cremonese type. There are probably more yellow specimens to be seen than those of deeper shade, but on the latter its colouring and texture are admirable. Swarms of makers of all nationalities have imitated, or attempted to imitate, him; but the truth, as shown by experience, is that del Gesù’s work is very difficult to imitate successfully; far more so than that of Stradivari and many other noted makers. His eccentricities have been travestied to an extent which betrays the hand of the forger to all but the most inexperienced. The cutting of the scroll is nearly always a stumbling block, and perhaps ninety-nine out of every hundred copies are too big. This latter observation will generally be found to apply to the wonderfully clever imitations made by John Frederick Lott in the last century, a goodly number of which are still accepted as authentic “Josephs” by the uninitiated. In recent years he has been imitated (so far at least as external appearances go) with remarkable exactness, by a maker named Voller, whose skilful “facsimiles” of various classic makers at first puzzled numbers of observers by no means ill-acquainted with the characteristics of genuine Italian work. Amongst French copyists, J. B. Vuillaume, Pierre Silvestre, Remy, and Georges Chanot I., may be mentioned; but their instruments, though reproducing with more or less fidelity the form and peculiarities of del Gesù, are in the great majority of cases of larger dimensions than the originals. Italy has produced a number of followers, but, until quite recently, none seem to have succeeded in producing violins which by any stretch of imagination could be described as exact copies. Storioni and Carlo Bergonzi, and occasionally Testore, made fiddles which for years were accepted by the multitude as genuine “Josephs,” but nowadays few if any of them would pass as such amongst judges of any experience. As may be supposed, the number of this celebrated maker’s authentic works is very much less than that of Stradivari, whose labels date from about 1665-6 to 1737, the year of his death. It is much to be deplored that the repeated attempts to obtain reliable details of del Gesù’s life story have produced such meagre and disappointing results, but the prospect of fresh information coming to light seems to be remote.

GUERSAN, Louis.—Paris; eighteenth century to about 1770. Worked first with Claude Pierray. There are some good violins and other instruments bearing his name. His personal work, though by no means scarce, is not so plentiful as is sometimes supposed. He came of a family of makers, and his pattern and style were followed by other makers. Red or yellow varnish, sometimes handsome and brilliant. Sound-holes not very wide open. Heads cleanly cut. The arching varies a good deal. Pattern looks rather narrow; probably more so than it actually is. He used a variety of labels, one having a shield bearing his name.

GÜTTER. A whole tribe of makers of this name worked in Markneukirchen and elsewhere in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Upwards of a score of them are mentioned by the German writer, von Lütgendorff.

GUGGEMOS, Marcus.—Füssen; eighteenth century. High built fiddles with brown varnish, and ornamental labels. Füssen has produced makers whose style and varnish are not unlike Italian, but Guggemos can hardly be reckoned amongst them.

GUGLIELMI, Gio. Battista.—Cremona; eighteenth century. Little known.

GUIDANTUS. See Floreno.

GUSETTO, Niccolò.—Cremona; eighteenth century. A Florentine of no particular merit as a maker. Instruments usually high built and German in style.

GUTERMANN, Wilhelm Theodor.—Vienna. Died in 1900. A good workman. Made some curious shaped violins on a pattern designed by a Dr. Liharzik.

HAASE, Ferdinand.—Magdeburg, Dessau. Died 1892. Was a flute player who turned his attention to fiddle making, but apparently with indifferent success, his instruments being too thin in the plates.

HAENSEL, Johann Anton.—Rocksburg; about 1800.

HAFF, Joseph Anton.—Augsburg; nineteenth century. Died 1866. A son of the same name died in Stuttgart in 1902, and was a clever workman. He worked for some time in Munich and obtained medals.

HAKKERT, Jacob Wolfgang.—Rotterdam; contemporary. A workman of ability, who makes good copies of the Italian masters.

HAMBERGER.—Vienna, Presburg; nineteenth century. A family of makers who made some good violins, chiefly of Stradivari pattern.

HAMM.—Markneukirchen and Vilingenthal; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There were several workmen of this name, the best known of whom, Johann Gottfried, worked for some time in Rome. Instruments of Stainer pattern, but broader, and frequently with ivory edges. Initials branded inside. He died in 1817.

HAMMA & CO.—Stuttgart; contemporary. A well-known firm of dealers and repairers.

HAMMIG.—A family originating in Markneukirchen, and dating back to about the middle of the eighteenth century. There have been several of the name working and dealing in instruments in various parts of Germany besides Markneukirchen (Leipzig, Dresden, Berlin), and the Berlin house, still carried on, is well known on the Continent. HARBOUR, Jacob.—London; about 1760-90.

HARDIE.—Edinburgh; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Perhaps the best known family amongst the Scottish makers. The most celebrated member was Matthew, born Edinburgh in 1755, died 1826. His best work is very well finished. He copied the patterns of various Italian makers, but chiefly Stradivari and Amati. The tone of many of his violins is excellent. His varnish, according to examples seen by the writer, was not of the best. There were two James Hardies, of whom the second, born 1836, was the founder of the present Edinburgh firm of James Hardie and Son. He has produced an enormous number of instruments, many of which are somewhat on the lines of Maggini. Other makers of the name were Peter, who died at Dunkeld in 1863, and branded his work with his name; and Thomas, a son of Matthew, who could turn out good work when he chose; he died in 1856.

HARE, John.—London; eighteenth century, first half. Unquestionably one of the best of the old English makers. He shares with a contemporary (Daniel Parker) the merit of having been the earliest of the English school to turn serious attention to the pattern of Stradivari. His instruments are of large proportions, flat arching, and good finish, the heads being the weakest feature of the design. He used an excellent red varnish of considerable brilliance, and it is to be regretted that his work is so scarce. The tone also is exceptionally good and resonant in a well-preserved example. Opinions seem still to be divided as to whether Joseph Hare, mentioned in most books on the violin, was or was not identical with John. The latter was for some time associated in business with an individual named Freeman, of whom nothing else seems to be known. He worked near the Royal Exchange.

HARMAND, L.—Mirecourt; eighteenth century. Medium sized fiddles, with reddish varnish. Stamped “Au Roi David. L. Harmand.”

HARRIS, Charles.—Oxford, London. Worked until about 1800. His work is rarely labelled, and is little known, except to a few of the dealers. An excellent maker, whose fiddles and basses (particularly the latter) are deservedly in high repute. The pattern is generally that of Stradivari; Amati copies do not so frequently occur. Harris is noted amongst other things for his varnish of a warm red tint. A son of the same name worked in Oxford and London, and was for a time employed by John Hart.

HART.—A name familiar to violinists the world over. The firm of Hart and Son was established in Lower Wardour Street (formerly Princes Street, Leicester Square) by John Thomas Hart, who died in 1874. He was apprenticed to Samuel Gilkes, but made few instruments. John Hart and Georges Chanot I., of Paris, were in their day the most renowned judges of fiddles in Europe, and the former was instrumental in forming some of the most notable collections of violins that have ever been brought together. George Hart I., his son, who died in 1891, was also a judge of the highest eminence, but will always be remembered as the author of “The Violin, its Famous Makers and their Imitators,” which is recognised as the standard English work of reference. It passed through various editions in the author’s lifetime, and a further edition, with certain additions and emendations by his son and the present writer, was issued in 1909. George Hart II., son of the former, is the present head of the firm, and is a judge of wide experience of violins and violoncellos of the highest class.

HASSERT, Johannes George Christian.—Eisenach and Rudolstadt; eighteenth century. Instruments rarely seen in this country, but according to continental writers they are of good form, Italian style, and moderate arching. He worked until about 1775. A son, Johann Christian, worked at Rudolstadt, and died there in 1823.

HAUDEK, Carl.—Vienna; contemporary. Succeeded to business of Lemböck. He has obtained medals, but appears to have made few instruments; well known as a restorer.

HÄUSSLER, Gustave.—Cracow; contemporary. A maker who has obtained medals for his instruments in Cracow and Lemberg. Stradivari pattern.

HAVELKA, Johann Baptist.—Linz; eighteenth century.

HEBERLEIN.—A family of makers originating in Markneukirchen, and ranging in date from the early eighteenth century to the present time. Some fifteen or sixteen makers of the name are enumerated. The best known of these is Heinrich Theodore, who died in 1910, and was a first-class workman.

HEESOM, Edward.—London; eighteenth century. Work very scarce and little known. Stainer pattern.

HEINEL, Oskar Bernhard.—Markneukirchen; contemporary. A clever workman in various styles, including “modern antiques.”

HEL, Pierre Joseph.—Lille. Born 1842. Instruments of his workmanship are excellent in every detail. Form, material, and varnish are all most praiseworthy, and he occupies a prominent place amongst makers of modern times. He obtained several medals. Instruments of an inferior grade, but not of his own workmanship, are of the “trade class,” and of no particular account, although occasionally sold as genuine. They bear, or should bear, a distinctive label. The business is now carried on by a son (Pierre), who is well known as a dealer.

HELD, Johann Joseph.—Enskirchen, Beuel. Died 1904. A clever workman, who obtained several medals, and seems to have had some theories of his own, one of which was impregnating the wood of his instruments. He was patronised by Ole Bull.

HELLMER.—Several makers of the name worked in Prague in the seventeenth and eighteenth century. The family is supposed to have come from Füssen. In this country the best known is Karl Joseph, who died in 1811, and was a pupil of Eberle. There seem to be a good many spurious labels about containing the device used by him, a lion holding an instrument of the lute species. Red-brown varnish, careful finish, and medium arching. The general characteristics of his work belong to the German school. His father, Johann Georg, who died in Prague in 1770, made high-built fiddles of the Kloz type.

HENOCQ.—Paris; eighteenth century. Two makers of the name worked in Paris. HENRY.—Paris; nineteenth century. A family of makers of good repute. Amongst them may be mentioned Charles, who died in 1859, and was a prolific workman, who has left many useful instruments. He obtained medals. A son, Eugene, also a medallist, died in 1892.

HENRY, J.—Paris. Died 1870. An excellent bow-maker. Worked for some time with Dominique Peccatte.

HERZLIEB, Franz.—Gratz. Died 1861. A clever copyist. Handsome wood, yellow-brown varnish.

HILL.—A well-known family of fiddle-makers and dealers, whose connection with stringed instruments dates back to the seventeenth century. Some of the earlier members were makers of much ability. Amongst them may be mentioned Joseph Hill II., son of another maker of the same Christian name; this maker died in 1784, and first worked with Banks and Peter Wamsley. His copies of Amati violins, though not scrupulously exact, have frequently passed as originals, and some are thoroughly good instruments. His violoncellos are also in high esteem amongst players. Two other Josephs were also makers, and seem to have worked both on their own account, and for the trade. There were two Lockey Hills, the second of whom, named Henry Lockey, was employed by John Betts. The writer has met with some beautiful examples of his instruments, the style and finish of which were most praiseworthy, and the pattern that of Stradivari. The present widely known firm of W. E. Hill & Sons was established in Wardour Street by William Ebsworth Hill, and is now located in Bond Street, London. W. E. Hill died in 1895. Though a skilful workman he made few new instruments, and devoted his attention chiefly to repairing and dealing in old violins. The active members of the present firm are Arthur Frederick, born in 1860, and Alfred Ebsworth, born in 1862. As a judge of old fiddles and basses the latter holds a foremost place. The firm has published monographs on various notable instruments, and the work on Antonio Stradivari is the most exhaustive account of that maker and his work which has been published.

HJORTH.—Copenhagen. A family of makers established in Copenhagen since about the end of the eighteenth century. The founder was Andrea, who died there in 1834, and copied the pattern of Amati. His instruments are branded “A. H. H.” Emil Hjorth, born 1840, and his son Otto carry on the business, and have made good copies. The former at one time worked with Bernardel in Paris.

HÖRLEIN, Karl Adam.—Kitzingen, Würzburg. Died 1902. Pupil of Lemböck, in Vienna. In later years imported fiddles from Markneukirchen, which he varnished and finished personally.

HOFFMANN.—Numerous makers of the name worked in different parts of Germany. One of the best known is Martin Hoffmann, who worked in Leipzig until about 1725. A son, Johann Christian, was at work there until about 1750.

HOFMANN, Anton.—Vienna. Died 1871. Carried on a large business as a maker and repairer in Vienna, and dealt with Tarisio.

HOFMANS, Matthias.—Antwerp; 1700-50. Good work, and excellent varnish of Italian character and appearance. HOMOLKA.—There were nearly a dozen makers of the name in Prague and elsewhere (one in Vienna). The best known was Ferdinand August Vincenz, who died in 1890, and was a clever copyist of Italian masters, including Peter Guarneri of Mantua. Others of the family are: Emmanuel Adam, died 1849 in Prague; and Edward Emmanuel, born 1860. The latter is a good maker, and judge of old instruments.

HOPF.—A large number of makers of this name have operated in Klingenthal, Markneukirchen, and elsewhere in Germany for generations. Some were tolerable workmen; others most indifferent. Most of them used to brand their work, and the name Hopf may be seen branded on productions of the very commonest class, which are hardly fit to be described as violins.

HORNSTEINER.—The family name of a small army of Mittenwald fiddle-makers who have been at work for several generations. Several bore the same Christian name, and space prohibits any attempt to describe or discriminate between their works. Matthias II. and Joseph II., who worked down to about the first decade of the nineteenth century, are amongst the best of this numerous tribe.

HOYER.—A Klingenthal family of makers dating from the eighteenth century to very recent times. Von Lütgendörff enumerates nearly forty workmen of this name.

HUEL, Henri.—Paris; to about 1780. Little known; used a large label.

HULINZKY, Thomas Andreas.—Prague. Died 1788. A pupil of Eberle, and a careful workman. Used a ticket bearing a device similar to that of Hellmer.

HULSKAMP.—A Westphalian who migrated to New York. He exhibited a “freak fiddle” with a round hole in the belly instead of the usual sound-holes in London in 1862.

HUNGER, Christoph Friedrich.—Leipzig. Died 1787. A maker whose instruments are highly thought of in Germany. His father, who worked in Borstendorff, was also a violin maker.

HUREL, Jean.—Paris. Court maker about the end of the eighteenth century.

HUSSON.—Nineteenth century. A Mirecourt family of makers, one of whom, Charles, worked with Gand and Bernardel and was noted for his bows, some of which are stamped with his name.

JACOBS, Hendrik.—Amsterdam; late seventeenth century to about 1735. The most important maker of the Dutch school. Legend has been busy with his name, and according to the story, he worked with Niccolò Amati, and married his daughter. To make matters complete he should have succeeded to the business, but tradition stops short of this denouement. There seems to be nothing like direct evidence that he had any Italian training. He frequently imitated Amati with considerable exactness, and employed wood resembling that used by the Cremona maker; he also used a fine quality of varnish, usually red-brown in colour. His violins vary in size, but many of them are built more or less on the lines of the grand Amati. The scrolls are generally somewhat mean looking, and narrow, when viewed from the front; but the writer has seen exceptions where he was more successful with this feature. Sound-holes vary in form, some being of Amatese cut, and others hinting of the school of Stainer. His instruments are not so rare as is frequently supposed, the fact being that many of them still figure either as the work of Amati or of other Italian makers. One such, in the possession of a well-known French professor, recently came under the writer’s notice, and had been confidently declared to be an early example of Stradivari. Jacobs used whalebone purfling, which in some cases has been removed, and wooden purfling inserted by other hands. Whether he personally inserted Amati tickets into his instruments, as some Italians did, is not clear. The tone of a well-preserved example is usually excellent. The name seems to have been at first “Jacobsz,” the final “z” being dropped in the labels usually seen. The older books speak of a Peeter Jacobs, who, if he ever existed, apparently cannot now be traced. Vidal supposes that he was really identical with Pieter Rombouts, another Amsterdam maker contemporary with Jacobs, and supposed to have worked with him.

JACOT, Jean Charles.—Metz. Died 1887. Made some well-made instruments; a son was established in Paris.

JACQUOT.—Nineteenth century; Nancy, Paris. A well-known family of makers. The founder was Charles, born at Mirecourt 1804, died 1880, near Paris. Worked with “didier” Nicolas, and later with Breton. Was first established at Nancy, went to Paris in 1854 and there produced his best work. An excellent workman, and a good judge of old instruments. He received numerous medals. Pierre Charles, born 1828, was his son, and took over the business in Nancy. He died there in 1895, and also received medals. Well-finished work, usually of Stradivari pattern. Two of his sons, Etienne Charles Albert, born 1853, and Jules Victor, born 1855, have carried on the business.

JAEGER.—Markneukirchen. Makers of the name have been at work from early in the eighteenth century down to very recent times.

JAIS.—Mittenwald, Botzen; eighteenth century. There were several makers of the name. Some of their instruments have a fine red or yellow-brown varnish of Italian character, and the build and general style of the work is not unlike that of Albani. Joannes Jais seems to have worked in Botzen until after 1780. Good work, label with an ornamental border. Andreas Jais worked in Mittenwald and Tölz down to about 1750. Made a good many instruments of high build and frequently with well-carved lion-heads. A son named Johannes died in Tölz in 1762. Anton, apparently a grandson, was at work until after 1830. Pretty wood and good varnish.

JAUCH, Andreas.—Dresden; circa 1749-80. Work rarely seen in this country, but is said to be of Italian character. The family name seems to have been “Jauck” and to have originated in Gratz—other makers of the name worked there.

JAURA.—Vienna; nineteenth century. A family of makers. The present maker, Wilhelm Thomas, was born in 1863, and is known as a skilful copyist and repairer.

JAY, Henry.—London; latter half of eighteenth century. Worked for Longman and Broderip, for whom he made violoncellos. Was also a noted maker of kits. Thomas Jay, his father, worked in the earlier half of the century. Little known.

JEANDEL, Pierre Napoleon.—Rouen; 1812-79. Red fiddles of good pattern and workmanship. Obtained several medals.

JOHNSON, John.—London; circa 1750. Stainer pattern, mediocre workmanship. Examples scarce. He had a music shop in Cheapside.

JOMBAR, Paul.—Paris; contemporary. Well-made fiddles of the modern French type. He was apprenticed to Audinot.

JORIO, Vincenzo.—Naples; circa 1850. Ornamental label, printed on yellow paper. Rather large pattern. Work well finished but seemingly scarce.

KABINGEN, Jacob.—Budapest; circa 1855. Seems to have been a superior workman and to have migrated to Russia.

KÄMBL, Johann Andreas.—Munich. Died 1781. Apparently a maker of repute. Writer is unacquainted with his work.

KARNER, Bartholomäus.—Mittenwald; eighteenth century. Fairly well made instruments. Brown varnish. Label with ornamental border.

KARNER, Johann Georg.—Enns; about 1825. Instruments branded “I. K.” in addition to bordered label. Mediocre work; wood frequently worm-eaten.

KEFFER.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There appear to have been several German makers of the name, working chiefly in Goisern. Instruments labelled, also branded “J. K.”

KEMPTER, Andreas.—Dillingen. Died 1786. High built. Stainer pattern; sometimes with lion heads. He seems also to have made instruments of flatter arching.

KENNEDY.—London; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A well-known family of Scottish origin. Alexander, the founder, died in London in 1785. Neat work. Stainer pattern. A nephew, John, worked chiefly for the trade and died in 1816. The best known maker was Thomas, the son of John, born 1784, died 1870. He also worked for the trade, but made a very large number of instruments on his own account, including numerous violoncellos. His personal work, when he chose to do his best, was of good pattern, and very neatly finished, but he evidently made instruments of different classes, and the poorer examples are of little worth.

KESSLER.—Markneukirchen. A very numerous family of German makers dating from about 1700 to the present time. They came from Markneukirchen, but some have settled in different German towns. The more recent members have manufactured on a considerable scale.

KITTEL, Nicholas.—St. Petersburg; to about 1870. Work scarce. He is best known as a bow-maker, and has produced excellent bows, stamped with his name.

KLEMM.—Markneukirchen. There were several workmen of the name in the eighteenth century.

KLEYMAN, Cornelis (also spelt Kleynman).—Amsterdam; seventeenth century. A little known copyist of Amati.

KLOZ.—Mittenwald; seventeenth to nineteenth centuries. A very numerous and important family of makers, and the real founders of the enormous business in violin making which has been carried on in and around Mittenwald since their time. About a score or more of makers of the name have been enumerated, and, as many of them bore the same Christian name, there has been much confusion as to their identity. About half a dozen of the number are tolerably well known and distinguished by judges in this country. For the rest, it is doubtful if even amongst their own countrymen any one is living who can claim any very exact knowledge of their individual work. The earlier workmen made more or less accurate copies of the instruments of Stainer, and in some cases there is little doubt that they labelled and sold their work as his, even during his lifetime. Some of the later Klozs altered the pattern of their violins and evidently based their designs upon Italian work, but none of them really succeeded in producing specimens possessing the true Italian style, although some of these have passed current as Cremonese amongst the unlearned in such matters. Most of them made their fiddles in two or more grades, the better of which, in certain cases, are well finished and possess a yellow or red-brown varnish of considerable brilliancy, and quality akin to that of Italy; but the bulk of the Kloz fiddles and basses are covered with the poor, meagre-looking stuff known as “glue varnish.” In numbers of cases the varnish on their work has become almost black. Of the individual members of the family, Matthias I. (1656-1743) made fiddles of Stainer character and occasionally covered with varnish which gives some colour to the story that he travelled in Italy and acquired experience of Italian methods of varnishing. Egidius Kloz I. worked until 1711, and his instruments are good and fairly valuable. Egidius II. died in 1805, and was a neat workman, but rarely used decent varnish. His violins are fairly common in this country. Johann Carl was one of the best of the tribe; model fairly flat; good red-brown varnish, and some general resemblance to Italian style in the work. He died in 1790. There were two makers named George, the second of whom died in 1797, and produced some highly finished work with brilliant varnish, but of Stainer model. Of the three Josephs, the latest, who was alive in 1798, seems to have adopted a type of fiddle which has since been extensively imitated and has an outline of more Amati appearance than that of his predecessors. Sebastian I. was a son of the first Matthias, and is usually reckoned the best maker of the family; he worked until about 1750, and produced good-sized fiddles, the best of which have handsome wood and flatter arching than those of his father; but Stainer traditions were evidently deeply implanted in him, and he never entirely discarded them. Several of the family adopted lion-heads with more or less frequency. Those of the first George are very well carved. Kloz scrolls are not artistic, though they are distinctive enough. Genuine Kloz fiddles of one grade or another are plentiful enough, but the celebrity at one time attaching to the name has led to numberless forgeries, many of which figure in pawnshops, and bear little or no resemblance to the originals.

KNILLING.—Mittenwald; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There were well over a dozen makers of this name.

KNITL, Joseph.—Mittenwald; to about 1790. Stainer model. Another Knitl, named Franz, said to be a son, worked in Freising, dying there in 1791.

KNOPF.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A Markneukirchen family settled in various parts of Germany and elsewhere. One of them, Henry Richard, worked with Bausch in Dresden and was recently at work in New York.

KÖGL, Hanns.—Vienna; about 1670. Said to have been born in Füssen. Imitated Brescian work.

KOLDITZ.—There were two or three makers of the name, one of whom, Matthias Johann, worked in Munich until about 1760.

KOLIKER, Jean Gabriel.—Paris; to about 1810. Chiefly known as a repairer, but is reputed to have made certain modern antiques of nondescript appearance.

KRETZCHMANN.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A very numerous family. In some of their instruments the maker’s initials are branded in the place usually occupied by the label.

KREUZINGER.—The name of a Schönbach family of makers in the nineteenth century. Anton, born 1873, is highly spoken of as a good copyist. Joseph, born 1871, is reckoned a good workman, but seems latterly to have manufactured on a large scale.

KRIGGE, Heinrich.—Danzig; circa 1750 Large fiddles, double purfled after the manner of Maggini.

KRINER.—Mittenwald; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A large family which includes one or two high-class workmen. Amongst them may be mentioned Simon Kriner, who died in 1821, and was a clever copyist of Italian work. He travelled with his productions and occasionally came to England.

KULIK, Johannes.—Prague. Died 1872. Neat work and well-cut heads. Used various tickets.

LAFLEUR, Jacques.—Paris. Died 1832. Excellent bow-maker. A son, Joseph René, was also a good workman. Died 1874.

LAGETTO, Louis.—Paris; eighteenth century. Was an Italian. Yellow-brown varnish. Mediocre style and appearance.

LAMBERT, Jean Nicolas.—Paris; eighteenth century. Used various labels, some with ornamental border; also sometimes branded his work.

LAMY, Alfred Joseph.—Paris; contemporary. Well-known bow-maker. Imitates style of Voiriu.

LANDOLFI, Carlo Ferdinando.—Milan; circa 1740-80. A maker of some importance. His work is fairly plentiful, and the best examples are well finished and exhibit much handsomer material than that employed by most of the Milanese makers. The varnish on such examples is strikingly beautiful. It is of different shades varying between yellowish-red and brown-red. Scrolls not handsome. He is sometimes cited as a follower of Guarneri del Gesù, but there is little or no resemblance to the work of that maker. Arching sometimes rather full. Sound-holes well cut, but rather weak looking. Work generally very characteristic, but examples are met with in which it is carelessly finished and the varnish inferior. He seems to have made his instruments in different grades. The violoncellos used to realise better prices than the violins. They are good instruments, but rather small in size. A son named Pietro Antonio worked with him and succeeded him. He seems to have lived until about the end of the century. A few examples of his work seen by the writer were of inferior style and finish. Yellowish-red varnish of not much brilliancy. Sound-holes slightly pointed.

LANTNER, Ferdinand Martin.—Prague. Died 1906. He made a number of instruments, but they seem to be scarce in this country.

LANZA, Antonio Maria.—Brescia; to about 1715. Genuine work scarce. Maggini style.

LAPAIX, J. A.—Lille; to about 1858. Was an inventor or innovator whose experiments did not lead to much, but made some useful fiddles of orthodox pattern.

LA PREVOTTE, Etienne.—Marseilles, Paris. Died 1856. Made some handsome violins, but was chiefly a guitar maker.

LARCHER, Pierre.—Paris, Tours; eighteenth century. Pupil of Guersan.

LASKE, Joseph Anton.—Prague. Died 1805. Said to have been a fine workman. Little known in this country. Some of the labels have an ornamental border.

LAVAZZA, Antonio Maria.—Milan; early eighteenth century. Scarce. A relative named Santino Lavazza worked about the same time.

LE BLANC.—Paris; about 1800. Brown instruments, branded with the name.

LE CLERC, J. N.—Paris; eighteenth century.

LEEB.—Pressburg, Vienna. A family of makers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. The best known is Andreas Carl, a good workman. Chiefly Stradivari pattern.

LEGNANI, Luigi.—Naples; circa 1760. Pupil of Zosimo Bergonzi.

LEIDOLFF.—Vienna; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. There were several members of the family. Their work is of the Stainer school.

LEISSMÜLLER, Christopher and Martin.—Krünn, near Mittenwald; eighteenth century. Two makers who have made useful violins of good tone.

LE JEUNE.—Paris; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A numerous family of makers of no particular eminence.

LEMBÖCK, Gabriel.—Budapest. Died 1892. A good maker and excellent repairer.

LENOBLE, Auguste.—Paris. Died 1895. A fine bow-maker. Worked first with François Peccatte.

LENTZ, Johann Nicholaus.—London; early nineteenth century. A Tyrolese. Instruments date from Chelsea. The work is passable, but specimens are not often seen. He was first employed as a butler, and became friendly with J. F. Lott.

LE PILEUR, Pierre.—Paris; 1750.

LÉTÉ, Simon.—Paris; nineteenth century. Married the daughter of F. Pique. Was chiefly an organ builder, but made passable violins. J. B. Vuillaume was in partnership with him until 1828.

LEWIS, Edward.—London; seventeenth century. Carefully finished work with yellow or yellow-red varnish. Scarce.

LIEBICH.—Breslau; nineteenth century. Several of the name date from Breslau. Some of their copies are very well made.

LIPP.—A name frequently seen in eighteenth century fiddles, mostly dating from Mittenwald.

LIPPOLD.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family of makers in Markneukirchen.

LONGMAN & BRODERIP.—London. Well-known dealers in the eighteenth century. Banks, Jay, and several other good workmen made instruments for the firm.

LORENZ.—Eighteenth century. There were two or three German makers of the name, chiefly in Markneukirchen. No particular merit. Name branded on backs.

LOTT.—London. A celebrated family of German origin, dating from late eighteenth century. The senior and perhaps most important member was John Frederick Lott, who died in London in 1853. He was first associated with Fendt in working for Thomas Dodd (q.v.), and his double basses will bear comparison for style and workmanship with anything of the kind made in this country or abroad. He also made fine violoncellos, and, more rarely, violins, but was a fine workman in all departments. His son George Frederick died in 1868, and worked chiefly for Davis, the well-known dealer in Coventry Street, for whom he made many clever copies of Italian instruments. He was also celebrated as a judge of old violins. John Frederick Lott II., who died in 1871, was the second son of J. F. Lott, senior, and is perhaps the best known of the family amongst violinists. His copies of del Gesù’s fiddles are frequently remarkably clever imitations, and are still frequently mistaken for originals, though they are usually a trifle larger than the latter. He was almost equally successful in imitating Carlo Bergonzi, but examples of that pattern are rather scarce. But it may be said that he could, when he chose, imitate any of the great Cremonese masters with extraordinary fidelity. He was occasionally employed by J. B. Vuillaume, to whom he is said to have imparted information (little needed, one would have supposed) on the methods employed in making facsimiles of old Italian work.

LOUIS, Jean.—Geneva, Basle; about 1800-20.

LOWENDALL, Louis.—Dresden, Berlin; nineteenth century. A well-known manufacturer of stringed instruments and accessories.

LUPOT.—Eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. A celebrated French family of makers originating in Mirecourt. Jean, the founder, died there in 1749, and was in no way distinguished. His son Laurent worked in various places and died in Orleans between 1760-70. Francois Lupot I. was son of Laurent, and worked chiefly in Orleans, but went to Paris in 1794 and died there in 1804. He was a good workman, vastly superior to his predecessors. His name is usually stamped on the back of his instruments in addition to the label. Brown or yellow-brown varnish of moderate quality. Arching sometimes inclined to be full. Sound-holes rather upright and the opening not very wide. Scroll mediocre. He is said to have worked with Guarneri del Gesù, but his violins bear no likeness whatever to those of that master, and it is difficult to understand how such a story could have gained currency. His son Nicholas Lupot, born Stuttgart, 1758, died Paris, 1824, was a maker of the first rank, and is usually reckoned the most important of all the makers of the French school. He worked first with his father, and his earlier examples date from Orleans. In 1792 he made for Pique of Paris a number of fiddles in the white, which were varnished by that maker, and bore his label, but are easily distinguished from the works of the latter. The migration to Paris took place in 1794, and his finest efforts are dated from there, the best period beginning about 1800, or a year or two later. His copies of makers other than Stradivari are comparatively rare, but he was unquestionably one of the best imitators of the great Cremonese who ever lived. The work throughout is scrupulously well finished; outline exactly reproduced, and scrolls and sound-holes cut with much vigour and accuracy. Notwithstanding this, the general appearance of his instruments is a trifle massive and heavy, and there is no doubt that in this respect certain other copyists, such as François Fent and Vincent Panormo, have excelled him. His varnish is of good quality, but varies somewhat in appearance, texture, and colour. Dark red was the favourite shade, but lighter shades from yellow onwards are met with, and in some examples the reds are rather glaring. The tone of a fine example is excellent, but, like that of most French instruments, seldom or never possesses the true Italian quality. Some of the violoncellos are superb. He was the founder of the more modern and typical French school of makers and had several notable pupils. His younger brother, François Lupot II., died in Paris in 1837. Such violins as he made are quite indifferent, and his attention was almost entirely confined to bow-making. His best bows are excellent in every way, but he was an unequal workman, and a good many are a trifle short in the stick.

LUTZ.—Eighteenth and nineteenth century. A large family of makers in Schönbach. Some of them established themselves in other places (Vienna and Paris), and were at work quite recently.

MacGEORGE, George.—Edinburgh. Worked with Matthew Hardie, and later alone until about 1820.

MACINTOSH, John.—Dublin. Died about 1840. Born in Scotland. Succeeded to Perry and Wilkinson’s business. A tolerably good workman, but resorted to practices for artificially maturing the wood of his instruments.

MAGGINI, Giovanni Paolo.—Brescia. Born in Botticino Sera, near Brescia, in August, 1580. Died in or before 1632. It is supposed that he fell a victim to the plague in the latter year. Interesting and important information about him was discovered by Professor Berenzi, who lectured on the subject in Brescia in 1890 and also wrote a pamphlet. The facts thus disclosed were included in a monograph on Maggini compiled by Lady Huggins, and published in 1892, most of the material being derived from notes supplied by the brothers Hill. The maker was apprenticed to Gaspar da Salò, and his earlier work is primitive looking and somewhat rough. According to the Huggins monograph both backs and bellies were at first cut on the slab. The violins of Gaspar da Salò, or such of them as have survived, seem to be usually of small pattern; those of Maggini, on the other hand, are usually of large size and may measure from 14¼ to a fraction over 14½ inches in length of body; but according to observations made by the writer, there is reason to believe that he now and then made examples of somewhat reduced proportions. Be that as it may, the typical Maggini fiddle is considerably larger than an ordinary full-sized instrument. His practice was to double purfle his work, but several single purfled specimens are known. The sound-holes at his best period are finely cut and set somewhat slantingly in the belly, the edges being bevelled on the under side. The lower circles are somewhat smaller than the upper ones, but it is by no means certain that this feature was either originated by or entirely peculiar to Maggini, as has been asserted. The cutting of the scroll is peculiar, the turns being from a quarter to half a turn shorter than the ordinary number. In large numbers of continental and other forgeries, and in the common copies of Maggini violins, the process has been reversed and an extra turn added to the volute. The varnish is of fine quality, brown in early work, and golden with a tinge of red in the latest specimens. The outline of the body is bold, with short corners, and, in a typical example, the waist widens rapidly to the lower corner. The arching of the violins is very gradual, rising to about half an inch in the centre of the plates. There are, however, specimens, supposed to date from Maggini’s middle period, in which the build is somewhat higher, and there is a “pronounced raised border” running round the edges. The labels are undated, and placed near the centre of the instrument, instead of directly under the sound-hole. The tone of his best violins is superb, but a little deficient in brilliancy in the upper register. Genuine Maggini work is scarce, but imitations of it abound. One of the cleverest imitators was Bernhard Fendt, several of whose double-basses have passed as Magginis. Violas of unquestioned authenticity do not exceed about a dozen in number. They are more arched than the fiddles and the sound-holes set somewhat high. Nearly all the existing specimens have been reduced in size. Only two or three genuine violoncellos appear to be known. Of double-basses and instruments of the violone class it is difficult to speak with certainty. A small chamber bass, erroneously assigned to da Salò, was in the possession of Mr. T. W. Bourne a few years ago, and a fine example of large size is, or was recently, in Stockholm. Much of the work of this class formerly assigned in this country to Maggini is now recognised as English, Fendt and one or two others being the authors of it. Of Maggini’s two sons, one died in infancy, and the other, Pietro, was not a violin maker. The older books mention a Pietro Santo Maggini, but his existence as a maker is nowadays discredited.

MAIRE, Nicholas.—Paris. Died 1878. A good bow-maker.

MALDONER, Johann Stephan.—Füssen; eighteenth century. Mediocre work, often worm-eaten. Used a label with an ornamental border.

MALINE.—Paris; worked to about 1850 or later. A clever bow-maker. Worked at one time for Vuillaume. A violin-maker of the same name, who may have been his son, also worked in Paris.

MANDELLI, Camillo.—Late nineteenth century. Apparently dates from Cremona, with which city he was intimately acquainted. Work not known to writer.

MANN, John Alexander.—Glasgow. Died 1889. A good workman. Usually copied Stradivari. Dark yellow varnish. He was one of the best Scottish makers of the last century, and was intimate with J. B. Vuillaume. Some of his tickets are in French wording.

MANSUY, or Mansue.—Paris; circa 1840. Instruments seemingly scarce.

MANTEGAZZA—Milan; eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. There were three or four members of the family. Pietro Giovanni seems to have worked in partnership with two brothers. They were well-known dealers and repairers. Good work, varnish often very dark in colour. Their violas are highly spoken of. The form of their instruments resembles that of Amati.

MARCHETTI, Enrico.—Turin; late nineteenth century. Obtained a medal for his work at Antwerp in 1885.

MARCHI, Gian Antonio.—Bologna; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Golden yellow or red-brown varnish of good quality. Wood handsome. Scrolls very well cut. Appears to have made some fine violoncellos.

MARCONCINI, Aloysius.—Bologna, Ferrara; circa 1760-90. Said to have been a pupil of Omobono Stradivari. A son named Giuseppe died in 1841. He worked in Cremona as a pupil of Storioni.

MARENGO-RINALDI, Romano.—Turin. Born 1866. Succeeded the well-known dealer, Gioffredo Rinaldi. Work is after the style of Pressenda, whose recipe for varnish he is said to possess. He has obtained medals at Turin and Paris.

MARIANI, Antonio.—Pesaro; circa 1635-95. This maker has shared the fate of Cappa, his working period having been antedated by about a century in the older books on the violin. He was at work until very near the end of the seventeenth century. All sorts of double purfled instruments, some of them in no way like his, have been attributed to him. He is said to have been a pupil of Maggini, which is certainly very doubtful. The resemblance to the work of that maker is very trifling. The fiddles are generally rather large, and in most cases double purfled; but in other respects they differ materially from those of Maggini. The pattern is primitive and inelegant; the corners long; the sound-holes usually set very upright; in some the wings are absent, and the sound-hole is of the type known as “Brescian.” The waist is long and stiff looking, and quite unlike that of Maggini. The scroll a rough piece of carving. Varnish of good quality, and usually brown or yellow-brown. Wood generally of very plain appearance. A fine violin with an excellent tone, having a single line of purfling, is in the possession of the well-known artist, Philip Cathie. Another Mariani, named Fabio, is said by Valdrighi to have worked in Pesaro in the latter part of the seventeenth century, and was probably a son.

MARINO, Bernardino.—Rome; eighteenth century and early nineteenth. Roughish work of Tecchler style. Varnish red-brown.

MARQUIS DE L’AIR. See Claudot.

MARSHALL, John.—London; eighteenth century. Wamsley school of work. Stainer pattern. Labels usually in Latin. In some of his tickets there is a mild attempt at humour, “Good beef a penny a pound, but trades all very bad.”

MARTIN.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A pretty numerous family working chiefly in Markneukirchen, several of whom bore the Christian names “John Adam.”

MARTIN.—Paris; nineteenth century. There were several of the name. They were principally dealers and repairers.

MAST.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A Mirecourt family. Jean Laurent worked in Paris in the latter part of the eighteenth century. Instruments branded. Joseph Laurent, a neat workman, settled in Toulouse. Rather high model. Pretty wood. Yellow or red varnish. He was a skilful repairer.

MAUCOTEL.—Mirecourt, Paris, London; nineteenth century. A well-known family of good workmen. Charles, born Mirecourt, 1807, worked in Paris under Gand. Came to London in 1844, and after working for Davis established himself in Rupert Street. Retired to France in 1860. Chiefly copied Stradivari. Red varnish. Charles Adolphe, his brother, worked in Paris for Vuillaume until 1844, and then set up for himself. Made a considerable number of copies of excellent workmanship and tone. Obtained various medals, and died in 1858. Ernst Maucotel, born in Mirecourt in 1867; assisted Hippolyte Chrétien-Silvestre, with whom he became partner in 1900.

MAURIZI, Francesco.—Appignano; eighteenth century. Used sometimes a large oval ticket with ornamental border. Varnish brown.

MAUSSIELL, Leonhard.—Nuremberg. Born 1685, died after 1760. A careful maker. Usually copied Stainer. Some of the fiddles have lion-heads. Varnish yellow, or yellow-brown.

MAYR.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Three or four of the name worked in different parts of Germany (Salzburg, Munich, Schönbach). The best known is Andreas Ferdinand, a careful workman, who copied Stainer, and worked in Salzburg until about 1750.

MAYSON, Walter H.—Manchester. Born 1835, died 19—. Has made a great number of violins and other instruments of excellent finish, some of which are elaborately carved. He wrote a book on violin making, which was published in the “Strad Library.”

MÉDARD.—A numerous family of makers established in Nancy and Paris in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. There were upwards of a dozen of them. The best known is François, son of Claude Médard. Born at Nancy, he worked chiefly in Paris, where he flourished until about 1715, or later. The work is very pretty, and the wood frequently handsome. Light red varnish of very clear texture. Arching rather flat.

MEER, Karel van der.—Amsterdam; contemporary. A clever workman. Maker to the Conservatoire in Amsterdam.

MEIBERI, Francesco.—Leghorn; eighteenth century. One of the few makers dating from Leghorn. Work little known.

MEINEL.—Upwards of a score of makers of the name date from Klingenthal and Markneukirchen, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The work of some of them is very passable. Instruments frequently branded with maker’s initials.

MEISEL.—Another very large tribe of German makers, dating, chiefly from Klingenthal, down to very recent times.

MEISNER, Johann Friedrich.—Lübeck. Died 1770. A professional musician who made violins, specimens of which are occasionally seen in this country. Dark brown varnish.

MELEGARI, Enrico Clodovio.—Turin; nineteenth century.

MELONI, Antonio.—Milan; late seventeenth century. Pretty work. Yellow varnish.

MENNÉGAND, Charles.—Died 1885. Worked in various places, including Amsterdam, but chiefly in Paris. A very clever workman and repairer. Has left numerous instruments, a number of which are violoncellos. Usually worked on Stradivari lines.

MENNESON, Jean Emile (pseudonym “Guarini”).—Rheims. Born 1842. A clever workman, who has obtained several medals. Has produced a great number of instruments with the assistance of workmen, and had formerly a factory at Mirecourt. Many of his violins are copies of the “Messie” Stradivari. His sons succeeded to his business.

MERCIER, A.—Paris; nineteenth century. Mirecourt class of work. Name stamped inside instruments. Varnish yellowish red.

MÉRIOTTE, Charles.—Lyons; middle eighteenth century. Stradivari pattern.

MESSORI, Pietro.—Modena; contemporary. Manufactures various kinds of instruments, and has received several medals. Violins are said to be well made and amber varnish, but work is not known to the writer.

METHFESSEL, Gustav.—Berne. Born 1839. Worked first in Vienna.

MEYER, Magnus Andreas.—Hamburg; eighteenth century. Work said to resemble that of Tielke. Yellow varnish. Sometimes inlaid. Written labels.

MEZZADRI, Alessandro.—Ferrara; circa 1720 and later. Amati style. Fairly good work. Another Mezzadri named Francesco worked in Milan to about 1750. Writer has seen two or three violins of fairly neat workmanship and Amati outline. Reddish varnish.

MICHELIS.—See Zanetto.

MIGGE, Otto Koblenz.—London. Born 1857. Has written a book claiming to have discovered the secrets of the Italian masters. Violins by him seen by the writer certainly did not justify the claim.

MIREMONT, Claude Augustin.—New York, Paris. Born 1827, Mirecourt, died 1887. Has left many useful instruments, chiefly of Stradivari pattern, which are rising in value. Sides sometimes appear rather deep. He made some excellent violoncellos.

MÖCKEL.—Nineteenth century. A Berlin family established in Berlin, Dresden, and elsewhere. One of them, Otto, used a label with his portrait upon it.

MOINEL, Charles.—Paris. Born 1866. Succeeded Cherpitel.

MOITESSIER, Louis.—Mirecourt. Worked to about 1825 and made many instruments. Examples seen by writer were of mediocre workmanship.

MÖNNIG.—Markneukirchen. A family of nineteenth century makers. About half a dozen of them are mentioned.

MONTADE, Gregorio.—Cremona; to about 1730. The work is after the pattern of Stradivari, but is little known amongst connoisseurs.

MONTAGNANA, Domenico.—Venice; to about 1745 or later. A maker of very high rank, about whom very little is certainly known. He was probably born in Venice, and the stories that he worked under either Stradivari or Amati may be dismissed as being unsupported by any evidence worthy of the name. The earliest date seen by the writer in an authentic ticket is 1715, and appears in a fine violin of rather small size, photographs of which appeared in the Strad magazine in June, 1912. Whoever was his instructor, he seems to have asserted his individuality from the outset. In a few of the violins there is more than a suspicion of a leaning towards the German form of outline; and in the treatment of the sound-holes the same thing may be observed. This is not surprising when it is remembered that the majority of the old Venetian makers exhibit traces, more or less marked, of the influence of Stainer. In his finest examples no trace of anything of the kind is discernible. He was an admirable workman with great knowledge of wood, and a fine eye for form. Much of his material is very handsome, particularly in the violoncellos, in the making of which instruments he was second to no maker, except Stradivari. A few double-basses are known. Violas are very rarely seen, but the few recognised as genuine are admirable instruments and possess a very fine tone. His varnish has long excited the admiration of connoisseurs. It is very lustrous, and of varying shades of red, the texture being much clearer than that usually seen on work of the Venetian school. The violins are of two sizes, the larger and more valuable being a small fraction under 14 inches long, and the general dimensions corresponding pretty nearly with the larger examples of Guarneri del Gesù. In the finer examples the sound-holes are not unlike some of those of Carlo Bergonzi. The arching is of medium height as a rule, but now and then a little fuller. His fiddles are certainly very rare, but their number is not so phenomenally limited as has been asserted by some writers. Tricks have been freely played with his labels in the past. These in some examples date from the sign “Cremona”; but there are genuine tickets which contain no reference to it. The heads are always splendid pieces of carving and of bold contour. One of the handsomest of his violoncellos has long been in the possession of Mr. George Gudgeon. A woodcut of it appears in Hart’s book on the violin.

MORLET, Nicholas.—France, probably Mirecourt; nineteenth century. Large violins after the stereotyped pattern of “didier” Nicolas.

MORRISON, John.—London; nineteenth century, first half. Worked in Soho, chiefly for the trade. Instruments little known.

MOUGENOT.—Rouen; circa 1760.

MOUGENOT, Georges.—Brussels. Born 1843. A well-known dealer and maker. He worked with N. F. Vuillaume, whose business in Brussels he acquired. His copies of Stradivari and Guarneri are very well made. Work usually signed in addition to printed label.

MOUGENOT-GAUCHÉ.—Contemporary. A manufacturer of violins on a considerable scale. His best grade fiddles are useful instruments and mostly after the pattern of the “Messie” Stradivari.

MUCCHI, Antonio.—Modena. Died 1883. His violins and violoncellos are fair examples of modern Italian work. Varnish generally yellow or yellow-brown.

MÜLLER.—Several German makers of this name are known. Some worked in Markneukirchen in the last century. Others in Schönbach.

NADOTTI, Joseph.—Piacenza; eighteenth century, latter half.

NANCY, Jean Théodore.—Paris; to about 1800. Chiefly known as a clever repairer.

NEMESSÁNYI, Samuel Felix.—Budapest; circa 1850-75. Work little known in this country, but he was an exceptionally clever copyist of Guarneri del Gesù and used good varnish.

NEUMÄRKER.—Nineteenth century. Several makers of the name worked in Schöneck.

NEUNER.—Mittenwald; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A very numerous family of makers, several of whom bore the Christian name Matthias. The second of that name died about 1830, and in 1812 founded the well-known firm of Neuner and Hornstainer, one of the largest manufacturing houses in Germany. Ludwig Neuner, born 1840, and a member of the firm, worked for a time with J. B. Vuillaume in Paris. A clever workman, he, in 1879, gained a medal in Berlin.

NEVEU, Charles.—Paris. Born 1863. A skilful copyist. Chiefly Stradivari pattern.

NEWTON, Isaac.—London. Died 1825. Worked for Betts.

NICOLAS.—Paris. See Fourrier.

NICOLAS.—Mirecourt; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A well-known family, the principal member of which is known the world over as “didier” Nicolas. He was born in 1757 and died in 1833. His early personal work is good and well finished. The violins are built somewhat upon Stradivari lines, but cannot be described as copies of that maker. They are generally of rather large pattern and but slightly arched. Tone powerful, and the varnishes, a reddish-yellow or yellow-brown, of good quality. Some of the violoncellos are exceptionally good. There is no doubt that these earlier examples possess considerable merit, but in later years Nicolas employed a very large staff of workmen, and degenerated into a manufacturer of coarse-sounding, common-place instruments, which, though useful enough in the orchestra, are quite unsuitable for other purposes. The type of instrument ultimately turned out has been extensively copied in France and elsewhere. The feature which at once strikes the eye is the sound-hole, the wings of which are cut off almost horizontally. His fiddles are branded with a triangular stamp “a la Ville de Cremonne.” Several other Mirecourt makers adopted the “Ville de Cremonne” as a sign. A son, Joseph, died in 1864, and after the latter’s death the business was sold to Derazey (q.v.).

NIGGELL, Sympert.—Füssen; circa 1730-75. A maker of some repute, but not very well-known in this country. A few fiddles seen by the writer were well-finished instruments; pattern a little like that of Albani, and with dark brown varnish. He branded his work inside with his initials.

NISBET, William.—Prestonkirk. Born 1828. Pencilled his name inside the backs of his violins. Obtained a medal in Edinburgh in 1886.

NORMAN, Barak.—London; circa 1680-1740. Said to have been the first maker of violoncellos in this country. His work is generally double purfled, and he imitated some of the Maggini features, including the peculiarity observed in that maker’s sound-holes, the lower circles of which are smaller than the upper ones. The violoncellos are large, and well made, the varnish generally a dark red-brown, but lighter shades occur. He and Nathaniel Cross, with whom he was for a time partner, seem to have made a number of ornamentally purfled viols-da-gamba. The writer has seen some of these, converted and strung as violoncellos. Violins by Barak Norman exist, although this has been denied by some writers. His monogram in purfling appears under the finger-boards, and sometimes on the backs. Some large tenors of high build are in existence.

NORRIS, John.—London. Died 1818. Founded the well-known business of Norris and Barnes, for many years carried on in Coventry Street. He learned fiddle-making with Thomas Smith, but very little seems to be known of him as a workman.

NOVELLO.—Venice; eighteenth century. Three makers of the name are mentioned. The only examples of violins seen by the writer were by Pietro Valentino, who was at work in the closing years of the century, and describes himself in his tickets as a pupil of Bellosio.

NÜRNBERGER.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A large family of workmen, two or three of whom have turned their attention to bow-making. Some of their work in this department is excellent, and will bear comparison for style and finish with that of the best living French bow-makers.

OBBÕ, Marco.—Naples; earlier part of eighteenth century. Little known. His full name does not seem to be known, but the final O in his label has the abbreviation mark (as above) over it. Flattish fiddles. Yellow, or yellow-brown varnish.

OBICI, Bartolomeo.—Verona; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Large violins. Yellow varnish. Brescian style of work.

ODDONE, Carlo Giuseppe.—Turin. Born 1866. A clever maker, who was for a time in England, but has been established in Turin since 1901.

ODOARDI, Giuseppe.—Ascoli. Born 1746; date of death not ascertained. One Italian writer says he died at the age of 28, but this seems to be incorrect. He seems to have experimented with different kinds of wood. Writer has not met with examples of his work.

ÖHBERG, Johannes.—Stockholm; circa 1760-90.

OLRY, J.—Amiens; to about 1850. Stradivari pattern; good work. Dark-red varnish. He worked with Georges Chanot I.

OMOND, James.—Stromness. Born 1833. A Scottish maker of more than average ability. Has made a large number of instruments.

ORTEGA, Asensio.—Madrid. Died about 1835. A maker and repairer, who has earned unenviable notoriety by tinkering with the famous violoncello made by Stradivari for the Spanish Court.

OSTLER, Andreas.—Breslau; eighteenth century. Pretty work and handsome wood. Yellow or yellow-brown varnish. Stainer pattern.

OTTO.—Makers of this name worked all over Germany and elsewhere. About twenty of them are mentioned by von Lütgendorff, who devotes several pages to them. The only member of the family of much interest to English readers is Jakob August, who died in 1829, and was the author of the wellknown book on the violin.

OUVRARD, Jean.—Paris; eighteenth century. Pupil of Pierray, whom he imitated to some extent. Work seldom seen.

PACHERELE, Michel.—Paris; late eighteenth century. Scarce. Stamped his name on the backs of his instruments. Yellow varnish.

PACHERELE, Pierre.—Paris, Nice, Genoa, Turin. Died in Nice 1871. A fine workman, but a “roving blade.” He did much work as a repairer. Worked with Pressenda for several years, and made instruments which closely resemble and are equal to those of that maker. His ordinary instruments are of Stradivari pattern.

PACQUET.—Marseilles; late eighteenth century. Common-place instruments. Frequently worm-eaten.

PADEWET.—Nineteenth century. Four or more makers of the name are known. The family seems to have sprung from Vienna. Three of them worked in Karlsruhe. Johann I. died 1872. A skilful maker who obtained several medals. Johann II., who died in 1902, copied Stradivari, and seems to have made a large number of instruments. He received various medals, and was a well-known repairer.

PAGEOT.—Mirecourt. Died 1849. Name also spelt Pajeot. Bow-maker. Personally a skilful workman, but employed workmen who turned out bows wholesale, the prices beginning at sixpence each.

PAJOT.—Jenzat; nineteenth century. A family of makers, probably originating in Mirecourt. Chiefly makers of hurdy-gurdies.

PALLOTA, Pietro.—Perugia. Died about 1820. Little known.

PAMPHILON, Edward.—London; about 1681. He used a beautiful varnish of yellow colour, sometimes with a tinge of red. The fiddles are squarish, and stiff looking in outline. Scrolls small. The bottom of the shell is finished in a peculiar way. Some of the sound-holes are more curious than beautiful, the lower turns having a very wide sweep. Double-purfling was generally, but not always, employed. Writer has seen a few specimens containing Maggini labels. His own tickets are very scarce, and contain the day of the month when instrument was finished, in addition to the year.

PANDOLFI, Antonio.—Venice; eighteenth century. The work and tone are highly spoken of, but the writer has not seen examples.

PANORMO.—London, Paris; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The last survivor of this celebrated family died in Brighton in 1891. The most important member of it was Vincenzo Trusiano Panormo, or as appears in many of his labels, “Vincent,” from whose son, Francis, were obtained the dates of his birth and death. He was born at Monreale, near Palermo, according to the story, in 1734, and died in London in 1813. Owing to the wide range of dates seen in labels (genuine or otherwise) it has been surmised that there were two Vincents, and one enthusiast claims to have discovered three. Various traditions are current as to his early life and training. According to one of them he worked with Carlo Bergonzi in Cremona. Nothing, however, seems to be definitely known except that in certain years he worked in Paris, that most of his life was spent in London, and that he was also for a time in Ireland. A large number of his works survive, the best of them being magnificent copies of the different types of Stradivari. As copies these specimens have never been surpassed, and but rarely equalled by any other maker; their tone is of Italian character, and far superior to that of the French copies, and they are covered with beautiful varnish, mostly of varying shades of yellow, but more rarely red. Panormo was a consummate workman, and given the material and the opportunity he was capable of building, as few others could, any instrument of the fiddle tribe, from a superb double-bass to a violin. His violoncellos are very fine. Unfortunately he did much work for the trade, which does him little credit, although far better than one is accustomed to see in work of its class. His best fiddles are handsomer and less heavy looking than those of Lupot. His son Joseph is best known as a violoncello maker. His violins look rather heavy in style as a rule, but there are exceptions. George Louis, usually known as Louis, died in London in or before 1845. He is said to have been the second son. The octagon bows bearing his stamp are frequently very fine. He specialised as a guitar maker, but turned out a good many violins. These vary in merit, but some are decidedly handsome. He was a good scroll-cutter.

PAQUOTTE.—Paris; nineteenth century. A Mirecourt family. The business in Paris was founded by Sebastien, who died in 1863. There were three or four makers, all good workmen.

PARIS, Claude.—Paris; late eighteenth century.

PARKER, Daniel.—London; eighteenth century. An excellent maker, whose work has in recent years risen rapidly in value. He seems to have worked from quite early in the century until after 1770. He shares with John Hare the merit of having turned attention to the pattern of Stradivari, and it is much to be regretted that other British makers of the period did not do the like. Some of his fiddles are upon lines more or less like those of Amati, but his reputation chiefly rests on those which are evidently in imitation of the “long Pattern” of Stradivari. They are not exact copies, but in design and dimensions are very similar to Stradivari fiddles of that type. Varnish red, of good quality, wood frequently handsome, and tone large and brilliant. A good example was not long ago in the possession of M. Kreisler. It is said that Parker worked much for the trade. Writer has seen one or two labels in manuscript.

PASTA.—Brescia; late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A Milanese family, two or three of whom worked in Brescia, and the founder, Bartolomeo, in Milan. In his labels he calls himself pupil of Niccolò Amati. Gaetano Pasta, who was in Brescia until about the middle of the eighteenth century, calls himself a pupil “dell Amati,” and is supposed to have worked with Hieronymus Amati II. Instruments are said to have a fine tone, and to be rather flat, with outline resembling G. B. Rogeri.

PATHAN, Vincenz.—Vienna. Died 1894. Worked some time with Zach. Made good copies of various Italian makers, particularly Maggini.

PATZELT.—Nineteenth century. Makers of the name date from Dresden, Vienna, and Berlin.

PAULI.—Tachau; eighteenth century. Three or more makers of this name.

PAULUS.—Markneukirchen; nineteenth century. A numerous family, members of which have worked in the principal German cities (Berlin, Dresden, Leipzig) and elsewhere. One of the best of them, August, is, or was, a member of the Dresden firm, “Richard Weichold.” Another, Albin Ludwig, of Markneukirchen, has made a large number of copies of the “trade class,” the better qualities are well-made useful instruments.

PAZZINI, Giovan Gaetano.—Florence; 1630-70. Calls himself a pupil of Maggini. High built. Dark varnish. Work scarce.

PECCATTE.—Mirecourt, Paris. A celebrated nineteenth century family of bow-makers. Dominique, the best known, was born in 1810, and died in 1874. Some of his finest bows are unstamped. He worked for several years for J. B. Vuillaume. François, his younger brother, born 1820, died Paris 1855, was, when he chose, almost, if not quite, as good a workman as Dominique. He also worked with Vuillaume for three years, having previously worked on his own account in Mirecourt for ten years. Latterly he again worked for himself, but in Paris. Much confusion has existed in distinguishing the bows of the two brothers. François bows are frequently stamped “Peccatte” in a similar way to those of Dominique, and attempts have been made to distinguish their respective stamps—a very uncertain test. The best means of identification is in the heads: the bows of Dominique have a sharper appearance towards the peak than those of “Peccatte jeune.” Charles Peccatte, son of François, was at work in Paris in quite recent years, and is a maker of very fair ability.

PEDRINELLI, Antonio.—Crespano. Died 1854. Began life as an undertaker. Studied acoustics, and became a copyist of more than average capacity. Orange-red varnish.

PELLIZON, Görz.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family who have been at work until very recent years. Instruments not frequently seen in England. The best known is Antonio, the founder, who died in 1850.

PEMBERTON, Edward.—London; seventeenth century. Name appears in most books on the violin. Varnish said to be good. Work indifferent.

PENZE, Ignatio.—Schönbach; circa 1760. Appears to have been a German named Penzl. The name is spelt in different ways, and occasionally is quoted as Ponze or Ponzel. According to labels to which writer’s attention has been drawn, the violins are dated from Cremona. They have little or nothing in common with Cremonese work. The tone is described as of good quality. Yellowish red varnish.

PEREGRINO, or Pelegrino. See Zanetto.

PÉRON, Nicolas.—Paris; latter half of eighteenth century. Yellow-brown fiddles. Fairly good average work.

PERRIN.—Mirecourt; middle nineteenth century. Useful instruments. Dated from Paris.

PERRY, Thos.—Dublin. Died 1818. The violins bearing his stamp vary enormously, some being very fine works of art, and others quite indifferent. A considerable number were made after his death. Wilkinson, his son-in-law and partner, was a poor workman, and continued the business for several years, so that the stamp appears on fiddles dated well into the “thirties” of the last century. Perry’s earliest examples date from about 1760 or a little later. The best specimens of his violins are somewhat after the Amati style, and the varnish on them is clear and of fine quality. What is known as his own model is far from handsome, and the sound-holes are frequently placed too high in the belly. The tone of a decently preserved specimen is generally very good. His instruments have lately attracted considerable attention. The colour varies from dark brown to amber, the darker shades occurring chiefly on his earlier work. He made a number of viols. The violoncellos are generally good. He is said to have learnt his business in London with Duke. The original name was “Pierray,” and he seems to have been a relative of Claude Pierray, a well-known Paris maker (q.v.). Two other Perrys worked in Ireland. One dates from Kilkenny, and is said to have been a cousin of Thomas. Another was named Joseph, but the relationship (if any) does not seem to be ascertained.

PERSOIS.—Paris; to about 1850. The name is usually spelt “Persoit.” A clever bow-maker. Worked for Vuillaume and on his own account. Bows stamped P.R.S.

PETZ.—There were several makers of the name. One named Jacob dates from Vienna about 1830. Labels bear the two-headed eagle. An earlier maker in Vienna, Marianus Petz, died in 1781. Two others, Franz and Jacob, date from Vils in the Tyrol. The former died in 1772, the latter in 1824.

PEZZARDI.—Brescia; 1660-90. There seems to be some confusion as to this maker’s dates. Like Mariani, his working period has been antedated about 100 years. Double purfled instruments.

PFAB, Friedrich August.—Hamburg. Died 1904. Received a gold medal in Hamburg in 1889. Another in Vienna, 1873.

PFRETZCHNER.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Another huge family of workmen. Twenty-two or more are enumerated. In very recent years one or two of them have become well known as bow-makers. Two of them, Johann Gottlob and Carl Friedrich, who worked in the eighteenth century, date their labels from Cremona. The style of the work is poor, and gives no countenance to the claim.

PIATTELLINI, Gaspero.—Florence; eighteenth century. Instruments said to resemble those of Gabbrielli.

PICHON.—Lyons; nineteenth century.

PIEGENDORFER, Georg.—Augsburg. Died 1906.

PIERRARD, Louis.—Brussels; contemporary. Worked with Mougenot. Violin maker to the Ghent Conservatoire. A clever workman. Published a book in 1902 on “The Violin: Its History and Origin.”

PIERRAY, Claude.—Paris; late seventeenth century to about 1726. Whether or not this excellent maker worked in Italy, as has been surmised, the varnish seen on his instruments is of excellent quality. The colour a light red or deep yellow. There is a look of Amati about the pattern, but they are not exact copies of Amati. The sound-holes have an appearance at their upper turns which is difficult to describe without the assistance of specimens. The work is neat and the tone of fine quality. The fiddles, like those of Boquay, were made in two sizes. Wood varies, but is sometimes handsomely marked. He seems to have made many instruments, but in this country they are by no means common.

PIÈTE, Noël.—Paris; eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

PILAT, Paul.—Budapest. Born 1860. Worked with Zach. Has received several medals. Instruments branded inside with initials within a circle.

PILLEMENT, F.—Paris; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A very unequal workman. Instruments branded.

PIQUE, François Louis.—Paris. Born near Mirecourt, 1758. Died 1822. One of the best known Paris makers, he early acquired a good reputation, and has left a great many instruments of varying merit. The best violins are large examples of Stradivari pattern. Their general appearance is massive, and the scrolls, though well cut, are inferior to those of Lupot, who made a number of instruments for him. The quality of the varnish is unequal, and he appears to have made two or more grades, presumably according to the price he was to receive. The wood of the backs is often in one piece, and of handsome figure. Sound-holes very well cut. Colour of varnish commonly, but not always, a deep red or red-brown. Labels commonly written, but he also used an engraved ticket. He retired from business in 1816.

PIROT, Claude.—Paris; about 1800-30. An exceptionally good workman. The instruments are of Stradivari character, but less stereotyped and more Italian looking than the average French violin of the period. Varnish red or red-brown. He used a small label with a neatly engraved border. Writer has seen examples branded under the tail pin. Some of his work has been ascribed to Pressenda.

PIZZURNO, David.—Genoa; circa 1750-65. Specimens scarce. Mediocre work.

PLACHT.—Schönbach; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Well over a score of makers of this name are enumerated.

PLANI, Agostino de.—Genoa; second half of eighteenth century. Very commonplace work.

PLATNER, Michael.—Rome; 1735-50. His was probably of German origin. His work belongs to the school of Tecchler, and it is not unlikely he worked for that maker. He used pretty red and golden yellow varnish, and was a good scroll cutter. The arching of his violins is rather full, and the general appearance of the instruments is of German character.

PLUMEREL, Charles.—Angers; nineteenth century; first half. A clever workman. Instruments somewhat resemble those of J. B. Vuillaume in style and finish.

POIRSON, Elophe.—Lyons. Born 1840. Began as an amateur maker. He invented a varnish which is supposed to impart an improved quality of tone. Uses a label with his portrait upon it. The workmanship of his instruments is well finished.

POISON, Justin.—Paris. Born 1851. A wellknown bow-maker.

POLLER, Anton.—Vienna; contemporary. Stradivari pattern. Reddish yellow varnish.

POLLER.—Mittenwald; eighteenth century. A family of makers. In the labels the name is usually spelt “Boller.”

POLLUSCA, Antonio.—Eighteenth century. Tecchler school of work.

POSCH (Bosch), Antony.—Vienna; 1677-1742. A son, also named Anthony, died in 1749. Violins generally high built. Both makers exhibit the Austrian double eagle on their labels.

POSTACCHINI, Andreas.—Fermo. Two makers of this name dated from Fermo. The earlier died between 1820-30. The instruments are somewhat of Gagliano type and appearance, and are rising in value. The second Andreas died about 1857.

POSTIGLIONE, Vincenzo.—Naples. Born 1835. A very neat workman. Has made some handsome and well-finished violins of Guarneri del Gesù pattern.

PRESSENDA, Giovanni Francesco.—Turin, Alba, Carmagnola. Born 1777. Died 1854. One of the most important Italian makers of the nineteenth century. His violins date chiefly from Turin, but he also worked in Alba and Carmagnola, and possibly for a short period in Marseilles. A well-known repairer told the writer that three instruments by Pressenda dating from the last-named place had passed through his hands. He learned his business in Cremona with Storioni, and went to Turin about 1820. Early specimens of his work are more or less after the pattern of Stradivari, but later he designed a pattern of his own in which he somewhat changed the character of the sound-holes and the style of the arching. The wood of his instruments is nearly always handsome, the majority of the backs in one piece, cut on the quarter. The varnish is lustrous and varies in tint, some of the finest being of a deep mahogany red. A large number of his violins and those of Rocca and other followers were imported into this country by Gioffredo Rinaldi, who wrote a brochure on Pressenda, and violin making in Piedmont. This maker has had a number of clever imitators besides Rocca, who rivals or surpasses him in popularity amongst modern players. Amongst them may be mentioned Fagnola (q.v.).

PSENNER, Johann George.—Eighteenth century. Two makers of this name, both of whom were fair workmen, date from Innsbruck.

PUPUNAT, François Marie.—Lausanne; circa 1830-60. Originally a cabinet maker he became a neat workman. A violin of his make is in the Paris Conservatoire.

RAMBAUX, Claude Victor.—Paris. Born 1806. Died 1871. Worked with Moitessier and later with Thibout and Gand. Began business on his own account in 1838, and was a most skilful repairer of old instruments. His violins and other instruments are finely finished and generally of Stradivari pattern, but he does not seem to have been a very prolific maker. He was the recipient of several medals.

RAMFTLER, Franz.—Munich; nineteenth century. Chiefly a dealer.

RASTELLI.—Genoa; nineteenth century.

RAU, August.—Markneukirchen; contemporary. A good bow-maker. Worked for a time with Weichold of Dresden.

RAUCH.—Chiefly eighteenth century. Some fourteen or fifteen makers of the name worked in Komotau (Bohemia), and in different German towns. Jacob Rauch worked in Mannheim, and it is said that his instruments are high built and clumsy looking but possess a good tone.

RAUT, Jean.—Rennes; eighteenth century.

RAWLINS.—London; eighteenth century. Practically unknown, but the name appears in most books on the violin.

RAYMAN, Jacob.—London; 1620-57. A Tyrolese. German looking fiddles. The varnish is the best feature about them.

REICHEL.—As there were about fifty or more makers of this name, principally in Markneukirchen, detailed notice of their work is out of the question.

REMY.—Paris and London; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There were five or more members of this family engaged in fiddle making. Mathurin François, the founder, worked circa 1760-1800. Guersan style of work. Yellow varnish. Jean Mathurin, his son, died in 1854, and is reputed a better workman. Two of the latter’s sons, Hippolyte and Jules, died in 1876 and 1869. A maker of the name better known in this country was the Remy who worked in London about the middle of the last century. Hart says that he spoilt his fiddles by artificially maturing the wood. However that may be he was a clever imitator of Italian work. The writer has seen examples which were much above the average of such things; in particular one or two copies of Guarneri del Gesù. He also copied Maggini with success. His relationship to the Paris family is not stated.

RENAUDIN, Leopold.—Paris. Born Mirecourt 1749. Guillotined during the French Revolution 1795. He used various labels; one of large size with an engraving representing a musical performance. He is best known as a double-bass maker, but his work generally is not plentiful. The violins high built and clumsy looking. Yellowish varnish, some of which is much oxydised.

RENAULT, Sebastien B.—Paris; circa 1755-1811. Firm Renault and Chatelain. They were musical instrument makers, and the violins are not often seen.

RÉSUCHE, Charles.—Lyon, Bordeaux. Born 1858. Worked with Gand and Bernardel. A good copyist of Italian instruments.

RICHTER, Christopher Adam.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth century.

RIECHERS, August.—Hanover, Berlin. Died Berlin 1893. Moved about a great deal, but settled in Berlin in 1872. He was a clever workman, and made a large number of instruments of various patterns. Writer has seen violins by him resembling those of “didier” Nicolas. Published a book on violin making. He was also a noted repairer and patronised by Joachim.

RIEDEL, Joseph Alexander.—Meseritz, Danzig. Died 1866.

RIEF.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Vils. Seven or eight makers of the name.

RIEGER.—Mittenwald. From seventeenth century to present time. At least a dozen names are mentioned.

RIESS, Andreas.—Bamberg. Died 1777. High built. He was also a professional musician and organ builder. Another Riess named Joseph also worked in Bamberg.

RINALDI, Gioffredo Benedetto.—Turin; 1850-88. Worked with Pressenda, but is best known as a dealer and importer into this country of Italian fiddles, chiefly by Pressenda and Rocca, with other makers of that school and period.

RIVOLTA, Giacomo.—Milan; circa 1820-35. One of the better makers in Italy in the last century. The violoncellos and violas are well made, and in appearance and varnish somewhat resemble work of the Neapolitan school. Varnish golden yellow. He received a gold medal, and on some of his tickets states that it was awarded “for having revived the celebrated school of Stradivari.”

ROCCA.—Turin; nineteenth century. A maker named Joannes is mentioned as having been at work about 1809, but it is not unlikely that he is identical with Joannes Rotta, the ticket cited being a written one. Giuseppe Antonio Rocca was born, probably in Turin, about 1800, and died in Genoa, according to the story, in 1867 or 1868, his body being recovered from a drain or cesspool. His labels date from about 1830 or a year or two earlier. He was employed for some time by Pressenda, whose instruments he imitated so closely that they have frequently passed as that maker’s work. His initials were frequently stamped upon the blocks and elsewhere in his instruments, and this has sometimes led to their identification in cases where Pressenda labels have been found in them. But Rocca did not confine himself to imitating Pressenda, and made numbers of fine fiddles of other patterns. His best copies of Stradivari are very valuable, and he was also successful with the del Gesù model. The varnish on early work is sometimes rather thin, and hard looking, but in this detail he seems to have improved as time went on. The colour varies a good deal, from a rich dark red of mahogany hue, to yellow of different shades. Double purfled instruments are sometimes seen, and he occasionally used mahogany for his backs. The Stradivari copies are generally, but not always, similar in pattern to the violin known as the “Messie.” His work is sought after by concert performers, and the prices paid for good specimens have in recent years been very high. He obtained several medals, and has been cleverly imitated by Fagnola and other makers. A good many counterfeit Roccas have found their way into the market. Enrico Rocca, a son, worked in Genoa and Turin, and died in May, 1915.

ROGER, G.—Montpellier; nineteenth century. Nicolas type of work.

ROGERI, Giovanni Battista.—Cremona, Brescia. Born about 1660 in Bologna. Worked until about 1730. An admirable workman, who was a pupil in Niccolò Amati’s workshop, the pupillage being invariably stated in his labels, which are often printed in red ink. Some of his work contains the genuine tickets of his master, and a good many of his instruments are very like those of Amati, the head, however, being heavier in style and the sound-holes slightly different in form. Later work shows a flatter arching, and there is more or less resemblance in the form to that of Stradivari. The general workmanship is always fine. The varnish either identical with Amati’s or a beautiful clear red. The violins were in two sizes, the large examples being very scarce. The size usually seen is about 13⁷/₈ inches long and the measurements are about those of an ordinary Amati fiddle. The spelling of the name in the labels varies. Sometimes it appears as “Rugerius,” but more commonly it is spelt with an “o.” The violoncellos are splendid examples of their class, and having mostly been built of convenient size, their proportions have not usually been reduced like those of the Amati family.

ROGERI, Pietro Giacomo.—Cremona and Brescia. Seems to have worked from about 1690 until after 1730. His relationship to G. B. Rogeri is not known, but if he worked, as some of the tickets state, with Niccolò Amati, he could not have been a son, as has often been alleged. Messrs. Hill suppose, and it is extremely probable, that the two Rogeri were associated in their work, though there do not seem to be labels containing their joint names. Pietro Giacomo’s work is almost, if not quite, equal to that of his relative. Violins bearing his label are very scarce, but strongly resemble those of the latter. The corners droop somewhat more, but the scrolls in one or two specimens seen by the writer are so alike that they might be the work of the same man. A beautiful violin with fine red varnish is in the possession of Mr. W. Sachse, the well-known professor; and Piatti for many years possessed a fine violoncello of Pietro’s make. Some of his labels date from Cremona, and his name is also sometimes seen spelt with a “u” instead of an “o.”

ROMBOUTS, Pieter.—Amsterdam; circa 1700-30. The violins are well made. Rather high built, and with a brilliant red varnish. The purfling is whalebone. There is some resemblance to the work of Jacobs, with whom he is said to have worked. It is also said that in earlier years he was known as “Pieter—Jacobs’s pupil,” and this is supposed to be the origin of the Peeter Jacobs whose name has so frequently appeared in fiddle literature.

ROMER, Adolf.—Freibourg. Born 1863. A maker who seems to possess considerable scientific knowledge, and has made some very handsome copies of the Italian masters. He has received various medals.

ROOK, Joseph.—Carlisle; circa 1775-1825. The work is neat. Rather high built; and the violins seen by writer of medium size, with clear yellow-brown varnish. It is said that he was taught by Forster, presumably when the latter worked in the North of England.

ROSSI.—Nineteenth century. Several makers of this name have lived in Italy, chiefly in Padua and Milan. One named Enrico is a good workman who, with his son, has a business in Padua, and obtained a medal in 1877.

ROTTA, Giovanni.—Cremona; early nineteenth century. The name in labels seen by the writer was spelt with a single “t,” but it is said that a good many doubtful or spurious ones exist. Work not highly finished. Reddish-yellow varnish. Writer has seen the label in at least two violins which were certainly of Mittenwald origin.

ROZE.—Orleans; eighteenth century. Rather neat work and good pattern. Yellow varnish.

RUB, August de.—Viterbo; circa 1760-75. His label states that he made his instruments for his personal delectation. Writer came across a violin in London recently.

RUDDIMAN, Joseph.—Aberdeen. Born 1733. Died 1810. Said to have been a pupil of Matthew Hardie.

RUGERI.—Cremona; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A celebrated family of makers. The name is seen spelt in a variety of ways, e.g. “Ruggieri,” “Rugieri,” etc. The founder was Francesco, who worked in the latter half of the seventeenth century, and adopted the distinctive title “il Per” on his label, possibly to prevent confusing his work with that of the Rogeri who also worked with Amati but came from Bologna. In this practice he was followed by his sons. He was a splendid workman and one of the best of Amati’s followers. He copied Niccolò’s instruments with much fidelity and was very successful with the “grand pattern.” Amati labels, mostly badly latinised and incorrect, seem to have been found in his violins from an early period, but it does not seem to be certainly established that he himself inserted them. Such work of his as was made in the master’s workshop would obviously bear correct labels. Most of his violins have handsome backs, some of larger figure than that usually employed by Amati. His varnish is most beautiful, and, in the finest specimens, of a brilliant red colour. In other works it is identical with the yellow seen on the majority of Amati’s instruments. In later works he somewhat altered the form of the sound-hole, but his work, of whatever date, is almost always full of grace. The heads are excellent. A large number of his violoncellos survive. They were mostly, but not invariably, of large size, and have been reduced, not always too well. The backs are frequently of plain wood. Giacinto Gio. Battista Rugeri, a son, seems to have dropped the “Gio. Battista” from his later labels. He worked down to about the end of the seventeenth century, but probably assisted his father largely, and his own signed work is comparatively scarce. It is said that he made good tenors and a number of useful violoncellos. One or two violins seen by the writer were less graceful than those of Francesco, and the varnish brown. Vincenzo Rugeri, a younger son of Francesco, seems to have been the last of the family, and was at work until 1735 or later. Writer has seen violas and violoncellos, but only one violin of his make. The work is of Amati character, and the finish good, but not remarkably so. Some, if not all, of his tickets have an ornamental border.

RUPPERT, Johann Heinrich.—Erfurt; 1719-36. Stainer outline, but arching comparatively flat; no linings or corner blocks.

RUPRECHT, Wilhelm.—Vienna. Died 1862. A clever maker. Many of his copies are double purfled, and it is said that some have been sold as genuine Brescian work. He was awarded a medal in 1839.

SACCHINI, Sabattino.—Pesaro; seventeenth century.

SACQUIN.—Paris; nineteenth century, to about 1860. Backs of instruments branded inside. Chiefly Stradivari pattern.

SAINT PAUL, Antoine.—Paris; 1768-89. Guersan style of work. Heads like those of other makers of the period, said to have been cut by women. Another Saint Paul (Pierre) worked earlier and was possibly his father.

SALLE, Le Père.—Paris; 1825-50. Chiefly known as a connoisseur and repairer. Copied Guarneri.

SALOMON, Jean Baptiste Deshayes.—Reims, Paris; circa 1735-70. This maker was either an unequal workman, or the instruments bearing his name and stamp were made in different grades. The writer has seen very good violoncellos, on which the finish was above the average. Yellow varnish and well-carved scrolls. The violins generally have a brownish-yellow varnish, the arching is carried almost to the edges. Sound-holes rather wide apart, belly wood rather hard, and backs showing little figure, though now and then they are handsomer. Tone not particularly good. He used various tickets. His business was carried on by his widow for some years after his death.

SALZARD, Francois.—Paris, Mirecourt. Born 1808. Died 1874. Mirecourt style of work. Yellow-brown varnish. Tone powerful. Name often written or branded inside the backs. There was a D. Salzar, probably his father. A son, Ernest André, worked in Moscow and St. Petersburg where he died in 1897.

SANDNER.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A large family originating in Schönbach. There have been nearly twenty of them working in different parts of Germany and elsewhere.

SANTAGIULIANA, Giacinto.—Venice; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

SANTINO.—Milan; about 1700. Grancino type of work.

SANTO, Giovanni.—Naples; eighteenth century.

SARDINI, Carlo.—Madrid; eighteenth century. Said to have been a Neapolitan. Large flat instruments. Yellow-orange varnish.

SARTORY, Eugene.—Paris. Born 1871. Well-known bow-maker. Imitates Voirin.

SAUNIER, Edmond.—Bordeaux. Died circa 1785. Good work. Not very plentiful in this country.

SAVART, Felix.—Paris. Died 1841. Well-known acoustician. Made fiddles of guitar outline.

SAWICKI, Carl Nicolas.—Vienna. Died 1850. Generally copied Stradivari, but also the pattern of del Gesù. A very finished workman. Scrolls and wood very handsome. Tone excellent.

SCARAMPELLA.—Brescia, Paris, Mantua, Florence; nineteenth century. A family originating in Brescia. The founder, Paolo, died in 1870. A son, Giuseppe, worked in Paris and Florence. Died about 1886 or later. Neat work. Red varnish. Another son, Stefano, born 1843, dates from Mantua and Brescia. Good work. Has obtained a silver medal.

SCHALLER.—Markneukirchen, Schönbach. A large family of nineteenth-century workmen.

SCHÄNDL.—Mittenwald; eighteenth century. There were three or four of the name. The best known are Michael and Anton. Well-made violins of the Stainer-Kloz type.

SCHEINLEIN, Johann Michael.—Langenfeld; eighteenth century. Stainer school. Another, named Matthias Friedrich, worked in the same place.

SCHETELIG.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. About a dozen makers of the name.

SCHLICK.—W. Dresden; nineteenth century. One of the innumerable “discoverers” of the “secret of the Italian varnishes.” Has received medals.

SCHLOSSER.—Klingenthal; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Another numerous tribe. One, named Johann George Schlosser, branded his work inside, “I. G. S.”

SCHMIDT.—About twenty-five German makers are enumerated by von Lütgendorff.

SCHÖNFELDER.—Markneukirchen; nineteenth century. Another tribe, running well into a score of names.

SCHONGER.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Erfurt, Cassel.

SCHRECK, Rudolph.—Berlin; eighteenth century. Said to be one of the oldest Berlin makers. His name, appropriately enough, means “fright!”

SCHUSTER.—Markneukirchen. Another horde of makers. They manufacture very cheap trade instruments.

SCHUSTER, Joseph Anton.—Schönbach; eighteenth century. Good work.

SCHWARTZ.—Strasburg; nineteenth century. Four or more of the name were instrument makers. One, named George Friederich, was a good bow-maker.

SCHWEITZER, Johann Baptist.—Budapest. Died 1865. An excellent copyist of Italian work. He was a pupil of Geissenhof of Vienna. Red-brown varnish. Innumerable instruments purporting to be his work and labelled to that effect have been made in Markneukirchen. These instruments are of a common class, and examples of them are constantly met with in this country.

SEELOS.—Innsbruck; seventeenth century. Stainer school. Work not often seen. Georg Seelos used a label printed in gold lettering.

SEIFERT, Otto.—Berlin. Born Markneukirchen, 1866. Maker of the much-advertised “New Cremona” violins, the plates of which are attuned according to a system devised by Dr. Grossmann. These instruments are well finished.

SEIZ OR SEITZ.—Mittenwald; eighteenth century. There were a large number of the name. Many of the instruments are of a useful type and have a good tone.

SERAPHIN, Santo.—Venice. Born at Udine about 1675-80, worked, according to labels, until about 1748 or later. No neater workman ever lived. His copies of Niccolò Amati’s “grand” pattern are very handsome, and, as Hart remarks, are often very like the instruments of Francesco Rugeri. Varnish a very fine red, but now and then the colour is lighter. Unfortunately the greater number of his works are of German character, so far as outline, modelling, and sound holes are concerned. Apparently Venetian patrons admired the Stainer form, as numbers of the violin-makers in Venice designed their work more or less closely upon it. The scrolls are very well cut but generally rather weak looking. Some magnificent violoncellos are known, and he is said to have excelled in double basses. The tone of Seraphin’s violins is sometimes disappointing. Some specimens handled by the writer, however, have left little to complain of on that score. He branded his work under the tail pin, and used large ornamentally engraved labels. A nephew named George Seraphin, who also branded his instruments, seems to have worked at about the same time.

SERDET, Paul.—Paris. Born Mirecourt, 1858. A well-known dealer and judge of old instruments and a fine workman. Was a pupil of the excellent maker Gaillard.

SILVESTRE, Pierre.—Lyons. Born 1801. Died 1859. His work is distinguished by superb finish, and the tone of the instruments is of excellent quality. In this country they now command high prices. Most of them are of Stradivari build, but occasionally Amati or Guarneri copies are met with. The varnish on many of them is a fine red of much brilliance and excellent quality. The widths of his Strad copies are a trifle greater than those of the originals. The purfling, generally rather narrow, is inserted with unsurpassable neatness. Moreover, he did not “mature” his wood by artificial means as did J. B. Vuillaume for a considerable period. After leaving his instructor (Blaise of Mirecourt, q.v.) he worked for a time with Lupot, and with Gand, his successor. He began business in Lyons in 1829, and from 1831 to 1848 was in partnership with his younger brother, Hippolyte. The instruments bearing the joint labels of the brothers are well made, but by no means up to the standard of those made by Pierre alone. Their appearance is more that of a first-class factory instrument, and they are consequently of minor value and importance.

SILVESTRE, Hippolyte.—Lyons. Born 1808. Died 1879. After Pierre’s death he took over the business and continued in it until 1865. He was taught by Blaise, and was also for a time with J. B. Vuillaume. He was unquestionably a skilful workman, but the abilities of his brother Pierre were so manifestly superior that his work suffers somewhat by comparison.

SILVESTRE, Hippolyte Chrétien.—See Chrétien.

SIMON, Franz.—Salzburg. Born Mittenwald, 1757. Died about 1803. He came of a Mittenwald family of makers named Simman. The work is of German (Kloz) type.

SIMON, P.—Paris. Born 1808. Mirecourt. Died Paris, 1882. An excellent bow-maker. Worked with D. Peccatte and with Vuillaume. Was also in partnership (1848-51) with Henry. Work stamped with his name.

SIMON, René.—Auch (France). Born 1844. A fine workman. Worked with N. Vuillaume and several other makers.

SIMONIN, Charles.—Mirecourt, Geneva, Toulouse; nineteenth century. Worked for some time for J. B. Vuillaume. He died in or about the year 1875. An excellent workman and amongst the best of the many employed by Vuillaume.

SIMOUTRE, Nicholas.—Mirecourt, Metz. Died 1870. A prolific workman. He was a pupil of Lupot, but his instruments though well made are not of very high rank.

SIMOUTRE, Nicolas Eugene.—Basle, Paris. Born 1839. Son of the above. He experimented to some extent and wrote pamphlets on the improvement of violin tone, but does not seem to have accomplished much in that direction.

SIMPSON, James, and Son.—London; late eighteenth century. They appear to have been dealers. It does not seem to be clear whether they were actual makers, but instruments bearing their label are not of great merit.

SIRJEAN.—Paris. Early nineteenth century. Bow-maker.

SITT, Anton.—Prague. Born 1819. Died 1878. Worked with Schweitzer, and copied various makers. His labels usually state the name of the maker from whom they are copied. Good sound work, but rather solid looking.

SMITH, Thos.—London; eighteenth century. He worked with and succeeded Wamsley. Made many violoncellos of merit. Instruments of Stainer build. They are very like the work of Wamsley and are not unfrequently sold as his.

SNEIDER, Joseph.—Padua; early eighteenth century. He was in Niccolò Amati’s workshop, but was probably of German birth. Instruments relatively scarce. Pretty work of Amati character; yellow varnish.

SNOECK.—Brussels; eighteenth century. There appear to have been three makers of the name. Egidius, circa 1700-30, is the best known. Red-brown varnish. Amati pattern.

SOCQUET, Louis.—Paris; late eighteenth century. Mediocre work. Large label with engraved border.

SOLIANI, Angelo. Mantua, Modena; late eighteenth century. Useful instruments. Tone generally powerful. Yellow or reddish-yellow varnish. His labels bear the sign of the Sun. Work generally branded.

SORSANA, Spirito.—Coni; early eighteenth century. Scarce. The name also appears with the spelling “Sursano.”

SPIDLEN, Franz.—Moscow, Prague; contemporary. A good copyist. Has obtained some medals (Paris, 1900). Brown varnish. Name branded on backs.

SPRENGER.—Nineteenth century. A Mittenwald family, three or more of whom worked in Nuremburg.

STADLMAN.—Vienna; eighteenth century. There were several of the name. Instruments seen by the writer were of good workmanship and Stainer pattern. Michael Ignatius, who died in 1813, is perhaps the best known. He seems to have made most of his instruments on Stradivari lines. Labels bear the double-headed eagle.

STAINER, Jacob.—Absam (Tyrol). Born 1621. Died 1683. The most celebrated of all the German school of makers. He is the subject of much tradition and has a small literature devoted to him. The main facts of his life have now been made public for a good many years, and much legendary rubbish has been swept away. The Stainer model has been imitated by fiddle-makers all over Europe, both during his lifetime and since. Amongst the first to copy him were the Kloz family, and in Rome, Florence, and Venice his imitators have been numerous. In this country his influence was almost paramount for upwards of a century, and only by slow degrees was it ousted by the superior form of instrument designed by the Amati family and perfected later by Stradivari. Whether he ever worked in Cremona is at least open to doubt, and the evidence which has been adduced in support of the tradition is not sufficiently strong to justify its unconditional acceptance. He employed a varnish which proves to demonstration that he was conversant with the composition of that in use by the Amati, but it is clear from the work of other makers that there was no particular mystery attaching to the ingredients of Cremonese varnish, and his use of a preparation which is not distinguishable from it does not afford any unequivocal proof of his ever having been to Cremona. The general appearance of Stainer’s instruments is familiar to all who take more than a merely passing interest in a violin; not because of the number of genuine specimens to be met with, but from the number of other makers who have copied him. As a workman he was of the first rank, but whether he worked in Italy or not, there is not a fiddle of his in existence which has the true Italian cut. The violins are usually about the size of the ordinary Amati instruments, but some of them are rather larger, and measure a full fourteen inches or a shade over in length. The varnish ranges in colour from yellow to brown; the red specimens are not often seen, but a few very handsome rose-coloured violins, of most beautiful workmanship, have survived. The wood of the backs generally shows some figure, and is often finely marked; for some of the bellies he used the fine-grained wood frequently employed by Tyrolese makers, but in his finest examples the pine is of broader grain. A good many of the instruments have lion heads, the carving of which is well executed. The scrolls are well cut, but lack the grace seen in those of better Italian work. It seems to be doubtful if Stainer himself used printed tickets, but there is no doubt that other makers, some of whom were contemporaries, and possibly workmen of his, inserted printed Stainer labels into their work. Stainer’s arching has been the subject of so much exaggeration on the part of copyists of all nationalities that many people have an altogether false idea of its true proportions. In a good specimen of Stainer’s violins the swell of the form is not really higher than that of an average Amati; now and then he did exceed this limit, but it was not his general practice. Violas are rarely seen, and violoncellos are by no means common. Forster and numerous other English makers have left numerous copies of the last-mentioned instruments, some of which are in every way excellent. The tone of a fine Stainer violin is of beautiful quality, and in examples met with by the writer, its timbre resembled that of Amati. It is almost needless to say that forgeries are innumerable, and are not unfrequently somewhat difficult to detect, not only on account of their intrinsic merit, but from the fact that his manuscript tickets have been cleverly imitated.

STAINER, Marcus.—Absam, Kuefstein, Laufen (Austria); seventeenth century. A brother of the above, he worked in a variety of places, and is reputed to have forged the labels of the more celebrated Jacob. The few examples seen by the writer resembled those of Jacob in form, and had dark red-brown varnish. One of these was a viola, of good workmanship and tone. He also used lion and other carved heads. He seems to have been alive until after 1680.

STAUDINGER, Mathaeus Wenceslaus.—Wurzburg; eighteenth century. In some of the labels the name is spelt Stautinger. The violins are very scarce, but are of fine workmanship.

STEINER, Joseph.—Lengberg. Died 1908. Seems to have been a merry blade, and a man of varied accomplishments. Experimented with varnishes. The violins are well made and of good form, but not often seen. The number of the instrument appears on the label.

STEININGER.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family of makers said to have sprung from Füssen. The most important of them was François Xaver, born in 1778, died about 1850. He changed his abode many times and worked in Darmstadt, Frankfort on the Maine, Paris, and St. Petersburg. His work is careful, and French in character.

STIRRAT, David.—Edinburgh; early nineteenth century. Pupil of Matthew Hardie.

STOHR, Jacob.—St. Polten; about 1790-1830. Examples scarce. Stradivari outline, higher arching, light brown varnish, backs usually in one piece. There were other makers of the name; probably sons.

STORCK.—Strasburg, Augsburg; eighteenth century. About half a dozen makers.

STORIONI, Lorenzo.—Cremona. Born 1751; died 1801. This maker is usually instanced as the last of the old Cremonese school. He was a prolific workman, and a considerable number of his instruments are in existence. His varnish is, however, of a different nature, and resembles that of the Neapolitan school. His pattern varies a good deal. Now and then his outline and arching are after the style of Amati, but in most cases there is more or less resemblance both in general appearance and the cut of the sound-holes to the work of Guarneri del Gesù. It has been said that violas by him are unknown; but this is incorrect. Some very fine examples are in existence, and in more than one instance they have been sold as the work of del Gesù. The colour of his varnish is usually a red-brown of varying shades. As a general rule the finish of his violins is rough, and the purfling carelessly worked, but occasionally he took more pains, and produced handsome fiddles with prettily figured wood. The scrolls are of bold, masculine cut, and very characteristic. The backs commonly have plain or small figured wood of native growth. Bellies of very fine material. The tone of his instruments is rich and full. Violoncellos are comparatively scarce, but are very fine in tone and in high repute amongst players. G. B. Ceruti took over his business, and is said to have been employed by him.

STOSS.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. This was a large family of makers, numbering fourteen or more members, and originating in Füssen. Most of them worked in Vienna, and one or two of them made instruments of more than average merit. Many of their tickets are of the ornamental kind, exhibiting various devices and engraved borders. Johann Baptist Stoss worked in Prague, and died there in 1850. The best known amongst them was Martin, who died in Vienna in 1838. He used various tickets, and is best represented by his violoncellos, which frequently show handsome wood and are carefully made.

STRADIVARI, Antonio.—Cremona. Born 1644; died December, 1737. The bulk of the biographical matter concerning this, the most famous of all fiddle makers, was collected by George Hart, who published some of it in the first edition of his celebrated work on the violin, but was unable to include the whole of it until the appearance of the second edition in 1884. He was largely assisted in his researches by Signor Sacchi, a Cremonese gentleman of considerable literary ability. In 1902 appeared the well known and sumptuous volume by the Brothers Hill, republished in cheaper form in 1909, entitled “Antonio Stradivari, his Life and Work,” the most exhaustive critical survey of the subject which has yet appeared. These two books form the chief English authorities for all that is known concerning the great Cremona master. Readers may also consult the very able article contributed by the late E. J. Payne to Grove’s Dictionary of Music, and the little volume of Horace Petherick published in the Strad Library in 1900. The writer’s observations on the work done by Stradivari during the time he was employed by Niccolò Amati will be found in the notices of that maker and of his son, Hieronymus Amati II. One or two labels still survive—one of them dated in 1666—in which Stradivari describes himself as a pupil of Amati. Early works usually exhibit an outline and arching similar to those employed by his master in his ordinary 13⁷/₈-inch instrument. The varnish seems identical, and is of the usual yellow colour, although darker shades may be seen almost from the first. The chief points of distinction lie in the heavier edges, the cutting of the sound-holes, and the form of the scrolls. This type of violin he continued to make with certain exceptions, such as the “Hellier,” a large fiddle of the “inlaid” class, measuring 14¹/₈ inches in length, until 1684. Between that year and 1690 the pattern and details are somewhat variable. According to Messrs. Hill, Stradivari first began to pick out the edges of his scrolls with black in or about the year 1688, and continued the practice, with rare exceptions, until the end of his life. In 1690 he made the remarkable violin known as the “Tuscan,” a large instrument of exceedingly handsome wood and build, and in the years 1691 and 1692 a few violins of exceptionally large proportions. The year 1690 also saw the advent of the “long Strad,” a pattern the dimensions of which have given rise to a certain amount of controversy. As a matter of fact, the lengths of these instruments vary between about 14¹/₈ inches and 14⁵/₁₆, the latter being the extreme limit. About 14³/₁₆ inches would seem to be the more usual length. The widths are about 6⁷/₁₆ in the upper bouts, and 8 inches in the lower ones. These narrow violins were made until the year 1700, with the exception of the year 1698, from which year no examples seem to have been seen. A large number of them—something like fifty—are still in existence. During this period, however, he did not confine himself entirely to the long pattern. Some of the long Strads are of great beauty of form and material, and by the time he began to make them he had adopted a varnish of deeper colour. The maker’s best period is commonly supposed to begin about the year 1700, but some of the finest efforts are dated from 1704, in which year he made the “Betts,” a specimen in a remarkable state of preservation, and with rather long corners. In the same year he produced a violin bearing a close resemblance to the “Betts,” and which is in the possession of Colonel Glennie. The year 1709 seems to have been one of the most prolific in Stradivari’s career, and many fine examples, such as the “Ernst,” and “La Pucelle,” were made in that year. At about this period the violins having a body length of 14¹/₈ inches begin to appear. In the preceding period 14 inches was the general rule. The backs of these violins are mostly made from handsome wood with a broad curl. The years 1710 to 1716 inclusive were productive of many of the finest violins ever made by Stradivari. Amongst them are the “Parke,” 1711, the “Dolphin,” 1714, the “Gillot,” now rather absurdly called the “Emperor,” the “Alard,” all made in 1715, and the famous “Messie,” remarkable for its unique state of preservation, and the magnificent “Cessol,” both of which belong to 1716. Between 1720 and 1725 the outline changes somewhat, and is squarer in the shoulders and the curves of the lower bouts. So far as tone goes some of the best toned fiddles in the world were made about this time, and it may be here added that of late years the later works of Stradivari have received much attention from concert players on account of their masculine tone. In the years immediately preceding his death the maker was in the habit of recording his age in manuscript either upon the labels or on a slip of paper just beneath them. Messrs. Hill enumerate eight examples of this practice; another from the year 1731 came under the writer’s notice in 1912. In the labels dated prior to 1730 the maker’s name is spelt “Stradiuarius,” but from that year onwards it appears as “Stradivarius.” The number of ornamented and inlaid instruments which have survived seems to be about a dozen. Messrs. Hill record ten of these; others are known to have been made, but traces of them, if still existing, have disappeared. The earliest seems to date from 1677, and the latest is the “Rode” violin made in 1722. These examples include a viola dated 1696, and a violoncello. Three of the inlaid violins are dated 1709. The violas at present known number only about a dozen. One of these, a “tenore,” dated 1690, measures 18⁷/₈ inches in length. The smaller examples average about 16³/₁₆ to 16⁵/₁₆ inches. There are about fifty violoncellos, the older specimens being over 31 inches long, and the later type about 29½ inches or a little over. These include many notable instruments, such as those owned by Piatti, Duport, Servais, and other celebrated players, after whom they have been named. Notwithstanding repeated assertions to the contrary, there is no trace of any double basses made by Stradivari; specimens formerly assigned to him have long been rejected as spurious, and no patterns for such instruments are to be found amongst his drawings, moulds and other working apparatus. These last were bought from Stradivari’s son by Count Cozio di Salabue, and from him descended to the Marquis dalla Valle, who is, or was recently, still in possession of them. Stradivari’s output was enormous, even when due allowance is made for the length of time during which he was at work; and the estimate made by Messrs. Hill, which gives a total of 1116 instruments, is by no means an excessive one. No other maker, who has not degenerated into a “manufacturer,” like Vuillaume and “didier” Nicolas in the last century, can compare with him in this respect, and the marvel of it all is that his own hand is plainly visible in all his works, even to the very last. There can be no reasonable doubt that he was assisted by a considerable number of workmen, including his sons Francesco and Omobono, Carlo Bergonzi, and others whose claims to have been his pupils are more open to question; but whatever share these may have had in the earlier and rougher stages of the work the master left but little trace of it in the finished article. Since the beginning of the last century his fame in this country has steadily increased; his name has become a household word. In his own day his consummate abilities were widely recognised, and orders were sent to him from royal courts and noblemen all over the continent of Europe, as appears by contemporary evidence. To-day his violins command higher prices than ever, and although some of his earlier instruments are more or less played out by the successive generations in whose hands they have seen service, their authorship is of itself sufficient to maintain their market value at a high figure.

STRADIVARI, Francesco.—Cremona. Born 1671; died 1743. The elder of the two sons of Antonio who followed his calling. A good many violins of considerable intrinsic merit but dubious authenticity are assigned to him, but several which were formerly accepted as genuine have failed to obtain a favourable verdict amongst some of the later judges, and it is difficult to speak with any certainty about them. One magnificent violoncello, the proportions of which have been slightly reduced, is known to the writer, and its authorship appears to be unquestioned. This instrument is covered with very fine varnish of golden-red colour, and considerably more substance than that seen on violins supposed to be of his make.

STRADIVARI, Omobono.—Born 1679; died 1742. Son of Antonio. The writer is acquainted with three or four violins which are assigned to him upon good authority. These are of bold pattern and bear some resemblance to the work of Antonio, but do not display any of his fine finish. The wood of the backs is with one exception of small figured native maple. The varnish thinner in texture than that of the father. The sound-holes are somewhat like those of Bergonzi, and in one case are very slightly pointed. The back and sides of the other violin referred to are of beech. The tone of all these specimens is very fine and full. Most of Omobono’s tickets seem to have been in neatly written manuscript. A favourite date, which leads one to suspect their genuineness in some cases, is 1740.

STRAUB.—Chiefly eighteenth century. About a dozen workmen of the name are enumerated.

STRAUBE, Johann Augustin.—Born 1725; died 1802. Worked chiefly in Berlin. Instruments seemingly very scarce.

STRNAD, Caspar.—Prague. Died 1823. Fine red varnish, pattern usually that of Stradivari. He used several different labels, engraved with musical instruments and other devices.

STROBL.—Eighteenth century. There were at least three makers of the name. Two named Johann worked in Hallein, and a third named Tobias in Krems.

STUMPEL, H. C.—Minden. Born 1838. A maker who produced instruments of various models, built according to a system of thicknessing of his own. He used a label bearing a diagram showing a violin belly graduated according to his method.

STURTZER, or STURZER.—Breslau. Eighteenth century. Two makers named Johann Michael Sturzer worked in Breslau.

SÜSS, Johann Christian.—Markneukirchen. Died 1900. Worked for a time in Dresden. He was one of the best bowmakers Germany has produced.

SULOT, Nicolas.—Dijon; about 1820-40. Took out a patent for a violin with a double belly.

SUTOR, Johann Martin.—Vienna. Died 1758. Examples scarce, and little known.

SUTTERLEIN, J. Friedrich.—Strasburg. Died 1893 or later. Careful work. Stradivari pattern. Pretty varnish. He came under the notice of the artist Wilhelmj, who thought highly of his abilities.

SZEPESSY. See Bela.

TADOLINI, Ignazio.—Modena. Born 1797; died 1873. Known only as a bow-maker, in which department he excelled. A brother—Giuseppe—seems to have made a few instruments.

TANEGIA, Carlo Antonio.—Milan; about 1720. Grancino style. Examples scarce.

TANINGARD, Gio. Giorgio.—Rome; about 1730-1750. Possibly worked with Tecchler. He used various labels.

TARR, William.—Manchester. Born 1809; died 1892. This maker is chiefly known amongst English double-bass players, but made smaller instruments also. The basses are often excellent, and are in high esteem amongst Northern and Midland contrabassists.

TASSINI, Bartolommeo.—Venice; latter half of eighteenth century. The backs of his violins are usually in one piece, and the wood is often handsome. Varnish a clear golden yellow.

TAYLOR, William.—London; eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He was a good average workman, and made useful instruments of the Panormo class. He is said to have been taught by Panormo. The writer has met with a few good violas of his make, but he seems to have made more double-basses. Varnish yellow or yellow brown.

TECCHLER, David.—Salsburg, Venice, Rome. Born 1666; died about 1745. An important and prolific maker. He seems to have had a large business in Rome, and probably employed a good many assistants. A great number of his violoncellos are in existence, and are generally of high merit. They were of large pattern, but have frequently been reduced in size. In his best work he caught something of the true Italian style, and he was evidently acquainted with Italian methods of varnishing. But like nearly all of his countrymen, he never succeeded in freeing himself entirely from German notions, traces of which are noticeable in practically all his works. They all hint of Stainer somewhere. A few fine double-basses are in existence. The violas are very scarce. Violins are pretty plentiful, and vary somewhat in finish and general merit. The writer has met with two of these, and one violoncello with the bellies cut the wrong way of the wood, or “slab-wise.” The scrolls are often well carved, and in the violins somewhat slender at the throat. The varnish on the Roman instruments, which are much more plentiful than those dating from Salsburg or Venice, is of Amati character, and generally of yellow-red or yellow-brown colour.

TEDESCO, Leopoldo.—Cremona, Rome. Is all but unknown as a maker, but is mentioned in the Parish Registers of Cremona as a pupil of Niccolò Amati. The name seems to be there spelt “Todesco.” He was born in 1625.

TENTZEL.—Mittenwald; eighteenth century. Kloz school of work.

TERMANINI, Joseph.—Modena; about 1750 and later. Appears to have been a priest who made fiddles. Work rare and of no particular merit.

TESTORE.—Milan; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. A widely known and important family of makers whose instruments, though chiefly of second-class workmanship and inferior finish, are much sought after by players on account of their excellent tone. However rough and unattractive the specimen may appear, a Testore may almost always be relied on to possess a fine tone. Apparently the patronage they were able to obtain did not permit them to do their best save on rare occasions, but there are violins in existence by C. G. and C. A. Testore which prove conclusively that, given the opportunity, these makers were possessed of skill and abilities of a high order. In these rare cases we meet with specimens of good form and finish, handsome wood and brilliant varnish. The average Testore is, however, an instrument which in all or most of these particulars leaves a good deal to be desired. The bellies are almost without exception of pine of the best quality acoustically, but the backs and sides are mostly of plain or small figured native wood, the heads are mean and pinched looking, sound-holes carelessly cut, varnish a dull yellow or dirty brown, and many of them are (or rather were) unpurfled. Carlo Giuseppe Testore, the first of the name, worked between about 1680 and 1710. He was a pupil of Giovanni Grancino, whose label has been found in violins and violoncellos of his make, his own label being discovered by repairers underneath. This happened in the case of a violoncello owned by Robert Lindley. His model varies, but it is absurd, having regard to dates, to class him as an imitator of Guarneri del Gesù, whose earliest fiddles date from about 1725 or a year or two earlier. Such resemblance as may exist between the violins of the two makers is very trifling, and can hardly be said to extend beyond an occasional similarity in the form of the sound-holes. The varnish is usually brown or brownish yellow. In some, but not all, of the instruments a brand mark, representing an eagle, is met with, but the use of the brand is more frequently observed in the work of his son, Carlo Antonio. Carlo Giuseppe made some violoncellos of much merit, the wood of the backs being mostly pear tree or plain material. He is also in repute as a double-bass maker. His elder son, Carlo Antonio, seems to have worked until after 1760, and apparently made more violins than his father. The pattern varies a good deal and it is difficult to say that he imitated any other maker in particular. Most of his instruments are branded inside with the double eagle, sometimes in two or more places. The work is often roughly finished. Bottesini’s favourite double-bass was an example by this maker. A son, Giovanni, worked with him in later years. Paolo Antonio Testore was the younger son of Carlo Giuseppe. He was at work until after 1760. His violins bear some resemblance to those of Guarneri. Varnish often palish yellow. Instruments frequently unpurfled, especially in the backs, but a good many have been purfled by later hands. He also used the eagle brand, but not invariably. Wood generally very plain.

THERESS, Charles.—London; about 1840-1850. Worked first with Maucotel; afterwards on his own account in Soho. Mirecourt style.

THIBOUT.—Paris; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A well-known family, most of whom worked in Paris. There were about six makers in all. The most celebrated was Jacques Pierre, born 1779, died 1856. He was one of the finest workmen of the French school, and his best copies of Stradivari are less heavy in appearance than those of Lupot and the tone is more Italian in character. The varnish on such specimens is also very handsome: red on a yellow basis. His instruments were made in at least two grades and the better ones now command very high prices. He obtained several medals, and used labels in various styles at different dates. It is much to be regretted that his best personal work is not more plentiful.

THIBOUVILLE-LAMY, Louis Emile Jerome.—Mirecourt, Paris. Born 1833. Manufactures stringed and other musical instruments on a huge scale, and of all grades. He has received various medals and employs many workmen.

THIR.—Presburg, Vienna; eighteenth century. Nine or ten makers of the name. There were two Antons in Presburg, and two in Vienna. One of the best was Andreas, who worked in Presburg until about 1798, and copied the form of Amati well. Johann Georg Thir was established in Vienna until after 1790, and made a good many instruments. Varnish dark brown or dark red. Geissenhof was for a time in partnership with him. Another good maker of the name was Mathias, who was a brother of J. G. Thir and worked until about 1795.

THOMASSIN, Louis.—Paris. Born 1855. A clever bow-maker. Voirin style.

THOMPSON.—London; late eighteenth century. There were several makers, or rather instrument dealers, in business in St. Paul’s Churchyard. Instruments vary, and the violoncellos are often better than the violins. The latter are generally a sort of mixture of the patterns of Stainer and Amati, with red or yellow varnish, and of no particular character.

THOUVENEL, Henry.—Mirecourt; about 1850-1860. Strad pattern; yellow varnish.

THUMARDT.—Straubing, Munich; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Eight or more makers are named. One of them, Johann Stephan, worked in Straubing until 1817, and his work is of some value.

TIEFENBRUNNER.—Mittenwald, Munich; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family who must not be confounded with the Tieffenbruckers who were viol makers. Eight or nine Tiefenbrunners have been engaged in the manufacture of stringed instruments, chiefly zithers. Amongst those who made violins Johann Caspar, who died about 1769, and worked in Mittenwald, seems to be best known.

TIELKE, Joachim.—Hamburg. Born 1641; died 1719. Is said to have made violins, but the only instruments seen by the writer were of the lute or viol class.

TOBIN, Richard.—Dublin, London. A fine workman. Was for a time employed by Perry. Afterwards by Betts and other London dealers, besides working on his own account. Made some very handsome violoncellos, and violins chiefly of Stradivari pattern. He died in Shoreditch in about 1836. His scrolls are wonderful pieces of workmanship; but he was of irregular habits, and did not always do full justice to his powers.

TOLBECQUE, Auguste.—Paris. Born 1830. A violoncellist, and collector of old instruments; he made a few violins which are said to be excellent copies of Italian work.

TONONI.—Bologna, Venice, Rome; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. An important family of makers of Bolognese origin. There were two Carlos, the elder of whom dates from Bologna, and seems to have worked down to about 1717, or perhaps later. There do not seem to be many of his instruments about. The relationships between the various members of this family are uncertain, and the accounts given of them in books on the violin vary in this respect. Most of the instruments seen are evidently based upon the form of Amati, but there is a German look about them which is apparent enough on examining a specimen though not easy to explain on paper. Many of them are beautifully finished, and built of handsomely figured wood, and the tone, especially of the violoncellos, is exceptionally good. A number of the violins are of rather large size, the arching usually fairly high. Perhaps the best known of the family is Carlo Antonio, who worked in Venice from about 1720-1768. Most of the fiddles are rather high built, have finely figured backs, and a yellow or red-orange varnish of very good quality. Name branded above the tail pin. His second Christian name does not seem to appear upon his tickets. Giovanni Tononi worked in Bologna and apparently in Venice also. His instruments date from about 1689-1740. Model varies, but is chiefly of large Amati character. Good yellow or brown-red varnish of clear texture. Felice Tononi dates from Bologna and was possibly the founder of the family, his early tickets dating from about 1670. High model, good clear varnish. Two other names are mentioned, Guido and Pietro.

TOPPANI, Angelo de.—Rome; about 1730-45. High built fiddles. Tecchler school.

TOROSSI, Cesare.—Novara; about 1840. Little known.

TOURTE.—Paris; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Celebrated bow-makers. Beyond being the father of the famous François, “Tourte père,” though himself a bow-maker, did not achieve any particular distinction. He died about 1780. Xaver or Savère, his elder son, made some good bows, and some very indifferent ones. Francois Tourte was born in 1747, and died in April, 1835. He made a very large number of bows, and continued to work until very late in life. They are unstamped, and save in about two cases, in which he inserted small engraved labels in the nuts, he used no distinguishing mark or brand to identify his work. He was admittedly the finest bowmaker who ever lived, but the work of other French makers is often quite equal in merit to all but his very best examples, and even then it is more a matter of superb finish than of practical utility. He probably was mainly instrumental in settling the correct length of the bow, but beyond this it is very questionable whether he was the actual “inventor” of the improvements with which he is credited in books.

TRAPANI, Raffaele.—Naples; early nineteenth century. His instruments are more remarkable for originality than beauty of appearance. Large violins. Sound-holes pointed; flat arching; varnish reddish brown. The work is fairly well finished.

TRINELLI, Giovanni.—Scandino; early nineteenth century. Large violins. Powerful tone. Not highly finished. Scarce.

TRUCCO, Girolamo.—Savona; about 1840.

TRUSKA, Simon Joseph.—Strahow. Died 1809. A priest who made violins and other stringed instruments.

TUBBS.—London; nineteenth century. A well-known family of bow-makers. William Tubbs, father of the present maker, worked with Edward Dodd, and much of his work strongly resembles that of his master; he was a good workman. James Tubbs was born in 1835, and is still at work. He has attained wide celebrity, and many of his bows are beautiful examples of his art.

TURNER.—London; nineteenth century. Was a well-known dealer and importer, but seems to have employed workmen. His stamp may be seen on many instruments of a common class (sometimes with lion heads) of continental make.

TYWERSUS.—Nancy; sixteenth century. It seems to be doubtful whether he made violins.

UEBEL.—Markneukirchen, Klingenthal; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There were several makers of the name. Some of them were at work until very recent times.

UGAR, Crescenzio.—Rome; late eighteenth century. Was possibly a German. Brown varnish. German style.

ULRICH, Diederich.—Hamburg; eighteenth century. Yellow varnish. Brescian type of work. Some of the instruments have lion heads.

UNGARINI, Raynaldo.—Fabriano; about 1800.

URBAN, Joseph.—Prague, New York, San Francisco. Died 1893.

URQUHART, Thomas.—London; latter half of seventeenth century. High built violins. Varnish of beautiful quality.

VAILLANT, Francois.—Paris; about 1730-80. Scarce.

VAILLANT, Nicholas.—Bordeaux; nineteenth century. Red varnish. Well finished work. Scrolls well cut.

VALENZANO, Giovanni Maria.—Valentia, Rome, Trieste. According to specimens seen by the writer the pattern varied somewhat. Work very well finished; sound-holes and scroll well cut; medium size violins with yellow or reddish yellow varnish of good quality, and resembling Neapolitan, but softer in texture. He worked in various places (chiefly Rome), and used both written and printed labels. Dates between about 1790 and 1825.

VALLENTINE, William.—London. Died about 1877. Worked for many years for Hart. A good repairer. Chiefly known as a double-bass maker.

VANDELLI, Giovanni.—Fiorano (Modena). Died 1839.

VANDERLIST.—Paris; late eighteenth century. Instruments branded. Said to have copied Guadagnini.

VANGELISTI, Pier Lorenzo.—Florence; about 1730. Rather indifferent work; somewhat high built. Seemingly scarce.

VAROTTI, Giovanni.—Bologna; late eighteenth century.

VAUCHEL, Jean Corn.—Mayence, Wurzburg, Damm. Died 1856. Was a dealer and repairer as well as a maker. He was patronised by Paganini and Spohr. His monument describes him as one of the most famous violin makers in the world. He seems to have been a workman of ability, but his instruments are little known in this country.

VENTAPANE.—Naples; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Three makers of this name date from Naples. Their work belongs to the Gagliano school. Instruments of their make have been sold as genuine Gaglianos. The best known of them is Lorenzo, who dates between about 1800-30. Handsome wood, good yellow-orange varnish. Vincenzo Ventapane worked down to about 1800, and produced some useful instruments. Pasquale Ventapane was an inferior workman.

VERINI, Serafino.—Arceto, Cascogno (Modena). Died 1868. He was a land surveyor who made instruments for his amusement. Andrea Verini, who was perhaps a son, also made instruments.

VERMESCH.—Beaumont-sur-Oise. A priest who worked at fiddle making about 1780-1810.

VERON, Antoine.—Paris; about 1720-50. Pierray school of work.

VERON, Pierre André.—Paris; eighteenth century.

VETRINI.—Brescia; about 1630.

VIEDENHOFER, Bernard.—Pesth (Budapest); late eighteenth century. Brescian style of work.

VIGNERON, Joseph Arthur.—Paris; contemporary. A bow-maker of considerable ability. Worked for some years with Gand and Bernardel.

VIMERCATI, Pietro.—Venice; about 1640-60. Said to be an imitator of Amati. There is a tradition that Stainer worked with him.

VIMERCATI, Paolo.—Venice; seventeenth century. Amati style according to accounts.

VINACCIA.—Naples; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A very large Neapolitan family. Violins bearing their labels are met with, but they are noted more as mandoline makers.

VISSENAIRE, L. Nicolas.—Lyons. Died 1890. A good workman.

VOEL, Jacob.—Mayence, Frankfort-on-the-Maine; about 1840. Well made violins; Stradivari pattern; sound-holes rather wide open; scrolls well cut.

VOGLER, Johann Georg.—Wurzburg; first half of eighteenth century.

VOIGT.—Markneukirchen; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A veritable swarm of makers of the name are enumerated. Upwards of thirty have been engaged in the fiddle business, and one or two of them have had branches of their establishments in this country in very recent years.

VOIRIN, Francis Nicolas.—Paris. Born 1833; died 1885. A celebrated bow-maker. His pattern has been much imitated by modern French makers, such as Lamy, Sartory, and several others.

VOLLER, William.—London. Born 1860. A most skilful imitator of old Italian work. His “facsimiles” have puzzled many by no means uninformed observers by their close resemblance to genuine Italian masterpieces, and have in some instances been productive of law suits. He imitates the appearances of wear with perhaps greater skill than any other workman who has practised the art, not even excepting Vuillaume and John Lott. Two or more brothers are, or were recently, employed in the same line of business.

VUILLAUME.—Mirecourt, Paris, Brussels; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The name is probably known wherever the violin is in use owing to the wide celebrity attained by the principal maker of the family, which was of Mirecourt origin. About ten Vuillaumes have been engaged in fiddle making. Four named Claude or Claude Francis operated in Mirecourt from about 1625-1865. Claude Vuillaume II. died in Mirecourt in 1834. Instruments of his make are branded on the backs “Au roi David,” Paris. Jean Baptiste Vuillaume, who made the name famous, was born in Mirecourt in 1798, and was a son of Claude Vuillaume II. He died in Paris in 1875, and at the time of his death his workshops had turned out upwards of three thousand instruments. This fact speaks for itself, and though he was personally a workman of consummate skill and employed assistants of much ability, there can be no question that the world would have been richer in really first-class examples of the copyist’s art had he been content to limit his output to more modest dimensions. But Vuillaume was a keen business man, and knew well enough that extensive production was the one and only way to amass a fortune in the manufacture of new fiddles. The story of his life has been told time and again in books on the violin, and there is no need here to repeat it. He has left some of the finest copies of Stradivari that were ever made, and many that, from a tone point of view, are of little or no account. The instruments made from artificially matured wood, of which many exist, are disastrous failures, and it is fortunate that he desisted after some time from producing such things. His violoncellos are useful instruments, and generally possess a fine tone. He was a fine judge of old Italian work, and many notable violins and basses passed through his hands. Nicolas Vuillaume, his brother, worked in Mirecourt, and died there in 1871. His work is fair, but of the trade class. He was the maker of the so-called “Stentor” violins. Nicolas Francis Vuillaume, another brother—born 1802, died 1876—worked for a time with J. B. Vuillaume, and afterwards went to Brussels, where he was for many years in business. He was maker to the Conservatoire there, and received medals. He was a very fair workman, but much inferior to his brother in ability. Sebastien Vuillaume, a nephew, died in 1876, and was not particularly distinguished. He also worked in Paris.

WAGNER.—Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nine or more makers are mentioned bearing the name. They worked in different parts of Germany. Benedict Wagner, Elwangen, was at work in that place between about 1720 and 1790. Pattern varies, but they are usually high built. Yellow-brown varnish. He branded his name on the backs. Another Wagner, named Joseph, worked in Constance in the eighteenth century.

WAMSLEY, Peter.—London; first half of eighteenth century. He was the founder of a school of makers, and several workmen, such as Thomas Smith, Joseph Hill, and others, worked with, or imitated him. His instruments are of Stainer pattern, and he generally used prettily marked wood for his backs. Varnish varies in colour, but is chiefly dark red or red-brown. He made a number of violoncellos. Work often unpurfled.

WARNECKE, L. Georges.—Nancy; about 1820-30. He branded his violins with a curious monogram under the bridge.

WASSERMANN, Joseph.—Znaim; late eighteenth century. Examples scarce. Well-made instruments with orange-brown varnish.

WEBER, Michael.—Prague. Died 1844.

WEICHOLD, Richard.—Dresden. A well-known manufacturer of stringed instruments and accessories. Many of the bows bearing his stamp are excellent. He died in 1902.

WELLER.—Markneukirchen; nineteenth century. Several makers of the name are mentioned, but amongst the various Christian names that of “Samuel” does not occur.

WENGER, Gregori Ferdinand.—Augsburg; eighteenth century. Stainer character of work. Varnish red or dark brown.

WERNER.—Nineteenth century. A numerous family originating in Schönbach. A maker named Franz Werner worked in Vienna until about 1825 and was a pupil of Geissenhof. Careful work. Stradivari pattern.

WETTENGEL.—Markneukirchen; nineteenth century. A family of instrument makers. One of them (Gustav Adolf) wrote a book on violin making.

WHITAKER.—London; about 1810-29. Button and Whitaker were instrument dealers. The name may be seen on violins and violoncellos of mediocre workmanship.

WIDHALM.—Nuremburg; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A fairly numerous family of makers, the chief of whom was Leopold Widhalm, who was born in 1722 and died in 1776. He was a prolific workman and a good many of his fiddles are in this country. He copied Stainer with much ability, but generally overdid the arching. His varnish is usually red, and of very good quality. There is a good deal of sameness about his work. He made some fine violas. His initials are generally seen stamped under the labels. Several sons were also makers. The second of them, Gallus Ignatius, died in 1822.

WILFER.—Nineteenth century. There have been several German makers of this name.

WILLEMS.—Ghent; seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Three makers of the name are known. Good work of the Amati school.

WILLER.—Prague; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Three makers known. Johann Michael Wilier died in 1826, and was a tolerably good workman.

WISE, Christopher.—London; middle of seventeenth century. A violoncello attributed to this maker was seen by the writer in London recently, but was not a very interesting specimen. The violins are occasionally met with and have very good varnish. Size rather small.

WITHERS.—London; nineteenth century and contemporary. Well-known firms of London dealers and repairers. The founder of the business was Edward Withers, who died about 1870. He was a maker of decided ability and made some instruments of high-class finish and workmanship. He also employed some excellent workmen, amongst them Boullangier (q.v.). A son of the same name was a pupil of Lott and carried on business in Wardour Street. He died in 1915, and the business is continued by his sons. George Withers, another son of the first Edward, established a successful business on his own account, and retired some years ago. The firm is now “George Withers and Sons,” the partners being two of his sons, Guarneri and Walter, both of whom underwent a course of training in Mirecourt.

WOLFF, Brothers.—Kreuznach; contemporary. Well-known manufacturers of instruments of the “factory” class.

WORLE AND WORNLE.—Makers bearing these names worked in various parts of Germany and in Vienna. Seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

WUNDERLICH.—Markneukirchen; nineteenth century. Several of the name.

ZACH, Thomas.—Budapest, Vienna. Born 1812; died 1892. He was a very fine workman. His copies of Stradivari and Guarneri are beautifully made and take high rank amongst modern productions. The varnish on many of them is of excellent quality. A son, Carl Zach, invented a process for impregnating the wood of his instruments to improve the tone. Judging by examples seen by the writer it did not have the desired effect.

ZACHER, Franz.—Ingoldstadt; early eighteenth century. High built instruments. Careful work and handsome wood. Specimens scarce.

ZANETTO.—Brescia; late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. His name appears to have been Peregrino, or Pelegrino, Michelis di Zanetto, but he is usually referred to as “Zanetto.” He certainly made violas of the large, or “Tenore” class, but as to what other instruments of a type now in use he really made there seems to be some doubt. Messrs George Withers and Sons possess a viola of his make.

ZANFI, Giacomo.—Modena. Born 1756; died about 1822. According to labels was a music teacher who made violins and larger instruments.

ZANOLI, Gio. Battista.—Verona; 1730-57 Seemingly a mediocre maker.

ZANOLI, Giacomo.—Venice, Padua, Verona; about 1740-60.

ZANOTTI, Antonio.—Mantua; eighteenth century.

ZANTI, Alessandro.—Late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Worked in Mantua. Work well finished. Chiefly Stradivari pattern.

ZWERGER.—Mittenwald; eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A family of makers of Mittenwald origin. Several of them worked in Neuberg.

ADDENDUM

AMATI, Hieronymus II.—Since the notice of this maker was written (vide page 139) the writer has met with two violins labelled prior to the year 1700. One of these is dated 1689.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, LIMITED,
LONDON AND BECCLES.

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Neither the pegs, finger-board, neck, bridge, tailpiece, saddle nor tailpin, on the exterior, or the soundpost, bassbar, corner blocks, end blocks or linings, inside the instrument, add any particular value to the violin if original. Most of these items are, in a well-fitted old violin, modern. The vital parts for curio valuation are the head, top, back, and ribs.

[B] The violins produced in any part of modern Italy as a rule possess repute no higher than those made in other countries. So long ago as the latter years of the eighteenth century it became necessary for the Italian workmen to seek information in the art from Paris and other cities of France. As for Cremona of the present day, it may almost be said that, as a violin centre, it is not seriously considered at all. I believe some effort has recently been made to revive its ancient glories, but the success of the venture is still very much in doubt.

[C] It has been variously estimated that Stradivari constructed during his lifetime between 1000 and 1500 instruments.

[D] Antonio Stradivari is the best known of all violin makers of past times, and it is solely for this reason that we use his name so frequently when referring to the old makers, rather than that of another less familiar.

[E] “We unhesitatingly assert that modern violin-makers have a choice of material equal in every respect to that which existed at the time of Stradivari.... We may here add a word as to the delusion that material taken from buildings, such as for instance Swiss châlets—in some cases centuries old—is preferable to that cut and seasoned during a lesser, but still a sufficient, number of years. We have tried both kinds ... and we fail to find that the former has any real advantage over the latter; in fact, our opinion is rather in favour of the more youthful wood.”—Messrs. Hill, “Antonio Stradivari,” p. 173.

[F] A potent factor in retarding a general recognition and revival of tone is that modern violin makers are all too frequently looked upon—and look upon themselves—as mere carvers of wood, and are judged almost entirely from that standpoint. Perfection of workmanship and such artistry as each maker may achieve, rather than the tone-merit his instruments may possess, seems the only existing method of indicating his status as a violin maker. Aside from other considerations, this renders his position difficult in the extreme, the violin offering little scope (as in the plastic and kindred arts) for originality; and any departure from convention is apt to be characterised as freakish, whilst all possible refinement of detail seems long since anticipated.

[G] These principles, as we have endeavoured to explain, are as old as the violin itself.

[H] It has long been considered by many who seek to duplicate the tone of the old master violins that the more perfectly size, outline, arching, thickness—or model—is copied, the more chance of securing the desired tone. Notwithstanding the lack of success attending such efforts, copying is still extensively practised and relied upon for tone production.

[I] Many violins of little tonal worth, but by a more or less famous ancient maker, are advertised in a manner calculated to fire the imagination of the reader and effect a sale through an appeal to romantic sentiment. It is for this reason that so much is said about the maker, his times, master, family, etc., and so little about the tone of the particular instrument.

[J] “The copies of Stradivari by Jacob Fendt are among his best efforts. The work is well done; the dicoloration of the wood cleverly managed, and the effect of wear counterfeited with greater skill than has ever been done before or since, and finally, an amount of style is thrown into the work which transcends the ingenuity of any other copyist.”—“The Violin,” G. Hart, page 297.

[K] “Violin Making as it Was and Is,” Ed. Heron Allen, London, 1885.

[L] A rather popular belief is that all old violins by a certain celebrated maker, or new ones by a modern maker, are alike in tonal worth. This is not the case, and the fact should be carefully remembered. The variation is not due so much to the vicissitudes of a long and strenuous existence on the part of the instrument as to those human limitations which render it impossible for a master in any art to copy himself with unfailing regularity and success.

[M] This number may appear large, but we believe it is under, rather than over, the mark. Some of the makers of later times, now, however, ranking as “old,” turned out from their shops as many as 2,500 instruments. If the 900 makers produced an average of 100 violins each during their lifetime, the total would amount to 90,000.

[N] While most of the great dealers throughout the world are either good judges of tone themselves, or employ those who are, they cannot, as vendors, be considered impartial. It is only fair to say they recognise this, and prefer that the prospective buyer form his own opinion.

[O] In the Correspondence Department of The Strad for May, 1916, we find the following: “I think his (Stradivari’s) varnish was purely and simply got by a visit to his fowl-shed, and the selection of half a dozen brown-shelled eggs therefrom, simply breaking in a dish, beating the contents well together, removing the froth, and applying the residuum at once to his finished violins.... I believe this is the long-sought solution of the means employed by Strad to finish off his violins.”

Typographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:

succed in tone=> succeed in tone {pg xv}

approximateiy accurate=> approximately accurate {pg xvii}

be more worthy the=> be more worthy of the {pg 50}

ridiculous claims or=> ridiculous claims of {pg 107}

GLASS.—Klingeuthal=> GLASS.—Klingenthal {pg 170}

HAÜSSLER, Gustave=> HÄUSSLER, Gustave {pg 187}

enumerated by von Lutgendörff=> enumerated by von Lütgendorff {pg 244}

Egiduis, circa 1700-30=> Egidius, circa 1700-30 {pg 249}

Moscrow, Prague=> Moscow, Prague {pg 249}