SOME MODIFICATIONS IN STRADIVARI'S WORKS--VARIATION IN FINISH OF
DETAILS--THE INTERIOR OF HIS VIOLINS--THE BLOCKS AND
LININGS--THICKNESSES OF THE TABLES--HEADS OR SCROLLS OF HIS
DIFFERENT PERIODS.
We will now resume our consideration of the handiwork of the Cremonese
master as regards other details. We left him steadily working through
his so-called "Grand epoch" or, more strictly speaking, his period of
finely settled designs in outline and modelling. He had arrived at the
goal of his ambition and produced works of excellence which--taking them
as a whole--it seemed impossible to improve upon. He was henceforth
content to put into them such slight modifications as would prevent too
great similarity. Thus we find some were flatter in the arching, others
a little shorter, being a trifle under the usual fourteen inches, others
again were over it, but there was the same general contour, his now
well-known accentuated design, complete as possible in all its details.
From the great number of finished works that were turned out one after
another, it is quite reasonable to assume that there would be
occasionally some little evidence of extra pressure of business and
consequently less time spent over minor details. That this actually
occurred at times there is no doubt and can be perceived clearly when
looked for. One instance occurs to me in which the purfling had been cut
off a trifle short at the corners and did not quite fill up and make a
good mitreing, otherwise all along the border the easy, swift, yet
powerful stroke was maintained up to his usual standard of accuracy. In
other instances the point or "bee-sting," as it is sometimes called, is
not so sharply defined perhaps in two corners, while the others were the
perfection of minute finish.
It seems fairly certain that the great Cremonese was not at the time
thinking of the almost microscopical scrutiny of critics certain to
occur one hundred and eighty or so years in the future. These little
differences in accuracy of unimportant detail or accidents of work may
be taken as evidence that Stradivari was labouring day by day to meet
the requirements of patrons different in disposition and perhaps
patience. When at the same period he has been allowed to put his full
time and attention to his work, then we find the four corners of equal
unsurpassable finish, and other minute details over the whole structure
so intently studied that nothing could possibly go beyond. These should
really and appropriately be termed his "grand pattern." There is present
in those instances the combined excellences in the highest degree of
mechanical precision, beautiful proportion and drawing, such as no
master designer of the Renaissance could surpass, the choicest
materials, including splendid varnish, the whole united and capped with
that essential, a beautiful tone.
A few words about the interior of Stradivari's instruments; one kind of
work is perceptible in all of them. There is not, as we may see in the
works of other masters, that off-handed, or even slovenly want of finish
inside while the whole attention of the maker has been concentrated on
the exterior. With Stradivari all is well done, the blocks, end and
corner ones are carefully faced and have little, if any can be seen, of
the tool marks left upon them. The linings let into the corners are in
every instance done with minute exactness. The wood of these and the
blocks is a kind of Italian poplar, sometimes called willow and by the
French sallow; it is light and has no threads like pine to cause
difficulty in the manipulation. Too much importance has been attached by
critics to the presence of this wood in Stradivari's violins. That it
had nothing whatever to do with the excellence of tone quality is clear
from the fact of makers of inferior skill and less renown for tone
having used it in the same parts. The most likely reason is--as most
repairers have concluded--the absence of thread, its lightness,
pliability and evenness of texture, being thereby adapted for the
necessary long strips for fitting round the curves. Some makers used it
invariably, while others did so occasionally, perhaps not always having
a stock on hand. When for some reasons, such as being worm eaten or
badly fractured, it has been found compulsory to remove them and
substitute others in their place and of other wood, there has been no
perceptible deterioration in the tone either as regards quality or
quantity. Not only so, but there is the fact that many of the Italian
masters and their numerous pupils, to say nothing of makers of a lower
order, as often as not sent forth their violins without linings, some
even without corner blocks. In most of these instances, however, the
ribs were left very stout in substance in order to retain a sufficient
holding surface for the glue. The subtle curvings of the ribs of an
Amati, and more so of a Stradivari, almost precluded the use of a very
thick material, especially so when the curl or figure was bold and
elaborate. In consonance with this, we find with Stradivari that the
thin plate or veneer from which the ribs have been cut is not thick, but
of accurate and equal measurement along its course. The linings being
equally true and fitting in the closest manner to the ribs, are in their
original state somewhat stouter, the middle or waist ones parting
slightly on approaching the corner blocks each way and thus giving a
gradually increasing area of attachment (diag. _h_). All of the four
blocks are well trimmed off and their surfaces levelled, being quite
regular in their form and size and trimmed to proper measurement. The
end blocks serving to sustain the greatest amount of strain
longitudinally, are also found well finished, in contrast with so many
seen in instruments by makers of eminence that are simply hacked roughly
into size and shape. They were carefully estimated in their proportion
for strength sufficient to resist the strain caused by the size, length,
and pull of the strings in use at the time of Stradivari, and with
something to spare, so that even now, under the enormous strain of the
modern high pitch, when in perfect and original condition they are equal
to their task. In a number of instances, when much repairing, good or
bad has been done, the end, and often the corner blocks, have been
replaced by modern ones. There is, of course, under these circumstances
less of Stradivari present, but it has often been a case of painful
necessity or question of expense as to the choice between two steps for
restoration to health and particularly for strength. The form viewed
vertically adopted by Stradivari was that of a parallelogram with two
rounded corners (diag. _i_.). The upper block was left a little thicker,
the junction or root of the neck necessitating this. The renewal of one
or both of these has also been caused incidentally by the deep insertion
of the modern and longer neck, thus lessening much of the grip or
purchase of the block on both upper and lower table. The same may be
said of the nut over which the tail string passes, this being--owing
also to the rise of the modern tone pitch and increase of tension--much
larger than in Stradivari's day, and he may in a sense be said to have
had to buckle to modern requirements.
[Illustration: DIAGRAM _h_.]
[Illustration: DIAGRAM _i_.]
While the seat as it were of our criticism is at the present moment in
the interior portion of the admirable structures bequeathed to us by the
great Cremonese, we may consider further the surface work of this part.
Everyone knows that the interior of a violin is left unvarnished by
violin makers. Stradivari was in no way anxious to become an exception
to this rule. The reasons for its adoption were, and are, still
obviously wise, although not necessitous. He knew that his work, in
common with that of other craftsman, would be liable to fracture, and
that in the process of restoration the surfaces and junction of parts
must be laid bare, and varnish where not obviously necessary would be an
obstruction.
For the satisfaction of the anxious inquirer it may be stated that
varnishing the interior has, to my knowledge, been tried by an excellent
modern workman as an experiment and did not bring any adequate reward
by perceptible improvement in tone quality. In another instance, to
prevent the encroachment of the collector's arch-enemy, the worm, the
innovation seemed to have proved ineffectual. Stradivari may have tried
this and perhaps, for once at least, met with failure. The bar--there is
but one--ofttimes erroneously called sound-bar or bass-bar--is, in
common with all the violins of the old Italian school, quite inadequate
for modern requirement, that of supporting the upper table on the fourth
string side against the pressure caused by the tension of the third and
fourth, the heaviest strings.
That the length, thickness and disposition of the bar has much to do
with the good going order of every violin there is no disputing.
Stradivari did not live long enough to make acquaintance with the
numberless proposals for acquiring his quality by making this part
longer, shorter, thicker, or thinner, besides various modes of
attachment. That some of them would have raised a smile on the features
of the veteran Cremonese, we may be quite sure. That he was quite
content with the size of the bar in general use during his life-time
there can be no doubt, as there is no record or evidence of any
experiments having been made by him, fair argument that none were
considered necessary; the instruments finished, the ordinary bar of the
period was inserted and there was an end. The whole of the interior
indicates an absence of any question of improvement on what had been
done before by his master Nicolas Amati and his predecessors, apart from
good finish.
A few words as to the thickness of the upper and lower tables. Of this
much has been written, an extremely small portion being from actual
observation, and most of the other parts being reiterated assertions
started many years back by people whose supposed knowledge rested solely
upon simple conviction, without an iota of _bona fide_ evidence in
support. To them the fact, well known to everyone engaged in the
manufacture of sound-boards of musical instruments, that a very thick
sound-board produces different results to that of a very thin one, was
sufficient, therefore the secret of Stradivari with regard to his tone,
was "the adjustment of the thicknesses," whatever that may mean. The
assertion seeming perhaps rather bare, and wanting some sort of support,
was bolstered up with another no less instructive, that if you "pinged,"
or tapped the separated upper and lower tables of a Stradivari so that
they each gave out a note there would be found the difference of a tone
between them! Here was something for the "babes and sucklings" of the
craft of violin making to swallow. It was stated also which table would
give the higher tone. Unfortunately for some would-be Stradivaris, the
particulars of the tonal difference were copied loosely and reversed and
so came "confusion worse confounded."
The illustrations of sound holes, or _f f_ commonly so called, will,
it is hoped, be interesting as showing the modification or
development from those of Nicolas Amati to the latter part of the
period of Stradivari's career, called "the grand." They are all
reproduced from fine specimens of the great Cremonese masters, and
are the exact size of the originals. The first (_a_) shows the _f_
of a violin of the Nicolas Amati's late period, 1663, unaffected--at
least in this detail--by the individuality of his hereafter eminent
pupil. (_b_) While still going under the name of Nicolas Amati,
1678, the _f_ shows the actual interference of Stradivari, it is
more vertical, but the peculiarities of the upper and lower wings
are retained. (_c_) 1684. The design is quite changed, there is some
return to the flow or inclination of Amati, but the whole thing is
more extended, is slender, and the upper and lower wings are
widened, this modification was retained for a permanency. (_d_)
1690. There is some return to the vertical design, but the width of
the wings is retained, while the lower part of the design is of
larger proportions. (_e_) 1700. The design is more equalised and is
more substantial. (_f_) 1715. The same proportions are kept with an
increase of gracefulness. It will be perceived the lower wing
approaches at its lowest part the opposing curve more closely, the
upper one likewise; in some specimens of this period it is still
closer. (_g_) 1725. While the upper part is very like the preceding,
the lower part is more contracted and curled up. There is a somewhat
heavier expression about the upper part in consequence.
[Illustration: _a_ _b_ _c_ SEE PAGE 48.]
[Illustration: _d_ _e_ _f_ _g_ SEE PAGE 48.]
History does not relate which of those parties who may have practically
followed up the experiments were successful in arriving at the goal of
their ambition; they may even still be continuing the struggle for
supremacy with their master.
We have not to look far for ascertaining whether these assertions have
borne fruit. There has been time enough for works built upon these
so-called discoveries of fixed principles to have settled down, and the
popular verdict now is--that those which guided Antonio Stradivari have
yet to be discovered. The numbers of announcements of fresh
discoveries--repeated _ad nauseam_--are in themselves some evidence that
what has gone before was founded on deceptive evidence, and therefore to
begin anew was the only course left.
The illustrations of scrolls by Nicolas Amati and Antonio Stradivari,
being from good specimens by the masters, will be interesting as showing
the progression of the modification in detail under the hands of the
latter. In fig. _a_, Nicolas Amati, c. 1670, it will be seen that the
first or smallest turn after leaving the axis or "eye" is kept for some
distance rather close. Every effort seems to have been made for keeping
the turns or winding from being too circular, there being a general dip
downward and forward. The gouging is deep from the commencement. The aim
of the artist in the whole design appears to have been towards
perfection of gracefulness.
Fig. _b_. Antonio Stradivari, 1683, the openness and bold swing of the
first turn at once on leaving the "eye" is very striking, it also
commences higher up, there is almost an absence of flow or downward
tendency. The throat underneath the volute is very massive, although all
the edges are finished off with the utmost delicacy and sharp tooling.
All the details of scroll carving by Stradivari at this period are
marvels of mechanical dexterity of handling. The different depths of the
gouging are carefully calculated for solidity of effect, each portion
being deep in proportion to its width, the smaller turns thus having
less depth than the larger. With the Amatis there seemed to be a
striving after attainment of the greatest depth possible in the smaller
gougings, those nearest the axis reaching frequently to almost the same
depth of level as the outer or broadest one. In no part of his work does
Stradivari show more clearly the result of careful calculation after
closely studying the work of his master and others that had gone before.
[Illustration: FIG. _a_. SEE PAGE 49.]
[Illustration: FIG. _b_. SEE PAGE 49.]
Fig. _c_. The period 1715 shows the result of further calculation for
general effect and a consequent modification in respect of minor
details; there is present, as always, the sufficiently bold swing of the
first turn from the axis. In choice specimens the point of commencement
is as sharply and clearly defined as the mitreing of the purfling at the
four corners of the body of the violin and which it seems impossible to
excel. The throat, with the whole of the peg-box, is reduced slightly
but consistently with strength and beauty of appearance. The public
verdict has remained unshaken with regard to these scrolls being in
respect of the combination of excellencies the best carvings of the
great artist. They are in the most trifling degree smaller than those
carved before the period of 1700. Among those cut about the 1710-15
period, or even later, are a few that seem to have been intentionally
both smaller and more upright. Although having all the essential
excellencies of detail they can scarcely be considered as coming up to
the standard of the others in respect of refined grandeur. This type may
be said to be mixed up and continued with more or less persistency to
the last, and of this Fig. _d_ gives a good representation. There is
frequently a more emphatic or energetic gouging at the commencement of
the turns, a more developed "ear" as it is often termed. It is gouged
with quite as much care as the rest. Speculation has been rife as to the
possible influence or even personal help of Joseph Guarneri at this
point, but there is no solid foundation for surmising the presence of
one or the other. If the gouging of this part may be said to bear any
sort of resemblance to the emphatic or impetuous touch of Joseph, it is
confined strictly to this portion; other essentials are wanting that
would be absolutely necessary for crediting artists of distinctly
opposite tendencies with--it might be almost rightly termed--tampering
with each other's designs.
[Illustration: FIG. _c_. SEE PAGE 50.]
[Illustration: FIG. _d_. SEE PAGE 50.]
But if the name of Carlo Bergonzi is brought into the field of
speculation--granting for a moment that Stradivari was not very likely
to step aside occasionally from his accustomed groove--then we have much
more of a possibility or even probability in the matter. It has always
been asserted, and I believe never contradicted, that Carlo Bergonzi was
for a time actually working in the atelier of Stradivari--whether as
pupil or only assistant matters not--but we have in the fact of his
presence a distinct factor in any of the supposed anomalies of the later
periods of the grand Cremonese master. To this, however, we may put some
consideration further on. There is further in these later scrolls a
modification, alteration, or supposed attempt at improvement in the
edging of the turns, these being left a trifle stouter than at the
commencement of Stradivari's career.
This is continued along over the top and down the back of the scroll to
the shell, which seems to be a little less elongated than the early
specimens. It may be more apparent than real in most instances in
consequence of the bolder edging. The hollowing of the "shell" is
seemingly less delicate, but this may be taken as a natural result of
the foregoing. Further on these details will come in again for review.
To continue our remarks on the question of "thicknesses and their
adjustment" with each other. This is a department of the luthier's art,
to which perhaps much more attention has been directed by theorisers
than by practical workers. The latter class have no doubt been
influenced by the former to a considerable extent, oftentimes having
their views expressly carried out under their personal supervision. By
musical amateurs it is found to be a good theme for conversation when
the excellencies of the works of various masters are dilated upon. That
the richness of quality in a "Joseph" is the result of his having left
"his wood" thick in certain parts and not so much in others, and that
this, combined with the flat modelling, was the secret, and that it was
written that some of the Josephs were too thick in the back, and
therefore the freedom of the vibration was checked and the tone to some
degree stifled and deficient in penetrative power.
Among my early musical acquaintances, I remember an amateur violinist
who would "wax eloquent" on the power of his Strad, asserting that it
was owing in a great measure to its having been "left thick by the
maker" all round near the border. This, no doubt, many other amateurs,
acquainted with what used to be in print on the subject, will recognise
as being in opposition to what had been accepted as being the rule
generally observed by Stradivari, that the arching in its thickness
gently decreased towards the border where it was about a third less than
at the centre. This gentle gradation was said to be the cause of the
beautiful "silky" and "sympathetic" quality so prominently
characteristic of his instruments. The explanation of "the thing in
action," as mechanicians would term it, was thus--the greatest thickness
being at the part all round by the feet of the bridge, was able to
sustain the vibration, or the successive shocks caused by the bow, which
were transmitted through the wood of the upper table and were gradually
lessened in intensity as the thickness decreased toward the border,
where they subsided, or were lost.
I do not know what explanation was given, if any, of the "system" of
thickness adopted much by some of the Milanese school, which was that of
hewing away the wood until it was thinnest at the part all round by the
feet of the bridge and thickest by the lower wings of the sound holes.
Judging by the before mentioned assertions as to the association of
power of energetic vibration with the thickest wood under the bridge,
these Milanese makers were acting very wrongly, but, strange to say,
many instruments of very great power were made by them under these
conditions.
Many years ago I was conversing on the subject of thicknesses with an
English maker of experience and who seemed to believe in certain
"thicknesses," and having then as yet made no practical experiments
myself in the matter, I put the following to him. There are many violins
to be met with that through ill-usage and pressure on the bridge have
depressions instead of the level wood at the part we should expect it to
be, and yet the tone is considered fine, how is this? The answer was
remarkable, and not unworthy of the class of makers to which he
belonged--that although the wood had become thinner from pressure, "the
original amount was all there," it was only squeezed closer together.
The instruments were, no doubt, "rightly gauged" in the first instance.
"Now there," he said, pointing to a 'cello hanging up almost out of
reach and looking in rather a woe-begone condition, is a bass that
"never would go well because it was badly gauged when first made." Age
and usage were to be of no avail in bringing this wretched piece of
workmanship up to the standard of the average.
This last assertion might have been of considerable weight had the maker
been a personal pupil of Stradivari, but the public verdict has been
that there was a great gulf between the two, and that the first had not
been initiated into the secret of the others. Foreign as well as English
makers have announced in the most impressive manner at their command
that their instruments were identical in all respects, including the
system of thicknesses in the originals, buy them, use them, and be
convinced that in time they would be just as good as the real thing.
The foregoing is perhaps enough to indicate whether or not the secret of
Stradivari, or indeed any of the other Italian masters, great or small,
had been discovered by caliper measurement. It is strange that the
impression has held sway so strongly that the genius of the great
master lay in his manner of distribution of the thick and thin parts of
the upper and lower table. The first thought in this direction would be
that if the theory was good, its practical application with ordinary
skill and care would be sure to bring about the desired result. But more
than this has been done in experimenting on originals and copies from
time to time. We have within a mile of Charing Cross no lack of workmen
capable of gauging and copying with sufficient exactness the thicknesses
of any Stradivari brought to them, if that were all, or the principal
means necessary for reproducing the famous qualities of the great
Cremonese. It seems to be forgotten that hundreds of clever workmen have
lived since his time, in his own as well as other countries, who have
given the most assiduous application to the making of exact copies and
with a like result--that of total failure. For a moment let us turn our
thoughts to the nature of the materials comprised in the sum total of
the structure known as a violin. We have for the upper table, or front,
a thin slab of wood known as pine, from a species of tree that grows all
over the world. The varieties are, however, innumerable and the purposes
to which they are put, equally so. For the lower table, or back, a more
dense and tough wood is used. That the particular kind used in the
construction of the famous instruments of the great masters, and mostly
that known as curled maple or "hare wood," was chiefly on account of its
beauty, is evident from the fact that all the best Italian makers had
recourse at times to other and less showy wood. Beech was occasionally
used by Carlo Bergonzi. Other tough woods grown in Italy, even poplar,
have been used by some makers, seemingly when the supply of better
looking material ran short. That there are extant some "Strads" with
backs of some plain wood other than maple is more than likely. We have,
then, for the upper table of the violin a wood of soft but elastic
consistency, the strength of which lies mainly in the threads running
lengthwise, and which, when the wood is cut in the manner usual with
all violin makers since its invention, serve the purpose of small joists
running from end to end of the upper table. The soft material lying
between these is very susceptible to damp, especially when fresh cut.
Thus, if a piece of pine be cut ever so smooth with a sharp gouge or
chisel, a slightly wetted brush drawn along the surface will at once
cause the softer parts to swell and so leave a ribbed or "corduroy"
appearance when it is dry. This will serve to show how far this wood is
suitable for regulating by such very minute differences as would be
necessary when the thicknesses theory is confided in and efforts made to
reduce it to practice. The exactness reasonably expected of such a
master of quality as Stradivari would be upset in an instant by the
application of a little moisture, and which either by accident or during
the process of repairing would be fairly certain to occur some time or
other to every violin that left the hands of its maker.