THE CRWTH--FLEMING'S "ETRUSCAN RAVANASTRON"--THE MEDIAEVAL
BOW--UNRELIABILITY OF EARLY DRAWINGS AND SCULPTURES.
Perhaps the most interesting of the primitive bowed instruments is
the Welsh Crwth. Unlike the still more ancient forms yet surviving in
the East, it is now completely obsolete: unless we may count the
Norwegian and Icelandic langspiel and fidla as descendants thereof.
At one time it was considered an ancestor of the violin, but since
Mr. Heron-Allen brought his legal acumen and skill in sifting
evidence to bear on the subject, we find that it must unquestionably
be looked upon as the _last_ of its race, and not as a direct
forerunner of anything else. As to its origin, I should say it was
two-fold. The oft-quoted lines of that seventh century Bishop,
Venantius Fortunatus:--
"Romanusque lyra, plaudat tibi Barbarus harpa
Graecus Achilliaca, Chrotta Britanna canat"
prove, however translated, that the Crwth was essentially British.
The structure of the instrument strongly suggests its derivation from
the Roman and Greek lyres, and I have little doubt that the first
Crwth was in fact a lyre in the hands of one of our early British
ancestors, who thought he would try thereon the effect of a Rebab or
Kemangeh bow, and most probably got himself heartily laughed at for
his pains. This is a kind of experiment that has been tried in modern
times, as witness the "Streich-Guitarre" and more recent
"Streich-Zither."
That the Eastern fiddles should have come to Britain then is not a
very extravagant supposition. The distance is not great from northern
Africa, through Spain, where a form of Rebab is still played by the
Basque peasantry, on through Europe generally and across the Channel
to England. Also, it is very likely that there were a number of
Orientals in attendance on the Imperial Court of the Caesars who
would naturally bring their customs, religions and arts with them.
I do not think the Greeks and Romans made any use of the bow
whatever, although, considering the enormous spread of the Roman
Empire, and, as I say, the diverse nationalities that surrounded the
court, many of the Indian, Persian and African bowed instruments must
have been fairly familiar objects in Rome and elsewhere. But being
instruments of conquered nations; primitive in construction and
strange in tonality; they were probably held in too light esteem ever
to be adopted and developed by people of such importance and
civilization as the Romans or Greeks.
I say all this with due respect to Mr. Fleming. This gentleman has
contributed sundry valuable works to the bibliography of the violin,
and in certain places mentions an Etruscan vase illustrated in a
catalogue published by Prince Lucien Napoleon of Canino. He describes
the decorations of this vase as follows: "The subject is a man seated
reading a volume to two youths, who, leaning on knotted sticks, are
listening attentively. On a little table or box in front of the
principal figure is inscribed the name 'Chironeis.' On each side of
the reader is an object which authorities in these matters term
'thecae,' indicating the profession of this principal figure. One of
these has a neck or handle, an oval disc, or sounding plane, and a
tail piece extending below the disc rather more than half the length
of the neck. From the upper extremity of the neck to the lower
extremity of the disc are stretched strings, and across these strings
at the centre of the disc is placed a bow of as rational construction
as anything that has come down to us prior to the days of Corelli.
The instrument is indeed almost identical with the Ravanastron." Now
all this sounds very nice and extremely convincing, and whether or no
Mr. Fleming himself believes the Greeks used the bow, I have no doubt
that he is perfectly satisfied that he has proved such to be the
case.
As I have seen neither the original vase or Prince Napoleon's
catalogue, I feel some diffidence in throwing my half-ounce of doubt
on this pound--good, thumping weight--of fact. However, I have seen
the reproduction of the drawing as given by Mr. Fleming in his book,
"Violins, Old and New," and, since he makes such a feature of this
Grecian Ravanastron, I feel safe in assuming that it is accurately
copied.
I distinctly remember first looking at that drawing. I gazed at it
long and earnestly. I then referred to the text; after which I
rapidly searched through the book to see if there was another drawing
of a Greek vase. I thought perchance the printers in a playful mood
might have transposed them; such things have happened. But it was not
so; the drawing on page 250 was the only one. So I returned to it.
There were the reader, the box, the inscription, the attentive youths
with their knotted sticks, and, lastly, the "thecae." I was not
_long_ in doubt as to which of these objects was the one Mr. Fleming
attached so much importance to.
Ods catgut and fiddlesticks! as Bob Acres would genteelly have
exclaimed. So this was the Etruscan Ravanastron I had dreamed about;
this was the Greek fiddle I had discoursed so learnedly of when my
pupils with childlike pertinacity questioned me as to the origin of
the violin.
That is a useful sort of vase. If ever I come across anyone anxious
to prove something, I shall advise him to use that drawing. That
Ravanastron would prove anything; in fact it proved too much for me.
The more I have searched for pictorial records of bow in old prints
and drawings, the more disappointed I have become. It is
extraordinary how artists of genius have literally "scamped" the poor
unfortunate "fiddle-stick" in such works. In the small room of prints
and drawings at the British Museum is a drawing of a violinist
attributed to Corregio. It is merely a slight sketch, but the violin
is beautifully drawn; the corners are well expressed and the
perspective is good, but the bow would be unrecognisable as such were
it not for the close proximity of the violin. Even in more
highly-finished productions the same thing obtains. I have found
drawings of crowders, violists and fiddlers where every little detail
of dimple, crease and nail has been almost photographically rendered
in a hand holding what one knows must be a bow, but if the other hand
held a shield, or a newspaper, or a child's whip-top would be
accepted with equal readiness by the judicious observer as a sword,
paper knife or whip respectively.
Occasionally one finds minute representations of bows, but these are
more often than not of such a nature as to be impossible of credence
as correct representations.
Another thing that stands in the way of a clear exposition of the
bow's development is that even the most reliable drawings and
sculptures do not show by any means a gradual improvement in the
shape of the bow, for it is no uncommon thing to find fourteenth and
fifteenth century representations of bows of quite eighth and ninth
century type. It is not likely that any of such primitive bows would
have remained in use unbroken for so many centuries, therefore I do
not think these later representations of early bows can have been
copied from actual specimens then in use, but, where not evolved from
the artist's inner consciousness, may have been taken from the
drawings, MSS., etc., handed down from the earlier periods. On this
point Mr. Heron-Allen makes the following very sensible
observations:--"The conclusion we are brought to is consequently
this: _either_ all representations of bows which have come down to us
are unreliable, _or_, the bow, instead of developing as the fiddle
undoubtedly did, remained in a state of primitive simplicity, and
bore till a comparatively recent date the same relation to its
companion the fiddle, as do the early specimens of Delft ware and the
exquisite Sevres specimens, which recline side by side in the
cabinets of the delightfully incongruous nineteenth century drawing
room. If you ask me to which of these conclusions I incline, I think
the two deductions are to one another as three times two are to twice
three, and that a combination of the two would probably account for
the present misty aspect of the past history of the bow."
One should not lay too much stress on pictorial records; even our
contemporary artists are not free from error, and it would be
interesting to know what future writers on this subject will say of
the nineteenth century violins and bows as represented by popular
painters at the Royal Academy and other picture shows. They will find
the evidence just as conflicting.
Unconvincing and contradictory as the existing records are, they are
all we have, and, such as they are, I give a few selected examples.
A form of bow constantly occurring in drawings, etc., from the eighth
to the sixteenth centuries, is Fig. 15. It is only slightly
suggestive of the Oriental bows.
[Illustration: FIG. 15.]
In the ninth century we find a bow (Fig. 16) strongly resembling
those of the Saw-oo and Saw-Tai. And from the same century we find a
miniature representation of a Crwth player with a bow slightly more
distinctive in character (Fig. 17).
[Illustration: FIG. 16.]
[Illustration: FIG. 17.]
Similar bows to the above appear to have been pretty general in the
tenth century. In the eleventh century a little more variety is
apparent, as will be seen in Fig. 18.
[Illustration: FIG. 18.]
Here are to be found the survival of the ninth century form shown in
Fig. 17, and a remarkable advance in the form of the one at the
bottom, which is doubtless the pattern intended to be shown in the
sculptured bow, second from the top. The top one is merely given as
an example of the perfunctory work the historian has to examine and
yet retain his customary calm exterior.
Fig. 19 gives some examples of twelfth century bows as depicted by
the artists of that period. The first two are evidently intended to
represent the type shown in Fig. 17. The sculptor probably found the
straight line of the hair inelegant. The third (which is from a MS.
in the Bodleian Library) and last show a return to the ninth century
form in Fig. 16.
[Illustration: FIG. 19.]
This is a form that is found so continually through all the
centuries, down to the seventeenth and eighteenth, that I am inclined
to the belief that it is fairly accurate. It is very much like the
outline of the modern double bass bow. In Fig. 20 are given some
thirteenth century bows: the one with the curious sword-hilt is
remarkable. In the others we find a return to more primitive lines.
[Illustration: FIG. 20.]
The fourteenth century bows have very little to distinguish them from
those of preceding ages, and I give the most noticeable examples I
have found in Fig. 21. The second is a very advanced type. Against
these must be set those in Fig. 22.
[Illustration: FIG. 21.]
[Illustration: FIG. 22.]
These appear to me as being most probably conventional
representations, or copied from older works as suggested above.
Of fifteenth century bows, the pictorial and plastic arts record
those shown in Fig. 23, together with the usual atavism or return to
earlier types.
[Illustration: FIG. 23.]
This atavism, if credible, is most marked in the sixteenth century as
witness those in Fig. 24.
[Illustration: FIG. 24.]
Here are bows that take us back to before the Norman Conquest, drawn
by artists who were contemporary with Gasparo da Salo and Andreas
Amati. It is quite out of the question to suppose that such bows were
used at that time.
The drawings of seventeenth century bows are more convincing. We then
get a more definite idea of the nut, which was in most cases a
fixture. Also, the head begins to mould itself into something
approaching the form of the modern "hatchet."
Although there are cases of bows in drawings as far back as the
eleventh century (see Fig. 18, etc.) showing great advances, it is
not until reaching the seventeenth century, that one can say with any
degree of confidence that the perfect bow is on the horizon.