Owing to the extreme elegance of Dodd's bows, and the beautiful workmanship of his finest specimens, he has been dubbed the "English Tourte," and amongst the majority of English amateurs the name of Dodd is held in the highest possible estimation. But as a matter of fact very few Dodd bows are worthy of this regard. His best bows, such as he sold for a pound or thirty shillings, are fine, although few of the violin bows are such as an artist would make much use of. The slenderness is frequently carried to excess, and the narrowness of the head prevents a sufficient "spread" being given to the hair in many cases, and a great number are much too short.
It must be remembered that Dodd worked before foreign importation annihilated the English violin and bow making industries, and he turned out a large number of bows at prices ranging from a few shillings a dozen upwards. Thus it will be readily understood that there are many genuine Dodds in existence that are not worth looking at. His tenor bows are often excellent, and, as I said above, his 'cello bows represent him the best.
CHAPTER VI.
CHAPTER VI.
DR. SELLÈ'SRECOLLECTIONS OFDODD—HISWORK ANDPOVERTY—DODD ANDTOURTE—THECALCULATION OFFÉTIS ANDVUILLAUME.
It has been my great good fortune to be favoured with an interview with the veteran violinist, Doctor Sellè, of Richmond. This gentleman, now well on in his eighties, knew John Dodd most intimately, and gave me many interesting details about him. I have endeavoured to obtain a portrait of Dodd, but there does not seem to be anything of the sort in existence. However, Dr. Sellè gave me a graphic description of his personal appearance. In stature he was short and of a shuffling gait. As he affected nether garments of extreme brevity, very broad-brimmed hats, and was excessively negligent in the matter of clothing, etc., his habitual aspect was quaint and eccentric to a degree.
He was unfortunately very illiterate, and, according to Dr. Sellè, it is doubtful whether he could sign his own name.
In his work—the artistic excellence of which is remarkable under these circumstances—he was very secretive, giving as his reason for taking no apprentice, his desire that no one else should ever know or perpetuate his methods.
It has been said, and, I believe, on good authority, that he was once offered the sum of £1,000 for his "secret," a temptation that, despite his great poverty, he steadfastly resisted.
Doctor Sellè tells me that he distinctly remembers seeing Dodd cut out a bow from the rough plank with a curiously constructed double saw.
This is very remarkable as none of the bow makers now working know of such a tool, or can conceive the possibility of using one. Whether this may have any connexion with the much talked of "secret," it is impossible to say. It is probably another of those points in the history of the bow that seem doomed to remain shrouded in mystery.
Doctor Sellè remembers seeing Dodd walking home many times with his pockets full of oyster shells begged from various stalls.
From these he used to cut out the pearl for the slides and ornamentation on his bows. This accounts for the characteristic plainness of these features of his work. He was often at a loss for silver for the mountings, and the Doctor says it was highly diverting to him when a boy to hear the old housekeeper soundly rating Dodd for melting downanotherof her metal spoons.
One great drawback to Dodd's success was his partiality for the "flowing bowl." As the Doctor epigramatically expressed it in the notes he supplied to A. Vidal, "he was very regular in his irregularities." Vidal's translation at this point is worthy of note. One is surprised to find that Dodd would pay four daily visits to "les voitures et chevaux publics"—"the public carriages and horses."
The mind fails to grasp the Gallic conception of the eccentric Englishman whose nationally characteristic love of horseflesh should cause him so frequently to inspect the omnibus of the period.
One shudders to think what Vidal would have done if Dodd's favourite house of call had been the Star and Garter instead of theCoach and Horses!
His last years were spent in great poverty; in fact, he subsisted almost entirely on the charity of a few violinists and amateurs who appreciated his genius. He ultimately died of bronchitis in the Infirmary of Richmond Workhouse, and was buried at Kew; not, as has been elsewhere stated, at Richmond.
I do not think a man of such a taciturn, secretive disposition, would have been likely readily to adopt the methods and copy the work of another maker. As has been shown by the reproductions of bows I have given so far, there has been apparent a converging tendency to the modern design of head all through. The Tourte head is undoubtedly the most beautiful, the most perfect in every way. His was the master hand thatdidwhat others had been trying to do. Dodd, working, as I believe, quite independently, came very near it. A comparison of the Dodd bows shown in Plates III. and IV., with the Tourtes in Plates V. and VI., will make clear a very significant fact. Dodd's work—fine as it is—is distinctlyearlierin spirit than that of his great French rival. Yet they were contemporaries—in point of fact Dodd was a few years later than Tourte.
Then, as regards thecambre, Dodd followed on in the primitive school and cut his bows at once to the required sweep: Tourte, in addition to perfecting the dimensions and design, instituted an entirely new principle based on scientific deductions. His bows were all cut straight, and the "spring" was produced by judicious heating of the fibres.
Another thing one has to consider in this connexion is the relations that existed between England and France at this period. I think most people will admit that they were "strained," and that there were many obstacles in the way of free intercourse between the two countries. The war with France commenced when Dodd was twenty-one years of age, and though Tourte was five years older he had spent his youth firstly in the pursuit of a vocation entirely removed from bow making, and secondly in experiments lasting some considerable time before he commenced producing the perfect work that has made his name one to be extolled and reverenced by all wielders of that magic wand, the "fiddle-stick." When one thinks of the roundabout way such a thing would have to travel from Paris to London at this period, it seems highly probable that Dodd may not have seen a specimen of Tourte's work until he was about sixty.
What a marvellous thing a fine Tourte is! What a revelation the first time a player handles one! When I have an opportunity of playing on a Strad with a Tourte I can never decide which causes me the most delight. There is an indefinable something about a Tourte that seems to increase the player's dexterity of manipulation to an extraordinary extent. No matter how used one may be to a certain bow: no matter how expert one may be in the execution of staccato and arpeggio passages, the first time a Tourte is tried one realizes that hitherto there has been an effort necessary for the adequate production of such effects, whereas now the bow seems endowed with a consciousness quiteen rapportwith that of the player, and difficulties vanish magically. It seems voluntarily to carry into effect the player's wishes without any physical interposition whatever.
It is like riding a thoroughbred in the "Row" after driving a donkey across Hampstead Heath. Not that I or any of my readers would think of indulging in any such distressingly vulgar exercise as the last named. It may serve, however, to conjure up in the mind a sufficiently forcible simile.
Apart from their many wonderful qualities as bows, they are quite exceptional as works of art. Study the four heads shown in Plates V. and VI., and note the tender sweep of the outer line; full of force and delicacy combined. See, too, how it is supported by the harmonious inner line, a thought more rigid, and yet full of grace. To become an expert in bows requires years of continual observation, for the slight differences in line are too subtle to be apparent to those who are not constantly looking for and studying them. But I think anyone, even "ye meanest capacitie in ye world"—to quote good old Roger North—will be able to appreciate the contrast between the bow heads in Plates III. and IV., and those in Plates V. and VI. It is in the two 'cello bow heads that the greatest resemblance is seen. But even here one can easily note the unwonted massiveness, almost amounting to clumsiness, in that of Dodd; while the Tourte is full of lightness, strength and vigour. There is more or less of sluggishness observable in most of the preceding bows, but the Tourte isawake;it lives!
It is at times of great interest to note by what slender threads of chance great consequences may be suspended. Take the family of the Tourtes for instance. We find the father a worthy craftsman making bows as good, and possibly better, than those of his contemporaries. He, obeying a natural law of custom, educated his eldest son in his own craft, and probably looked to him to perpetuate those excellencies in design and finish that had brought him fame. François, the younger son, was not forgotten though, and the father bethought him of some useful industry at which he might earn a living, and decided on clockmaking as the most suitable. Now mark the erratic workings of fate. The eldest son, from whom so much was expected, proved a comparative failure, inasmuch as that, instead of progressing, his work was distinctly inferior to that of his father.*François, on the other hand, became tired of clockmaking after eight years' ill-remunerated grind, and turned his attention to the family trade.
* The few fine bows by "Tourte-l'ainé," as he was called, I should think were made after his brother's success in this direction.
He, like Dodd, was totally uneducated, but had great gifts of perception and judgment.
At this time violin playing was becoming every day more distinctive and prominent. Great players were beginning to understand thechiar oscuroof music. They were learning expression.
There was in general amongst violinists an anticipation of the grand, yet simple law set forth by De Beriot in his Violin School that the human voice was the pure archetype upon which allplayedmusic should be modelled.
It was found that the violin was capable of simulating all the subtle inflexions of song, whether of passion or tenderness, and players sighed for an ideal bow that should be tongue-like in its response to the performer's emotion. A bow that should at once be flexible to "whisper soft nothings in my lady's ear"; strong—to sound a clarion-blast of defiance; and, withal, be ready for anycoquetterieorbadinagethat might suit its owner's whim. This is what François Tourte, the starving clockmaker, gave them.
We fiddlers have to be very thankful that the master clockmakers of Paris were not more liberal to their employés!
Illiterate as he was he at once grasped all the points of art and physics involved, and commenced diligently experimenting with a view to solving the various problems that presented themselves to his consideration.
To gain facility in the manipulation of his tools, he made countless bows from old barrel staves; he could not afford to make his first attempts on anything better. When he had attained sufficient skill in the actual workmanship, and had satisfied himself as to the most suitable form, he set to work investigating the question of material. He tried all kinds of wood, and at last decided that the red wood of Pernambuco, then largely imported into Europe for dyeing purposes, was the best. To obtain this in sufficient quantities was no easy matter, for the Anglo-French wars were interfering seriously with international commerce; a circumstance that rendered this material unusually expensive. Then the nature of this wood is not by any means a bow maker's ideal. Billets and logs amounting to several tons in weight may be examined before a piece is found sufficiently free from knots and cracks, and of straight enough grain to be suitable for the purpose. However, geniusanda capacity for taking infinite pains overcame all difficulties, and we now have bows worthy of the greatest masterpieces of Cremona.
How little are the workings of genius understood by the "painstaking" ones. They cannot conceive the suddenness of inspiration—the almost instantaneous grasp of essentials that precedes the plodding mechanical work necessary even to genius.
The results of "infinite pains," or of genius alone are equally unsatisfactory. It is only where these qualities are combined in perfect balance that true greatness can be achieved.
In the case of Tourte we have a remarkable example of this combination. His genius made him grasp spontaneously the qualities required, and his capacity for taking infinite pains helped him to produce the perfect bow. He it was who determined finally the length and weight of a bow, its equilibrium, the angle of the hair necessary for a good "attack," the length and breadth of the hair and sundry other points that, prior to 1775, had been quite undecided.
The mean length of a violin bow as fixed by Tourte is from 74 to 75 centimètres (29.134 to 29.528 inches English); that of a viola bow is 74 centimètres (29.134 inches), and a 'cello bow 72 to 73 centimètres (28.347 to 28.740). Many people imagine that the plates of silver or gold with which the nut of a bow is inlaid are nothing more than mere ornamentation. But their first purpose is distinctly one of utility, which is as it should be in a work of art; superfluous decoration has no beauty for an artist. It is by means of these metal "loadings" at the heel that the weight of the head is counteracted and the exact point of equilibrium determined. The centre of gravity in a violin bow should be at 19 centimètres (7.48 inches) from the nut; in a 'cello bow at 175 to 180 millimètres (6.89 to 7.087 inches) from the nut.
Concerning the geometric proportions of the Tourte bows, I cannot do better than quote Bishop's able translation of the explanation given by Fétis in his notice of A. Stradivarius.
"The medium length of a bow, to the head exclusively, is 0m, 700 (27.56 inches).
"The bow comprises a cylindrical or prismatic part of uniform dimensions, the length of which is 0m, 110 (4.33 inches). When this portion is cylindrical, its diameter is 0m, 0086/10(.34 inch).
"From this cylindrical or prismatic portion the diameter of the bow decreases up to the head, where it is reduced to 0m, 0053/10(.21 inches). This gives a difference of 0m, 0033/10of a millimètre (.13 inch) between the diameters of the extremities; from whence it follows that the stick comprises ten points where its diameter is necessarily reduced by3/10of a millimètre (.012 inch) reckoning from the cylindrical portion.
"After proving by a great number of Tourte's bows that these ten points are not only found always at decreasing distances on the same stick, but also that the distances are perceptibly the same, and that the situations of the points are identical on different bows compared together, M. Vuillaume sought to ascertain whether the positions of the ten points could not be obtained by a geometrical construction, by which they might be found with certainty; and by which, consequently, bows might be made whose good condition should be always settledà priori. This he attained in the following manner. At the extremity of a right line A B, equal to 0m, 700 (27.56 inches), that is to say the length of the bow, raise a perpendicular A C, equal to the length of the cylindrical portion, namely 0m, 110 (4.33 inches).
"At the extremity B of the same line, raise another perpendicular B D, of the length 0m, 022 (.866 inches) and unite the upper extremities of these two perpendiculars, or ordinates by a right line C D, so that the two lines A B and C D, may lie at a certain inclination to each other.
"Take the length 0m, 110 (4.33 inches) of the ordinate A C with the compasses, and set it off on the line A B, from A toe:from the point thus obtained, draw another ordinate (parallel to A C and perpendicular to A B), until it meets the line C D.
"Between these two ordinates A C ande f—the latter of which is necessarily less than the former—lies the cylindrical portion of the bow, whose diameter, as before stated, is 0m, 0086/10(.34 inch).
"Then take the length of the ordinate last obtained,e f, and set it off, as before, on the line A B, fromftog, and at the pointgdraw a third ordinateg h, the length of which must also be set off on the line A B, to determine thereon a new pointi, from which to draw the fourth ordinate,i j:the length of which, likewise, when set off on the line A B, determines the point where the fifth ordinatek lis to be drawn. The latter, in like manner, determines the sixthm n, and so of the others, to the last but oney z.
"The pointsg i k m o q s u w yso obtained, starting from the pointe, are those where the diameter of the bow is successively reduced3/10of a millimètre (.012 inch). Now, these points have been determined by the successively decreasing lengths of the ordinates drawn from the same points, and their respective distances progressively decrease from the pointeto the point B.
"If we subject these data to calculation, we shall find that the profile of the bow is represented by a logarithmic curve, of which the ordinates increase in arithmetical progression; while the abscissæ increase in geometrical progression; and lastly, that the curvature of the profile will be expressed by the equation
y = - 3.11 + 2, 57 log.x;
y = - 3.11 + 2, 57 log.x;
and, in varyingxfrom 175 to 165 tenths of a millimètre, the corresponding values ofywill be those of the radii (or semi-diameters) of the transverse circular section of the bow at corresponding points in the axis."
CHAPTER VII.
CHAPTER VII.
LUPOT—PECCATTE—SPURIOUSSTAMPING—PANORMO—W. J. B. WOOLHOUSE'SCALCULATIONS.
I have spoken at length of Dodd and Tourte—two names that stand out in the history of the bow with remarkable prominence—and before proceeding with the general list of bow makers, great and small, I propose to speak of Peccatte and Lupot, whose genius was inferior only to that of Tourte in that they were followers rather than originators.
François Lupot was a brother of Nicolas Lupot the violin maker. He, however, devoted all his energies to the manufacture of bows, and, in his best work, is considered by many to nearly equal Tourte. But unfortunately the standard of excellence in Lupot's bows varies to a considerable extent, and, while some are truly magnificent others are very inferior. This is a fact that cannot be too widely made known in the interests of intending purchasers. The guarantee of genuineness alone is not sufficient for anyone desiring a bow for use, and, unless he has the requisite knowledge and experience himself he should always first submit a bow to a professional man of repute for his judgment as to its qualities for a player. Many of Lupot's sticks are stamped "LUPOT," sometimes in two or three places, but it has been doubted whether he did this himself or not. In general it is thought that it was done afterwards by dealers. This is certainly the case with the few Tourtes that are stamped with their maker's name, for it is an ascertained fact that the Tourtes never stamped their work. There are only two instances on record of Tourte marking a stick, and in each case it consisted of a minute label glued into the slot bearing the following inscription: "Cet archet a été fait par Tourte en 1824, âge de soixante-dix-sept ans." (This bow was made by Tourte in 1824, aged 77 years).
An important addition, said to have been instituted by Lupot, was the metal plate which lines the groove in the nut and prevents the wearing away of the nut by friction with the stick.
In Plate VII. I give two examples of Lupot's work. Here will be seen all the tenderness of line characteristic of Tourte, albeit that they lack somewhat of his force. The workmanship in these two bows is superb, and they are also delightful to play with, being well balanced and of controllable flexibility. This is a point in a bow that is frequently overlooked. Many imagine that flexibility alone is the chief desideratum, and bows have been shown to me almost indiarubber-like in their pliancy; the owners expecting me to wax enthusiastic over this—to my mind—serious defect. As a matter of fact, flexibility and pliancy are not correct definitions of a bow's chief quality, as they amount to weakness. What is really meant is elasticity, by which is conveyed not only the property of yielding to pressure but also that of speedily recovering its normal state. We sometimes hear a player in testing bows say that such a one has too much "life" in it; thereby implying that its action is largely out of the performer's control, a condition usually attributable to an excess of flexibility.
As a contrast to the Lupot bows in Plate VII., I give two examples of Dominique Peccatte, Plate VIII. Here we have forcibleness and energy to a most marked extent, yet there is a certain grace withal, the extreme squareness of the outer line does not offend the eye as in those of Dodd.
Peccatte, like François Tourte, started life in an occupation far removed from that which made him famous. His father was a barber at Mirecourt, where Dominique was born 1810. Wielding the razor not proving congenial, he adopted the prevailing industry of the town and became a maker of violins and bows; in the latter he became exceptionally expert. In the year 1826 J. B. Vuillaume was in want of a talented workman and wrote to his brother, who was established in Mirecourt, to find him one. The result of these enquiries was that Dominique Peccatte came to Paris and remained for eleven years with Vuillaume. In 1837 François Lupot died and Peccatte took over the business. Ten years later he returned to his native place, though retaining his business connexion with Paris until his death, which took place in 1874. Many of his bows are unstamped, or bear the stamp of Vuillaume, but great numbers of them are stamped "PECCATTE," occasionally with the word "PARIS" on the opposite side of the stick.
Much confusion has arisen from the fact that in some specimens the stamp has only a single "T," the result, probably, of illiteracy on the part of the maker.
The third in Plate VIII. is a bow by Panormo. His work is quite distinct from that of any other maker; but one must not run away with the idea that he affected an unjustifiable singularity, for the flat sides and angular facets of the Panormo heads have a logical basis, being in point of fact the natural continuation of the octagonal stick.
Indebted as we are to the makers and scientists of France for bringing the indispensable "fiddlestick" to such a degree of perfection, we must not overlook the claims of certain of our own countrymen for recognition in the same field of art.
The late mathematician and musical amateur, W. S. B. Woolhouse, no less than Fétis, contributed greatly to a full understanding of the essential properties of a bow on the part of those whose office it is to produce the actual instrument. Woolhouse laid great stress on a point overlooked by many other students of the subject, the same being that the success of a bow depends quite as much on its purity as a vibrating body as does the violin.
Unless the bow is so adjusted in its weight and proportions that it vibrates with absolute uniformity throughout its entire length it is useless to an artist.
Bows are "false" frequently in the same way that strings are. Inequalities of finish, imperceptible to our ordinary senses, will render a perfect "staccato" from end to end impossible, just as it is impossible to obtain true fifths in every part of a violin's compass if one of the strings be slightly wanting in absolute cylindricity. I speak specially of "staccato," as that form of bowing suffers perhaps more than any other from faulty bows; but any form of bowing that calls for special dexterity will betray the inefficiency of a bow.
It is of great interest to compare the calculations of Woolhouse with those of Fétis, and I will here quote the results obtained by the former.
"If measurements be taken in inches, and parts of an inch, andhdenote the distance of any part of the bow from the head, the diameter of the stick in that locality, supposing the bow to be round, may be readily calculated from the following formula:—
Diameter = .2 [log.(h+ 7.25) - 9.8100]
Diameter = .2 [log.(h+ 7.25) - 9.8100]
"From this formula the numbers given in the last column of the following table were calculated."
These measurements, of course, only extend to the commencement of the cylindrical portion.
Woolhouse made a small gauge of ivory, based on the above measurements, which proved of great practical value in examining bows. The measurements he obtained by the above calculation apply to wood of medium density. He says, "For close and dense wood the dimensions should be somewhat diminished, or, what amounts practically to the same thing, the distance from the head should, for dense wood, be increased by half an inch, or an inch, as the case may be, before applying the gauge." He then gives a table of inclusive weights of violin, viola and violoncello bows.
In speaking of the adjustment of the spring orcambre, Woolhouse gives a means of obtaining the exact curve that does not strike me as being sufficiently reliable for the purpose. He suggests that "an auxiliary bow be made of the proper dimensions, but so as to be quite straight; then, on being haired and screwed up in the ordinary way, it will show, in an inverted position, the exact curve to which other bows should be set." But "screwed up in the ordinary way" appears to me to admit of too much latitude of application: it is not possible to divine to what extent this auxiliary bowisto be screwed, and ifthisis left to the judgment of the maker, why not set thecambreby judgment and save the trouble of the straight auxiliary bow?
I will now proceed to give an alphabetical list of bow makers which I trust is as complete as possible. I have endeavoured to leave out all purely factory makers in favour of those who are personally engaged in the manufacture of bows. There are some in the list who are not actual makers, but who carefully supervise all the bows issued under their name. Such work is always distinctive and differs greatly from that issued by firms who order bows by the gross from foreign factories, and then stamp their own name on the stick. This is a class of bow that usually looks very pretty and tempting to the young lady amateur, but is sadly lacking in balance and spring; what little there may be of the latter at first soon disappears, for it is quite impossible for any firm to turn out thoroughly efficient bows at the extraordinarily low prices one sees quoted. One must remember that for a bow to be of any real utility, the material, the workmanship, and the fittings must be of the very best possible description.
CHAPTER VIII.A LIST OFBOWMAKERS.
CHAPTER VIII.A LIST OFBOWMAKERS.
A noticeable feature in the following list is the great preponderance of French makers. Curiously enough the list of bow makers commences with:
ADAM, JEANDOMINIQUE. He was born at Mirecourt in 1795, and died at the age of sixty-nine. He is said by some to have been the son of one Jean Adams, a bow maker of the eighteenth century. How far this may be true is impossible to say. The difference in the spelling of the name may not be a great matter, but there is no explanation forthcoming. The majority of his bows are very commonplace, but occasionally he "made an effort" and produced something out of his ordinary run, and these he invariably stamped ADAM. Of these the octagonal sticks are most highly prized.
ALLEN, SAMUEL. Born in Cornwall in 1858; was originally intended for a schoolmaster. Worked at several mechanical trades and being musical, he naturally turned his attention to fiddles, and ultimately, bows. Messrs. W. E. Hill and Sons employed him as a bow maker for several years. Although he held a high position in their workshop his independent nature was not satisfied until 1891, when he set up in business on his own account as a violin and bow maker and repairer.
BAROUX, Paris. Early half of the present century. Occasionally made some very excellent bows, but the general average of his work is only moderate.
BAUSCH ANDSON, Leipsic. Middle of present century. The bows issued by this firm are valued highly in Germany. They are well made and, as a rule, strong.
BAZIN, GUSTAVE, Mirecourt. A very capable workman, some of his 'cello bows are excellent.
BETTS. Born 1755, died 1823. Worked in London as a violin maker and dealer. The bows bearing his name were made by Edward Dodd and W. Tubbs.
BRAGLIA, ANTONIO, Modena. Beginning of this century. I have not seen any of this maker's work.
BROWN, JAMES(Junior), London. Born 1786, died 1860. A clever maker, worked much for the trade, but turned out some good sticks, stamped with his name.
CHANOT, ADOLPH, Paris. Brother of the late Georges Chanot of Wardour Street. Born about 1828. Worked with Henry of Paris and has turned out some magnificent sticks. His death, which took place suddenly, at the age of twenty-nine, was due to an aneurism. Had he lived he would undoubtedly have taken a high position in the esteem of bow wielders.
DARBEY, GEORGE, Bristol. Died March, 1921.
DODD, EDWARD, London and Sheffield. Born 1705, died 1810. One seldom finds a bow bearing his name as he was mostly employed by others, such as Betts, Forster, Norris, etc.
DODD, JAMES. Worked in London in 1864; it is doubtful if any of his work can be identified as he almost invariably worked for others.
DODD, JOHN. Born in 1752, died in 1839. This wastheEnglish bow-makerpar excellence. For fuller details of his life and work seeChapter VI."
DODD, THOMAS, London, 1786-1823. He differed from the others of this name inasmuch as he did not make for others but employed others to make for him.
EURY, Paris. Early part of the present century. His bows are universally esteemed, some of them being exceptionally fine. He did not always stamp his bows, but when he did it was generally under the "lapping" or, as some say, the "whipping."
FONCLAUSE, JOSEPH. Born in 1800, died in 1865. He was an excellent maker. He first learnt the art of bow-making from Pajeot at Mirecourt, and ultimately worked for J. B. Vuillaume at Paris. Later on he started on his own account. His bows from this period are usually marked with his own name.
FORSTER, WILLIAM. A noted English violin maker who was born near the middle of the last century. One now and then meets with a bow bearing his name. These are all the work of E. Dodd, W. Tubbs, or some other skilled workmen in his employ.
GAND ANDBERNARDEL, Paris. A modern firm whose staff make some remarkably fine bows. They are mostly stamped with the name of the firm; but as they make bows to the order of various other firms there are many examples of their work either unstamped or bearing fictitious names.
HARMAND. Worked in Mirecourt about 1835. Made some fairly good bows.
HENRY. Born in 1812 at Mirecourt where he first learnt his craft. He worked there till his twenty-fifth year, when he went to Paris. Here he was employed by Chanot first, and later, by Peccatte. When Peccatte left Paris, Henry entered into partnership with Simon, another workman in Peccatte's employ who had succeeded to the latter's Paris shop. This partnership lasted till 1851. He then worked alone. He was a magnificent workman and has produced some splendid bows. I have in mind a 'cello bow of his shown me by J. Chanot that is a marvel of strength and elasticity. He died in 1870. Sometimes his bows are stamped "Henry, Paris."
HILL, W. E.,ANDSONS, London. Contemporary. This firm issue some very fine bows which are made in their own workshops by expert workmen trained under the personal supervision of Mr. A. Hill.
JOSEPHS. American, contemporary. A very clever maker and repairer of violins and bows. I have seen some of his work that was excellent.
KITTEL, St. Petersburg. Modern. I have never come across a specimen of this maker's work. Fleming states that they "are about as nearly equal to Tourte's as those of any maker that has lived since his day." It is a pity they are not more plentiful if this is the case.
KNOPF, HEINRICH, and KNOPF, LUDWIG, Berlin, contemporary. Fairly good bows made chiefly to the order of other firms.
LAFLEUR, JACQUES. Born at Nancy in 1760, died in Paris 1832. One of the best of the old makers. Some continental authorities place him on a par with Tourte. Those of his make that I have handled are certainly very fine indeed.
LAFLEUR, JOSEPHRENÉ, Paris. Born in 1812, died in 1874. He was the son of Jacques Lafleur and inherited much of his father's skill.
LAMY, ALFREDJOSEPH. Born in 1850 at Mirecourt. He was an excellent maker. An interesting feature is that he learnt his craft at a remarkably early age. He worked first with Gautrot at Chateau-Fleurry. He went, like the rest, to Paris in 1877, and worked for Voirin for some eight years. At Voirin's death he started in business for himself.
LUPOT, FRANÇOIS. Born at Orleans 1774, died at Paris in 1837. For fuller particulars of this maker seeChapter 7.
MAIRE, NICOLAS, Mirecourt and Paris. Was a pupil of Jacques Lafleur but never did any work of great distinction.
MIQUEL, EMILE. A contemporary Mirecourt maker.
NÜRNBERGER, KARLALBERT, Markneukirchen. Contemporary. A most finished workman and a clever imitator of the styles of various well-known makers. Has worked much for the trade. His best examples are frequently stamped with his name, and amongst these will be found bows which are fit to rank with some of the finest productions of the French school. There are other makers of the same family engaged in bow making.
PAJEOT. Worked in Mirecourt in the early part of the present century. An excellent maker. He taught Joseph Fonclause who is known to have made some of the finest bows bearing Vuillaume's stamp.
PANORMO. The quaint faceted bows of which I have given an example inPlate VIII.were made, as far as I have been able to ascertain, by George Louis Panormo, in the early part of this century. Details concerning this family are neither plentiful nor clear, but it is fairly certain that this bow maker was a son of Vincent Panormo of Palermo, Paris, Ireland, etc., who first made the name famous in the fiddle world. A description of the characteristics of his work will be found inChapter VII.
Fleming mentions a George Louis Panormo as amodernmaker in London, but I do not know of such a maker. I am informed on excellent authority that all the Panormo bows were made in Paris.
PECCATTE, DOMINIQUE. Born in 1810 and died in 1874 at Mirecourt. Details of his life and work are given inChapter VII.
PECCATTE, FRANÇOIS("PECCATTEJEUNE"), Paris. Born Mirecourt, 1820, died Paris, 1855. A good workman, whose best bows, though not well known in this country, are of nearly equal merit with his brother Dominique's. He worked for ten years with Vuillaume. Some of his bows are stamped with his name, the lettering of the stamp differing slightly from that employed by his more famous brother.
PECCATTE, CHARLES, Paris. Son of François. Born Mirecourt, 1850. A good workman, but not equal to the other makers of the name.
PELLEGRI, Italian, modern; neat workmanship.
PERSOIT. Worked in Paris about 1828 to 1841. He was employed largely by Vuillaume and most of his bows bear the latter's name, but he occasionally worked on his own account and then his work was stamped P.R.S.
PRICE, London. Contemporary, excellent maker. Pupil of Tubbs.
PFRETSCHNER, Markneukirchen. Contemporary makers, whose best work is of high merit and finish, though not quite equal to that of A. Nürnberger.
POISON, Paris. A really magnificent workman. He was employed largely by the firm of Gand and Bernardel, and the majority of his bows bear their stamp. One occasionally meets with a bow by this maker bearing his own name.
PUPINAT, Swiss. Middle of the present century.
RAKOWSCH, Paris. Modern.
RAU, AUGUST, Markneukirchen. Born 1866. A first-class workman. Worked much for Weichold of Dresden.
RONCHINI, Italian. Modern.
SCHWARTZ, GEORGFRIEDRICH, Strasburg. Born 1785, died 1849. Made some excellent bows marked "Swartz, Strasburg."
SIMON, P. Born at Mirecourt in 1808. Worked for D. Peccatte in Paris in 1838. After this he worked for Vuillaume for seven years. He then set up on his own account for some two years, and when D. Peccatte left Paris he took over the business in partnership with Henry. Three years later and he was again alone. His workmanship is always good and betrays Peccatte's influence.
SIRJEAN. French. Early part of the present century.
SÜSS, JOHANNCHRISTIAN, Markneukirchen. Born 1829. Died 1900. One of the best makers Germany has produced. Imitated the style of Tourte.
TADOLINI, IGNAZIO. Born at Bologna in 1791, died at Modena in 1873. Was established with his brother at the last-named town. Made some very fine bows but was not equal.
TOURNATORIS. French. Latter part of last century.
TOURTE. Eighteenth century, Paris. One of the best bow makers of the older type, chiefly known as the father of François Tourte.
TOURTE, SAVÉRE. Eldest son of the preceding and called "Tourte l'ainé," Paris.
TOURTE, FRANÇOIS, Paris. Brother of the above, the greatest of all bow makers. Born 1747, died 1838. For fuller particulars of his life and work seeChapter 6(PlatesV.andVI.).
TUBBS, W., London. Early nineteenth century. Worked for Forster, Betts, Norris and Barnes. He was taught bow making by Edward Dodd.
TUBBS, JAMES. Son of the preceding. Born 1835. Died April, 1921. Many of his bows are graduated according to a system based on the calculations of W. S. B. Woolhouse, the mathematician (seeChapter VII). The Tubbs bows have qualities distinctly their own and when a player becomes thoroughly used to a "Tubbs" he rarely feels comfortable with even the finest bows of another make. Conversely, a player in the habit of using constantly any other bow experiences a slight feeling of strangeness on first trying a "Tubbs." The workmanship in a Tubbs bow is almost unique in its perfection. And there is a characteristic English solidity about the secure way in which all the fittings are adjusted. I have been an eye witness of the care and attention paid by his son, Mr. A. Tubbs to the work of repairing a bow that to the casual observer would seem past all treatment. His brother, C. E. Tubbs, was a good bow maker, but somewhat erratic.
VIGNERON, A. A modern French maker who turns out some extremely high class work.
VOIRIN, NICHOLASFRANÇOIS. Another of the great Parisian bow makers. Learnt the craft in his native town, Mirecourt, where he was born in 1833. At the age of twenty-two he was employed by Vuillaume, with whom he worked for some fifteen years. It is believed that the finest bows bearing Vuillaume's name were made by Voirin. Some of his bows that were exhibited by Vuillaume in the Paris Exhibition in 1867 received honourable mention. I should say his work is more equal than that of any other maker. Of course, as with other popular makers, there are to be found plenty of worthless bows bearing the forged stamp, "N. F. Voirin, à Paris." His death, which took place in Paris in 1885, was very pathetic. He was walking along the Faubourg Montmartre on his way to the abode of a customer to whom he was taking a bow newly finished, when he suddenly fell down in an apoplectic fit. Fortunately his name and address, "Bouloi 3," was on the parcel containing the bow, and he was thus able to be taken home without delay. But how sad a home-coming! brought home in a dying condition to his wife whom he had left but a few minutes before in apparently good health. He died the same night.
VUILLAUME, J. B., Paris. This strange mixture of cunning and ability will be ever remembered as the craftiest of craftsmen. An undoubted genius as a violin maker, yet with all the tricks and subterfuges of the veriest charlatan. Concerning the real value of the historical details furnished to Fétis by Vuillaume I have spoken inChapter V.Though it is possible that he had considerable practical knowledge of bow making, I do not think he actually made any bows. He exercised great judgment, however, in the employment of skilled workmen, whom he kept as a rule for a number of years—a fact that is sufficient to stamp him as a good and considerate employer. The most noted makers who worked for him were Fonclause, Peccatte, Persoit, Simon and Voirin. It will thus be seen that the majority of the bows bearing Vuillaume's name are of the best possible workmanship and quality. Unfortunately there are in this case also a number of forgeries on the market. The most noteworthy features in connexion with Vuillaume, as regards bows, are his curious inventions—the steel bow, the fixed nut, the curved ferrule, and the self-hairing bow. Of the steel bow, Mr. Heron-Allen says he has "never met with a specimen of so ponderous an eccentricity" except the one in South Kensington Museum. I have come across a number, and as they are tubular they are not at all as ponderous as the name of the material suggests. In fact I remember one that was very pleasant to play with. They are nearly always lacking in balance. The fixed nut was the result of an idea that the player should always have the same length of hair at his service. The curved ferrule was also a mistake, the idea being that it would be good to get a broad surface of hair on the string at the heel. The self-hairing bow was ingenious but of no practical value. These patents are detailed more fully inPart II.Vuillaume was born at Mirecourt on October 7th, 1798, and was the son of the carrier between that town and Nancy. He died at Paris in 1875.
WEICHOLD, Dresden. An excellent firm, who put their name on a superior class of "trade bow."
WILSON, JOHNJAMESTHOMPSON, London. Born March, 1864, worked in his youth with James Tubbs, and later with C. E. Tubbs. Has worked much for the trade.
With this list of bow makers ends the historical section of these papers. As I have already explained, a perfect history of the bow is quite impossible to obtain, and all I have attempted has been to lay before my readers the facts I have accumulated. I have carefully abstained from promulgating any theories of my own with regard to the evolution of the bow (save in such cases where certain conclusions have been forced upon me by the evidence found) as from the conflicting nature of the records, I consider no one theory to be sufficient. There seem to have been a number of separate influences at work, the ultimate convergence thereof resulting in the production of the perfect bow as we now know it. If I have been unable to make a clear exposition of the bow's progress, I trust I have succeeded in showing the unprincipled elimination of contradictory details resorted to by earlier writers in order to achieve this desired end. And I hope it will be understood that this has not been done in the spirit of the small boy who, disappointed in his attempt to build a sand castle, derives an alleviative gratification from the destruction of the more imposing erections of his playmates.