JACQUES BOQUAY RUE D ARGENTEUIL A PARIS, 17
COMBLE, AMBROISE DE, Tourney, Belgium (1730-1760). The best maker of the old French school, and reputed pupil of Stradivarius. Although the instruments of de Comble cannot be said to be on the model adopted by the great Cremonese maker during his best period, there is nevertheless some indication to lead to the belief that he endeavoured to follow the renowned artist in the matter of varnish. In this respect he was fairly successful. His instruments are rather flat and of large pattern, somewhat on the lines of Stradivarius’s later productions, and although they are not characteristic of refined workmanship, the material chosen was of the best quality. He made his instruments strong in the wood, consequently they possess a very full and rich tone. De Comble also made some excellent violoncellos.
LUPOT, NICOLAS, born at Stuttgart, 1758, died in Paris, 1824, founder of the modern school of violin making. His father, also a maker of some merit, removed to Orléans in the year 1770, and in this town instructed his son in the art which was destined to make his name famous. During his pupilage Nicolas set himself to study the instruments of the great Italian makers, especially those of Stradivarius, and in the result he elected to adopt the model of this master, from which he seldom, if ever, departed. With such diligence and enthusiasm did he labour to produce something akin to his ideal that he soon was able to turn out an instrument that suffered but little on comparison with the Italians of the first water. Thus a most beneficial influence in the art of violin making became propagated. In 1798 Nicolas quitted Orléans for Paris and established himself in business, and there for twenty-six years he carried on a labour of love which, as well, produced considerable pecuniary benefits. Lupot had not been long in Paris before his work claimed the attention of the Conservatoire, then but recently formed, and he was accordinglyappointed violin maker to that excellent institution: he was similarly appointed to the Chapel Royal. It is not difficult to imagine that Lupot endeavoured to revive the lost art of making the old Italian varnish, judging from the various qualities with which he was wont to cover his instruments. In this respect, however, he cannot be said to have been successful, but what he did use ranks high as a modern varnish. The instruments of this maker are highly prized, especially those made between 1805 and 1824. An impetus was probably given to the value of Lupot’s violins from the circumstance that the celebrated Spohr played for a long time on a Lupot, the tone of which he declared was “full and powerful”; in fact, the great virtuoso only parted with this instrument on becoming possessed of a Strad. Lupot appears to have been almost as uncertain about his labels as he was concerning his varnish. At Orléans he adopted a Latinised inscription, and in Paris, three labels have been noticed variously worded. The following are copies of some labels:
N. Lupot fils, Luthier, rue d’Illiers, à Orléans, l’an 17—.
Nicholas Lupot, Luthier, rue de Grammont, à Paris, l’an 17—.
Nicholas Lupot, rue Croix des petits champs, à Paris, l’an 1817.
Nicholas had a brother named François, who became celebrated as a maker of bows.
VUILLAUME, JOHN BAPTISTE, born at Mirecourt, October 7, 1798, died February 19, 1875; the greatest violin maker and copier of modern times. It is not precisely known under whom he received his first instruction in the art of violin making. Some say his father, one Claude Vuillaume, born at Mirecourt in 1771, died 1834, whilst others maintain that the father was not a fiddle maker, but a carrier between Mirecourt and Nancy. At all events, at the age of nineteen, he was engaged by François Chanot, a violin maker of repute, who had just about that period established a workshop for the manufacture of a new-shaped violin, which had been patented, so it is not unlikely that François Chanot was his first real master. He next engagedhimself with one Lété, an organ builder, who dealt in violins, and ultimately became a partner in the concern. In 1828 he parted from Lété and continued in business alone. During this period he found great difficulty in disposing of his instruments; the rage being for those of Italian manufacture. He thereupon took to fabricating copies of the old masters, and his operations in this line appear to have been attended with great success. As a large number of old instruments, Italian and others, passed through his hands for repair, Vuillaume had ample opportunity afforded him for studying and ascertaining the inward and outward conditions necessary for the production of good tone, and this advantage he was not slow to avail himself of. Fortified with a vast amount of experience, combined with much knowledge gained by experiment, Vuillaume was in course of time enabled to produce an instrument in all but one point equal to the greatest Italian masters, the condition wanting being that of age. In some cases, possibly through stress of trade, Vuillaume endeavoured to supply this deficiency by giving to his instrumentsan appearance of wear and long usage. In his latter years, however, he relinquished this pernicious practice. The climax of his skill as a copyist was reached on the occasion when he reproduced a facsimile of Paganini’s famous Guarnerius, entrusted for repair. This copy was so marvellous in its similarity with the original, both as regards appearance and tone, that the great virtuoso himself failed to recognise his own instrument, and Vuillaume had to point it out to him. In addition to his high capabilities as a violin maker, Vuillaume was renowned as a bow maker, and effected some improvements in that important adjunct, and on the whole proved himself a genius of uncommon order.
Jean Baptiste Vuillaume à Paris Rue Croix des Petite Champs {trademark: double circle containing cross over BV}
WILLIAM ADDISON—THOMAS COLE—EDWARD PAMPHILON—PEMBERTON—THOMAS URQUHART—CHRISTOPHER WISE.
This group represents the early English school and the principal makers existing during the seventeenth century. It may reasonably be inferred that they were more at home with the viol than with the violin as known to-day. Little can be said concerning their early productions, as they are now all but extinct; a great portion of them probably perished in the great fire of London in 1666, in which city some of them were supposed to have worked.
Christopher Wise is said to have made some fairly good instruments of a highly decorative nature.
Jacob Rayman was the better artist, and some instruments attributed to him reflect great credit on this early school.
Thomas Urquhart was a still further advance, his outline and varnish places him in the front rank of the period.
Edward Pamphilon made instruments of a very tubby appearance, but they are said to possess a clear and penetrating tone; age, too, has imparted a very rich colouring to the varnish.
Several other names have been handed down, but as they are minus the instruments, nothing of importance can be said on the subject.
Aldred and Bolles are mentioned in Mace’s “Musick’s Monument.”
ADDISON, WILLIAM, was a maker of viols and early violins in the middle of the seventeenth century. He worked in Moorfields, London.
AIRETON, EDMUND.A London maker about the middle of the eighteenth century. He copied successively the instruments of Stainer, Amati and Stradivarius, but those on the Amati model are most admired.
BANKS FAMILY.They rank among the best makers of English violins, and genuine specimens are eagerly sought after and realise good prices.
BANKS, BENJAMIN.Born July 14, 1727, died February 18, 1795. Accounts differ as to the place of his birth, but as his parents were living in Salisbury in the year 1725, it is generally supposed he was born in that town.
Banks has been justly termed “the English Amati,” and this comparison is well deserved. His fiddles are faithful copies of the great Italian, both as to model and varnish. These instruments are, however, very rare, and fiddles of this model offered as genuine Benjamins should only be purchased with the advice of experts.
Benjamin also made instruments for the then well-known music-firm of Longman and Broderip in London. These were made on a different model, somewhat after the Stainer model, and they are greatly inferior to his favourite Amati fiddles, the finish and varnish indicate hurry and carelessness. These fiddles are labelled with the name of the firmfor whom he worked. I have seen many fiddles bearing the name of Longman and Broderip and said to have been made by Benjamin Banks. The majority of them are, however, spurious. It has been the custom of many dealers to cut off the name of Longman and Broderip from the bottom of the published music of that firm and insert these in fiddles, and as Benjamin Banks was known to have worked for them, some show of genuineness is thereby implied.
Banks made a number of violas and violoncellos. The latter instruments stand pre-eminent for workmanship and tone and are particularly well adapted for the performance of solo and chamber music. This maker adopted a variety of methods for stamping and otherwise labelling his instruments. Below the button was the favourite place.
The labels mostly seen are:
Made by Benjamin Banks, Catherine Street, Salisbury.
Benjamin Banks, fecit Salisbury.
Benjamin Banks, Musical Instrument Maker, In Catherine Street, Salisbury.
B. Banks, Sarum. “B. B.” stamped under the button.
The varnish used by Banks varied from a deep red to a yellow brown.
One word of advice, beware of the unredeemed pledge.
BANKS, BENJAMIN.Son of the preceding; born at Salisbury, 1754, died in Liverpool, 1820. He worked at first for his renowned father, afterwards removing to London, where, possibly, he assisted in making the Longman and Broderip instruments. He then went to Liverpool and worked there until his death. Very little is known of him or his works, though it is possible that many of his instruments have been passed off as the work of his father.
BANKS, JAMESandHENRY, two other sons of the great Benjamin, and successors to the business at Salisbury, where they were both born, James about 1756, died 1831; Henry, 1770, died 1830.
James was the violin maker of the concern, while Henry devoted himself to tuning pianofortes andrepairing instruments. Sometimes, however, they collaborated in the production of violins and violoncellos. They also extended the sphere of their operations to music selling and dealt in other musical instruments. The fame of the Banks family as violin makers declined at this period.
BARRETT, JOHN.A London maker, who worked about 1725. He made some good instruments which are dated from the Harp and Crown in Piccadilly. He followed the Stainer model. His varnish is unsatisfactory.
BETTS, JOHN, London, born at Stamford in 1755, died 1823. This excellent maker was a pupil of Duke, and adopted the Amati model. He was not himself a prolific maker, his time being principally occupied in the study of old Italian instruments, the result of which enabled him to become a very successful dealer and connoisseur. Betts, or “old John,” as he was most commonly called, carried on an extensive business in the construction of violins, and employed in his workshop such men as John Carter, Edward Betts, Panormo, Bernhard Fendt, all of whom subsequently succeeded inmaking good instruments on their own account. Betts’s shop was No. 2 near Northgate of the Royal Exchange, and after his death the business was continued by his descendants till within a few years ago.
DUKE, RICHARD, London, about 1765-1791. Probably no violin of English make has attained such popularity as have the instruments of this maker, hence it is that he is so extensively imitated. Who instructed him in the art of making violins, etc., is not positively known, but his instruments are of the highest order in all respects but the varnish, in which he was not always successful. Duke followed both the Stainer and Amati models, the latter being his best. His violoncellos are rather high in model, long in pattern, yellowish varnish and rich in tone. For his violins he used a dull brown varnish, very elastic and transparent. During a considerable period Duke worked in the vicinity of Holborn. Many of his instruments are stamped near the button “Duke, London.”
Labels, mostly written in pen and ink, are as follows:
Richd. Duke, Londini, fecit 1767.
Richard Duke, Maker, Holborn, London, Anno 1777.
The following is a copy of a printed one:
“Richard Duke, Maker, near opposite Great Turn-Stile, Holbourn, London.”
FENDT, BERNHARD, born at Inspruck, in the Tyrol, in 1756, died in London in 1832. He was at first instructed in the art of violin making by his uncle in Paris, who spelt his name Fent, a maker there of some reputation. Bernhard then came to London and entered the service of Thomas Dodd, the bow maker, and remained with him several years, working in conjunction with John Frederick Lott. They were never entrusted to carry their work beyond the white, and the instruments turned out by this pair were delivered to their master, who applied the varnish with his own hand, the secret of which he kept carefully to himself.
FORSTER, WILLIAM, known as “Old” Forster, born at Brampton, Cumberland, May, 1739, died in London, December 14, 1808. The name of Forster in connection with violin makingincludes a family whose operation extended over a very considerable period, but the artist under notice wasthefiddle maker of the group, and his instruments to-day reflect great credit on the British school of a century ago; indeed his instruments, whether they be violins, violas or violoncellos, are pre-eminent amongst the productions of this country. His father pursued two occupations, viz., that of spinning-wheel maker and violin maker and repairer; instructions in which handicrafts were duly imparted to the son, who also became tolerably proficient as a violinist. In consequence of some family differences, the young man quitted his native village and proceeded to London, arriving there in 1759. His first endeavours in the metropolis were unsuccessful, and he was forced to accept some employment offered him by a gun-stock maker. However, he did not forsake the art he loved, and his spare time was occupied in making violins, which he disposed of to the music shops. During this time he suffered great hardship and privation, the effects of which were never afterwards entirely eradicated. At length he obtained employmentas a violin maker at a music shop on Tower Hill kept by one Beck, and the violins he made during his two years’ engagement there, gaining much recognition, he not unnaturally demanded an advance in wages. This was refused, and Forster consequently left him. In 1762 he commenced business on his own account at a house in Duke’s Court, and there his artistic abilities procured for him the attention and patronage of the musical dilettanti. He then moved into St. Martin’s Lane, and added music publishing and selling to his business, and at this period he was wont to cut his name from the title-pages of his soiled or unsold music and use it as a ticket for his instruments. In 1781 he entered into negotiations with Haydn for the supply and publication of certain pieces of music for the string family, which resulted, it would appear, in a great success all round. About 1784, Forster opened in the Strand—No. 348, and here the climax of his success was attained, even to the extent of receiving Royal patronage. From the year 1762 to 1770 he adopted the Stainer model, and applied to his instruments some sort of dark stain, completing theoperation with a coat of varnish. From 1770 or thereabouts he affected the Amati pattern with greater success, and this refers particularly to his violoncellos, as they are really grand instruments, better varnish is used and greater attention is paid to detail. Robert Lindley, the famous violoncellist, used one of Forster’s instruments at the Italian Opera for nearly forty years; he named it “The Eclipse.” Crossdill had a famous one, and Cervette the younger had another. Only four double basses are known to have been made by William Forster. His commoner instruments are devoid of purfling. Ticket: “William Forster. Violin Maker in St. Martin’s Lane, London.”
FORSTER, WILLIAM, son of “Old” Forster. Born 1764, died 1824. He was a violin maker and repairer of some merit, but never attained the reputation of his father. He left his instruments unpurfled.
KENNEDY, ALEXANDER, came from Scotland about 1700 and established himself in London, He was a painstaking workman, and gained a goodreputation. He followed the Stainer model and used a light amber varnish.
KENNEDY, JOHN, nephew and pupil of the foregoing, followed the same model, and produced some good violins and tenors.
KENNEDY, THOMAS, the best known of the family. He made a large number of violins and ’cellos.
NORMAN, BARAK(1688-1740). He was chiefly a maker of viols, but has made violas and violoncellos, and a few violins on the Stainer model; his best productions being copies of Maggini. He was probably a pupil of Urquhart, if one may judge from their respective works. As a maker of viols he was much esteemed in his day; all his instruments of this class indicate careful workmanship. As no British violoncello has been discovered anterior to those manufactured by Norman, it is thought that he may have been the first maker of that instrument in this country. They are splendid instruments and much valued. His violas also are fine specimens, and consequently highly prized by performers on that instrument. Between the years1715 and 1720 Barak Norman entered into partnership with one Nathaniel Cross, at the sign of the “Bass Viol,” St. Paul’s Churchyard. Barak resorted to various methods in order to distinguish his instruments, sometimes his monogram is purfled in the centre of the back, and occasionally, in the case of violoncellos, on the top table under the wide part of the finger-board. When he became associated with Cross, the joint monogram was used. The following is a copy of a printed label used by the firm:
“Barak Norman and Nathaniel Cross, at the Bass Viol in St. Paul’s Churchyard, London, fecit 172—.”
WAMSLEY, PETER, London (1727-1760). He was at one time considered a clever maker of violas and violoncellos, but having resorted to the unfortunate practice of thinning the wood in his endeavour to secure a freer tone, his instruments at the present day lack power and sonority. They are, however, capable of great improvement in the hands of a skilful repairer. He adopted the Stainer model, and at times proved himself to be a first-class workman. Most of his instruments have only ink linesinstead of purfling. Wamsley made a few double basses, but they are now very scarce. The best instruments of this maker are those covered with a dark brown varnish. For a great number of years Wamsley carried on business in Piccadilly, and used labels, copies of which are as follows:
Made by Peter Wamsley at the Harp and Hautboy in Pickadilly, 1735.
Peter Wamsley Maker at the Harp and Hautboy in Piccadilly, 17 London 51.
Made by Peter Wamsley at ye GoldenHarp in Pickadilly London,
The term “classical” as applied to music is a composition against which the destroying hand of time has proved powerless (Riemann), in other words, works which have been handed down to us by the old composers, and which at the present day are recognised as models of purity in musical art, are now considered as classical compositions.
Coeval with that remarkable epoch when the violin assumed its present admirable and unalterable form, which culminated with the closing yearof the sixteenth century, is the dawn of musical composition for the instrument, and the musicians of the time vied with each other in producing works calculated to raise the violin from its hitherto subordinate rank as a mere accompanist to its proper position as a solo instrument, thereby ensuring prominence and with it rapid popularity.
It is to Italy that we have to turn for any certain knowledge of the earliest classics, and the first to claim our attention is Arcangelo Corelli (1655-1713). He was not only the founder of the Roman school, the earliest known, but probably the first to definitely fix the form of the sonata. In those times two kinds of sonatas were recognised, called respectively,sonate da camera, i.e., chamber sonata, andsonata da chiesa, or church sonata. The first-named consisted of a series of dance measures (allemande, courante, saraband, gigues, etc.), systematically arranged, whilst the latter was a subject treated in fugal and other learned styles, and otherwise rendered more in keeping with the dignity of the place in which such compositions were performed. In the time of Corelli,the sonata usually commenced with anadagio, and after two or three other movements finished with anallegroorpresto.
Corelli as a composer showed a great partiality for this class of music, and his compositions rapidly spread throughout the length and breadth of Europe. Tartini caused all his pupils to study the works of Corelli. There is not, it is true, evidence of a great amount of musical erudition, but what has conferred a remarkable longevity on his works is his melodic simplicity and pure harmony. His works are forty-eight sonatas for two violins and bass (Op. 1-4), produced 1683-94; twelve sonatas for violin and bass (Op. 5), 1700; twelve “concerti-grossi,” for two violins and ’cello as principal instruments, and two violins, viola and bass as accompanying instruments.
Such a gifted musician as Corelli was not likely to quit this life without leaving the impress of his artistic feelings upon those who sought his instruction, and we have ample proof of the great influence he exerted in the names of G. B. Somis (1676-1763) F. Geminiani (1680-1762), and Locatelli (1693-1764).Somis was a close follower of his master, and it is quite easy to believe this on a comparison of their respective sonatas. Geminiani asserted more of his individuality, and this, coupled with the fact of his having received theoretical instruction from Alessandro Scarlatti, one of the most learned musicians of the day, no doubt contributed to his making a decided advance on the violin music of the time. Notwithstanding his increased knowledge as a theorist, and his greater ability as an executant, Geminiani laboured long to bring into prominence and popularity the artistic conceptions of his renowned violin master. His first effort in this direction was made in 1726 (Geminiani being then in London), when he formed Corelli’s first six solos into concertos, a style of composition then recently called into existence, shortly afterwards treating another six in a similar manner. Others underwent the same process, but to these were added additional parts. Geminiani was one of the first in the field of musical expression, even sacrificing strict time to obtain it.
Locatelli furnishes us with another example, not only of the advance of technique, but of the progressof musical culture. His works called “The Labyrinth,” “The New Art of Modulation” and “Harmonic Contrasts” are alone sufficient to establish him as a great reformer in the musical world of his time. As we have elsewhere observed, Torelli is credited with having fixed the form of the concerto, and a few lesser lights, such as the two Veracinis and Alberti, live to this day by their works. The next master whose influence marked another step in the development of classical music for the violin was Guiseppe Tartini (1692-1770). Here we have a man destined for all time to stand out as one of the most indefatigable pioneers of the violin. In his quadruple capacity as a performer, composer, theorist and teacher, his influence was far-reaching, and, what is more, it has been transmitted down to the present time. As a composer, his style of modulation was a new thing, and his performance came as a revelation to those who heard him for the first time. His “Devil’s Sonata” is well-known to all violinists.
We now arrive at a name which brings us in touch with other members of the fiddle family. LuigiBoccherini (1740-1806), who is justly considered the father of chamber music for stringed instruments. It was he who, in 1768, gave definition to the form of the trio, the quartet and the quintet; forms which have served for the models of all subsequent composers. In the trio he was followed by Fiorillo, Cramer, Giardini, Pugnani and Viotti, and in the quartet by Mozart. His other styles were elaborated by Haydn and Beethoven. Boccherini was a prolific composer.
Three names should here be mentioned in connection with the concerto, in whose hands it underwent great improvement. They are Pugnani (1728-1798), Jarnowick (1745-1804), and Mestrino (1750-1790).
The next and last great representative of the Italian school, and one who largely influenced the French school, was Giovanni Battista Viotti (1755-1824), a pupil of Pugnani. The name of Viotti stands out with peculiar lustre, in that with him the concerto arrived at a degree of perfection hardly capable of being exceeded. The same may be said of his trios and duos, both of which should bestudied and cultivated by every young violin aspirant. In Viotti the Italians have certainly produced a fitting tailpiece to a long line of brilliant composers for the violin, a line in which no artistic hiatus appears from the time of Corelli.
* * * * * * * *
The first to establish a French school was Jean Marie Leclair (1679-1764). Although he received his instructions from Somis, the Italian, and became thoroughly imbued with Italian tastes and ideas, he laboured incessantly, on his return to France, with the object of establishing a distinct school for his country, and in many respects he was successful. In 1723 he published a series of solos, and soon afterwards six sonatas for two violins and bass; also duos, trios and concertos.
The next to claim attention among the French classical composers is Pierre Gavinies (1728-1800). He was the first professor at the Paris Conservatoire, then but recently formed, and the compositions he contributed testify to considerable musical culture: they are of great difficulty, and are, for the most parts, sonatas and concertos.
We now introduce three names who greatly elaborated the forms fixed by the Italians, Rode (1774-1830), Kreutzer (1766-1831) and Baillot (1771-1842). This almost inseparable trio are so well known to the student, that a lengthy comment would be superfluous. They were all in turn professors at the Paris Conservatoire, and the joint production of their great method for the violin, coupled with their other educational works, place them as prominent classical writers. Rode is known by his concertos, caprices and airs with variations. Kreutzer’s forty studies are a household word with the earnest student, not to mention his concertos, duets, trios and quartets; and the same may be said with regard to Baillot’s concertos, variations, and a host of other pieces.
* * * * * * * *
We now pass on to consider shortly what the Germans have handed down. Like other countries, they have been largely indebted to the Italians; and, in this connection, it is curious to note that with the rise of music in Germany we find a gradual decadence of the art in Italy.
In Germany we have to look to the great composers rather than the great violinists for the most important classical works for the violin.
It is unnecessary to notice anything anterior to the time of the great J. S. Bach (1685-1750); in fact, very little took place in the nature of published works.
That Bach possessed a sound perception of the capabilities and resources of the violin is amply demonstrated in all his writings for that instrument. His acquaintance with the finger-board is only excelled by his knowledge of the keyboard. Amongst the almost innumerable works of this greatest musical classic that has ever lived, I would mention his three partitas and three sonatas for violin (without accompaniment). The Chaconne in the D minor Partita is a remarkable instance of Bach’s immense powers of perception.
The first real founder of a German school was Leopold Mozart (1719-1787), father of the great W. A. Mozart. He is not known by his instrumental compositions, but his claim to notice exists in the production of his “Method” for the violin, a workwhich not only survived several editions, but assumed the garb of several languages.
The next to call for notice is Joseph Haydn (1732-1809), a most prolific composer, especially for the string family. Attached to the service of Prince Esterhazy, a patron immensely rich and passionately fond of music, Haydn enjoyed a combination of circumstances all concurring to give opportunity for the display of his genius. It has been vouchsafed to few musicians to pursue their art under such favourable conditions as Haydn. He did not compose to please either publisher or the public. So long as his patron was satisfied with his productions, things went on merrily with him.
Let us see what Haydn did for the instrument he loved so much. Here they are—eighty-three quartets, three concertos, twenty-one trios for two violins and bass, six violin solos.
No review, however short, could lay claim to completeness without mention of the following—viz., Mozart, Weber and Beethoven. To this noble trio violinists owe much. It is, of course, quite beyond the province of this work to even enumerate themany compositions from the pens of these immortal musicians in which the violin took part, but I would call attention to Beethoven’s glorious Concerto in D, Op. 61, and his two lovely Romances in G and F respectively.
Another great German musician who exercised considerable influence on compositions of classic mould was Louis Spohr (1784-1859). His great fame as a composer, combined with his reputation as a violin virtuoso of the highest order, places him in a conspicuous position in the history of music. The works of Spohr are probably so well known that no useful purpose can be served in recounting their great merits. Suffice it to say they are of the highest possible pitch of excellence, and require more than ordinary technical ability to do them justice. Considered only as a composer, he has been indefatigable in the production of every style of music, and he was especially happy in that for the strings. His beautiful D minor Concerto is one of the finest examples of this class of music to be met with, and its first introduction by the great master himself made a great sensation. As one of Spohr’s commentatorstruly said, “Mozart had written solid and simple concertos, in which the performer was expected to embroider and finish the composer’s sketch, and Beethoven’s concertos were so written as to make the solo player merely one of the orchestra. But, as Mozart raised opera to a higher standard, so Beethoven uplifted the ideal of the orchestra, so Spohr’s creative force as a violinist and writer for the violin has established the grandest school for this instrument, to which all the foremost contemporary artists acknowledge their obligations.”
Before taking leave of the German school I would mention two other names—Joseph Mayseder and Kalliwoda, both of whom contributed much that is good, and their works consequently attained wide popularity.
Let us now turn to our own country. We have not, it must be admitted, occupied a front rank as composers of violin music, hence the scarcity of classical works handed down to us; but let us hasten to add, we have produced the finest critics in the world, and, what is more, we are thoroughly wellposted up in all the best pieces that have emanated from the thoughts of the greatest composers.
One of the earliest who wrote for the violin was one Rogers, who, in the year 1653, wrote airs in four parts for violins. He was followed by John Jenkins, who wrote twelve sonatas for two violins and a bass, printed in 1664, which were the first sonatas written by an Englishman.
James Sherard also composed several sonatas in the beginning of the last century, and they are said to bear such a resemblance to Corelli’s that they might have been taken for that composer’s.
The compositions of Handel materially advanced the violin in this country, and the establishment by him of Italian opera was the means of bringing us in touch with the great Italian performers and writers.
[1]That Cremona instruments were held in high estimation during the reign of Charles II, is proved by the following entry in the Enrolments of the Audit Office, 1662, vol. vi: “These are to require you to pay, or cause to be paid to John Bannister, one of his Majesties musicians in ordinary, the some of fourty poundes for two cremona violins, by him bought and delivered for his Majesties service as may appear by the bill annexed, and also tenn pounds for strings for two years, ending 24th June, 1662. And this shall be your warrant, etc.”[2]In early English times the word “crowd” was often used instead of fiddle.[3]This Act was repealed by 12 Ann Stat. 2, C. 23.[4]James Sherard, an Englishman, also composed several sonatas, so nearly equal to Corelli’s, and resembling them so perfectly in style, that they might have been taken for that composer’s.[5]Michael Corette was an organist in Paris in 1738. He wrote several treatises on music.
[1]That Cremona instruments were held in high estimation during the reign of Charles II, is proved by the following entry in the Enrolments of the Audit Office, 1662, vol. vi: “These are to require you to pay, or cause to be paid to John Bannister, one of his Majesties musicians in ordinary, the some of fourty poundes for two cremona violins, by him bought and delivered for his Majesties service as may appear by the bill annexed, and also tenn pounds for strings for two years, ending 24th June, 1662. And this shall be your warrant, etc.”
[2]In early English times the word “crowd” was often used instead of fiddle.
[3]This Act was repealed by 12 Ann Stat. 2, C. 23.
[4]James Sherard, an Englishman, also composed several sonatas, so nearly equal to Corelli’s, and resembling them so perfectly in style, that they might have been taken for that composer’s.
[5]Michael Corette was an organist in Paris in 1738. He wrote several treatises on music.
Printed by The New Temple Press, Norbury Crescent, London, S.W.16.