FRIENDLY ADVICE TO THE YOUNG AMATEUR.First, let a rear-wardatticof your labours be the scene—For, such seclusion best for you (and others) is, I ween.In comfort, there, assume a chair, and be therein at ease,Andnotas if, un-garmented, you sat uponhard pease.Your fiddle in sinister hand, and in your right the bow,Scan, next, the dotted page awhile, or ereto workyou go.Firm as a forceps be your wrist, but flexile as an eel!And—for that struggling shoulder-joint—just teach it tobe still;For, mark! the motion of the arm must be ’twixt wrist and elbow,Or else, howe’er you moil and toil, be sure you’ll neverwellbow!To guide each movement of the bow—to give it vital spring—To send it bounding on its way—the wrist, the wrist’s the thing!Your bow’s relation to thebridge, must keep a just right angle,Or harshly else, and out of tune, your tortured notes will jangle.340Fromheeltopointthat bow now draw, with action slow and steady—Then back again—and so repeat, till in such practice ready.The same in quicker time then try—and next proceed to drawFrommiddle(with a shorter scope) topoint, and back, see-saw.This, too, in swifter time rehearse;—and then, like justice dealUnto the other half of bow, frommiddleto theheel.There is a word—too seldom heard—notdear to young Ambition—But wholesome in its discipline,—that word is “repetition.”Content to glimmer ere you shine, leap not beyond your bounds!From small beginnings rise great ends—’tispencethat make uppounds.From exercise to exercise, progressive, through your bookWork on-scales, intervals, and all—howdrysoe’er they look;Nor jerk forth scraps, or odds and ends, of ev’ry tune that floats;—Can any foolery be worse than scatt’ring ofloose notes?Let not thy steps untutored move! A master’s ready skillFor safety and for succour seek, to curb or point thy will!Plainwork precedes allornament: keep graces for a lateAchievement, since you first mustbuild, ere you candecorate.Thinkelegancea pretty thing, butbreadtha vast deal better;Nor, for the sake of lesser charms, your larger movements fetter.It is the pride of players great, a free and dashingbow,As, borne along on waves of sound, to their success they go!Corelliold, contemn thou not! Substantial, good, and plain,He’s like a round of British beef—he’s “cut-and-come-again!”But, as the interval is wide, you need not—nota bene—You need not travelallthe road ’twixthimandPaganini.In fiddle-practice, as in life, are difficultiesgifts?Yes—double stopsare just the thing to drive thee to thyshifts!“Bating no jot of heart or hope,” toil, till, in time’s process,The music that is in thy soul, thy fiddle shall express!
FRIENDLY ADVICE TO THE YOUNG AMATEUR.First, let a rear-wardatticof your labours be the scene—For, such seclusion best for you (and others) is, I ween.In comfort, there, assume a chair, and be therein at ease,Andnotas if, un-garmented, you sat uponhard pease.Your fiddle in sinister hand, and in your right the bow,Scan, next, the dotted page awhile, or ereto workyou go.Firm as a forceps be your wrist, but flexile as an eel!And—for that struggling shoulder-joint—just teach it tobe still;For, mark! the motion of the arm must be ’twixt wrist and elbow,Or else, howe’er you moil and toil, be sure you’ll neverwellbow!To guide each movement of the bow—to give it vital spring—To send it bounding on its way—the wrist, the wrist’s the thing!Your bow’s relation to thebridge, must keep a just right angle,Or harshly else, and out of tune, your tortured notes will jangle.340Fromheeltopointthat bow now draw, with action slow and steady—Then back again—and so repeat, till in such practice ready.The same in quicker time then try—and next proceed to drawFrommiddle(with a shorter scope) topoint, and back, see-saw.This, too, in swifter time rehearse;—and then, like justice dealUnto the other half of bow, frommiddleto theheel.There is a word—too seldom heard—notdear to young Ambition—But wholesome in its discipline,—that word is “repetition.”Content to glimmer ere you shine, leap not beyond your bounds!From small beginnings rise great ends—’tispencethat make uppounds.From exercise to exercise, progressive, through your bookWork on-scales, intervals, and all—howdrysoe’er they look;Nor jerk forth scraps, or odds and ends, of ev’ry tune that floats;—Can any foolery be worse than scatt’ring ofloose notes?Let not thy steps untutored move! A master’s ready skillFor safety and for succour seek, to curb or point thy will!Plainwork precedes allornament: keep graces for a lateAchievement, since you first mustbuild, ere you candecorate.Thinkelegancea pretty thing, butbreadtha vast deal better;Nor, for the sake of lesser charms, your larger movements fetter.It is the pride of players great, a free and dashingbow,As, borne along on waves of sound, to their success they go!Corelliold, contemn thou not! Substantial, good, and plain,He’s like a round of British beef—he’s “cut-and-come-again!”But, as the interval is wide, you need not—nota bene—You need not travelallthe road ’twixthimandPaganini.In fiddle-practice, as in life, are difficultiesgifts?Yes—double stopsare just the thing to drive thee to thyshifts!“Bating no jot of heart or hope,” toil, till, in time’s process,The music that is in thy soul, thy fiddle shall express!
It is a very natural curiosity which engages us to look minutely into the structural peculiarities of that which is a medium for awakening pleasurable sensations within us. The balloon that has borne us aloft into aerial altitudes—and the violin that, under the management of a Vieuxtemps or a Sivori, has transported us, through varying acoustic currents, into the sublimer regions of harmony—are, each, the object of a close and willingly conceded attention.
Quitting the balloon, however, and confining ourselves to the violin—what(let us enquire) are the component parts that make up the “form and pressure,” the “complement extern” and intern, of this material ministrant to our joys and sympathies;—what, also, are the several most remarkable patterns, or models, of thecompletedinstrument;—andwhowere the originators, respectively, of those varieties of conformation? This latter point of enquiry will lead us to advert, before concluding this chapter, to certain innovations that have been attempted, with more or less felicity, in our own days.
A curious little work on the Construction, Preservation, Repair, &c. of the Violin, written in German byJacob Augustus Otto, appeared in 1817, and was translated into English some years afterwards. The author, himself an instrument-maker, professes to have studied “music, mathematics, physics, and acoustics,” which respectable preparation certainly adds not a little to his claims to attention, in undertaking to be instructive. It may be worth while here to present, in a condensed form, some portion of his matter, which is both indicative and preceptive. Such of my readers as, with a stronger impulse of curiosity, may desire to possess thewholeof the information furnished by his treatise, are referred to the latest English edition of it, which, supplied with an appendix by the translator, Mr. John Bishop, has been issued by the publishers of the present work.
Otto states that the Violin, when complete, consists offifty-eightdifferent parts—a fact, by the by, which the ordinary observer would be little inclined to suspect68, and of which, indeed, many a good player is probably not aware. The author makes general complaint, indeed, of the ignorance on the part of many Violinists of celebrity, as to the construction of the instrument. Then, as to thewood—for, “exquovis lignonon fit Mercurius;” that is to say, a fellow so mercurial as your fiddle is not to be created out of any chance piece of timber;—the wood that is generally used is of three sorts: sycamore for the back, neck, sides and circles: Tyrolese soft red deal for the belly,bass-bar, sound-post, and six internal blocks: and ebony for the finger-board and tail-piece. The greatest care and judgment, it seems, are requisite in the selection of the material for thebellyof the instrument, on which itstoneentirely depends. The wood for this purpose is prescribed to be cut only in December or January, and only that part to be used which has been exposed to the sun.
As to theCremonas(a word of fondest association to all votaries of the violin!), the oldest of them are those from the hands ofHieronymus(or Jerome)Amati, at the beginning of the seventeenth century, or rather earlier. Next come those ofAntonius Amati, belonging to the middle of that century; and then those ofNicholas Amati, towards the end of it. To these makers are to be addedAntonius Straduarius, and afterwards (at the commencement of the eighteenth century)Joseph Guarnerius. All these men of Cremona, so renowned for the products of their ingenuity were (according to M. Otto),mathematicalbuilders, and nice observers of the proportions best calculated for imparting a full, powerful, sonorous tone. The instruments by the three Amati are rather higher, or less flat, in the model, than those of Straduarius. Of all the Italian Violins, Hieronymus Amati’s are the handsomest in shape, and the best in make. They are now more than two centuries and a half old, strongly constructed, and likely to retain their excellence another century. Nicholas Amati’s are of rather small size, and somewhat abrupt in the swell of the form. The instruments of Straduarius are most esteemed byConcertperformers for the power of their tone. Those of Guarnerius are beautifully constructed, and with a good deal of similarity to those of Nicholas Amati.
The fineTyroleseinstruments—those of the celebratedJacob Steiner—differ much from theCremonese, both in shape and tone. In the latter respect, they are of sharper and more penetrating quality. ThelaterTyrolese makers have been rendered the great source of deception by dealers, &c.—their instruments having been made to pass as classics. The best among them are those of Klotz. The Tyrolese imitations of the Steiners and Cremonese are chiefly distinguishable by the coarse and wide grain of the deal, and by the thin spirit varnish upon them, instead of the Italian strong amber varnish.
The author treats individually of the principal German makers.Statelmann, of Vienna, of high fame as a studious maker, was a close imitator of Jacob Steiner; as were alsoWithalmof Nuremberg, andRiessof Bamberg. The flat model of Straduarius has been imitated byBuckstädterof Ratisbon, andJauchof Dresden.Martin Hoffman, andHunger, both of Leipsig, were excellent as tenor-makers, and good in violins. The instruments byEberleof Prague, one of the most celebrated German makers, are like the Cremonese, but less round and full in their tone.Bachmannof Berlin, also very eminent, was strictly careful as to proportions.
Against the class ofrepairersin general, as so many botchers, tinkers, and spoilers, the author is emphatically severe; and he points the especial finger of scorn at oneKirchlag, who, about 1787, made a visit of destruction, under pretence of repair, to most of the towns in Germany.
Instruments, it appears, should be sufficientlywell-timbered; their durability is much affected when they are finished off too weak in wood. The bass-bar andsound-post are not inserted to strengthen the instrument (as many have supposed), but to increase the vibration. The vibratory principle, according to M. Otto, has been as yet but imperfectly investigated, and is little understood. Recent experiments, however, have somewhat further extended our knowledge of it. Great nicety is requisite as to the erection and proportions of thebridge: when it is too high, the effect is a dull tone, difficult to be brought out—when too low, a shrill sharp, and thin tone. In good instruments, the sound-post stands half an inch below the left foot of the bridge: in defective ones, it may be placed rather nearer, to increase the strength, and assist the tone. The screw-holes must not be rubbed with rosin to tighten them: the best appliance is chalk. Some wise-acres pretend that a violin is to be improved in tone by breaking it to pieces, and mending it again! Others disturb and shift about the bridge and sound-post, till the tone is almost gone. Others again, with a taste worthy of Hottentots, have daubed over the “belly part” with a coat of glue, mixed with powdered glass; and some there are, who have tampered with instruments by an absurd plaster of varnish and white of eggs, under the unwholesome idea of closing up the pores! It is suggested thatfliesshould not be allowed to introduce themselves into thefholes. (Children say, by the by, thatf“stands for fly:” and, in the case in question, it standsopen; so there seems, at least, a pretty good excuse for the intruders.) The inside of the instrument is to be cleaned out once in six months, by means of a handful of barley, made warm, poured in at thesefholes, and well shaken. The beststringsare those from Milan (called Roman), which are clear and transparent as glass, and should have as much recoil, when opened out, as a watchspring. A very important article of requirement is good refined rosin: the common brown rosin of commerce is quite unfit, because of its thickness and clamminess.
The author, deflecting entirely from the prevalent notion on the subject, asserts that it is notage, but constantuse, that is the means of producing a smooth, clear tone. He lays it down as a position, which he has himself verified in various experiments, thatanyinstrument is to be greatly improved by working at it daily for three months together, with a strong bow—taking two tones at a time, fourths or fifths. This method of improvement, it is clear, must be somewhat costly, and infinitely tedious—but it is much recommended by our author. Hapless indeed must be the condition of the human being destined to labour at fourths and fifths, with a strong bow, for three months together! If such a system were introduced amongus, it is to be feared that the announcement of “Improvers wanted” would frequently be made in vain. What (we may ask) would become of theintellectsof a human beingsoemployed? As for the reasonwhyso beneficial an effect belongs to this peculiar practice, M. Otto has declined unfolding it—his “duty to his family” forbidding such divulgement.
Thus far, Jacob Augustus Otto—dismissing whom, with thanks for the information picked out of him, we proceed to other details, derived from other sources.
To the names of theAmatifamily already mentioned, should be added that ofAndreas, brother of Nicholas. These two brothers, as well as the other makers in that family, constructed instruments of a soft and rich tone, but deficient in thebrilliancywhich modern players regard as so great a requisite. They(the two above specified) supplied, about the year 1570, some violins of large pattern for the chamber-music of Charles IX, King of France, which are remarkable for beauty of shape, and nicety of finish.
Contemporary with Andreas and Nicholas Amati, wasGaspar de Salo, of Lombardy. He was especially renowned for his instruments of theviolspecies, at that time more in request than violins. His instruments of this latter kind, somewhat larger in pattern, have more power than those of the Amati; but their tone has been said to be too analogous to that of thetenor. Of a similar quality are the violins ofGiovanni Granzino, who operated at Milan, from about 1612 to 1635.
Another noted Italian fabricator, whose doings come within about the same range of time as those of Granzino, wasGiovanni Paolo Magini, who established his factory at his native town, Brescia. Magini’s violins are usually large, although he produced a few of small pattern. Their convexity is very positive; and the back is a good deal flattened towards its upper and lower extremities. The sides are softened off, at the various points of angular projection. A broad double fillet sweeps round the belly and back, and, on the latter, sometimes terminates in an ornament, situated near the neck of the instrument, and having the shape of a large clover-leaf. He made use of spirit-varnish, of a fine golden colour. The tone of his violins, less soft than that of a Straduarius, and less potent than a Guarnerius, approaches that of theviol, and has in its character a touch of melancholy. Magini’s instruments came (or rather, returned) into high consideration some years ago, from the fact of De Beriot’s having adopted the custom of playing on one of them. There are but few of them in existence. One, that was pretty loud intone, was sold, years ago, by an ingenious fiddle-fancier at Kensington, to Reeve, principal “Second Violin” at the Italian Opera House. It had been long in the possession of old Baumgarten, who was orchestra-leader at Covent Garden for forty years, and died at Kensington Gravel-pits.
From about the middle of the seventeenth to that of the eighteenth century, the Italian renown for instrument-making attained its climax by the productions of those two Cremonese “men of pith,”StraduariusandGuarnerius—or to give them their local names,Antonio Stradivari, andGiuseppe Guarneri. Violins—tenors—basses—all was admirable, that came from their hands; but they are distinguished from each other by qualities that are sufficiently appreciable. In the large Concert-hall, the Guarnerius has the greater sonorous power; while, for the combination of brilliancy with suavity, nothing can equal, in a private music-room (and especially where aquartettis in hand), a well-conditioned Straduarius.
Born in 1664, and employed for years in the factory of theAmati, Straduarius began his own separate career, by imitating their models; but, at the commencement of the eighteenth century, taking leave of his masters, he changed the proportions of his instruments—adopted a larger size, with a diminished convexity—and was as studious about the gradations of thickness, as in the choice of his wood. Nothing was omitted, that the careful mind of this artist could devise, for the production of the finest quality of tone. His instruments, nicely-balanced, provoke no unseemly opposition of character among the four strings. Add to these advantages, a graceful outline—high finish in the details—a brilliant harmony in the varnish—andyou have the accomplished, the completeStraduarius.
Giuseppe (Joseph) Guarnerius, the most distinguished among a family noted for the construction of bowed instruments, belongs, in date of birth, to the latter end of the seventeenth century. He is said to have studied his art in the factory of Straduarius, although the products of his hand shew none of the high finish characteristic of that maker. Hisbuildis often very slovenly; thefholes are cut almost straight, and with angularity about the ends; the fillets are badly traced—and, indeed, there is so little in thelookof his violins to proclaim the master, that one might be tempted to attribute their fine quality to the excellence of the materials he used, rather than to any bestowed workings of his mind. Close examination, however, has decided that he must have been guided by some positive principles, howsoever attained, and that his productions have an originality derived from these. Of his violins of the large pattern, there are but few: those of the smaller size, which are more numerous, exhibit very little convexity, and are thicker, in the thick parts, than those of Straduarius. The effect of his instruments is more gratifying at a little distance, than at “close quarters.”
The art under consideration seems to have gone on in Italy with hardly any change, since the time of the above two celebrated makers—their successors having been content with one or the other of them, for model.Lorenzio Guadagnini, of Placentia, a pupil or apprentice of Straduarius, copied the small-pattern fiddles of his master. His instruments give a round and clear tone from the first and second strings—but are dull on the third. He had a son, who worked atMilan, till about 1770, after his father’s mode, but with smaller success. TheGaglianiwere also imitators of Straduarius, but were far from equalling his instruments, and were not very scrupulous in their selection of wood.RuggeriandAlvani, who were among the copyists of Joseph Guarnerius, have produced good violins, but none that could attain the estimation enjoyed by their prototype.
Of the noted Tyrolese fiddle-fabricants,Jacob Steiner, a man of chequered fortunes, was the ingenious chief. Born about 1620, at Absom, a village near Inspruck, he had, as an instrument-maker, a career marked by three distinct epochs. At first, under the Amati at Cremona, he produced some violins of admirable finish, but now very rarely to be met with. Their convexity is still more decided than that of the Amati; while the heads, or volutes, are less prolonged, and broader in the anterior part—and the labels within them are written and signed by the artist’s own hand. Hissecondepoch is when, married, and settled at Absom, he produced, from 1650 to 1667, a prodigious number of instruments, constructed with little care. Even then, however, after languishing for some years in misery, and personally hawking about his violins, for which he could get no better price than six florins, he regained his position through some rays of aristocratic patronage that suddenly shone upon him; and, with his genius thus revived, again produced some fine instruments, distinguished by their scrolls, ornamented with heads of animals—by the close fibres of the belly-wood—and by the varnish of red mahogany-colour, browned by time. Steiner’sthirdepoch commences when, on losing his wife, he retired to a monastery. In that tedious seclusion, he resolved to signalize the end of hisartistic career by some first-rate doings. Having obtained, through the influence of the Superior, a supply of most exemplary wood, he made sixteen violins—the intended concentrations of every gathered perfection—and sent one to each of the twelve Electors of the Empire, presenting to the Emperor himself the remaining four. These sixteen instruments, whereof but three are (so far as is known) extant, have acquired the name ofElector Steiners. A pure, ringing, ethereal tone, comparable to that of a woman’s perfect voice—a shape of elegance—studied finish in every detail—a diaphanous varnish, of golden hue—such are the characteristics of these productions of Steiner’s third, or last epoch. Their labels, unlike those of his second period, which are printed, bear his autograph inscription and signature.
The imitations of the instruments of Steiner by the brothersKlotzhave reference to his second epoch, and are distinguishable from his own manufacture by the varnish, which, instead of being red, is of a dark body, with a tinge of yellow. From the pupils of the Klotzes, likewise, have resulted numerous Tyrolese imitations of the Cremona patterns—but always discernible by the inferior quality of the wood, by the duskiness of the varnish, and the want of clearness and power in the tone.
The high market-value borne by the best instruments of the best Italian and Tyrolese makers, is a point well known to those who take a particular interest in the violin. It has formed the subject of admiration to all, of exultation to a few, and of disappointment to many. The money that would buy a house, has been sometimes demanded for a fiddle! The subjoined passage from Mr. Gardiner’s “Music and Friends,” will serve (among other purposes) to illustrate in some degree this exorbitancy:—
“Mr. Champion, an Amateur, had just purchased a Stradivari violin and tenor (in one case), for which he gave three hundred guineas. They seemed to have been untouched since the day they were made. They were of a beautiful yellow colour, inclining to orange, and appeared to have ripened and mellowed into excellence. Mr. Salomon’s violin was the celebrated one that belonged to Corelli, with his name elegantly embossed in large capital letters on the ribs. Probably three such valuable Cremonas were never before brought together. There can be no question that the instruments made by Stradivari are superior to those of any other Maker in the world. Dragonetti’s double-bass was made by the same artist. Mr. Salomon, the Jew, has offered him eight hundred guineas for it; but he will not part with it for less than a thousand.”
As in their own country, so in others, the great Italian and German Makers have had their “servum pecus,” their crowd of imitative followers, who have sometimes copied with a plausible neatness, and sometimes caricatured with a coarse barbarity. The most prominent names in France are, successively, those ofBocquay,Pierret,Despons,Véron,Guersan,Castagnery,Saint-Paul,Salomon,Médard,Lambert(whose rough and ready doings got for him the name of “Le Charpentierde la Lutherie”),Saunier,Piete(whose instruments were given as prizes to the pupils of the Paris Conservatory, at the commencement of the present century)—and, lastly,Lupot, a studious artist, whose instruments, finished with a loving care, have a real value in the eyes of the discerning, and are in request where a good Cremona is unattainable. For oneof Lupot’s best instruments, an offer equal to sixty guineas has been known to be refused.—Of the English Constructors, a scanty knowledge limits me to a slender account.Richard Duke, who belongs to the middle of the last century, flourished in Red Lion Street, near Gray’s Inn Passage. TheForsters, old and young, grandfather and grandson, have, in their department of art, a name that lives.Banks, of Salisbury, also claims notice. His violoncellos (observes Mr. Gardiner) are of the finest quality of tone—not so strong and fiery as old Forster’s, but, in sweetness and purity, excelling them. Banks’s are more adapted to the chamber, and Forster’s to the orchestra. The names ofBetts,Davis,Corsby,Kennedy, andHart(all London Makers) are likewise entitled to respect.
Although the great Italian and German Constructors, who have so long served as models and guides, did unquestionably somehow arrive at certain proportions highly favourable to the development of beautiful sound, it does not appear that those proportions, observed (as they were) with mathematical exactness, were founded upon any clearly understood philosophic principles. “Until recently,” says Monsieur Fétis, from whose ingenious labours are derived some of the details in this chapter, “the art of making bowed instruments has perceptibly been cultivated, in turn, by inspiration, and imitation. Science, as an element, did not enter into their construction. We have now reached an epoch of transformation in this respect, though perhaps rather, as yet, in the way of establishing principles, than of attaining results.” Into this subject, it behoves us to enter with some particularity.
At about the same time as that of the publication of Otto’s little book in Germany, an ingenious Frenchmanmade known the results of some experiments he had undertaken with reference to theprinciplesof construction.M. Chanot, officer of maritime engineers, and amateur of music, professed to have discovered a method for determining invariably the processes to be employed in the construction of bow-played instruments.
His views are contained in a Memorial addressed to the French Academy, during its sitting of the 27th of May, 1817. This memorial was submitted to the consideration of the musical section of the Academy, to whose labours, in making the investigation required by the committee, were added those of MM. Charles and De Prony.
The first part of this memorial advocated the division of theMonochord, so as to split the interval between the key-note and its octave into twelve equal semi-tones. The short algebraic formula employed by M. Chanot was found correct. Thus, a violin with a finger-board graduated after this method, like the finger-board of a guitar, would be fit to accompany all instruments which make no difference between the sharp and flat through the enharmonic division. But the imperfection of these instruments precisely consists in this equality: to confine the violin to the same limits, would therefore be to deprive it of its superiority over them. The committee accordingly disapproved of this innovation, and M. Chanot renounced it with readiness.
The second and most important part of the memorial points out the ordinary construction of the grooved violin, with a view to produce more sonorous vibrations, or to multiply the vibrations in the fibres of the wood, and to obtain, as an accessary, a greater degree of solidity in the body of the instrument. Projecting edges and grooves were employed in the new example,and the angles covered with hard wood, in order to resist concussions. This simple form enables the maker to employ one single piece for the side curvatures, and to dispense with the use of blocks, which diminish the general elasticity. This construction was considered favorable to the production of some vibrations which otherwise would not exist. M. Chanot chiefly attributed the sonorous quality, in the vibrations of his new violin, to the method of cutting the sounding-board;—to the form of the parallel holes on each side, which were made to approximate as closely as possible to the curvatures, and were therefore straighter than what are called thefholes:—to the situation of the bar in the centre of the sounding-board, in the form of a splint—and likewise to the geometrical cutting of the instrument.
In consequence of these supposed improvements, there were, in an equal degree of thickness, many more vibrating fibres than usual, under the immediate pressure of the bridge. To give to the holes of common violins the form of the letterf, was regarded by M. Chanot as generally bad. The turnings of this letter render it necessary tocuta considerable number offibres, which no longer vibrate under the immediate pressure of the bridge; whilst, in thenewviolin, without augmenting the mass of fibres, the parallel holes on the sides allowed the attainment of the maximum of the vibrations.
The memorialist insisted on a certain simple principle, as having been confirmed by various positive experiments; namely, that thelongfibres are favorable to the production oflowtones, and the shorter fibres to the production ofhightones. This, he said, should be the guiding principle in the construction of instruments such as the violin. By fixing the sounding-post at theback of the bridge, the fibres of the sounding-board are divided into two arcs, instead of being cut in two on the side of the E string. This division is necessary, because, the high tones being produced on that side, the bridge acts on the shorter arcs like a small lever, whilst, on the side of the large strings, the fibres are enabled to vibrate in the long arcs necessary to produce low tones.
This explanation of the play or action of the instrument is rendered probable by the experiment of placing the sounding-post behind the foot of the bridge, on the side of the thicker strings. These, as well as the E string, then exhibit a greatly diminished power of sound, and the tone of the instrument is considerably damped. It was supposed, therefore, that M. Chanot’s new model, from the fact of its possessing in its texture a greater number of long arcs for producing deep tones, as well as of short ones for high tones, must produce, under a parity of size and principal dimensions, a more powerful effect than the violin of the usual construction, and must be better calculated for the performance ofsostenutopassages.
This theory, founded on principlesapparentlysatisfactory, received such confirmation from direct experiment as was held, by the French Committee, to establish the superiority of the structure of thenewviolin over all others. The ordeal resorted to was a hazardous one. Monsieur Boucher, the eminent player, was requested to bring to the sitting one of the bestStraduariusinstruments: and, to counteract any effect unfavourable to impartiality of decision, that might arise from the notorious prepossession existing for these fine violins, M. Boucher stepped into an adjoining apartment, and there played alternately the same passages on both instruments.
The whole committee, during three successive experiments, thought they were listening to the Straduarius, whilst M. Boucher was playing on the new violin, and,vice versâ, supposed he was playing on the new instrument, when it was otherwise. This repeated mistake—this double illusion—was considered by the Academy to decide the question in favour of M. Chanot’s violin, which, though made of new wood, partly of two years and partly of six months’ cut, sustained so perilous a competition in the manner described.
Thus, the mystification of the “authorities” was complete—but not so the ulterior success of the innovation, for it found no favour among the musical profession, and soon became a thing of the past. It amounted, in fact, to little more than a return to the old discarded viol shape of the middle ages, with its flatness of face and back, and its less indented outline.
A similar fate to that which attended M. Chanot’s attempt, followed the first experiments ofM. Savart, who soon afterwards devised, and with his own hand executed, another example of new construction, on principles which he considered philosophic. Flatness of surface, and straightness of line, were by him also adopted, instead of the curve and flow, which give beauty and distinction to the instrument in ordinary use; while the cross-bar and sounding-post were altered in position, and the two holes or perforations on the face were cut in straight parallel lines, instead of the gracefulfform. A more perfect and equable vibration was supposed by M. Savart to result from these new arrangements, and success was claimed for the innovation; but an interval of what seemed more like failure, was observed to take place, until, abandoning his advocacy of an ugly, bluff, box-like pattern, and returning to the beautiful andclassic proportions of Straduarius, M. Savart wisely entered into association with an intelligent practical man,Vuillaume, of Paris, a musical instrument-maker. Then—the long-studied and well-digested acoustic theories of the man of science being brought into operation, and tested in experience, by the skilful man of art, a brighter result was obtained—so much brighter, indeed, that there seems little reasonable doubt of its being possible, henceforward, to produce any required number of instruments, equal in primitive merit to those of the great Italian Constructors, and only awaiting the indispensable accession oftime, for the consummation of their value; nor are we much disposed to charge Monsieur Fétis with madness, when, under a lively sense of what has been already achieved by Savart and Vuillaume, he points exultingly to Paris, as the Cremona of the nineteenth century!
Into those deductions, drawn from his study of the phenomena of sound, which became to Savart the guiding principles towards the right construction of bowed instruments, it were too long here to enter;—but our English Makers would do well to look into those principles, as detailed in the French scientific journal, “L’Institut”—and to consider curiously the practical result, as shewn in the handywork of Vuillaume, whose instruments, to the number of more than two thousand, have gone forth into the world, to attest the value of the system that has guided his operations.
The adventures of this indefatigable mechanician, in quest ofwoodfor his purpose,—wood of sufficient age and capable of giving out the properpitchof sound—might fill a chapter. He ransacked Switzerland, entering into the meanest of her hovels, and buying-up the furniture or the wood-work of thechâlets, whereverhe could detect in it the right resonance, “les conditions d’une bonne sonorité.” He one day went so far as to persuade the curate of a small parish to let him take away the cieling of his sitting-room, and replace it by another. Making his way back to Paris with his “strange-achievéd heap”—his wooden wealth—he forthwith betook himself to the completion of certain machinery, by means of which, as it is asserted, he is enabled to form and hollow out, at will, a “belly” of Straduarius, of Guarnerius, of Amati, or of Magini—with a nicety which the hand, at its very best, can never accomplish. Resolved to omit nothing, he studied finally the varieties ofvarnish, till he hit upon the exact reflex of that clear, bright, most self-commendatory super-fusion, which we observe as the crowning grace of the fine old instruments.
Of the marvellous accuracy, as a copyist of the old models, that was attained years since by Vuillaume, there is amusing proof, in a story related by M. Fétis, on the authority of the great Violinist himself, who figures in it:—
“On his return-journey from a visit to England, Paganini, with dismay, observed the case containing his admirableGuarneriusto fall from the roof of the diligence. The instrument had sustained manifest injury;—but Vuillaume was in Paris; and Paganini, fixing onhimall his hopes, entrusted his violin to him, on descending from the vehicle. The repairs were made with all the care demanded by the beauty of the instrument, and the immense talent of its owner. Every minutest trace of the accident was obliterated—and that which had been the confidant of Paganini’s inspirations was restored to its full charm and power. Whilst yet the depositary of so excellent an instrument, MonsieurVuillaume was tempted by opportunity to make a copy of it—sucha copy as nobody might distinguish from the original. On the day appointed for putting the renowned performer again in possession of his instrument, Vuillaume went to him, and, placing two violins on the table, thus addressed him: “I have so completely succeeded in obliterating every vestige of the accident sustained by your fiddle, as to be quite unable to distinguish it from theotherGuarnerius, now beside it, which has been entrusted to me, and which bears a striking resemblance to it.You, who are well acquainted with your own instrument, will relieve me from this embarrassment.” At these words, Paganini changed countenance—stood up in haste—seized a fiddle with each hand—scrutinized and compared them both—and was struck dumb by their perfect similitude.Onehope remains;—he snatches up his bow—sends it dancing alternately over the strings of the two instruments—draws prodigies from each. Instead of dissipating his anxiety, this experiment does but increase it. He strides about the room—his hands are clenched—his eyes are on fire! Vuillaume’s triumph had reached its acme. “Compose yourself,” said he,—“hereis your violin!—andthere—is thecopyI have made of it. Keep themboth, as memorials of this adventure—and think, sometimes, on therestorerof your instrument!”
Fortunately, the probity of Monsieur Vuillaume is known to equal his talent;elsewere imitation, by so cunning an artificer, a very ticklish thing. Instruments of his, in fact,havebeen bought and sold, by musical-instrument-makers themselves, as those of Straduarius, or Guarnerius: law-proceedings have resulted; and Vuillaume’s own invoked testimony has established, bycertain undetected private marks, thathewas the real author of the instruments in question.
The services rendered to the musical community by the successful labours of Vuillaume, will be best appreciated by those who bear in mind the commercial rarity of the genuine old instruments, and the difficult prices at which it is usual to value them. Their acquisition, in fact, belongs rigidly to the rich; and it often occurs that the best part of an artist’s life has gone by, before his savings have enabled him to possess that which is wanted for the full manifestation of his talent. The substitutes presented by the hand of the modern Frenchman, bear a price somewhat analogous to the modesty of merit itself. Of their real value, the recent “Great Exhibition” in our metropolis gave connoisseurs the opportunity to form some estimate; and the conclusion arrived at is sufficiently denoted by the awarded gold medal. Specimens creditable to the skill of our English Makers, though not resulting from the like diligent investigation into principles, were also displayed on the above-named grand occasion. The names of Betts, Purdy and Fendt, and Simon Forster, occur in connection with these. Examples claiming notice on the convenient score ofcheapness, too, were not wanting among the foreign instruments there exhibited. The best of these were from the Tyrol—while others were of the workmanship of Mericourt, in the Vosges, a place which has been denominated theManchesterof musical instrument-making—and not without some show of reason, seeing that, for about four shillings, it supplies the fiddler with a complete instrument, strings and bow included! In the way of “a bargain,” surely nothing can beatthis; unless, indeed, they were to throw inthe case!
The latest improvement attempted in construction, is, I understand, a discovery patented by an American. It is designed to give greater freedom to thevibration, by omitting the end (or top and bottom) blocks, and substituting an extra bass-bar, which runs longitudinally in contiguity to the back, but without touching it.
The possession of a goodbowmay be readily conceived to be a matter of no slight importance. With whatever reason the art of making violins may be considered (with the exceptions noticed in this chapter) to have declined since the days of the old makers, it is certain that thebowhas been altered much for the better: so much, indeed, as to seem hardly susceptible of further improvement. The bows of Tourte, of Paris, have acquired a European celebrity. Their superiority lies in their diminished weight, with increased elasticity in the stick; in the beautiful uniformity of their bend, which is so regulated as to cause the nearest approach made by the stick to the hair to be exactly in the middle, between the head and the nut; and in the very exact and finished workmanship of the whole. Here, too, acknowledgment is due to the ability of Vuillaume, who has contrived a bow in which two inconveniences, attendant on the previous method, are remedied; so that the hand of the performer is no longer disturbed by those variations in the length, and consequently in the weight, of the stick, which arose from the necessity of making the thumb to follow the shiftings of the nut, whenever the bow was altered as to its tension; while the hair, firmly fixed to a kind of cylindrical nippers, is so arranged as to form a perfectly even surface throughout its length, and to be renewable by the performer himself, when he may desire it.
Let me point the termination of this chapter witha bit of cautionary advice, which, though it concerns bodies politic, invalids, and picture-owners, is not the less suited to the possessors of valuable instruments that require, through some casualty, the aid of a restorative hand:—
BewareofVampers!
BewareofVampers!
If, in some unhappy, incautious moment, you confide your cherishedSteinerorStradivarito the barbaric hands of one of these profane pretenders, its recovery is hopeless—its constitution is gone!
“Quæ quibus ante-feram?”
Characteristics of the Fiddle Species.—In thevarietyof expression, as well as in itsquality, the violin has often been signalized for its approximation to the human voice. Thefinesseof perception of a clever woman has discovered in that remarkable instrument, and its ligneous family, a yet closer approach to human character. The ingenious parallels which this lady has drawn are described by Monsieur Beyle, in a passage which I here translate from his curious and amusing work on Haydn and Mozart.—“In listening to the quartetts of Haydn, this lady felt as if present at a conversation held by four agreeable persons. She found in theFirst Violinthe semblance of a man of considerable intelligence, of the middle time of life, an accomplished talker, and equally capable of sustaining the conversation, as of furnishing the subject of it. In theSecond Violin, she recognized afriendof the First, who endeavoured by every possible method to draw out his brilliant qualities,—was rarely occupied abouthimself,—and kept up the discourse rather by his approbationof what fell from the others, than by advancing any ideas of his own. TheTenorwas a solid, profound, and sententious personage, who gave support to the remarks of the First Violin, by maxims of a laconic turn, but of striking truth. As for theVioloncello, ’twas a good woman, of a somewhat babbling inclination, who said nothing to signify overmuch, but yet would not be without her share in the conversation. She contributed a certain grace to it, however, and, whilst she was talking, the other interlocutors got time to breathe! One thing, with respect to her, was not difficult to discover—namely, that she cherished a secret bias for theTenor, and gave him the preference over his instrumental brethren.”
If these comparisons should appear too fanciful, let it be remembered that the subject is inviting, and might even be carried a good deal further. We should only wonder that Monsieur Beyle’s clever female friend, having contrived to make up so snug a little party, did not still further develop their capabilities, and explain, “avec circonstance,” thematterof their amiable chit-chat.Whyshe should have chosen, by the by, to assign to theVioloncellothe feminine gender, is by no means obvious. According to the general rules of proportion, which govern sex, it would be otherwise. Perhaps the creation of that instrument subsequently to the fiddle, as a help-mate to it, may have suggested this notion to our speculatist; but,n’importe; let us be content, rather than differ with a lady, to allow personification under the softer sex to the instrument in question, which may then figure characteristically, like one of Byron’s heroines, as