Antonio Stradivari, Chapter Two, Part Four

Chapter Two, Stradivari's Violins (Part Four)

Possibly Stradivari did make a whole concerto in 1696, but afterwards disposed of the two violins, replacing them at a later date. The fact, however, of the varnish of these examples being yellow and their general character much more in accordance with that of his pre-1700 work, adds weicyht to our belief that they were made about the same time as the other instruments of the set, though they were not actually completed and labelled until 1709. (We have observed that Stradivari did at times, though with rare exception, label his violins years later than they were made. We may instance (i) a violin owned by M. Blanchet, dated 1699, but made in 1690-92 ; (2) a violin in the possession of Baroness Wilma Boeselager, dated 1720, but which is clearly the work of 1702-3; (3) a violin owned by M. Luce, dated 1727, also the work of some years earlier.)

The number of inlaid instruments known to us is ten: eight violins, one viola, and one violoncello. The earliest specimen is of the year 1677; it is a violin of characteristic Amatise' type, which for many years belonged to the late M. Wilmotte, of Antwerp. The next in chronological order is dated 1679, the " Hellier" violin, which, besides its ornamentation, is remarkable for its large proportions and very heavy style of work - then comes a charming example of small size, dated 1683, formerly the property of the late Cipriani Potter. The year 1687 gives us a violin which has hitherto been known as one of the instruments of the Spanish set, mentioned as such by Hart in his book; but, as we have already seen, it could not have formed part of that concerto. Ole Bull, from whom it was purchased by the late John Hart, who sold it to Mr. Plowden in 1861, bought it in Budapest, and not in Madrid, as stated by Hart. (Mr. H. C. Plowden was a well-known amateur who died in 1867. The black inlaying is formed of composition, not ebony.) Mention is made of this instrument in Ole Bull's Memoirs; and no doubt the legend that it came from the Spanish Court emanated from that violinist, the reliability of whose statements may be judged when we read his assertion that this is the only violin that the master made inlaid with ivory and ebony.

1709 is the next date in order, and that year furnishes three inlaid violins: the two already mentioned, and still preserved in the Royal Palace at Madrid; the third belonged for many years to a well-known amateur player, the late Rev. John Blow. It afterwards passed into the collection of Mr. J. Adam, on the dispersal of which it found its way abroad. Its present owner is the Vicomte de Greffuhle. The eighth violin is the " Rode," made in 1722.

The 1722 inlaid "Rode" violin

Click to enlarge.

We do not assert that this list embraces all the inlaid violins made by Stradivari; in fact, we have in our possession melancholy evidence to the contrary. Some few years ago a very common old English violin, the belly of which, to our intense astonishment, proved to be that of an inlaid Stradivari, was brought to us by a curiosity-dealer of Norwich. How the belly came into such ill-assorted company, and what has become of the rest of the instru- ment, remains a matter for conjecture. It would be difficult to say which of four or five of these eight violins excels in merit: each has the characteristics of the period to which it belongs, and all have individual charm. Judged as a whole, the "Rode" would perhaps meet with the more general approbation.

The designs on the sides and heads of instruments are inlaid, with the exception of the last-mentioned violin, the viola, and violoncello, which are delicately painted. The depth of the inlaying is but slight, though sufficient to preserve the design from obliteration, even at those parts where the hand, coming constantly in contact with it, has worn the wood bare.

We will now return to the year 1725, and proceed to 1730, years in which we see Stradivari placidly plodding on: now producing specimens of an unquestionably high order, before which we stand amazed at the dexterity of the man awakening us to a sense of his advanced age. His productions are less numerous; the craftsmanship throughout less sure, at times wanting in truth and squareness, the outline of back and belly disagreeing. Yet how admirable are they in comparison with the works of many of his younger contemporaries! What a struggle is going on! Though forced to resign to others a greater share of the construction of his instruments, we find him still clinging to his beloved calling and completing an instrument on the label of which he proudly inscribes, in his own hand writing, "fatto de Anni 83." (The violin bearing Stradivari's label dated 1727 with this inscription is that in the possession of M. Leveque.) Representative examples of these years are those in the possession of:

Mr. D. J. Partello, ex Duke of Edinburgh, dated 1725;
M. Plotenyi, ex Ernst, 1726;
Captain Harvey, 1726;
M. Halphen, 1727;
The violin known as the "Deurbroucq," 1727;
Mr. F. Smith, falsely dated 1714;
M. Leveque, 1727.

In dimensions the violins of these later years vary between the 14 and 14 1/8 inch form, and are, as a rule, of broad appearance, though the edge and purfling, especially up to 1727, are not noticeably heavy. In some specimens Stradivari flattened his models to an extreme degree; in others, and more generally, he preserved the full swell of the majority of the 1720-25 instruments.

Both in wood and lustre of varnish they are but rarely to be compared with those of earlier times. His maple continues either plain in figure or of native growth marked by a small curl; the backs generally in two pieces, sometimes in one, or, again, cut on the slab. It is difficult to account for the absence, with but rare exceptions, of the handsome foreign maple. Was there for the time being a dearth of it, or did Stradivari feel that his declining efforts no longer justified the use of this more expensive wood? Whatever the reason, we note the change taking place.

Now, admitting that Stradivari was at last forced to allow his assistants to take a greater part in the making of the instruments dating between 1725 and the year of his death, the question naturally arises, Who were they that thus lessened the burden of the old man? We say lessened, for it is beyond any doubt that, to the last year of his life, he kept on constructing instruments with his own hands; and in order to elucidate this point we involuntarily turn for information to the various books that give the names of his alleged pupils. Fetis, on the authority of Vuillaume, names Joseph Guarnerius del Gesu, Lorenzo Guadagnini, Carlo Bergonzi, Francesco Gobetti of Venice, Alessandro Gagliano, Michel Angelo Bergonzi, and Stradivari's own sons, Omobono and Francesco. Hart mentions Lorenzo Guadagnini, Alessandro Gagliano, Montagnana, Carlo Bergonzi, and also the above- named sons; he also cites Balestrieri as a possible pupil.

The suggestion that Joseph Guarnerius was a pupil of Stradivari can be dismissed in a few words, as not a shred of evidence exists connecting him with his great contemporary; and we may add that we fully agree with Hart in assigning him as pupil to his uncle, Joseph filius Andrea Guarneri. If Gobetti and Alessandro Gagliano were pupils of Stradivari-which we very much doubt-then it must have been in the master's early days, as both were working, the one in Venice and the other in Naples, as early as 1700. Neither is there any documentary evidence of Montagnana being connected with Stradivari, beyond the mere fact of his calling his house by the sign of "Cremona"; nothing can certainly be found in his work which would lead us to believe that he was either a Cremonese or a pupil of Stradivari. We should be inclined to suggest that he was taught his trade by either Gofriller or Gobetti, and was probably a Venetian by birth.

Lorenzo Guadagnini may have been a pupil of Stradivari, though this matter, too, is shrouded in some doubt. Was he a Cremonese, or are we to believe, as stated by Hart, on the authority of the present members of the Guadagnini family, whose knowledge of their ancestors we have found by personal intercourse to be most hazy, that he was born in Piacenza? In certain of his works there are traces of Stradivari's influence, and we possess an original label, one of the only three ever seen by us, on which he states, "Laurentius Guadagnini, fecit Placentix, alumnus Antonius Straduarius, 1740-" We obtained this label, with several others, from the executors of the late Charles Reade, and on the paper to which it is attached we read the following significant remark: " N.B. At Piacenza it was easy to call himself a pupil of Stradivari -he dare not have said so at Cremona." With this characteristically terse statement by Reade we are rather inclined to agree.

Balestrieri was clearly a pupil of Pietro Guarneri of Mantua. Michel-Angelo Bergonzi, doubtless, was taught by his father. Hence there remain but three names, about which there can be but little doubt: the sons, Omobono and Francesco, and Carlo Bergonzi. They alone, as far as we can see by actual observation, have left traces of having shared Stradivari's labours, and that only in the later years of his life. Those specimens, which we believe to be the joint productions of either Stradivari and one of his sons, or of the master and Bergonzi, have often given rise to controversy as regards their authenticity. Stradivari himself seems to have sought to make a distinction by labelling them, "sotto la disciplina d'Antonio Stradivari," but in doing so he probably never thought that the time would soon come when the removal and substitution of these labels by more orthodox ones would prove profitable to the vandal who did it. Not only have the tickets "sotto la disciplina" been removed, but also those which were inserted in the instruments made entirely by Omobono and Francesco respectively, facsimiles of which are given in Chapter IX.

Furthermore, to complete the confusion, there is still a third type of instrument which has been similarly treated. At Stradivari's death he must have left, besides the finished stock of instruments referred to in Chapter X., a certain number, though probably small, of unfinished instruments and their component parts, such as backs, bellies, and, heads-the rejected of earlier days; and nothing is more likely than that his successors worked up these parts, adding what was necessary to complete the instruments. Hence, it happens that while clearly recognising in a given specimen, say, the back and sides, or perhaps other parts, as the work of Antonio Stradivari, we find that the rest, though more or less closely related, is made by a strange hand. The varnish and agreement in the construction proves to us that the whole was put together at the same time; nevertheless, upon scrutinising the label, we invariably find that it is a forged Stradivari, thus proving that it was originally labelled otherwise, probably "sotto la disciplina," etc.

It is fortunate, then, that the impress of Stradivari's work is as marked in his old age as in his younger days, and, notwithstanding the confusion brought about by this nefarious exchanging of labels, the few connoisseurs who have had the opportunity of studying the instruments dated year after year throughout the master's life, are able to distinguish, in most cases clearly, Stradivari's work from that of his pupils or assistants.

We are now entering on the last period of Stradivari's life. In 1730 he attained his eighty-sixth year, but was still hale and able to continue his daily occupation. That he thought man's allotted time upon this earth had, in his own case, well-nigh expired is evidenced by his having in 1729 chosen and prepared a resting-place for his remains.

No record exists of any other member of his calling having been able to use his tools at such an advanced age. The second Carlo Bergonzi, the grandson of Stradivari's pupil, who died in Cremona in 1838, is stated to have attained the age of eighty, but we know of no instrument of his dated later than 1833. Of Nicolo Amati, who died aged eighty-eight, we have already stated our belief that he ceased working several years previous to his death. In France, the elder Derazey and George Chanot, senior, both worked up to eighty years of age. Cuypers, the Dutch maker, seems also to have worked to an advanced age, which fact he frequently recorded on his labels. We have had a violin made by him, dated 1808, on the label of which he says, "zetatis sua 84." As far as England is concerned, we know of no makers whose longevity equals that of Stradivari. The Kennedys and Craske were probably those whose lives approached nearest to it in length.

Labels from Stradivari's later years

The instruments dating between 1730 and 1737 are of diverse type and character. It is impossible to suppose otherwise than that Stradivari's collaboration in the construction of instruments must have decreased from year to year as he drew nearer to his end; yet in the greater number of the specimens of this period we can invariably trace some part wrought by his hand. Others he apparently made entirely by himself, for we cannot admit that either of the sons or Bergonzi-who proved themselves, as witnessed by their signed works, to be, if not technically of the first rank, at least good average workmen-would have cut those palsied sound-holes, in which we discern not only the trembling hand, but also the failing sight-for instance, those of the "Habeneck" Stradivari, dated 1736, where the right-hand one is set quite 1/16 of an inch higher than the other.

Then there is the "Muntz" violin, on which sandpaper marks show plainly all over the sides (and the same is the case in some of the later-dated J. B. Guadagninis). The irregular purfling we meet with tells the same tale: the grand old man's hand trembled so much in cutting the grooves for its insertion that his knife played sad havoc in all directions, so much so that to have filled up the trenches it would, in places, have been necessary to use purfling of violoncello thickness. The sound-hole and section of the edge and purfling of the " Muntz " violin, 1736, pathetically portrays the veteran's work. The formation of the corners and edges is ponderous, blunt, irregular, and of square appearance. This is but natural when we consider the difficulty experienced by the old and enfeebled, though practised, hand, of bending the sides of the centre bouts with well-rounded curves; and it must be remembered that the curves of the outline follow those of the sides.

The modelling is heavy, full, and abrupt ; we notice the absence of that graceful blending with the fluting around the edge. The heads, while distinctly exhibiting the work of less skilful hands, are not so much like the work of an old man as the bodies, and we cannot but believe that Stradivari made a certain number in former years which he now utilised; we are also of opinion that his sons materially assisted him in this direction, hence the superiority of the finish of the one part over that of the other. The varnish generally shows, though not without exception, considerable deterioration. More often it is heavily laid on, wanting in softness of texture, and in perfect transparency and richness of colour. At times it is even of a muddy and streaky appearance, which but too plainly demonstrates that the old man's sight failed him both in the mixing of the ingredients composing the varnish and in the use of his brush when applying it to the instrument.

Some of the most representative specimens known to us of these last years are:

The "Kiesewetter," dated 1731, owned by Mr. Charles Fletcher.
The Violin dated 1732 Mrs. Tom Taylor.
The Violin dated 1732 the late Mr. Wiener.
The Violin dated 1733 M. Roussy.
The Violin dated 1734 Lord Amherst of Hackney.
The Violin dated 1734 Mr. Phipps, ex Ames.
The Violin dated 1735 M. Lamoureux(the late)
The Violin dated 1735 Mr. Hartmann.
The " Muntz 1736 Mr. Higgins.
The Violin dated 1736 Mrs. Sassoon.
The Violin dated 1736 M. Roussy.
The Violin dated 1737 M. White.

We are also acquainted with other equally characteristic examples of this period, but are unable to give their exact dates, as the labels have either been changed or their figures tampered with. The excellent instrument of that distinguished artiste, M. Heermann, of Frankfort-on-the- Main, is of one or other of these years--most probably 1731; also the "Habeneck" violin, that of Mr. Tangye, and the solo violin of M. Ysaye; likewise the "Kreutzer," owned by M. Doyen-this latter an admirable example in every respect. But only when we take one of these 1730-36 examples, and place it side by side with another of the 1710-15 period, and a third of the 1720-25 epoch, do we fully realise the gradual change which has taken place. The veteran has in nothing forsaken his principles of form and construction; he steadfastly adheres to them as long as life leaves him the use of hand and sight: in fact, model, form, curves, edges, sound-holes, purfling, and head lack nought but the power of execution and the firmness of hand of former years.

It is generally known that we rely for the date of the year of Stradivari's birth upon information gained through the master having recorded his age on several labels inserted in instruments made during the last ten years of his life. Fetis was the first to publish this information, and he based his proof upon Stradivari's statement "d'anni 92" written on a label dated 1736, found in a violin only a short time before in the possession of Count Cozio di Salabue. (Count Cozio makes mention in the notes left by him of the purchase of this violin, with others, in 1775 from Paolo Stradivari.) The Count, before his death, had sold this instrument to Tarisio, who took it to Paris, and disposed of it to the elder Gand in 1831. In the course of time it found its way to our shores, having been purchased in Paris from the firm of Gand and Bernardel, Fre'res, by the late Mr. H. M. Muntz, of Birmingham; at that amateur's decease it came into our hands, and subsequently became the property of Mr. Higgins.

The year of Stradivari's birth, as thus recorded by Fetis, remained uncontested until a few years ago, when Mr. E. J. Payne, in the article on Stradivari contributed to Grove's Dictionary, cited a violin dated 1732, then in the possession of the late Mr. Wiener, upon the label of which was written, in Stradivari's handwriting, "d'anni 82." The label, the handwriting, and the figures are undoubtedly original, and equally so are those in the above-mentioned violin referred to by Fetis; yet if the one version were correct the other could not be. Hence, at the time when Mr. Payne's article was written (1882), the matter was even to ourselves an unsolved conundrum, although one circumstance somewhat influenced us in favour of the statement apparently recorded in the Wiener violin. The figures 92 of the "d'anni 92" on the Cozio violin label are inscribed on a small piece of paper separate from the ticket itself; and why this should be so was at the time inexplicable, and very naturally gave rise in our minds to a suspicion that they had been written by other hands than Stradivari's, and probably covered the master's true figures.

As time passed on, and the instrument came into our possession, we, in order to elucidate the matter, decided to detach this piece of paper from the label, and, on doing so, found underneath, to our astonishment, similar figures, only the "9" was less distinctly made. We were therefore still further perplexed as to the reason for covering them. The explanation came a few years later, when we were fortunate enough to purchase in Italy a small violin by Stradivari made in 1736, and which also bore his inscription "d'anni 92," but this time entirely written on a separate piece of paper glued along the bottom of the label.

On taking it to pieces for repairs we availed ourselves of the opportunity to remove the inscription, and the key to the mystery was then found. The old man, proud of the fact of making an instrument in his ninety-third year, strove to record it in his handwriting at the bottom of the label, but his eyes being dim and his hand lacking guidance, the inscription ran downhill so much that he had to cut it through in order not to leave an excessively wide margin on the ticket. Unwilling to waste it, he again wrote down his age, this time on a separate piece of paper, cut it out, and glued it on the label over his first effort. The same explanation applies to the inscription in the Cozio violin: Stradivari, fearing his figure "9" of the "92" was indistinct, re-wrote both, and placed them similarly on the label over the others. Armed now with increased knowledge and strengthened convictions, we once more scrutimsed the ticket of the Wiener violin, and the explanation of it dawned upon us. Both Mr. Payne and ourselves had wrongly deciphered Stradivari's faulty figure "9" as "2." Read it "d'anni 89," and it tallies with all other inscriptions, as the master, though eighty-eight years of age in 1732, obviously celebrated his eighty-ninth birthday during the year, and this instrument was made after that event. The label dated 1737 is of quite pathetic interest. Apparently the master could no longer trust himself to add either figures or inscription, so this was done for him by his son Omobono (see the written label of Omobono for comparison).

The facsimiles of these interesting tickets are given in our reproductions. Several other instruments have been seen by us on the labels of which Stradivari recorded his age. These are: first, a violin dated 1732, "de anni 89"; second, a violin dated 1735, "d'anni 91"; third, a violoncello dated 1736, "d'anni 92"; fourth, a violin dated 1737, "d'anni 93." This last is probably the instrument mentioned by Count Cozio as belonging in 1822 to Professor Bertuzzi, of Milan. Later the property of M. de St. Senoch, of Paris, it is now owned by a distinguished Brazilian violinist, M. White. The "Habeneck" violin, referred to by Hart, we do not cite, as, though unquestionably of the latest period, neither label nor inscription is original.

We thus have eight records, all of which are in agreement, and we may therefore conclude that, with the clearing up of the one hitherto presumed contradictory statement, the matter may be considered as finally placed beyond controversy.

A few words as to Stradivari's precise age at death. Paolo, the son, in correspondence with Count Cozio di Salabue, states that his father died at the age of ninety- four years, in 1738 ; but in this latter date he was in error, as will be seen on referring to the extracts from the Registers of the churches of S. Matteo and S. Domenico in Cremona, showing that Antonio Stradivari was interred in the vault of Signor Francesco Villani in the Chapel of the Rosary, on December 19th, 1737 (see Chapter I.). Hart apparently assumes from this that the age given was also incorrect. We, however, believe not, as it is very possible that Stradivari had actually passed his ninety-fourth birthday before death called him away-perhaps only by a few days: he would therefore be in his ninety-fifth and not in his ninety-fourth year. The following is an extract from the registration of Stradivari's burial in the church of S. Domenico in Cremona. It will be noted that his age is there described as about 95:

"Anno Dei millmo septingmo trigmo septimo, die decima nona mis xbris. Deus Antonius Stradivari viduus, aetatis annorum nonaginta quinque circiter, heri mortuus, praemunitus SS. Sacramentis Ecclesiae, ac adjutus commendatione animae usque ad ejus obitum, hodie ejus cadaver associaturn fuit cum exequiis a me Dominico Antonio Stancari hujus Eccl S. Matthei Praeposito ad Ecclesiam M. R. R. P. P. S. Dominici Cremonae in qua sepulturn fuit."

Chapter Two, Part Three

STRADIVARI HOME