Books › De fidiculis bibliographia: being an attempt towards a bibliography of the violin and all other instruments played with a bow in ancient and modern times, 1890 › scan 126
Scan 126
De fidiculis bibliographia: being an attempt towards a bibliography of the violin and all other instruments played with a bow in ancient and modern times, 1890
7 lines. Read by computer on 29 August 2026, twice; the two readings disagreed in places. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1augmentée d'une | notice et d'un appendice donnant la | nomenclature des principaux Luthiers | du xv°. au xix°. siècle, la description | des violons les plus recherchés | leur date de fabrication, leur | valeur, les caractères à l'aide | desquels on peut les recon- | -naitre, par L. de Pratis.
3Brussels, 1885 A. Loosfelt. 12mo, pp. iv. and 12 and vi. and 230. one of two readings
4Brussels, 1885 A. Loosfelt. 12mo, pp. iv. and 12 and vi. and 230. one of two readings
6The Abbé Antoine Sibire was born in Paris in 1757. After various wanderings and vicissitudes, resulting in great measure from the Revolution of 1793, he became curé of the parish of St. Louis du Marais. He died in 1827. Fétis, in his Biographie Universelle, says of him:—"A passionate amateur of the violin, which he played very badly, he was in the habit of frequenting the workshop of the celebrated Parisian violin-maker Lupot, and being seized with a fanatical admiration for the instruments of the Cremonese violin-makers, Lupot confided to him the manuscript notes and observations which he had made on the work of these masters, and the qualities of their instruments. It was from these materials that the Abbé Sibire wrote his book, which met with no success, and copies of which have become extremely rare. The bombastic style in which he garbs the simplest observations is often ridiculous, but among the observations of Lupot are to be found some excellent points which are not sufficiently understood by violin-makers." The first edition (of 1806) is, as Fétis remarks, excessively rare, and the second, which is a mere reprint, almost equally so. The recent edition (Brussels, 1885), edited by L. de Pratis, commences with an introduction which is an amplification and criticism of M. Fétis' article, and ends with an appendix, dealing shortly with the makers of the Italian, German, and French schools. It is in every way inferior to the reprint issued by Jules Gallay, q.v. ante, No. 20.
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.