Books › Old Violins And Their Makers, 1883 › scan 95
Scan 95
Old Violins And Their Makers, 1883
3 lines. Read by computer on 30 September 2026, twice; the two readings disagreed in places. Printed page 81. See the scan on archive.org.
1made only five years before his death. To accept it as the work of Gennaro Gagliano would be a still greater absurdity; that would indeed be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I confess I do not see why it should not be attributed to the maker whose name it bears. We know, or believe, that Stradivari sometimes yielded to the caprices or whims of his customers, and varied his model to meet some expressed wish of theirs; and just about that time, as I shall have an opportunity of showing, experiments began to be made in the varnish, which resulted ultimately in an entire change in its character. What is there unreasonable in supposing that Stradivari (who had, during the greater part of his life, been a pioneer in his art) again sought a new departure? All his career was a growth. The differences noticeable in this instrument are—the arching increased, the rims lowered, and the \( f \) holes differently designed. These last are exactly the points which would be varied if Stradivari thought of reverting, or had been requested to revert, to something like his own early model. If, as we may well believe, he had a scientific acquaintance with the principles of his art, and wished to raise and deepen his model, the lowering of the rims and altering of the sound holes are precisely the points to which, I think, he would turn his attention, in order to maintain the mass of air required to produce the most satisfactory tone. However that may be, though Gennaro Gagliano has been credited with the manufacture, there is nothing to show in support of such a claim. There was a Nicolas Gagliano at Naples in 1777, as was shown by a violin, with ornamental purfling, exhibited at South Kensington. Ferdinand one of two readings
2made only five years before his death. To accept it as the work of Gennaro Gagliano would be a still greater absurdity; that would indeed be straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. I confess I do not see why it should not be attributed to the maker whose name it bears. We know, or believe, that Stradivari sometimes yielded to the caprices or whims of his customers, and varied his model to meet some expressed wish of theirs; and just about that time, as I shall have an opportunity of showing, experiments began to be made in the varnish, which resulted ultimately in an entire change in its character. What is there unreasonable in supposing that Stradivari (who had, during the greater part of his life, been a pioneer in his art) again sought a new departure? All his career was a growth. The differences noticeable in this instrument are—the arching increased, the rims lowered, and the f holes differently designed. These last are exactly the points which would be varied if Stradivari thought of reverting, or had been requested to revert, to something like his own early model. If, as we may well believe, he had a scientific acquaintance with the principles of his art, and wished to raise and deepen his model, the lowering of the rims and altering of the sound holes are precisely the points to which, I think, he would turn his attention, in order to maintain the mass of air required to produce the most satisfactory tone. However that may be, though Gennaro Gagliano has been credited with the manufacture, there is nothing to show in support of such a claim. There was a Nicolas Gagliano at Naples in 1777, as was shown by a violin, with ornamental purfling, exhibited at South Kensington. Ferdinand G one of two readings
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.