Books › The Hawley Collection of violins, 1904 › scan 45
Scan 45
The Hawley Collection of violins, 1904
4 lines. Read by computer on 28 September 2026. Printed page 29. See the scan on archive.org.
1lins of the period between 1730 and the time of his death, are fairly united in the belief that his sons, Francesco and Omobono, Carlo Bergonzi, Lorenzo Guadagnini, and various other protégés, contributed so much of their labor thereto, and evidences of their handiwork are so plainly to be seen, as to impair the right of these productions to rank as pure Stradivari. So eminent an authority as Vuillaume, according to Fetis, considered not only those mentioned above as having worked with Stradivari, and therefore partly responsible for the instruments turned out in that period, but also included Joseph Guarnerius del Gesù, Gobetti, Allesandro Gagliano, and Michael Angelo Bergonzi. Mr. Hart also includes Montagnana in the list. No one to-day seriously believes Guarnerius to have been associated with Stradivari in a business way. In so far as our observation goes, we must confess that no work of Allesandro Gagliano that we have seen places him in that class; indeed, we are inclined to believe that he obtained instruction elsewhere, and if he were identified with Stradivari it was for so short a time and in such a manner that he did not grasp the true Stradivari idea at all. Merely because we find certain ideas of Stradivari embodied in the work of all other makers, it does not follow that they must needs have served with Stradivari. On the contrary, as Stradivari's fame spread, and his instruments found their way into all parts of the peninsula, anybody was free to examine them and to copy such features as he deemed better than his own. As regards Gobetti, judged by his best work, there is much more likelihood of his having derived from Stradivari his inspiration and of having been associated with him. There are certain characteristics in his work, noticeably his sound holes, edges, corners, and scroll as well as his arching, which partake strongly of Stradivari. One thing he did not do that places him as an artist above other Venetians—he never, as far as we are aware, was addicted to the German idea as was Montagnana. And in view of the occasional unhappy productions of Domenico Montagnana, great artist though he assuredly was, we cannot believe that he was ever associated with Stradivari as a pupil. Much of his work is contrary to the basic principles of Stradivari's method. And inasmuch as there is no documentary evidence to support the belief, we agree with Messrs. Hill that it is an error to class Montagnana in the Stradivari school. He worked elsewhere, and probably received from Francesco Ruggeri or Gobetti all his inspiration, except such ideas as he may have gleaned from the study of Stradivari's instruments when opportunity offered. Michael Angelo Bergonzi undoubtedly worked with his father, Carlo.
3Reverting again to Stradivari and his work during the last seven years of his life, we express the belief, after careful consideration of the evidence, that he worked as he had all his life, allowing of course for old age and infirmity. There were days perhaps when he may not have done much, in fact nothing at all; then for a period he was able to work steadily at the bench. The imperfectly cut sound holes, defective purfling, scrolls that lacked trueness of curve and decision, have been attributed to one or other of his pupils or workmen, but this we believe to be a mistake. Our reasons for entertaining this opinion are: First, that a man who for eighty years had taken pride in doing that work himself, so in that long period there is not a single instance of any other hand being in evidence, and who jealously guarded his secret power, believing no doubt that his hand alone was competent to execute such important features of the construction of the violins which were to bear his unrivaled name,
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.