Books › The Salabue Stradivari. A history and critical description of the famous violin, commonly called "le Messie." Containing many particulars obtained from authentic sources and now published for the first time, 1891 › scan 12
Scan 12
The Salabue Stradivari. A history and critical description of the famous violin, commonly called "le Messie." Containing many particulars obtained from authentic sources and now published for the first time, 1891
6 lines. Read by computer on 3 September 2026. No printed page number was found. See the scan on archive.org.
1The title at the head of the enthusiastic description above quoted sufficed in itself to excite the great interest exhibited by the musical public in this celebrated instrument. They saw for the first time a violin, long known to them by repute, which, partly by design and partly by accident, had been surrounded with a certain halo of romantic mystery, ever since its existence had first been asserted, and long before the instrument itself had been actually inspected by any of the recognised experts of England or France. As will be seen later, the title was conferred upon it in connection with its long deferred production to the musical world.
3The extraordinary industry of the great master Antonio Stradivari is well known. Notwithstanding the minute care and precision which characterised his work, he may safely be credited with the construction of not less than two thousand instruments during his long and active life. We have evidence that he remained at his bench to the very end of his days, for in a document to which further reference is made below we find mention of a perfect instrument bearing date 1736, with his age, inscribed with his own hand upon the label as ninety-two.*
5* The article on Stradivari in Grove's Dictionary of Music assigns eighty-eight as the maker's age at his death, but the evidence of Count Salabue, quoted at p. 12, confirmed by further evidence lately obtained from authentic instruments of this maker, point to the conclusion that he lived certainly to 1737, when he had entered his ninety-fourth year. This conclusion refers his birth to the year 1644, which would accord more naturally with the events of his life than the later date suggested in Grove. This question will be treated more fully in a future publication.
The computer misreads some letters and numbers. Where a name matters to you, read the scan.