Gallery Article

Violin Making and the Ravages of the Plague

Nicolo Amati, the third generation of the illustrious Amati instrument makers, must have begun to assume a leadership role in the family workshop by the early 1620s. But his rise was interrupted by the plague epidemic of 1629-1630, the worst mortality crisis of the early modern period in Italy, which took the lives of as much as 30 to 35% of the population in Northern Italy.¹

By 1630, when the epidemic reached Cremona, the city had already been hit hard in previous years by a series of droughts leading to a desperate famine in the late 1620s. Many members of the Amati workshop and its clientele must have met their end as a result of circumstances related to the plague, drought and famine in the late 1620s through 1630. Both demand and production capability must have been impeded, which accounts for the lack of extant instruments from the Amati atelier in the decade following 1630. In fact, lower economic productivity was seen throughout the plague-affected Italian Peninsula during the years following the plague.²

The Rise of Nicolo Amati

When Nicolo Amati’s father, Girolamo I, died in 1630 amid the ravages of the plague, the 35-year-old Nicolo became the patriarch of the household and family business. There was no one else to sustain the Amati workshop and the entirety of the Cremonese instrument building legacy hung in the balance on Nicolo Amati’s shoulders during the 1630s as the city gradually emerged from under the cloud of loss and hardship. While no instruments verifiably built during the 1630s are known to us today, the world nonetheless owes a debt to Nicolo Amati for carrying forward the precepts that would ultimately serve as the inspiration, foundation and model for the most famous violins yet to be built.

By the 1640s the Amati workshop was again flourishing, producing instruments of various sizes, employing lavish materials and featuring unequaled refinement of construction details. The Amati business must have been growing again; by the 1650s census returns tell us that the Amati household had grown to include patriarchs of the Guarneri and Rogeri instrument-building families on hand to assist in production.

Competition Emerges

When Nicolo Amati died in 1684, the string instrument trade in Cremona was thriving but the Amati monopoly had given way to a competitive environment. Nicolo’s son, Girolamo II, was sustaining the Amati atelier alongside the workshops of both the Guarneri family and the Rugeri families, who were each producing original designs based on the Amati concepts. The emergent workshop of a gifted newcomer not directly connected to the Amati workshop, Antonio Stradivari, was beginning to shift the balance of power in the violin making community in Cremona. The new century would see that balance of power completely overturned as an explosion in design innovation of bowed string instruments took Cremona to new, bolder models and forever changed the music world.

A Fine Amati Example

Those bolder models owe their genesis to the example of the Amati workshop and instruments like the violin pictured here. Even by the lofty standards set by the general run of Amati production, this instrument is particularly remarkable for its fineness of proportion, precision of finish and sumptuous materials. Original construction details remain intact due to a pure state of preservation rarely met with in classic Italian instruments: The bottom rib is still in one piece and there is not even evidence of a post crack in the top let alone any of the other breaks and repairs usually in evidence on such ancient instruments. Much of the delicate, warm and radiant original varnish covers the instrument. This violin has been passed down to contemporary times intact through over three-and-a-half centuries with almost unprecedented care and good fortune.

Large Dimension Cellos

Prior to 1701, the Stradivari workshop built cellos of large dimensions by today’s standards, in keeping with standards that had been established and sustained in Cremona by the Amati family for three generations. Only a few of the large form Amati cellos have survived unaltered. Of the 25 pre-1702 Stradivari cellos known today, only the “Medici” (1690), now residing in the Instituto Cherubini of Florence, the “Castelbarco” (1697), housed at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C., and the “Servais” (1701) at the Smithsonian remain intact with their original dimensions.

That so many of the surviving Cremonese cellos have been reduced in size at one time or another has more to do with changes in musical style than with any flaw in the concept of construction. The innovative independent bass lines of the baroque style followed a long period in which the cello served the musical function of bass alone in the absence of a double bass. Large-form cellos built in Cremona prior to 1700 would have provided a highly desirable, deep and colorful foundation for an ensemble alongside the now–extinct “violone,” with which they shared octaves.¹

Without the support of a double bass, pre-1700 musical demands necessarily excluded more florid bass lines. For that purpose, tastes in cello qualities quite naturally favored tonal richness and support over a shorter size and stop length with the resultant ease in playing.

A Change in Cello Role and Size

By the beginning of the 18th century the evolving orchestral style increasingly included the double bass, which provided extra sonority for an ensemble an octave below the cello line.² This extra bass support freed up the cello part to take on a more complex role in ensembles. A consequent heightened expectation of speed and virtuosity from cellists then and since must have led to both the alteration of preexisting instruments and the development of smaller forms.

Stradivari’s Cremonese contemporaries, Andrea Guarneri and Francesco Rugeri, had already begun to respond to the demand for smaller form cellos by the 1690s with cellos of just over 71 cm in length.³ Stradivari’s response to these changing demands for cellos was more gradual; while the “Cristiani” cello is smaller than its predecessors, it is still larger than later Stradivari productions.⁴

While not yet a finished concept for Stradivari, the Cristiani’s body length of 76.6 cm marks a radical shift in concept from the 79.25 cm body length found on the Medici cello of 1690.

Stradivari Experiments with Cello Size

Stradivari’s experimental change to the form of the Cristiani cello was a portent of both a sharp move away from larger forms and of more radical changes to the form of the cello to come. While the “Servais” of 1701 represents a momentary step back toward the larger form, as the “Servais” is the last known large form Stradivari cello, from this point on the advantages of a more compact cello form prevail.

By 1707 or perhaps slightly before, the Stradivari workshop had begun constructing cellos based on an innovative reduced model known as the “forma B.”⁵ The smaller pattern of the “forma B” was Stradivari’s answer to the quest for a viable bass instrument that could also function in a solo role. Ultimately the “forma B” has come to be the model of choice for this member of the violin family; no other string instrument design has so successfully standardized the concept for dimensions of form, which is often referred to as a “perfect design.”⁶

Many of the most important “forma B” cellos have played an integral role in the legacies of top performers. The “Davidoff” of 1712 has been heard all over the world, most recently in the hands of cellist Yo Yo Ma and previously as the primary concert instrument of the late Jacqueline Du Pre. In addition to the reputed distinction of having Napolean’s spur marks on the ribs, the “Duport” of 1711 was the favorite instrument of the late Mstislav Rostropovich.⁷ In a testament to the enduring supremacy of the “forma B design,” the great French luthier, J.B. Vuillaume used the “Duport” as the model for many of his cellos.

From 1707, the Stradivari workshop appears not to have deviated from the “forma B” model until the late 1720s, when we see a small number of cellos of an even smaller size known as the “forma B piccola” from a mold so notated by Stradivari.⁸ The “De Munck,” cello made circa 1730, once owned by the legendary cellist Emanuel Feurmann, owes its slender appearance to the narrower “forma B piccola” model. The narrow shape provides for great ease of shifting in the higher positions. Famed cellist and teacher William Pleeth performed much of his career on a Stradivari cello with a “sotto disciplina” label of 1732. Built on a short version of the forma B, the “Pleeth” is somewhat square in appearance. The “Josefowitz” cello circa 1732, is similar to the “Pleeth” but is still a full inch shorter than any other known examples, leading us to wonder if the “Josefowitz” was perhaps a special commission.

Stradivari Cello Measurements (in centimeters)

INSTRUMENT/Date	LENGTH OF BACK	Upper BOUT	Middle BOUT	LOWER BOUT
Medici (1690)	792.5	364	248	465.5
Cristiani (1700)	766	355	239.5	456.5
Servais (1701)	791.5	363.5	252	467
Duport (1711)	755	340	228	436
De Munck (c. 1730)	745	322.5	213	416
Pleeth (c. 1732)	717	340	230	420
Josefowitz (C. 1732)	690	319.5	220	408

The Life of the “Bonnet” Cello

From the size and the unusual placement of the fully intact f-holes, we can surmise that the impressive instrument pictured here—the 1693 ”Bonnet“ Stradivari—began life as a characteristic example of a 1690’s instrument of the largest possible dimensions. As with the majority of large Stradivari and Amati cellos, at some point during its life its overall dimensions were reduced from the original to facilitate use in evolving performance practice. In the absence of any record of who might have done the actual work we can only offer observations about some of the choices that informed the alterations. The most common method by which one would reduce the size of such an instrument would involve first disassembling the whole cello, and then separating the center joint on the top and on the back to allow material to be removed at the center before rejoining the halves. This method would have left the perimeter more or less undisturbed in the center (the upper and lower bouts would be reduced to effect the new length), and the f-hole placement closer together than the original design of the instrument.

The reduction on the cello pictured here was handled differently; rather than removing material in the middle, material was taken from the perimeter, thereby preserving the center joint and the relationship of the f-holes which, as a result, look proportionately large and far apart on the now-reduced body. The remaining size, shape, and placement relative to the center, of the f’s are typical of the full sized, pre-1700 cellos.

Consistent with other early-period Stradivari cello scrolls, this example is at once majestic and elegant, with a fullness and masculinity that corresponds to the original grand dimensions of the body of the instrument as it was originally built. While the forma B cellos generally have backs of maple cut on the quarter, the choice of maple cut on the slab for the back of this one is typical for the early period. The top is of spruce of medium grain and the ribs and scroll of plainer maple. The varnish is of a brown-orange color.

As a playing tool, this cello is among the very best we have encountered. Even among Stradivari cellos it is a standout, with unsurpassed complexity and richness and a thrilling, visceral power. The alterations to its size leave it physically manageable, and the resulting combination of tone and playability is as remarkable as it is rare.

The Earliest Amati Instruments

To fully appreciate the exquisite instrument shown here, it is instructive to go back to the dawn of the Amati violin-building tradition, believed to be sometime around 1525, although a more precise date has so far remained elusive.¹ Prior to the counter-reformations of the Council of Trent implemented from 1563, church records did not routinely include births, deaths and marriages, making it difficult to verify the dates of key historical events.² From legal documents in the Cremona archives we know that Andrea Amati (c. 1505-1577), the patriarch of the Amati instrument-building dynasty, leased a large residence with a workshop and prominent storefront in Cremona in 1538–39.^{3 4} From this we infer that the Amati atelier was already well established and thriving by 1538.

The twenty known Andrea Amati instruments that survive today include several rumored to have been part of a set of 38 instruments commissioned by Catherine de Medici for the French Court upon the coronation of her son, King Charles IX, in 1560.^{5 6}

These instruments bear decorations of King Charles’ coat of arms, generally accepted as proof that they were produced for the French Court. To date no commercial records of any transactions have come to light and the exact circumstances under which those instruments were built, sold and delivered to the French Court remains a matter of speculation.⁷

Andrea Amati’s surviving production also includes instruments with decoration that plausibly tie them to a reputed commission from Philip II, King of Spain, who visited Cremona in 1549 and again in 1551.⁸

The Next Generation

When he died in December of 1577, Andrea Amati passed on his skill, knowledge, and an apparently successful business enterprise to two sons, Antonio (c. 1537–1607) and Girolamo I, (c. 1550–1630), who ran the Amati workshop as partners, producing instruments under the brand of Antonius & Hieronimus Amati, or “Brothers Amati” by 1580.^{9 10} As it went, the partnership did not last long and by 1588 the brothers were working separately and were untangling their financial ties.¹¹

After 1590, Girolamo I continued to preside over the Amati shop and to produce instruments bearing the Brothers Amati label almost exclusively, even though the two brothers had dissolved their formal partnership years earlier. Antonio also appears to have continued working using the Brothers Amati label after the dissolution of the partnership.¹²

The production of instruments labeled Brothers Amati still continued even after Antonio’s death in 1607. It seems clear that when the formal partnership between the brothers was dissolved, the Brothers Amati “brand” had value that was recognized, sustained, and traded on by both brothers.

The Success of the Amati Dynasty

By the first quarter of the 17th century the Amati name had been central to the violin making tradition in Cremona, and in Western Europe for nearly a century. The overwhelming success of the Amati dynasty in its second generation is borne out by the numerous surviving instruments of the Brothers Amati. The consistently high quality and quantity of instruments labeled Brothers Amati could only have emanated from a highly organized and successful commercial entity. That the Amati workshop reaped sustained economic success after the death of Andrea Amati is further supported by documentary evidence confirming that by 1627, the Amati household, headed by Girolamo I, enjoyed a degree of wealth.¹³

From as early as 1614, Girolamo Amati I’s son (and eventual heir to the Amati dynasty) Nicolo (1596–1684) appears to have been active in the workshop.¹⁴

Nicolo Amati Carries the Torch

Less than a decade later, Nicolo’s father would be dead, along with most his family and a large portion of the inhabitants of the city of Cremona; the famine of 1628–29 followed by the plague of 1630 are estimated to have together reduced the population of Cremona from a flourishing 40,000 in 1627 to a near–ghost town of 15,000 by the end of 1631.¹⁵ Nicolo would be the only luthier in Italy to survive the various waves of the plague that were sweeping through Italy in 1629–1631. As the new head of the family survivors, Nicolo inherited new responsibilities along with the business. Nicolo Amati was easily up to the responsibility of carrying the torch as the sole link between the old instrument–building traditions of Cremona and the greatness to follow. The rise of the Amati workshop led the way for ensuing development and expansion of the capability of violin forms in Cremona that would ultimately have a profound effect both on violin making and on the course of music history. All of it owes much to Nicolo Amati who, up to his death in 1684, singlehandedly carried the Cremonese tradition across the decades, training violin making patriarchs such as Andrea Guarneri and Francesco Rugeri among others, and paving the way for the great masterpieces of Antonio Stradivari and Giuseppe Guarneri “del Gesu” to follow in Cremona.

A Classic Brothers Amati Example

Such powerful models as the one used for the violin illustrated throughout this article don’t again show up in the Cremonese makers’ output with any frequency until Antonio Stradivari begins building flatter, larger forms in the 1690s. In this regard the Amati ideals are easily misunderstood; the “Amati Model” in evidence in the work of makers such as Cappa, some Venetians, and makers of the Low Countries and England is influenced by elegant, smaller, higher–arched violins that emanated from the Amati workshop, mostly from the 1640s and later, during the last part of Nicolo Amati’s highly successful reign over the shop. These are significantly less powerful than both earlier Amati violins and the later Cremonese models to follow. While smaller, sweeter sounding Amati violins do make up a large body of the output of the Amati shop, they represent only one concept among a number of Amati designs. That these are so often held up as exemplars of Amati is easily understood in view of the relatively large and fine output of Nicolo Amati in contrast with other members of the family, embedded within four generations of Amati production spanning the period c. 1525–1740, when Girolamo II, son of Nicolo, died.

This Brothers Amati instrument, which we sold to violinist Frank Almond, is a classic example of one of the most tonally effective Cremonese models. Concept and execution, materials and finishes are all exquisite. The large, bold, and powerfully–arched form make this a concert violin capable of filling a large performance space alongside the most famous examples of classical Cremonese violin making.

François-Nicolas Voirin (1833-1885) was perhaps the most important French bow maker of the second half of the 19th century. After an apprenticeship in his hometown of Mirecourt with Jean Simon (a relative of the more famous Pierre Simon), Voirin moved to Paris in 1855 to join the workshop of his cousin, Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume.

Voirin in the Vuillame Workshop

The heads of the early bows Voirin made for Vuillaume are reminiscent of Pierre Simon’s model, which he appears to have emulated successfully enough that his early bows branded Vuillaume were often confused with Simon’s until the publication of the seminal work L’Archet Français by the late Etienne Vatelot in 1976 clarified the distinction.

While in Vuillaume’s employ, Voirin successfully adopted the Vuillaume-style frog, with its rounded ferrule, faceted bottom edges, and curved tracking and underslide for seating the frog onto the stick. Voirin’s work took other experimental forms for Vuillaume, including a rarely encountered style known as the “Alard” frog design. This was resumably developed collaboratively with Vuillaume’s son-in-law, the famous contemporary Parisian violinist Delphin Alard.¹

Voirin was also responsible for the manufacture of many Vuillaume bows that included a Stanhope lens mounted in place of an eye in the frog, each with a view of St. Cecile (patron saint of music), Niccolò Paganini, François Tourte, Antonio Stradivari, or J. B. Vuillaume himself.²

Vuillaume clearly recognized and valued Voirin’s talent and contributions, citing him by name as collaborator for a number of bows featured in an 1867 exhibition.³ Voirin developed his archetypal, elegant head design while working in the Vuillaume workshop.

Establishing His Own Workshop

In 1870, after 15 years in the Vuillaume atelier, Voirin moved on to set up his own shop in Paris and began to brand bows “F.N. Voirin a Paris.”⁴ Once on his own, Voirin made relatively fewer Vuillaume-model frogs, and the heads of the bows became progressively more slender and elegant.

The three bows pictured above are representative of the consistently high quality of the later output of Voirin. Crafted after 1870, these bows are made with special materials and display the high style and unimpeachable technical prowess evident on all of the mature output from Voirin. The frequent use of special wood and fancy mountings during Voirin’s mature period are an indication of orders from clientele of means: such orders demonstrate that Voirin had, by this time, earned respect and status as one of the very best craftsmen of the day.

Viola bows by Voirin are rarely encountered, but the one pictured below is representative of Voirin’s mature style.

Voirin’s Legacy

If Voirin’s bows are generally less popular than the bows of Sartory, it is at least in part due to the greater variability in the weight and strength of his bows. Voirin’s bows are often lighter and softer than those of Sartory, and 20th and 21st century fashion has tended to favor stronger, heavier sticks. Still, Voirin bows have always been much admired by some of the greatest musicians as well as by connoisseurs.

Unfortunately for the world of bow making, Voirin died quite suddenly in 1885 at the age of 51. His legacy includes a great number of elegant and distinctive bows made to the highest possible standards, as well as an enduring influence on French bow making after him. From a technical perspective, Voirin was among the very best French bow makers of all time and his influence on the generation of makers after him cannot be overstated. Voirin’s gleaming technical standards and refined designs served as a model for many of the great craftsman of the late 19th and early 20th century, including those he worked with directly such as Charles Peccatte, Charles Claude Husson, Alfred Lamy, Louis Thomassin and C.N. Bazin, as well as the generation after, including Claude Thomassin and Eugene Sartory. The echoes of style and standards set by Voirin have continued to resonate through the 20th Century and beyond.

A Fortuitous Reemergence

The reemergence of a long unseen Stradivari violin of the most desirable form, in superb condition, having a first class provenance and a famously splendid tone, is a rare occurrence. Up to the point when we handled the sale of the 1710 ex-Vieuxtemps Stradivari, this violin had been in the hands of only one family for over 100 years and had remained out of view of contemporary experts. Consequently, photographs of the Vieuxtemps Stradivari of 1710 are absent from all of the major 20th century publications on Stradivari. The images presented here are the first modern photos of this spectacular instrument.

A Well-Documented Provenance

Published just after the violin was sold to Dr. Geissmar of Mannheim, the Fridolin Hamma catalogue of 1901 featured the 1710 Vieuxtemps Stradivari ahead of the much-heralded ex-D’Egville del Gesu violin in a demonstration of Hamma’s high relative regard for the Stradivari. Hamma’s black-and-white photos hardly do the Vieuxtemps justice and the catalogue is by now rare enough to have only been seen by relatively few violin book mavens.

Since 1901, a number of books have been published noting the existence of a fine 1710 Stradivari known as the ex-Vieuxtemps, reputed to have been the famous violinist’s favorite instrument. Doring’s How Many Strads? gives a favorable, albeit second-hand report of the violin.¹

The entry in Henley’s Antonio Stradivari and His Instruments is scant but makes an unverified claim that this was the violin presented to the French violinist Count Stroganoff at St. Petersburg.²

In Herbert Goodkind’s Iconography of Antonio Stradivari, our example seems to be confused with another 1710 Stradivari known as the ex-Camposelice, which is pictured in the book and clearly does not match the 1710 Vieuxtemps shown here. The two violins may have been confused because of their shared provenance that includes the Duchesse de Camposelice. However it happened, Goodkind seems to have merged two separate provenances for the violin pictured in his book and omitted the existence of the violin that is the subject of this article.³

From the meticulous records of the Hills acquired privately, we can reliably track the provenance of the instrument from their acquisition to the time it left their hands and until the time it reached Dr. Geissmar, from whose estate we acquired the instrument over a century later:

Mr. Hohenmensen, who is a banker, referred to Geissmar, the lawyer of Mannheim, with whom we did business some years ago, and who now owns the Vieuxtemps Strad, which we sold to Percy Woodgate for £800, and he sold it to Hart for £1,400, and Hart sold to Hamma for £1,500. Dr. Geissmar gave the last named 31,000 Marks for it, so the man who made the great profit was the private person, Woodgate, all the dealers coming off second best. When we sold the violin on behalf of the Duchess de Camposelice to Woodgate, I think we got about £100 out of the transaction.

There are other interesting entries in the Hill diaries about the Vieuxtemps Stradivari. The Hills tracked the most important violins assiduously, as they were always on the lookout to purchase back particularly special examples. In their diaries the Hills say, “A finer Strad or Guarnerius from a tone point of view hardly exists.” This is a judgment with which we wholeheartedly concur today.⁴

An Evolution of Models

Stradivari violins from 1698-1709 usually have a body length of 353 to 355 mm, upper bouts between 166 mm and 168 mm, lower bouts of 205 mm. Over time, the more scooped arching of the Stradivari violins from the early 1700s gives way to a more powerful arch, a precursor of the emergence of violins for which Stradivari is most famous.

Stradivari had ended his experimentation with the long pattern prior to 1700, and from that time developed and concentrated on variations of the size that has come to be regarded as normal. Stradivari violins from the very start of the 18th century are something of a hybrid model, retaining aspects of the more contoured arch toward the edges, characteristic of pre-long pattern instruments, but combined with the less full arch overall evident on the long pattern violins.

Around 1710, Stradivari began building instruments based on a new large and particularly bold model. Because of their overall size and powerful, less contoured arching, instruments of this type appear generally fuller and stronger than their more feminine siblings. The upper bouts remain fairly consistent between the two models with measurements not normally exceeding 168 mm. The lower bouts are expanded to a width of 208 mm or more and the length of the body as much as 360 mm.⁵ Whatever the inspiration, with the larger models Stradivari achieved a large volume of air space with a normal stop length resulting in a more readily playable model than the “Long Pattern” instruments.

Always experimenting, Stradivari had moved away from the large model by the early 1720s but over the intervening centuries, these full-bodied Stradivari violins have come to be regarded as some of the most successful violins of all time, both for their bold and timeless beauty and their robust, yet pure, tone. Some of the most famous and well-preserved examples of Stradivari large pattern instruments built between 1710 and 1720 are:

• 1710 Vieuxtemps
• 1711 Parke
• 1713 Boissier-Sarasate
• 1714 Soil
• 1715 “Cremonese”
• 1715 Hochstein
• 1714 General Kyd

The Vieuxtemps Stradivari Today

With a body length of 357 mm and upper and lower bouts of 168 mm and 208 mm respectively, the Vieuxtemps violin is built on one of the fullest, broadest Stradivari models.

The choice, highly figured maple on the back of the Vieuxtemps recalls the wood used in other violins of the period, including the King Maximilian and Scotta violins, both of 1709, and the Ries of 1710. Stradivari often made heads of less figured wood than on his backs, presumably for ease of carving and to save the most luxurious material for more prominent placement, but the head and the ribs of the Vieuxtemps violin are made of highly figured wood matching that of the back lending opulence to the final result. The spruce for the top of the violin is also extremely fine and the fiery red varnish is exquisite. Overall, time has been kinder to the Vieuxtemps violin than to many other surviving Stradivari instruments, and so as of this writing we can describe this extraordinary violin as being in excellent condition.

The tone of the 1710 Vieuxtemps violin is truly thrilling. There is reserve power in every range and no problem notes or discernable weaknesses. Perhaps most remarkable is not only how loud one can play on this instrument but how softly and beautifully one can play and remain audible. As a concert instrument, this violin is in a class with some of the greatest Stradivari violins we have ever had the opportunity to experience.

Leandro Bisiach and His Workshop

Leandro Bisiach (1864-1945) was one of the most influential violin makers and dealers of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He won important recognition and prizes in International exhibitions in London (1895), Atlanta (1895-96), Turin (1898), Paris (1900), Milan (1906), and Brussels (1910), and in 1905 opened and successfully ran a workshop that can be compared to the great workshops of J.B. Vuillaume and W.E. Hill & Sons.

Bisiach employed many of the finest makers of the time, including Ricardo and Romeo Antoniazzi, Andrea, Giacomo, Leandro Jr. and Carlo Bisiach, Gaetano Sgarabotto, Giuseppe Ornati, Ferdinando Garimberti, and Igino Sderci, whose instruments were made and repaired alongside a flourishing trade in antique instruments. The maintenance of an extremely high level of quality and sophistication was no small achievement in the context of 19th century Italy, which was normally marked by small artisan workshops that employed only a few makers working in relative ignorance of the range of possibilities in their craft. The Bisiach workshop influenced generations of future Italian violin makers and became an important point of reference for the whole of Italian violin making during the 20th century.

An Unusual Bisiach Instrument

This interesting historical piece, made in 1915, is probably a Bisiach invention despite its “old instrument” look. The closest relative is the viola d’amore, a multi-stringed musical instrument with a set of strings that are sounded by drawing a bow across them and another set of strings located below the fingerboard that are not played directly but vibrate in sympathy with the bowed notes. The sympathetic strings enhance the beauty of the sound, giving the viola d’amore a warm and sweet resonance that was popular during the Baroque period. Leopold Mozart said that the viola d’amore sounded “especially charming in the stillness of the evening.”

This instrument displays many of the same characteristics as the viola d’amore. In addition to having the sympathetic strings, it is constructed with a flat back and an intricately carved head, and is unfretted. However, its size (the back measures about 30.5 inches) is more in line with a cello’s. The viola d’amore is held under the chin like a violin, so we could call this a cello d’amore.

This instrument is a fine example of the high technical level that was achieved in the Bisiach atelier. The workmanship is neat and precise. The highly detailed carving of the head is especially beautiful, and the sound holes display both technical skill and aesthetic sensibilities rooted in classical style. The fine untouched original varnish is covered by nearly 100 years of accumulated dirt that has never been cleaned, so the instrument displays an attractive and completely undisturbed patina.

The original case contains a trade card that reads:

Quartetti d’Amore
Strumenti d’Arco di Stile Antico
Violini, Viole, Violoncelli (brevettati)

The word “brevettati” translates to “patented,” which would seem to indicate that Bisiach obtained a patent for the idea. It appears that he endeavored to make quartets of d’amore instruments. Two other similar instruments are in the Museum of Musical Instruments in the Castello Sforzesco in Milan.

The Instrument Maker as Inventor

The existence of such inventive instruments invites us to compare Leandro Bisiach to J.B. Vuillaume, who in addition to being an important maker and running a highly successful business was also a tireless inventor. Vuillaume produced unusual instruments such as the octobass and the contralto, as well as a highly functional steel bow, a self-rehairing bow, and many other inventions.

Like Vuillaume’s octobass and contralto, the cello d’amore has not had any lasting impact on the musical world, but it takes its place as an interesting historical piece nonetheless: a fascinating relic from the imagination of one of the great masters of 20th century violin making. This instrument was brought to the United States from Italy in 1915 by the family from whom we were fortunate enough to acquire it. We are pleased to have this handsome and interesting cello d’amore in our shop.

Makers from the Dawn of Violin-Family History

There is an air of mystery surrounding Peregrino Micheli Di Zanetto, a maker from the very dawn of violin-family history whose instruments are extremely rare today. His name, as printed on the original label in this nearly-unique viola, means “Peregrino, son of Zanetto,” but any knowledge of Peregrino and his father rests almost solely on their instruments; little hard information on the makers themselves is available. We ourselves have had extremely limited experience with this maker; the Peregrino instrument featured in this article is the first Peregrino we have sold.

What we know is that both father and son were instrument makers from Brescia, Italy, and that Peregrino was born c. 1520 and died around 1606-1609. Peregrino was, therefore, twenty years older than famed viola maker Gasparo Bertolotti “da Salo,” who lived from 1540 to 1609. Furthermore, Peregrino’s father, Zanetto Micheli da Montichiaro, who was born in 1489 or ’90 and died in 1560 or ’61, would have been active more than a full generation earlier than Gasparo and dead by the time Gasparo was past 21 years old.

Maurice Riley’s History of the Viola provides a capsule view of the problems connected with sorting out the genesis of the viola. He confuses the family naming, referring to the “Zanetto family” and using an inconsistent array of names in his discussion of them. In spite of the fact that early instruments are generally not dated (ours is not), he offers that the first “dated” Peregrino instruments were viols made in 1547, 1549, and 1550. If we accept this, then they would have been from Peregrino’s 27th and subsequent years, when Gasparo was only 7 years old. Gasparo, often mentioned as the first Brescian maker of violin-family instruments, might be too late to merit that title since Riley also lists a Zanetto viola, discussed below in this article.

This timeline places Zanetto—who was born 20 years before Andrea Amati and who died as Andrea Amati was just entering his prime—as a primary candidate for the earliest violin-family instrument maker from whom we have surviving examples. Although many early instruments’ makers and precise dates of origin are unknown, this raises the interesting question of who else might have been involved in the field at that time. As an additional point of confusion, Riley offers up a “Zanetto” instrument, specifying the maker as the father of Peregrino, from the “late 1500s,” when he was possibly already dead—unless the instrument actually predates 1560. Obviously, sorting out who did what (and when) is a challenge in the 21st century.

According to renowned British violin expert Charles Beare, Peregrino worked with his three sons, Giovanni, Battista, and Francesco, but no instruments with their labels seem to have survived, if there were any to begin with.

An Instrument by Peregrino

The exceptionally rare Peregrino viola in the photo above was originally much larger, as evidenced by the abruptly abbreviated arching and traces of the original purfling visible in the c-bouts. It’s now a nearly-ideal (by contemporary taste) 16″ length, and it has likely been that size for many years. The charmingly primitive head and f-holes are completely original. The interior of the back, which hasn’t been re-graduated or smoothed out, still shows the extremely rough workmanship characteristic of the interiors of old instruments. In spite of its age, the overall state is presently quite good, and a restoration done in the 1990s ensures that it will remain so for quite some time.

What form this instrument may have originally had will forever remain a mystery. Was it something we would now recognize as a viola with four strings but in a much larger format? Or was it some other, transitional, form with another configuration of strings? The originally arched back, as opposed to a flat back, and f-hole spacing both clearly distinguish this instrument from the members of the viol family and from more simply-constructed flatbacked early stringed instruments of various types.

We initially assumed the body was originally somewhat similar to a modern violin-family instrument. We noted the remaining bits of purfling in the lower corners meeting with concave curves at a right angle, implying the short, stubby corner of later Brescian makers such as Da Salo and Maggini; the f-hole spacing suggesting fewer strings than a viol of the time; and the original scroll being intended for a four-stringed instrument of some type.

Further research, though, indicates that this could equally well be an earlier form derived from the medieval fiddle: a simple oval with C-shaped cutouts in the waist for bow access and rudimentary lower corners. Similarly oval-shaped instruments like this do remain, and the shape is pictured in paintings of the time. Viol-type instruments of the early 1500s with pointed, violin-type corners (including the highly decorative Da Salo gamba in the Ashmolean Museum and the Zanetto instrument illustrated later in this article) have more extreme, longer points than the violin form eventually settled on. This could indicate that the present viola was not cut down from the early four-cornered type of outline.

These aspects highlight the separate origins of the viol and violin families. Not only is this instrument very early, but it also is distinctly different from the viols of the time. The shape of the body and head perhaps derive more directly from the wild mix of experimental stringed instruments characteristic of the late 1400s, forms which were transitory, unusual, and probably highly local in many cases, from which the current guitar, viol, and violin families eventually emerged.

One interesting point that we were reminded of by our research is that the viol, relative to these early violin family objects, is not an especially ancient form, though we often think of it that way because of its current obsolescence. The styles of the two families (including number of strings, back construction—flat or arched—etc.) evolved nearly side by side through the early half of the 1500s.

In fact, there are two ways to view this evolution. The most common is to follow the timeline forward, and in that context the emergence of both the viol and violin families seems quite logical, and obviously a result of two innovations: wider bodies offering greater volume, and arched plates, providing more subtle musical possibilities. If, however, one stands in the 1500s and looks backwards, a different story emerges: It’s hard to pick out definite structural antecedents for either family from the morass of unique and strange forms that characterize the fifteenth century, and wide, arched instruments are scarce. The years from 1500 to 1550 were a pivotal time for stringed instruments and virtually anything could have emerged.

One aspect is striking, though: out of all the possible forms that were current, the survivors were wide-bodied. They were loud instruments with broader tonal potential; narrow bowed representatives, such as the rebec, were quickly abandoned as the more sophisticated instruments gained wider acceptance.

In spite of their age, ancient violas such as this one are considered highly desirable by players, and many of the surviving da Salos are used regularly in performance. Several of the known examples of both Zanetto and Peregrino—there may be a total of fewer than ten violas surviving from these two makers—are housed in museums, so it’s quite rare for one to come on the market.

The tone of this particular instrument is fascinating. Owing to its original heavy graduations in the back, particularly in the lower bout, setup of this viola is a tricky matter. Once all of the variables are put right, however, the tone of the instrument takes on a haunting beauty. It does not have the traditional “full-throttle” type of tone, but rather possesses a penetrating sound of infinite complexity. The instrument is slow to respond and requires skill to coax out its best sounds, but the deft violist is well rewarded for the effort.

An Instrument by Zanetto, Father of Peregrino

Illustrated above is an instrument attributed to Peregrino’s father, Zanetto, that is currently in daily use. This is an arched-back, viol-shaped instrument, with characteristically long early corners and sloped shoulders, now arranged as a viola. The f-hole setting seems obviously positioned for a wider bridge than for a four-stringed instrument, and the proportions of the head imply that some length (and extra pegholes) have been cut off. The outer bouts, upper and lower, have both been cut so the precise original shape has been lost, but the central area is pristine and very beautiful.

There is a considerable amount of well-preserved original varnish, which is very reminiscent of the best of Cremonese varnish from around 1700, both in texture and color!

Further Study

A handful of Micheli family instruments are in use by musicians, and accessible examples by this family are:

• A Zanetto viol in the Musée Royal of the Brussels Conservatory
• A Zanetto viol and a Peregrino viola in the National Music Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota
• Viols attributed to Peregrino in the Musée de la Musique, Paris
• A viola owned by the Chi-Mei Cultural Foundation, Tainan, Taiwan

For more information on the evolution of the viola, see:

• The Early History of the Viol, Ian Woodfield (Cambridge University Press)
• Un corpo alla ricerca dell’anima…Andrea Amatie la nascita del violino, Consorzio Liutai Antonio Stradivari Cremona (Exhibition catalogue of the 2005 Andrea Amati Exhibition in Cremona)
• The History of the Viola, Volume II, Maurice Riley

The vast output from the Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume atelier—reportedly 4,000 instruments—is most remarkable for the consistent quality of that output. J.B. Vuillaume’s rigorous quality control can be felt in every aspect of the Vuillaume line. From the St. Cecile violins to the bows produced for the shop by the best makers of the day, all of the craftsmen employed by Vuillaume were at their best while working for the Vuillaume enterprise.

Because all of this productivity and success, Vuillaume violins are not as rare today as the work of many other makers, but the quality and consistency of Vuillaumes is such that they are in great demand nonetheless. Authentic J.B. Vuillaume violins of the Guarneri and Strad types do not languish in the inventory of dealers worldwide.

There are relatively few Vuillaume cellos, and while they are sought after, they don’t enjoy quite the reputation of the best Vuillaume Strad and del Gesu model violins.

Rarer still are Vuillaume violas. Most are of the smaller dimensions that were in fashion during the middle of the 19th century. With body lengths less than 16 inches and relatively low rib heights these don’t have internal air space that would be considered optimal for tone by today’s standards, and not surprisingly, Vuillaume violas have the reputation among players of being “squeaky.”

The viola pictured here is a rare and notable exception. Built in 1859, this instrument is, in all regards, a Vuillaume of the highest order. With a body length of 16 11/32 inches and rib heights between 34 and 36mm, this Stradivari-model viola is an ideal size for comfort and tone by today’s standards. The superior dimensions are in clear evidence in the sound of the instrument: it is deep, ringing, sonorous, and even from top to bottom. The wood selection is first rate, the varnish is of the highest quality, and the instrument remains today in nearly unused condition.

This viola came to us directly from an estate: the last owner purchased it from the firm of William Lewis & Son, here in Chicago, in the early 1960’s. Pages from the William Lewis & Son pamphlet reproduced here show the same viola (number 2315) pictured over 40 years ago and establish an unbroken provenance for the instrument right back to J.B. Vuillaume.

With our collective experience of over 80 years in the field, we know of no other French viola that is as desirable from a tonal or collectible point of view.