KLOTZ, MATHIAS, 1653-1745. Worked for about twenty years in Mittenwald, during which period he produced instruments of an unsatisfactory nature. He appears to have been aware of this, and with the object of increasing his knowledge, he undertook a journey to Florence and Cremona and other centres of violin industry. With his newly-acquired experience he returned to his native place and established himself in rather a large way.
KLOTZ, SEBASTIAN, son of Mathias (1700-1760). The instruments of this maker are a decided improvement, both as regards pattern and tone. He adopted a somewhat flat model and coated his instruments with a superior varnish to that previously used by the family. His instruments are highly valued.
With regard to the other members of the family, great confusion exists in the minds of writers as to how they stood in point of relationship one with the other. In name they are: George (1723-1797), Joseph (1730-1760), Joan Carol (about 1780), Michael (about the same period).
Spurious instruments bearing the name of Klotz or Clotz flood the market, and the uninitiated should regard them with grave suspicion, unless or until the advice of a competent expert has been obtained as to their genuineness or otherwise.
RAUCH, THOMAS, of Breslau. Made some very good violins in the early part of the eighteenth century. He worked on an original model, and made instruments noted for their powerful tone.
RUPPERT, of Erfurt, a maker who worked on an extremely original model. He made all his instruments very flat in model, and dispensed with the side linings and corner blocks, and omitted the purfling. The front and back tables were, however, made with due regard to thicknesses, which redeemed them somewhat from the defects above mentioned. The instruments possess a good tone and fine examples are highly priced.
SCHEINLEIN, MATTHIAS FREDERICK, of Langenfeld (1730-1771). Made fine instruments which, in his time, were in great demand. He made them too weak, consequently many of them are now practically spoiled by subsequent repairing.
STAINER, JACOBUS, born at Hall, near Absam—a short distance from Innsbruck—July 14, 1621, died at Absam, 1683. This maker is the most renowned of the German school, concerning whose early career the following account has been handed down. A priest residing in the district of Absam took a fancy to young Jacob, and had him sent to Innsbruck to learn the art of organ building under one Daniel Herz. This calling not suiting the youth’s inclinations, his master advised him to learn the art of violin making. Stainer then went to Cremona, and placed himself under Nicolas Amati, who soon recognised the talent of his young pupil, and took great pains in instructing him in the secrets of the art. He then quitted Cremona, and for a short time worked in Venice under Vermercati, who at that time was a maker of some merit. With an accumulation of experience gained in the best schools of the time, Stainer finally returned to Absam and settled there as a maker of violins on his own account. In the year 1645 he married a Margaretha Holzhammer, by whom he had several children. His renown as a violin maker rapidly increased, but for some reason or other he found it difficult to provide for the wants of himself and family, and he was compelled to travel about the country in order to dispose of his instruments. However, in 1658, he was appointed court violin maker to the Archduke Leopold, and in 1669 received the distinction of “Maker to the Emperor”; but all these advantages and honours contributed but little to raise him from his chronic state of poverty. He now began to experience some bitter reverses. A certain creditor of his, named Solomon Heubnar, with whom he at one time lived (Stainer left him without paying for his board) lodged an information against him charging him with the crime of heresy. He was seized and thrown into prison, and remained there six months, at the expiration of which he found himself utterly ruined and poverty stared him in the face. He was then persecuted by Count Albert Fugger for certain dues which it was customary to levy on court tradesmen. Stainer petitioned the Emperor to waive this claim, but to no purpose, his supplication being ignored, it is thought, in consequence of his previous conviction for the alleged heresy. Stainer then fell into a state of abject misery, neglected his work, and finally died out of mind. It will therefore be seen that this renowned maker worked under most distressing conditions, and it is a marvel that he was able to produce anything worthy of subsequent copying. Stainer’s house is still pointed out, and, it is said, the bench to which he was bound when mad.
Another story which has gained currency in some quarters, but in others said to be mythical, recounts that at the latter period of his life he abandoned his calling and became an inmate of a Benedictine monastery. Here, with the assistance of a brother monk, he contrived to get together sufficient materials for the manufacture of sixteen violins of great beauty. These apparently fabulous fiddles are known as the “Elector” Stainers from the circumstance that each Elector was supposed to be the recipient of one of these instruments, the remaining going to the Emperor of Germany. For information concerning the instruments made by this unfortunate fiddle maker, the best is that contained in the treatise of Jacob Augustus Otto, maker to the Court of the Archduke of Weimar, translated from the German by Thomas Fardely, of Leeds (1833), and since then by the late Mr. Bishop, of Cheltenham (William Reeves, London).