The father of Guarneri del Gesù, namely Gio. Battista, was the son of Bernardo, a cousin of Andrea Guarneri. He does not appear to have had any knowledge of the manufacture of stringed instruments, and was thus an exception to the majority of a family which numbered many prominent makers within it. It has been asserted on all sides that Giuseppe Guarneri del Gesù was a pupil of Antonio Stradivari, but in every case this statement has been made without a shadow of proof, either from recorded fact or analogy. That this bare assertion should have so long remained unchallenged is a matter of some surprise to the writer of these pages, who fails to see anything in common between the two makers, with the exception of the varnish, and perhaps the high finish, as apparent in the works of the second epoch of Guarneri. The following remarks on this point are the result of the most careful consideration of the subject, and may serve to assist the reader in forming an opinion.
Had Giuseppe Guarneri received his early instructions from Stradivari, should we not expect his instruments to bear the character of the master in some slight degree? The most diligent student will, however, fail to discover an early work of Guarneri bearing any likeness whatever to the work of Stradivari. Among the instruments of the second epoch may be found a few that show some gleam of the desired similarity in respect of high finish; but it would be to the earliest efforts of Guarneri that we should turn in our endeavour to discover the source of his first instructions. The faint gleam of similarity, then, attaching to the instruments of the second epoch, be it understood, is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that Guarneri was a pupil of Stradivari. Upon turning to other makers, what will be the result if we judge them by the criterion above mentioned? Bergonzi, Guadagnini, Gagliano, and others, whose names it is unnecessary to mention, leave upon their earliest efforts the indelible stamp of the master who first instructed them. To suppose that Guarneri del Gesù formed the single exception to the likeness between the work of master and pupil, is scarcely sufficient to satisfy the inquiry.
There are three essential points of difference between Guarneri and Stradivari. The first is the outline of the work, which, as the mere tyro must at once observe, is totally different in their respective instruments. The second is the sound-hole, in which, again, the two do not approach one another; that of Guarneri is long, and a modified form of that of Gasparo da Salò. The third is the scroll, in which Guarneri is as distinct from Stradivari as it is possible to be.
It may be asked, then, if not from Stradivari, from whom did Guarneri receive instruction?10 To disagree with what is popularly accepted, and yet to withhold one's own counter-theory, may perhaps tend to weaken one's case. There can be but one method to be pursued if, in the absence of any historical data, we set about the investigation of the question, viz., that of analogy. Starting upon this ground, the first step to be taken is to endeavour to discover the maker whose work and style bear some degree of similarity to those of Giuseppe del Gesù. If we carefully review the works of the Cremonese makers, it will be found that Giuseppe Guarneri, son of Andrea, and a relative of Guarneri del Gesù, is the only maker in whose productions we can find the strong similarity needed. Analogy, therefore, would point to him as the instructor of his kinsman. Giuseppe Guarneri, son of Andrea, was del Gesù's senior by many years, and it is far more reasonable to conclude that it was in his workshop that del Gesù was first instructed, than that he was the pupil of a maker whose work he never copied, and whose style has nothing in common with his own. Enough has been said on this question to enable the reader to judge for himself, and this may the more readily be conceded when it is also admitted that, after all, it is of little importance to determine where the early training of this kingly maker was passed, as he so soon displayed that rare originality which separated him from his brethren for ever.
10 The evidence—if indeed it is to be characterised as such—upon which it has been recently asserted that del Gesù was a pupil of Andreas Gisalberti is so trivial and altogether unconvincing that it seems unsuitable for discussion or analysis in a serious work of reference.—EDITORS.
|
GIUSEPPE GUARNERI. Date 1742. (LATE H. B. HEATH, ESQ.) |
|
ANTONIO STRADIVARI. Date 1711. (LATE R. D. HAWLEY, ESQ.) |
|
ANTONIO STRADIVARI. Date 1703. (J. S. COOKE, ESQ.) Plate VIII. |
We will now inquire into the character of Guarneri del Gesù's model. In forming this, he seems to have turned to Gasparo da Salò as the maker whose lead he wished to follow; and if each point be critically considered, an impression is left that, after well weighing the merits and demerits of Gasparo's model, he resolved to commence where Gasparo ceased, and carry out the plan left incomplete by the great Brescian maker. To commence with that all-important element the sound-hole, it will be seen that Guarneri del Gesù retained its pointed form. Next comes the outline of the body, where, again, there is much affinity to the type of Gasparo da Salò, particularly in the middle bouts. Lastly, the quality of wood selected for the bellies is in both makers similar. In continuing the path trodden by Gasparo, Guarneri proved himself an artist possessed of no little discernment. His chief desire was evidently to make instruments capable of producing a quality of tone hitherto unknown, and that he succeeded is universally acknowledged. Workmanship, as evidenced by the instruments of his first and last epoch, was with him a purely secondary consideration. In the second epoch, his work shows him to have been not unmindful of it. That he brought much judgment to bear upon his work, the vast number of instruments that he has left and the great variety of their construction are sufficient to prove. The extent of his researches is surprising, and there is no ground for the assertion frequently made that he worked without plan or reason. The idea that such a maker as Guarneri groped in the dark savours of the ridiculous; moreover, there is direct evidence, on the contrary, of his marvellous fertility of design. At one period his instruments are extremely flat, without any perceptible rise; at another, the form is raised in a marked manner and the purfling sunk into a groove; a parallel of this type of instrument is to be found in the works of Pietro Guarneri and Montagnana. At one time his sound-holes were cut nearly perpendicularly (a freak which, by the way, has some show of reason, for though it sacrifices beauty, it also prevents the breaking up of the fibres), at another shortened and slanting, and some, again, are occasionally seen immoderately long. These hastily-marshalled instances are quite sufficient to show the extent of his experiments, and the many resources which he adopted in order to produce exceptional qualities of tone.
In order that the reader may better understand the subject, before going farther into the peculiar features belonging to the instruments of Guarneri, we will classify his work. M. Fétis, doubtless under the guidance of M. Vuillaume, has divided the career of Guarneri into three periods—an excellent arrangement, and one that cannot be improved upon. It only remains to point out certain peculiarities omitted in the description of these three stages which M. Fétis gives us. In the first epoch we find instruments of various patterns, the character of the sound-holes being very changeable. At one time there is a strange mixture of grace and boldness; at another the whole is singularly deformed, and the purfling roughly executed, as though the maker had no time to finish his work properly. It seems as if he had hastily finished off a set of Violins that he had already tested, eager to lay the stocks for another fresh venture. The second epoch has given us some of the finest specimens of the art of Violin-making. In these culminate the most exquisite finish, a thoroughly artistic and original form, and the most handsome material. In some cases the lustre of the wood of the backs, set in its casing of deep amber, that unrivalled varnish, may be likened to the effect produced by the setting summer sun on cloud and wave. The reader may pardon a somewhat novel application of the loveliest description of the glow of evening to be found in the compass of the English language, which paints the heavens' colours as—
|
"Melted to one vast iris of the west, Where the day joins the past eternity. ... All its hues, From the rich sunset to the rising star, Their magical variety diffuse. And now they change; a paler shadow strews Its mantle o'er the mountains; parting day Dies like the dolphin, whom each pang imbues With a new colour as it gasps away, The last still loveliest, till—'tis gone—and all is grey." |