That the length, thickness and disposition of the bar has much to do with the good going order of every violin there is no disputing. Stradivari did not live long enough to make acquaintance with the numberless proposals for acquiring his quality by making this part longer, shorter, thicker, or thinner, besides various modes of attachment. That some of them would have raised a smile on the features of the veteran Cremonese, we may be quite sure. That he was quite content with the size of the bar in general use during his life-time there can be no doubt, as there is no record or evidence of any experiments having been made by him, fair argument that none were considered necessary; the instruments finished, the ordinary bar of the period was inserted and there was an end. The whole of the interior indicates an absence of any question of improvement on what had been done before by his master Nicolas Amati and his predecessors, apart from good finish.
A few words as to the thickness of the upper and lower tables. Of this much has been written, an extremely small portion being from actual observation, and most of the other parts being reiterated assertions started many years back by people whose supposed knowledge rested solely upon simple conviction, without an iota of bona fide evidence in support. To them the fact, well known to everyone engaged in the manufacture of sound-boards of musical instruments, that a very thick sound-board produces different results to that of a very thin one, was sufficient, therefore the secret of Stradivari with regard to his tone, was "the adjustment of the thicknesses," whatever that may mean. The assertion seeming perhaps rather bare, and wanting some sort of support, was bolstered up with another no less instructive, that if you "pinged," or tapped the separated upper and lower tables of a Stradivari so that they each gave out a note there would be found the difference of a tone between them! Here was something for the "babes and sucklings" of the craft of violin making to swallow. It was stated also which table would give the higher tone. Unfortunately for some would-be Stradivaris, the particulars of the tonal difference were copied loosely and reversed and so came "confusion worse confounded."
The illustrations of sound holes, or f f commonly so called, will, it is hoped, be interesting as showing the modification or development from those of Nicolas Amati to the latter part of the period of Stradivari's career, called "the grand." They are all reproduced from fine specimens of the great Cremonese masters, and are the exact size of the originals. The first (a) shows the f of a violin of the Nicolas Amati's late period, 1663, unaffected—at least in this detail—by the individuality of his hereafter eminent pupil. (b) While still going under the name of Nicolas Amati, 1678, the f shows the actual interference of Stradivari, it is more vertical, but the peculiarities of the upper and lower wings are retained. (c) 1684. The design is quite changed, there is some return to the flow or inclination of Amati, but the whole thing is more extended, is slender, and the upper and lower wings are widened, this modification was retained for a permanency. (d) 1690. There is some return to the vertical design, but the width of the wings is retained, while the lower part of the design is of larger proportions. (e) 1700. The design is more equalised and is more substantial. (f) 1715. The same proportions are kept with an increase of gracefulness. It will be perceived the lower wing approaches at its lowest part the opposing curve more closely, the upper one likewise; in some specimens of this period it is still closer. (g) 1725. While the upper part is very like the preceding, the lower part is more contracted and curled up. There is a somewhat heavier expression about the upper part in consequence.
SEE PAGE [48.]
SEE PAGE [48.]
History does not relate which of those parties who may have practically followed up the experiments were successful in arriving at the goal of their ambition; they may even still be continuing the struggle for supremacy with their master.
We have not to look far for ascertaining whether these assertions have borne fruit. There has been time enough for works built upon these so-called discoveries of fixed principles to have settled down, and the popular verdict now is—that those which guided Antonio Stradivari have yet to be discovered. The numbers of announcements of fresh discoveries—repeated ad nauseam—are in themselves some evidence that what has gone before was founded on deceptive evidence, and therefore to begin anew was the only course left.
The illustrations of scrolls by Nicolas Amati and Antonio Stradivari, being from good specimens by the masters, will be interesting as showing the progression of the modification in detail under the hands of the latter. In fig. a, Nicolas Amati, c. 1670, it will be seen that the first or smallest turn after leaving the axis or "eye" is kept for some distance rather close. Every effort seems to have been made for keeping the turns or winding from being too circular, there being a general dip downward and forward. The gouging is deep from the commencement. The aim of the artist in the whole design appears to have been towards perfection of gracefulness.