141

A VIOLIN BYGIUSEPPE GIOVANNIBATTISTA GUARNERI

Roger Hargrave, who has also researched and drawn the enclosedposter, discusses an outstanding example of the work of a member of

the Guarneri family known as `Joseph Guarneri filius Andrea'.

Andrea Guarneri was the firstof the Guarneri family of violinmakers and an apprentice ofNicola Amati (he was actuallyregistered as living in the houseof Nicola Amati in 1641). Andrea'syoungest son, whose work is il-lustrated here, was called.Giuseppe. Because several of theGuarneri family bear the samechristian names, individuals havetraditionally been identified by asuffix attached to their names.Thus, Giuseppe's brother is known as `Peter Guarneriof Mantua' to distinguish him from Giuseppe's son,who is known as `Peter Guarneri of Venice'.

Giuseppe himself is called 'Giuseppe Guarneri filiusAndrea' or, more simply, `Joseph filius' to distinguishhim from his other son, the illustrious 'GiuseppeGuarneri del Gesu'.

In case this all seems a little complicated I have in-cluded a family tree for guidance.

I normally leave a description of the varnish untillast when discussing instruments for THE STRAD, butin this case I will begin with the varnish. It is red overgold, radiant and warm, like glowing coals. This is`Joseph filius' varnish at its very best. It is a long timesince I picked up a violin which looked so `alive'. Theeffect is something like that of the Fauvist school ofpainters at the turn of the last century or the Op Artschool of the 1950s and 60s it makes the eyeballs vi-brate. I can almost imagine the label on this bottle ofvarnish in Joseph's workshop, it might have said:`Colour extremely intense apply thinly'. Although

many details of instruments byJoseph filius at this period recallthe Amati school, this type ofvarnish, in combination withthe freer hand of Joseph, givesthe instruments a visual impactnever achieved by an Amati or ,with the exception of Stradi-vari, by any other classicalmaker before this time.

It should be said, however,that the varnish of Joseph filius

varies considerably. It is not always of such out-standing quality the same can be said of Joseph's pro-duction in general. If I were asked to describe theinstruments of a few of the great Cremonese makersin a single word, I would say that Amatis (all of them)are `refined', Stradivaris are `stately', del Gesus are`rebellious' and the instruments of Joseph filius An-drea are `impulsive'. No two works by Joseph filiusare ever the same. At various times he seemed to in-corporate the ideas of his father, his brother, the Am-atis, and even of his great contemporary, AntonioStradivari. Further more after about 1715 his workalso begins to show the hand of his two sons, Peterof Venice and del Gesu, and probably also that ofCarlo Bergonzi.

Although the instrument illted here is Joseph filiusAndrea at his best and most unmistakable, becauseof the many influences on his work there have beensome difficulties in the attribution of certain otherinstruments. In this respect it is interesting toy readwhat the Hills have to say in their chapter on Josephfilius Andrea in their book, The Violin Makers of the

He may never havereached the heights of his

contemporary, Antonio Stradivarius, but he

does rank as one of thegreatest makers of all time.

We should not forget hesired and trained the great

del Gesu'

142

Guarneri Family.

A good deal. of labelling and relabelling was prac-tised during the early half of the nineteenth century,and the 'Guarneri' possibilities were not overlooked.Numbers of Andrea's violins were renamed 'Amati',certain of those of Giuseppe [Joseph filius] also; oth-ers of the master's work were transformed into`Bergonzis'; and even today experts fail to distinguishbetween the one and the other. Anything at all rogu-ish in the work of either Giuseppe [Joseph filius] or ofPeter of Venice was immediately rebaptized'Giuseppe Del Gesu'.

The head of this instrument is unquestionablyGuarneri work. It is very much in the style of Andrea,but is cleaner and more accurately finished. This is,however, no inanimate fossil type scroll, whosebeauty lies in mathematical purity and a crystalsharp finish. This scroll is full of energy, like somehand forged steel spring, loaded and ready to unfurlitself in an instant. Its cut and form perfectly matchesthe vibrant quality of the varnish and the wood.

Viewed from the side there is a full roundness tothe outline, whose edge is finished with a broadchamfer. There is a trace of blacking to the chamferon the top of the pegbox as it enters the throat. Thethroat itself runs a long way back under the scroll,becoming slightly wider towards the end. This makesthe head look as though it is reaching forwardsslightly. There is very little sign of the 'squareness'which often characterises the side outlines ofGuarneri scrolls.

The volutes are cut to a similar depth as those of aStradivari of the same period, but the final turn intothe eye is closer and tighter than a Stradivari wouldbe. There is no tiny straight cut at the eye, where thevolutes end, which is a general feature of theGuarneri school. The few tool marks on the flat sidesof the scroll in the final turns of the volutes are nomore than we would expect to see on a Stradivari andcertainly far less than an Andrea head would sport.

From the back the long slender taper of the peg-box clearly shows the influence of the Amatis. Laterheads by Joseph, although much wider behind thepegbox, retain this extra width over the end of thehead so that the lines of the taper remain relativelystraight. In contrast, a Stradivari head would bewider behind the pegbox, becoming rapidly more ta-pered as it runs up and over the back of the head.

The flutings are quite shallow, lacking the depth ofa Stradivari or an Amati. Neither do they have the flat

bottomed curves of Stradivari's flutings. These shal-low flutings are typical of Joseph generally, but hisson and pupil 'del Gesu' occasionally took even lesswood away.

The central spine between the flutes fades outquickly under the front of the head. This does nothappen in the extreme manner of the early Amatis,or Francesco Ruggeri; it is merely the natural resultof the everdecreasing depth of the flutes. A few small,round section gouge strokes run at right angles to thecentral spine under the front of the head at the pointwhere the flutings fade out. Otherwise, in contrast tohis father's work and even his own later scrolls, thereare very few tool marks to be seen on the flutings. Afew thin traces of the scraper run along the back ofthe pegbox in the flutings, but these, like the finegouge strokes on the vertical surfaces of the scrollturns, are, almost a Cremonese trademark. There isno visible scribe line or central pin pricks from themarking out compass on the spine between the flut-ings.

One final point which I think is worth noting, isthat because of the shallow nature of the flutingsJoseph's heads often appear to be more worn thanthey actually are. In this case the presence of largeamounts of varnish shows that this head is relativelyunworn. The wood of this head is of typically veryfine growth and is cut on the quarter. The figurematches the back and ribs as well, but as usual it isnot pronounced, making it easier to carve.

Like his father's later works the body outline ofthis instrument is very rounded in the top and bot-tom bouts. There is no prominent flatness across thetop and bottom block areas, which was a feature ofhis father's early works and which in turn was alegacy of the Amati school.

The central bouts, although also well rounded,have a hint of squareness as they run into the topcorners. This is the beginning of a prominent Josephfilius feature which was later taken up by CarloBergonzi. It is one of the stylistic points which linkBergonzi to the workshop of Giuseppe rather than toStradivari. The feature was exaggerated almost to thepoint of caricature by Carlo Bergonzi's sons andgrandsons.

The two piece back wood is of fine grown maple,the flame or figure is of medium width and is slightlywild. The ripples of the flame are strongly pro-nounced and the corrugated effect can be felt withthe fingertips.

143

The back arching is very full to the edges in the topand bottom bouts, but it has a slightly pinched lookin the centre bouts. This gives the arching a long softx shape. Several sweeping scraper strokes followingthis long x shape on both sides of the arch, have lefttheir marks. Although these marks are not deep, theyhave retained the intense thin red varnish betterthan the surrounding wood. The resulting stripes ofred sweeping across the linesof flame not only accentuatethe x form of the arch but alsoadd to the vibrant visual effectwhich I mentioned earlier.

I do not wish to give thewrong impression with thesescraper marks. Their presencewould probably never havebeen noticed had the varnishnot been so thin and so in-tense. The truth is that the work on this instrumentis very clean by any Cremonese standards and fittingfor a maker who was still relatively young and sittingbang in the middle of the most auspicious period ofviolin making in history.

The edgework and corners are quite wide, almoston a par with a contemporary Stradivari, but they arenot as thick. They do, however, still have the Cre-monese contrast in thickness, with the centre boutsbeing very slightly thicker than the upper and lowerbouts, and the corners just a little more again. Theoverhang, though quite even, is very small, with therounding of the edge beginning almost directlyagainst the ribs. The usual Cremonese knife cut

chamfer to the underside of the edge was cut at avery shallow angle. It is quite unevenly finished(probably because of the deep flame) and the result-ing hollows have held little pools of dark red varnish.

The purfling seems quite wide, because the blacksare relatively thick. The blacks, though dark, have aquicker tendency towards grey where the edges are

worn. This greyness in the blackswas to reoccur regularly to agreater or lesser extent through-out Giuseppe's working life andwas also a feature of the works ofhis son, del Gesu The mitres of thepurfling are of medium length,they are cleanly cut and well bal-anced. They have no sting, eitherdrooping in the style which his fa-ther occasionally preferred, orslender and delicate in the style of

Stradivari at this time. The edge channel, like thefluting on the head, is quite shallow. Again this givesthe impression of greater wear to the edgework thanis actually the case.

Finally I think it worth pointing out that I have ob-served a joint in the purfling of the centre bouts onmany Joseph filius violins.

These joints are sometimes only visible with a jew-eller's eyeglass (for a possible explanation see THESTRAD April 1985, p.934).

Before leaving the back I should mention the lo-cating pins. They are quite large and placed promi-nently on the centre line about 2.5mm inside the

GUARNERI FAMILY OF VIOLINMAKERS

Andrea Guarneri (born c.1626, died 7December 1698). Recorded as living in the

house of Nicola Amati in the census of 1641.

Pietro Giovanni Guarneri (born 18 Febru¬ary 1655, died in Mantua 26 March 1720).

Known as `Peter Guarneri of Mantua'.

Giuseppe Giovanni Battista Guarneri (born25 November 1666, died 1739/40). Known

as `Joseph Guarneri Filius Andrea'.

Pietro Guarneri (born 14 April 1695, died inVenice 7 April 1762). Known as `Peter Guar¬

neri of Venice'.

Bartolomeo Giuseppe Guarneri (born 21August 1698, died 17 October 1744).

Known as `Joseph Guarneri del Gesu'.

Stradivari's sonscontributed 88 workingyears to the workshop

during his lifetime alone.What were they doing all

that time, brewing tea andsweeping the floor?

144

purfling. No attempt has been made to hide themunder the purfling as Stradivari would have done. Incontrast, the mysterious centre pin of the Guarnerifamily is more difficult to detect,(see THE STRAD May 1988, p.405).In this case the pinpoint exit ofthe conical hole lies on the cen-tre joint midway between the topand bottom purfling lines. As faras I know the only maker usingthis pin in classical times who de-viated from this central positionwas Guarneri del Gesu. Del Gesuoccasionally set this `pin' on the`reverse stop',' which Stradivarialso used for his thicknessingcentre. On the inside of this violinthe central centre. On the insideof this violin the central back pinhas been covered by a stud, sev-eral of which have been set alongthe centre joint. These studs arenot original.

The rib wood is very similar tothat of the back and once againthe deep ripple of the flame canbe felt as well as seen. The colourcontrast ranges from the silvergold of the ground where the var-nish is missing, through the or-ange red of the true varnish tothe brown/grey reds of thepatina which has collected in thedeepest hollows. In the tightercurves the ribs have clearly splitalong the line of the flame. Thesesplits probably happened during the bending processand similiar splits can even be seen occasionally inworks by Stradivari. In hislater works, del Gesu ap-pears to have tried to avoidthis risk by thinning thecentre bout ribs to about0.5mm at the corner blockand by making the centrecurves much more open. Atthe corners the rib jointshave been blackened.

The two piece belly woodis of exceptionally fine growth, widening onlyslightly in the bouts. This belly has the neatest edge-work I have ever seen on a violin by Giuseppe. There

are almost no tool marks on the belly and the purestate of its preservation is accompanied by a rich cov-ering of original varnish.

The belly purfling seems to beslightly heavier than that of theback. This is possibly due to thedifferent swelling properties ofback and belly wood. I have ob-served the same phenomenon onsome of my own works.

The belly arching, though simi-lar to the back, is fuller across thecentre bouts, where the sound-holes sit. The x shaped form of theback arching is therefore less ap-parent on the belly.

Generally speaking, this instru-ment has much less of the Amatiinfluence than many of Joseph fil-ius's earlier works, but in certainparticulars the message stillcomes through loud and clear. Onthis instrument the soundholesbear a remarkable stylistic resem-blance to the soundholes of aNicola Amati. In fact they are pos-sibly more directly related to thestyle and workmanship of Amatithan to that of his father, espe-cially his father's later works.

The soundholes are quite short,as they are on many of Joseph'sworks from this time. They are cutin the normal Cremona way; that

is, the top and bottom circles have been drilled andthe main body of the soundhole has been cut at right

angles to the surface of thearching.

The shape of the wings,which taper together to-wards the ends, is typical ofthe Amatis. The cut off ofthese wings, especially thebottom wings, is also muchmore akin to Amati than toAndrea, his father, whose cutoff angle was slightly more

vertical. The fluting of the wings is, like Amati, an in-tegral part of the arching. In contrast, Stradivari'sflutings are a feature in themselves and break the

Side of the violin by Giuseppe Giovanni

Battista Guarneri.

This is `Joseph filius' varnish at itsvery best. It is a long time since I

picked up a violin which looked soalive if I. were asked to describe

his instruments in a single word, Iwould say . `impulsive'.

145

natural flow of the arching.

Joseph filius also changed his soundholes dramat-ically during his working life. Each time he seems tohave taken on

some feature which reminds one of someone else,but I don't think he ever hit the specific style of anymaker more than he did in the cutting of thesesoundholes after Amati.

I am not implying that Giuseppe had no style of hisown he certainly did. Perhaps it is worth taking alook at the problem of overlapping styles in Cremonagenerally. I sometimes think that we fail to under-stand fully the relationship which the classical Cre-monese makers had with one another. Not only werethey grouped in families, they were also grouped pro-fessionally. Furthermore they lived together asneighbours, in most cases on the same street corner.They were active members of the same church. Theyacted as godfathers for one another's children andthey served their apprenticeships in each other'sworkshops, often alongside other apprentices who inturn would eventually become their neighbours andtheir professional colleagues. How could they avoidinfluencing each other?

One of the most beautiful instruments I know isconsidered by some authorities to be the work ofCarlo Bergonzi, while others believe it to be the workof Francesco Stradivari, but no one in the businesswould be prepared to offer it as a bit of both. I knowof any number of instruments where the work of twoor more makers is apparent and where all the partsclearly belong together.

When we search for a specific identity for an in-strument it is all too often because a clear attributionis required by a customer. We only seem to admit tocollaborative work when the junior' partner has ahigher price to his name tag. This is often the casewith Joseph filius Andrea, where the hand of del Gesuis always considered worth mentioning. In the caseof a later Strad, however, the bias will usually run infavour of the father alone.

I have heard it voiced by an expert of considerablestanding that almost all Stradivari's heads after 1700were cut by his sons. He added that of course onecannot say such a thing to a customer. Well, why not?If we estimate that Stradivari's sons were capable ofmaking a violin at the age of 18 (in fact, they wereprobably capable by the age of 14), this would meanthat together the brothers contributed 88 workingyears to the Stradivari workshop during Antonio's

lifetime alone. What were they doing all that time,brewing tea and sweeping the floor?

There is of course a difference between collabora-tion and influence, but the line which divides them isoften ill defined.

Personally I am convinced that the violin illus-trated here is as pure an example of Joseph filius'swork as one could imagine. The key word here is in-fluence rather than collaboration. Signs of collabo-ration in Joseph's work came later, but it certainlydid not devalue his instruments.

The Hills estimate that Joseph made about 250 vi-olins and possibly one viola, which was made in hisfather's workshop. He also made perhaps 15 to 20 cel-los.

He may never have reached the dizzy heights ofhis great contemporary Antonio Stradivarius, but hedoes rank as one of the greatest makers of all time.As I have already pointed out, even by Cremonesestandards Joseph's production was occasionally ex-ceptional, as this magnificent instrument proves, andin other ways his contribution may have been just asimportant as that of Stradivari. We should not forgetthat he sired and trained Peter Guarneri of Veniceand the great del Gesu, and he probably had a hand inthe development and training of Carlo Bergonzi.Three cheers for collaboration! If his roll as a teacherhad been Giuseppe's only contribution, it wouldprobably have been enough.