Return to `Full Text of Recent Publications'
As an addition to the dendrochronological research of old stringed instruments by F. Klein, this contribution points to come important additional problems concerning originality, authenticity and attribution that have risen during organological research on the same instruments. We are limiting ourselves here to sixteenth century instruments because here the problems we are dealing with are most frequent. Also because of the rarity of these instruments, a critical study of these problems is indispensible.
Our first and least problematic example is the violin attributed to Ventura di Francesco Linarolo, Venice 1581, from the Catajo collection in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna. This instrument belongs to the best known old violins. (fig 1.)
A first superficial examination reveals that the pegbox, the neck, the ribs, the bottom, the fingerboard and the tailpiece are extremely well conserved and that the belly is more damaged and seems to be older. The former parts are all made from the same wood, a wood very similar to walnut, but probably it is more likely to be a kind of mahogany. Up till now the wood couldn't be determined with certainty. An exotic wood such as mahogany would be unlikely for a sixteenth century instrument.
UV-light shows that only the body has an old varnish. All the other parts are covered with the same, but younger, transparent varnish. This younger varnish partly covers the older one on the edge of the belly. The inlay on the belly is made from a different material from that used on the fingerboard and tailpiece and that belonging to the neck, ribs and bottom. The inner construction is highly individualistic and cannot be compared to any other old violin.
The spruce upper block is very thin, very wide and has horizontal growth rings. The neck connection isn't strengthened with nails. The ribcorners are glued together on cornerblocks. The connection of ribs and bottom is strengthened with piece of parchment. On the inside of the bottom too, seven horizontal and four vertical strips of parchment are glued. Such parchment or paper reinforcements are known from bellies of late seventeenth century instruments from southern Germany and Austria. However, we have never seen them fitted in this way in bottoms, and certainly not on such early instruments. These parchment strips, which are glued in illogical, but visible, places, give the impression of having been applied with the intention of giving the instrument an archaic appearance. The label doesn't seem old, either, and the handwriting and text are quite different from other Ventura Linaro labels.
In 1984 I suggested that the belly could date from the second half of the seventeenth century and that the other parts could be much younger. As far as the belly is concerned, this conclusion has now been confirmed by the dendrochronology (after 1645). The doubts about the other parts remain.
As to the next example, again our doubts are mainly about the authenticity of other parts than the belly. The instrument in question if a lira da braccio attributed to Giovanni d'Andrea, Verona 1511, from the Catajo collection in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna.
Here too, a whole series of details point to a belly that is much older than the other parts. Except on the edge, which shows the same cracked varnish as on the other parts, the belly has an older varnish.
The dendrochronological dating of the belly corresponds with the date on the label. This label, however, consists of two pieces. The upper piece with the name seems to be older than the lower one with the date. Both parts have been written in a different handwriting and with different ink. Almost all worm holes in bottom and ribs have been cut open. These parts have probably been worked and assembled when the wood had already been damaged by woodworm.
The construction of the instrument is unusual. The ribs aren't bent, but sawed and glued on belly and bottom. The neck has never been replaced. but is nevertheless very oblique. It is glued without an upper block or any other reinforcement between the two ends of the ribs. This connection is not very stable and is highly unusual. Up till now we have only seen such a neck connection in another instrument from the same Catajo collection, whose authenticity is also problematic. These and many other findings justify some of the doubts concerning the age of the instrument in its actual composition and shape. Despite the age of the belly, it is very dangerous to draw conclusions from this instrument concerning the construction of the lira around 1500.
Sometimes traces of older constructions make it possible to reconstruct precisely what happened to an instrument. This is the case with the lira da Gamba attributed to Wendelinus Tieffenbrucker, Papua ca 1590, also from the Catajo collection in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, (fig. 2). It has not been possible to determine the age of the belly until recently. There are two signatures on the instrument whose authenticity is very doubtful: a label and an inscription on the pegbox. The belly and the back have a completely different arching. The belly is almost flat and the back is highly arched, (fig. 3). Once again, only the belly shows traces of an old varnish. The other parts have a transparent varnish. Some parts of the edge of the belly have been recut, replaned and revarnished with the same varnish as was used on the back. All this could point to an alteration in the outline, (fig. 4).
Similar traced of alteration of the outline were found on the back. Originally the ribs were glued in a groove in the back. The centre parts of the ribs are still glued in this groove. Where the outline of the back has been recut the groove leaves the edge, (fig. 5). The direction of the groove corresponds with the normal outline of a cello, (fig. 6). Presumably because of the constriction of the outline, three new rib pieces had to be mounted, (Fig. 7).
The inside of the back shows scorch marks at the bottom which make it likely that the back has been rebent at this place. This might have been necessary because the vaulting of the back was incised which recutting the outline. By bending down the edge the whole outline was again brought into one plane, (fig. 8). The woodworm holes in the neck and the pegbox have almost all been cut open. Probably those parts were cut from a piece of wood which already had woodworm. The fingerboard is old but it has been recut and it probably originally belonged to another instrument. The inlay is different from that in the belly.
From these and from other findings it can be concluded that the body has probably been cut from the parts of one, or more, cellos. It would be wrong to draw conclusions from this instrument about the construction of the lirone around 1600.
Similar questions arise in connection with the big bass viol by Hanns Vogel, Nürnberg 1563, in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nürnberg, (fig.9). The dendrochronology indicates that the youngest growth rings date from before the middle of the sixteenth century. This corresponds entirely with the date on the label. However, much evidence points to the fact that the neck, belly, ribs and back do not belong together, and that parts of the body are not original viol parts but parts of one or more bass violins.
Belly and back have completely different arching. The arching of the back is very high and looks quite complete, with a channel at the edge. The belly is much flatter and has no channel. This may point to a recutting of the belly. Other indications of this are the extremely thin edges of the belly and the bottom, these being the result of the replaning of the edge. Also the varnish looks different. In both day and UV light an old varnish can be seen in the middle of the belly and on parts of the ribs. This varnish is completely absent on the back and along the edge of the belly and its purfling. Also, along the edge there is visible traces of a lot of recutting. The whole instrument has been revarnished with a coat of the same lacquer which is only used alone on the back.
The neck foot is much lower than the ribs, and it has been fixed to the upper block in a very unusual way, which was, however, commonly used for repairs and transformations. On the basis of the wooden pins with which the ribs were fixed in the upper, lower and corner blocks, two different earlier stages - probably as a bass viol.in - can be reconstructed.
In spite of the early dating of the belly, in its actual state this instrument doesn't tell us anything at all about early southern German viol making.
The recutting of old bellies such as has been seen on the two previously described instrument is often ascertained from the UV image of the varnish on the edge, plane traces, incomplete arching, etc. In these cases, the inlay is often not original. When the bass bar has been cut in the belly, it has generally been shortened. Usually traces of this recutting are to be seen, (fig. 10).
Changes can be much more radical when the belly is only a small part of an already existing instrument. In the main the shape of the new instrument has been determined by the available space above, below and between the soundholes. This sometimes results in some very strange designs. It may be that the different elongated viol shapes with very high waists originated from this custom. A good example is the so-called "viola da spalia" attributed to a Venetian instrument maker of the late sixteenth century in the Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments, (fig. 11). Another example is the small bass viol attributed to Casper Tieffenbrucker in the Gemeentemuseum in The Hague, (fig. 12). In most cases dendrochronology can still be applied because the oldest growth rings are mainly situated on the outside. When the belly has been cut from the part between the soundholes of an existing belly, that belly usually consists of more than two pieces. In this case, after recutting, only a few growth rings are missing.
Presumably also the belly of the small viol attributed to Hainrich Ebert in the Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments is an example of such recutting, (fig. 13) According to dendrochronological evidence this belly originated from 1580 at the earliest. The outline and arching of the belly fits exactly between the soundholes of a small doublebass, (fig. 14). Probably it was a belly with a central bar integral with the wood of the plate instead of a bass bar, which points to the great age of the belly, (fig. 15). The back too has been cut from a larger whole. Evidence is to be found in the open worm holes and in an interrupted text fragment in the inside, (fig.16). Worm holes that are cut and that don't continue are also to be seen in the joint of ribs and bottom, this points to recutting.
The ribs may have been rebent. They could have been planed on the inside and bent without heating. Hence the cracks in the middle parts of the ribs, (fig. 17). Next to the four corner blocks one can see the remains of small blocks that would have supported crossbars under the belly, (fig. 17, 18, 19). These small blocks might, therefore, have belonged to the earliest stage of the instrument. They are also made from the same piece of wood as the corner blocks. However, one of the remains of these blocks is situated on a part of the ribs that isn't old, (fig. 17). These fragments of wood were possibly fitted to simulate an original condition. If the actual belly is original, which is possible on account of its age, the support blocks for cross bars under the belly don't make sense. The belly has indeed a carved arching. Finally it should be mentioned that the fingerboard was actually too large for this neck and it has been narrowed and shortened. It may, therefore, be a reused fingerboard from another instrument.
All these and many other element could be interpreted as indications that the actual design of the instrument is not original, in spite of the age of the belly. As a result it is dangerous to draw conclusions from the construction and the design of this instrument as to Venetian viol making in the sixteenth century.
I presume that similar things happened to several violins attributed to Antonio Ciciliano. Instruments from this maker are in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, the Academia Filarmonica and Museo Civico in Bologna and in the Museum of Musical Instruments in Brussels. These instruments are all very different from each other in form, construction, signature, etc. There are, however, in one collection instruments do have similarities. The Brussels Museum of Musical Instruments has two viols attributed to Battista, Antonio's son, which are identical to the viol attributed to Antonio. As far as the Viennese instruments are concerned, tenor and bass are very similar, but the treble is completely different. The earliest possible origin of the bellies of the three Viennese instruments has been put at between 1580 and 1607. This last date (for the bass viol) is very late bearing in mind that Antonio Ciciliano is mainly mentioned in accounts from the sixteen sixties.
Most of the bellies of the instruments show evidence of having been recut: they show plane traces, thinning of the edges, bending of the corners, etc. The back and the ribs of the Viennese treble are cut from old parts, this is demonstrated by the state of the worm holes. The back of the tenor in the same collection is probably much younger, and the back and the ribs of the bass are also younger. It is probable that the necks of the three Viennese instruments are also not old.
Despite the early dating of the bellies the authenticity of the dating of the actual shape remains an open question.
In these examples I wanted to demonstrate that the results of dendrochronological research only offers complete accuracy in a restricted number of cases. Often it has not been possible until quite recently to obtain any result at all. When the youngest growth rings and younger than the dating we know that this dating was wrong, as in the case of the violin by Linarolo. When the dating of the instrument is confirmed approximately we still have to be sure that only the bark has been removed, otherwise the dating could be younger. This dendrochronological dating doesn't tell us anything about the other parts of the instrument, nor about the originality of the actual shape of the belly and the instrument as a whole. This is a very special problem with instruments which are partly made from the recut parts of pre-existing instruments.
Read at the CIMCIM Meeting, Berlin, 11-17 April 1988.
Address for further information
© CIMCIM 1989.
This page updated: 31.12.98