THE BOW, ITS HISTORY, MANUFACTURE AND USE. 

Printed in Great Britain by J. H. Lavender and Co. , 2, Duncan Terrace, City Road, London, N. I. 

[Frontispiece: HENRY SAINT-GEORGE. ]

_"THE STRAD" LIBRARY, No. III. _THE BOW, ITS HISTORY, MANUFACTURE AND USE

BY

HENRY SAINT-GEORGE

ILLUSTRATED BY THE AUTHOR

THIRD EDITION

London:HORACE MARSHALL & SON, 46, Farringdon Street, E. C. 4. 

New York:CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS, 597-599, Fifth Avenue. 

1922. 

PREFACE. 

It has always appeared to me a curious thing that the bow, withoutwhich the fiddle could have no being, should have received so scantattention, not alone from the community of fiddlers, but also fromwriters on the subject. I only know of one book in which the subjectis adequately handled. Out of every twenty violinists who profess tosome knowledge of the various types of Cremonese and other fiddles ofrepute and value, barely three will be met with who take a similarinterest in the bow beyond knowing a good one, or rather one thatsuits their particular physique, when playing with it. They are allfamiliar with the names of Dodd and Tourte, but it is seldom thattheir knowledge extends beyond the names. As for a perception of thecharacteristics of bows as works of art, which is the standard of thefiddle connoisseur, it hardly has any existence outside the smallcircle of bow makers. Of the large number of undoubted fiddle expertsnow in London, but a small proportion profess to any similarknowledge of bows, and of these there are but few who can be creditedwith real authority in the matter. 

It is, therefore, with the object of bringing the bow into moregeneral notice that this little book has been written, and, to dropinto the good old prefatory style, if I succeed in arousing theinterest of but one violinist in the bow for itself, and apart fromits work, my efforts will not have been in vain. 

My most hearty thanks are due to those who have so kindly assisted mein my work. To _Messrs. W. E. Hill and Sons, Mr. E. Withers, Mr. F. W. Chanot, Mr. J. Chanot, and Messrs. Beare, Goodwin and Co. _, forthe loan of valuable bows for the purpose of illustration, and _Mr. A. Tubbs_, who, in addition to similar favours, most kindly placedmuch of his valuable time at my disposal, and very patiently helpedme to a sufficient understanding of the bow maker's craft for thepurpose of collecting materials for the second part of the book. 

The third part, in which I treat of the use of the bow, I havepurposely avoided making a systematic handbook of bowing technique, for to handle that subject as exhaustively as I should wish wouldrequire a separate volume. As stated in Chapter XIV. , that portion ofthe book is addressed almost exclusively to teachers, and in the fewcases where I have gone into questions of technique it has beenlimited to those points that appear to be most neglected ormisunderstood by the generality of teachers. 

"Anything that is worth doing is worth doing well" is a maxim thatteachers should hold up to themselves and their pupils, and thisreminds me of an exhortation to that effect in "Musick's Monument, "that quaint and pathetic book of Thomas Mace (1676) with which Icannot do better than end my already too extensive preamble. 

"Now being Thus far _ready_ for _Exercise_, attempt the _Striking ofyour Strings_; but before you do _That_, Arm yourself withPreparative _Resolutions to gain aHandsome--Smooth--Sweet--Smart--Clear--Stroak_; or else Play not atall. "

CONTENTS. 

PART I. _The History of the Bow_. 

CHAPTER I. PAGEORIGIN OF INSTRUMENTS. FRICTIONAL VIBRATION. THE BOW DISTINCTFROM THE PLECTRUM. THE TRIGONON. BOWING WITH VARIOUS OBJECTS . . 1

CHAPTER II. ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF THE BOW. INDIAN, CHINESE AND OTHER EASTERNBOWED INSTRUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

CHAPTER III. THE CRWTH. FLEMING'S "ETRUSCAN RAVANASTRON. " THE MEDIÆVAL BOW. UNRELIABILITY OF EARLY DRAWINGS AND SCULPTURES . . . . . . . . . 14

CHAPTER IV. THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MODERN BOW. ORNAMENTATION. A POSSIBLESTRADIVARI BOW. THE MOVABLE NUT. THE CRÉMAILLÈRE. THE SCREW NUT 23

CHAPTER V. VUILLAUME'S FACTS. THE FERRULE AND SLIDE. JOHN DODD . . . . . . 31

CHAPTER VI. DR. SELLÈ'S RECOLLECTIONS OF DODD. HIS WORK AND POVERTY. DODDAND TOURTE. THE CALCULATION OF FÉTIS AND VUILLAUME . . . . . . . 36

CHAPTER VII. LUPOT. PECCATTE. SPURIOUS STAMPING. PANORMO. W. J. B. WOOLHOUSE'S CALCULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

CHAPTER VIII. A LIST OF BOW MAKERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

PART II. _Bow Making_. 

CHAPTER IX. MATERIALS. BRAZIL WOOD. HORSEHAIR. THE ACTION OF ROSIN . . . . . 60

CHAPTER X. QUALITIES ESSENTIAL IN A BOW MAKER. SHAPING THE STICK. SETTINGTHE _Cambre_. THE FACES. THE TRENCHES. THE NUT . . . . . . . . . 64

CHAPTER XI. POSSIBLE REPAIRS. SPLICING. RENEWING CUPS. RESTORING THE NUT. RE-FACING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

CHAPTER XII. RE-LAPPING. RE-HAIRING. CHOICE OF ROSIN . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

CHAPTER XIII. THE PERFECTION OF THE MODERN BOW. DR. NICHOLSON'S PATENT BOW. VUILLAUME'S INVENTIONS. SELF-HAIRING BOWS. A FOLDING BOW. THE"KETTERIDGE BOW" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

PART III. _The Art of Bowing_. 

CHAPTER XIV. THE UNDECIDED ASPECT OF TECHNIQUE. IMPORTANCE OF A KNOWLEDGE OFTHE ANATOMY OF THE HAND. THE FUNCTION OF THE THUMB. INDIVIDUALITY IN TECHNIQUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

CHAPTER XV. BOWING HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED. THE OLDEST ENGLISH VIOLINMETHOD. SYMPSON'S INSTRUCTIONS IN BOWING. THOSE OF MACE (1676). THOSE OF VARIOUS MODERN MASTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

CHAPTER XVI. THE FINGERS OF THE RIGHT HAND. DIFFERENCES OF OPINION THEREON. SAUTILLÉ. THE LOOSE WRIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

CHAPTER XVII. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SLOW BOW. THE RAPID WHOLE BOW. STACCATO. BOWING STUDIES AND SOLOS. CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

PUBLISHER'S NOTE. 

In this new impression of the late Mr. Saint-George's bookopportunity has been taken to correct a few obvious errors, such asthose occurring in the notices of the three bowmakers named Peccatte;the deaths of those makers which have occurred since the publicationof the first edition have been noted, and a few fresh names have beenadded to the list contained in Chapter VIII. In other respects thetext of the work remains practically as the author left it. 

INDEX TO ILLUSTRATIONS. 

PHOTO REPRODUCTIONS OF BOWS. 

PLATE I. Head and nut of inlaid bow probably by Stradivari to face page 32

 II. Heads of three English bows showing evolution of design to follow page 32

 III. Heads of two violin, two viola, and one 'cello bow, by IV. J. Dodd . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . To follow page 32

 V. Heads of three violin bows and one 'cello bow, by VI. François Tourte . . . . . . . . . . . . To face page 48

 VII. Heads of bows by Lupot . . . . . . . . . . . To follow page 48

VIII. Two heads of bows by D. Peccatte and one by Panormo to follow page 48

ILLUSTRATIONS IN THE TEXT. 

FIG. PAGE 1. Locust, showing action of hind leg in producing note . . . . 3

 2. Assyrian Trigonon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

 3. Crwth bow from the Golden Porch at Freiburg . . . . . . . . 6

 4. Ravanastron and bow (Indian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

 5. Uh-Ch'in and bow (Chinese) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 6. Omerti and bow (Indian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

 7. Kemangeh-a-gouz and bow (Arabian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 8. Rebâb-esh-Sha'er and bow (Arabian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

 9. Sitâra and bow (Persian) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

10. Sarìndâ and bow (Bengalese) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

11. Method of hairing some Egyptian bows . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

12. Saw-Tai and bow (Siamese) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

13. Bow of Nyckelharpa (Swedish) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

14. Bow of Saw-oo (Chinese) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

15. Bow of the eighth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

16. Bow of the ninth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

17. Bow of the ninth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

18. Bows of the eleventh century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

19. Bows of the twelfth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

20. Bows of the thirteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

21. Bows of the fourteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2122. 

23. Bows of the fifteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

24. Bows of the sixteenth century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

25. Bows of the seventeenth century (drawn actual size from specimens now in existence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

26. Bows of the eighteenth century (drawn actual size from specimens now in existence) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

27. Showing detachable nut of some early bows . . . . . . . . . 28

28. Heels of early bows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

29. The Crémaillère . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

30. Head and nut of ornamented Cremonese bow (actual size) . . . 32

31. Head and nut of Dodd bow (reduced) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

32. Head of Dodd bow (actual size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

33. Geometrical construction showing gradation of stick (Fétis) 43

34. Bow stick in the rough (greatly reduced) . . . . . . . . . . 65

35. Pattern of bow head (actual size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

36. Ivory face in the rough . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

37. Gauge for nuts (actual size) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

38. Parts of a bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

39. Tip of bow showing "cups" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

40. Head of bow showing trench . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

41. Nut of bow showing screw and method of hairing . . . . . . . 75

42. End view of nut showing bow with unequal facets . . . . . . 76

43. Dr. Nicholson's bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

44. A fifteenth century violist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

45. A seventeenth century gambist (from Sympson) . . . . . . . . 93

THE BOW: Its History, Manufacture and Use. 

PART I. THE HISTORY OF THE BOW. 

CHAPTER I. 

ORIGIN OF INSTRUMENTS--FRICTIONAL VIBRATION--THE BOW DISTINCT FROMTHE PLECTRUM--THE TRIGONON--BOWING WITH VARIOUS OBJECTS. 

As has been observed by the most talented writer on this subject "thehistory of the bow is practically that of the violin. " It willtherefore be readily understood that in the earlier portions of this_opusculum_ it will be impossible to separate them to any greatextent; also, I must crave my readers' indulgence for going over aconsiderable tract of already well trodden ground. My excuse must bemy desire for completeness, for, as I propose to deal with theevolution of the modern bow, I find it difficult to arbitrarilyselect a starting point to the exclusion of all previous details, whether of ascertained fact or conjecture. Therefore I will followthe invariable custom of fiddle literature and go back to the regionsof speculative history for a commencement. 

Speculative history is, I fear, more fascinating to the writer thanconvincing to the reader, so I will be as brief as possible in thisparticular, nor will I, like one John Gunn who wrote a treatise onfingering the violoncello, fill up space with irrelevant matter suchas the modes and tunings of the ancient Greek lyres, etc. , highlyinteresting as these subjects may be, although it is a very temptingmethod of getting over the "bald and unconvincing" nature of thebow's early history. 

We of the present generation, having the bow in its most perfectform, are apt to take its existence for granted; we do not think thatthere must have been a period when no such thing was known, and, consequently, fail to appreciate the difficulties in the way of itsdiscovery or invention. With some other instruments it is different. For wind instruments we have a prototype in the human voice, and onemay reasonably suppose that the trumpet class were evolved by slowprocess from the simple action of placing the hands on either side ofthe mouth to augment a shout. The harp may have been suggested by thetwanging of a bow-string as an arrow left the archer's hand, and aseventeenth century play writer fancifully attributed the inventionof string instruments to the finding of a "dead horse head. " Here, ofcourse, would be found a complete resonance-chamber and possibly somedried and stretched sinews--quite sufficient to suggest lute-likeinstruments to men of genius such as must have formed a much largerproportion of the world's population in prehistoric times than is thecase to-day; for brilliant as our great men of art and science are, there are few who can be called _originators_ in the simplest meaningof the word. 

Thus, then, we have wind instruments, harps and lutes; but the boweludes us. If we are determined to find a suggestion in nature wemust turn to certain insects of the cricket and grasshopper tribe. Many of these, in particular the locusts, are thorough fiddlers, using their long hind-leg as a bow across the edge of the hollowwing-case to produce the familiar chirping sound. 

[Illustration: FIG. 1. ]

Naturally, the strings are absent, but here is to be found a perfectexample of the excitation of frictional vibration. Whether this wasactually what suggested the bow is another matter. 

For my own part, while admitting that in close observation of natureour early forefathers were probably supreme, I prefer to think thatthe innate concept of the bow was latent in the human mind and onlywaited some fortunate accident of observation to start it into being. 

I am aware, however, that this is a highly unscientific position totake up. 

That there should be so little in the way of adequate recordconcerning the development of this indispensable adjunct of theviolin is not a matter for great wonderment, for, as has elsewherebeen shown, the earlier bowed instruments were of such primitiveconstruction, and, consequently, so weak in tone that they weretotally unsuited to the purposes of ceremonial or pageantry; twosubjects which form prominent features in ancient pictorialrepresentations. And if we come to what we fondly term "morecivilized" times, we find such crude drawings of early viols andkindred instruments that we must not be surprised if such anapparently unimportant detail as the bow should receive still moreperfunctory treatment at the hands of the artist. 

We must also remember that the word "fiddlesticks" is still appliedto anything that is beneath contempt in its utter lack of importance. 

Undoubtedly the idea of exciting vibrations in a stretched string bymeans of friction is one of great antiquity; so much so, indeed, thatthe question of origin becomes merely one of conjecture. True, themajority of writers look upon the bow as a development of the_plectrum_, but this is a theory that I must confess does not strikeme as being satisfactorily probable. To paraphrase a popularexpression, "fingers were made before _plectra_, " the latter being an"improvement" on nature's contrivance. And I see no reasonableobjection to the supposition that friction may have been used as ameans of tone-production prior to the introduction of the _plectrum_. 

The great dissimilarity between the producing of sound by plucking, and that by friction is such that I see no occasion to evolve onefrom the other and consider their introduction most probably coeval. 

When we come to the direct percussion of a string, as in thedulcimer, piano, etc. , we at once perceive a possible connectionbetween the hammer of the one and the rod or bow of the other: theaccidental colliding of the bow with the strings of its accompanyinginstrument would soon suggest experiments ending in the forming ofdulcimer-like instruments. [1] But if we grant that the art ofplucking a string had first advanced as far as the substitution of a_plectrum_ for what Mace calls the "nibble end of the flesh, " I failto see how such an implement could suggest the friction of a string, as, if short enough for manipulation in its original use, it wouldnot be long enough to excite the continuous vibrations characteristicof the bow. 

[Footnote 1: The bow is frequently used now as a means of percussionfor certain effects. ]

I do not accept the theory of a long _plectrum_ used for pizzicatopurposes, as I consider, with Engel, that such an implement wouldhave been unmanageably clumsy even for the primitive music of theancients. Whenever I see a rod, as in the accompanying drawing of theAssyrian Trigonon, I maintain that its purpose was to excitefrictional vibrations. 

[Illustration: FIG. 2. ]

The method of performance readily suggests itself in this case as itwill be seen that it would be quite possible and convenient for theplayer to pass his rod--probably a rough surfaced reed--_between_ thestrings. I do not think it could have been used for percussion as, inthat case, it would surely have had some hammer like projection atits end; a salient feature hardly to be missed by the artist as werethe less obtrusive details of the true bow in later ages. 

We are all familiar with the oft repeated anecdote of Paganini'splaying with a light reed-stem, and I remember having seen atChristmas festivities in country homesteads, the village fiddlerplaying a brisk old-time tune with the long stem of his clay pipe;also, quite recently, I read an account of an "artiste" in the Stateswho charmed his enlightened audiences with his performances on theviolin by using a variety of heterogeneous objects in lieu of theconventional bow, including a stick of sealing-wax and a candle!

Now I do not wish to prove that the implement held by the benignAssyrian in Fig. 2, is either of the last named articles, but merelyto draw attention to the fact that friction-tone is produciblewithout the aid of a "bow" proper. 

The use of plain reed stems or other suitable rods for the productionof continuous sounds would naturally soon give place to moreelaborately constructed implements; although Rühlmann gives a drawingof a portion of the sculptured decorations that adorn the famous"Golden Porch" at Freiburg which represents a crwth and bow of thetwelfth century, the bow being merely a straight rod ornamented ateither end with a simple knob (Fig. 3). 

[Illustration: FIG. 3. ]

He also gives a drawing of a violist of the fourteenth century, sculptured on the cathedral at Cologne, where the bow is even simplerin form. It is, however, impossible to judge how far the sculptor'simagination, or lack of observation, may have been responsible forthese representations, so that they can hardly be taken as reliableevidence of the use of such primitive contrivances at so late aperiod. 

CHAPTER II. 

ORIENTAL ORIGIN OF THE BOW--INDIAN, CHINESE AND OTHER EASTERN BOWEDINSTRUMENTS. 

In attempting to trace the use of the bow to its source we areobliged to content ourselves with the generalized statement that itis undoubtedly of oriental origin. Thus, that it _had_ an origin isproved beyond "all possible, probable shadow of doubt. "

But whether the first form of bowed instrument became extinctprehistorically, or whether it still survives, as some suppose, inthe Ravanastron of India, is not easily determined. 

My own personal belief in the extreme antiquity of the bow is such asalmost to justify the quaint statement of Jean Jacques Rousseau thatAdam played the viol in Paradise. 

Of existing bowed instruments the Ravanastron (Fig. 4) most certainlyseems to be the oldest, as its structure is more primitive than anyother. 

[Illustration: FIG. 4. ]

Concerning this instrument legend runs to the effect that it wasinvented by Ravana, who was king of Ceylon some 5, 000 years prior tothe Christian era. How far this is accurate is impossible to say, forthe oldest names for the bow known to Sanskrit scholars only take usback 1, 500 to 2, 000 years. Of these names it is interesting to notethat the Kôna was evidently no more than a "friction rod" as, judgingfrom the early descriptions, it would appear to have been withouthair. Whether the Gârikâ or Parivàdas approached more nearly to themodern idea of a bow I am unfortunately not in a position to statewith any degree of certainty. 

The Ravanastron was, like the violin in its earliest stages, playedonly by the inferior classes of India; a fact that, as Engel clearlypoints out, makes it seem highly improbable that it was a Mohammedanimportation, despite some writers' assertions to that effect. Undoubtedly it was introduced with Buddhism, from India into China, where it became modified in unimportant details into the Ur-heen. 

A curious point in connection with some oriental fiddles, such as theUr-heen, Uh-Ch'in (Fig. 5), Koka, etc. , is that the hair of the bowpasses between the strings. 

[Illustration: FIG. 5. ]

Whether this circumstance is at all confirmatory of the suppositionthat the rod of the Trigonon was passed between the strings would bedifficult to establish irrefutably; doubtless a logician could do so, but I prefer making a simple statement of facts rather than forcingthem into agreement with any special theory; although I have plentyof worthy precedents for such a proceeding, for I have observed thatmost doubtful or disputed questions--the Bacon-Shakespearecontroversy, for instance--are handled in this manner. 

What strikes one very forcibly on looking into the use of the bow inthe East is the great number of bowed instruments one finds. Thus inIndia we have the Ravanastron in various forms; the Omerti (Fig. 6), the Bengalese Sarìndâ, etc. 

[Illustration: FIG. 6. ]

In China, the Ur-heen, Uh-Ch'in, Saw-oo and Sawduang. In Siam, theSaw-tai, etc. In Turkey and Arabia, the Kemangeh-a-gouz (Fig. 7), Kemangeh-roumy, Rebâb-esh-Sha'er (Fig. 8), and Rebâb-el-maghanny, also the more modern Gunibry. 

[Illustration: FIG. 7. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 8. ]

In Persia there is also an instrument strongly resembling the Omertiand Kemangeh in outline, called the Sitâra (Fig. 9). Then there is aprimitive bowed instrument with three strings, known to the peasantsof Russia as the Goudok, which is no doubt an immediate descendant ofthe three-stringed Rebâb, and, more remotely, of the Ravanastron. Abyssinia too, has its bowed instruments. In fact, the use of the bowis universal in the "glorious Orient, " from whence nearly allproducts of western civilization are derived. In almost all casesgreat antiquity is ascribed to these instruments. The very name"Kemangeh-a-gouz, " ancient in itself, can be roughly translated"ancient-fiddle, " thus showing that the Persians [the name is Persianand bears out the Arab records that it came to them from Persia]considered it then a relic of the past, and that it was a survival ofsome still older instrument inherited, most likely from India. Therecan be little doubt that Fétis was right in assuming this to havebeen the Omerti, for, barring the long "tail-pin, " the structure ofboth is almost identical. 

[Illustration: FIG. 9. ]

The bows of all these instruments bear a strong resemblance to eachother, as is only to be expected where all are of the simplestdescription. In the majority of cases the bow is merely a length ofcane with a bunch of horse-hair tied at each end in such a manner asto pull the cane into a more or less pronounced curve. Those of theGoudok and Sarìndâ (Fig. 10) are short, approach nearly to asemi-circle, and are quite rigid. 

[Illustration: FIG. 10. ]

Those of the Ravanastron, Omerti, etc. , are longer, and being moreslender, have a certain amount of flexibility, but it does not appearthat this latter qualification is sought for or consideredindispensable. On the other hand, the now nearly obsolete Kokiu ofJapan had a bow of about forty-five inches in length that wasextremely elastic. It was made in sections after the manner of afishing-rod, and the hair was tightened by the finger of the player, as in some of the early viol bows of Europe. 

The method of hairing in most cases amounts to the simplest way oftying the hair on to the stick. Sometimes the hair is passed througha slit and held in place by a knot. In other specimens it is attachedto a leather thong, and occasionally it is plugged into the open endof a piece of bamboo (Fig. 11). 

[Illustration: FIG. 11. ]

The bows of the Saw-tai (Fig. 12), Uh-Ch'in, Koka and a few othersshow a distinct advance in point of curve and adjustment of hair, andstrongly resemble the bow of the quaint Swedish Nyckelharpa inpresent use (Fig. 13). 

[Illustration: FIG. 12. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 13. ]

The bows of the Sitâra (Fig. 9) and Saw-oo (Fig. 14), approach morenearly to the European form. The drawings of the latter, however, were made from highly ornate and elaborate specimens that may havebeen affected by Western influence. But against this must be set thereligious conservatism of eastern nations. In many cases it wouldamount to gross sacrilege to alter in any way the construction ofcertain objects in daily use, so that we may take it generally thatthe east of to-day differs very little from what it was, even severalthousand years ago, in such matters. 

[Illustration: FIG. 14. ]

CHAPTER III. 

THE CRWTH--FLEMING'S "ETRUSCAN RAVANASTRON"--THE MEDIÆVALBOW--UNRELIABILITY OF EARLY DRAWINGS AND SCULPTURES. 

Perhaps the most interesting of the primitive bowed instruments isthe Welsh Crwth. Unlike the still more ancient forms yet surviving inthe East, it is now completely obsolete: unless we may count theNorwegian and Icelandic langspiel and fidla as descendants thereof. 

At one time it was considered an ancestor of the violin, but sinceMr. Heron-Allen brought his legal acumen and skill in siftingevidence to bear on the subject, we find that it must unquestionablybe looked upon as the _last_ of its race, and not as a directforerunner of anything else. As to its origin, I should say it wastwo-fold. The oft-quoted lines of that seventh century Bishop, Venantius Fortunatus:--

 "Romanusque lyra, plaudat tibi Barbarus harpa Græcus Achilliaca, Chrotta Britanna canat"

prove, however translated, that the Crwth was essentially British. The structure of the instrument strongly suggests its derivation fromthe Roman and Greek lyres, and I have little doubt that the firstCrwth was in fact a lyre in the hands of one of our early Britishancestors, who thought he would try thereon the effect of a Rebab orKemangeh bow, and most probably got himself heartily laughed at forhis pains. This is a kind of experiment that has been tried in moderntimes, as witness the "Streich-Guitarre" and more recent"Streich-Zither. "

That the Eastern fiddles should have come to Britain then is not avery extravagant supposition. The distance is not great from northernAfrica, through Spain, where a form of Rebab is still played by theBasque peasantry, on through Europe generally and across the Channelto England. Also, it is very likely that there were a number ofOrientals in attendance on the Imperial Court of the Cæsars who wouldnaturally bring their customs, religions and arts with them. 

I do not think the Greeks and Romans made any use of the bowwhatever, although, considering the enormous spread of the RomanEmpire, and, as I say, the diverse nationalities that surrounded thecourt, many of the Indian, Persian and African bowed instruments musthave been fairly familiar objects in Rome and elsewhere. But beinginstruments of conquered nations; primitive in construction andstrange in tonality; they were probably held in too light esteem everto be adopted and developed by people of such importance andcivilization as the Romans or Greeks. 

I say all this with due respect to Mr. Fleming. This gentleman hascontributed sundry valuable works to the bibliography of the violin, and in certain places mentions an Etruscan vase illustrated in acatalogue published by Prince Lucien Napoleon of Canino. He describesthe decorations of this vase as follows: "The subject is a man seatedreading a volume to two youths, who, leaning on knotted sticks, arelistening attentively. On a little table or box in front of theprincipal figure is inscribed the name 'Chironeis. ' On each side ofthe reader is an object which authorities in these matters term'thecæ, ' indicating the profession of this principal figure. One ofthese has a neck or handle, an oval disc, or sounding plane, and atail piece extending below the disc rather more than half the lengthof the neck. From the upper extremity of the neck to the lowerextremity of the disc are stretched strings, and across these stringsat the centre of the disc is placed a bow of as rational constructionas anything that has come down to us prior to the days of Corelli. The instrument is indeed almost identical with the Ravanastron. " Nowall this sounds very nice and extremely convincing, and whether or noMr. Fleming himself believes the Greeks used the bow, I have no doubtthat he is perfectly satisfied that he has proved such to be thecase. 

As I have seen neither the original vase or Prince Napoleon'scatalogue, I feel some diffidence in throwing my half-ounce of doubton this pound--good, thumping weight--of fact. However, I have seenthe reproduction of the drawing as given by Mr. Fleming in his book, "Violins, Old and New, " and, since he makes such a feature of thisGrecian Ravanastron, I feel safe in assuming that it is accuratelycopied. 

I distinctly remember first looking at that drawing. I gazed at itlong and earnestly. I then referred to the text; after which Irapidly searched through the book to see if there was another drawingof a Greek vase. I thought perchance the printers in a playful moodmight have transposed them; such things have happened. But it was notso; the drawing on page 250 was the only one. So I returned to it. There were the reader, the box, the inscription, the attentive youthswith their knotted sticks, and, lastly, the "thecæ. " I was not _long_in doubt as to which of these objects was the one Mr. Flemingattached so much importance to. 

Ods catgut and fiddlesticks! as Bob Acres would genteelly haveexclaimed. So this was the Etruscan Ravanastron I had dreamed about;this was the Greek fiddle I had discoursed so learnedly of when mypupils with childlike pertinacity questioned me as to the origin ofthe violin. 

That is a useful sort of vase. If ever I come across anyone anxiousto prove something, I shall advise him to use that drawing. ThatRavanastron would prove anything; in fact it proved too much for me. 

The more I have searched for pictorial records of bow in old printsand drawings, the more disappointed I have become. It isextraordinary how artists of genius have literally "scamped" the poorunfortunate "fiddle-stick" in such works. In the small room of printsand drawings at the British Museum is a drawing of a violinistattributed to Corregio. It is merely a slight sketch, but the violinis beautifully drawn; the corners are well expressed and theperspective is good, but the bow would be unrecognisable as such wereit not for the close proximity of the violin. Even in morehighly-finished productions the same thing obtains. I have founddrawings of crowders, violists and fiddlers where every little detailof dimple, crease and nail has been almost photographically renderedin a hand holding what one knows must be a bow, but if the other handheld a shield, or a newspaper, or a child's whip-top would beaccepted with equal readiness by the judicious observer as a sword, paper knife or whip respectively. 

Occasionally one finds minute representations of bows, but these aremore often than not of such a nature as to be impossible of credenceas correct representations. 

Another thing that stands in the way of a clear exposition of thebow's development is that even the most reliable drawings andsculptures do not show by any means a gradual improvement in theshape of the bow, for it is no uncommon thing to find fourteenth andfifteenth century representations of bows of quite eighth and ninthcentury type. It is not likely that any of such primitive bows wouldhave remained in use unbroken for so many centuries, therefore I donot think these later representations of early bows can have beencopied from actual specimens then in use, but, where not evolved fromthe artist's inner consciousness, may have been taken from thedrawings, MSS. , etc. , handed down from the earlier periods. On thispoint Mr. Heron-Allen makes the following very sensibleobservations:--"The conclusion we are brought to is consequentlythis: _either_ all representations of bows which have come down to usare unreliable, _or_, the bow, instead of developing as the fiddleundoubtedly did, remained in a state of primitive simplicity, andbore till a comparatively recent date the same relation to itscompanion the fiddle, as do the early specimens of Delft ware and theexquisite Sèvres specimens, which recline side by side in thecabinets of the delightfully incongruous nineteenth century drawingroom. If you ask me to which of these conclusions I incline, I thinkthe two deductions are to one another as three times two are to twicethree, and that a combination of the two would probably account forthe present misty aspect of the past history of the bow. "

One should not lay too much stress on pictorial records; even ourcontemporary artists are not free from error, and it would beinteresting to know what future writers on this subject will say ofthe nineteenth century violins and bows as represented by popularpainters at the Royal Academy and other picture shows. They will findthe evidence just as conflicting. 

Unconvincing and contradictory as the existing records are, they areall we have, and, such as they are, I give a few selected examples. 

A form of bow constantly occurring in drawings, etc. , from the eighthto the sixteenth centuries, is Fig. 15. It is only slightlysuggestive of the Oriental bows. 

[Illustration: FIG. 15. ]

In the ninth century we find a bow (Fig. 16) strongly resemblingthose of the Saw-oo and Saw-Tai. And from the same century we find aminiature representation of a Crwth player with a bow slightly moredistinctive in character (Fig. 17). 

[Illustration: FIG. 16. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 17. ]

Similar bows to the above appear to have been pretty general in thetenth century. In the eleventh century a little more variety isapparent, as will be seen in Fig. 18. 

[Illustration: FIG. 18. ]

Here are to be found the survival of the ninth century form shown inFig. 17, and a remarkable advance in the form of the one at thebottom, which is doubtless the pattern intended to be shown in thesculptured bow, second from the top. The top one is merely given asan example of the perfunctory work the historian has to examine andyet retain his customary calm exterior. 

Fig. 19 gives some examples of twelfth century bows as depicted bythe artists of that period. The first two are evidently intended torepresent the type shown in Fig. 17. The sculptor probably found thestraight line of the hair inelegant. The third (which is from a MS. In the Bodleian Library) and last show a return to the ninth centuryform in Fig. 16. 

[Illustration: FIG. 19. ]

This is a form that is found so continually through all thecenturies, down to the seventeenth and eighteenth, that I am inclinedto the belief that it is fairly accurate. It is very much like theoutline of the modern double bass bow. In Fig. 20 are given somethirteenth century bows: the one with the curious sword-hilt isremarkable. In the others we find a return to more primitive lines. 

[Illustration: FIG. 20. ]

The fourteenth century bows have very little to distinguish them fromthose of preceding ages, and I give the most noticeable examples Ihave found in Fig. 21. The second is a very advanced type. Againstthese must be set those in Fig. 22. 

[Illustration: FIG. 21. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 22. ]

These appear to me as being most probably conventionalrepresentations, or copied from older works as suggested above. 

Of fifteenth century bows, the pictorial and plastic arts recordthose shown in Fig. 23, together with the usual atavism or return toearlier types. 

[Illustration: FIG. 23. ]

This atavism, if credible, is most marked in the sixteenth century aswitness those in Fig. 24. 

[Illustration: FIG. 24. ]

Here are bows that take us back to before the Norman Conquest, drawnby artists who were contemporary with Gasparo da Salo and AndreasAmati. It is quite out of the question to suppose that such bows wereused at that time. 

The drawings of seventeenth century bows are more convincing. We thenget a more definite idea of the nut, which was in most cases afixture. Also, the head begins to mould itself into somethingapproaching the form of the modern "hatchet. "

Although there are cases of bows in drawings as far back as theeleventh century (see Fig. 18, etc. ) showing great advances, it isnot until reaching the seventeenth century, that one can say with anydegree of confidence that the perfect bow is on the horizon. 

CHAPTER IV. 

THE BEGINNINGS OF THE MODERN BOW--ORNAMENTATION--A POSSIBLESTRADIVARI BOW--THE MOVABLE NUT--THE CRÉMAILLÈRE--THE SCREW NUT. 

I find it a matter for extreme regret that there should be such alarge element of uncertainty in what I am able to bring forward ofthe earlier historical aspect of the bow. Of its primitive use onecan do little more than examine contemporary evidence in the East, and then assume, albeit with some show of reason, that the same formshave survived from remote periods. Coming to the mediæval bow weappear to tread on safer ground; bows are depicted in miniatures, manuscripts, paintings, etc. , from the eight and ninth centuriesonwards, and in nearly every case we can determine the date of theproduction and frequently its author. So far nothing could be moresatisfactory, but as I have said above, there are very few examplesthat impress one as being accurate representations. 

Proceeding to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, I am furtherfrustrated in my attempt to elucidate the obscure passages in thebow's history by a reversal of those conditions. I can now lay beforemy readers drawings and photographs of bows the accuracy of which Ican guarantee, but placing them in perfect chronology is, unfortunately, little more than guess work. Such was the modesty oftheir makers that the early bows were all sent into the worldnameless. Many of them are marvels of workmanship, and, thoughutterly unscientific in construction and unfit for the requirementsof modern violinists, they are for the most part exquisite works ofart upon which no pains have been spared. 

Some of the fluting and other ornamentation is little short ofmarvellous in point of design and finish. 

To a casual writer like myself the mass of conflicting detail foundon examining ancient bows and the records of their use is extremelydisconcerting. The practised scientist, however, surveys such thingswith calmness, for his trained eye immediately selects those detailsthat support the theories he wishes to promulgate, and the rest arequietly consigned to oblivion. 

In this way the most charmingly satisfactory results are obtained. Thus Fétis, in his article on Tourte, gives a brief outline of thehistory of the bow, illustrating the same with what purports to be a"_Display of the successive ameliorations of the bow in theseventeenth and eighteenth centuries. _" This consists of a series ofdrawings of bows ranging from Mersenne in 1620 through those used byKircher, Castrovillari, Bassani, Corelli, Tartini and Cramer to thatof Viotti in 1790. Herein is shown how the arched bow gave place tothe straight: and this in its turn to that having the inward curveknown as the "spring" or _cambre_. The succession is perfect, and itis only the final drawing of the series (the Viotti bow of 1790) thatshows this _cambre_. 

Now, in the collection of ancient bows kindly lent me by Mr. A. Hillfor the purpose of illustrating these pages are several bows of amuch earlier date, yet having the _cambre_ most pronounced and, insome examples, extremely elegant. 

Not being a scientist, I do not know how to omit these evidences ofadvance at such an early date from my writings on this subject, although I feel that by not doing so I am rendering this section ofthe work far from clear. 

As a matter of fact clearness in what we can ascertain of the bow'shistory is a quality conspicuous by its absence; a conditiondoubtless due to the varying capacities of early bow makers, some ofwhom may have continued to make antiquated types whilst others ofgreater talent were anticipating in a measure the results of Tourte'sgenius and observation. It has been observed in other branches of theworld's progress that many have groped in the right direction for aspace until there came one Genius who grasped, almost by intuition, the various requirements and produced the perfect work beyond whichno man could go. 

Entering upon the seventeenth century I now abandon the use ofpictorial records of bows in favour of drawings and photographs madefrom actual specimens now in existence. 

In Fig. 25 I give the heads of three remarkably interesting bows. Ihave drawn them the exact size of the originals. The first is mostprimitive throughout, though having an ingeniously contrived nut ofwhich I shall speak more fully further on. The length of this bow isnearly 23 in. ; the distance from the inside surface of the stick atthe heel to the hair is 3/4 in. , and the width of the hair is 1/4 in. 

[Illustration: FIG. 25. ]

The second bow is extremely elegant, although useless as a bow: notethe grace of the long peak. It is seldom that one finds these peaksso well preserved as many have been first broken and then cut down toremove the unsightly jagged end. The dimensions of this boware:--Total length, 28-1/8 in. ; length of hair, 23-1/4 in. ; distanceof hair from stick at heel, 3/4 in. ; breadth of hair 1/4 in. The nutis on the same principle as the preceding one. 

The third bow may be late seventeenth or early eighteenth centurywork. It is beautifully fluted throughout its entire length, thelower third having an extra raised line between the fluting. It isremarkable inasmuch as it has a movable nut working with a screw asin the modern bow and also a distinct _cambre_. The inward deviationof the stick from a straight line is a full quarter of an inch in25-1/2 in. ; but this is too low down to give the bow a good spring. Being made, like the others in this figure, of that unyieldingmaterial snakewood, the experiment, though in the right direction, cannot be said to have been successful. The full length of this bowis 28-1/2 in. ; the length of the hair, 23-1/2 in. 

Plate I. Is a photograph of an extremely interesting bow. Like thepreceding example it has the conventional nut and _cambre_. In thematter of ornamentation it is probably unique. It is not only flutedthroughout, but is inlaid with a minute mosaic of red, yellow andbrown woods. In appearance it reminds one of the straw-work sopopular at one period. Inlaid on one side of the nut are seen theArms of Spain, and on the reverse is the Royal monogram. Mr. AlfredHill procured this bow with some difficulty in Madrid and was able totrace its pedigree in so far as that it was originally with theinstruments made by Stradivarius for the Spanish Court. There is justa shadow of possibility that it may be the actual work of that mostglorious craftsman of Cremona. 

[Illustration: PLATE I. ]

Its length over all is 27-1/2 in. ; the playing length of the hair is23-1/4 in. ; the width of the hair barely 1/4 in. This bow has themost scientific _cambre_ as yet found. Its deviation is 9/16 in. In26-5/8 in. It is also of more flexible material than the others. 

The centre bow in Fig. 26 is stamped by Thomas Smith (at last we havea signed specimen), chiefly known for his 'cellos. It was mostprobably made, however, by Edward Dodd. The head, while possessing acertain elegance, is of a very early type. It is of yellow lance woodand has a very pronounced _cambre_, the deviation being nearly 1/2in. In 27-1/4 in. The total length is 28-3/4 in. , and from themortices in the head and nut one would suppose that it was intendedto take somewhat broader hair than the preceding examples. The dateof the bow is somewhere between 1760 and 1780. The other bows in Fig. 26 are viola da gamba bows; the upper one I use frequently myself incertain pieces for that instrument. It is very elegant and I shouldsay is of French make. It is extremely flexible and most adapted tosustaining chords of three notes, as the great distance of the hairfrom the stick prevents any "grinding" on the middle string. But likeall these early bows the hair is much too narrow. The other gamba bowin Fig. 26 is very quaint and appears to be of much earlier date. Itis handsomely fluted through the upper two thirds: the lower thirdbeing a simple octagonal. A curious feature is that the distance ofthe hair from the stick gradually diminishes from 1 in. At the heelto 1/2 in. At the point. It has a slight _cambre_, but being of snakewood is quite poker-like in its rigidity. 

[Illustration: FIG. 26. ]

As is it impossible to determine the exact date of these bows, onecan arrive at no very safe conclusion as to when the movable nut wasfirst introduced. Fétis thinks this important modification came fromthe East also, and he mentions a cherry wood bow in his possession, made at Bagdad, which has a distinct head where the hair is inserted, and a nut fitting into a dovetail notch in the stick. 

The first and second of the bows shown in Fig. 25 have a curiousdevice. The hair is fixed into the stick at both ends, and the nut, which is quite detached, slips into a slot with a snap, and is heldin place by the pressure of the hair. A glance at Fig. 27 will makethis arrangement clear. These two nuts are the second and third inFig. 28, which is reduced one-third below actual size. The ornamentaltip to the middle one looks as though it had a screw, but this ismerely a decoration to balance a finely fluted design on the stickjust above where the "lapping" is usually placed. 

[Illustration: FIG. 27. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 28. ]

A great advance on this was the _crémaillère_ (Fig. 29), which servedto vary the tension of the hair in a more or less satisfactorymanner. This device is still in use in Sweden. 

[Illustration: FIG. 29. ]

The actual invention of the movable nut travelling on a propellingand withdrawing screw is attributed to the elder Tourte, but some ofthe bows in Mr. Hill's collection having this contrivance appear tobe too remote for this to be the case. It is a point that I fear willalways be shrouded in mystery. 

In Plate II. We see a nearer approach to the outlines of the modernbow. These I should say are the work of W. Tubbs, who worked for mostof the English fiddle makers and dealers. The first one bears thestamp of Norris and Barnes. This bow is 27-7/8 in. In length, theother two being exactly one inch longer. The hair in the first andthird is 1/4 in. In width; in the centre one it is full 5/16 in. Thehandsome ivory nut of this bow is shown in Fig. 28. They areextremely elegant, and have much of the character of the modern bowin finish and _cambre_, though the deviation is again too low down. 

[Illustration: PLATE II. ]

CHAPTER V. 

VUILLAUME'S FACTS--THE FERRULE AND SLIDE--JOHN DODD. 

Another example of bow, remarkable not only for its ornamentation, but also as having a well defined _cambre_ together with a nut andscrew, is Fig. 30. 

[Illustration: FIG. 30. ]

This is a Cremonese bow of the seventeenth century. It is fluted inalternate sections, or panels, the lower third having a slight extracomplication of the design "thrown in. " Truly these grand oldcraftsmen were not afraid of work. The screw-nut is as perfect as onecould wish, saving, only, in the meagre allowance of hair providedfor. 

These early bows with screw-nuts quite dispel the generally acceptedtheory that this mechanical contrivance for regulating the tensionand preserving the elasticity of the stick was the invention of theelder Tourte. The majority of writers on the history of the violin, and, incidentally, the bow, are content to take their data from thatmuch quoted historian and scientist, Fétis. He appears to have mademost of his more important statements on the authority of Vuillaume. How Vuillaume became so versed in the history of his craft does notappear. His talent in the way of producing "genuine" Cremonese andother masterpieces is well known, the most stupendous example beingthe Duiffoprugcar instruments with which he imposed on the violinworld so successfully. May we infer that he had equal facility in thefabrication of historical "facts"? _De mortuis nil nisi bonum_, butat all cost our history must be made accurate. Better no facts at allthan spurious ones. 

Having disposed of the screw attachment, the next important points inthe development of the bow is the ferrule, which preserves theribbon-like appearance of the hair, and the slide, which serves as anornamental cover for the mortice in which the hair is fixed. Theseadditions are commonly attributed to François Tourte, but in Fig. 31I give a drawing of a typical nut by John Dodd, having both theseimprovements. 

[Illustration: FIG. 31. ]

Dodd and Tourte were contemporaries, Tourte's birth having takenplace only five years before that of Dodd in 1752. When I come tospeak more particularly of Tourte I shall show my reasons forthinking it unlikely that Dodd copied Tourte in this respect. Thewhole matter is shrouded in mystery. In other branches of science, art, etc. , we find brilliant thinkers arriving simultaneously atidentical results, [1] and I can quite believe that the idea of theferrule and slide (obvious contrivances when one considers therequirements of a good bow) could have occurred to more than one ofthe workers then striving after perfection. 

[Footnote 1: As a noteworthy example, take the simultaneous discoveryby deduction of the invisible planet Neptune, by Adams andLeverrier. ]

The characteristic feature I wish to call attention to in the heelshown above (Fig. 31) is the great size of the slide in proportion tothe whole lower surface of the nut. It leaves such a very smallmargin compared with that of other makers. This will be found innearly every genuine specimen. Unfortunately nuts wear out and becomereplaced with new ones, so that it is not always possible to obtain abow that is original in all its parts. Dodd occasionally decoratedthe face of his bows with mother-of-pearl, as in the example shown inFig. 31. He invariably stamped the name DODD in large, plain lettersboth on the side of the nut and on the stick. I have seen some thatare stamped J. Dodd, but not many. Fig. 32 shows (actual size) a veryearly Dodd head, than which nothing, I think, could be moredistressingly ugly. It is remarkable that such a caricature shouldhave emanated from the same man who produced those shown in PlatesIII. And IV. Plate III. Consists of photographs (actual size) of twoviolin bows, and one tenor bow, Plate IV. Giving one tenor bow andone 'cello bow by this maker. It would be quite impossible to giverepresentations of all Dodd's characteristics, as his work varies sovery much. I have therefore chosen a few only of the best types. These are all exceptionally well finished. In the second and third isto be seen the tendency to arch in the neck of the bow so frequent inDodds; in the others the sweep of the stick up to the head isperfect. His 'cello bows are his best work, and compare favourablywith the greatest Continental makers. The one I have selected is ofthe finest period. The first of the two tenor bows (third on PlateIII. ) is the type of head most frequently seen, some have the headdrawn backward at a very ungainly angle, and others, again, slopeforwards, to an extent greater even than that of the 'cello bow inPlate IV. 

[Illustration: FIG. 32. ]

[Illustration: PLATE III. ]

[Illustration: PLATE IV. ]

Owing to the extreme elegance of Dodd's bows, and the beautifulworkmanship of his finest specimens, he has been dubbed the "EnglishTourte, " and amongst the majority of English amateurs the name ofDodd is held in the highest possible estimation. But as a matter offact very few Dodd bows are worthy of this regard. His best bows, such as he sold for a pound or thirty shillings, are fine, althoughfew of the violin bows are such as an artist would make much use of. The slenderness is frequently carried to excess, and the narrownessof the head prevents a sufficient "spread" being given to the hair inmany cases, and a great number are much too short. 

It must be remembered that Dodd worked before foreign importationannihilated the English violin and bow making industries, and heturned out a large number of bows at prices ranging from a fewshillings a dozen upwards. Thus it will be readily understood thatthere are many genuine Dodds in existence that are not worth lookingat. His tenor bows are often excellent, and, as I said above, his'cello bows represent him the best. 

CHAPTER VI. 

DR. SELLÈ'S RECOLLECTIONS OF DODD--HIS WORK AND POVERTY--DODD ANDTOURTE--THE CALCULATION OF FÉTIS AND VUILLAUME. 

It has been my great good fortune to be favoured with an interviewwith the veteran violinist, Doctor Sellè, of Richmond. Thisgentleman, now well on in his eighties, knew John Dodd mostintimately, and gave me many interesting details about him. I haveendeavoured to obtain a portrait of Dodd, but there does not seem tobe anything of the sort in existence. However, Dr. Sellè gave me agraphic description of his personal appearance. In stature he wasshort and of a shuffling gait. As he affected nether garments ofextreme brevity, very broad-brimmed hats, and was excessivelynegligent in the matter of clothing, etc. , his habitual aspect wasquaint and eccentric to a degree. 

He was unfortunately very illiterate, and, according to Dr. Sellè, itis doubtful whether he could sign his own name. 

In his work--the artistic excellence of which is remarkable underthese circumstances--he was very secretive, giving as his reason fortaking no apprentice, his desire that no one else should ever know orperpetuate his methods. 

It has been said, and, I believe, on good authority, that he was onceoffered the sum of 1, 000 pounds for his "secret, " a temptation that, despite his great poverty, he steadfastly resisted. 

Doctor Sellè tells me that he distinctly remembers seeing Dodd cutout a bow from the rough plank with a curiously constructed doublesaw. 

This is very remarkable as none of the bow makers now working know ofsuch a tool, or can conceive the possibility of using one. Whetherthis may have any connexion with the much talked of "secret, " it isimpossible to say. It is probably another of those points in thehistory of the bow that seem doomed to remain shrouded in mystery. 

Doctor Sellè remembers seeing Dodd walking home many times with hispockets full of oyster shells begged from various stalls. 

From these he used to cut out the pearl for the slides andornamentation on his bows. This accounts for the characteristicplainness of these features of his work. He was often at a loss forsilver for the mountings, and the Doctor says it was highly divertingto him when a boy to hear the old housekeeper soundly rating Dodd formelting down _another_ of her metal spoons. 

One great drawback to Dodd's success was his partiality for the"flowing bowl. " As the Doctor epigramatically expressed it in thenotes he supplied to A. Vidal, "he was very regular in hisirregularities. " Vidal's translation at this point is worthy of note. One is surprised to find that Dodd would pay four daily visits to"les voitures et chevaux publics"--"the public carriages and horses. "

The mind fails to grasp the Gallic conception of the eccentricEnglishman whose nationally characteristic love of horseflesh shouldcause him so frequently to inspect the omnibus of the period. 

One shudders to think what Vidal would have done if Dodd's favouritehouse of call had been the Star and Garter instead of the _Coach andHorses_!

His last years were spent in great poverty; in fact, he subsistedalmost entirely on the charity of a few violinists and amateurs whoappreciated his genius. He ultimately died of bronchitis in theInfirmary of Richmond Workhouse, and was buried at Kew; not, as hasbeen elsewhere stated, at Richmond. 

I do not think a man of such a taciturn, secretive disposition, wouldhave been likely readily to adopt the methods and copy the work ofanother maker. As has been shown by the reproductions of bows I havegiven so far, there has been apparent a converging tendency to themodern design of head all through. The Tourte head is undoubtedly themost beautiful, the most perfect in every way. His was the masterhand that _did_ what others had been trying to do. Dodd, working, asI believe, quite independently, came very near it. A comparison ofthe Dodd bows shown in Plates III. And IV. , with the Tourtes inPlates V. And VI. , will make clear a very significant fact. Dodd'swork--fine as it is--is distinctly _earlier_ in spirit than that ofhis great French rival. Yet they were contemporaries--in point offact Dodd was a few years later than Tourte. 

[Illustration: PLATE V. ]

[Illustration: PLATE VI. ]

Then, as regards the _cambre_, Dodd followed on in the primitiveschool and cut his bows at once to the required sweep: Tourte, inaddition to perfecting the dimensions and design, instituted anentirely new principle based on scientific deductions. His bows wereall cut straight, and the "spring" was produced by judicious heatingof the fibres. 

Another thing one has to consider in this connexion is the relationsthat existed between England and France at this period. I think mostpeople will admit that they were "strained, " and that there were manyobstacles in the way of free intercourse between the two countries. The war with France commenced when Dodd was twenty-one years of age, and though Tourte was five years older he had spent his youth firstlyin the pursuit of a vocation entirely removed from bow making, andsecondly in experiments lasting some considerable time before hecommenced producing the perfect work that has made his name one to beextolled and reverenced by all wielders of that magic wand, the"fiddle-stick. " When one thinks of the roundabout way such a thingwould have to travel from Paris to London at this period, it seemshighly probable that Dodd may not have seen a specimen of Tourte'swork until he was about sixty. 

What a marvellous thing a fine Tourte is! What a revelation the firsttime a player handles one! When I have an opportunity of playing on aStrad with a Tourte I can never decide which causes me the mostdelight. There is an indefinable something about a Tourte that seemsto increase the player's dexterity of manipulation to anextraordinary extent. No matter how used one may be to a certain bow:no matter how expert one may be in the execution of staccato andarpeggio passages, the first time a Tourte is tried one realizes thathitherto there has been an effort necessary for the adequateproduction of such effects, whereas now the bow seems endowed with aconsciousness quite _en rapport_ with that of the player, anddifficulties vanish magically. It seems voluntarily to carry intoeffect the player's wishes without any physical interpositionwhatever. 

It is like riding a thoroughbred in the "Row" after driving a donkeyacross Hampstead Heath. Not that I or any of my readers would thinkof indulging in any such distressingly vulgar exercise as the lastnamed. It may serve, however, to conjure up in the mind asufficiently forcible simile. 

Apart from their many wonderful qualities as bows, they are quiteexceptional as works of art. Study the four heads shown in Plates V. And VI. , and note the tender sweep of the outer line; full of forceand delicacy combined. See, too, how it is supported by theharmonious inner line, a thought more rigid, and yet full of grace. To become an expert in bows requires years of continual observation, for the slight differences in line are too subtle to be apparent tothose who are not constantly looking for and studying them. But Ithink anyone, even "ye meanest capacitie in ye world"--to quote goodold Roger North--will be able to appreciate the contrast between thebow heads in Plates III. And IV. , and those in Plates V. And VI. Itis in the two 'cello bow heads that the greatest resemblance is seen. But even here one can easily note the unwonted massiveness, almostamounting to clumsiness, in that of Dodd; while the Tourte is full oflightness, strength and vigour. There is more or less of sluggishnessobservable in most of the preceding bows, but the Tourte is _awake_;it lives!

It is at times of great interest to note by what slender threads ofchance great consequences may be suspended. Take the family of theTourtes for instance. We find the father a worthy craftsman makingbows as good, and possibly better, than those of his contemporaries. He, obeying a natural law of custom, educated his eldest son in hisown craft, and probably looked to him to perpetuate thoseexcellencies in design and finish that had brought him fame. François, the younger son, was not forgotten though, and the fatherbethought him of some useful industry at which he might earn aliving, and decided on clockmaking as the most suitable. Now mark theerratic workings of fate. The eldest son, from whom so much wasexpected, proved a comparative failure, inasmuch as that, instead ofprogressing, his work was distinctly inferior to that of hisfather. [1] François, on the other hand, became tired of clockmakingafter eight years' ill-remunerated grind, and turned his attention tothe family trade. 

[Footnote 1: The few fine bows by "Tourte-l'ainé, " as he was called, I should think were made after his brother's success in thisdirection. ]

He, like Dodd, was totally uneducated, but had great gifts ofperception and judgment. 

At this time violin playing was becoming every day more distinctiveand prominent. Great players were beginning to understand the _chiaroscuro_ of music. They were learning expression. 

There was in general amongst violinists an anticipation of the grand, yet simple law set forth by De Beriot in his Violin School that thehuman voice was the pure archetype upon which all _played_ musicshould be modelled. 

It was found that the violin was capable of simulating all the subtleinflexions of song, whether of passion or tenderness, and playerssighed for an ideal bow that should be tongue-like in its response tothe performer's emotion. A bow that should at once be flexible to"whisper soft nothings in my lady's ear"; strong--to sound aclarion-blast of defiance; and, withal, be ready for any_coquetterie_ or _badinage_ that might suit its owner's whim. This iswhat François Tourte, the starving clockmaker, gave them. 

We fiddlers have to be very thankful that the master clockmakers ofParis were not more liberal to their employés!

Illiterate as he was he at once grasped all the points of art andphysics involved, and commenced diligently experimenting with a viewto solving the various problems that presented themselves to hisconsideration. 

To gain facility in the manipulation of his tools, he made countlessbows from old barrel staves; he could not afford to make his firstattempts on anything better. When he had attained sufficient skill inthe actual workmanship, and had satisfied himself as to the mostsuitable form, he set to work investigating the question of material. He tried all kinds of wood, and at last decided that the red wood ofPernambuco, then largely imported into Europe for dyeing purposes, was the best. To obtain this in sufficient quantities was no easymatter, for the Anglo-French wars were interfering seriously withinternational commerce; a circumstance that rendered this materialunusually expensive. Then the nature of this wood is not by any meansa bow maker's ideal. Billets and logs amounting to several tons inweight may be examined before a piece is found sufficiently free fromknots and cracks, and of straight enough grain to be suitable for thepurpose. However, genius _and_ a capacity for taking infinite painsovercame all difficulties, and we now have bows worthy of thegreatest masterpieces of Cremona. 

How little are the workings of genius understood by the "painstaking"ones. They cannot conceive the suddenness of inspiration--the almostinstantaneous grasp of essentials that precedes the ploddingmechanical work necessary even to genius. 

The results of "infinite pains, " or of genius alone are equallyunsatisfactory. It is only where these qualities are combined inperfect balance that true greatness can be achieved. 

In the case of Tourte we have a remarkable example of thiscombination. His genius made him grasp spontaneously the qualitiesrequired, and his capacity for taking infinite pains helped him toproduce the perfect bow. He it was who determined finally the lengthand weight of a bow, its equilibrium, the angle of the hair necessaryfor a good "attack, " the length and breadth of the hair and sundryother points that, prior to 1775, had been quite undecided. 

The mean length of a violin bow as fixed by Tourte is from 74 to 75centimètres (29. 134 to 29. 528 inches English); that of a viola bow is74 centimètres (29. 134 inches), and a 'cello bow 72 to 73 centimètres(28. 347 to 28. 740). Many people imagine that the plates of silver orgold with which the nut of a bow is inlaid are nothing more than mereornamentation. But their first purpose is distinctly one of utility, which is as it should be in a work of art; superfluous decoration hasno beauty for an artist. It is by means of these metal "loadings" atthe heel that the weight of the head is counteracted and the exactpoint of equilibrium determined. The centre of gravity in a violinbow should be at 19 centimètres (7. 48 inches) from the nut; in a'cello bow at 175 to 180 millimètres (6. 89 to 7. 087 inches) from thenut. 

Concerning the geometric proportions of the Tourte bows, I cannot dobetter than quote Bishop's able translation of the explanation givenby Fétis in his notice of A. Stradivarius. 

[Illustration: FIG. 33. ]

"The medium length of a bow, to the head exclusively, is 0^m, 700(27. 56 inches). 

"The bow comprises a cylindrical or prismatic part of uniformdimensions, the length of which is 0^m, 110 (4. 33 inches). When thisportion is cylindrical, its diameter is 0^m, 008-6/10 (. 34 inch). 

"From this cylindrical or prismatic portion the diameter of the bowdecreases up to the head, where it is reduced to 0^m, 005-3/10 (. 21inches). This gives a difference of 0^m, 003-3/10 of a millimètre(. 13 inch) between the diameters of the extremities; from whence itfollows that the stick comprises ten points where its diameter isnecessarily reduced by 3/10 of a millimètre (. 012 inch) reckoningfrom the cylindrical portion. 

"After proving by a great number of Tourte's bows that these tenpoints are not only found always at decreasing distances on the samestick, but also that the distances are perceptibly the same, and thatthe situations of the points are identical on different bows comparedtogether, M. Vuillaume sought to ascertain whether the positions ofthe ten points could not be obtained by a geometrical construction, by which they might be found with certainty; and by which, consequently, bows might be made whose good condition should bealways settled _à priori_. This he attained in the following manner. At the extremity of a right line A B, equal to 0^m, 700 (27. 56inches), that is to say the length of the bow, raise a perpendicularA C, equal to the length of the cylindrical portion, namely 0^m, 110(4. 33 inches). 

"At the extremity B of the same line, raise another perpendicular BD, of the length 0^m, 022 (. 866 inches) and unite the upperextremities of these two perpendiculars, or ordinates by a right lineC D, so that the two lines A B and C D, may lie at a certaininclination to each other. 

"Take the length 0^m, 110 (4. 33 inches) of the ordinate A C with thecompasses, and set it off on the line A B, from A to _e_: from thepoint thus obtained, draw another ordinate (parallel to A C andperpendicular to A B), until it meets the line C D. 

"Between these two ordinates A C and _e f_--the latter of which isnecessarily less than the former--lies the cylindrical portion of thebow, whose diameter, as before stated, is 0^m, 008-6/10 (. 34 inch). 

"Then take the length of the ordinate last obtained, _e f_, and setit off, as before, on the line A B, from _f_ to _g_, and at the point_g_ draw a third ordinate _g h_, the length of which must also be setoff on the line A B, to determine thereon a new point _i_, from whichto draw the fourth ordinate, _i j_: the length of which, likewise, when set off on the line A B, determines the point where the fifthordinate _k l_ is to be drawn. The latter, in like manner, determinesthe sixth _m n_, and so of the others, to the last but one _y z_. 

"The points _g i k m o q s u w y_ so obtained, starting from thepoint _e_, are those where the diameter of the bow is successivelyreduced 3/10 of a millimètre (. 012 inch). Now, these points have beendetermined by the successively decreasing lengths of the ordinatesdrawn from the same points, and their respective distancesprogressively decrease from the point _e_ to the point B. 

"If we subject these data to calculation, we shall find that theprofile of the bow is represented by a logarithmic curve, of whichthe ordinates increase in arithmetical progression; while theabscissæ increase in geometrical progression; and lastly, that thecurvature of the profile will be expressed by the equation

 y = - 3. 11 + 2, 57 log. _x_;

and, in varying _x_ from 175 to 165 tenths of a millimètre, thecorresponding values of _y_ will be those of the radii (orsemi-diameters) of the transverse circular section of the bow atcorresponding points in the axis. "

CHAPTER VII. 

LUPOT--PECCATTE--SPURIOUS STAMPING--PANORMO--W. J. B. WOOLHOUSE'SCALCULATIONS. 

I have spoken at length of Dodd and Tourte--two names that stand outin the history of the bow with remarkable prominence--and beforeproceeding with the general list of bow makers, great and small, Ipropose to speak of Peccatte and Lupot, whose genius was inferioronly to that of Tourte in that they were followers rather thanoriginators. 

François Lupot was a brother of Nicolas Lupot the violin maker. He, however, devoted all his energies to the manufacture of bows, and, inhis best work, is considered by many to nearly equal Tourte. Butunfortunately the standard of excellence in Lupot's bows varies to aconsiderable extent, and, while some are truly magnificent others arevery inferior. This is a fact that cannot be too widely made known inthe interests of intending purchasers. The guarantee of genuinenessalone is not sufficient for anyone desiring a bow for use, and, unless he has the requisite knowledge and experience himself heshould always first submit a bow to a professional man of repute forhis judgment as to its qualities for a player. Many of Lupot's sticksare stamped "LUPOT, " sometimes in two or three places, but it hasbeen doubted whether he did this himself or not. In general it isthought that it was done afterwards by dealers. This is certainly thecase with the few Tourtes that are stamped with their maker's name, for it is an ascertained fact that the Tourtes never stamped theirwork. There are only two instances on record of Tourte marking astick, and in each case it consisted of a minute label glued into theslot bearing the following inscription: "Cet archet a été fait parTourte en 1824, âge de soixante-dix-sept ans. " (This bow was made byTourte in 1824, aged 77 years). 

An important addition, said to have been instituted by Lupot, was themetal plate which lines the groove in the nut and prevents thewearing away of the nut by friction with the stick. 

In Plate VII. I give two examples of Lupot's work. Here will be seenall the tenderness of line characteristic of Tourte, albeit that theylack somewhat of his force. The workmanship in these two bows issuperb, and they are also delightful to play with, being wellbalanced and of controllable flexibility. This is a point in a bowthat is frequently overlooked. Many imagine that flexibility alone isthe chief desideratum, and bows have been shown to me almostindiarubber-like in their pliancy; the owners expecting me to waxenthusiastic over this--to my mind--serious defect. As a matter offact, flexibility and pliancy are not correct definitions of a bow'schief quality, as they amount to weakness. What is really meant iselasticity, by which is conveyed not only the property of yielding topressure but also that of speedily recovering its normal state. Wesometimes hear a player in testing bows say that such a one has toomuch "life" in it; thereby implying that its action is largely out ofthe performer's control, a condition usually attributable to anexcess of flexibility. 

[Illustration: PLATE VII. ]

As a contrast to the Lupot bows in Plate VII. , I give two examples ofDominique Peccatte, Plate VIII. Here we have forcibleness and energyto a most marked extent, yet there is a certain grace withal, theextreme squareness of the outer line does not offend the eye as inthose of Dodd. 

[Illustration: PLATE VIII. ]

Peccatte, like François Tourte, started life in an occupation farremoved from that which made him famous. His father was a barber atMirecourt, where Dominique was born 1810. Wielding the razor notproving congenial, he adopted the prevailing industry of the town andbecame a maker of violins and bows; in the latter he becameexceptionally expert. In the year 1826 J. B. Vuillaume was in want ofa talented workman and wrote to his brother, who was established inMirecourt, to find him one. The result of these enquiries was thatDominique Peccatte came to Paris and remained for eleven years withVuillaume. In 1837 François Lupot died and Peccatte took over thebusiness. Ten years later he returned to his native place, thoughretaining his business connexion with Paris until his death, whichtook place in 1874. Many of his bows are unstamped, or bear the stampof Vuillaume, but great numbers of them are stamped "PECCATTE, "occasionally with the word "PARIS" on the opposite side of the stick. 

Much confusion has arisen from the fact that in some specimens thestamp has only a single "T, " the result, probably, of illiteracy onthe part of the maker. 

The third in Plate VIII. Is a bow by Panormo. His work is quitedistinct from that of any other maker; but one must not run away withthe idea that he affected an unjustifiable singularity, for the flatsides and angular facets of the Panormo heads have a logical basis, being in point of fact the natural continuation of the octagonalstick. 

Indebted as we are to the makers and scientists of France forbringing the indispensable "fiddlestick" to such a degree ofperfection, we must not overlook the claims of certain of our owncountrymen for recognition in the same field of art. 

The late mathematician and musical amateur, W. S. B. Woolhouse, noless than Fétis, contributed greatly to a full understanding of theessential properties of a bow on the part of those whose office it isto produce the actual instrument. Woolhouse laid great stress on apoint overlooked by many other students of the subject, the samebeing that the success of a bow depends quite as much on its purityas a vibrating body as does the violin. 

Unless the bow is so adjusted in its weight and proportions that itvibrates with absolute uniformity throughout its entire length it isuseless to an artist. 

Bows are "false" frequently in the same way that strings are. Inequalities of finish, imperceptible to our ordinary senses, willrender a perfect "_staccato_" from end to end impossible, just as itis impossible to obtain true fifths in every part of a violin'scompass if one of the strings be slightly wanting in absolutecylindricity. I speak specially of "_staccato_, " as that form ofbowing suffers perhaps more than any other from faulty bows; but anyform of bowing that calls for special dexterity will betray theinefficiency of a bow. 

It is of great interest to compare the calculations of Woolhouse withthose of Fétis, and I will here quote the results obtained by theformer. 

"If measurements be taken in inches, and parts of an inch, and _h_denote the distance of any part of the bow from the head, thediameter of the stick in that locality, supposing the bow to beround, may be readily calculated from the following formula:--

 Diameter = . 2 [log. (_h_ + 7. 25) - 9. 8100]

"From this formula the numbers given in the last column of thefollowing table were calculated. "

+--------------------------------------------+-------------+| _Distance from Head of Bow in Inches_. | Diameter |+--------------+--------------+--------------+ in parts of || Violin | Viola | Violoncello | an inch. |+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+| 0 | | | . 210 || 2 | 0 | | . 230 || 4 | 1-1/2 | 0 | . 247 || 6 | 3 | 1 | . 262 || 9 | 5 | 3 | . 280 || 13 | 8 | 5-1/2 | . 300 || 18 | 11-1/2 | 9 | . 318 || 23 | 15 | 12 | . 333 || | 19 | 16 | . 348 || | 23 | 20 | . 360 || | | 24 | . 370 |+--------------+--------------+--------------+-------------+

These measurements, of course, only extend to the commencement of thecylindrical portion. 

Woolhouse made a small gauge of ivory, based on the abovemeasurements, which proved of great practical value in examiningbows. The measurements he obtained by the above calculation apply towood of medium density. He says, "For close and dense wood thedimensions should be somewhat diminished, or, what amountspractically to the same thing, the distance from the head should, fordense wood, be increased by half an inch, or an inch, as the case maybe, before applying the gauge. " He then gives a table of inclusiveweights of violin, viola and violoncello bows. 

+---------------------------------------------------+| _Weight of Bow for_ || +-------------+-------------+-------------+| | Violin | Viola | Violoncello || +-------------+-------------+-------------+| | grains | grains | grains || Light | 850 | 1, 000 | 1, 150 || Medium | 900 | 1, 050 | 1, 200 || Heavy | 950 | 1, 100 | 1, 250 |+---------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

In speaking of the adjustment of the spring or _cambre_, Woolhousegives a means of obtaining the exact curve that does not strike me asbeing sufficiently reliable for the purpose. He suggests that "anauxiliary bow be made of the proper dimensions, but so as to be quitestraight; then, on being haired and screwed up in the ordinary way, it will show, in an inverted position, the exact curve to which otherbows should be set. " But "screwed up in the ordinary way" appears tome to admit of too much latitude of application: it is not possibleto divine to what extent this auxiliary bow _is_ to be screwed, andif _this_ is left to the judgment of the maker, why not set the_cambre_ by judgment and save the trouble of the straight auxiliarybow?

I will now proceed to give an alphabetical list of bow makers which Itrust is as complete as possible. I have endeavoured to leave out allpurely factory makers in favour of those who are personally engagedin the manufacture of bows. There are some in the list who are notactual makers, but who carefully supervise all the bows issued undertheir name. Such work is always distinctive and differs greatly fromthat issued by firms who order bows by the gross from foreignfactories, and then stamp their own name on the stick. This is aclass of bow that usually looks very pretty and tempting to the younglady amateur, but is sadly lacking in balance and spring; what littlethere may be of the latter at first soon disappears, for it is quiteimpossible for any firm to turn out thoroughly efficient bows at theextraordinarily low prices one sees quoted. One must remember thatfor a bow to be of any real utility, the material, the workmanship, and the fittings must be of the very best possible description. 

CHAPTER VIII. 

A LIST OF BOW MAKERS. 

A noticeable feature in the following list is the great preponderanceof French makers. Curiously enough the list of bow makers commenceswith:

ADAM, JEAN DOMINIQUE. He was born at Mirecourt in 1795, and died atthe age of sixty-nine. He is said by some to have been the son of oneJean Adams, a bow maker of the eighteenth century. How far this maybe true is impossible to say. The difference in the spelling of thename may not be a great matter, but there is no explanationforthcoming. The majority of his bows are very commonplace, butoccasionally he "made an effort" and produced something out of hisordinary run, and these he invariably stamped ADAM. Of these theoctagonal sticks are most highly prized. 

ALLEN, SAMUEL. Born in Cornwall in 1858; was originally intended fora schoolmaster. Worked at several mechanical trades and beingmusical, he naturally turned his attention to fiddles, andultimately, bows. Messrs. W. E. Hill and Sons employed him as a bowmaker for several years. Although he held a high position in theirworkshop his independent nature was not satisfied until 1891, when heset up in business on his own account as a violin and bow maker andrepairer. 

BAROUX, Paris. Early half of the present century. Occasionally madesome very excellent bows, but the general average of his work is onlymoderate. 

BAUSCH AND SON, Leipsic. Middle of present century. The bows issuedby this firm are valued highly in Germany. They are well made and, asa rule, strong. 

BAZIN, GUSTAVE, Mirecourt. A very capable workman, some of his 'cellobows are excellent. 

BETTS. Born 1755, died 1823. Worked in London as a violin maker anddealer. The bows bearing his name were made by Edward Dodd and W. Tubbs. 

BRAGLIA, ANTONIO, Modena. Beginning of this century. I have not seenany of this maker's work. 

BROWN, JAMES (Junior), London. Born 1786, died 1860. A clever maker, worked much for the trade, but turned out some good sticks, stampedwith his name. 

CHANOT, ADOLPH, Paris. Brother of the late Georges Chanot of WardourStreet. Born about 1828. Worked with Henry of Paris and has turnedout some magnificent sticks. His death, which took place suddenly, atthe age of twenty-nine, was due to an aneurism. Had he lived he wouldundoubtedly have taken a high position in the esteem of bow wielders. 

DARBEY, GEORGE, Bristol. Died March, 1921. 

DODD, EDWARD, London and Sheffield. Born 1705, died 1810. One seldomfinds a bow bearing his name as he was mostly employed by others, such as Betts, Forster, Norris, etc. 

DODD, JAMES. Worked in London in 1864; it is doubtful if any of hiswork can be identified as he almost invariably worked for others. 

DODD, JOHN. Born in 1752, died in 1839. This was _the_ Englishbow-maker _par excellence_. For fuller details of his life and worksee Chapter VI. 

DODD, THOMAS, London, 1786-1823. He differed from the others of thisname inasmuch as he did not make for others but employed others tomake for him. 

EURY, Paris. Early part of the present century. His bows areuniversally esteemed, some of them being exceptionally fine. He didnot always stamp his bows, but when he did it was generally under the"lapping" or, as some say, the "whipping. "

FONCLAUSE, JOSEPH. Born in 1800, died in 1865. He was an excellentmaker. He first learnt the art of bow-making from Pajeot atMirecourt, and ultimately worked for J. B. Vuillaume at Paris. Lateron he started on his own account. His bows from this period areusually marked with his own name. 

FORSTER, WILLIAM. A noted English violin maker who was born near themiddle of the last century. One now and then meets with a bow bearinghis name. These are all the work of E. Dodd, W. Tubbs, or some otherskilled workmen in his employ. 

GAND AND BERNARDEL, Paris. A modern firm whose staff make someremarkably fine bows. They are mostly stamped with the name of thefirm; but as they make bows to the order of various other firms thereare many examples of their work either unstamped or bearingfictitious names. 

HARMAND. Worked in Mirecourt about 1835. Made some fairly good bows. 

HENRY. Born in 1812 at Mirecourt where he first learnt his craft. Heworked there till his twenty-fifth year, when he went to Paris. Herehe was employed by Chanot first, and later, by Peccatte. WhenPeccatte left Paris, Henry entered into partnership with Simon, another workman in Peccatte's employ who had succeeded to thelatter's Paris shop. This partnership lasted till 1851. He thenworked alone. He was a magnificent workman and has produced somesplendid bows. I have in mind a 'cello bow of his shown me by J. Chanot that is a marvel of strength and elasticity. He died in 1870. Sometimes his bows are stamped "Henry, Paris. "

HILL, W. E. , AND SONS, London. Contemporary. This firm issue somevery fine bows which are made in their own workshops by expertworkmen trained under the personal supervision of Mr. A. Hill. 

JOSEPHS. American, contemporary. A very clever maker and repairer ofviolins and bows. I have seen some of his work that was excellent. 

KITTEL, St. Petersburg. Modern. I have never come across a specimenof this maker's work. Fleming states that they "are about as nearlyequal to Tourte's as those of any maker that has lived since hisday. " It is a pity they are not more plentiful if this is the case. 

KNOPF, HEINRICH, and KNOPF, LUDWIG, Berlin, contemporary. Fairly goodbows made chiefly to the order of other firms. 

LAFLEUR, JACQUES. Born at Nancy in 1760, died in Paris 1832. One ofthe best of the old makers. Some continental authorities place him ona par with Tourte. Those of his make that I have handled arecertainly very fine indeed. 

LAFLEUR, JOSEPH RENÉ, Paris. Born in 1812, died in 1874. He was theson of Jacques Lafleur and inherited much of his father's skill. 

LAMY, ALFRED JOSEPH. Born in 1850 at Mirecourt. He was an excellentmaker. An interesting feature is that he learnt his craft at aremarkably early age. He worked first with Gautrot atChateau-Fleurry. He went, like the rest, to Paris in 1877, and workedfor Voirin for some eight years. At Voirin's death he started inbusiness for himself. 

LUPOT, FRANÇOIS. Born at Orleans 1774, died at Paris in 1837. Forfuller particulars of this maker see Chapter VII. 

MAIRE, NICOLAS, Mirecourt and Paris. Was a pupil of Jacques Lafleurbut never did any work of great distinction. 

MIQUEL, EMILE. A contemporary Mirecourt maker. 

NÜRNBERGER, KARL ALBERT, Markneukirchen. Contemporary. A mostfinished workman and a clever imitator of the styles of variouswell-known makers. Has worked much for the trade. His best examplesare frequently stamped with his name, and amongst these will be foundbows which are fit to rank with some of the finest productions of theFrench school. There are other makers of the same family engaged inbow making. 

PAJEOT. Worked in Mirecourt in the early part of the present century. An excellent maker. He taught Joseph Fonclause who is known to havemade some of the finest bows bearing Vuillaume's stamp. 

PANORMO. The quaint faceted bows of which I have given an example inPlate VIII. Were made, as far as I have been able to ascertain, byGeorge Louis Panormo, in the early part of this century. Detailsconcerning this family are neither plentiful nor clear, but it isfairly certain that this bow maker was a son of Vincent Panormo ofPalermo, Paris, Ireland, etc. , who first made the name famous in thefiddle world. A description of the characteristics of his work willbe found in Chapter VII. 

Fleming mentions a George Louis Panormo as a _modern_ maker inLondon, but I do not know of such a maker. I am informed on excellentauthority that all the Panormo bows were made in Paris. 

PECCATTE, DOMINIQUE. Born in 1810 and died in 1874 at Mirecourt. Details of his life and work are given in Chapter VII. 

PECCATTE, FRANÇOIS ("PECCATTE JEUNE"), Paris. Born Mirecourt, 1820, died Paris, 1855. A good workman, whose best bows, though not wellknown in this country, are of nearly equal merit with his brotherDominique's. He worked for ten years with Vuillaume. Some of his bowsare stamped with his name, the lettering of the stamp differingslightly from that employed by his more famous brother. 

PECCATTE, CHARLES, Paris. Son of François. Born Mirecourt, 1850. Agood workman, but not equal to the other makers of the name. 

PELLEGRI, Italian, modern; neat workmanship. 

PERSOIT. Worked in Paris about 1828 to 1841. He was employed largelyby Vuillaume and most of his bows bear the latter's name, but heoccasionally worked on his own account and then his work was stampedP. R. S. 

PRICE, London. Contemporary, excellent maker. Pupil of Tubbs. 

PFRETSCHNER, Markneukirchen. Contemporary makers, whose best work isof high merit and finish, though not quite equal to that of A. Nürnberger. 

POISON, Paris. A really magnificent workman. He was employed largelyby the firm of Gand and Bernardel, and the majority of his bows beartheir stamp. One occasionally meets with a bow by this maker bearinghis own name. 

PUPINAT, Swiss. Middle of the present century. 

RAKOWSCH, Paris. Modern. 

RAU, AUGUST, Markneukirchen. Born 1866. A first-class workman. Workedmuch for Weichold of Dresden. 

RONCHINI, Italian. Modern. 

SCHWARTZ, GEORG FRIEDRICH, Strasburg. Born 1785, died 1849. Made someexcellent bows marked "Swartz, Strasburg. "

SIMON, P. Born at Mirecourt in 1808. Worked for D. Peccatte in Parisin 1838. After this he worked for Vuillaume for seven years. He thenset up on his own account for some two years, and when D. Peccatteleft Paris he took over the business in partnership with Henry. Threeyears later and he was again alone. His workmanship is always goodand betrays Peccatte's influence. 

SIRJEAN. French. Early part of the present century. 

SÜSS, JOHANN CHRISTIAN, Markneukirchen. Born 1829. Died 1900. One ofthe best makers Germany has produced. Imitated the style of Tourte. 

TADOLINI, IGNAZIO. Born at Bologna in 1791, died at Modena in 1873. Was established with his brother at the last-named town. Made somevery fine bows but was not equal. 

TOURNATORIS. French. Latter part of last century. 

TOURTE. Eighteenth century, Paris. One of the best bow makers of theolder type, chiefly known as the father of François Tourte. 

TOURTE, SAVÉRE. Eldest son of the preceding and called "Tourtel'ainé, " Paris. 

TOURTE, FRANÇOIS, Paris. Brother of the above, the greatest of allbow makers. Born 1747, died 1838. For fuller particulars of his lifeand work see Chapter VI (Plates V. And VI. ). 

TUBBS, W. , London. Early nineteenth century. Worked for Forster, Betts, Norris and Barnes. He was taught bow making by Edward Dodd. 

TUBBS, JAMES. Son of the preceding. Born 1835. Died April, 1921. Manyof his bows are graduated according to a system based on thecalculations of W. S. B. Woolhouse, the mathematician (see ChapterVII). The Tubbs bows have qualities distinctly their own and when aplayer becomes thoroughly used to a "Tubbs" he rarely feelscomfortable with even the finest bows of another make. Conversely, aplayer in the habit of using constantly any other bow experiences aslight feeling of strangeness on first trying a "Tubbs. " Theworkmanship in a Tubbs bow is almost unique in its perfection. Andthere is a characteristic English solidity about the secure way inwhich all the fittings are adjusted. I have been an eye witness ofthe care and attention paid by his son, Mr. A. Tubbs to the work ofrepairing a bow that to the casual observer would seem past alltreatment. His brother, C. E. Tubbs, was a good bow maker, butsomewhat erratic. 

VIGNERON, A. A modern French maker who turns out some extremely highclass work. 

VOIRIN, NICHOLAS FRANÇOIS. Another of the great Parisian bow makers. Learnt the craft in his native town, Mirecourt, where he was born in1833. At the age of twenty-two he was employed by Vuillaume, withwhom he worked for some fifteen years. It is believed that the finestbows bearing Vuillaume's name were made by Voirin. Some of his bowsthat were exhibited by Vuillaume in the Paris Exhibition in 1867received honourable mention. I should say his work is more equal thanthat of any other maker. Of course, as with other popular makers, there are to be found plenty of worthless bows bearing the forgedstamp, "N. F. Voirin, à Paris. " His death, which took place in Parisin 1885, was very pathetic. He was walking along the FaubourgMontmartre on his way to the abode of a customer to whom he wastaking a bow newly finished, when he suddenly fell down in anapoplectic fit. Fortunately his name and address, "Bouloi 3, " was onthe parcel containing the bow, and he was thus able to be taken homewithout delay. But how sad a home-coming! brought home in a dyingcondition to his wife whom he had left but a few minutes before inapparently good health. He died the same night. 

VUILLAUME, J. B. , Paris. This strange mixture of cunning and abilitywill be ever remembered as the craftiest of craftsmen. An undoubtedgenius as a violin maker, yet with all the tricks and subterfuges ofthe veriest charlatan. Concerning the real value of the historicaldetails furnished to Fétis by Vuillaume I have spoken in Chapter V. Though it is possible that he had considerable practical knowledge ofbow making, I do not think he actually made any bows. He exercisedgreat judgment, however, in the employment of skilled workmen, whomhe kept as a rule for a number of years--a fact that is sufficient tostamp him as a good and considerate employer. The most noted makerswho worked for him were Fonclause, Peccatte, Persoit, Simon andVoirin. It will thus be seen that the majority of the bows bearingVuillaume's name are of the best possible workmanship and quality. Unfortunately there are in this case also a number of forgeries onthe market. The most noteworthy features in connexion with Vuillaume, as regards bows, are his curious inventions--the steel bow, the fixednut, the curved ferrule, and the self-hairing bow. Of the steel bow, Mr. Heron-Allen says he has "never met with a specimen of soponderous an eccentricity" except the one in South Kensington Museum. I have come across a number, and as they are tubular they are not atall as ponderous as the name of the material suggests. In fact Iremember one that was very pleasant to play with. They are nearlyalways lacking in balance. The fixed nut was the result of an ideathat the player should always have the same length of hair at hisservice. The curved ferrule was also a mistake, the idea being thatit would be good to get a broad surface of hair on the string at theheel. The self-hairing bow was ingenious but of no practical value. These patents are detailed more fully in Part II. Vuillaume was bornat Mirecourt on October 7th, 1798, and was the son of the carrierbetween that town and Nancy. He died at Paris in 1875. 

WEICHOLD, Dresden. An excellent firm, who put their name on asuperior class of "trade bow. "

WILSON, JOHN JAMES THOMPSON, London. Born March, 1864, worked in hisyouth with James Tubbs, and later with C. E. Tubbs. Has worked muchfor the trade. 

With this list of bow makers ends the historical section of thesepapers. As I have already explained, a perfect history of the bow isquite impossible to obtain, and all I have attempted has been to laybefore my readers the facts I have accumulated. I have carefullyabstained from promulgating any theories of my own with regard to theevolution of the bow (save in such cases where certain conclusionshave been forced upon me by the evidence found) as from theconflicting nature of the records, I consider no one theory to besufficient. There seem to have been a number of separate influencesat work, the ultimate convergence thereof resulting in the productionof the perfect bow as we now know it. If I have been unable to make aclear exposition of the bow's progress, I trust I have succeeded inshowing the unprincipled elimination of contradictory detailsresorted to by earlier writers in order to achieve this desired end. And I hope it will be understood that this has not been done in thespirit of the small boy who, disappointed in his attempt to build asand castle, derives an alleviative gratification from thedestruction of the more imposing erections of his playmates. 

PART II. BOW MAKING. 

CHAPTER IX. 

MATERIALS--BRAZIL WOOD--HORSEHAIR--THE ACTION OF ROSIN. 

It is curious to pass in review the strange events--the causes, heterogeneous and improbable, that have produced many of the mostimportant results in the history of man. What fiddler, for instance, when indulging in the customary smoke after an evening's "grind, "realises his indebtedness for half his enjoyment to an unscrupulousGenoese pirate of the fifteenth century? Yet, seeing that in additionto wooden nutmegs, banjoes and other blessings of civilizationemanating from the New World, America gives us both tobacco andBrazil wood (the only material of which it is possible to make athoroughly good bow), I think that, if I may liken the violinist'smind to a temple of many shrines erected to all those who havecontributed to his welfare and enjoyment, there should be one nichereserved for Christopher Columbus of egg-balancing fame. 

It is also of interest to note how, as soon as violinists were readyfor a perfect bow, François Tourte appeared on the scene and providedthe much desired article. How he experimentalized on commonsugar-barrel wood I have already set down in its proper place. Thiswas, of course, to gain proficiency in the use of his new tools. Inhis search after a wood that should contain the essential qualitiesof strength, lightness and spring, he made bows of many kinds ofwood, but was not satisfied until he tried the red wood imported fordyeing purposes from Pernambuco. I am afraid there are few whoreflect on the significance of the fact that the exact wood required_did_ actually exist. Formerly the bow-maker had to buy the wood inthe rough state just as shipped over, and then would begin the wearywork of selecting those pieces suitable for his purpose. As a matterof fact they are few and far between, for this wood is particularlyfull of twists, knots and splits. Now this is done for him by firmswho buy the raw material, select that with the desired straight grainand cut it into square rods ready for the craftsmen to work up intobows. A few years ago bow makers demanded very dense wood under theimpression that it would be advantageous to have them as slender aspossible, for the denser the wood the thinner must be the stick topreserve a normal weight. The fallacy of this method, however, soonmade itself apparent, for, though you may thin down a stick _adlibitum_, the head _must_ be a certain height and breadth, consequently these bows were all more or less top heavy. A muchlighter variety of wood therefore is now being used, and I must saythe appearance of some recent bows by our best English makers isextremely fine; there is a greater sense of proportion apparent tothe eye as well as to the hand. 

Some of the cheap German and French trade bows are made of what thedealers call Brazilette wood, a wood somewhat allied to the trueBrazil wood, but totally lacking in spring or firmness. I wonderwhether violinists often realise when they take up a bow how manyremote parts of the earth have contributed to this little magic wand!Wood from the West, ivory from the East, mother-of-pearl from thesea, gold or silver from Eastern, Western, or, it may be, Antipodeanmines; and, when we add thereto the hair from the horse's tail, welevy a tax upon the three kingdoms, vegetable, animal and mineral, tominister to our enjoyment. 

As much discrimination has to be exercised in selecting the hair asin the case with the wood, for it is essential that every hair in thebow be absolutely cylindrical and of equal thickness throughout. These have to be sought for very carefully and are not so plentifulas one would suppose, for the shape of a hair is regulated by that ofthe pore from which it grows and these are seldom circular, manybeing flat on one side, some, even, square or triangular. It has beenestimated that the proportion of suitable hairs is not more than tenper cent. Tourte, according to Fétis, always preferred French hairfor his bows as he found it "larger and stronger than that of othercountries. " I believe at present a quantity of Russian hair is used. 

Tourte's daughter was of great assistance to him in selecting andpreparing the hair. His method was to thoroughly cleanse the hairwith ordinary soap, then to soak it in bran water and then, afterremoving all foreign matter, to dip in "blue water. " A few years agosome misguided people tried bleaching the hair chemically. This, however, made it quite dry and brittle, and it has happily beenabandoned. 

The average number of hairs in a bow now-a-days is from 150 to 200. In Tourte's day a similar number were used. 

A few words on the structure and action of bow hair and the real partplayed by rosin may not be amiss. As Mr. Heron-Allen truly observes"it is astonishing how few violinists know anything about themechanical and scientific action of powdered rosin on toneproduction. " And for the laity he says again that many think, whenthey see a bow being rosined, that it is being "greased to make it gofaster. "

If we examine a hair microscopically we discover a surface coveredwith minute scales. Ordinarily these scales lie close to the mainshaft, but when rosin is rubbed along the hair small particles getfixed under the scales causing them to stand up somewhat like theteeth of a saw. These erected scales act on the string like so manyinfinitesimal _plectra_ and thus produce in perfection the sustainedsound attempted in a grosser manner by the tremolo of the mandoline. It is simply a rapid series of shocks. A moment's consideration willsuffice to realize that continuous pressure on a string would act asa deterrent rather than a promoter of vibration. In fact an unrosinedbow gives continuous pressure and therefore produces no sound. 

The hair is usually inserted in a bow in the natural position of itsgrowth, _i. E. _, the root end at the top, thus, as the scales pointdownwards, giving the greatest attack to the down bow. Some havetried placing half one way and half the other but I do not think avery perceptible difference results from this proceeding. 

CHAPTER X. 

QUALITIES ESSENTIAL IN A BOW MAKER--SHAPING THE STICK--SETTING THE_Cambre_--THE FACES--THE TRENCHES--THE NUT. 

The manufacture of the bow is an industry calling for rare qualitiesof patience and concentration on the part of its followers. The skillrequired is of quite a distinct kind. Strength and delicacy of handmust both be exceptionally pronounced, and mathematical accuracy ofeye is essential. Delicacy of touch to readily appreciate the varyingdegrees of elasticity found not only in different sticks but often inthe same piece of wood. Strength to work with precision in such hardwood. And for this kind of work the strength required is not that ofthe carpenter who can use the weight and swing of his body; it is, rather, a self-contained strength in which opposing forces mustco-operate in order to ensure the absolute accuracy so indispensablein a bow. Then the sight must be of unerring judgment, for nearly allthe work depends on the eye. Bow making is distinctly nervous workfor it keeps the mind constantly alert. 

I am indebted for most of the details given in this chapter to thelate Alfred Tubbs, son of James, and a good workman, who diedcomparatively young in 1909. He told me that he only made one bow ata time for the reason that each stick has its own individuality, someintrinsic feature that has to be borne in mind through all thedetails of fitting, mounting and adjusting. The mind is apt to loseits certainty of retention when exercised on as few, even, as threesticks simultaneously. Therefore each bow is completed before thenext is commenced. 

Taking the rough stick as shown in Fig. 34, the first operation isthat of "rounding the throat, " in other words the square rod is maderound for a few inches just below the rough block left for the headto be cut from, this portion being called by some the "throat, " andby others the "neck" of the bow. After this the corners of theremaining square portion are planed away, thereby making the stickoctagonal in section. Should it be intended that the finished bow beoctagonal, naturally the throat is not rounded but the planing awayof the corners is carried out with extreme care right up to the head. The next operation is to lay the pattern (Fig. 35) on the projectingblock and, with a fine pointed pencil, to mark out the outline of thehead. This is the only part of the work on the stick itself whereinthe eye is assisted by actual measurement or pattern. The shaping, ormodelling of the head, as also, later, the gradation in thickness ofthe stick depending entirely upon optic precision. The absoluteaccuracy of hand and eye required for such work is only to beattained by long years of constant application. 

[Illustration: FIG. 34. ]

[Illustration: FIG. 35. ]

After roughly shaping the head comes the delicate operation of"setting. " This is also known as putting in the "spring" or _cambre_. The principle upon which the amount of curve is determined is that animaginary straight line drawn from the face of the head to the faceof the nut shall coincide with the stick at the point of its greatestdeviation from the horizontal. There is no fixed distance from eitherend for this extreme point of deviation to occur. It is a matter thatrests entirely on the judgment of the maker, who, if thoroughlyexperienced, regulates the curve by any variation in rigidity he maydiscover in the stick. Thus should his observations point to the factthat a certain portion of the stick is slightly weaker than the rest, there will he put the greatest amount of "spring. " It must beunderstood, however, that a good maker never uses a stick that ispalpably unequal. He will only take this trouble to correctinfinitesimal weaknesses (discernible only to a hand of greatexperience) in wood of exceptionally good grain. It is astonishinghow many violinists seem to think good bows are made by accident. Fewknow that there are some men who can _make_ a fine bow. 

The prime factor in the "setting" of a bow is heat, by the judiciousapplication of which the straight rod is made to assume and retainthe desired _cambre_. The heat used now-a-days is that produced by anordinary gas flame. Dry heat is absolutely essential, as theslightest moisture draws all the pigmentary matter out of the cellsin the wood and leaves the bow as colourless and mean in appearanceas a stick of deal. As it is, with dry heat even, the amount ofcolour exuded by a good stick during this process is quite enough tostain the hands a deep purple. 

The great point to be observed in "setting" a bow is to make surethat the fibres are all heated equally right through to the centre ofthe stick. If this does not receive sufficient attention the bow cannot possibly retain its curve, for the inner fibres that have notbeen affected by the heat will always be trying to resume theiroriginal straight position, and are bound ultimately to overcome theresistance of the heated outer fibres, with the result that the boweither becomes straight or warped and twisted, most probably thelatter. To understand that this must be so it is only necessary toremember that any elastic rod, a walking stick for example, can beheld so as to form a curve but as soon as the pressure is released itimmediately recovers its normal state. This is what happens with theunheated inner fibres in an inferior bow. The constant strife ofopposing forces _must_ result in victory for the active force of theinner fibres over the passive resistance of the heated outer fibres. 

For the operation of "setting" the bow is left about half as thickagain as the finished stick is intended to be: this to allow forscorching or burning the outer surface. When the "setting" issatisfactorily accomplished the stick is planed up round, after whichthe bottom trench is cut. This is the slot in which the screw-eye ofthe nut travels. Then the hole for the screw itself is drilled out ina lathe fitted with a "Cushman chuck. " The next thing is to put onthe "black face. " This is a thin slab of ebony glued on to the undersurface of the head, which helps to strengthen the head and forms asolid bed for the ivory or metal plate which forms the outer facingof the head. The ivory faces are cut out of the solid tusk to theshape shown in Fig. 36. They are glued on with the very best glueprocurable and tied down with strong twine. This is another matter ofextreme difficulty and delicacy, as ivory is a very stubborn materialto work in and it is easy to crack it in forcing it down to the curveof the face, that is if it is sufficiently thick adequately to fulfilits original purpose as a strengthener and protector of the head. Oneoften sees in cheap bows faces of ivory so thin as to show the ebonyface through in a bluish tint. Such a face is of as much value to thebow as a piece of paper, but it was easy to put on!

[Illustration: FIG. 36. ]

Metal faces are growing more and more into favour but, personally, Iprefer a substantial ivory face, for though the metal may be strongerin itself I think an ivory face well glued on is more homogeneous. The successive layers of ebony and ivory on the already hard woodforms a more equal gradation of density. 

After both the faces are adjusted a circular hole is drilled in thehead and then chiselled out square to form the top trench or box toreceive the hair. The nut is then fitted. Many people imagine thateven the best makers buy the nuts wholesale and fit the sticks tothem, but good makers always make the nut for each bow as it iswanted. They can by this means better regulate the balance of thebow. 

[Illustration: FIG. 37. ]

Fig. 37 shows a gauge to determine the various dimensions of the nutsof violin, viola and 'cello bows. Before the bow is finally "cleanedup" it is haired[1] and screwed to see if it is all true, for theremay be something faulty in the _cambre_ which can be corrected atthis stage. If all is satisfactory the bow is finished and polished, the whole process, from the rough stick in Fig. 34 to the finishedbow ready for the artist to melt, delight and amuse his hearers, being one day's work. 

[Footnote 1: For details of bow hairing see Chapter XII. ]

CHAPTER XI. 

POSSIBLE REPAIRS--SPLICING--RENEWING CUPS--RESTORING THENUT--RE-FACING. 

Bow repairing is a matter calling for almost more skill than theactual manufacture of new bows, and it is one about which very hazyideas exist outside the trade itself. One can divide violinistsroughly into two sections. On the one hand there are those whobelieve anything is possible in this way, and on the other there aremany who have no faith whatever in such repairs. 

I recollect when only a lad meeting an elderly amateur violinist ofthe pompous class who not only was kind enough to pay the mostembarrassing attention to my solos but further favoured me with hisconversation and advice. "Now, " said he, "you must get a steel bow;tell your father about it; absolutely necessary. You see this stickof a thing you are playing with" (alas, my cherished Lupot!) "is allvery well _now_, but by-and-bye the hairs will come out and it willbe worthless. " I ventured to suggest that it could be re-haired. "Ahyes, yes, yes!" he replied, "I know it _can_ be done, and it _is_done, very often, but it is never the same thing. No, once the hairsbegin to go, there is nothing to do but buy a new bow, but if youhave a steel bow the hairs cannot come out and you have an articlethat will endure in its original state all your life. " (!)

I may observe that this gentleman had not the slightest commercialinterest in steel bows. 

I also came in contact once with an example of the opposite class. This gentleman had a little son who was in the habit of borrowing hisfather's violin bow surreptitiously for the purpose of perfectinghimself in the useful art of single stick practice. The inevitablehappened, and when I saw the bow it was proudly exhibited to me as anexample of what could be done with a little ingenuity. The two halvesof the broken bow had been well glued together, two steel pen nibshad been placed so as to form a sort of metal tube to protect thefracture, and the whole was bound securely with strong silk. In itsowner's estimation it was "as good as ever, sir, as good as ever. "

I propose to state here briefly what can be done and what isadvisable to have done in the way of bow-repairing. 

If a bow is broken in the upper part of the stick it is just possibleto splice on a new head and throat, but it is not worth doing, forthe _cambre_ and balance of the original can never be reproduced. Inthe first place there is a different piece of wood which, howeverwell matched, is bound to be sufficiently strange to disturb such adelicate instrument. And then the _cambre_ of the new piece has to beset before it is joined on to the old stick and thus it becomesimpossible to make a satisfactory curve throughout. 

To re-adjust the original head is not feasible, as the only jointthat will stand the strain to which a bow is subjected is a longdiagonal one extending for several inches. 

[Illustration: FIG. 38. ]

Splicing a new "handle" (Fig. 38_d_) is, however, frequently done, and is often advisable. It occasionally happens that a valuable bowbecomes so worn by the pressure of the fingers or thumb, or by thefriction of the nut and screw, as to be beyond the reach of the moreusual repairs. It then becomes necessary to substitute a new handle, and this can be done by skilful repairers as to make absolutely nodifference to the balance of the stick. The joint is in this casealso a diagonal one extending usually from near the upper extremityof the "lapping" downwards for some four or five inches. It should beseen that the surfaces brought in contact in such a joint are soplaced as to be perpendicular to the plane of the hair. Otherwise itcannot endure for any length of time. 

[Illustration: FIG. 39. ]

Very often the original handle can be restored and made sound. Thus, when the screw hole becomes worn and the "cup" (see Fig. 39, whichshows the two "cups, " that at the extremity of the stick and that inthe "tip") broken, it is customary to drill out the hole, turn up apiece of well-seasoned bow wood in the lathe to the exact diameter ofthe enlarged hole, and glue it well in place. When thoroughly dry anew screw hole of the original dimensions can be drilled just as inmaking a new bow. Sometimes, when there are cracks in the handle, thetrench has to be filled up and re-cut, as is also done to the head ifit is cracked through the pressure of the plug (Fig. 40_a_). Repairsto the nut are also done when the nut is original, _i. E. _, when itbelongs to the bow and is of a distinguished maker. Old nutsfrequently get cracked down the sides where they come in contact withthe stick. In this case the worn part of the nut is cut away and newwood glued on and worked up to the original shape. I have seen a nutso restored by Mr. Tubbs in which it was absolutely impossible todiscover where the new piece was joined on. 

[Illustration: FIG. 40. ]

With regard to the screw hole, it often becomes worn to an oval shapejust above the trench owing to the screw being too short. This isfrequently found in old French bows, even by the best makers, andcauses the unsightly tilting of the tip. In Fig. 41 is shown asection of the nut and handle showing the action of the screw and theway the hair is inserted. The screw in this diagram is the exactlength necessary to prevent the wearing away of the hole describedabove. 

[Illustration: FIG. 41. ]

Bow repairers are often perplexed as to their customers' meaning whensending instructions by post for the restoration of the "tip, " asmany people use this word to denote the extremity of the head (Fig. 40_d_). 

This, however, is known to experts as the "peak, " and the word "tip"is applied solely to the octagonal piece at the opposite end of thebow, by means of which the screw is turned and the tension of thehair regulated. 

In some bows the octagonal portion, known as the handle (Fig. 38_d_)on which the nut travels has the lower face rather larger than therest as in the section shown in Fig. 42. The object of thisenlargement is to give the nut a broader surface to travel on andthus prevent the tendency to rock exhibited by some nuts. But, thoughthere is some merit in the idea it has been found that the rockingcan be avoided in a normal bow having the eight sides of the handleequal by extra care in fitting. And though the other pattern may beeasier to fit in the first instance, the projecting sides of the nutthat travel on the adjacent faces of the handle are very small andweak; consequently before long the nut shows longitudinal cracks atthis part and becomes extremely rocky, though from a different cause. 

[Illustration: FIG. 42. ]

One of the most frequent repairs is the operation of re-facing. Thehandsome central gasalier of the modern room is a great enemy to theviolin and seems to lie in wait for the peak of an unwary violinist'sbow. Fortunately the damage is not very serious, and an experiencedbow repairer will not be long in restoring the head to its originalelegance of outline. 

CHAPTER XII. 

RE-LAPPING--RE-HAIRING--CHOICE OF ROSIN. 

The lapping frequently wears out and becomes a source of greatirritation until one has an opportunity of having it newly done. Forthis reason a lapping of leather is the most convenient andeconomical, but nothing looks better than a good quality of silvercord, and when it is bound with leather just where otherwise it wouldsuffer from the pressure and friction of the thumb nail it is reallyvery durable. Messrs. W. E. Hill and Sons have an extremely handsomespeciality in the way of lapping. This consists of whalebone, sometimes bleached or dyed, and is practically indestructible. Boundon in alternate strands of different colours it has a very effectiveand neat appearance. 

Sometimes the ordinary thread lapping gets cut through and interfereswith the player, and it is as well to know how to fasten it off atonce. I will assume that it is cut at the end nearest the nut (whereit usually happens). Take out the screw and wind the hair loosely butsecurely round the upper part of the bow. Then unwind the lapping forabout an inch and a half. Take a piece of strong thread and doubleit, then place it on the bow with the doubled end towards the handle. Get a kind friend to hold the end of the lapping cord firmly andcommence winding it on again evenly and _over_ the doubled thread byslowly rotating the bow. When within half an inch of the end of thethread, take it all in your own hand and pass the end through theloop of doubled thread and, taking the loose ends of the thread thatwill hang out at the point where you started re-winding, pull thedoubled thread smartly out. This brings the end of the lapping rightthrough under the re-wound portion, where it will be held secureuntil again cut through by the thumb-nail. This is the methodemployed in fastening off new lappings. If you have not the time orpatience to do it this way a little sealing wax will hold the looseend down during an evening's practice. 

Considering that re-hairing is one of the most natural and mostfrequent events in the life of a bow, it seems somewhat anomalous toinclude it under the heading of "repairs. " However, I will crave thereader's kind indulgence for so doing. 

At the outset I must emphatically assert that I do not adviseamateurs or artists to attempt to hair their own bows if any valueattaches to them, for it is astonishing how soon even a fine bow willlose its _cambre_ if persistently haired in an unskilful manner. Itrequires enormous experience to enable one to get the pull of thehair equal in every case, and the slightest extra pull on one side orthe other gives the bow a twist that renders its action erratic andextremely disturbing to a good violinist. The preceding operation tore-hairing is that of unhairing. This is comparatively a simplematter. The hair is first cut off short at each end, then hair at thehead is lifted up to disclose the plug (Fig. 40_a_). This is readilylifted out with a pointed tool, and the curled up knot lying beneathis pulled out. So much for the head. The nut is slightly morecomplex. First the ferrule (Fig. 41_d_) is pulled off and the slide(Fig. 41_f_) is pushed out. After this the hair is raised as with thehead, and the plug (Fig. 41_e_) picked out in the same manner. Thewedge in the nut (Fig. 41_c_) is used to spread the hair and keep itfirm at the heel, to give a good attack for heavy down strokes. Thisis usually destroyed in unhairing, as it frequently has to be cutaway, owing to its being glued into position. 

The process of re-hairing is now identical with that of hairing a newbow in the first instance. Some keep the hair ready made up into"hanks" of the right quantity for a bow, and others have it in largebundles, pulling it out as required. One soon gets practice in thisto judge by the eye alone how much will be sufficient. At one end itis tied securely with waxed silk or thread, and the short ends arecut off to within about a sixteenth of an inch from the thread. Toprevent the thread being pulled off the end of the hair, the ends areburnt with rosin so as to spread them out slightly (very slightly)mushroom wise, over the thread binding. The usual way of doing thisis to fill the short end--which resembles a small stencil brush--withfinely powdered rosin and then, by pressing it against a red-hotiron, to shape it into a firm, unyielding knot. This knot is laid inthe trench of the head, and the plug pressed firmly into position, sothat its upper surface is exactly level with that of the plate orface. The hair, of course, must be brought over the wedge in an evenribbon. The hair should now be well combed with a fine comb and thensteeped, coil fashion, in warm water for several minutes. It thenshould be thoroughly combed again from top to bottom, holding itfirmly the while at the lower end. The nut is now placed in positionwith the screw-eye rather above the centre of the slot in which ittravels, then a careful estimate is made of the length of hairrequired to go just far enough round the plug (Fig. 41_e_) to besecure, and a knot exactly like the one described for the head ismade at the point decided on. This requires considerable experience, as it is very easy to make it too long or _vice versa_, both of whichfaults hamper the nicety of adjustment of tension required for someparticular style of bowing technique. When this lower knot is madethe ferrule is slipped over the hair, the knot is laid in the trenchand the plug put in as before--the nut being completely detached fromthe stick. The nut is then re-adjusted and slightly screwed up. Thehair is then combed again, the slide pushed in, and the ferruleslipped over the extremity of the nut. After this a thin wedge isdriven in (behind the hair) usually with a spot of glue on the sidenext the hair, as at _c_, in Fig. 41. The bow is now haired, and allthat remains to make it ready for use is to rosin it. As new hairnever bites on a block of rosin, it is necessary to spread a quantityof powdered rosin on a card or sheet of stout paper and rub the hairover it till it is quite full; after this it will take freely fromthe block. A newly haired bow is always extremely rough and is apt toproduce a harsh, scratchy tone, but this defect wears off in a veryshort time. 

I must again repeat my opinion regarding the inadvisability ofviolinists hairing their own bows, and I have only given the abovedetails to gratify the curiosity of those who like to know "how it'sdone. "

It is extraordinary the number and variety of rosins in the market;some in most wonderfully contrived boxes designed to keep the rosindust from making the fingers sticky, or--more probably--to _sell_! Ofall the different patents in this way, I find the ordinary book-shapeby far the most satisfactory. The first quality of rosin is preparedby boiling down Venice turpentine. In a certain authority on violinmatters I read that many soloists of celebrity use common kitchenrosin, but I cannot say I have much faith in the source from whencehe can have received such information. It is advisable never tochange the rosin used until the bow is re-haired, as in each there issome slight difference in composition that may not harmonize withwhat is already on the bow. 

CHAPTER XIII. 

THE PERFECTION OF THE MODERN BOW--DR. NICHOLSON'S PATENTBOW--VUILLAUME'S INVENTIONS--SELF-HAIRING BOWS--A FOLDING BOW--THE"KETTERIDGE BOW. "

It is worthy of note, as a testimony to the simplicity and perfectionof the bow, that there have been so few attempts, since Tourte's day, to alter or "improve" it in any particular. The few experiments thathave been made in this direction have in nearly every case provedfailures and have sunk into speedy oblivion. 

One of the most remarkable productions in this way was the ponderousmonstrosity invented by one Dr. Nicholson (Fig. 43). This hideous andunwieldy weapon was put forth by its inventor as the only correctform for a violin bow! It had to be haired with precisely 150 horsehairs dyed red. The reasons for this and the eccentric curve of thestick are subtleties into which I dare not venture!

[Illustration: FIG. 43. ]

Vuillaume's erratic genius was responsible for sundry attempts atimproving the bow, the most complex being the fixed nut. He wasstruck by the fact that with the ordinary nut advancing andretreating by the action of the screw it was possible for it to benot always mathematically in the same place. Also that as the hairgradually stretched by use, the length thereof increased as the sametension was obtained each time it was screwed up for use. This, ofcourse, made a minute difference in the balance of the bow. Heapparently considered this a serious defect and set about inventing anut that should render the balance and the length of the hairimmutable. This was his patent "_hausse fixé_. " As the name impliesthe nut was a fixture externally but contained a smaller metal nutthat travelled inside it. These nuts were very unsightly as they weremuch more bulky than the ordinary nut. It is curious that it neveroccurred to him that the movement of the internal nut would similarlyaffect the balance. A sort of windlass in the nut would have beenmore exact, but, as a matter of fact the difference is moretheoretical than practical, and is imperceptible to the player, sothe fixed nut, like many other examples of wasted ingenuity, died anatural death. 

Another of Vuillaume's patents was the steel bow. This was often ahandsome looking instrument. Some were "got up" to look like Brazilwood and others were of a bright blue. As this was the natural colourof the metal it was more commendable but had a very odd appearance. These bows were not much heavier, if at all, than the average bow asthey were hollow throughout. They were deficient in balance and hadone great drawback. Though stronger and tougher in one sense than thewooden bow they would not stand so much knocking about. A bow, evenin the hands of those accustomed to handling them, is liable to havean occasional fall, and if not broken, is as good as ever; in fact abow rarely breaks unless it falls peak downwards. On the other handthe steel bow would generally "kink" or get dinted and bent if itcame in contact with anything in a fall and would then be entirelyuseless. A third mistake of Vuillaume's was the curved ferrule. Thinking it would be advantageous to give the player a good spread ofhair at the heel he made a ferrule that gave the ribbon of hair as itleft the nut something the appearance of the hair in the primitiveEgyptian bow illustrated in Fig. 11. This is still to be met with insome cheap foreign bows. A further notion of his was calculated to beof great benefit to such players as might find themselves inout-of-the-way places with a bow in need of new hair and no _luthier_or bow-repairer within reach. This was the "patent self-hairing bow. "Its principles were sometimes used in conjunction with the "fixednut" and steel bows. The hair for this bow was sold ready made intoribbons of the exact length by having a small brass rod placedtransversely at either end; these rods slipped into appropriatelyshaped notches in the head and nut and the bow was haired. It doesnot appear to have been satisfactory and has gone the way of theother innovations of this and other makers. One other thing inconnexion with Vuillaume's bows I will mention here though it is notin the nature of an "improvement" properly so-called, albeit I haveno doubt Vuillaume thought it a great embellishment. In the nuts ofsome of his bows, just where the mother-o'-pearl "eye" is usuallyplaced, he had inserted a minute and powerful lens with a microscopictransparent portrait of himself that could be seen therein on holdingthe nut to the light. It was just like the views one sometimes seesin penholders brought as presents from popular seaside resorts. 

I have recently heard of another variety of self-hairing bow patentedin America, but have not yet seen one. From that country, where, so Ihave heard, the bows drawn are of quite exceptional length, emanateda patent bow wherein fine cords are substituted for hair and also acontrivance, whereby, when the hair becomes smooth and useless on theone side, it can be taken out, turned round and then enters on arejuvenated existence the other way about. 

To return to Vuillaume's patent bows. All of these, excepting thesteel bows, are splendid sticks, for they were made by Simon, Fonclouse, and other noted workmen. It is therefore a profitablething to have them altered into normal bows. This can be done byskilful workmen so that the bow is as good as any other ordinary bowby the same maker, and is free from the encumbrance of the patent. 

G. Chanot, of Manchester, I am told, has a patent bow that is made tofold in two for convenience in packing for travelling purposes. Theidea is not as original as its inventor may think, for the Japanesekokiu which is fast becoming obsolete had an extremely long andflexible bow that was jointed together like a fishing rod. 

The "improved bow, " patented by Chas. Ketteridge, is distinctly noveland has much to commend it. The hair in this bow is placed at such anangle that, though the player holds his hand in the usual position, the full width of the hair lies evenly on the string from end to end. It has been well spoken of by the press and several noted artists. For chord playing it possesses distinct advantages, and I shouldthink it would be very useful for certain orchestral players; it doesnot, however, seem to have attracted more than passing attention. 

Truly the "fiddlestick" is a magic wand in more senses than one. Asmentioned above it is significant that so little has been attemptedin the way of alteration or improvement, and it is still more so thatof that little such a small proportion is worthy of a second thought. As Bach stands in relation to the fugue, as Beethoven to the symphonyand Stradivari to the violin, so is Tourte to the bow. Superior aliketo his predecessors and successors, he stands high poised upon thepedestal of his incomparable genius. 

PART III. THE ART OF BOWING. 

CHAPTER XIV. 

THE UNDECIDED ASPECT OF TECHNIQUE--IMPORTANCE OF A KNOWLEDGE OF THEANATOMY OF THE HAND--THE FUNCTION OF THE THUMB--INDIVIDUALITY INTECHNIQUE. 

In treating of the somewhat complex and, in many details, highly-disputed subject of the functions of the bow, I shall preferto handle the question in the abstract rather than to launch myselfon the choppy sea of "technique"; a sea abounding in shoals, reefs, undercurrents and whirlpools; extremely difficult to navigateinasmuch as that no two charts agree. Consequently when the marinerlaunches his boat the danger to himself and his passengers isconsiderable. In plain English the difficulty of explaining all thewell-nigh imperceptible differences of movement in bone and musclerequired for the various styles of bowing is so enormous that he whoattempts to do so on paper lies under the grave danger of beingmisunderstood, and the student under the scarcely less grave one ofmisunderstanding. The danger is reciprocative, just as, to return tomy nautical simile, the peril of the helmsman is shared by eachpassenger if he by mischance steers upon a submerged rock. 

Therefore, dear reader, I will survey the whole prospect from asecure coign of vantage upon the mainland, and trust my impressionsthereof may prove of some slight service to you. As I have disclaimedall intention of making this portion of my work a handbook of bowingtechnique it seems superfluous to add that my observations areaddressed more to the teacher than the student. I use these words intheir accepted and arbitrary meanings for the sake of distinguishingbetween two separate classes. Of course, from the higher standpoint, a good teacher is always a student. If it were not so the followingpages would be written to no purpose. 

Some years ago a certain eminent M. D. Collaborated with a more orless well known singing master in a work on the Larynx. The musicalworld talked of little else but vocal chords and soft palates formany months, and the musical press was teeming with correspondence inwhich the pros and cons of such studies were hotly discussed, many ofthe antagonistic writers opining that the knowledge of the anatomy ofthe throat would be of as much service to a vocalist as that of thehand to a violinist. Which reasoning sounds at first glance quitecomplete, yet, on examination, it will be observed that there is nosuch close analogy as these writers appeared to think. To begin with, in singing the mind only occupies itself with the sound produced. Tolearn singing is to practise mimicry. We cannot determine theposition of the vocal chords before producing the note. Ourconsciousness begins at the other end; the mind conjures up a certainideal sound which we attempt to realize vocally; if the desired_timbre_ is produced the laryngeal action is correct. With the violinthought commences with the means. The hand is trained; we say set thefingers so, and the thumb so. Now practice; when the action isperfect the tone will be right. Briefly in singing we strive for thetone and the action follows, in the violin we strive for the actionand the tone follows. Thus it is clear that a knowledge of thestructure of the hand is of distinct value to a violinist--inparticular, a teacher--while, on the other hand, the knowledge of theanatomy of the throat can be little more than interesting to thevocalist. 

A knowledge of the structure and functions of the various parts ofthe hand on the part of a teacher would smooth over manydisheartening experiences of his pupils. Just as it is of value tostudy the mental characteristics of a pupil so, also, is it of valueto thoroughly examine his physical peculiarities. I wonder how manyviolin teachers have noticed, or have profited by so noticing, thatno two hands are alike, or that thumbs are of different lengths andset on in various degrees of opposition to the fingers. It is seldomthat such apparently unimportant details are observed by teachers, the majority of whom make all their pupils hold the bow alike, longthumbs or short thumbs it makes no difference. I remember having fora pupil a young lady who had been taught to hold her bow at theextreme tips of her fingers. Naturally she gained no facility andevery attempt at semiquavers sent the bow flying across the room tothe imminent danger of the teacher's optics. I surmised the cause ofthis eccentricity and was ultimately able to verify my conjectures. The master who had been so conscientious in making her hold the bowin this strained and ungainly position was blessed with an abnormallylong thumb; the pupil's thumb was short. What came natural to the onewas a strain on the other. 

The function of the thumb is that of a pivot; a fulcrum. The bow is alever resting thereon, and its pressure on the string is regulated bythe first and second fingers on the one side and by the third andfourth on the other. It would thus appear that the best place for thethumb would be exactly between the second and third fingers. But itis not given to every thumb to drop _naturally_ into this position. And here is to be noted the germ of facility in bowing. Every thumbcloses naturally on a certain spot; it may be on the second finger, or on the third. If the former it can be made to rest on the third oreven the fourth without apparent effort, but minute observation willdetect an infinitesimal strain when the thumb is taken beyond itsnatural resting place. Therefore I maintain that the best positionfor the thumb is to be determined by examination of the hand andthumb, and will differ slightly in each individual player. It iscurious to note how many teachers, some of extreme eminence, takesuch pains to perpetuate their own bad habits in their pupils underthe impression that they are teaching a perfect and superiortechnique. I am afraid that it sounds somewhat of a heresy to speakof great players and teachers having "bad habits"; the expression is, perhaps, rather strong, but what I refer to is the "personalequation. " Such a player has a tendency to part his fingers, anotherelevates the fourth finger in certain passages, this one has apeculiar movement of the elbow, etc. , etc. All these divergenciesfrom rigid and pedantic technique being the result of their severalphysical differences. When these men prove themselves great artistsand attain high positions as teachers their advice is sought onmatters of technique. Finding themselves oracles they first consultthe oracle by aid of looking glasses, analyse in this way their ownactions, and then the one who parts his fingers lays it down as a lawthat the fingers should be parted, and the one with the peculiarmovement of the elbow will not rest until all his pupils haveacquired the same eccentricity. I will quote another example of thissort of thing that came under my own observation some years ago. Itdeals with the left hand, but displays the spirit so well that I feelit is not out of place in this connexion. A thin, delicate lad, withfingers "like needles"--as a brother violinist described them tome--was sent to a German professor whose digits resembled nothing somuch as the handles of table knives. This was an excellent violinist, or rather "geiger, " for the Germans make this distinction, but owingto the size of his fingertips he could only play semitones in thethird position by removing the finger stopping the lower note whileputting down the higher one. If he retained the second finger on E onthe A string, third position, the third finger would fall too sharpfor F natural. This seemed to him such an unalterable law of naturethat he made the lad do the same, notwithstanding that the boy couldhave stopped quarter tones with ease had they been wanted!

Had this man made even a superficial study of the hand he would havebeen spared much profanity and the pupil much heartache anddisappointment. Tuition is twofold. There is direct teaching andthere is development. The seed is sown and then the soil is wateredand tended in the manner calculated to nourish and develop theparticular plant to the best advantage. Again, the gardener does notplant his roses in damp shady corners or his ferns in sand. 

Teachers require to use more of the gardener's judgment. They mustcease to look upon their pupils as defective copies of themselves andmust not fit them out with technique as soldiers are with clothing. The technique should be made for the particular player. A violinistwith an ill-fitting technique is about as elegant as a short man inclothes intended for a tall one, or vice versa. Many cases of bad ordefective technique are directly attributable to the teacher's wantof perception of "fit. "

Thus we see players whose natural movements are bold and free trussedup in a small and finicking technique, and others whose bent istowards neatness, struggling manfully with a cumbersome "largestyle. " I have heard a "gentleman" defined as "a man who wearsclothes that belong to him. " Similarly we may say that a goodviolinist is one whose technique belongs to him. Every movementshould come naturally, it should be as much a part of his personalityas his tone of voice or the glance of his eye, and it should be theteacher's aim to develop this personality and not to stifle it as istoo often the case. Of course great judgment is required in thisdevelopment, or the personality will become marked mannerism, thanwhich nothing could be worse. True art always displays a certainreticence; excess at either end of the gamut of emotion is avoided. Calmness is not coldness, and passion carried too far becomescaricature. Tone must be developed also, but it should always beborne in mind that exertion is not power; a mistake too frequentlymade. How often do we see a well meaning but physically weak playertrying to tear the tone out of a violin by "main strength. " Suchefforts are useless, particularly when practised on a fine violin. Areally good instrument is of too sensitive an organisation to respondto bullying. Teachers cry out to their pupils sometimes "lay it on!""pull it out!" and other contradictory sounding phrases with the samemeaning, and occasionally such admonitions and encouragements beargood fruit, but there is always the danger of "effort" beingengendered thereby. There should be no effort in art. Effort, too, defeats its own ends. It weakens; exercise strengthens. Therefore letthe strength with which to "lay it on" or "pull it out" be graduallyand naturally developed by constant and gentle practice. The muscleswill gain strength thus, and the result will be a full round tone, capable of every inflection and free from everything like harshness. 

Power should be implied rather than displayed. The instrument willthen respond freely and fully as a woman to the caress of a strongmanly arm. 

CHAPTER XV. 

BOWING HISTORICALLY CONSIDERED--THE OLDEST ENGLISH VIOLINMETHOD--SYMPSON'S INSTRUCTIONS IN BOWING--THOSE OF MACE (1676)--THOSEOF VARIOUS MODERN MASTERS. 

If the history of the bow's development _per se_ presented a mistyaspect we must not be surprised to find that of bowing similarlyobscure. 

Just as the violin arrived at its state of greatest perfection longbefore the bow developed into a fitting companion. 

When we consider the enormous progress in left hand techniqueaccomplished by the earlier violinists and 'cellists, such asCorelli, Tartini, Bach, and a host of others, it seemsincomprehensible that the bow should have so long remained in such acomparatively crude and primitive condition, and its mode of use solimited and undecided. 

The best drawing I have seen of the manner of holding the bow inplaying a higher pitched viol is in a miniature representation of astate banquet in the fifteenth century, from which I extract theplayer shown in Fig. 44. 

[Illustration: FIG. 44. ]

The evidence of drawings, sculptures, etc. , in the earliest days ofrebecs and viols, if not reliable in the representation of the bowitself, are still less so when it comes to the question of handlingthe same. With the smaller viols, the thumb (such an importantmember) is naturally invisible, and the effect is usually that of aclenched fist. It seems to have been the general rule with all theviols of lower pitch that were held perpendicularly, to hold the bowunderhand as described by Sympson in 1759 (Fig. 45). But the thirddrawing in Fig. 18 is remarkable alike for the modernness both of thebow and the posture of the hand holding it. This is on a par with theearly bows with screw-nut and _cambre_ described in the first sectionof this work. I cannot think it likely that the sculptor saw anyoneplaying a bass viol in this manner. Whether this representation wasthe result of gross ignorance or prophetic inspiration I leave to thereader to decide. 

[Illustration: FIG. 45. ]

Of course the manner of holding the bow for the smaller viols wouldhave approximated more nearly to that which obtains on the violin atthe present day, as the underhand position would have been extremelyinconvenient, and even impossible. 

The earliest English method for the violin known is that contained inthe second book of "An Introduction to the Skill of Musick, in ThreeBooks, " published in 1654 by John Playford. 

Here the violin is just tolerated in a sort of appendix to the moreimportant subject of the "Treble, Tenor, and Bass Viols. " It consistschiefly of various methods of ensuring accuracy in tuning the fifths, and the question of bowing is summarily treated as follows:--

"The _Bow_ is held in the right Hand, between the ends of the Thumband the 3 Fingers, the Thumb being stay'd upon the Hair at the Nut, and the 3 Fingers resting upon the Wood. Your _Bow_ being thus fix'd, you are first to draw an _even Stroak_ over each _String_ severally, making each _String_ yield a clear and distinct sound. "

Of the Treble Viols very little is said on the subject of bowing, themost complete instructions on that head being given for _the_ viol_par excellence_, the viola da gamba. In treating of this gloriousinstrument the older writers spared no pains to make their directionsas complete as possible. Thus Sympson in his "Division Viol"--firstpublished in 1659--says:--

"Hold the Bow betwixt the ends of your Thumb and two foremostfingers, near to the Nut. The Thumb and first finger fastened on theStalk; and the second finger's end turned _in_ shorter, against theHairs thereof; by which you may poize and keep up the point of theBow. If the second finger have not strength enough, you may joyn thethird finger in assistance to it; but in Playing Swift Division, twofingers and the Thumb is best.... When you see an even Number ofQuavers or Semiquavers, as 2, 4, 6, 8, you must begin with your Bowforward; yea, though the Bow were imployed forward in the next Notebefore them. But if the number be odd, as 3, 5, 7 (which alwayshappens by reason of some Prick-Note or odd Rest) the first of thatodd number must be played with the Bow backward. This is the mostproper motion of the Bow, though not absolutely without someexception; for sometimes the quickness of the Notes may force thecontrary. Also quick Notes skipping from the Treble to the Bass, andso persued, are best express'd with contrary Bows. "

All of which is very clear and logical. The way he balances up therelative claims of a stiff or loose elbow is, however, distinctlyamusing, as witness the following:

"----you must stretch out your Arm streight, in which posture(playing long Notes) you will necessarily move your shoulder Joint;but if you stir that Joint in Quick Notes, it will cause the wholebody to shake; which (by all means) must be avoyded; as also anyother indecent Gesture. Quick Notes, therefore, must be expressed bymoving some Joint near the Hand;[1] which is generally agreed upon tobe the Wrist. The question then arising is about the menage of theElbow Joint; concerning which there are two different opinions. Somewill have it kept stiff; insomuch, that I have heard a judiciousviolist positively affirm, that if a Scholar can but attain to theplaying of Quavers with his Wrist, keeping his Arm streight and stiffin the Elbow-Joint, he hath got the mastery of the Bow-Hand. Otherscontend that the motion of the Wrist must be strengthened andassisted by a compliance or yielding of the Elbow-Joint unto it; andthey, to back their Argument, produce for instance a person famousfor the excellency of his Bow-Hand using a free and loose Arm. Todeliver my own opinion: I do much approve the streightness of theArm, especially in Beginners, because it is a means to keep the Bodyupright, which is a commendable posture. I can also admit thestiffness of the Elbow, in smooth and Swift Division; for which it ismost properly apt; but Cross and Skipping Divisions cannot (I think)be so well express'd without some consent or yielding of theElbow-Joint unto the motion of the Wrist.... This motion or loosenessof the Wrist I mention, is chiefly in _Demi-semiquavers_; for, in_Quavers_, and _Semiquavers_ too, we must allow so much stiffness tothe wrist as may command the Bow _on_ and _off_ the String, at everyNote, if occasion so require. "

[Footnote 1: "_Some_ joint" is very good; it gives such liberty inthe way of choice. ]

This must have been rather a crude form of _spiccato_. It is, however, plainly evident that with heavy bows, destitute ofelasticity, and held underhand, it was quite impossible to allow thebow to rebound naturally from the string for this effect. 

Mace, whose book, "Musick's Monument, " is one of the most amusingworks extant, in speaking of the bowing of the viol, _i. E. _, viola dagamba, or, as he calls it, "the generous viol, " quotes Sympson'sdirection for holding the bow and then adds:--

"Yet I must confess, that for _my own Part_, I could never _Use it sowell_ as when I held it 2 or 3 _Inches off the Nut_ (more or less)according to the _Length or Weight of the Bow_, for _Good Poyzing ofIt_: But 'tis possible, that by _Vse_ I might have made It _asFamiliar to_ Myself, as It was to _Him_. "

He, also, was greatly exercised in his mind as to the stiffness orthe reverse of the elbow, and delivered himself thuswise thereon:--

"So likewise, for the _Exact Straitness of the Bow-Arm_, which somedo _Contend for_, I could _never do so well_, as with my _Arm_(_straight enough, yet_) _something Plying, or Yielding to an AgileBending_: and which I do conceive most _Familiarly Natural_. (For Iwould have no _Posture, Vrged, Disputed_, or _Contended for_; thatshould _Cross_, or _Force Nature_. ")

There is much to commend in the spirit of this last sentence. Thehand and arm should never be made to do anything that is unnatural. But herein must be exercised the greatest possible judgment that theunfamiliar be not mistaken for the unnatural. 

Returning to the position of the thumb in violin playing we findnearly every teacher insisting on a different posture. In the"Méthode de Violon, " by Baillot, Rode and Kreutzer, it is set down asbeing correct to have the thumb opposite the middle finger. David, inhis "Violin School, " says that the thumb should be opposite the_first_ finger. This is to my mind most extraordinary, and I canhardly conceive it possible that so great a violinist and teachercould have maintained such an unscientific method to be correct. Theloss of leverage resulting from the thumb being so far forward wouldbe almost certain to cause the elbow to rise and give, by the deadweight of the arm, the pressure that should come from the sentientelasticity of the first and second fingers. De Beriot says the thumbshould be between the second and third fingers, which is naturallythe best position. Papini, with greater perception of the fact ofanatomical difference in hands, says the thumb should be as near thecentre of the four fingers as possible. 

In all questions of technique it is possible to determine the exactbest mode of procedure. But unless the hand be perfectly fittedthereto, the rule should be relaxed, for insisting on positions thatare even slightly strained (though possibly, quite comfortable to adifferently constructed hand) can only do harm. 

CHAPTER XVI. 

THE FINGERS OF THE RIGHT HAND--DIFFERENCES OF OPINIONTHEREON--SAUTILLÉ--THE LOOSE WRIST. 

The functions of the right hand fingers are twofold. At times theyact in conjunction with each other and at others, in opposition. Somewriters say that the two outer fingers are the holding fingers, andothers contend that the two inner fingers are alone concerned in thisservice. This difference of opinion is to me just as absurd as thearguments anent the wrist and elbow of the old violists. As a matterof fact both theories are right. The difference being that, in thequestion of holding, the action of the outer fingers is passive whilethat of the inner fingers is active. To go more into detail, in softpassages the bow simply rests supported by the three points ofcontact with the thumb, first and fourth fingers. The inner fingersthen taking little or no part in the matter. This action of the outerfingers I say is passive as the bow is not actually _held_ but simplyrests on the thumb, the two outer fingers merely preventing it fromfalling to one side or the other. Occasionally these two fingers willact in concert or opposition, according to the requirements ofexpression and phrasing. When playing loudly it becomes necessarythat a more decided purchase of the bow be maintained, especially inrapid _forte_ passages. Then the inner fingers come into play andhold the bow firmly against the thumb. The two outer fingers then aresolely concerned with regulating the pressure and preserving theelasticity of the stroke, which is lost in a firm grip only. 

These slight differences of action in my opinion can not be_practised_. They are the outcome of years of grind. They come, andwhen they are firmly established we can analyse them. To gain themastery of the bow one must begin at the bottom and be content towork gradually up to the topmost rung (or thereabouts!) of theladder. I often meet with amateur violinists who try to begin at thetop. The consequences of this proceeding are distinctly more certain, for when starting at the bottom it is not always assured that muchupward progress will be made, whereas, by the opposite method thedescent will be certain and considerable!

Nothing is more hopeless than the attempts some amateur violinistsmake to acquire certain styles of bowing simply by mentally masteringthe various actions by which it is produced. 

_Sautillé_, one of the easiest forms of bowing, suffers most fromthis sort of thing. It is no uncommon thing to see an amateurdiligently practising the action of lifting the bow off the stringand putting it on again after each note, thinking that if he keeps onlong enough--say ten minutes a day for a fortnight--that he willacquire a perfect mastery of this much desired effect. To practice_Sautillé_ in this manner is the way _not_ to gain it. It is theoutcome of the perfect action of the entire arm. When that isattained you will have the _Sautillé_. Then, and then only, will alittle specialized practice help to perfect the movement. Some pupilsI have had who possessed the _Sautillé_ by nature and neverunderstood the difficulty experienced by others who had to wait forit. The best way to acquire this as the result of a perfect bow armis to practise the following:

[Illustration: Musical notes, etc. ]

Try it first on the D string. Use whole bows, freely and firmly, forthe semibreves, slightly less for the minims, the middle third forthe crotchets, and an inch or two for the quavers, reducing it stillfurther as the pace increases. The pupil must abandon all thought of_making_ the bow jump, also he must avoid pressing it on the string. The whole action must be free and bold and the tempo for thisexercise should be not slower than M. M. Crotchet = 100. At first itwill be found impossible to get as far as the semiquavers withoutsome confusion. At the first sign of irregularity the pupil shouldstop, pause a moment, and then recommence with the semibreves. Itshould be seen that the bow is not gripped too tightly throughover-anxiety or excitement. It will need patience on the part ofteacher and pupil alike, but both will be gratified when suddenly thebow is seen to jump naturally and the _Sautillé_ is won. 

There is one phrase in connexion with bowing that irritates megreatly, and that is a "loose wrist. " As a technicality it is ofcourse all right, but the insisting on the literal application of theterm has been a stumbling block to many violinists. Ladies have cometo me saying, "Do you think my wrist loose enough for me to play theviolin?" Accompanying the query with a violent flapping of the handthat would almost make one think they were desirous of emulating thelobster's ability to cast away a claw at will. Upon making suchpersons hold a pencil or penholder (I dared not let them handle abow!) it was found that the wrist became stiff and unyielding. Thewrist that was loose when all the muscles were flaccid became rigidwhen a few were exerted sufficiently to hold a light object. 

Thus it will be seen that the apparent looseness of a violinist'swrist is not really such, but is the dominating of one set of musclesby another. Many teachers say that one should have the thumb tightand the wrist loose. A manifest absurdity when one considers that amost important thumb muscle extends right across the wrist. It shouldtherefore be well understood that what is implied by the technicalexpression "loose, " is, in reality, "control. " If it were reallylooseness, it would present no difficulty to any one not afflictedwith an ossification. It is to gain this extreme independence of eachset of muscles that long years are taken up in monotonous exercises. The arm of a violinist has to be trained in a manner directlyopposite to that of an athlete. In the latter we find anexemplification of the saying, "Unity is Strength. " All the musclesact in perfect accord to the same end. With the violinist, on theother hand, there is a constant opposition of forces; the largermuscles are kept down and many smaller muscles are developed thathave lost all use in the arm of an athlete. 

Concerning the fingers of the right hand I advocate holding themclose together--not cramped, but just lightly touching. Some playersrecommend the parting of the first finger from the others as givinggreater leverage over the bow. It certainly has that effect, but Iadvise it to be used very sparingly and in fortissimo passages only. It is a license one may admit in an artist, but to my pupils who arein the earlier stages I entirely forbid it. I should only permit itin the case of a thumb so short as not to reach far enough into thecentre of the hand to give the right amount of control. If a pupil istaught from the first to use this extreme leverage he is likely todevelop a rough tone. When he has attained the mastery of the bow hecan use his own judgment as to the occasional employment of thisreserve force. These remarks I apply also to violoncello bowing. Unless the pupil's hand be weak the first finger should be held backuntil the whole art of bowing is mastered. All these observations areaddressed to soloists: in orchestral work such retention of force isunnecessary. I notice that where players use up all the availableleverage of the hand from the outset, they are compelled to employthe weight of the arm to reinforce it for special effects. Anotherreason--and an important one--for keeping the fingers together, isthat of appearance. Nothing is more unsightly than to see the fingersof the right hand spread out claw fashion, and I quite concur withSympson that no posture or movement should offend the eye. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SLOW BOW--THE RAPID WHOLE BOW--STACCATO--BOWINGSTUDIES AND SOLOS--CONCLUSION. 

Returning for a moment to the anxiety of the average fiddler toacquire a good _Sautillé_, it seems to me absurd that such importanceshould be attached to it when, in reality, the test of a violinist'sability lies in his command of "slow bows. " Too much attention cannotbe paid to the study of sustained bowing which can be practised in avariety of ways. Firstly, long drawn semibreves--at one of theContinental Conservatoires they make the violin students play scalesof two octaves, taking one bow to each note, the same to last _twominutes_, thus the whole scale, ascending and descending, occupiesone hour! The command obtained by this sort of work is enormous. Tovary the monotony of semibreves the student can then play scales insemiquavers, making one bow last out ten, twelve, or more scales intwo octaves. Another useful variety of the same thing is to practisesome succession of notes in which the bow requires to continuallypass from one string to the next, such as:

[Illustration: Musical notes, _D. C. Ad infinitum_. ]

These should be played as many times as possible in one bow. Here thecommand of the bow on the string is not only greatly increased, butthe wrist is well exercised at the same time. 

The same thing should be carried out on the third and fourth stringsthus:

[Illustration: Musical notes. ]

It is a good thing to make the pupil (if endowed with sufficientintelligence) work out a series of such mechanical exercises, he willthis way take a much greater interest in the work, a point to which Iattach great importance, for I consider physical exercises, howeverconscientiously carried out, do little good if the mind is fatiguedor absent. 

Of scarcely less importance is the study of rapid whole bows. Thepupil should be made to draw the bow from end to end as rapidly as hecan without _losing control of the bow_, and it must be seen that thepressure does not vary in any way. The bow should be set on firmly atthe heel, held there for, say, a crotchet, then drawn, without anyswelling of the tone in the centre of the bow, smartly to the pointwhere it must stop suddenly without any change of pressure. This isnot found an easy thing to accomplish, but "perseverance overcomethall difficulties. " The teacher must not be satisfied until the pupilcan draw a rapid up or down stroke stopping so suddenly and firmly asto make the note sound as though cut off. In practising this, the bowshould remain firmly on the string between each stroke; whether thebow travels or is stationary the pressure must be unchanged. 

Staccato bowing is a much misunderstood branch of technics; I do notmean the detached staccato, but that form in which a series of notesis played in one bow yet have a detached effect on the ear. It is apity that one word should have to stand for two totally differentforms of bowing. I have heard and read many varying descriptions ofthe "bowed-staccato" and its method of production. Of course it ishighly probable that some players attain it differently to others, but as I see no anatomical reason for such differences of action itseems a waste of energy to mechanically produce what already existsin nature. I have no doubt a great deal of this gratuitousvariegation of staccato technique comes from teachers not fullyunderstanding their own movements, or perceiving a portion of theaction required and laying all stress on that one feature alone. Butunless one goes to the prime source of the matter a perfect staccatocannot be attained. 

This most important factor, as I should have thought everyone ofcommon sense would at once perceive, is nothing less than the wrist. Yet I have known some teachers who confine their attention to theaction of the fingers, letting the wrist follow as best it can. It isfrom such teachers, usually, that we receive the preposterousstatement that the upper half of the bow only should be used for thisbowing; some, even, limiting it still further to the up-bow. Now ifthe wrist be first well exercised the co-operation of the fingerswill come naturally, and a perfect staccato from end to end in eitherup or down stroke will be attained. 

It should be practised slowly and firmly at first on one note thus:

[Illustration: Musical notes, etc. ]

The bow remaining on the string between each note. The action isreally no different to ordinary bowing; it is simply a short crispstroke of about an inch in length, a short interval of silence(without lifting the bow) and then another similar stroke in the samedirection, this being continued to the end of the hair. The partplayed by the forefinger is to impart a certain "attack" to eachnote, and is best produced by a slight turn of the wrist instead ofan independent pressure of the finger itself. This "attack" is whatthe Germans call "ansatz, " and consists in making a slight sound atthe initial impulse of each note somewhat resembling the hardpronunciation of the letter "K. " This is a most important sound, andone that adds greatly to the crispness of one's playing. It should beproduced in the hand, however, as if the arm is called on for thispurpose the tone will become gritty and harsh. In commencing thestudy of staccato bowing it is well to confine oneself to the up-bowform at first. Great care must be exercised when reaching the lowerhalf of the bow that the notes remain of equal duration and loudness. Just below the centre of the bow there is found a curious turningpoint, a sort of corner that is very difficult to get round. It iseven more noticeable in down bow staccato. 

This turning point is in the wrist, for at that part of the strokethe most important change in the position of this joint takes place. Therefore, as the muscles are so occupied in their internalmovements, they are not so ready to control the tendency to vibratein the bow. Thus, then, as a bad bow is nowhere so easily controlledas a good one, some inferior bows become quite unmanageable when theattention of the wrist muscles is so divided. Consequently it isuseless to attempt the attainment of staccato without first beingprovided with a thoroughly well-balanced bow. In commencing the downbow staccato, all tendency to lean on the string and so drag the bowalong in a series of jerks must be checked at once. The bow should belightly carried at the heel. This will seem difficult, but practicewill be well repaid. 

It may not be out of place to give here a short list of studies andsolos that are concerned chiefly with the art of bowing. Of coursebowing studies are also to be found in all good schools and books ofstudies. 

CASORTI, "The Technic of the Bow. "

DANCLA, "L'Art de l'Archet" (quite easy). 

HAAKMAN, "Steadiness and flexibility of the Bow. "

MEERTZ, "Twelve Etudes Elementaires" (giving the six fundamentalbowings). 

PAPINI, "L'Archet" (the most complete work on the subject). 

POZNANSKI, "The Violin and Bow" (contains excellent photographs ofpositions). 

_Sautillé_ can be studied in a pleasing manner by practising piecesof the "Moto Perpetuo" type. Of these the best are those by Paganini, Ries, Moszkowski, Papini, G. Saint-George and E. German. 

Of solos devoted to particular forms of bowing, the most notable are:

DE BERIOT, "Le Tremolo. "

KONTSKI, "La Cascade" (tremolo). 

PANOFKA, "Le Staccato. "

PRUME, "Les Arpèges. "

VIEUXTEMPS, "Les Arpèges. "

VIEUXTEMPS, 1st Concerto in E (staccato). 

BAZZINI, "Ronde de Lutins" (saltando staccato). 

In an earlier section of this work I alluded to the bow as being"tongue-like"; it is something more, for it is also the breath of theviolin. As breathing is to a vocalist so is bowing to a violinist. Itgoverns the phrasing, or, rather, is governed by it in the firstinstance and then controls its delivery to the listener. Thus it willbe seen that too much attention cannot be paid to the real Art ofBowing. By which I do not mean the brilliant technical feats of_arpeggio_, _staccato_, _tremolo_, _etc. _, but the pure legato bowingof cantabile passages. It is in such song-like movements that thetrue artist reveals himself by the nearness with which he approachesthat highest of all musical instruments, the human voice. Pure liquidtone, the inflexions suggested rather than insisted on, clearphrasing and an avoidance of all extravagance are the hall marks ofan artist, and not the possession of brilliant technique alone. Tothose who are content with superficial glitter electro plate is asgood as sterling metal. But critics of discernment (by which I do notmean _all_ those who write concert notices for the daily papers)require something of more lasting value. 

THE END.