-
TThhee WWoorrkkiinngg MMeetthhooddss ooff GGuuaarrnneerrii
ddeell GGeess aanndd tthheeiirrIInnfflluueennccee uuppoonn hhiiss
SSttyylliissttiicc
DDeevveellooppmmeennttText and Illustrations by Roger Graham
Hargrave
PPlleeaassee ttaakkee ttiimmee ttoo rreeaadd tthhiiss
wwaarrnniinngg!!
Although the greatest care has been taken while compiling this
site it almost certainly contains many mistakes. As such its
contents shouldbe treated with extreme caution. Neither I nor my
fellow contributors can accept responsibility for any losses
resulting from information or opin-ions, new or old, which are
reproduced here. Some of the ideas and information have already
been superseded by subsequent research and de-velopment. (I have
attempted to included a bibliography for further information on
such pieces) In spite of this I believe that these articles
arestill of considerable use. For copyright or other practical
reasons it has not been possible to reproduce all the
illustrations. I have included thetext for the series of posters
that I created for the Strad magazine. While these posters are all
still available, with one exception, they have beenreproduced
without the original accompanying text.
99
TThhee MMoouulldd aanndd tthhee RRiibb SSttrruuccttuurree
The elegance and purity of the violin form exer-cises such
fascination that it has been the subject ofenquiry for more than
two centuries; questions aboutits design have generated almost as
much interest asthe subject of Cremonese varnish and its
composi-tion. Although several eminent studies have demon-strated
the regular use of mathematics in the processof early instrument
construction, recognising thatmathematics was applied is
considerably easier thanunderstanding how it was applied. If they
ever ex-isted as such, the exact mathematical formulae usedto
create the first Cremonese violins are unlikely tobe
rediscovered.
The violin family was developed more than fourhundred years ago,
and it was already two hundredyears old when Guarneri Del Ges began
making in-struments. Although it is probable that he wouldhave
known about any existing mathematical for-mulae, he may never have
been required to use them.Unlike the Amatis (and, possibly,
Stradivari), Del Gesalmost certainly made instruments based upon
al-ready existing designs. Indeed, his supposed varietyof original
designs is assuredly an illusion. If his vio-lins are unique it is
because of his free-ranging use oftools and materials, and above
all his creative fantasy;
they were not, in their basic form, the result of anyinnovative
mathematical composition.
The outline of a violin is only one element of itscomplex
design. It is still not known which was es-tablished first, the
mould around which the violinwas constructed (which represents the
chamber ofair inside the instrument) or the complete violin,from
which the mould was then derived. However,because it is the
starting-point for the process of con-struction, the mould has been
the major preoccupa-tion of design theorists. The use of an inside
mouldwas central to the Amati system, and accordingly itbecame the
cornerstone of all Cremonese construc-tion. In the seventeenth
century, with the exceptionof Jacob Stainer it is hard to find
evidence of the con-sistent use of such a mould by makers outside
Cre-mona.7 Whether later Cremonese makers createdtheir moulds
mathematically or simply copied oradapted existing moulds, they
were still effectivelyworking within the Amati tradition.
The contents of the Museo Stradivariano indicatethat Antonio
Stradivari developed and used a com-paratively large number of
different moulds duringhis long working life. But this does not
mean that all,or any, were mathematically devised. Pollens8
hasdemonstrated that when the twelve surviving Stradi-vari violin
moulds are superimposed on each other,
-
they fall into several groups.9 Stradivari appears tohave
retained certain sections of particular moulds(for example, the top
and centre bouts), while hemodified the remainder (perhaps the
lower bouts);as a result, the differences between some of hismoulds
are remarkably small (figure 5).
This implies a gradual adjustment to the lines ofthe form,
rather than a fresh mathematically calcu-lated construction for
each subsequent development.
The variety to be found among Del Gess violinsgives the initial
impression that he too must havecreated a number of moulds. Yet
this was probablynot the case. By the 1730s Cremona had a rich,
well-established tradition of lutherie and there was noneed for
each maker to produce new designs. Thetrend appears to have been
towards copying or mod-ifying existing ones. A personal style could
beachieved by adjusting a line here or there or bychanging the
details of the scroll, soundholes oredgework; it is not
unreasonable to assume that thisis what Del Ges did. Although
Stradivari would thenappear to stand alone in his radical reworking
of theAmati mould, it could be argued with some force thateven he
was simply adapting rather than innovat-ing.10 There may have been
some underlying mathe-
matical formulae in Cremona, but well before the endof the
eighteenth century the violin maker GiovanniAntonio Marchi
commented that his contemporarieswere merely tracing earlier
violins in order to arriveat their own models.11
Count Cozio Di Salabue, in his extensive notesabout the
classical Italian violin makers, says of DelGes, The violins that
he built from about 1731 until1743, though ordinarily he retained
the same form,they are generally quite badly worked.12
Disregard-ing his verdict on the craftsmanship, what is
inter-esting is that Count Cozio was clearly of the opinionthat Del
Ges used a single mould. To some extentthis notion can be confirmed
by superimposing theapparently wildly different outlines of
Guarneri vio-lins made during this period. At no point do
theseoutlines encroach upon the single mould which canbe marked out
within them.
The exceptions to this rule are the violins of thetransitional
period, which include the Dancla. Withits shorter C bouts and the
lower placement of theupper corners, the Dancla was unquestionably
con-structed on a different mould from every instrumentknown or
believed to have been made by Del Gesafter 1731. As might be
expected, its outline matchesseveral outlines of Del Gess father;
in particular, itis virtually identical to one dating from 1705.
TheseGiuseppe Filius Andre outlines are in turn derivedfrom Del
Gess grandfather, Andrea Guarneri, whoclearly obtained them from
the Amatis. In fact theDancla outline matches several Brothers
Amati vi-olins and even an Andrea Amati remarkably well, andalso
fits quite well around the S (ms. 39) mould atthe Museo
Stradivariano. In comparing these out-lines, the positioning of the
corner blocks and thesize of the overhangs could not be taken into
ac-count. Nevertheless, there can be little doubt aboutthe original
source of the design.
It is possible that after 1731, Del Ges was usingtwo very
similar moulds. If this was indeed the case,the first was preferred
up until about 1738/9, al-though the Stretton, Kreisler, King
andJoachim are among the exceptions which may havebeen built on a
slightly wider mould. After about1740, all the instruments appear
to have been con-structed upon the wider model. This could well
bebased upon the grand pattern of the Amatis, withwhich it
corresponds very well. On the other hand,in almost every case, the
violins which appear tohave been constructed upon a larger mould
also havelarger overhangs; to complicate matters there are
Figure 5. Several Stradivari mould outlines superimposed upon
each other as described by Pollens(see footnote 10).
1100
-
1111one or two instruments which lie between both cat-egories,
in particular the Ysae. The idea that suchinstruments as the
Diable, the Kemp and the OleBull share the same basic design and
were con-structed upon the same or very similar moulds,seems at
first glance virtually insupportable. How-ever, the overhang
variations may well be enough toaccount for most of the apparent
differences in bothlength and width.13 In the final analysis, it
may be im-possible to prove whether Del Ges used one, two,three or
more moulds, but in any case they wouldhave been extremely close in
size and shape.
All the violin moulds in the Museo Stradivarianohave certain
features in common (figure 6).
They are Xat boards, mainly of slab-cut walnut, al-though willow
and poplar are also to be found. Theseboards range in thickness
from 13 to 15 mm, and DelGess moulds must have been much the same
in thisrespect: A thicker mould would not have allowedboth sets of
linings to be fitted, whereas a thinnermould would have been too
flexible. Each mould hassix recesses, or mortises, into which the
two endblocks and the four corner blocks were set and ontowhich the
ribs were eventually glued. These have ob-
viously been subject to extensive wear and severalhave been
repaired. The interior work of Del Gessviolins, the size, shape and
position of the blocks andlinings all indicate that he used a mould
which wassimilar in concept to those in the Stradivari
museum.Unfortunately, reliable measurements of Del Gessblocks are
difficult to obtain and for the time being itis only possible to
make general observations abouttheir size, shape and position in
relation to the sur-viving Stradivari moulds.14
Although similar in depth, Del Gess neck blockmortises were
probably somewhat shorter than thoseof the Museo Stradivariano
moulds: His rare surviv-ing neck blocks seem to be about 50 mm
across,15considerably less than the neck mortises in theStradivari
moulds, which range from about 55 to 66mm. Del Ges's end-pin blocks
are likewise narrower
about 43 mm compared to the 45 to 50 mm foundon Stradivari
instruments and on the existingmoulds. Most of the latter have
small cut-outs in thetop and bottom block mortises to facilitate
separa-tion of the mould from the rib structure. Measuredinside the
instruments, there is little variance be-tween the corner blocks of
Del Ges and Stradivari:Both are about 25 mm wide and closely match
themould mortises.
Each of the Stradivari moulds has ten 8 mm to 9mm round holes
set at strategically important points.These were for locating the
binding sticks, used toclamp the ribs to the blocks. The technique
is fully
Figure 6. Reproduction of a Stradivari violin mould from the
Museo Stradivariano.
Figure 7. Method used to bind the ribs to the mould as used by
Stradivari.
-
1122described by Pollens and Sacconi and further sup-ported by
the surviving sticks and counter blocks inthe Museo Stradivariano
(figure 7).16 Without an au-thenticated Del Ges mould, it is
virtually impossibleto establish the exact method he used to bind
the ribsto the mould and blocks. However, the possibility thatsome
of the museum moulds were not of Stradivarismaking suggests that
this method of clamping was inwidespread if not universal use among
Cremonesemakers.17
Most of the moulds have incised markings, includ-ing a centre
line, lines showing the position of thecorner blocks and a compass
point with two shortarcs of a circle indicating the block heights
(figure 6).In almost all cases, Del Gess end-pin and cornerblocks
were finalized to a height of about 32 mm; theneck block was lower,
usually about 30 mm. Thesemeasurements are generally consistent
with those ofStradivari but there are several interesting
excep-tions, including the Cannon, the Carrodus andthe Leduc, where
all the block heights are in-creased by at least 1 mm.
Interestingly, in CountCozio Di Salabues original notes on a fourth
violin,the Vieuxtemps, the measurements are given as 33mm and 31
mm, making it consistent with thesethree. Assuming the Count was
correct, the ribheights must have been reduced subsequently.
(Seemeasurements of the Vieuxtemps, p. 95.)
Previous Cremonese makers including Stradivariusually made their
blocks and linings of willow.18However, following the example of
his fathers laterworks, Del Ges preferred spruce. Both blocks
andlinings were probably fashioned from split wood,since although
they often give the appearance ofhaving been cut back in haste, no
seriously unevensplitting has occurred. Otherwise, Del Ges paid
scantattention to the course of the annual rings which canbe found
running in all directions (figure 8).
His block wood is generally coarser than the bellywood and it
may be that he was economising by usingoVcuts, since there is no
doubt that willow linings areeasier to bend. The particular shape
of Cremonesecorner block mortises meant that the blocks onlyneeded
to be squared on two sides and this wouldhave been particularly
useful whenever oVcuts werebeing used.
Once the blocks were glued in position, they weremarked out for
cutting. Stradivari achieved this withthe aid of small, individual
templates (figure 6); re-markably, several sets of these templates
have sur-vived the ravages of time.19 Both Pollens and
Sacconidescribe the process he used.20 Individual templateswere not
only more straightforward to make than thealternative full- or
half-body templates; as mouldsbecame worn, warped or damaged,
especially in themortise areas, they were both more easily
adjustedand more compatible with badly aligned blocks. Itwould seem
that Stradivari used only two cornerblock templates, one for the
top corners and one forthe lower corners, and he simply transposed
thesefrom side to side. Although it is unlikely that thecurves of
these templates were altered, even rela-tively minor variations in
the positioning of theblocks (as a result of a worn or twisted
mould) wouldhave contributed to the type of variation in
cornershapes which we associate with all Cremonese work,including
that of Nicol Amati and Stradivari. It maybe significant that the
PG mould21 has four indi-vidual templates. This mould has been
heavily re-paired in the mortise areas, and as a result the
cornerblock mortises on one side are slightly deeper than
Figure 8. Reproduction of the four corner blocks and the end
block of Soil del Ges, showing the direction and width of the year
rings.
-
1133those on the other. Two extra corner block templateswere
made to Wt the reshaped mortise holes, but thecurves have been
carefully matched so that the cor-ners theoretically remain the
same.
One of Del Gess consistent peculiarities is his se-lection of
rib wood. It was usually fine grown maple,cut on the quarter.
Unlike the Amatis, he appearsnever to have used slab-cut ribs, even
when usingslab-cut backs; centuries of experience had
probablytaught the later Cremonese masters that these wereprone to
cracking and warping.22 Del Gess ribs sel-dom matched the back wood
and only rarely werethey cut from the same billet. Even where the
matchappears perfect, as with the Leduc, he generallyfailed to
align the slope of the figure in the same di-rection all round the
instrument.23 Often the ribswere made up from unmatched pieces:
Plain woodwas used in conjunction with highly figured wood,
ornarrow and wider Xames were mixed. In particular,the lower rib(s)
were often completely different fromthe others.
Del Ges thicknessed his ribs with a coarse-toothed plane iron.
Unlike Stradivari, he made no at-tempt to remove the marks left by
the toothed ironon the inside of the ribs, and they are usually
clearlyvisible through the soundholes. The ribs were fin-ished with
a scraper on the outside only. However,even on his early
instruments (see the Kreislerphotographs, pp. 24-27, volume I) the
remains oftooth plane markings can sometimes be seen on theoutside
of the ribs, beneath the varnish.
As a rule, Del Ges thicknessed his ribs fairly evenly to about 1
mm. Exceptionally, as in the case ofPaganinis Cannon, they average
1.5 mm. Occasion -ally, as with the Soil of 1733, in the immediate
cor-ner block gluing area they are reduced to as little as0.3 mm.
Thinning the rib ends in this way was onlyviable because the block
itself provided a stable back-ing. This may have been done to make
the curves ofthe centre bouts easier to bend. From the
beginning,Del Gess centre bout curves were never as tight asthose
of Stradivari; in fact, because of these moreopen curves, it may
even have been possible for himto bend them without the aid of
heat.24 There is someevidence which suggests that Del Ges was
usingfresh wood;25 this too would have eased the bendingprocess. In
fact, the combination of shallow curves,thinner ribs, and fresh
wood must have made the ribbending process easier for Del Ges than
it was formost Cremonese makers. Nevertheless, it appears tohave
been an onerous task for him. Numerous creases
and cracks occur in the tighter curves of his rib struc-tures,
the Heifetz being an excellent example. Gen-erally, the ribs are
quite buckled along the Xame.Although this may be due to the use of
fresh wood, inmany cases it looks very much as if the ribs were
bentin a series of small creases rather than in a smoothcurve.
Following the marking process, the blocks were cutto shape,
beginning with the centre bout curves.26The centre bout ribs were
bent and glued in place,and the outer curves of the block to which
the upperand lower ribs would be attached were cut. Del
Geshabitually cut the points of his corner blocks consid-erably
shorter than those of Nicol Amati and Stradi-vari, producing in his
earlier violins rather smallcorners.27 In these earlier works, the
corner blockswere clearly set out and cut with care. Judging by
DelGess attitude to other tasks, it seems unlikely thathe worked
without reference to some form of tem-plate even in his later
years;28 however, it can be as-sumed that his swift cutting of the
blocks resulted inrib corners which were neither square nor true to
thecurve of the template (figure 9). On Del Gess violinsit is not
unusual to find the four corner blocks cutwith different curves,
running in different directionsand finishing either shorter or
longer than eachother. Furthermore, the rib mitres often lean at
var-ious angles, a feature which can be extreme in laterworks. As
the Hill brothers observed, the cornerblocks were not left true by
the gouge the only toolhe made use of nor were the sides
accuratelybent.29 Small wonder that as a result, all eight cor-ners
(back and belly) are frequently dissimilar.
Figure 9. Possible curve and length variations of the corner
blocks, of which del Ges used several combinations.
-
Whenever the blocks were cut at different angles,it caused the
ribs to twist slightly on the mould. Thisin turn altered the curves
outside the immediate areaof the corner, creating back and belly
outlines whichwere different from each other and from the
moulditself. On the Lord Wilton, the centre bout ribs areclearly
not square; they taper inwards towards thebelly side, and the belly
is considerably narroweracross the centre bouts as a consequence.
This taperis more marked on the treble side, where the centrebout
of the back is much straighter, and the belly out-line is deeply
curved in compensation (figure 10). Theexplanation is almost
certainly that the ribs twistedon the mould as a result of the
corner blocks not hav-ing been finished square to it, and in fact
this detailis apparent from the rib corners. Such
discrepanciescould have repercussions far beyond simply alteringthe
outlines: In the long run, the disposition of thesoundholes was
also affected. As the Hills acknowl-edge, We cannot say the master
was over particularin making his sides conform quite accurately to
themould. Approximately correct was in all cases suffi-cient unto
the day!30 This approximation is theprime cause of any variation in
the shape of the out-
lines, although other contributory factors willemerge in the
course of our discussion.
Any changes to the two endblocks were also capa-ble of modifying
the upper and lower bouts signifi-cantly. This can be observed on
some of Del Gesslater works, where the top block is
occasionallyrather pointed, as on the Heifetz (1741), or ex-tremely
Xat, as on the Lord Wilton (1742). By fin-ishing the end blocks
proud of the mould, the ribstructure could have been lengthened
significantly.This process may or may not have been carried
outdeliberately. On the Vieuxtemps of 1741, the posi-tion of the
neck block appears to have been extendedconsiderably, resulting in
what for Del Ges is alonger than usual stop length and upper
bouts.
The extension of the Vieuxtemps may have beencarried out on the
normal sized Del Ges mould, inwhich case the neck block would have
been cut proudof it (figure 11). The ensuing gaps between the
ribsand the mould could have been filled out in advance,possibly by
the addition of paper or card strips fixedto the edges. Equally,
the ribs may simply have beenstretched across these gaps. Another
alternativewould have been to elongate the ribs after removingthem
from the mould and before finalising the backoutline, and, as shall
be demonstrated, this seems tobe the most likely explanation.
Interior of Soil del Ges, 1733, showing typical form of delGess
blocks and linings, middle bout linings quickly mortiseddeep into
corner blocks.
Figure 10. Cutting the corner blocks at various angles led
tovariations in the back and belly outlines of del Gess
instruments.
1144
-
The Fountaine pochette of 174031 probably hadthe opposite
treatment. Here the lower block appearsto have been extended,
producing distorted lines inthe lower bouts which suggest that in
this case thegaps between the ribs and the mould were notpacked
out. The Fountaine also has a longer bodythan the more conventional
looking 1735 pochette,the Chardon,32which was presumably made on
thesame mould. As has been mentioned, Del Gess cor-ner blocks were
invariably kept short and stubby.Until about 1742 the rib mitres
were also short, withthe top and bottom ribs only barely
overlapping thecentre bout ribs (figure 12)
.
After this period the overlapping ribs becamelonger; this is
well illustrated by the Leduc, wherethe upper and lower ribs
overlap the centre bout ribsby a considerable margin. Occasionally,
the centralrib was hardly feathered at the end, and both rib
endssimply came together to form a thick wedge. Rib
mitres of this nature may have been the result of twodistinct
trends in Del Gess work: Firstly, the cornerblocks were being
finished even shorter and withflatter curves, and secondly, the
back and belly cor-ners were becoming increasingly longer and
morefragile. The vulnerability of these longer back andbelly
corners may have inspired Del Ges to providemore support through
extended and somewhatthicker rib mitres. Almost uniquely among
Cre-monese makers, Del Ges blackened the ends of therib
mitres.33
It seems to have been the accepted practice in Cre-mona to form
the upper ribs from one continuouspiece. This holds true for all of
Del Gess instru-ments, with the possible exception of the
Ko-rtschak. Although virtually all existing instrumentshave had
their upper rib cut through during theprocess of mortising
replacement necks, the grainand figure of the upper rib wood always
appears tobe continuous across the neck root. The reason forthis
practice is not hard to fathom. The neck was fas-tened to the block
with the aid of several nails, whichwere driven through the block
into the neck root.Even using pre-drilled holes there was some
dangerof splitting the block, a calamitous occurrence at thisstage
of the construction; the reinforcement pro-vided by the continuous
upper rib running across theblock reduced this risk considerably.
Del Gess useof (possibly) up to five nails would have made
hiscoarse spruce neck blocks particularly vulnerable tosplitting.
Cremonese lower ribs were also generallyof one piece, a fact which
can easily be demonstratedand which supports the theory that the
upper ribswere made in the same way. The use of upper andlower
one-piece ribs avoided the need for a carefuljoint at the middle of
the lower block. A one-pieceback is long enough for a one-piece top
rib to be cutfrom the same billet, creating a perfect match.
How-ever, one-piece bottom ribs are much longer than theback of a
violin, and these could not have been cutfrom the back wood unless
the billet was longer thannecessary.34 This may be why many Del Ges
violinshave a one-piece bottom rib which matches neitherthe other
ribs nor the back, but does match the bot-tom ribs of several other
violins. It would seem thathe simply cut several bottom ribs from a
suitablylong piece and, regardless of their matching quali-ties,
used them as bottom ribs only. Generally, when-ever Del Ges used a
one-piece bottom rib, the centreof the instrument is marked by a
tiny knife cut on theedge of the rib, where it comes into contact
with theback plate. On the Soil of 1733 this tiny nick on theribs
lines up with the remains of a centre line scribed
Figure 12. Variations in the rib mitres at the corners. a) The
earlier shorter version. b) The extended outer rib of the later
longer corners.
Figure 11. How the upper ribs of the Vieuxtemps may have been
extended by packing out the mould.
1155
-
1166into the overhang of the one-piece back. Such detailscan
also be found on instruments by Stradivari andAmati.
The advantage of a one-piece bottom rib is that itavoids the
need for a careful centre joint. The greatdisadvantage of both
one-piece top and bottom ribsis that they are more difficult to
bend with precision,and they compound the inaccuracies of badly
cutblocks. Del Ges obviously had problems in both re-spects.
Although the first corner of a one-piece rib isrelatively easy to
bend, as is the gentle curve aroundthe upper and lower bouts, the
second corner is lessso. It must be bent against the prepared curve
of thebouts and at exactly the right place. On several
laterinstruments, Del Ges plainly had difficulties inachieving
this: When the ribs were fastened to theblocks, a small swelling
appeared where they couldnot be pressed home against the mould, and
thiseventually transferred itself to the outline. This mayprovide
some explanation for the fact that when lateoutlines are
superimposed upon earlier outlines, theyappear to spring outward at
the blocks in a fairly ran-dom manner. To some extent this is true
of the LordWilton, the Carrodus and the Cannon.
Especially after about 1740, Del Gess apparentlyerratic
preparation of the corner blocks resulted inconsiderable twisting
of the one-piece ribs on themould, leading in turn to even greater
variations inback and belly outlines. He may have been forced tocut
some lower ribs to compensate for such twisting,but this was
probably a rare occurrence. Wheneverhe appears to have used a
two-piece bottom rib, it ismore likely to be the result of later
repair work. TheCannon and the Leduc are rare examples of gen-uine
two-piece bottom ribs. All the Leduc ribs alsomatch the back of the
instrument, an uncommon fea-ture, and it can be assumed that Del
Ges cut themfrom the back wedge which was otherwise too shortfor a
one-piece bottom rib.
With the ribs bent and glued in position, Del Gesfitted the
linings, which were cleaved from straight-grained spruce. In common
with those of Stradivari,they were probably about 2 mm 7.5 mm in
section.Employing the Amati system, he mortised the centrebout
linings deep into the corner blocks (figure 13).Often the linings
were brutally spliced into crudelycut oversized mortises. Del Ges
did what was essen-tial with the minimum of fuss; his rib
structures maybe fairly described as stable but hastily made. In
hisfinal years, he appears to have chosen an evenquicker method of
mortising the centre bout linings.
This was a technique favoured by Carlo Bergonziwhereby, instead
of cutting an oblong slot, two rapidknife cuts were used to prepare
the block and oneswift cut to prepare the lining (figure 14). The
liningsfor the Ole Bull were inserted in this way.
Until recently, the deep mortising system em-ployed by Del Ges
and his contemporaries wassomething of a puzzle. However, when it
was realisedthat the classical makers glued the back and front
lin-ings in place before releasing the ribs from themould, the
reason for both the deep mortises and thepeculiar shape of the
corner blocks became apparent(figure 15). Using this method the
ribs are sprungrather than slipped off the mould, and the
wholeprocess of disengaging the two can place consider-able stress
on the structure. Mortising the liningsdeep into the corner blocks
helps prevent accidentaldamage during this delicate procedure. With
bothsets of linings glued in place, the rib structure is far
Figure 14. SimpliWed drawing of the method of mortising the
centre bout linings, favoured by Carlo Bergonzi, which del Ges used
on the Ole Bull.
Figure 13. SimpliWed drawing of the Amati system of mortising
the centre bout linings into the corner blocks.
-
more stable both before and after being releasedfrom the mould.
There could be no possibility of fur-ther inaccuracies being built
into the structure as aresult of forcing the second set of linings
into placeon the fragile ribs, unsupported by the mould.
Once the rib structure with its strengthening lin-ings had been
completed, but before the mould wasremoved, several important
operations were carriedout. In each case these operations were
aided by theextra stability which the mould imparted to the
ribstructure. Initially, Del Ges planed Xat the side ofthe ribs
which would come into contact with theback, and the rib heights
were established at approx-imately 32 mm, exceptionally 33 mm. It
is generallyaccepted that the Cremonese ribs were tapered insome
way, with the end-pin block being higher thanthe neck block. Where
this taper begins and ends,and whether or not it was taken from the
back or thebelly side, is difficult to establish, especially
whenmore than two hundred years of damage and distor-tion have
clouded the evidence. In Del Gess case,his characteristic
inconsistency makes even well-pre-served examples difficult to
evaluate.
The available data indicates that Stradivari taperedthe ribs on
the belly side. The ex Regnier Stradivariviolin of 1722 has the
remains of a scribe line on theupper bass rib, indicating the final
height of theupper block (figure 16).
This scribe line runs parallel to the back and ribjoint, from
which point it was obviously struck witha marking gauge. The rib
measurements, and theangle which the scribe line makes between the
neckroot and the top edge of the rib, leave little doubt thatin
this case the taper ran between the neck block andthe upper corner
block only. This observation is sup-ported by the measurements of a
large number ofwell-preserved Stradivari violins.
In spite of the fact that Del Gess rib structureswere not always
finished with Stradivarian accuracy,the available measurements
indicate that he also ta-pered them from the top corner blocks to
the neckblock. The reasons for this taper are unclear andunless any
definitive documentary evidence is un-covered, will probably remain
so but the result isthat the belly is bent downwards from the upper
cor-ners. This certainly imparts some stress to the belly,which may
provide some acoustical or structural ad-vantage.
Having tapered the ribs, Del Ges again turned hisattention to
the linings. These he trimmed back witha knife; numerous tiny cuts
on the insides of the ribssuggest that they were cut back with some
speed (figure 17).
The edges of the moulds in the Museo Stradivari-ano are also
heavily scarred with knife cuts, revealing
Figure 15. The open form of the Cremonese corner blockmortise,
with its angle of more than 90, making it easier to spring the
block oV the mould.
Figure 17. SimpliWed drawing showing the position of the knife
marks on a set of del Ges ribs.
Figure 16. SimpliWed drawing showing the position of the scribe
line on the 1722 Ex Regnier Stradivari.
1177
-
1188that the linings must have been cut to shape whilethe mould
was still in place.35 This was only logical:With the rib structure
still rigidly fixed on the mould,the job would be that much easier
to accomplish. Be-sides, with both sets of linings glued in place,
shapingthe linings before removing the mould made the taskof
removal itself considerably easier.36 Stradivarishaped his linings
with some care, certainly morethan the Amatis, but Del Ges simply
sliced themback an act which confirms that the linings weremade
from split wood. Although he made some at-tempt to take off the
roughest edges with either arasp or some flexible abrasive,37 he
probably rea-soned that they were of little aesthetic
importance.With the exception of a few minor details, the
ribstructure was now complete and ready to be pre-sented to the
back, in order to mark the outline.