The Guadagnini Family of Violin Makers

CONTENTS

Introductory Note

Acknowledgments

Foreword

Plates Illustrating Guadagnini Instruments

PART I—LORENZO GUADAGNINI

Lorenzo Guadagnini’s fame due largely to that reflecting from his son—His origin in doubt—Violin collectors—Count Cozio di Salabue—His biographical notes—Prince Yusupof’s essay—Various writers on our subject—Their remarks analyzed—George Dubourg—F. J. Fétis—Sandys & Forster—Joseph Pearce—George Hart—Grove’s Dictionary—E. J. Payne—Rev. E. H. Fellowes—James M. Fleming—Horace Petherick—Contemporary works-Recapitulation—Lorenzo Guadagnini’s labels—Listing of instruments.

PART II—J. B. GUADAGNINI AT PIACENZA

Two premises—Correct epochs recorded by Count Cozio—Their periods in years—Tardy recognition—Dispersal of his works—Yusupof’s erroneous belief finds support—George Hart follows at first but shows altered opinions later-Remarks by Ed. Heron-Allen—Grove’s Dictionary—Stainer’s Dictionary—Laurent Grillet—Andreas Moser—Piacenza—Listing of instruments.

PART III—J. B. GUADAGNINI AT MILAN

Baron von Lütgendorff—His remarks analyzed—Fritz Meyer’s book—Hamma’s Italian Master Violin Makers—a reversal of opinion—Milan—Listing of instruments.

PART IV—J. B. GUADAGNINI AT CREMONA

Romance—Musing of Haweis—The residue of the workshop of Antonio Stradivari—Passes to the possession of Count Cozio—Inherited by the Dalla Valle family—acquired by Giuseppe Fiorini—The collection again at Cremona—Guadagnini at Cremona—Listing of instruments.

PART V—J. B. GUADAGNINI AT PARMA

The Dukes of Parma—Historical—Remarks on irascibility—On competitors-Ducal favors—Parma—Changes noted in the work-style of the maker—Varnish, materials—Listing of instruments.

PART VI—COUNT COZIO DI SALABUE

J. B. Guadagnini becomes acquainted with Cozio—Cozio’s biographers—Federico Sacchi—Hill—Towry Piper—Franz Farga—Renzo Bacchetta—Correspondence that passed between Paolo and Antonio Stradivari and Count Cozio’s agents, etc.

PART VII—J. B. GUADAGNINI AT TURIN

Violinists at Turin—Guadagnini’s change in work-style—Labels tampered with—State of the violin in America in 1776—Notes on a red Guadagnini, varnish, wood—Listing of J. B. Guadagnini instruments at Turin.

PART VIII—J. B. GUADAGNINI LABELS

Provide evidence defining the epochs of the maker—Illustrations of the maker’s various types with comments—Table of measurements—Summary of J. B. Guadagnini works.

PART IX—THE DYNASTY GUADAGNINI

Genealogical table—Descendants of J. B. Guadagnini—Giuseppe I—Gaetano I—Lorenzo II—Felice I—Carlo—Gaetano II—Giuseppe II—Felice II—Antonio—Francesco—Paolo.

General Index

Bibliography

List of Subscribers

GUADAGNINI INSTRUMENTS HEREIN PICTURED

Year

LORENZO GUADAGNINI

VIOLINS

1740    Andreæ

1743    Zimbalist

J. B. GUADAGNINI AT PIACENZA

VIOLINS

1742    Bazzini

1743    Szanto

1745    Roentgen

1746    D’Ambrosio

VIOLONCELLOS

1743    Von Zweygberg

1743    Graudan

J. B. GUADAGNINI AT MILAN

VIOLINS

1750    Senkrah

1751    Hill

1751    Maurin

1751    Zajic

1751    Sametini

1751    Kneisel

1752    Hartmann

1753    Skolnik

1754    Zazofsky

1755    Wollgandt

1755    Stoessel

1756    Burmester

1757    Trechmann

1757    Herten

1757    Wirth

1758    Vieuxtemps

VIOLONCELLO

1754    Gerardy

J. B. GUADAGNINI AT CREMONA

VIOLINS

1758    Bazzini

1758    Briggs

J. B. GUADAGNINI AT PARMA

VIOLINS

1760    Wanamaker-Caressa

1761    Wanamaker-Hart

1765    Hamma

1767    James

1768    Posner

1770    Millant

1770    Brusset

1770    Chappey

1771    Steiner-Schweitzer

J. B. GUADAGNINI AT TURIN

VIOLINS

177.      Thistleton

177.      Meinel

1772    Wishart

1773    Toedt

1773    Kosman

1774    Beel

1774    Kochansky

1774    Ullmann

177.      Zimbalist

1775    Joachim

1775    Eisenberg

1776    Lachmann

1779    Serdet

1781    Remy

1782    Chardon

1782    Maucotel

1783    Kleynenberg

1785    Wilhelmj

178.      Steiner-Schweitzer

178.      Uzes

VIOLAS

1775    Trombetta

1781    Villa

1784    Leyds

VIOLONCELLO

1783    Huxham

DESCENDANTS

VIOLINS

GIUSEPPE GUADAGNINI

1781    period

GAETANO GUADAGNINI I

1786    period

CARLO GUADAGNINI

1798    period

GAETANO GUADAGNINI II

1831    period

P

ART

I

LORENZO GUADAGNINI

Circa 1695-1745

We who know the attraction of old violins can readily understand the urge which possessed others of a bygone day, similarly enthused, to own, to cherish and to write about them. We stand indebted to those of the quill and pen for laying a groundwork upon which succeeding generations pieced out the framework of many stories from which emerged a yet uncompleted narration of the achievements of workers in the violin-making craft. Although a vast accumulation of biographical data is available today, it is not, nor can it ever be, completely correct in the presentation of a subject so broad and varied, and so shrouded in mystery and doubts. Some writers followed blindly on paths prepared, others probed more or less deeply in research, and revised and corrected.

With a few exceptions, Italy, the cradle of violin making, has produced little in the way of printed records to memorialize the deeds of her violin makers, and that directed only to the more prominent of her sons.

For many years the violin maker Lorenzo (Laurentius) Guadagnini, like others who probably enjoyed only local recognition, was not to be regarded as sufficiently important to warrant close scrutiny, either as to his nativity or antecedents. The fame which is now accorded him is due largely to the eminent position attained by his illustrious son, Giovanni Battista (Joannes Baptista). But recognition goes to Lorenzo not undeservedly, as it is merited by the evidence of the excellence of his lamentably small number of surviving works.

Labels used by Lorenzo Guadagnini might be variously interpreted to suggest Cremonese schooling in his use of the words alumnus Stradivari, but cannot be mistaken as to their meaning in naming himself as hailing from Placentina. Descendants living in the late nineteenth century are known to have averred that Lorenzo, and also his son, Giovanni Battista, were natives of the last named city.

Contemporary thought is inclined to agree with that premise, quite unreservedly as concerns Lorenzo Guadagnini, but somewhat less so concerning his son who in his late epoch introduced reference to Cremona on his printed labels. The indisputable evidence remains, however, that at the outset of his career and for some twenty years following, he consistently referred to himself on his labels as of Placentina (Piacenza).

Lorenzo Guadagnini is said to have worked at Cremona prior to his short era as an active producer at Piacenza. His output could not have been large, at least of instruments turned out under his own name and so labelled, whether at Cremona or at Piacenza, and as the demands of the wealthy class had been largely satisfied by the time of his advent as a producer, such works that he completed were probably created for an occasional rather than a steady call.

Whatever may have been their destination, it is evident, from what we know today, that their maker, Lorenzo Guadagnini, was long to remain an obscure, little known personality, mentioned by historians, it is true, but vaguely as to his qualifications and unintelligibly as to the merit of his instruments. This may in part be accounted for if Lorenzo, like others of the old makers, neglected to identify all of his works by supplying them with labels bearing his name.

His status among the Italian violin makers was eventually to be established, yet for a long period recognized only as a name, remarks thereto supplemented largely pure invention.

Whether his works were absorbed by plebian or aristocratic clientele will never be known, but with his qualifications as a craftsman of unquestioned ability meriting fair compensation for his labor, his patronage would appear to have been in the higher stratas of society.

The world today owes much to the privileged classes of early times for their encouragement to craftsmen in the arts. It is due to their lavish outpouring of wealth that great talents applied their supreme efforts to the creation of masterpieces, of which our heritage is rich in violins and their kindred instruments. With regard to the latter, it is safe to say that their aristocratic possessors of those times acquired them less in the sense of art lovers or collectors than they did for the practical purpose of equipping privately supported groups of musicians. Readers familiar with the history of the violin are acquainted with great names, many of noble lineage—kings and princes of church and state—who are recorded as one time possessors of the works of Stradivari and others and whose names have thereby been immortalized in musical history.

Probably the first of the titled Italians to become so deeply enamoured of the violin that he accumulated fine works to satisfy his hobby as a collector and thus became a leading figure in the archives of violin lore was the wealthy Count Ignazio Alessandro Cozio di Salabue of Casale-Monferrato in Piedmont, born 1755. The story of this nobleman has been variously told and is well known. He has been regarded as a generous patron of J. B. Guadagnini at a time in the career of that maker when he was in need of succor, a belief, as to the humanitarian nature of his interest, latterly subject to attack.

A memorial to Count Cozio exists in a monograph written by the Italian biographer Federico Sacchi, published at London in 1898, edited by Towry Piper. In this, certain notes concerning Cremonese violin makers which Cozio prepared in 1823, incorporating data concerning Guadagnini, were presented in the original Italian.

Before proceeding, it is in order to remark that the notes of which Cozio was the author provide one of two sources to which are attributable much that has been written concerning Lorenzo Guadagnini and his son Giovanni Battista. As the first biographer of violin makers to record these makers, Count Cozio was best fitted to provide reliable data as he was intimately acquainted with Giovanni Battista during years of his last period at Turin and must, therefore, have been in position to speak of him with authority. It is realized today that his notes concerning Guadagnini, though not of great length, correctly record the major circumstances of the maker’s career.

It will be read that he not only named the various cities in which Giovanni Battista Guadagnini lived and worked, but also placed his epochs in their proper sequence.

Thus, chronologers of violin history owe the Italian nobleman recognition for having provided a well grounded thesis on which to elaborate.

Noteworthy in a far different sense as exerting a contrary effect, the second work requiring mention here is that of another wealthy amateur, the Russian Prince Nicolai Borisovich Yusupov (Youssoupow), to which is traceable a tragic consequence subsequently to create opposing factions among writers on our subject, one of which was to follow blindly along in support of a false premise. It is the hope of this writer that its fallacy will become evident to readers of this book.

COUNT COZIO’S NOTES

Although not bearing directly on Lorenzo Guadagnini, to whom this opening chapter is dedicated, Count Cozio’s biographical mention of the family will follow at this place. Submitted to a Cremonese biographer, Vincenzo Lancetti, with the purpose that he should incorporate mention of the Guadagnini violin makers in his proposed work on Cremonese Worthies, Cozio’s notes were dated at Milan in 1823. In broad translation we read:

Meriting enumeration in this biography is the deceased Gio. Battista Guadagnini, son of the deceased Lorenzo, who often referred to himself on his tickets as Cremonese…. Though we do not know certainly that he worked in Cremona… it is established that he did first at Piacenza, afterwards for a length of time in Milan, then in Parma where he worked for the duke, and when all grants were withdrawn from the artists, he went to Turin in 1772, ultimately to die in that city. We mention his work as in reality copied after the celebrated Stradivari in the interior construction, in the arching, and particularly in the neatness of his instruments. He used the most beautiful woods and his instruments are of similar class or type as Stradivari’s. But due to circumstances, either of the times or persecution of makers who were his inferiors and ill-informed, or because, by his self-conceit, he did not seek to imitate the master in the volute (scroll), the if, the edges, and the varnish, and possibly because of his fiery nature and outbursts, he incurred the disgust and dislike of many professors of his time, and his work received little consideration in Italy. None the less, his work was appreciated by some professors, but at low prices, and these were players who demanded the power and evenness of tone required in the orchestra. It is to be noted that many of his instruments found favor with speculators in Holland and Germany and there brought prices comparable to good Cremonese works…. Any intelligent, impartial person can judge for himself of the quality of instruments made expressly of chosen woods in Turin from 1773 to 1776 at the behest of Count Cozio, commissioned of the maker for his collection in order to sustain him and his large family. While yet new, but well seasoned, some, like two violoncellos and two violas already adapted by the brothers Mantegazza for their present use, all still have their original finish; they do not show wear as easily as good Cremonese violins on the outside, and when seasoned with use the varnish will last as long as the best, and give as good service.

The note continues, mentioning as among children surviving: … two of which, Gaetano and Giuseppe, followed their father’s vocation, the first named in adjusting and finishing violins. He left a son of the same name who made violins and guitars. And Giuseppe made various violins and violas, but in Pavia, where he had removed his household and where he died without offspring; his works do not merit being mentioned in this biography.

The original Italian phraseology of the Count’s notes is susceptible of differing interpretation, but it is due to them as the nuclei, that later scribes painted the maker as a man of violent temper, built fanciful stories about certain dukes of Parma long dead before Guadagnini’s arrival there in 1759, and otherwise through embellishment enlarged upon the only recorded data originating from first hand acquaintance with the maker.

In the same month of January, 1823, that his notes were forwarded to Lancetti—on the 31st to be exact—Count Cozio despatched a letter, in his own handwriting, to Lancetti, a facsimile of which appears in Sacchi’s memorial. The communication insofar as it concerns the Guadagninii is here presented in translation and indicates that Count Cozio had decided that they were to be definitely regarded as Cremonese: The latest news which reached me from Turin after our last meeting, makes it appear that Gio. Batt. Guadagnini, deceased, and also his father Lorenzo, were belonging to a family that originated in Cremona; also that both of them were born in Cremona….

It is to be gathered from the above that, other than the brief mention by Count Cozio of the name, the better part of a century passed subsequent to Lorenzo Guadagnini’s demise before his existence received more than cursory attention from biographers, and, lacking definite basic information, the subject has been variously approached since that time.

YUSUPOV’S ESSAY

The year 1856 witnessed publication of the first edition of the essay written by a Russian musical enthusiast, Prince Nicolai Borisovitch Yusupov.* He was born at St. Petersburg, in 1827, and died at Baden-Baden 1891. An accomplished violinist, he maintained a private orchestra in his palace, was the composer of a number of works including a concerto for violin, and the author of several essays. Published anonymously under the nom de plume un Amateur, his Luthomonographie historique et raisonnée went into five editions.

In it the author divulged his identity, as he mentioned himself in connection with a grand collection of violins conserved in the palace of Prince Nicholas Youssoupow (French version) at St. Petersburg. Not dreaming that he was perpetrating the offense of a hoax against posterity in the train of consequences to follow, he caused to be printed, among his notes on Imitateurs et élèves de Stradivarius:

O

RIGINAL

"Milani (Francesco) 1742 imitateur scrupuleux de Stradivarius, travailla long-temps à Milan, d’après les données qui lui avaient été transmises par: Guadanini (Laurenzius) 1710, de Milan, élève de Stradivarius. Le frère de ce dernier Jean Baptiste, de 1709-1754 quitta Crémone pour se fixer a Placentia où il travailla jusqu’ à sa mort à titre d’élève distingué de Stradivarius…."

T

RANSLATION

Francesco Milani,* 1742, worked a long time at Milan; scrupulous imitator of Stradivarius after the art was transmitted by Lorenzo Guadagnini, 1710, of Milan, pupil of Stradivarius. The brother of the last (Lorenzo) Jean Baptiste, 1709-1754, left Cremona to settle at Piacenza where he worked until death a distinguished pupil of Stradivarius.

And again, under Différentes Ecoles d’Italie:

"…Dans l’école de Milan sans parler de Testator, qui en est pour ainsi dire le fondateur, nous remarquons les deux frères, Guadanini, dont nous avons parlé déjà dans l’article concernante les élèves de Stradivarius, Lacasso (Antonio Maria) Sanza Santino (1634) et puis enfin Testore (Carlo Giuseppe) (1750) ce dernier ainsi que Guadanini (Laurenzius), peut être placé au rang des bons luthiers."

In the school of Milan, of which Testator† may be said to have been the founder, we remark the two brothers Guadagnini, of whom I spoke in connection with my remarks concerning pupils of Stradivarius; Lacasso … and finally Testore … lastly Lorenzo Guadagnini, as deserved to be ranked the good luthiers.

We have here the root of an innocuous growth which fastened itself upon the records. Prince Yusupov committed the double error of terming Lorenzo Guadagnini a Milanese and naming J. B. Guadagnini as his brother. No mitigating factor can be suggested to reduce the enormity of the offence, which though unwittingly committed, has worked harmfully ever since. His statement, brief in itself, has been enlarged upon and distorted, and although its fallacy is realized today, it is entirely to the thoughtless utterance of Yusupov that we must attribute the repetition of fantastic references to one Giambattista Guadagnini, called brother of Lorenzo, as apart from Giovanni Battista Guadagnini,* the son of Lorenzo.

As this review proceeds it will be seen how the seed planted by Prince Yusupov fell upon fertile ground, causing the emergence of a myth that spread and gained credence widely, and how, eventually, its fallacy became apparent and truth prevailed.

GEORGE DUBOURG

The writings of British enthusiasts figure prominently in the literature of the violin. One of the earliest, the scholarly work of George Dubourg entitled The Violin, commands attention. Its theme is principally biographical narrative concerned with famous players of the instrument, but includes an intriguingly told story of the early history and development of the violin family, as well as remarks about famous makers and sundry recounting of anecdotes and experiences relevant to the subject. The book received wide acclamation and required a number of reprintings, yet is now rare and counted as a collector item. The first edition appeared in 1836, and in the chapter devoted to violin makers there is no mention what-soever of members of the Guadagnini family. The book went into five editions, and in the fourth, published 1852, the author extended his remarks to more fully list makers. In this appears:

"Lorenzio Guadagnini, of Placentia, a pupil or apprentice of Straduarius, copied the small-pattern fiddles of his master. His instruments give a round and clear tone from the first and second strings—but are dull on the third…."

As the first English mention of the Guadagnini violin makers, to the writer’s knowledge, this entry, though obviously fantastic in the matter presented and particularly so in the description of tonal characteristics, is significant in naming Lorenzo’s locale of Placentia.

The French musical historian François Joseph Fétis produced his famous work, Antoine Stradivari, Luthier Célèbre (etc.), in 1856. An English translation by John Bishop of Cheltenham appeared in 1864, in which same year Sandys and Forster published their History of the Violin. Then, in 1875, the first edition of George Hart’s classic, The Violin: Famous Makers and Their Imitators was produced.

The French work of Jules Gallay, Les Luthiers Italiens, published in 1869, contained nothing of interest pertaining to our topic; a compilation of the names of owners of Italian instruments therein included, does not mention the name Guadagnini. The same author’s Les Instruments des Écoles Italiennes, published by Gand and Bernardel in 1872 at Paris contains a more extensive list of owners. This provides, under the simple title Guadagnini, four violins, three violas, five violoncellos, with one other violin mentioned in the appendix. Antoine Vidal’s great work Les Instruments à Archet (etc.), was published in three volumes; the second appearing in 1877, deals with the subject of violin makers. His La Lutherie et le luthiers was published in 1889 in response to a demand for a reprinting of that section of the earlier work.

As coming subsequent to the notes of Count Cozio and regarded as the most important biographical works on the subject of violin makers of their epoch, those which I have mentioned may be accepted as providing the source material which directed later writers, to be by them reconstructed as suited their whim. There can be no question as to the sincerity of purpose of the various authors, and as pioneers in a largely unexplored field, errors and discrepancies were no more possible to avoid than it is today given us to warrant the absolute accuracy of our own utterances.

F. J. FETIS

Reverting to the above mentioned works, and to examine them more in detail, if we consider that of Fétis, it should be approached with the regard due an eminent scholar, a learned man who ventured his treatise with the devotion of a true votary. With very little previously recorded data on which to rely, it must be assumed that he drew upon the knowledge and experience of the contemporary French connoisseurs and dealers of his time to furnish material for his book. It is generally accepted that J. B. Vuillaume was his principal informant, some indeed going so far as to virtually characterize Fetis as his mouthpiece. Whatever the source, the work was of its time the most erudite on our subject of early violin makers, directed principally, as indicated by the title, to a notice of Antonio Stradivari. His remarks referring to other makers are more or less vague and incidental, making it a matter open to question whether Vuillaume himself, shrewd tradesman and eminent connoisseur though he was, had more than cursory knowledge of the background of many of those mentioned by Fetis, makers who had not achieved the status of a place among the very great in then popular estimation.

It is a safe assumption that to Fétis, rather than due to the brief note in Dubourg’s book or Yusupov’s essay, the premise of a connection of Lorenzo Guadagnini with the shop of Stradivari, either as workman or apprentice, found its origin. As presented in Bishop’s translation, the words of Fetis are made to read that among the immediate pupils of Anthony Stradivarius there was Lorenzo Guadagnini, Cremonae, 1695 to 1740.

SANDYS AND FORSTER

Next in the order of works referred to, we find in the Sandys and Forster book:

Lorenzo Guadagnini was born at Placentia towards the end of the seventeenth century, and was living in 1742. He was a pupil of Antonius Stradiuarius, whose models he followed, generally of the small pattern. He finished with care, using good oil varnish, his S S holes are elegant, and his purfling neat; the first and second strings brilliant, but the third occasionally dull. After working for some time at Placentia he removed to Milan….

Here we find repeated the inanity of tone characterization which Dubourg committed in 1852. It is worth noting that these English writers name Lorenzo a native of Piacenza in direct contradiction of Fétis’ statement, thus in agreement with what is said to have been asserted by descendants of the maker.

JOSEPH PEARCE

To further illustrate how blindly one writer copied the words of another, I mention the work of Joseph Pearce, of Sheffield, who was the author in 1866 of Violins and Violin Makers—Biographical Dictionary of the Great Italian Artistes (etc.). Evidently much of his material was drawn from the words of Fetis (whom he quotes) and Sandys and Forster, but some display of his imagination appears in his notes of Guadagnini. Certainly with no knowledge that a second maker by name Lorenzo Guadagnini was to be forwarded at a later day, Pearce did just that in giving us two of the name, one as of Cremona, 1690 to 1720 … Pupil of Straduarius and highly esteemed as a maker…. Followed the style of his celebrated teacher, supplemented