AArrcchhiinngg aanndd TThhiicckknneessssiinngg

After Del Ges had finalized the outline of the backfrom the ribs, he turned his attention to the arching.The puzzle of Del Gess arching is one of the mostdifficult aspects of his work to unravel, since cluesabout his method are not easily interpreted. Our bestguide is his approach to other technical problems, inparticular the body outlines, the heads and thesoundholes: In every case the method is concealed byDel Gess interpretation, and in every case themethod remains the same throughout his career. Thequality of his archings strongly suggests that therewas a theory underlying his method; their diversitydemonstrates that the concept was flexible and thatDel Ges was using this flexibility to maximum effect.His genius lay in the great variety of shapes which hedeveloped within the narrow conWnes of that whichworked well. As with the heads and soundholes, ageneral progression can be observed, but exceptionsoccur on a regular basis. He produced deeply scoopedarchings like the Ysae, full, swollen archings likethe Vieuxtemps and almost all stages in between,including the slightly square arch of the Dancla.Despite these variations, in all his archings some-thing which is intrinsically Del Ges can be recog-nised.

The Dancla is in some ways an oddity in DelGess production. It approaches the form of theStainer model which guided the majority of violinmakers throughout Europe in the first half of theeighteenth century. Del Gess uncle, Pietro Guarneriof Mantua, was perhaps the only Cremonese-bornmaker who adopted it fully, but the style of workingwith a deep and wide flute around the edge rising toa full arch seems to have appeared only once in thework of Del Ges. Immediately after this stylistic ex-cursion, he began working in the distinctive mannerwhich he was to maintain throughout the rest of hiscareer.

Taking an example from the other end of this ca-reer, the arching of the Vieuxtemps appears tohave been influenced by the work of the early Bres-cian makers, Gasparo DA Sal and Maggini, whosearches are very rounded and full from the edge.When viewed from the end, the curves across the in-strument seem to be struck from arcs of a circle. Inthe long arch, the effect is of a full convex curve ris-ing steeply over the end blocks, but flattening outover the length of the instrument. In stark contrastto the full modelling of the Vieuxtemps, theKochnski of the same year reverts to a style ofarching Del Ges had favoured earlier, low and deeplyhollowed around the perimeter from which the beau-

3355

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.

tifully rounded back emerges.

While the Vieuxtemps is probably the strongestexpression of the fuller type of arch, this slightlyswollen form is found also on the Cannon andSauret. In other violins of the 1740s, such as theLord Wilton and the Alard, the arching is reducedin height but is nonetheless modelled to produce adistinctly Brescian shape. The instruments in thisgroup betray less certain craftsmanship in the exe-cution of the arching, and whereas the earlier in-struments might show scraper marks here and there,in the later ones distinct troughs and bumps appearwhere strokes of the gouge and thumb-plane havebeen inadequately blended. These scraper marks use-fully show the direction of Del Gess working, ratherlike the brush strokes of a painter. They usually runacross the upper and lower bouts, but along thelength of the middle bouts the three sections aremore or less well blended together, with slantingstrokes through the corners. The arching of the ear-lier Kreisler is somewhat different, since it appearsto have been worked across rather than along thearch in the centre bouts. The trend in Del Gess lastinstruments, exemplified by the Ole Bull and theLeduc, is towards a complete elimination of un-necessary bulk, and most of the tool marks run in alongitudinal direction. The front arching is reducedto a low continuous curve with no flattened area be-neath the bridge, and on the back the centre boutsrise like a bubble, falling gently away in the upperand lower bouts.

t seems likely that Del Ges developed his archingin stages, with the initial stage for back and bellybeing completed at different times. When the outlineof the back was completed, Del Ges, like Stradivari,probably arched the back plate, leaving the edges flatas described by Sacconi. 77 If this were the case, thenany initial arching guides cannot have included theedgework fluting. Furthermore, because of the vari-ation in width of the backs and bellies, any cross-arching guides are unlikely to have spanned theentire width of the plates. Although no such tem-plates survive, it is reasonable to assume that anyguides would have been of the reversible half-archtype (figure 33). If the arching height, edge thicknessand plate widths had been consistent on Del Gessinstruments, then theoretically a set of fairly con-stant curves would have been formed. However, assoon as the height of the long arch was altered (ei-ther intentionally or due to the thickness of the avail-able wood), the cross-arch created by the templatewould have been raised or lowered accordingly. In-

creasing or decreasing the edge thickness would alsohave had an effect on the cross-arches. Assuming thatthe template could also be moved in and out slightlyon the still flat platform of the edge, then clearly thebasis for a wide variety of archings was established

I. This theory can be demonstrated using theupper corner cross-arching on the treble side of theKemp back, taken from the purfling to the centreline. If this half-arch is repeated and mirrored sev-eral times, using only slightly different archingheights and moving them in and out a small amount,the character of the arch can be altered considerably(figure 34). Add to this the process of cutting the edgefluting and blending it into the prepared arch, and itis possible to account for a large assortment of arch-ings.

If the half-arch profiles of the instruments de-scribed in this work are compared up to the line ofthe purfling, but ignoring the edge outside, it is strik-ing how with very few exceptions, they fall into twogroups. The archings made between 1731 and 1742are consistent with each other, and it is difficult toavoid the conclusion that not only were archingguides used, but that they were the same guidesthroughout.

Figure 33. The possible form of Cremonese cross-archtemplates.

3366

3377

Because of distortion and variation in overall arch-ing heights, on some of these instruments compar-isons only work when half-archings are matched likewith like, i.e. bass with bass, treble with treble. DelGes may have used more or fewer templates than inthis survey and they may have been used in differentpositions; furthermore, he may not always haveworked with consistent accuracy. Add this to the factthat his instruments have survived more than 250years of wear and tear, and possibly even distortion,and the similarity between these archings can onlybe described as exceptional. At the beginning of thisperiod, some instruments such as the Haddock andthe Diable are so close as to be practically inter-changeable; towards the end of the period, however,in keeping with the general workmanship after about1738, the archings are less consistent though stillclearly similar. After 1742 the instruments are alsoconsistent with each other, but they certainly do notmatch the earlier group. In particular, the Carrodusand the Cannon are remarkably similar, even in thelong arch, and they display an accuracy of workman-ship which rivals the early instruments of the first

group. Most intriguingly, the archings of the final twoyears appear to match the later archings of Stradi-vari, in particular those of the Milanollo, a per-fectly preserved example from 1728.78

Exceptions inevitably occur: The Dancla, theStretton and the Kreisler all predate the firstgroup and appear to have little or nothing in com-mon with each other or the two main groups. Al-though the King and the Stern fallchronologically within the first group, they do notconform in any identifiable way. The King is flatand full to the purfling, and the Stern is extremelyscooped at the edges. Whether such differences aredue to a conscious and deliberate manipulation of thetools to achieve a desired result is open to question.The thicknessing pattern of the Stern suggests thatDel Ges was compensating for the severe scooping.What is clear is that the archings on these instru-ments are different from the others beyond the pointof accident or chance.

No arching guides have survived from any classicalCremonese maker; however,