Francois, the younger son, was not forgotten though, and the father bethought him of some useful industry at which he might earn a living, and decided on clockmaking as the most suitable. Now mark the erratic workings of fate. The eldest son, from whom so much was expected, proved a comparative failure, inasmuch as that, instead of progressing, his work was distinctly inferior to that of his father.[1] Francois, on the other hand, became tired of clockmaking after eight years' ill-remunerated grind, and turned his attention to the family trade.

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

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

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

There was in general amongst violinists an antic.i.p.ation of the grand, yet simple law set forth by De Beriot in his Violin School that the human voice was the pure archetype upon which all _played_ music should be modelled.

It was found that the violin was capable of simulating all the subtle inflexions of song, whether of pa.s.sion or tenderness, and players sighed for an ideal bow that should be tongue-like in its response to the performer's emotion. A bow that should at once be flexible to "whisper soft nothings in my lady's ear"; strong--to sound a clarion-blast of defiance; and, withal, be ready for any _coquetterie_ or _badinage_ that might suit its owner's whim. This is what Francois Tourte, the starving clockmaker, gave them.

We fiddlers have to be very thankful that the master clockmakers of Paris were not more liberal to their employes!

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

To gain facility in the manipulation of his tools, he made countless bows from old barrel staves; he could not afford to make his first attempts on anything better. When he had attained sufficient skill in the actual workmanship, and had satisfied himself as to the most suitable form, he set to work investigating the question of material.

He tried all kinds of wood, and at last decided that the red wood of Pernambuco, then largely imported into Europe for dyeing purposes, was the best. To obtain this in sufficient quant.i.ties was no easy matter, for the Anglo-French wars were interfering seriously with international commerce; a circ.u.mstance that rendered this material unusually expensive. Then the nature of this wood is not by any means a bow maker's ideal. Billets and logs amounting to several tons in weight may be examined before a piece is found sufficiently free from knots and cracks, and of straight enough grain to be suitable for the purpose. However, genius _and_ a capacity for taking infinite pains overcame all difficulties, and we now have bows worthy of the greatest masterpieces of Cremona.

How little are the workings of genius understood by the "painstaking"

ones. They cannot conceive the suddenness of inspiration--the almost instantaneous grasp of essentials that precedes the plodding mechanical work necessary even to genius.

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

In the case of Tourte we have a remarkable example of this combination. His genius made him grasp spontaneously the qualities required, and his capacity for taking infinite pains helped him to produce the perfect bow. He it was who determined finally the length and weight of a bow, its equilibrium, the angle of the hair necessary for a good "attack," the length and breadth of the hair and sundry other points that, prior to 1775, had been quite undecided.

The mean length of a violin bow as fixed by Tourte is from 74 to 75 centimetres (29.134 to 29.528 inches English); that of a viola bow is 74 centimetres (29.134 inches), and a 'cello bow 72 to 73 centimetres (28.347 to 28.740). Many people imagine that the plates of silver or gold with which the nut of a bow is inlaid are nothing more than mere ornamentation. But their first purpose is distinctly one of utility, which is as it should be in a work of art; superfluous decoration has no beauty for an artist. It is by means of these metal "loadings" at the heel that the weight of the head is counteracted and the exact point of equilibrium determined. The centre of gravity in a violin bow should be at 19 centimetres (7.48 inches) from the nut; in a 'cello bow at 175 to 180 millimetres (6.89 to 7.087 inches) from the nut.

Concerning the geometric proportions of the Tourte bows, I cannot do better than quote Bishop's able translation of the explanation given by Fetis in his notice of A. Stradivarius.

[Ill.u.s.tration: 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 uniform dimensions, the length of which is 0^m, 110 (4.33 inches). When this portion is cylindrical, its diameter is 0^m, 008-6/10 (.34 inch).

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

"After proving by a great number of Tourte's bows that these ten points are not only found always at decreasing distances on the same stick, but also that the distances are perceptibly the same, and that the situations of the points are identical on different bows compared together, M. Vuillaume sought to ascertain whether the positions of the 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 be always settled _a priori_. This he attained in the following manner.

At the extremity of a right line A B, equal to 0^m, 700 (27.56 inches), that is to say the length of the bow, raise a perpendicular A 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 B D, of the length 0^m, 022 (.866 inches) and unite the upper extremities of these two perpendiculars, or ordinates by a right line C D, so that the two lines A B and C D, may lie at a certain inclination to each other.

"Take the length 0^m, 110 (4.33 inches) of the ordinate A C with the compa.s.ses, and set it off on the line A B, from A to _e_: from the point thus obtained, draw another ordinate (parallel to A C and perpendicular to A B), until it meets the line C D.

"Between these two ordinates A C and _e f_--the latter of which is necessarily less than the former--lies the cylindrical portion of the bow, 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 set it 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 set off on the line A B, to determine thereon a new point _i_, from which to draw the fourth ordinate, _i j_: the length of which, likewise, when set off on the line A B, determines the point where the fifth ordinate _k l_ is to be drawn. The latter, in like manner, determines the 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 the point _e_, are those where the diameter of the bow is successively reduced 3/10 of a millimetre (.012 inch). Now, these points have been determined by the successively decreasing lengths of the ordinates drawn from the same points, and their respective distances progressively decrease from the point _e_ to the point B.

"If we subject these data to calculation, we shall find that the profile of the bow is represented by a logarithmic curve, of which the ordinates increase in arithmetical progression; while the abscissae increase in geometrical progression; and lastly, that the curvature 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 millimetre, the corresponding values of _y_ will be those of the radii (or semi-diameters) of the transverse circular section of the bow at corresponding points in the axis."

CHAPTER VII.

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

I have spoken at length of Dodd and Tourte--two names that stand out in the history of the bow with remarkable prominence--and before proceeding with the general list of bow makers, great and small, I propose to speak of Peccatte and Lupot, whose genius was inferior only to that of Tourte in that they were followers rather than originators.

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

An important addition, said to have been inst.i.tuted by Lupot, was the metal plate which lines the groove in the nut and prevents the wearing away of the nut by friction with the stick.

In Plate VII. I give two examples of Lupot's work. Here will be seen all the tenderness of line characteristic of Tourte, albeit that they lack somewhat of his force. The workmanship in these two bows is superb, and they are also delightful to play with, being well balanced and of controllable flexibility. This is a point in a bow that is frequently overlooked. Many imagine that flexibility alone is the chief desideratum, and bows have been shown to me almost indiarubber-like in their pliancy; the owners expecting me to wax enthusiastic over this--to my mind--serious defect. As a matter of fact, flexibility and pliancy are not correct definitions of a bow's chief quality, as they amount to weakness. What is really meant is elasticity, by which is conveyed not only the property of yielding to pressure but also that of speedily recovering its normal state. We sometimes hear a player in testing bows say that such a one has too much "life" in it; thereby implying that its action is largely out of the performer's control, a condition usually attributable to an excess of flexibility.

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE VII.]

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

[Ill.u.s.tration: PLATE VIII.]

Peccatte, like Francois Tourte, started life in an occupation far removed from that which made him famous. His father was a barber at Mirecourt, where Dominique was born 1810. Wielding the razor not proving congenial, he adopted the prevailing industry of the town and became a maker of violins and bows; in the latter he became exceptionally expert. In the year 1826 J. B. Vuillaume was in want of a talented workman and wrote to his brother, who was established in Mirecourt, to find him one. The result of these enquiries was that Dominique Peccatte came to Paris and remained for eleven years with Vuillaume. In 1837 Francois Lupot died and Peccatte took over the business. Ten years later he returned to his native place, though retaining his business connexion with Paris until his death, which took place in 1874. Many of his bows are unstamped, or bear the stamp of 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 the stamp has only a single "T," the result, probably, of illiteracy on the part of the maker.

The third in Plate VIII. is a bow by Panormo. His work is quite distinct from that of any other maker; but one must not run away with the idea that he affected an unjustifiable singularity, for the flat sides and angular facets of the Panormo heads have a logical basis, being in point of fact the natural continuation of the octagonal stick.

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

The late mathematician and musical amateur, W. S. B. Woolhouse, no less than Fetis, contributed greatly to a full understanding of the essential properties of a bow on the part of those whose office it is to produce the actual instrument. Woolhouse laid great stress on a point overlooked by many other students of the subject, the same being that the success of a bow depends quite as much on its purity as a vibrating body as does the violin.

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

Bows are "false" frequently in the same way that strings are.

Inequalities of finish, imperceptible to our ordinary senses, will render a perfect "_staccato_" from end to end impossible, just as it is impossible to obtain true fifths in every part of a violin's compa.s.s if one of the strings be slightly wanting in absolute cylindricity. I speak specially of "_staccato_," as that form of bowing suffers perhaps more than any other from faulty bows; but any form of bowing that calls for special dexterity will betray the inefficiency of a bow.

It is of great interest to compare the calculations of Woolhouse with those of Fetis, and I will here quote the results obtained by the former.

"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, the diameter of the stick in that locality, supposing the bow to be round, may be readily calculated from the following formula:--

Diameter = .2 [log.(_h_ + 7.25) - 9.8100]