Guadagnini and Cozio

[Jeffrey Holmes]

It seems the research presented by Chris Reuning back in 2006 pretty much eliminates Lorenzo Guadagnini from the picture. There remains some big holes in what seems to be generally known about this time and place, though. What was going on instrument-making wise in Piacenza before the 1740's when labelled Guads start appearing?

 

There was the Segher family from the late 1600's with a son who spent time in the Amati shop. I don't know if there are any known violins by the Seghers. There was Hieronymus II Amati who spent quite a few years in Piacenza avoiding debt problems in Cremona, I think the latest findings suggest 1698-1718. There are violins by him from this period. The ones I've seen are labelled Cremona, but those might not be original labels.

 

So, from 1718-1740's, when Guad's oldest labelled violin appears, it seems we don't know of any violins reliably made in Piacenza. Guad was born in 1711 way out in the hillside villages, and it seems he was wandering about, from village to village in the 1730's before settling in Piacenza in 1742. Was there an active violin-maker there at the time who could have taught him the basics? Was he already a trained wood-worker who picked up violin-making by observing an active shop? All fascinating stuff, but maybe more archival research will (or already has) turn up more information.

 

Thanks Michael.  With the sarcastic one liners that have appeared in this thread (I just released a couple more of them), I was going to ask if the members who submitted them had bothered reading Duane's book or the transcripts of Chris' VSA presentation.

 

I believe Duane presents some evidence that G.B. was a resident in Piacenza in '38 (a year before his marriage?).  If memory serves me, I believe the earliest document Duane was able to uncover confirming Lorenzo as a resident there was 1739.

 

As you mentioned, it's difficult to prove a negative, but if one reviews Duane's research, and still insists that Lorenzo made violins, evidence and logic would not allow one to come down with any more weight on the side of Lorenzo being G.B.'s teacher than the reverse (G.B. teaching his father).

 

The history Count Cozio documented in his papers in the early 19th century seems almost totally based on verbal histories provided by G.B. and later members of his family... parts very likely unreliable... and as Duane suggests, the story seems to have been yet further embellished by Cozio.

 

In other words, for those who submitted knee-jerk responses to information in this thread; I don't think anyone who really is interested is sorting out history is served by ignoring actual archival evidence in the favor of indulging a myth you find more attractive.  I am grateful to those, like Duane, have the patience and skills to sort through the dusty paper archives and present results coherently and without commercial bias.

 

"Bingo"

[Christopher Reuning]

To echo Jeff,

I am happy to debate and discuss the topic, but please read Duane's book at least. I can not paraphrase his detailed research in an internet forum.

 

As to the recurring question of who may have taught Guadagnini, the answer is the same as with many makers: we do not know. On this question, I would make several points:

 

1. A super talented "genius maker" does not necessarily need a full apprenticeship to become proficient. He should be able to pick up the basics very, very quickly.

2. Some of these best makers first instruments can be relatively or very feeble then rapidly progress so that the 3rd or 4th instruments are already vastly improved. I am thinking specifically of A. Stradivari, S. Serafin, and G.B. Guadagnini.

3. Guadagnini and many other makers began young as woodworkers or in some other specialized hand crafting trade that had a rigorous training process. These young apprentices were culled from a selected pool because they showed special talent. I suspect that certain of them who had a special sort of talent were then chosen to be musical instrument makers or made this decision on their own through a relationship with a musician. Perhaps Guadagnini began repairing violins for several years before he made one? Perhaps he had no training from a violinmaker?

4. Of course, Andrea Amati himself made the first real "Cremonese" violin. Certainly, he would have been trained as a viol maker but he still "came out of nowhere" in a sense. If Andrea Amati can make such an advanced violin in this environment, then G.B. Guadagnini can make his first (rather feeble) effort with little or no formal violinmaking training.

 

It is important that we do not apply 21st Century values, standards and circumstances to craftsmen working in 17th or 18th Century Italy.

[Roger Hargrave]

I have read Duane’s superb book, (which I also read before publication). I also try to read everything that Chris writes. But, in spite of their fine work, I am still not totally convinced that we know anything like the whole Guadagnini story. Instrument identification is a living thing and it is just as dangerous to reject traditional attributions as it is to accept them without question, after all mistakes have been made in the past.

I think about the story of Del Gesù heads. How only in the 1980's did it become clear that Joseph filius made so many of Del Gesù’s heads before he died. The Hills never even thought of this. Also in the late eighties the world learned of the fact that Joseph filius was in hospital. Back then this was always serious and usually meant that the patient was dying. Putting these two things together turned the whole Del Gesù story on its head. Moreover in my opinion there is more to come with regard to the instruments of Del Gesù. We may yet learn that Katarina Guarneri made or contributed to some ‘Del Gesù’ fiddles. At least we now know that she existed and who she was related to.      

I also have no idea what will happen if anyone comes up with more documentary evidence or some serious computer analysis of the styles in Strads workshop. We know so much and yet we know so little. I know that some of you are not keen on speculation, but as has been said before on this site, speculation is the mother of discovery. However, it must be handled with care. Speculation can easily be misconstrued and lead us down the path of dalliance.

Only in the last ten years have we been aware of a Carlo Ruggeri cello. New information turns up on an almost weekly basis. As for Lorenzo although I am skeptical I think that the jury is still out. As for G.B. Guad’s honesty; who am I, or any of us, to throw stones. 

[Roger Hargrave]

To echo Jeff,

I am happy to debate and discuss the topic, but please read Duane's book at least. I can not paraphrase his detailed research in an internet forum.

 

As to the recurring question of who may have taught Guadagnini, the answer is the same as with many makers: we do not know. On this question, I would make several points:

 

1. A super talented "genius maker" does not necessarily need a full apprenticeship to become proficient. He should be able to pick up the basics very, very quickly.

2. Some of these best makers first instruments can be relatively or very feeble then rapidly progress so that the 3rd or 4th instruments are already vastly improved. I am thinking specifically of A. Stradivari, S. Serafin, and G.B. Guadagnini.

3. Guadagnini and many other makers began young as woodworkers or in some other specialized hand crafting trade that had a rigorous training process. These young apprentices were culled from a selected pool because they showed special talent. I suspect that certain of them who had a special sort of talent were then chosen to be musical instrument makers or made this decision on their own through a relationship with a musician. Perhaps Guadagnini began repairing violins for several years before he made one? Perhaps he had no training from a violinmaker?

4. Of course, Andrea Amati himself made the first real "Cremonese" violin. Certainly, he would have been trained as a viol maker but he still "came out of nowhere" in a sense. If Andrea Amati can make such an advanced violin in this environment, then G.B. Guadagnini can make his first (rather feeble) effort with little or no formal violinmaking training.

 

It is important that we do not apply 21st Century values, standards and circumstances to craftsmen working in 17th or 18th Century Italy.

 

I just missed this post. 3 is total speculation. In those days it was not easy to change proffession. 4. Andrea Amati certainly did not "come out of nowhere". No one comes out of nowhere and certainly not someone as skilled and as knowledgeable as he clearly was. He must have had an exceptional apprenticeship in an exceptional workshop. The fact that we do not know who his master was does not diminish this fact. Indeed it is the same kind of problem that we have when looking at Lorenzo. Or for that matter Antonio Stradivari.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

If I may, I feel the point of my earlier post is in danger of being swallowed by debate, as healthy as that may be.

 

Though it may be that "speculation is the mother of discovery", and I feel that in some cases it most certainly is, as you cautioned (Roger), it must be handled with care.  One way to do that is to make an honest effort to acknowledge what is known, what can be reasonably confirmed, and what is speculation.  

 

If we are to have a discussion concerning a subject, and it is evident several participants have not read the information available pertaining to that subject (especially the archival research available), and sorted out the categories of the various information presented, we run the risk of being thrown back into the whirlpool, clinging to previous myths pertaining to that subject.  The one-liners I mentioned seemed to be doing just that. I would further suggest that Duane's work has allowed us alternate avenues of speculation.

[JoeG]

I just missed this post. 3 is total speculation. In those days it was not easy to change proffession. 4. Andrea Amati certainly did not "come out of nowhere". No one comes out of nowhere and certainly not someone as skilled and as knowledgeable as he clearly was. He must have had an exceptional apprenticeship in an exceptional workshop. The fact that we do not know who his master was does not diminish this fact. Indeed it is the same kind of problem that we have when looking at Lorenzo. Or for that matter Antonio Stradivari.

 

In my opinion, nearly all of the information alleged to concern Lorenzo Guadagnini's life and work is complete speculation.

As far can be determined the back of this instrument appears to be made of oppio, bearing a rather wild looking figure.

 

JoeG

[JoeG]

If I may, I feel the point of my earlier post is in danger of being swallowed by debate, as healthy as that may be.

 

Though it may be that "speculation is the mother of discovery", and I feel that in some cases it most certainly is, as you cautioned (Roger), it must be handled with care.  One way to do that is to make an honest effort to acknowledge what is known, what can be reasonably confirmed, and what is speculation.  

 

If we are to have a discussion concerning a subject, and it is evident several participants have not read the information available pertaining to that subject (especially the archival research available), and sorted out the categories of the various information presented, we run the risk of being thrown back into the whirlpool, clinging to previous myths pertaining to that subject.  The one-liners I mentioned seemed to be doing just that. I would further suggest that Duane's work has allowed us alternate avenues of speculation.

Hi Jeff,

 

Please delete my previous replies, if you wish.

Mr. Rosengard and Mr. Ruening deserve better treatment, and I apologize for any disturbence to the theme.

 

JoeG

[MatthewThomas]

My only problem with this debate is that the "new" version is more contentious than the previously accepted version. 

 

With all due respect, I mean that sincerely, for G.B. to have to be moved into the category of "pathological liar" in order to be discredited is somewhat absurd.  As everyone here attests he was at the pinnacle of his profession.  He didn't have a need for his father to be elevated to maker for his work to be accepted as excellent.  If he said his father made violins, his father probably made violins. 

 

I don't have a problem if G.B. said he was born in Cremona or Piacenza.  He wouldn't remember, his parents would.

 

I was born 15 miles outside a city and went to school in that city.  No one has heard of my hometown.  When anyone asks where I was born or grew up, I just reference the nearby city.

 

If there is an after-life and Lorenzo made violins and is reading this thread.  He's annoyed.

 

All of the resources I have stumbled upon list Lorenzo as being born in 1694/95.  He was born around 1680.  If you are looking for him you need to start there. 

[BassClef]

I am intrigued by this scholarly debate and would like to learn about the subject. How much will this cost?

[David Burgess]

I am intrigued by this scholarly debate and would like to learn about the subject. How much will this cost?

Maybe some time,  a little grief, and some really good internet sorting skills.

Lots of really great stuff gets posted, along with plenty of crap. The previously mentioned books represent some of the best information we have at the moment.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

 

 

 

All of the resources I have stumbled upon list Lorenzo as being born in 1694/95.  

 

Then you haven't bothered to look at Duane's book either.

[Addie]

Then you haven't bothered to look at Duane's book either.

No offense intended, but there is a difference between a forum and a book club.  

 

For instance, a Stradivari mold discussion would cost book club members $950, the current price of Pollens’ book... a discussion of Sacconi would cost $695 (today’s Amazon prices).  Anybody can get Sacconi via ILL, but Pollens’ mold book is too rare.

[David Burgess]

....

Are you perchance the Matthew Thomas who was arrested for playing the violin naked in front of a Portland, Oregon courthouse?

Link:

http://koin.com/2014/05/24/naked-violinist-arrested-outside-portland-court/

[duane88]

http://www.cremonatools.com/the-secrets-of-stradivari-s-f-sacconi.html

 

Not close to $695

 

 

I have the mold book, I'll share.

 

Mr. Rosengard's book is 400 at Tarisio. 

 

I am thinking that if you haven't kept up on the latest available research, then you probably should be so critical of those who have, not to mention those who participated/sponsored the research.

[Jeffrey Holmes]

No offense intended, but there is a difference between a forum and a book club.  

 

 

Bet you know somebody who has it..  and if you're really nice and buy them baked goods, they might let you read it!  

 

Chris' presentation is in the VSA Journal.

[BassClef]

Bet you know somebody who has it..  and if you're really nice and buy them baked goods, they might let you read it!  

 

Chris' presentation is in the VSA Journal.

 

Which issue and can we read it online?

[MatthewThomas]

Mr. Burgess,

 

I would only play the violin partially naked in front of a courthouse. 

 

Mr. Holmes,

 

Sometimes people write [redacted] and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books.  I would never want a book's autograph.  I am a proud non-reader of books.  - Kanye

 

Bothered isn't the right word.  $400 is a pretty steep entrance price and I am pretty sure that I don't know anyone who has a copy. 

[duane88]

 

Sometimes people write [redacted] and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books.  I would never want a book's autograph.  I am a proud non-reader of books.  - Kanye

 

 

That explains Kanye.

 

I bet that it is available through interlibrary loan. My copy is 1916 of the printing of 2000. It's been shipped to 3 different friends.

 

Now, back on track. 

 

Duane Rosengard discovered documentation that Lorenzo was, I believe, and Inkeeper of sorts. Perhaps the violins labeled Lorenzo were later labeled as such by people hoping to profit from G.B., and since G.B. was illiterate, he certainly couldn't have written them!

 

Is there any documentation of Lorenzo being a violin maker,other than labels? Or, as Roger Hargrave might ask, are there any orig. undisturbed Lorenzo G. labels in violins known to us?

[Martin McClean]

Perhaps Guadagnini embellished some insignificant details in response to some absurd irrational prejudices which were prevalent in the violin market at that time. Maybe his prospective customers were unable to see the merits of his work without first believing that he was from a particular lineage or place?

Imagine, how backward!

[Will L]

I guess we are lucky to all of a sudden (meaning within the last 15 years) have some spectacular new books available, the Rosengard and Scrollavezza to name two.  The trouble now is that we can't say anything from memory in fear we've forgotten what we read, or forgotten where we read it.     But without re-reading everything, I'll risk saying that even if G.B. DID stretch the truth here and there, so what.  He was feeding a large family and never seemed to shirk where it is important:  in the violins.  And when he died, one cries at how little he had amassed from a life full of hard knocks.  He didn't, to my knowledge, start spouting off about his "asymetric graduation" or his "secret varnish" to promote himself as the greatest thing since sliced bread, or take out expensive full page ads in trade magazines.  If anything, he under-promoted himself and it took time itself to bring him to the list of the greats, which is going to be the only final test for any of us including a lot of current makers who are living like kings today compared to poor G.B.  

[JoeG]

That explains Kanye.

 

I bet that it is available through interlibrary loan. My copy is 1916 of the printing of 2000. It's been shipped to 3 different friends.

 

Now, back on track. 

 

Duane Rosengard discovered documentation that Lorenzo was, I believe, and Inkeeper of sorts. Perhaps the violins labeled Lorenzo were later labeled as such by people hoping to profit from G.B., and since G.B. was illiterate, he certainly couldn't have written them!

 

Is there any documentation of Lorenzo being a violin maker,other than labels? Or, as Roger Hargrave might ask, are there any orig. undisturbed Lorenzo G. labels in violins known to us?

Don't know if the label pictured is in "undisturbed" condition or not, but it's certainly a black letter ticket.

 

 

If original to the maker's hand, he certainly wasn't "illiterate".

[Bruce Carlson]

Mr. Burgess,

 

I would only play the violin partially naked in front of a courthouse. 

 

Mr. Holmes,

 

Sometimes people write [redacted] and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books.  I would never want a book's autograph.  I am a proud non-reader of books.  - Kanye

 

Bothered isn't the right word.  $400 is a pretty steep entrance price and I am pretty sure that I don't know anyone who has a copy.

How about a nearby library? I'm sure there's a more economical way around it. There is a very short review of Guadagnini's life in Wikipedia taken from the book in question.

Bruce

[MatthewThomas]

Duane88,

 

I don't understand why G.B. conveying it to Cozio isn't considered to have more weight.  Cozio certainly knew plenty of other people in the violin world.  I would expect that someone along the way would have pointed out to him that Lorenzo wasn't a maker.  G.B. and Cozio had a falling out.  I don't expect that Cozio would perpetuate that lie IF G.B was bold enough to create the mythology.

 

I would think that the label swap would have occurred the other way around if Lorenzo made violins and they had any resemblance to G.B.'s.  If a Stainer was worth 80 - 100, a Stradivarius worth 50-60, a G.B. 20 - 30, a Lorenzo wouldn't have been worth more than 10 (can't remember the currency, I think the numbers I guessmembered are from The Social History...).  I would expect a Lorenzo to be relabeled as a G.B. in the ensuing 300 years.  I would expect them to be relabeled as anything other than Lorenzo to increase their value in the last 300 years. 

 

Paolo was familiar with G.B. and comfortable enough with him as the intermediary for all the shop bits.  That says a lot to me. 

 

The innkeeper as a profession is interesting.  I would be curious as to how busy an innkeeper in Piacenza would be year round.  He would have space and free time as opposed to if he were farming a 20 - 100 acre farm.

[MatthewThomas]

Mr. Carlson,

 

Thanks for the thought!  Found it 20 miles away.  Now if only they had some violins to look at there...

 

 

They do! Now that's a library.

[duane88]

Mr. Thomas,

 

Cozio was a patron of G.B., and he had many of his instruments. Many of his instruments were, apparently, in the white and were varnished by the Mantegazza Brothers, and the count was not simply a collector of information for the sake of oral history alone. He was a business man. Why did Vuillaume claim that he was a member of a muti-generational violin making family that had a connection to Strad? Why did Allessandro  Gagliano claim to be a pupil of Stradivarius?

 

There were certainly other violin makers who were inspired by GB and attempted to emulate his work. The unknown single luthier in a small town in Italy had no reputation outside of his town, but Guad traveled around, and was well known in more than one place, and perhaps something would lose a minor maker's label and get a label of the father of someone better known.

 

If I remember the text correctly, Lorenzo's lease was as an innkeeper, butcher, and baker. Based on what Mr. Rosengard has found about the life of Lorenzo, I doubt that free time was something that he and his family had much of.