Page:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu/122

 any having actually worked with or for him. Landolfi, Storioni, and Carlo Giuseppe Testore, a pupil of Giovanni Grancino, leaned to the model of Giuseppe Guarnieri del Gesii. Some resemblances, especially in the matter of the varnish, are traceable between the works of makers who lived contemporaneously in the same town, e.g. in Naples, Milan and Venice.

A high model was adopted by Jacob Stainer of Absam, near Hall in Tirol, whose well-known pattern was chiefly followed by the makers of England, Tirol and Germany, down to the middle of the 18th century. It thenceforward fell into disuse, owing to the superior musical qualities of the Cremona violin. The school of Stainer is represented by Albani, Hornsteiner, the Klotz family (who made large numbers of instruments excellent in their kind), Schorn of Salzburg and Withalm of Nuremberg, and others. The English makers may be divided into three successive groups: (1) an antique English school, having a character of its own (Rayman, Urquhart, Pamphilon, Barak Norman, Duke, of Oxford, &c.); (2) imitators of Stainer, at the head of whom stands Peter Wamsley (Smith, Barrett, Cross, Hill, Aireton, Norris, &c.); (3) a later school who leaned to the Cremona model (Banks, Duke, of Holborn, Belts, the Forsters, Gilkes, Carter, Fendt, Parker, Harris, Matthew Hardie of Edinburgh, &c.). The early French makers have little merit or interest (Bocquay, Gavinies, Pierray, Guersan, &c.), but the later copyists of the Cremona models (Lupot, Aldric, Chanot the elder, Nicholas, Pique, Silvestre, Vuillaume, &c.) produced admirable instruments, some of which rank next in merit to the first-rate makers of Cremona.

The general form of the violin, as finally developed under the hands of the leading makers, resolved itself into two main types, the high and the flat models, of which the latter, on the lines ultimately adopted by Stradivari, has survived as the most efficient pattern for all modern instruments. The distinction is one of degree only, the maximum difference of actual measurement in extreme cases amounting to little more than a quarter of an inch in the convexity of the belly above the top line of the ribs; but the difference in character of tone of the two types is, in the main, well marked. Speaking generally, the tone of the high-built instrument is less powerful and sweeter, and it speaks more readily, but responds less completely to gradations of tone under the action of the bow than the flatter type, which yields a tone of greater carrying power and flexibility, susceptible to more subtle variation by the player, and with a peculiar penetrating quality lacking in the highly arched model. These differences in tone probably depend less upon any direct effect of variations in depth of the sounding-box than on the incidental effects of cutting the wood to the higher or lower arch; for it would seem that the best results in tone have been attained in instruments with a fairly constant volume of contained air, the depth of the sides being roughly in inverse proportion to the height of arch in the best examples of the different models. In the high-cut arch the fibres of the wood on the upper surface are necessarily cut shorter, with the result that the plate as a whole does not vibrate so perfectly as in the flatter model, and this has a weakening effect on the tone. Again, the higher arch, with steeper curves towards the sides, necessitates the inclination of the sound-holes at a considerable angle to the main horizontal plane of the instrument; and it is conceivable that, under such conditions, the vibrations of the upper layer of air within the body are dissipated too readily, before the composite vibrations of the whole mass of air inside the instrument have attained their full harmonic value. Apart from these acoustical considerations, the question is probably one of material, the flatter construction demanding the use of a very strong and elastic wood in relation to the most suitable thickness, in order to withstand the pressure of the bridge, a resistance which the higher arch renders possible with a stiffer and more brittle material; and the effect of these qualities upon tone must be taken into account in estimating the tone characters of the two types of instrument.

Broadly speaking, the higher-arched type found favour with the earlier makers up to the end of the Amati period. Stainer in Tirol inclined particularly in the direction of this model, which he appears to have developed on independent lines, the tradition that he learnt his craft from the Amati being no longer tenable. The flatter model was gradually evolved by Stradivari as he outgrew the immediate influence of the Amati and developed on his own incomparable lines a somewhat larger and more powerful instrument, adapted to the requirements of the increasing class of solo players.

The violins as a distinctive family of instruments cannot be fully discussed without reference to the (q.v.) as an essential adjunct, on account of the very important part taken by the bow in determining, as already mentioned, the peculiar form of the vibrations of the string, and in controlling, in the hand of a skilled player, the subtle gradations of tone produced from the instrument. The evolution of the modern bow has taken place almost entirely since the violin attained its final form, and has followed, more completely perhaps than the instrument itself, the development of violin music and the requirements of the player. It reached its highest perfection at the hands of the celebrated François Tourte of Paris, about 1780, whose bows have served as a model for all succeeding makers, even more exclusively than the violins of Stradivari controlled the pattern of later instruments; and at the present time Tourte bows are valued beyond any others.

For more than 250 years the violin and its larger brethren have held the leading position among musical instruments. For them have been written some of the most inspired works of the great musicians. Famous composers, such as Tartini, Corelli, Spohr and Viotti have been great violinists, and by their compositions, as much as by their talents as virtuosi, have largely developed the capacity of the violin as a vehicle of profound musical expression. To the listener the violin speaks with an intensity, a sympathy, and evokes a thrill of the senses such as no other instrument can produce. For the player it seems to respond to every pulse of his emotions.

 VIOLLET, PAUL MARIE (1840–  ), French historian, was born at Tours on the 24th of October 1840. After serving his native city as secretary and archivist, he became archivist to the national archives in Paris in 1866, and later librarian to the faculty of law. In 1890 he was appointed professor of civil and canon law at the ecole des chartes. His work mainly concerns the history of law and institutions, and on this subject he published, two valuable and scholarly books Droit public: Histoire des institutions politiques et administratives de la France (1890–08), and Précis de l’histoire du droit français (1886).

 VIOLLET-LE-DUC, EUGÈNE EMMANUEL (1814–1879), French architect and writer on archaeology, was born in Paris on the 21st of January 1814. He was a pupil of Achille Leclere, and in 1836–37 spent a year studying Greek and Roman architecture in Sicily and Rome. His chief interest was, however, in the art of the Gothic period, and, like Sir Gilbert Scott in England, he was employed to "restore" some of the chief medieval buildings of France, his earliest works being the abbey church of Vezelay, various churches at Poissy, St Michel at Carcassonne, the church of Semur in Cote-d'Or, and the fine Gothic town halls of Saint-Antonin and Narbonne, all carried out between 1840 and 1850. From 1845 to 1856 he was occupied on the restoration of Notre Dame in Paris in conjunction with Lassus, and also with that of the abbey of St Denis. In 1849 he began the restoration of the fortifications of Carcassonne and of Amiens cathedral; and in later years he restored Laon cathedral, the chateau of Pierrefonds, and many other important buildings. He was an intimate friend of Napoleon III., and during the siege of Paris (1871) gave valuable help as an engineer to the beleaguered army. He held many important offices, both artistic and political, and was for many years inspector-general of the ancient buildings throughout a large part of France. His last work was the general scheme