A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Violin-Playing

VIOLIN-PLAYING. Some account of the musical employment of the mediæval fiddle, from which the viol and the violin were developed, will be found in the preceding article (p. 273). From this it appears that all the elements of violin-playing were already in existence in the 13th century. But it was not till the middle of the 16th that players on bowed instruments began to shake off the domination of the lute, with its tunings by fourths and thirds, and its excessive number of strings; and it appears that concurrently with this change, the modelled back, which gives the characteristic violin tone, came into use, and the fiddle finally took its present form. It seems to have spread quickly both in France and Italy. At Rouen, in 1550, a considerable number are said to have been employed in public performances, and Montaigne, in 1580, heard at Verona a Mass with violins. Too much importance, however, must not be attached to such statements, since the terms 'violin' and 'viola' were then often applied to stringed instruments of all kinds.

In order to gain an idea of the way the violin was played at this early period, we naturally look to the scores of contemporaneous composers. But here we meet with a difficulty. Down to the end of the 16th century we do not find the instruments specified by which the different parts are to be played. On the titles of the earlier works of A. and G. Gabrieli (15571613) we read: 'Sacræ Cantiones, tum viva voce tum omnis generis Instrumentis cantatu commodissimæ' (most convenient for the voice, as for all kinds of instruments), or 'Sacræ Symphoniæ tam vocibus quam instrumentis' (for voices as well as instruments); or 'Psalmi tum omnis generis instrumentorum tum ad vocis modulationem accomodati' (Psalms for all kinds of instruments and the voice); or 'Buone da cantare e suonare,' or other similar directions.^[1] No doubt settled usages prevailed in this respect, and it is of course to be assumed that whenever violins were employed, they took the upper part of the harmony. It is obvious that, as long as the violins had merely to support and to double the soprano-voice, the violin-parts were of extreme simplicity. Soon, however, we meet with indications of an independent use of the violin. As early as 1543 Silvestro Ganassi, in the first part of his 'Regula Rubertina' (Venice), speaks of three varieties of violins as Viola di Soprano, di Tenore, e di Basso; and Castiglione, in his 'Cortigniano,' [App. p.812 "Cortegiano"] mentions a composition as written for 'quattro viole da arco,' which almost seems to indicate a stringed quartet. Towards the end of the century we meet with the Balletti of Gastoldi and Thomas Morley, some of which were printed without words, and appear, therefore, to have been intended for independent instrumental performance. Nevertheless, they are entirely vocal in character, and do not exceed the compass of the human voice. Among the earliest settings which are not purely vocal in character are the 'Canzoni da sonare' by Maschera (1593),—originally, perhaps, written for the organ, but printed in separate parts, and evidently therefore intended for performance by various instruments. The earliest instance of a part being specially marked for 'Violino' we find in 'Concerti di Andrea e Giovanni Gabrieli per voci e stromenti musicali Venetia, 1587.' Up to this time the leading instrument of the orchestra was the Cornetto (Germ. Zinke)—not, as might be concluded from its German name, an instrument made of metal, but of wood. The parts written for it correspond to the oboe parts in Handel's scores. In Gabrieli's the cornetti alternate with the violins in taking the lead. His instrumental compositions may roughly be divided into two classes, the one evidently based on his vocal style, the other decidedly instrumental in character. In a 'Sonata' belonging to the first class, we find an instrumental double-choir, a cornetto and 3 trombones forming the first choir, a violin and 3 trombones the second, and the two being employed antiphonally; the setting is contrapuntal throughout, and the effect not unlike that of a motet for double-choir. The violin-part does not materially differ from that for the cornetto. To the second class belong the Sonatas and Canzoni for 2 or 3 violins with bass. Here the setting is much more complicated, mostly in fugato-form (not regular fugues), reminding us to a certain extent of organ-style, and certainly not vocal in character, but purely instrumental. The scores of Gabrieli contain the first beginnings of the modern art of instrumentation, and mark an epoch in the history of music. Not content with writing, in addition to the voices, obligato instrumental parts, he takes into consideration the quality (timbre) of the various instruments. That this should have been brought about at the very period in which the violin came into general use, can certainly not be considered a mere accident, although it may be impossible to show which of the two was cause and which effect. Once the violin was generally accepted as the leading instrument of the orchestra, its technique appears soon to have made considerable progress. While Gabrieli never exceeds the 3rd position, we find but a few years later, in a score of Claudio Monteverde (1610), passages going up to the 5th position: after an obbligato passage for 2 cornetti, enter the violins (1st and 2nd):

The manner in which, in this example, the violins are ^[2]used 'divisi' is worthy of notice. In another work of Monteverde's, 'Combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda, di Claudio Monteverde. Venezia, 1624,'^[3] we find modern violin-effects introduced in a still more remarkable way. Here we have recitatives accompanied by tremolos for violins and bass, pizzicato marked thus, 'Qui si lascia l'arco, e si strappano le corde con duoi diti'; and afterwards, 'Qui si ripiglia l'arco.' That violinists were even at that time expected to produce gradations of tone with the bow is proved by the direction given respecting the final pause of the same work: 'Questa ultima nota va in arcata morendo.'

The earliest known solo composition for the violin is contained in a work of Biagio Marini, published in 1620. It is a 'Romanesca per Violino Solo e Basso se piaci' (ad lib.) and some dances. The Romanesca^[4] is musically poor and clumsy, and, except that in it we meet with the shake for the first time, uninteresting. The demands it makes on the executant are very small. The same may be said of another very early composition for violin solo, 'La sfera armoniosa da Paolo Quagliati' (Roma 1623). Of far greater importance, and showing a great advance in execution, are the compositions of Carlo Farina, who has justly been termed the founder of the race of violin-virtuosos. He published in 1627, at Dresden, a collection of Violin-pieces, Dances, French airs, Quodlibets, etc., among which a 'Capriccio stravagante' is of the utmost interest, both musically and technically. Musically it represents one of the first attempts at tone-picturing (Klangmalerei), and, however crude and even childish, the composer evidently was well aware of the powers of expression and character pertaining to his instrument. He employs a considerable variety of bowing, double-stopping, and chords. The 3rd position, however, is not exceeded, and the fourth string not yet used. Tarquinio Merula (about 1640) shows a technical advance in frequent change of position, and especially in introducing octave-passages. Paolo Ucellini, in his canzoni (1649), goes up to the 6th position, and has a great variety of bowing. Hitherto (the middle of the 17th century) the violin plays but an unimportant part as a solo instrument, and it is only with the development of the Sonata-form (in the old sense of the term) that it assumes a position of importance in the history of music. The terms 'Sonata,' 'Canzone,' and 'Sinfonia' were originally used in a general way for instrumental settings of all kinds, without designating any special form. Towards the year 1630, we find the first compositions containing rudimentally the form of the classical Violin Sonata. Its fundamental principle consisted in alternation of slow and quick movements. Among the earliest specimens of this rudimentary sonata-form may be counted the Sonatas of Giov. Battista Fontana (published about 1630), a Sinfonia by Mont' Albano (1629), Canzoni by Tarquinio Merula (1639), Canzoni and a Sonata by Massimiliano Neri (1644 and 51). From about 1650, the name Canzone falls out of use, and Sonata is the universally accepted term for violin-compositions. M. Neri appears to have been the first to have made the distinction between 'Sonata da chiesa' (church-sonata) and 'Sonata da camera' (chamber-sonata). The Sonata da chiesa generally consisted of 3 or 4 movements: a prelude, in slow measured time and of pathetic character, followed by an allegro in fugato-form; again a slow movement and a finale of more lively and brilliant character. The Sonata da camera, at this early period, was in reality a Suite of Dances—the slow and solemn Sarabandes and Allemandes alternating with the lively Gavottes, Gigues, etc. The artistic capabilities of the violin, and its powers for musical expression, once discovered, the Roman Catholic clergy, who have ever been anxious to avail themselves of the elevating and refining power of the fine arts, were not slow to introduce it in the services of the Church. We have seen already the extended use which Gabrieli, in his church-music, made of orchestral accompaniments, and how, from merely supporting and doubling the voices, he proceeded to obligato instrumental settings. From about 1650, instrumental performances—unconnected with vocal music—began to form a regular part

(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)

TABLE SHOWING THE CONNEXIONS OF THE PRINCIPAL SCHOOLS OF VIOLIN-PLAYING, AND THE RELATION OF MASTER AND PUPIL

The date given is of birth, except where marked otherwise. The lines ┬ indicate direct pupilship.

Bassani, died 1716

I. CORELLI, 1659

Anet, ab. 1680.

Geminiani 1680.

Localtelli, 1699.

Somis, 1676.

Senaillé, 1687.

Dubourg, 1703.

Léclair, 1687

Pugnani, 1727

Giardini, 1716

Chabran, 1723.

Friz, 1716

Janitsch, 1753.

Viotti, 1753.

Polledro ab. 1780.

Ashley, died 1818.

Vachon, 1731.

of the services of the Church. This was probably nothing new as regards the organ, but the violin was now introduced into the Church as a solo-instrument, and the Violin Sonata—then almost the only form of violin-composition—thereby received the serious and dignified character which exercised a decisive influence upon the future development, not only of violin-playing, but of instrumental music generally. The influence of this connexion with the Church afterwards extended to secular violin-music. The Dances pure and simple soon made room for more extended pieces of a Dance character, and afterwards almost entirely disappear from the Chamber Sonata, which begins more and more to partake of the severer style of the Church Sonata, so that at last a difference of name alone remains, the Church-Sonata-form dominating in the Chamber as much as it did in the Church. The first great master of the Violin-Sonata is Giovanni Battista Vitali (1644–1692). He cultivated chiefly the Chamber-Sonata, and his publications bear the title of 'Balletti, Balli, Correnti, etc. da Camera,' but in some of his works the transition from the Suite-form to the later Sonata da camera, so closely allied to the Church-Sonata, is already clearly marked. In musical interest, Vitali's compositions are greatly superior to those of his predecessors and contemporaries. His dances are concise in form, vigorous in character, and in some instances especially in a Ciaconna with variations he shows high powers as a composer. [See Vitali.] His demands on execution are in some instances not inconsiderable, but on the whole he does not represent in this respect any material progress. [App. p.812 "add that the Ciaccona here attributed to G. B. Vitali, is the composition of Antonio Vitali. The article on p. 313b, of this volume refers to this latter composer, not to G. B. Vitali."]

The first beginnings of violin-playing in an artistic sense in Germany were doubtless owing to Italian influence. As early as 1626 Carlo Farina was attached to the Court of Dresden. About the middle of the century a certain Johann Wilhelm Furchheim is mentioned in the list of members of the Dresden orchestra, under the title of 'Deutscher Concertmeister,' implying the presence of an Italian leader by his side. Gerber, in his Dictionary, mentions two publications of his for the violin: (1) 'Violin-Exercitium aus verschiedenen Sonaten, nebst ihren Arien, Balladen, Allemanden, Couranten, Sarabanden und Giguen, von 5 Partieen bestehend, Dresden, 1687'; and (2) 'Musikalische Tafelbedienung (Dinner-Service), Dresden, 1674.' Thomas Baltzar was, according to Burney and Hawkins, the first violinist who came to England. He appears to have greatly astonished his audiences, especially by his then unknown efficiency in the shift, in which however he did not exceed the 3rd position. It is amusing to read, that a certain D. Wilson, who was then considered the best connoisseur of music at Oxford, confessed that, when he first heard Baltzar play, he had looked at his feet to see whether he had a hoof, as his powers seemed to him diabolic. Baltzar's compositions consist of Chamber Sonatas in the sense of Suites of Preludes, Dances and Variations. Burney, in the fourth volume of his History, gives an Allemande of his. Two sets of 'The Division Violin' were published in London in 1688 and 1693. [See vol. i. p. 451a]. Of far greater importance than Baltzar are two German violinists, Johann Jacob Walther (born 1650), and Franz Heinrich Biber (died 1698). Walther [see that article] appears to have been a sort of German Farina, with a technique much further developed; he ascends to the 6th position and writes difficult double-stops, arpeggios and chords. His compositions are, however, clumsy and poor in the extreme, and if we consider that he was a contemporary of Corelli, we cannot fail to notice the much lower level of German art as compared with that of Italy. Biber was no doubt an artist of great talent and achievement. [See vol. i. p. 240.] His technique was in some respects in advance of that of the best Italian violinists of the period, and from the character of his compositions we are justified in assuming that his style of playing combined with the pathos and nobility of the Italian style that warmth of feeling which has ever been one of the main characteristics of the great musical art of Germany.

In tracing the further progress of violin-playing we must return to Italy. After Vitali it is Torelli (1657–1716) who chiefly deserves our attention, as having added to the Sonata a new and important kind of violin-composition, the Concerto. In his Concerti da Camera and Concerti grossi we find the form of the Sonata da Chiesa preserved, but the solo-violins (one or two) are accompanied not only by a bass, as in the Sonata, but by a stringed band (2 orchestral or ripieno violins, viola and bass), to which a lute or organ part is sometimes added, an arrangement which on the whole was followed by Vivaldi, Corelli, and Handel. If no remarkable progress in the technique of the instrument was effected by the introduction of the Concerto, it is all the more striking to notice how henceforth the best composers for the Church contribute to the literature of the violin. We have, in fact, arrived at a period in which the most talented musicians, almost as a matter of course, were violinists just as in modern times, with one or two exceptions, all great composers have been pianists. The most eminent representative of this type of composer- violinist is Arcangelo Corelli (1653–1713). His works, though in the main laid out in the forms of his predecessors and, as far as technique goes, keeping within modest limits, yet mark an era both in musical composition and in violin-playing. He was one of those men who seem to sum up in themselves the achievements of their best predecessors. Corelli's place in the history of instrumental music is fully discussed elsewhere. [See Corelli, vol. i. p. 400; Sonata, vol. iii. p. 556.] Here it remains only to state that in both main branches of violin-composition, in the Sonata and the Concerto, his works have served as models to the best of his successors. They are distinguished chiefly by conciseness of form and logical structure. There is nothing tentative, vague or experimental in them; the various parts seem balanced to a nicety, the whole finished up and rounded off with unerring mastery. His harmonies and modulations, though not free from monotony, are sound and natural; simplicity and dignified pathos on the one hand, and elegant vivacity on the other, are the main characteristics of his style. The technical difficulties contained in his works are not great, and in this respect Corelli's merit does not lie in the direction of innovation, but rather of limitation and reform. We have seen how the violin at the beginning of its career simply adopted the style of the vocal music of the period, how later on it took in the orchestra the place of the cornetto, and how, though very gradually, a special violin style began to be formed. Now followed a period of experiments—all more or less tending towards the same end—a style which should correspond to the nature, ideal and mechanical, of the instrument. In both respects, as we have seen, remarkable progress was made; although exaggeration was not always avoided. The virtuoso par excellence made his appearance even at this early period. Corelli, by talent and character had gained a position of authority with his contemporaries, which has but few parallels in the history of music. This authority he used to give an example of artistic purity and simplicity, to found a norm and model of violin-playing which forms the basis of all succeeding legitimate development of this important branch of music.

Before mentioning the most important of Corelli's pupils we have to consider the influence exercised on violin-playing by the Venetian Vivaldi (died 1743). Though by no means an artist of the exalted type of Corelli, his extraordinary fertility as a composer for the violin, his ingenuity in making new combinations and devising new effects, and especially his undoubted influence on the further development of the Concerto-form, give him an important position in the history of violin-playing. While in the Concerti grossi of Torelli and Corelli the solo-violins are treated very much in the same manner as the orchestral violins—the solo-passages being usually accompanied by the bass alone—Vivaldi not only gives to the solo-violins entirely distinct passages of a much more brilliant character, but he also adds to his orchestra oboes and horns, which not merely double other parts, but have independent phrases and passages to perform—thereby giving the earliest instance of orchestration as applied to the Concerto.

As an executant the Florentine Veracini^[5] exercised a greater influence than Vivaldi. Owing in great measure to its connexion with the Church, the Italian school of violin-playing had formed a pure and dignified style, which was brought to perfection by Corelli. As far as it went, nothing could be more legitimate and satisfactory in an artistic sense yet there was something wanting, if this severe style was not to lapse into conventionality: the element of human individuality, strong feeling and passion. Some German masters—especially Biber—were certainly not devoid of these qualities; but their efforts were more or less crude, and lacking in the fine sense for beauty of form and sound which alone can produce works of art of a higher rank. Veracini, a man of passionate temperament, threw into his performances and compositions an amount of personal feeling and life, which in his own day brought on him the charge of eccentricity, but which to us appears as one of the earliest manifestations of a style which has made the violin, next to the human voice, the most powerful exponent of musical feeling. His Violin Sonatas are remarkable for boldness of harmonic and melodic treatment, and of masterly construction. The demands he makes on execution, especially in the matter of double stops and variety of bowing, are considerable. His influence on Tartini after Corelli the greatest representative of the Italian school—we know to have been paramount. [See Tartini, vol. iv. p. 58.] Tartini (1692–1770) by a rare combination of artistic qualities of the highest order, wielded for more than half a century an undisputed authority in all matters of violin-playing, not only in Italy, but in Germany and France also. He was equally eminent as a performer, teacher, and composer for the violin. Standing, as it were, on the threshold of the modern world of music, he combines with the best characteristics of the old school some of the fundamental elements of modern music. Himself endowed with a powerful individuality, he was one of the first to assert the right of individualism in music. At the same time we must not look in his works for any material change of the traditional forms. His Concertos are laid out on the plan of those of Corelli and Vivaldi, while his Sonatas, whether he calls them da chiesa or da camera, are invariably in the accepted form of the Sonata da chiesa. The Sonata da camera in the proper sense, with its dance forms, he almost entirely abandons. The difference between Tartini's style and Corelli's is not so much one of form as of substance. Many of Tartini's works bear a highly poetical and even dramatic character, qualities which, on the whole, are alien to the beautiful but colder and more formal style of Corelli. His melodies often have a peculiar charm of dreaminess and melancholy, but a vigorous and manly tone is equally at his command. His subjects, though not inferior to Corelli's in conciseness and clear logical structure, have on the whole more breadth and development. His quick passages are freer from the somewhat exercise-like, dry character of the older school; they appear to be organically connected with the musical context, and to grow out of it. As an executant Tartini marks a great advance in the use of the bow. While no material change has been made in the construction of the violin since the beginning of the 16th century, the bow has undergone a series of modifications, and only toward the end of the 18th century attained its present form, which combines in such a remarkable degree elasticity with firmness. [See Bow, vol. i. p. 264; Tourte, vol. iv. p. 155.] Whether Tartini himself did anything to perfect the bow, we are not aware, but the fact that old writers on musical matters frequently speak of 'Tartini's bow,' seems to point that way. At any rate, we know that in his time the bow gained considerably in elasticity, and in some letters and other writings of Tartini's we have direct evidence that he made a more systematic study of bowing than any one before him. The task of the violinist's left hand is a purely mechanical one: all power of expression rests with the bow. If we consider the character of Tartini's compositions, we cannot but see what great and new claims on expression, and consequently on bowing, are made in them. That these claims were fulfilled by Tartini in an extraordinary degree, is the unanimous opinion of his contemporaries: in the production of a fine tone in all its gradations, as well as in perfect management of a great variety of bowing, he had no rival. As regards the technique of the left hand he excelled particularly in the execution of shakes and double-shakes, than which there is no better test for those fundamental conditions of all execution, firmness and lightness of finger-movement. At the same time, to judge from his compositions, his technique was limited even in comparison to that of some of his contemporaries—he does not exceed the 3rd position, his double-stops are on the whole simple and easy. He appears to have adhered to the holding of the violin on the right side of the string-holder, a method which was a barrier to further development of the technique of the left hand. With him the exclusive classical Italian school of violin-playing reached its culminating point, and the pupils of Corelli and Tartini form the connecting links between that school and the schools of France and Germany. In this respect the Piedmontese Somis (about 1700–1763 [App. p.812 "for about 1700 read 1676"]) must be considered the most important of Corelli's pupils. We do not know much of him as a player or composer, but as the teacher of Giardini (1716–1796), and of Pugnani (1727–1803), the teacher of Viotti (1753–1824), his influence reaches down to Spohr and our own days. The most brilliant representatives of Italian violin-playing after Tartini were Geminiani and Nardini. [See vol. i. p. 587; vol. ii. p. 446.] The former was a pupil of Corelli, the latter of Tartini. Their style is decidedly more modern and more brilliant than that of their great master's. Nardini's influence in Germany—where he passed many years—contributed much towards the progress of violin-playing in that country. Geminiani (1680–1761), who for a long time resided in London, was the first to publish a Violin-School of any importance. Compared with that of Leopold Mozart (see vol. ii. p. 379), which appeared a few years later, and on the whole is a work of much higher merit, Geminiani's 'school' shows an advance in some important points of technique. Here for the first time the holding of the violin on the left side of the string-holder is recommended—an innovation of the greatest importance, by which alone the high development of modern technique was made possible. He goes up to the 7th position. As affording the only direct evidence of Corelli's method and principles (which in all main respects have remained ever since the basis of all legitimate and correct treatment of the instrument), Geminiani's book is still of the greatest interest. In Locatelli (1693–1764), another pupil of Tartini, a curious instance is afforded, how, in spite of the strongest school-influence, a powerful individuality will now and then, for better or worse, strike out a path for itself. While some of Locatelli's compositions afford clear evidence of his sound musicianship and genuine musical feeling, he shows himself in others, especially in a set of Caprices, to have been, to say the least, an experimentalist of the boldest type. In overstepping to an astonishing degree the natural resources and limits of the instrument, these caprices afford one of the earliest instances of charlatanism in violin-playing. [See Locatelli, vol. ii. p. 155.]

The beginnings of violin-playing in France date from a very early period. We have already seen that the very first known maker of violins, Duiffoprugcar, was called to France by Francis I., and that there is some evidence of the violin having very quickly gained considerable popularity there. Musical guilds spread throughout the country as early as the 14th century. The most important was the 'Confrérie de St. Julien,' headed by 'Le Roy des Ménétriers du Royaume de France.' [See Roi des Violons, vol. iii. p. 145.] Whatever historical or antiquarian interest may attach to these guilds, they did little to further musical art in general or the art of violin-playing in particular. We have no means of forming an estimate of the proficiency as violinists of these ménétriers, but, to judge from the extreme simplicity of the violin-parts in the scores of Lulli, who in 1652 was appointed Director of the Royal Chapel (Les vingtquatre violons du Roy), it cannot have been great. [See vol. iv. p. 266.] As late as 1753 a certain Paris musician, Corrette, writes that when Corelli's Violin Sonatas came to Paris, no violinist was to be found who could have played them. The violin compositions Frenchmen of the same period, among which of the Suites of Rébel (about 1700 [App. p.812 "1687"]), a pupil of Lulli, were counted the best, are in every respect inferior to the average of Italian and even of German productions of the same period: the setting is as poor and even incorrect as the treatment of the instrument is primitive. François Francœur, in his Sonatas (1715), shows decided progress in both respects. (As a curiosity it may be noticed that Francœur, in order to produce certain chords, adopted the strange expedient of placing the thumb on the strings.) As was the case in Germany, it was owing to the influence of the Italian school, that violin-playing in France was raised to real excellence. The first French violinist of note who made his studies in Italy under Corelli was Baptiste Anet (about 1700). Of much greater importance however was Jean Marie Léclair (1697–1764), a pupil of Semis, who again was a direct pupil of Corelli's. As a composer for the violin Léclair has among Frenchmen down to Rode hardly a rival. If most of his works are characterised by the essentially French qualities of vivacity, piquancy, and grace, he also shows in some instances a remarkable depth of feeling, and a pathos which one would feel inclined to ascribe to Italian influence, if at the same time it did not contain an element of theatrical pomposity characteristic of all French art of the period. His technique shows itself, within certain limits—he does not go beyond the 3rd position—to be quite as developed as that of his Italian contemporaries. By the frequent employment of double-stops a remarkable richness of sound is produced, and the bow is used in a manner requiring that agility and lightness of management for which at a later period the French school gained a special reputation.

Among other French violinists, directly or indirectly formed by the Italian school, may be mentioned Pagin (born 1721), Touchemoulin (1727–1801), Lahoussaye (1735–1818), Barthelemon (died 1808), and Berthaume (1752–1828). Meanwhile an independent French school began to be formed of which Pierre Gaviniés (1728–1800) was the most, eminent representative. Of his numerous compositions, 'Les vingt quatre matinees'—a set of studies of unusual difficulty—have alone survived. Without partaking of the eccentricity of Locatelli's Caprices, these studies show a tendency towards exaggeration in technique. Beauty of sound is frequently sacrificed—difficulty is heaped on difficulty for its own sake, and not with the intention of producing new effects. At the same time, so competent a judge as Fétis ascribes to Gaviniés a style of playing both imposing and graceful.

Not directly connected with any school, but in the main self-taught, was Alexandre Jean Boucher (1770–1801 [App. p.812 "1861"]). He was no doubt a player of extraordinary talent and exceptional technical proficiency, but devoid of all artistic earnestness, and was one of the race of charlatan-violinists, which has had representatives from the days of Farina down to our own time. If they have done harm by their example, and by the success they have gained from the masses, it must not be overlooked that, in not a few respects, they have advanced the technique of the violin. The advent of Viotti (1753–1824) marks a new era in French violin-playing. His enormous success, both as player and composer, gave him an influence over his contemporaries which has no parallel, except in the cases of Corelli and Tartini before him, and in that of Spohr at a later period.

In Germany the art of Corelli and Tartini was spread by numerous pupils of their school, who entered the service of German princes. In Berlin we find J. G. Graun (1700–1771 [App. p.812 "for 1700 read 1698"]), a direct pupil of Tartini, and F. Benda (1709–1786), both excellent players, and eminent musicians. In the south, the school of Mannheim numbered among its representatives Johann Carl Stamitz (1719–1761), and his two sons Carl and Anton—(the latter settled in Paris, and was the teacher of R. Kreutzer); Chr. Cannabich (1731–1798), well known as the intimate friend of Mozart; Wilhelm Cramer (1745–1799), member of a very distinguished musical family, and for many years the leading violinist in London; Ignaz Fränzl (born 1736) and his son Ferdinand (1770–1833). The Mannheim masters, however, did not contribute anything lasting to the literature of the violin. On the whole, the Sonata, as cultivated by Tartini, remained the favourite form of violin compositions. At the same time, the Concerto (in the modern sense) came more and more into prominence. The fact that W. A. Mozart, who from early childhood practised almost every form of composition then in use, wrote no sonatas for violin^[6] solo, but a number of concertos for violin and orchestra, is a clear indication of the growing popularity of the new form. Mozart in his younger years was hardly less great as a violinist than a piano-player, and his Violin Concertos, some of which have been successfully revived of late, are the most valuable compositions in that form anterior to Beethoven and Spohr. While they certainly do not rank with his Pianoforte Concertos, which date from a much later period, they stand very much in the same relation to the violin-playing of the period, as his Pianoforte Concertos stand to contemporary pianoforte-playing. Here, as there, the composer does not disdain to give due prominence to the solo instrument, but the musical interest stands in the first rank. The scoring, although of great simplicity—the orchestra generally consisting of the stringed quartet, two oboes, and two horns only—is full of interest and delicate touches. On the other hand, the Concertos of Tartini and his immediate successors are decidedly inferior to their Solo Sonatas. The Concerto was then in a state of transition: it had lost the character of the Concerto grosso, and its new form had not yet been found, although the germ of it was contained in Vivaldi's Concertos. On the other hand, the Solo Sonata had for a long time already obtained its full proportions, and the capabilities of the form seemed wellnigh exhausted. Meanwhile the Sonata-form, in the modern sense of the word, had been fully developed by composers for the pianoforte, had been applied with the greatest success to orchestral composition, and now took hold of the Concerto. Mozart and Viotti produced the first Violin Concertos, in the modern sense, which have lasted to our day. Mozart, however, in his later years gave up violin-playing altogether,^[7] and although, like Haydn, he has shown in his chamber-music how thoroughly in sympathy he was with the nature of the violin, he did not contribute to the literature of the instrument any works wherein he availed himself of the technical proficiency attained by the best violinists of his time. In this respect it is significant that Spohr, whose unbounded admiration for Mozart is well known, seems never to have played his Violin Concertos in public. Viotti and Rode were Spohr's models for his earlier Concertos.^[8]

Towards the end of the 17th century Paris became the undisputed centre of violin-playing, and the Paris school, represented by Viotti, as depository of the traditions of the classical Italian school; by Kreutzer (1766–1831), who, though born at Versailles, was of German parentage, and a pupil of Anton Stamitz; and by Bode (1774–1830), and Baillot (1771–1842), both Frenchmen, assumed a truly international character. The single circumstance that four violinists of such eminence lived and worked together at the same place, and nearly the same time, would be sufficient to account for their essential influence on the taste and style of this period. Differing much in artistic temperament, they all took the same serious view of their art, and shared that musical earnestness which is averse to mere technical display for its own sake, and looks on execution as the means of interpreting musical ideas and emotions. As teachers at the newly founded Conservatoire, Rode, Kreutzer, and Baillot formally laid down the principles of violin-playing as they prevail to this day. If it is to Germany that we have to look for their true successors, apparently because their style, founded on a broad and truly musical basis, irrespective of national peculiarities, found its most congenial soil in the country of the great composers, who in their works are truly international, as all art of the very first rank must be; while the strongly pronounced national character of French violinists was bound sooner or later to assert itself, and to return to a characteristically French style of playing. Baillot, in his 'L'Art du Violon,' points out as the chief distinction between the old and the modern style of violin-playing, the absence of the dramatic element in the former, and its predominance in the latter. In so far as this means that the modern style better enables the player to bring out those powerful contrasts, and to do justice to the enlarged horizon of ideas and emotions in modern musical compositions, it merely states that executive art has followed the progress, and shared in the characteristic qualities of the creative art of the period. A comparison of Mozart's String Quartets with those of Beethoven, illustrates to a certain extent this difference. The style of playing which was admirably adapted for the rendering of the works not only of Corelli and Tartini, but also of Handel, and even Mozart, could not cope with Haydn, and still less with Beethoven. The great merit of the masters of the Paris School was, that they recognised this call for a freer and bolder treatment of the instrument, and approached their task in a truly musical and artistic spirit.

The manner and style of the Paris school were brought to Germany by Viotti and Rode, who both travelled a great deal, and by their performances effected a considerable modification in the somewhat antiquated style then prevailing in that country. The Mannheim school, as already mentioned, was the most important centre of violin-playing in Germany during the second half of the 18th century. It produced a number of excellent players, such as the three Stamitzes, Chr. Cannabich, Ferd. Fränzl, and others. They had adhered more closely than the French players to Tartini's method and manner, and not only Spohr, but before him Mozart, speaks of their style as old-fashioned, when compared with that of their French contemporaries. The fact that the last and final improvements in the bow as made by Tourte of Paris, were probably unknown to them, would account for this. [See p. 155.] Another remarkable player belonging to this school, was J. F. Eck (born 1766), whose brother and pupil Franz Eck (1774–1809), was the teacher of Spohr. Both the Ecks appear to some extent to have been under the influence of the French school. Spohr in his Autobiography speaks of Franz Eck as a French violinist. Spohr therefore can hardly be reckoned as of the Mannheim school, and we know that later on he was greatly impressed by Rode, and for a considerable time studied to imitate him. His earlier Concertos are evidently worked after the model of Rode's Concertos. Thus—granting the enormous difference of artistic temperament—Spohr must be considered as the direct heir of the art of Viotti and Rode. At the same time, his individuality was so peculiar, that he very soon formed a style of his own as a player no less than as a composer. As a composer he probably influenced the style of modern violin-playing even more than as a player. His Concertos were, with the single exception of Beethoven's Concerto, by far the most valuable contributions to the literature of the violin, as a solo instrument, hitherto made. Compared even with the best of Viotti's, Rode's, or Kreutzer's Concertos they are not merely improvements, but in them the Violin Concerto itself is lifted into a higher sphere, and from being more or less a show-piece, rises to the dignity of a work of art, to be judged as much on its own merits as a musical composition, as by its effectiveness as a solo-piece. Without detracting from the merits of the works of the older masters, it is not too much to say that there is hardly enough musical stuff in them to have resisted the stream of superficial virtuoso-music which more than ever before flooded the concert-rooms during the first half of the 19th century. We believe that it was mainly owing to the sterling musical worth of Spohr's violin compositions that the great qualities of the Classical Italian and the Paris schools have been preserved to the present day, and have prevented the degeneration of violin-playing. Spohr had great powers of execution, but he used them in a manner not wholly free from one-sidedness, and it cannot be said that he made any addition to the technique of the instrument. He set a great example of purity of style and legitimate treatment of the instrument—an example which has lost none of its force in the lapse of more than half a century.

Next to Spohr no one has had a greater influence on the style of modern violin-playing than Paganini. The fame of Corelli and Tartini had spread far beyond their own country; the fiddlers of Italy, like the singers, travelled during the 18th century all over Europe in search of gold and laurels. Some of them returned to enjoy a quiet old age under their native sky; others, like Viotti, never came back. A great many either settled abroad, in Paris or London, or were attached to some of the many courts of Germany. Thus we find Geminiani and Giardini in London, Viotti alternately in Paris and London, Locatelli at Amsterdam, Nardini at Stuttgardt, as soloists, leaders, and teachers. In this way the school of Italy was virtually transferred to France and Germany by the pupils of Tartini; and at the beginning of the century it was practically extinct in Italy, where violin-playing, with few exceptions, had sunk to a very low level. But Italy afterwards produced a few violinists of great eminence, who, more or less self-taught, achieved enormous successes as virtuosi, and no doubt have largely influenced modern violin-playing. Lolli (about 1730–1802) was one of these; an extraordinary fiddler, but a poor musician. Of much greater importance was Paganini (1784–1840). The sensation he created wherever he appeared was unprecedented. By his marvellous execution, and his thoroughly original, though eccentric personality and style, he for a time held the public and the musicians of Europe spell-bound. His influence on the younger violinists of the period could not fail to be considerable—more so in France than in Germany, where the more serious spirit prevailing among musicians and the presence of such a master as Spohr, were powerful enough to keep the influence within bounds. The growing importance and popularity of chamber-music for the violin, especially of the String Quartet, since Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, were another barrier against the predominance of an exclusive virtuoso style of violin-playing in Germany. French violinists, especially Baillot, were certainly anxious enough to attack these highest tasks of the violinist, but there can be no doubt that in their hands the works of the German classics assumed an aspect which was too frequently more in accordance with the French character of the performers than with the intentions of the composers. In this respect the minute directions which Baillot gives for the performance of a great number of passages extracted from the works of most eminent composers, is extremely curious and instructive. It was but natural that Paganini should have a number of imitators, who copied with more or less success his harmonics and double-harmonics, his long and quick staccatos, pizzicatos with the left hand—in fact, all those technical feats which, though not invented by him, he brought to the highest pitch of perfection. The style of the man, which had its source in his genius and originality, was inimitable. He could not, and did not start a school. Sivori (born 1817) claimed to be his only actual pupil. But, pupils or no pupils, Paganini caused nothing short of a revolution in the technique of the French school. The striking change which the general style of violin-playing underwent in France during the third decade of this century has, however, other and deeper causes, and finds its explanation in the complete revolution in musical taste which took place at that period. The Classical Paris school was in reality the school of Italy, which for the time being had made Paris, as it were, its headquarters. Founded by Viotti, the Italian, at a time when German instrumental music, in the persons of Haydn and Mozart, was occupying the attention of the whole musical world, this School hardly reflected the salient points of the French national character, although it harmonised well with the classical tendencies of the sister arts in that country. In Baillot's 'L'Art du Violon,' we cannot fail to recognise already a leaning towards a style which was more in harmony with the genius of the French nation—a style, brilliant, showy, full of shrewdly calculated effects, elegant, and graceful, aiming chiefly at a highly polished execution, and distinguished by what they themselves untranslateably call élan. At the same time, the French school gained, in what might be termed its classical period, a basis and a systematic method for the technical training of violinists, the advantages of which are still so apparent in the highly finished technique of a large number of French violin-players of the present day.

It is only within the last fifty years that instrumental composition, apart from the stage, has gained any great importance in France. As in Italy, so there, the operatic style of the period determined the general musical style. Thus we find the chaste and graceful style of Méhul and Boieldieu reflected in Rode and the best of his contemporaries. The success of Rossini threw everything else for a time into the shade, and brought about a complete revulsion of musical taste in France; but if Rossini's sparkling and graceful style appealed to one prominent feature of the national character, it was Meyerbeer, with his supreme command of theatrical effect, who took hold of another. The most eminent native opera composers, Adam, Auber, Herold, and Halévy, while no doubt-strongly French in character, did not escape the powerful influence of these two masters; and it is but natural that in common with all other branches of musical art, violin-playing and composition for the violin had to submit to it. While in Germany the spirit of instrumental music was almost as dominant on the stage as in the concert-room, and delayed the formation of a truly dramatic style of music, in France the operatic style was as supreme in the concert-room as on the stage; and in that sense Baillot's characterisation of the modern style of violin-playing as the dramatic style is quite correct.

The two most eminent representatives of the modern French school, De Bériot (1802–1870) and H. Vieuxtemps (1820–1881), were of Belgian nationality. The Belgian school of violin-playing is, however, in reality but a branch, though a most important one, of the Paris school. De Bériot's style as a composer for the violin seems to have been formed under the influence of the modern Italian opera composers, especially of Rossini, Donizetti, and Bellini; and his Concertos and Airs variés, which have attained an immense popularity all over the world, share the strong and weak points of modern Italian music. They have plenty of melody, though of a somewhat sentimental kind, and their general style, without affording much difficulty to the player, is most brilliant and effective. If De Bériot's ideas are on the whole superficial and often not free from triviality, they are also unpretentious and unaffected. The same can hardly be said of Vieuxtemps. He certainly was a great violinist, and as a musician decidedly superior to Bériot. His compositions contain ideas of great beauty and are often cleverly worked out, but at the same time there is in them too frequently an element of theatrical bombast and pretension which is analogous to Meyerbeer's grand-opera style, just as De Bériot's is to the spontaneous melody of Italian opera. De Bériot's treatment of the instrument, though often commonplace, does not go against its nature, while Vieuxtemps not unfrequently seems to do violence to it, and in some of his tours de force oversteps the boundaries of the beautiful. Both these great artists travelled much, and gained by the great excellence of their performances universal success in almost every European country. Vieuxtemps was also the first violinist, of the highest rank, who visited America. De Bériot, as leader at the Brussels Conservatoire, formed a great number of excellent violinists, the best known of whom are the Spaniard Monasterio (born 1836), Sauret (born 1852), Schradieck (born 1846), and Heerman (born 1844). Jean Becker (born 1836 [App. p.812 "1833"]), and Lauterbach (born 1832) also studied for some time under him.

Among Baillot's pupils F. A. Habeneck (1781–1849) attained a great reputation as conductor and as teacher. He counts among his pupils Sainton (born 1813), Prume (1816–1849), Alard (born 1815 [App. p.812 "died 1888"]) and Léonard (born 1819). The two last, with Massart (born 1811), a pupil of Kreutzer, have for thirty years past, as teachers at the Paris Conservatoire, headed the Franco-Belgian school. Alard's most eminent pupil is Sarasate (born 1844). Marsick and M. Dengremont (born 1866) studied under Léonard.

Wieniawski, Lotto, and Teresina Tua, are pupils of Massart. Wieniawski (1835–1880) was indeed a wonderful player. He possessed a beautiful tone, an astonishing technique of the left hand and of the bow, and threw into his performances an amount of life and warmth which, if it now and then led to some exaggeration, was irresistible. The marvellous perfection of Sarasate's playing, and the gracefulness of his style, are too well known to require further comment. The character of his répertoire deserves, however, special attention. It is a very extended one, and illustrates a remarkable general change in the répertoires, if not in the style, of the younger generation of French violinists. Formerly the French violinist, no less than the German one, as a matter of course, wrote his own Concertos—or if that was beyond his power, his own Fantasias or the like. Unfortunately, French violinists, with few exceptions, have not been highly trained musicians. We know that Bode and De Bériot had even to seek assistance in the scoring of their Concertos. The descent from the compositions of Rode and Kreutzer to those of De Bériot, Alard, and Leonard, is only too apparent. The operatic Fantasias of the last two mark, we may say, the lowest point to which composition for the violin had hitherto descended. Of late years the taste for serious instrumental music has grown more and more universal in France, and a reaction has set in. Not that the public has left off its delight in brilliant technical display. The fabulous successes of some modern virtuosi prove the contrary. But these triumphs have been won as much by their performance of the best Concertos by the best composers as of brilliant show-pieces.

In Germany we find the schools of Cassel, Leipzig, and Vienna taking the lead. Spohr at Cassel had a great number of pupils, but his manner and style were too exclusively individual to form a school. His most eminent pupil was Ferdinand David (1810–1873) who as founder of the Leipzig School exercised great influence on violin-playing in Germany. It can hardly be said that he perpetuated in his pupils Spohr's method and style. Entirely differing from his great master in musical temperament, enjoying from his early youth close intercourse with Mendelssohn, and strongly imbued with the spirit of modern music as manifested in Beethoven, he represents a more modern phase in German violin-playing and an eclecticism which has avoided onesidedness not less in matters of technique than of musical taste and judgment generally. He was the first who played Bach's Violin Solos, and all the last Quartets of Beethoven (not even excepting the Fugue) in public. Schubert's Quartets and Quintet were on the programmes of his chamber-concerts at the time when they had, except perhaps at Vienna, nowhere yet been heard in public. [See vol. iii. p. 356b.] As a teacher his chief aim was to give to his pupils a thorough command of the technique of the violin, and to arouse and develop their musical intelligence. There as elsewhere the classical works of violin literature naturally formed the main stock of teaching-material. At the same time David laid great stress on the study of the modern French masters, maintaining that, irrespective of musical value, their works, being as a rule written with the aim of bringing out the capabilities of the violin, contain a large amount of useful material for technical training, which in the end must benefit and improve the execution of music of any style. The correctness of this theory is strikingly proved by Joachim, who as Boehm's pupil at Vienna, was made thoroughly familiar with the technique of the modern French school, while he studied most of his classical répertoire at Leipzig under David's guidance, and in what we may term Mendelssohn's musical atmosphere. Joachim's unlimited command over technical difficulties in music of any style, which enables him to do equal justice to Paganini and Bach, is undoubtedly largely owing to the fact that his early training was free from onesidedness, and that he gained through the study of brilliant modern music the highest finish as well as the completest mastery. David trained a large number of good violinists:—Japha (Cologne), Köntgen (Leipzig), Jacobsohn (Bremen), Schradieck (who succeeded him at Leipzig), F. Hegar (Zurich), and many more. By far the most eminent of his pupils is Wilhelmj (born 1845), a virtuoso of the very first rank, who combines a fine broad tone with a technique of the left hand unrivalled by any other living violinist.

A most powerful influence on the style of the German violinists of the present-day has been exercised by the Vienna school, more especially by the pupils of Boehm (1798–1876). Although it is difficult to trace any direct connexion between the Viennese violin-players of the last century and the school of Italy, Italian violinists came very early to Vienna, and the local players adopted their method and style. We know that Tartini was for three years in the service of Count Kinsky, a Bohemian noble, and also that Trani, Ferrari, and other Italian virtuosos came to Vienna. It is remarkable that the leading Viennese composers of the last century, down to Haydn, were almost without exception violinists. Some of them, like Anton Wranitzky and Dittersdorf, were virtuosos of high rank, but most of them were in the first place composers and leaders, and in the second place only violinists. Naturally they excelled less as solo-players than in the performance of chamber-music, which at that period hardly enjoyed anywhere so much popularity as at Vienna. It was the time of preparation for the great classical period which opened with Haydn, and the circumstance that the violin was even then cultivated in Vienna far more in connexion with good and serious music than merely as a solo-instrument, has undoubtedly contributed much towards giving to the later representatives of that school their thoroughly musical character, and towards making Vienna the earliest home of quartetplaying. As a quartet-player Schuppanzigh (1776–1830), a pupil of Wranitzky, attained great reputation, and may be regarded as standing first on the roll of great quartet-players. For many years in close intercourse with Haydn and Beethoven, enjoying the advice and guidance of these great masters in the production of their Quartets, he established the style of quartet-playing which has been handed down by the most eminent Vienna violinists to our days. His greatest pupil was Mayseder (1789–1863), a brilliant solo-player, of a style more elegant than powerful. Among his pupils the best known are Miska Hauser (born 1822 [App. p.812 "for born 1822 read 1822-1887"]), and De Ahna (born 1835). The latter, an excellent soloist, has lived for many years at Berlin, and plays second violin in Joachim's quartet.

It is however through the pupils of Joseph Boehm (1798–1876) that the Vienna school attained general renown and importance. Ernst (1814–1865), G. Hellmesberger sen., Dont sen. [App. p.812 "1815–88"], Joachim, Ludwig Straus, Rappoldi, and Grün, all studied under Boehm. Boehm himself can hardly be reckoned as belonging to the old Vienna school, since he made his studies under Rode, and no doubt was also influenced by Spohr, who resided at Vienna in 1813, 14, and 15. The modern Vienna school therefore, though certainly not uninfluenced by the musical traditions of Vienna, appears in reference to technique and specific violin-style to be based on the principles of the classical French school. Counting among its representatives players of a great diversity of talent and artistic temperament, who afterwards formed more or less a style of their own, the Vienna school, or, strictly speaking, Boehm's school, can hardly be said to have been directly continued at Vienna. Boehm, although a thoroughly competent violinist, was not a player of great genius, but he was possessed of an eminently sound and correct taste and judgment in musical and technical matters, and had a rare talent for teaching. Ernst, next to Joachim the most famous of his pupils, came largely under the influence of Paganini, whose style he for some time closely imitated. Undoubtedly a violinist of the first rank, and by no means exclusively a bravura-player, he did not to any extent affect the prevailing style of violin-playing, nor did he train pupils. An enormous influence on modern violin-playing, and on the general musical life of Germany and England, is exercised by Joachim. He combines in a unique degree the highest executive powers with the most excellent musicianship; and while through his brilliant example he may truly be said to have given to modern German violin-playing a peculiar character, it has not been without effect even on the style of the French school. Unsurpassed as a master of the instrument, he uses his powers of execution exclusively in the service of art. First musician, then violinist, seems the motto of his life and the gist of his teaching. His performances undoubtedly derive their charm and supreme merit from the strength of his talent and of his artistic character, and are stamped with a striking originality of conception; at the same time fidelity to the text, and careful endeavour to enter into the spirit and feeling of the composer, are the principles of executive art which Joachim through his long career has invariably practised. In the rendering of Bach's Solos, of Beethoven's Concerto and Quartets, he has absolutely no rival, and it seems impossible he should ever be surpassed in these highest tasks of the violinist, in which both his conception and execution appear to fulfil the ideal of the composer. With Ernst, and still more with Joachim, an element derived from the national Hungarian, and the Hungarian gipsy music has come into prominence. Haydn, and still more Schubert, made frequent use of its peculiar melodic progressions and characteristic rhythms. [See vol. ii. p. 197.] It is fiddle-music par excellence, and if introduced into serious music with such judgment and discretion as in Joachim's Hungarian Concerto and transcriptions of Brahms's Hungarian Dances, it is not only artistically legitimate and musically interesting, but opens a field for telling and beautiful violin-effects. It evinces the same desire to make the resources of popular national music available for artistic purposes, which showed itself in Chopin's idealisations of the Polish element, and of late in Sarasate's adaptations of Spanish melodies and dances. Joachim has trained a large number of excellent violinists. Among the best of his pupils are: J. Ludwig, well-known as teacher and quartet-player in London, Hanflein (Hanover), Waldemar Meyer, Holländer (Cologne), Kruse (Berlin), Kotek (Berlin), Schnitzler (Rotterdam), Hess (Frankfort), Petri (Leipzig), Halir (Mannheim), Schiever (Liverpool), Gompertz (London), T. Nachez, and many more.

In addition to Boehm's pupils, the Vienna school produced a number of eminent violinists, such as Joseph Hellmesberger, a pupil of his father, who for a great many years has been the leading violinist at Vienna, and enjoys a special reputation for quartet-playing; Leopold Auer (born 1845), pupil of Dont, jun., and performer of the first rank, and others. Leopold Jansa (1796–1875 [App. p.812 "for 1796 read 1797"]) deserves to be specially mentioned as the teacher of the most eminent lady-violinist of the present day, Wilma Normann-Neruda (born 1840). Madame Neruda, possessing a highly-finished technique, is not merely a brilliant soloist, but a thorough musician, versed in the whole range of musical literature, and an admirable quartet-player. It is, no doubt, largely owing to her immense success and popularity that of late years violin-playing has been much taken up by ladies, but, if we except Teresina Tua, with but transient success. Lady amateur violinists in London, as in Boston and New York, at the present time are counted by hundreds.

The school of Prague started by F. W. Pixis (1786–1842), a pupil of Franzlat Mannheim, and of Viotti has produced several violinists of note: J. W. Kalliwoda (1801–1866 [App. p.813 "for 1801 read 1800"]), M. Mildner (1812–1865), who succeeded Pixis as Professor of the Violin at the Prague Conservatoire, and Ferdinand Laub (1832–1874 [App. p.813 "1875"]), a violinist of the very first rank.

It remains to mention a few violinists of eminence who do not stand in any direct connexion with the established schools of violin-playing. Franz Clement (1780–1842), who was a musician and player of remarkable genius, deserves specially to be remembered as the first who played in public, and for whom, in fact, was written, the Concerto of Concertos, the original MS. of which bears this inscription: 'Concerto par Clemenza pour Clement, primo Violino e Direttore al theatre di Vienna, Dal L. v. Bthvn. 1806.' C. J. Lipinski (1790–1861) was mainly self-taught, an excellent, solid, and brilliant player; though not exercising, either as composer or teacher, much influence on violin-playing generally. Bernhard Molique (1803–1869), although a pupil of Rovelli's at Munich, must be called a follower of Spohr. His concertos take a high rank in violin-literature, and although they cannot rival Spohr's in spontaneity of ideas, they show, as it were, a further development of that master's violin-style and technique. During his long residence in England, Molique formed a number of pupils, the best known of whom is Carrodus. Ole Bull^[9] (1810–1880), a player of great originality, not free from charlatanism, was entirely self-taught, and has not inappropriately been described as a Northern Paganini. He belongs to no school, and has exercised no influence on the style of violin-playing of the period.

England has produced but few violin-players of eminence, and violin-playing has, as a rule, been represented in this country by foreigners. Thus we find Geminiani, Giardini, Wilhelm Cramer, Salomon, Viotti, Mori, Sainton, Straus, Normann Neruda, as the leading resident violinists in London, while there is hardly an eminent player during the last hundred years who has not visited the country.

The earliest English violin-player of note was Davis Mell, whom Hawkins calls the great rival of the German Baltzar. [See vol. i. p. 133.] John Banister (about 1640–1700 [App. p.813 "1630–1679"]) was leader of the band of Charles II., in succession to Baltzar. Matthew Dubourg (1703–1767) was a pupil of Geminiani, and appears to have been a clever player. His pupil, John Clegg (died about 1742 [App. p.813 "1714–1742"), was a brilliant virtuoso. J. Abraham Fisher (born 1744) was a player of much talent, who travelled a great deal on the continent, but appears to have been much of a charlatan. Thomas Linley (1756–1778) studied under Nardini at Florence, but died young. George A. P. Bridgetower (1779–184-), though not born in England, made his studies in London, and must have been a player of considerable powers, to judge from the fact that Beethoven played with him the Kreutzer Sonata for the first time in public. Thomas Pinto (died about 1780 [App. p.813 "1773"]) and George F. Pinto (1786–1806) were born in London of Portuguese parents. Both were clever violinists. Among modern players, the most eminent are Henry Blagrove (1811–1872), a pupil of Spohr, and the brothers Alfred (1837–1876) and Henry Holmes (born 1839). The last-named, now chief Professor of the Violin at the Royal College of Music in London, is a thoroughly artistic player, who more especially excels in quartet-playing.

There can be no doubt that the number of good violin-players is very much greater at the present time than it ever was before. Striking originality and genius are probably as rare as ever, but the improvement which has taken place in the rank and file during the last forty years is truly astonishing. While formerly even the most famous orchestras contained but a few who could make any claim to be soloists, nowadays the great majority are thoroughly trained artistic players. One of the best-known teachers of modern times used to declare that the same concertos which during the first half of this century were considered the ne plus ultra of difficulty, and were attempted in public by perhaps a very few of the most famous virtuosos–he used specially to adduce Lipinski's 'Concerto Militaire'—are now as a matter of course studied and fairly mastered by the average student at any Conservatoire. It is obvious how much orchestral performances must have gained by this general spread of executive skill, and we can safely assume that at no period of musical history has orchestral music been so generally well executed as at the present day.

At the same time we cannot speak of a modern violin-technique and a modern development of such technique as we speak of it in reference to piano-playing. The development of the technique in any instrument, as a matter of course goes along with the perfecting of its mechanical structure. Now in the case of the pianoforte this gradual perfecting of the mechanism has continued up to the present time. Thus the technique of Mozart probably stands in the same relation to the technique of Liszt as an old Vienna clavicembalo to a modern Broadwood. In the case of the violin it is not so. For more than three hundred years the violin has undergone no structural alteration whatever, and no important change in the principles of execution has taken place since the days of Corelli. The advance made in mastering difficulties since the early days of violin-playing is more apparent than real. There are but few points of modern technique which one or another of the old masters had not already attempted (Locatelli, Lolli, Bach, etc.), and it is owing only to the more complicated nature of modern music (not to speak of the morbid tendency towards exaggeration in every respect) that the execution of great difficulties is more often demanded. It is only in reference to 'bowing' that we can speak of a modern development, and that for the very good reason that the modern flexible bow attained its present form but very gradually at the end of last century. In the art of bowing we do find, as in piano-playing, a modern development which follows the gradual perfecting of the instrument. Tourte, of Paris, made the modern bow what it is, and the violinists of his time were not slow to avail themselves of its immense advantages. Hence resulted a rapid progress in the art of bowing, which culminated in Paganini, and there reached a point of perfection which is not likely to be surpassed.

[ P. D. ]

1. These expressions are exactly equivalent to the words so often found on the title-pages of English madrigals of the 17th century—'Apt for voyals [viols] and voices.'
2. Quite in accordance with Berlioz's advice.
3. See Monteverde, vol. ii. p. 369a.
4. Reprinted in the Appendix of Wasielewski's book: 'Die Violine im xvii. Jahrhundert.'
5. Francesco Maria (about 1685–1750). See vol. iv. p. 239.
6. That is, for violin without accompaniment.
7. His latest Violin Concerto dates from 1776. (See Köchel. No. 268.)
8. Mozart's Solo Violin Concertos, with two exceptions, remain in MS., and indeed seem to have undergone an almost total eclipse till our own days, when one or two of them have been resuscitated by David, Joachim, and others.
9. See Bull, Ole, in Appendix.