John Dilworth
MONTAGNANA, Domenico Born 1687 Lendinara, Rovigo, died 1750 Venice Italy. Moved to Venice in about 1701, working with Matteo Sellas and almost certainly Matteo Gofriller. Established in workshops at ‘the Sign of Cremona’ in the Calle dei Stagneri from about 1711. Known as ‘the mighty Venetian’ for his magnificent cellos, which are amongst the finest concert instruments available to any soloist. His work is characterised by freely curving outlines, a particularly rich and clotted red varnish, and expressive and relaxed craftsmanship. Violins vary in model from Stainer or Amati to Stradivari-derived patterns, some with very high full archings, others lower and tonally more effective. Soundholes can vary greatly, some having an exaggerated Stainer form with large paddle-like lower wings. His cellos however are remarkably consistent, made on a distinctive broad but not excessively long pattern which for some is superior to the comparatively narrow but only slightly longer Stradivari ‘B’ form. The archings are generally rounded and full, but not too high. The soundholes are Amatisé, and the scrolls very individual, with a slightly extended last turn to the slightly off-centre eye and an odd break in the smooth flow of the bottom curve of the pegbox which changes abruptly at the chin. As with much Venetian work, materials are generally of extremely fine quality, with beautifully flamed maple used extensively, and fine grained mountain spruce, often with some hazel figure, used for the fronts. His workshop and business at the ‘Sign of Cremona’ were taken over by Giorgio Serafin after his death. Dominicus Montagnana Sub Si- / gnum Cremonæ Venetiis, 17..
George Hart
Pupil of Antonio Stradivari After leaving the workshop of his famous master he followed his art in Cremona. He afterwards removed to Venice, where Violin manufacture was in the most flourishing condition, and adopted the name of ” Cremona” as the sign of his house. In days when houses were unnumbered, tradesmen were found by their sign, and they were often puzzled to select one both distinctive and effective. The Violin-makers of Italy, having exhausted the calendar of its Saints emblematic of Harmony, left it to the Venetian to honour the name of himself and the city which was the seat of the greatest Violin manufacture the world had witnessed. In Venice he soon attained great popularity, and made the splendid specimens of his art with which we are familiar. The instructions which he had received at Cremona enabled him to surpass all in Venice. He gained great knowledge of the qualities of material, and of the thicknesses to be observed ; and, moreover, he carried with him the superior form of the Cremonese school, and the glorious varnish. Mr. Reade names him “the mighty Venetian,” an appellation not a whit too high-sounding, though it may appear so to those not acquainted with his finest works. The truth is, that Montagnana is less known than any of the great makers. For years his works have been roaming about bearing the magic labels of ” Guarnerius filius Andreae,” ” Carlo Bergonzi,” and sometimes of ” Pietro Guarneri,” although there is barely a particle of resemblance between the works of our author and the makers named, whose labels have been used as floats. Montagnana was in every way original, but the fraud that has foisted his works upon makers who were better known has prevented his name from being associated with many of his choicest instruments, and deprived him of the place which he would long since have held in the estimation of the true connoisseur. This injustice, however, is fast passing away; as ever, genius comes forth triumphant. The time is near when the ” mighty Venetian ” and Carlo Bergonzi will occupy positions little less considerable than that of the two great masters. Already the merits of these makers are daily more appreciated, and when the scarcity of their genuine works is considered, it becomes a matter of certainty that their rank must be raised to the point indicated. It is much to be regretted that both Montagnana and Bergonzi did not leave more numerous specimens behind them. Would that each had been as prolific as their common master! We should then have inherited a store from which our coming Violinists and Violoncellists could have possessed themselves of splendid instruments, when those of Guarneri and Stradivari were placed far beyond reach. In these times, when the love of music is rapidly developing itself among all classes, the question of supply must attract notice. The prime question with respect to Violins of the highest character is not now as to price, but as to the supply of limited and daily decreasing material; and the doubtful point is, not whether purchasers are to be found who may not be unwilling to pay the increased cost consequent upon scarcity, but whether the instruments required will be available in sufficient numbers to satisfy the demand of those quite prepared to gratify their wishes for the possession of an instrument of the first rank. A single glance is sufficient to remind us that the list of makers of the highest class, and particularly of original artists, is scanty indeed. There are a few copyists, it is true, notably Lupot and Panormo, whose instruments must take a considerable position, but on the whole the demand will far exceed the supply. The difficulty here noticed is intensified from the fact of the Violin being, unlike any other musical instrument, sought after as it is for the cabinets of the collector as well as for actual use—a state of things perfectly natural when its artistic beauties are considered. Violinists possibly consider they smart under a sense of wrong at the hands of collectors in thus indulging their taste; but, on the other hand, we have reason to be grateful to the lovers of art for having stayed the hand of Time in demolishing these treasures. To return to the subject of this present notice: it is evident that when Montagnana left the workshop of Stradivari, he gave full scope to his creative powers. He at once began to construct upon principles of his own, and thus followed the example of his fellow-worker, Carlo Bergonzi. If comparison be made between the work of Stradivari and that of Domenico Montagnana, with regard to detail, the two makers will not be found to have much in common. It is when Montagnana’s instrument is viewed as a whole that the teaching of Stradivari is evidenced. A similar assertion may, in a lesser degree, be made in the case of Carlo Bergonzi. To dissect the several points of difference is a simple matter. If we begin with the outline, that of Montagnana has not the smoothness and grace of the Stradivarian type ; the upper and lower curves are flattened, while those of the centre are extended. The sound-hole partakes more of the character of Guarneri; the scroll is larger, and the turns bolder than in the Stradivari form. These, then, may be considered to be the chief points wherein, if viewed as separate items, Montagnana seems to have varied from his master: and hence we may obtain some idea of the amount of originality belonging to this maker—an amount, indeed, not inferior to that of any Cremonese artist that can be cited. The increasing popularity of Montagnana’s instruments is sufficient proof that his design was fraught with much that is valuable. In departing from the form of Antonio Stradivari, Carlo Bergonzi and Montagnana doubtless intended to bring out in a stronger degree certain particular qualities of tone: at the same time we may be sure that they had no idea of attempting to improve upon Stradivari in his own field of work, for they must have well known the Herculean character of such a task. On the other hand, had these remarkable makers been mere copyists, they would certainly have handed down to us more instruments moulded in exact accord with the style of their great teacher ; while, at the same time, we should have lost many variations, which are at present not only an evidence of their fertility of resource, but also in themselves most pleasing objects. If, in the sister art, Tintoretto had made it his sole business to copy Titian, the world would have been rich in copies of Titian, but poor in Tintorettos. The varnish of Montagnana has long excited the admiration of connoisseurs throughout Europe. The extreme richness and velvet-like softness which are its characteristics constitute it a fitting countersign of the workmanship of this great maker, an artist of the first magnitude. He made Violins, Violas, and Violoncellos. His Violins are of two sizes.
Cecie Stainer
A celebrated maker in Venice about 1720-50. One of the most able pupils of Antonio Stradivari at Cremona; it is said that he worked with him for twenty years, then went to Venice and settled there, at the sign of ” Cremona.”
Labels dated Venice, 1725, are known. His work is admirable, and shows great knowledge of the qualities of wood and of the necessary thicknesses to be obtained ; he made on a large pattern, rather arched, with the corners prominent, the sound-holes gracefully cut, rather like those of Guarneri; the scroll showing a great deal of character, and both purfling and corners carefully finished ; he used most carefully chosen wood, beautifully figured, and very transparent varnish of a rich golden-red colour, which recalls that of Carlo Bergonzi; the tone is admirable.
Although the influence of Stradivari is noticeable in every detail, Montagnana’s strong individuality also asserts itself, and his work rivals that of Guarneri or Bergonzi. His violoncellos are especially liked, they are most excellent for solo playing; they are nearly all to be found in England or Germany, only three or four are in France. He made few instruments ; about twelve violins and five or six violas are known—the latter are mentioned as having a peculiarly solemn and penetrating tone.
In 1875 a double-bass of his was sold for £82. It is said that spurious labels of ” Guarnerius filius Andreae ” and of ” Carlo Bergonzi” are often placed in his instruments. His labels are: “Dominicus Montagnana sub signum Cremonae Venetiis, 1729,” a similar one dated 1747, and ” Domenicus Montagnana sub signo in ab prope Oenipontum fecit, anno 1730.”
Willibald Leo Lütgendorff
Obwohl er ein Meister ersten Ranges war, ist über sein Leben nur wenig
bekannt. In Venedig ist er vor 1721 bisher nicht nachweisbar gewesen. Seiner
Arbeit nach muss er der Cremoneser Schule beigezahlt werden. Einige nennen
ihn einen Schüler Nicolaus Amati’s und einen Mitschüler A. Stradivari’s,
Andere dagegen lassen ihn einen Schüler von Stradivari selbst sein. Wahrscheinlich
hat er bei Amati begonnen und dann Jahre lang bei Stradivari gearbeitet;
seine Violinen zeigen den Einfluss Stradivari’s in unverkennbarer
Weise, doch wusste er ihnen immerhin noch ein eigenes Gepräge zu geben. Er
bevorzugte ein grosses Patron; die Wölbung und die Dicke des Holzes entsprechen
dem ersten Stradivari-Modell, wesshalb viele seiner Arbeiten jetzt mit
Stradivari’s Zettel im Verkehr sind. Das ist auch der Gruund, warum man
nur wenige Werke von ihm nachweisen kann. Das Holz ist sorgfältig gewählt,
die Ausführung tadellos, Schnecke und F-Löcher von schönem Schwung. Die
letzteren sind denen von Guarneri nicht unähnlich, wahrend sein Lack von
schöner goldrother Farbe eher an Carlo Bergonzi erinnert. Der Ton seiner
Geigen ist wundervoll, und man schätzt M. richtig, wenn man ihm einen Platz neben
Stradivari, Guarneri und Bergonzi anweist. Er hat auch vorzügliche Violoncelli
gemacht und selbst Bässe; einen solchen besitzt u. A. das Pariser Conservatorium.
Er führte das Schild «sub signum Cremonae« und war von grossem Einfluss
auf die Venezianer Schule. Seine Arbeiten steigen jetzt fortwährend im
Preise und sind schwer zu bekommen; der unten folgende Zettel stammt aus dem
Jahre 1729; aus dem Jahre 1730 wird ein Zettel mit dem sonderbaren Wortlaut:
»Dominicus Montagnana sub signo in ab prope Oenipontum fecit 1730« mitgetheilt.
Man erkennt sofort, dass hier aus zwei Zetteln ein Machwerk gebildet ist. Die erste Hälfte
