Robert E.

Seletsky

New light on the old bow—2

The first part of this article appeared in the May 2004 ideal: often his combination leads to glassiness in
issue. the upper part of the bow, while original lower-
headed, largely un-cambred long bows are much
Transitional bows and long bows more consistent from frog to point. It is almost
he long bow persisted until the end of the 18th
T century, overlapping with the transitional/classi-
cal bows that appear in increasing numbers by c.1770.
certain that the original cambre applied to most
transitional and early modern bows was far less pro-
nounced than that which came into use later.
Transitional bows have no set measurements; they Although, as indicated earlier, cambre can relax over
are as various as the bows that preceded them. time or can be deliberately augmented—most bows
However, they are all designed to function in musi- being subjected to the latter—it is impossible not to
cally similar ways; they continue the logic of the long observe that in all 18th-century pictures of violinists
bow in further raising the head, creating so-called with transitional bows, the sticks are straight, not
‘hatchet’ or ‘battle-axe’ profiles, and, not infre- incurved, at playing tension. Some are even slightly
quently, foreshortened and extremely high swan-bill convex under tension, indicating that there was not
heads; a considerable number of bows with this latter even cambre deep enough for appropriate playing
head shape are fluted as well (illus.11c). Interestingly, tension with the stick tightened only to appear
one occasionally encounters incurved high-headed straight (see illus.15 and 18). Typically, even today’s
transitional bows built with the old convex ‘hump’ period specialists consider bows with their modest
near the head for added flexibility in that area. In cambre too flexible.
transitional bows, the sticks were heated and system- Pernambuco—a superior species of what makers
atically bent inward to add spring and resistance, and now call ‘brazilwood’—and, less often, ironwood—
to counterbalance the extended hair-to-stick dis- were generally used for these thicker concave sticks
tance inherent in the new head designs. In 1791 rather than snakewood: pernambuco because it is
Galeazzi mentions the use of cambre in the type of lighter, ironwood because it is less stiff. Many short-
bow he recommends (clearly a transitional model; he comings of the materials could be circumvented by
acknowledges the wide variety of bows in use): the inward cambre; pernambuco, previously used pri-
I would want the bow either to be straight, or to be low at the marily to dye leather and as ships’ ballast, was also far
frog and high at the point. This can be achieved by introducing less expensive than snakewood. Many transitional
a small amount of curve toward the point. A bow thus con- models are shorter than the long bows, and are usually
structed has the same strength at the point as at the heel, which less weighty despite thicker graduations, owing to per-
seems to me a very considerable advantage.1
nambuco’s diminished density compared with snake-
Interestingly, high-headed cambred bows seem wood; they frequently have narrower hair-widths,
to have the opposite characteristic to Galeazzi’s although as the century progressed, these bows were

Robert E. Seletsky is an independent scholar and baroque violinist. His published work appears in
New Grove II (2000), Early music, Opera quarterly, The new Harvard dictionary of music, Recent
Researches in the Music of the Classical Era and elsewhere.

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 415
11 Three screw-frog transitional bow designs, c.1775–85: (a) battle-axe head, pernambuco stick, rounded (earlier)
open-channel ivory frog and button; length 73.0 cm (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Hill Collection no.24); (b) late
battle-axe/hatchet head, pernambuco stick, rectangular (later) ivory open-channel frog and button, stamped ‘DODD’,
probably John Dodd, London; length 73.4 cm (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Hill Collection no.27); (c) modified
‘swan-bill’ head, fluted pernambuco stick, rectangular (later) open-channel ebony frog and ivory (or bone) button,
attributed to ‘Tourte L’; length 73.8 cm (Oxford, Ashmolean Museum, Hill Collection no.26). All bow lengths include
button.

12 Hair attachments and widths: (a)

clip-in (b) open-channel screw-frog
(c) modern closed-channel screw-frog.

designed to be longer and heavier, with wider hair Padua, the German writer Christoph Gottlieb von
channels (illus.11, 12). The bounced bow-strokes in the Murr described Tartini’s new bow as resembling a
music of Haydn, Mozart, the Mannheim school com- ‘soap-cutter’s knife’ (Seifensiederdräthe).2 It is signifi-
posers and others, seem to have been responsible for cant that in 1760, generally thought nowadays to be
the introduction of the transitional bows, which per- well into the period of transitional bow usage,
formed these effects more naturally than the long Tartini’s second bow, preserved in Trieste, with mini-
bows. It was formerly suggested that cantabile playing mal transitional features—really a clip-in long bow
was the catalyst, but it is the long bows that sink with a somewhat heightened swan-bill head and a
smoothly into the string, hence Le Blanc’s 1740 remark minimal amount of cambre—should be viewed with
about ‘seamless bow-changes’. curiosity and surprise, indicating that transitional
Even at this stage, Tartini’s name was associated traits were not at all common. Indeed, a very photo-
with the bow’s development, with the term ‘Tartini graphic anonymous Italian portrait of Tartini in
bow’ now inaccurately applied to the early transitional middle age shows him holding a convex pike-head
bow as it had been to the long bow a quarter of a long bow (illus.13), not the type of bow with which
century earlier. In December 1760, after a visit to he is anecdotally associated, nor which is shown in

41 6 early mu si c august 2 004

 specifically to do with Tartini, there is one claim
regarding his relationship to the bow that may be
revealing: ‘He had his bows cut from much lighter
wood.’4 It was stated earlier that fluting generally
was applied to octagonal bow sticks. The upper two-
thirds of Tartini’s long bow preserved in Trieste are
reportedly octagonal but not fluted, and the shank is
round to accommodate the reserve for the clip-in
frog. Unfluted octagonal bows were anomalous dur-
ing the period of this bow’s creation; an explanation
might be that the maker had over-thinned the stick
and realized that any attempt to round or flute it
would produce a bow that was too weak. However,
in revisiting a letter from the administrator of the
Conservatorio di Musica ‘G. Tartini’ in Trieste I
noticed an unusual statistic:5 the bow is 71.5 cm
long but weighs only 37.5 grams including a 5 gram
boxwood clip-in frog (though excluding perhaps
3 grams of hair). Although one could certainly
understand a maker’s reluctance to round or flute a
bow of such perplexing delicacy, it is unlikely that he
would have erred so far from the usual weights of
45–55 grams.
The bow is constructed of ‘legno santo rosso-
marrone scuro’ (‘dark red-brown holy wood’), not
13 Tartini in mid-life with convex pike-head bow. the usual, much heavier snakewood, ironwood, or
Anonymous mid-18th-century Italian painting. (Museo ebony of the period. The term ‘holy wood’ is encoun-
degli Strumenti. Musicali, Milan, Italy. Credit: Roger- tered in period references to violin making, but has
Viollet, Paris /www.bridgeman.co.uk) never definitively been identified. Period violin pegs
have sometimes been described as having been made
of ‘holy wood’, possibly a species of rosewood, so-
the famous commemorative Calcinotto engraving named because it gives off the aroma of roses when
of Tartini, c.1770. The head of the bow in the anony- cut; but none of its species are so light as to produce
mous painting is identical with the head of his the weight of Tartini’s bow. The Spanish refer to a
old long bow now in Trieste. Although the pegbox particular South American tropical hardwood as
in the painting—the instrument’s only visible part— ‘holy wood’—Palo Santo or Bulnesia sarmiento, prob-
obviously belongs to a viola d’amore, bows for ably because of its singular perfumed aroma when
braccio instruments were often used interchangeably. cut.6 It may be the same as South American ‘perfume
wood’, which has been considered for bow-making
Tartini’s bows (though I have never encountered it). If the report
As we have seen, the ‘Tartini bow’ is something of a is accurate, Tartini’s clip-in early transitional bow is
puzzle and a recurring theme throughout the 18th also constructed of ‘legno santo’, and with the frog, its
and 19th centuries, its attributes different almost 71.4 cm length weighs a mere 40 grams. It is difficult
every time it is mentioned. While many of its alleged to imagine bows over 71 cm long functioning at such
traits—greater length and head height, reeding, diminished weights, particularly as Tartini’s long
straight stick, or screw-frog3—were simply charac- bow has no cambre for added resilience, and the
teristics of the evolving bow and have nothing transitional bow has very little.

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 417
 In his ‘Rules for Bowing’, Tartini advises that the therefore to the necessary strength and weakness, by means of
violinist ‘Always use the middle of the bow, never pressing and relaxing. Both those who hold the bow with the
first joint of the index finger and those who lift up their little
play near the point or heel’,7 an understandable
finger, will find that the above-described method is far more
recommendation coming from a violinist with such apt to produce an honest and virile tone from the violin if
slight bows. According to Charles Burney, Tartini- they be not too stubbornly attached to another method to try
school players were more ‘remarkable for delicacy, this one.15
expression and high finishing, than for spirit and
Clearly, Geminiani, the Mozarts and most other
variety’.8 Tartini’s support for constrained bow use is
players who used bows of normal woods did not
contrary to Geminiani’s admonition that ‘The best
need to evolve rarefied bowing techniques of only
Performers are those who are least sparing of their
qualified success. As no bows quite like his seem
Bow; and make Use of the whole of it, from the Point
to have survived, Tartini may be an example of a
to that Part of it under, and even beyond the
teacher adapting his playing to irregular equipment
Fingers’9 or the ‘long, uninterrupted, soft, and flow-
and subsequently making a method of it for stu-
ing stroke’ advocated by Leopold Mozart.10 Indeed,
dents with normal bows. Although it evidently held
the Mozarts, while apparently respecting Tartini—
a certain fascination for listeners, it is not really sur-
Leopold even reusing some of his material outright
prising that Tartini’s style died out; it is at odds with
in his Violinschule—were never entirely satisfied with
virtually every other method. The contrast between
Tartini’s pupils’ small, constricted sound, and refer
Tartini, who advocated a small, delicate tone using
to it in a number of letters. On the cover of a letter to
a fraction of a long bow with little pressure, and
Lorenz Hagenauer dated 11 July 1763, Leopold writes
Corelli, who demanded a full tone using every
of ‘a certain’ [Pietro] Nardini (1722–93), who plays
millimetre of a short bow, is especially striking; it is
with ‘purity, evenness of tone and singing quality’,
very important to note their polar opposition
adding, ‘But he plays rather lightly.’11 In a letter to
because historians have often thrown them
Leopold dated 6 October 1777, W. A. Mozart makes a
together, David Boyden even referring to the
number of negative, though not ill-natured, remarks
‘Corelli–Tartini bow’.16 Writers’ descriptions of a
about the playing of Tartini’s pupil Charles Albert
‘Tartini bow’ then, appear to be the result of mis-
Dupreille (1728–96): ‘We first played Haydn’s two
placed attempts at identifying various bows with a
quintets, but to my dismay I found I could hardly
peculiar playing technique—in a sense, confusing
hear him.’12 In another letter to his father dated
cause and effect, hence the application of the term
27 August 1778 Mozart says of Paul Rothfischer, a
to several different bow types. They should properly
violinist in the service of the Princess of Nassau-
have referred to ‘Tartini bowing’ instead. Although
Weilburg, that he ‘plays well in his way (a little bit in
players adjusted their bow choices as dictated by
the old-fashioned Tartini manner)’.13
time and taste, the only known genuine ‘Tartini
It seems, therefore, that Tartini not only taught
bows’ were Tartini’s.
his pupils to use little of the bow’s length, but also
little pressure. Tartini instructs that the bow ‘should
be held firmly between the thumb and forefinger, Identifications and adaptations
and lightly by the other fingers, in order to produce Clearly, bows were made throughout Europe, but
a strong, sustained tone’.14 Tartini’s concepts were extant bows of the 18th and 17th centuries—the
certainly not universally accepted; Leopold’s recom- latter very minimal in any case—seem to be English
mended bow grip disparages the Tartini method or French. As yet, experts have scant means of iden-
without naming him: tifying the constructional features of early bows that
may originate elsewhere. There are templates for
The bow is taken in the right hand, at its lowest extremity, clip-in frogs and heads from the Stradivari work-
between the thumb and the middle joint of the index-finger,
or even a little behind it … The little finger must lie at all shop now in the Museo Stradivariano, Cremona; the
times on the bow, and never be held freely away from the collection also houses a single actual ebony clip-
stick, for it contributes greatly to the control of the bow and in frog (item no.478) and a maple model of a low

41 8 early mu si c august 2 004

14 The violin bow’s evolution shown in Woldemar, Grande Méthode drawings, c.1798: (a) short: ‘Corelli’; (b) long:
‘Tartini’; (c) transitional: ‘Cramer’; (d) modern: ‘Viotti’. Compare these with the bows in part I, illus.8

swan-bill type bow head (item no.499). Although (‘Corelli’), long (‘Tartini’), transitional (‘Cramer’),
this material is not enough to draw any conclusions Tourte (‘Viotti’)—see illus.14.18 Reputed to own
even about Stradivari’s bows, there is one notable bows of each type, Woldemar claimed that the tran-
unusual feature of frog construction: the top edge sitional model associated with virtuoso Wilhelm
that would meet the stick is as much as 1 cm longer Cramer (1745–99), active in London during the
than the hair channel edge, perhaps to yield that 1770s and 1780s, was ‘adopted in his time by a major-
much more playing hair length, the reverse of what ity of artists and amateurs’. When in 1801 Woldemar
one sees on surviving frogs from all other sources; wrote the preface to a revised version of Leopold
half of the Stradivari shop templates display this Mozart’s Violinschule, with a few more, but far less
feature, as does the one surviving frog.17 One hopes accurate—even caricatured—bow illustrations, he
more objects that can be identified as Italian (or mentions Fränzl as well as Cramer in connection
German) will come to light. The existence of largely with this type of bow.19 Like Cramer, virtuoso vio-
English and French early bows may indicate that linist Ignaz Fränzl (1736–1811) was a member of the
London and Paris were focal points of instrument- Mannheim orchestra, whose playing was enthusias-
making and technology even early on, perhaps tically admired by W. A. Mozart.20 In an anonymous
yielding better or more refined bows thought most painting of Pietro Nardini that must date from
worthy of preserving, and (as so many documents c.1770, the upper half of a ‘Cramer’-style bow is seen.
already show) that there was a lively export trade in The head shape and even the ivory plate on the face
bowed string instruments. of its battle-axe head can easily be distinguished; the
In the introductory chapter to his Grand Méthode stick looks convex, over-tightened perhaps to com-
pour le violon (Paris, 1798), Michel Woldemar pensate for insufficient cambre (illus.15). The transi-
(1750–1818) presents four rather accurately drawn tional bow of this type, with mirrored peak and
illustrations that trace the history of the bow: short throat on its battle-axe head and a delicate ivory

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 419
 ascribed to Tartini’s ownership; if he was indeed its
owner, he acquired it at the end of his life.22 And
while G. B. Viotti (1755–1824) is widely, and perhaps
accurately, regarded as the early champion of the
new François Tourte bow, the model even referred
to as a ‘Viotti bow’ by Woldemar and others, a post-
1800 pen-and-wash drawing shows the celebrated
violinist holding what seems to be a swan-bill-
headed long bow (illus.16).23
For much of the 20th century, pre-transitional
bows were thought to have been regarded as dispos-
able accessories, long bows retained only when they
were aesthetically pleasing. Such an assumption con-
tradicts the conservative, even frugal, aesthetic of the
17th and 18th centuries. Even if ordinary bows were
accessories provided with instruments at the time of
purchase, as more and more long bows come to light,
it seems that they were not considered to be dispos-
able. While many long bows did survive because of
visual artistic merit or precious materials, there is
also a sizable extant body of unremarkable bows,
many with clumsy period repairs, demonstrating
15 Pietro Nardini and ‘Cramer’-style bow, c.1770 (Milan, that if a bow could conceivably be useful, it would be
Museo Teatrale alla Scala (Costa)) preserved. The period’s repugnance for casual dis-
posal thus does appear to extend to bows. Long bows,
frog of typical French design similarly, and often like violins, were very often refitted to accommodate
ornately, hollowed at both ends—as in Woldemar’s changing musical requirements. Probably during the
illustration, is one of many similar variations made third quarter of the 18th century, clip-in frogs were
by craftsmen in the two centres of mid- to late replaced with screw-frogs, frequently in the French
18th-century bow-making: in Paris—Duchaine, manner: the stick’s clip-in frog-seating was filled
Meauchand, and ‘Tourte L.’ among them;21 in with a flat ivory slip through which a mortise was cut
London—Edward, John and James Dodd, Thomas into the stick; the eyelet of the frog would ride in this
Tubbs, Thomas Smith and others. Although few mortise, adjusted by an added screw-button, the end
bows of the period were stamped in comparison of the stick drilled out to accept it. The flat ivory plate
with those made in the 19th century—bow types was typically equipped with a metal stabilizing pin
identified by the names of famous players thought fitted into a small channel on the underside of the
to have used them—as we see, the transitional bows frog to keep it from swivelling. A well-known exam-
are the first to bear a stamp more routinely, even if ple is the elaborate pandurina-shaped ivory frog,
the stamps are as likely to identify the firm for which almost certainly of French provenance, c.1775, on the
the maker worked, especially in Britain: ‘Banks’, well-known anonymous long bow, c.1740, in the
‘Betts’, ‘Forster’, ‘Longman & Broderip’, ‘Norris & collection of the University of California at Berkeley;
Barnes’. The bows shown in illus.8c, 11a and 11b once erroneously dated c.1700 and attributed to
would all have been considered ‘Cramer’ bows in Antonio Stradivari, its fluted 71.1 cm stick (including
the period, despite vastly different weights, lengths the c.1775 decorative ivory screw-button), though for-
and characteristics; identifying whole genres of cos- merly thought to be made of pernambuco, is proba-
metically related bows with individual performers is bly constructed of unfigured snakewood.24 Bows like
very misleading. Interestingly, a transitional bow this generally had their cambre increased, often in an
of c.1770, attributed to ‘Tourte L.’, is yet another imprecise manner, to enable the bounced strokes
42 0 early mu si c august 2004
 cambre on refitted long bows obscure their genuine
intended musical traits, their responses, balances and
playing hair lengths radically altered. Bows thus mod-
ified are not infrequently copied by uninformed
contemporary makers and mistakenly presented to
period-instrument performers as ‘Baroque’ bows.
It has been common to believe in the near-
impossibility of assigning reasonably accurate dates
to early bows. On a certain level this may be true, as
short and long clip-in bows were available simulta-
neously throughout most of the 18th century, over-
lapping with transitional types. However, one rather
obvious piece of evidence that seems to have been
overlooked is the method of frog attachment. As
indicated here, screw-frogs riding on flat ivory plates
were used to modernize clip-in bows; this frog design
also seems to have been a customary early way of cre-
ating new screw-frog bows. One also sees other 18th-
century methods, like a flat frog attachment with
or without stabilizing pin directly mounted to the
flattened underside of the stick, or a frog with a round
underside fitted to the round shank of the stick—
a rather unstable approach until J. B. Vuillaume
(1798–1875) rethought it in the mid-19th century,
using a round attachment of smaller diameter or
slightly oval shape that yielded flat ‘rails’ on the edges
of the stick to hold the frog securely in place. The
most familiar attachment, used exclusively today,
wherein the frog rides on three facets of a stick’s
octagonal shank, seems to have appeared later, c.1775.
A bow with an original attachment of this type, no
matter what the head design, whether fluted or not,
was therefore made no earlier than the late 18th cen-
tury. If the lower part of a bow is octagonal, even
with an original French flat frog underside/ ivory
plate/stabilizing pin configuration, a late date may
also be indicated. Many bows that have ‘earlier’ fea-
tures but were built with octagonal shanks and three-
16 G. B. Viotti apparently with a long bow after 1800; pen-
and-wash drawing (© Copyright The British Museum)
faceted frog attachments survive; typically they are
longer than true early 18th-century bows, they can be
noticeably cambred, with more massive pike/swan
natural to transitional bows. A few short bows survive heads that have throats not infrequently perpendicu-
with the modifications of augmented cambre and lar to the hair, and frogs with more modern rectangu-
screw-frogs, but because total length cannot be mod- lar shapes. Their existence demonstrates that players
ified, they ultimately did fall into disuse and were were unwilling to part entirely with the familiar, thus
largely discarded late in the 18th century. The new creating a market for bows that were hybrids of long-
small, differently weighted low frogs and added bow and transitional-bow technologies, presumably

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 42 1
so that players could negotiate both older and new
music.25 Further, it indicates again that modern mak-
ers need to be circumspect when choosing period
bows upon which to model their copies if they are
seeking to create genuine earlier-style bows. A
famous painting of Gaetano Pugnani (1731–98) is
usually assigned a date of c.1754 because the music
visible in it is the first violin part of his Trio Sonatas,
op.1, a Parisian publication of 1754. However, the
shank of his bow shown clearly has a later, nearly rec-
tangular screw-frog of dark wood (ebony?) with flat,
round, or possibly even a faceted attachment
mounted directly to the stick without an ivory plate:
the hair terminates at the middle of the frog, not con-
tinuing around it as in a clip-in design. The button is
of lathe-turned dark wood. Pugnani is dressed in the
attire of the Turin court. He succeeded his late
teacher Somis as leader of the court orchestra (and
the Teatro Regio) in 1770,26 so it seems logical to
assume that the painting would commemorate that
auspicious occasion, and thus have a date no earlier
than 1770, consistent with the above chronology of
screw-frog attachments. The music from his first set
of trio sonatas may be open simply because it was his
first published success, or, because the open page
clearly reads ‘Violino Primo’, a status that he had
attained at the Turin court in 1770 (illus.17).
bows were made well into the 19th century through-
Transitional terminus
out Europe, notably in England by members of the
The model of François Tourte (1747–1835), originat- Dodd and Tubbs families. Cost was often the motive
ing in the 1780s, is at 74.5 cm, 1–4 cm longer than for this variation: frogs with mother-of-pearl slides
most transitional bows. (Note that, for consistency, and ferrules of precious metals are more expensive to
total lengths shown here include the movable produce than plain open-channel ones. A lithograph
button—about 1.5 cm—which luthiers sometimes of c.1820 by Karl Begas (1794–1854) clearly shows
omit from cited bow lengths.) Tourte’s bow was the Nicolò Paganini (1782–1840) using a bow with an
experiment that eventually became the standard, the early transitional battle-axe head (illus.18), extremely
first time a bow-maker’s design served as a specific similar to the head of Hill Collection no.24 in
model for continuing generations of subsequent illus.11a.27
makers. Often with stronger graduations, sometimes We are thus presented with a very different
more pronounced cambre, and a closed, sharply picture of the violin bow’s history from c.1625 to
rectangular frog with a mother-of-pearl slide, and a 1800. The previously accepted idea was that players
silver or gold ferrule and heel-plate (illus.12c), the were continually dissatisfied with the bow, impa-
Tourte bow, at 57–60 grams, is heavier than most of tiently seeking changes. However, a thoughtful look
its predecessors; the hatchet head is similar to con- at extant objects and sources, both written and
temporary models, but never with mirrored peak iconographic, indicates instead the reluctance of
and throat. Although this type of bow ultimately players to part with familiar, well-functioning bows.
eclipsed all previous designs, various ‘transitional’ The short bow, now generally relegated to the

42 2 early mu si c august 2 004

17 Gaetano Pugnani in Turin court attire with screw-frog bow (1770 or later) (Royal College of Music, London)

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 42 3
 performance of music from only the earliest years of
the 17th century, loomed much larger in its day; it
seems to have been players’ preferred bow until
c.1750. The long bow apparently began life as a spe-
cialty item, used first by some soloists, and generally
accepted only when musical styles changed so radi-
cally that the short bow really seemed impractical.
The late 18th-century period of transition appears
now to have been relatively short, beginning some-
what tentatively around 1760. The idea of the high-
headed, inward-cambred bow was an experiment
that makers attempted, each in his own way, while at
the same time producing the long bows that were
very much in favour; the model of François Tourte
was simply the most widely accepted result of this
ubiquitous experimentation. Although Tourte’s
work is brilliant, its lasting success is doubtless
partly the result of the nationalist consolidation of
French arts and commerce after the Revolution that
18 Paganini playing bow with transitional battle-axe head,
established the Conservatoire, as well as the position
Karl Begas lithograph, c.1820 (note similarity with head
of Paris as perhaps the longest-lived artistic centre in
of bow shown in illus.11a). (Haags Gemeentemuseum,
Europe.
Netherlands/www.bridgeman.co.uk)

This paper is expanded from my article 2 Quoted in E. L. Gerber, Neues 6 See the website
‘Bow c.1625–1800’ published in New Lexikon der Tonkünstler (1812–14), iv, www.patagonbird.com/generic.html?pid
Grove II (2000), originally researched col.372; cited in Neal Zaslaw’s
12 : ‘Palo santo, or holy wood in
between 1995 and 1997. Grateful unpublished notes. Period pictures of Spanish, is a naturally perfumed
acknowledgement is made to Professor soap-cutter’s knives—large unwieldy wood, found only in the Argentine
Neal Zaslaw of Cornell University, whose objects—show that von Murr’s and Paraguayan Chaco. Green and
unpublished materials referring to the analogy was either between the bow’s amber in color, it emits a clean, fresh
‘Tartini bow’, assembled during the and implement’s head shapes or the scent unlike any other wood. When
1970s, were key in the genesis of my own resemblance of the bow’s even hair-to- polished, it gets a smooth glow that
researches. I tender my gratitude as well stick distance to the parallel edges of makes the wood look like the “cat’s
to luthier and organologist Ian Watchorn the soap-cutting device. eye” stone. Indian people believed
of Melbourne, Australia, for calling my 3 See n.12 in Part I. that a couple who wanted to get
attention to many period bows in married, had to plant a palo santo.
European and Australian collections; to 4 H. Abele, Die Violine, ihre Geschichte If the plant grew normally, it meant
the fine period bow-maker and violinist und ihr Bau (Neuberg an der Donau, that they would have a happy
Stephen A. Marvin of Toronto, Canada, 1874), trans. J. Broadhouse as The marriage. The tree blooms in April
for his encouragement and generous violin: its history and construction and May.’ Referring to a plant as
exchange of ideas and information; and illustrated & described from many ‘holy’ often seems related to its
to David L. Hawthorne of Cambridge, sources (London, [1923]), pp.114–15. aromatic qualities: both the Italians
Massachusetts, a great bow-maker, for I chose this late version of the and Thai refer to their native species
helpful citations and gratifying attribution at random, but the of the herb basil as ‘holy basil’. In the
collaborations. sentiment echoes throughout the case of that herb and this tropical
late 18th and much of the 19th hardwood, there is clearly an
1 Francesco Galeazzi, Elementi
centuries. association with the incense used in
teoretico-pratici di musica con un saggio
l’arte del suonare il violino analizzata, 5 The letter was written to Neal religious practices.
ed a dimostrabili principi ridotta Zaslaw on 26 November 1969 by 7 Giuseppe Tartini, Regole per arrivare
(Rome, 1791), pp.76–7, sec. 18, quoted Dr Aldo Baldini (Capo dei Servizi di a saper ben suonar il violino, in Traité des
in P. Walls, ‘Mozart and the violin’, Segretaria, Amministrativi e agréments de la musique, ed. E.R. Jacobi
Early music, xx (1992), pp.18–20. Contabili). (Celle & New York, 1961), p.57.

42 4 early mu si c august 2004

8 Charles Burney, The Present State of without the slightest idea of who they
Music in Germany, the Netherlands, really were and when they lived. As
and United Provinces (London, 2/1775; irresponsible in these crude drawings,
R/New York, 1969), p.175. bows starting with ‘Corelli’ seem to
9 Francesco Geminiani, The Art of have screw-frogs, the earlier ones
Playing on the Violin (London, 1751; crémaillère and clip-in. Following the
R/1951), p.2.
first Woldemar chart, the obvious
motivation was the prejudicial
10 Leopold Mozart, Violinschule deprecation of all bows prior to
(Augsburg, 1756); trans. E. Knocker Tourte as primitive and unmusical.
(London, 1948), p.60. Even though the first book on the
11 The letters of Mozart and his family, bow, H. Saint-George, The bow, its
trans. E. Anderson (London, 1938; history, manufacture and use (London,
3/New York, 1985), p.24. 1889), contains very accurate sketches
(pp.25, 29) of the bows shown in
12 The letters of Mozart and his family,
illus.8a and b of part 1 of this article,
trans. Anderson, p.300.
the author finds it necessary to follow
13 The letters of Mozart and his family, his description of illus.8b (Part I) as
trans. Anderson, p.607. ‘extremely elegant’ with the phrase
14 Tartini, Regole per arrivare a saper ‘but useless as a bow’; ignorance and
ben suonar il violino. bias again won the day, as illus.8b (in
my collection), with different but
15 Leopold Mozart, Violinschule, p.58. equal strengths as a genuine François
16 D. D. Boyden, ‘The violin bow in Tourte bow, is no less brilliant a
the 18th century’, Early music, viii musical tool.
(1980), p.200. 20 The letters of Mozart and his
17 Copies of photos from the Museo family, trans. Anderson, p.384: letter
Stradivariano, Cremona collection (W. A. to L. Mozart) of 22 November
were graciously shared with me by 1777. Fränzl joined the Mannheim
period bow-maker Stephen A. Marvin. orchestra in 1747, becoming its leader
18 Revised second edition: Michel in 1774. ‘When the court was
Woldemar, Grand Méthode ou étude transferred to Munich in 1778, Fränzl
élémentaire pour le violon (Paris, 2/1800). remained in Mannheim and was
musical director of the Nationaltheater
19 Woldemar’s table in the 1801 from 1790 to 1803’: quoted from The
revision of Leopold Mozart’s letters of Mozart and his family, p.383,
Violinschule contains crudely drawn n.1. Cramer was in Mannheim from
bows with inaccurate information, 1757 through 1772. He is only
even asserting that Tartini’s bow mentioned in passing by Leopold in
(grotesquely represented) was the one a letter to his son on 9 February
‘adopted by Locatelli’. Several tables of 1778: The letters of Mozart and his
pre-Tourte bows appear in the 19th family, p.473.
century, notably by Pierre Baillot in
L’art du violon (Paris, 1834) and F-J. 21 ‘Tourte L.’ was originally thought
Fétis, in Antoine Stradivari, luthier to be ‘Louis Tourte’—‘Tourte père’,
célèbre (Paris, 1856). Less distorted than father of the famous François, but the
those in Woldemar’s second chart, current thinking is that ‘L.’ is Nicolas
Baillot’s representations attempt to Léonard, François’s older brother;
characterize the various permutations their father was Nicolas Pierre, so the
of transitional bow as distinct objects, son distinguished himself from the
assigning further obscure 18th-century elder Nicolas by using his middle
violinists to them; he misses the point initial in his stamp. These findings
that all transitional bows were simply appear in B. Millant, L’archet: les
different makers’ versions of the same ‘Tourte’ et les archetiers français,
aesthetic. The genuinely repugnant 1750–1950, 3 vols. (Paris, 2000), (text) i,
caricatures in the chart by Fétis pp.87–97.
deliberately depict fictitious ‘pre- 22 The bow in question is shown in
Corelli’ bows attributed to obscure E. vander Straeten, History of the violin
musicians like Bassani and Kircher, (London, 1933), i, opposite p.33. The
whose names Fétis obviously used bow has a ferrule, almost certainly a

e a r ly mu sic au g u st 2 0 04 42 5
later addition, with the word ‘Tartini’ Victoria and Albert Museum, London. 26 B. Schwarz, ‘Gaetano Pugnani’,
gracefully engraved on it. It was often assigned a date of c.1740, New Grove I.
23 What is most interesting is the but the original three-faceted frog 27 Before drawing any conclusions
clearly late date, given the style of attachment, organic cambre, throat about Paganini, no matter how
dress, for the depiction of a long bow. perpendicular to the hair, and late exciting, it is important to look at the
rectangular design of the original frog lithograph a bit more cautiously and
24 The mania for Antonio Stradivari indicate a date no earlier than c.1780.
that was created by maker/dealers like analytically. Although the head of the
Yet it still is used as a ‘Baroque’ bow by bow is of an early transitional model,
Jean-Baptiste Vuillaume (1798–1875) and many misinformed violinists. See G.
clever dealers to this day, has given rise and the bow is tightened so that the
Thibault, J. Jenkins and J. Bran-Ricci, hair is parallel with the apparently
to many absurd claims. There are at Eighteenth century musical instruments:
least two other bows that were slender stick, it is also clear that the
France and Britain (London, 1973), sharply rectangular frog is of a
attributed to Stradivari, regardless of the catalogue no.38; called a ‘pardessus de
fact that bows were never stamped; the modern variety. Therefore, although
viole’ there, obviously a randomly the lithograph appears almost
provenance of these bows is unknown, chosen description as that instrument
and there has never been a bow shown photographic, Begas seems to have
was used virtually exclusively in combined elements that may not
to be related to Stradivari or even his France, and only much earlier in the
workshop. They can both be seen in W. represent Paganini and his bow
18th century. Another example of a late accurately. Violin expert Jaak
Henry, Arthur F. and Alfred E. Hill, bow mistaken for an earlier one is Hill
Antonio Stradivari: his life and work (Liivoja-) Lorius comments in The
Collection no.20; an octagonal stick Strad, xciii (1982), p.377, that
(London, 1902; R/New York, 1963), with its upper two-thirds fluted, and
p.208. One of these inlaid, probably Paganini was said to prefer his
labelled ‘bass viol bow c.1740–50’, the accustomed bows by Pierre Sirjean
19th-century, fantasy bows was acquired apparent three-faceted frog
in the last decade by the Shrine to Music (1765–after 1820), even when offered
attachment, smooth cambre, and more valuable bows by J. B. Vuillaume
Museum in Vermillion, South Dakota, throat perpendicular to the hair
Item no.4882. at no charge later in his life. Of the few
indicate that it cannot have been made identifiable Sirjean bows, all are of the
25 One such hybrid violin bow that has before c.1775, by which date it would Tourte variety, none with any
been popular as a model for modern have to be a cello bow, the viol transitional features.
makers is an English bow in the long gone.

42 6 early mu si c august 2004