Introduction From the time between 1620 and 1640, really hundreds of dutch paintings, prints and drawings have survived that are relevant to the study of the instruments of the violin family. Nearly all of them, as far as one can see, show archaic features. And even more: they allow us to reconstruct an archaic type of violin that has vanished, and that can be compared to types from adjacent periods and regions. While extensively studying this forgotten lutherie style (1), the plan arose to make a reconstruction, not only on paper but also for real. It was of course impossible to make an exact copy or anything like it, simply because not one example of this type remains. Neither did I do extensive research trying to find mathematical formulas or applications of perspective drawing, or perfect choice of historically defendable materials and techniques, although some possibilities will be revealed at the end of this article. For the time being I simply conceived a violin that contains a number of stylistic and technical features of this "new archaic" type of instrument. I didn't choose the most frequent hallmarks, but the most characteristic ones. This made it possible to survey the area, with the intention to work out the project maybe later, using the experience gained now, and at the same time creating a pleasing visual and auditive testimony of my research. I'd like to explain in this article how I proceeded.
The project The outline, the arching and the proportion between the different parts of the violin were roughly based on instruments from the same period, but from a different country: the "Alemannische Schule" (Southern Schwarzwald and Switserland)(2). From that region a representative amount of examples has survived. They are very closely related, as far as style and construction are concerned, to what we can see on the dutch paintings. The neck-and-top-block- in-one technique and the long corners are examples of these resemblances. The shape of the corners is due to glueing the ribs without corner blocks.
As to style, you can find the same elongated soundholes in paintings by a.o. Judith Leyster. The double purfling, and the abrupt start of the fluting of the volutes ears has been represented by several dutch masters. Measuring the proportions of the neck, soundbox, scroll and pegbox revealed enough similarities, a.o. with the violin in frontal view on Leyster's "Fluteplayer". The arching of table and front looks very much alike too. The shoulders on the paintings are more rounded, but between for example the still lifes by Claesz and the German or Swiss instruments there are more points of similarity than differences. Besides, the final result of this enterprise is also very close to Claesz's paintings. And yet the Dutch instruments have their own peculiarities, and care has been taken to apply them: the "cutouts" at the inner sides of the pegbox, and as for the soundholes: the sharp corners of the wings, as well as the big notches and the identical diameter for the upper and lower circles. Also the method of construction was conceived in a way that at least those techniques were used, that could be deduced from the representations, namely: the long corners without corner blocks, and a very small top button as an indication for a top block and neck in one piece For the other characteristics of construction I turned towards what is known about surviving archaic instruments from the era. I took the option to cut the short bassbar out of the mass, not in the center as with the "Alemannic" violins, but on the bass side as in instruments from some other regions. For the tailpiece I chose, not for the straight shape, narrowing towards the button, but for a column shape, in this case mostly inspired on "The Prodigal Son" by Dirk Van Baburen. Although this is not the most frequent appearance, the middle ridge of the scroll was left out to gouge a deep central fluting as can be seen on the still lifes by Claesz. By doing so I could apply an archaic trope that is clearly distinctive from modern habits, namely stressing the difference between the pegbox on one hand and the head or the scroll on the other. The abrupt stopping of the fluting at the sides of the volute is strengthened by a similar movement of the central fluting. Finally the pegs have the typical sickle shape and instead of a normal button a similar peg was used, as seems to have been common those days.
The realization Following the chosen outline, a mixture of the "Alemannic" instruments and the paintings, the back was made the usual way. The edges however were left half a millimeter thicker than normal (4,5 and 5 mm instead of 4 and 4,5 mm), to leave enough strength after the grooves for both the double purfling and for inserting the sides were made. The long corners demanded a bee-sting that runs far beyond the rest of the outer putfling (ca. 5mm). The arching is 15 mm. Near the top button on the inside a surface was left flat to receive the neck and upper block-in-one later. The sides were bent in accordance with the groove in the underside of the back. Near the corners it was impossible to maintain the original thickness of the sides at 1 mm or more. They had to be trimmed down in order to introduce them together in the groove without making the overhang too small. The bottom block, following the edge perfectly, was glued right aside the groove. This way of assembling back and sides appeared to be strong enough and no extra reinforcement with parchment or linen was required. Meanwhile the neck and the typical scroll and pegbox were shaped. The sides of the pegbox, with the special "cutouts" were left quite thick as can be seen on the paintings. A groove was sawn out on both sides of the neck where the sides of the body were to be inserted. A pin in the upper button was used to center the neck. A nylon thread was tied to another pin temporarily fixed in the neck where the nut was to be glued, and tightened towards the middle of the lower block. In this way the neck could be glued exactly in the center. The upper surface of the fingerboard is parallel to the sides of the soundbox and sticks out for 4,5 mm, according to the thickness of the table's edges.
Inside the ribs, where the front was to be glued, little blocks were fixed instead of the normal linings, as in the "Alemannic" instruments. The outline of the table could now be designed, using the ribs fixed to the back as a "spontaneous" mould. This might result in a different outline for the back and the front, and on some of the paintings this asymmetry of contours can indeed clearly be seen, especially at the corners. The arching of the front is higher (18 mm) and a bit more straight lengthwise. The shape of the C bouts is typical. It seems as if the corners were bent and the rest was left straight. One notices in Claesz's paintings that this straight side is even curved a little outwards, as happens when the maker has bent the corners too far and neglects to correct. The circles for the f-holes (9 mm), and the soundholes themselves were worked out as usual, apart from the typical shape. The purfling continues underneath the fingerboard because there is no interruption for the usual mortise. The bottom nut was inserted halfways
The fingerboard, made of a piece of slightly flamed maple, is left undecorated: no inlay and no bracket-shaped end. Because the neck's angle is 0?it is the wedge-shaped fingerboard that defines the pressure of the strings. The tailpiece is made of two laminated pieces of maple for strength and is flat underneath.The round column shape of the tailpiece is suggested by its gradually slanting sides . It is attached to the bottom peg with a piece of gut string. The five ebony pegs were made out of standard ones, filed into the sickle shape that is typical for the violins on dutch paintings between 1620 and 1640. The small button in the middle of the concave end is characteristic too and was glued in separately. The bridge was made the regular way following the model designed in advance. Because of the unorthodox placement of the bridge, a few centimeters behind the notches in the f-holes, the soundpost, with only a diameter of 5 mm. had to be placed more towards the tailpiece side too. Whereas the bridge remained untreated, the fingerboard and the tailpiece were enriched with linseed oil. The middle part of the neck and the pegs were polished. The instrument itself received a coat of commercial violinmakers' varnish but care was taken to make the colour match as much as possible the originals, meaning the paintings. I chose gut, even for the G-string.
Conclusions In three fields conclusions can be drawn from the experiment described above: technical, acoustical and historical-aesthetical. The archaic methods of construction appear to be strong enough after all, even without reinforcement: the corners, the ribs, back, front and neck are strongly anchored, in spite of the sometimes small glueing surfaces. However, it would be wise to look for ways to enlarge the dimensions of the soundbox for bigger content. This would certainly increase the quality of the lower register. Because the G-string is plain gut for the sake of authenticity its sound is not very strong and rather unstable. A thicker string might give a better result, but could in turn reduce playability. On the other hand some sources from the era mention the weak sounding G-string. So should we keep it after all? When played with an appropriate bow near the bridge the instrument proves to be perfectly suited for the type of music it was used for in its own time: straight short bow rhythmic renaissance pub fiddle dancing music (Praetorius, Susato and certainly lots of lost tunes). It only lacks volume. But maybe our modern ears are a bit spoiled? For dancing music, played with the violin helt against the collarbone, the broad neck without inclination is perfectly suitable, and especially when playing double strings (including the weak G- string) one can produce ample rhythm and volume. It is certainly possible to investigate upon historically sound materials. For the varnish and glue for example it could be useful to reach back to ancient treatises. The study of old dutch furniture could be a useful source of inspiration as well.
Finally it should be possible to redesign the outline of these instruments. The principles of perspective drawing could be an interesting addition here. They were already applied for a similar project: the reconstruction of a viol on a painting by Rafael(3). It is known that painters from old times used techniques allowing an exact representation of perspective. An interesting addition to all this is the fact that some of the dutch painters apparently depicted several times the same violin from different points of view, a.o. Pieter Claesz and Dirk Van Baburen. In Baburen's paintings it is an instrument with a bearded head on top of the pegbox, shown several times from the front, the side and the back, including a view of the inlayed back. Claesz painted a violin showing double purfling and a few amazing details: even the joint where the ribs are glued together at the corners is visible. The question to what extent these artists systematically used tools to take exact measurements for their images remains. But even so it is worth following the intuition of these masters, not forgetting of course that it will be impossible to procure an exact reconstruction, yet one that bears the spirit of those instruments that once existed. And in fact that goal was reached with this first effort in that direction, which I have just reported upon. Footnotes (1) Wim RAYMAEKERS, De vormkenmerken van de instrumenten der vioolfamilie in de 17de-eeuwse Nederlandse schilderkunst, in Musica antiqua. Actuele informatie over oude muziek, 6, 3, 1989, p.98-105. (2) Olga ADELMANN, Die Alemannische Schule. Archaischer Geigenbau des 17. Jahrhunderts im südlichen Schwarzwald und in der Schweiz, Berlijn, 1990. (3) Toon Moonen, The Art of the Viol Maker. A Renaissance Viol based on a Painting by Raphael, in The Strad, 106, 1261, 1995, p. 506-510.