Spectrographic research was carried out on MIMEd 329 and 5851 by means of photographic documentation, both in the visible range spectra and in ultraviolet (UV) induced fluorescence. In addition, spectroscopic and micro-chemical analyses have been performed in order to characterize the materials in the varnish of both instruments and to compare the results.
The UV images show two different surface treatments. Both instru-ments appear to have an outer layer of a whitish-yellow material, maybe residue of a finishing agent or polish applied in previous restorations that covers several areas of the top plates. Underneath this white-yellow layer, MIMEd 329 reveals a brighter yellow-coloured layer under the tailpiece area which appears to indicate the presence of a possible exposed section of original varnish. The back of the instrument also shows a brighter yel-low fluoresce under UV. Between the f-holes and under the fingerboard, there is a widespread dark fluorescence typical of bare wood, suggesting the absence of varnish on those areas. The decorative elements are clearly drawn under the varnish, probably applied directly to the wood [Fig.14].
On MIMEd 5851, a brown-orange varnish is visible and evenly spread across the top plate surface except between the f-holes, where the dark colour of fluorescence highlights the absence of varnish.
8 Email conversation with Peter Ratcliff on 4/4/2018.
Fig.14 Image of the lower bass corner under visible light (left) and under UV spectra (right).
Fig.15 Stereo microscopy images of the sample of purfling from MIMED 329 (left) and MIMEd 5851 (right).
Fig.16 Cross section images of fluorescence induced by UV of MIMED 329 (left) and MIMED 5851 (right).
Fig.14
Fig.15
Fig.16
These results can be confirmed by the study of the cross sections of the samples carried out by optical microscopy at 100x magnifications (Fig.16). In the image of the MIMEd 329 cross section taken under UV induced fluorescence (left), it is possible to evidence the presence of the white materials (point 1) with the black decoration (point 2) that, in turn, seems to cover the wood layer (point 3). In this image it is evident that the black layer is a thin coloured material applied on the wood ground, confirming the presence of a decoration technique to imitate the purfling. In contrast, the cross section of the MIMED 5851 sample (right) shows the same white material (point 1) spread on the surface of both the black wood (probably ebony) of the purfling (point 2) and the brown-orange varnish layer (point 3).
Finally, the cross sections of the samples have been analysed using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) at higher magnifications in order to better understand the distribution of the materials and to character-ize the pigments or particles via an Energy Dispersive X-Ray (EDX) analyser that can provide information about the elements present in the cross section [Fig.17].
The results highlighted in Fig.17(a) show a similar distribu-tion of the white materials spread on the wood (SEM images), and this behaviour is confirmed by the EDX analysis that shows the same elemental composition for this material in both instruments, with peaks related to sulphur, potassium and calcium [Fig.17(b)]. This elemental composition confirms the use of sulphates of K and Ca with the aim of preparing the surfaces. The overlapping of both spectra indicates that both instruments underwent the same treatment but not necessar-ily with the same materials. In the case of the MIMED 5851 spectrum, even signs of the presence of feldspar are evident, which could be cor-related to the use of earth as a pigment for the brown-orange varnish.
The analysis performed on the black area of the purflings [Fig.17(c)]
revealed a high iron content in MIMEd 329, consistent with the use of an iron-based ink to decorate the top plate (probably an iron-gall ink), while the emission peak of iron in the purfling of MIMED 5851 is very low, suggesting the use of an undyed, natural wood, probably ebony.
The differences in the varnishes and surface treatments between the two analysed instruments are very clear under UV fluorescence and show the evidence of substantial wear, attesting for both instruments that at some point they were regularly played.
In order to better understand the differences in the constituents of the coating of these two instruments, two micro samples from the purfling area of both instruments were taken, sampling at the same time the varnishes and the treatments of the top plates. Fig.15 shows the micro-sample images taken by stereo microscopy at high magni-fication, where the differences in the black layer of the purfling can be appreciated. In the MIMEd 329 sample (left) the black material seems just to cover the wood and appears shiny and well distributed.
MIMED 5851 sample (right) clearly shows the presence of black wood applied on the wood of the top plate, which confirms the inlay purfling technique.
Fig.17
7. Conclusions
Based on the research carried out, it can be established that MIMEd 329 and DC-A54 were most likely made by the same maker using the same template. On the other hand, although MIMEd 5851 is probably the same kind of instrument and shares the same body length and style, there are enough differences in design, construction method, and wood choice and quality, to establish that it was not made by the same person. There is no doubt that two violins of the classical school of Cremona with differences in size, construction style, and outline as those found between MIMEd 329 and 5851 would never be attributed to the same maker. It is understand-able that the rather small number of instruments with these characteris-tics makes it tempting to attribute them to one maker or workshop, but given the physical evidence to the contrary, this appears not to be the case.
The inked decorations on MIMEd 329 and DC-A54 appear to be craft style ornaments in line with those found in traditional instru-ments like fiddles. Similarly, the rather crude carving with tool marks left visible on the internal side of the body is consistent with tradi-tional instrument-making, and not the work of a member of a family considered “among the most important wind instrument makers of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries” [14]. Unfortunately, at this time we were not able to provide answers to our initial questions: what are these instruments, who made them and when? Further study will be necessary to reach more conclusive results.
ac k n o w l e d G e M e n t S: Jason Sutcliffe, Linda Fairlie, Dr. Darryl Martin, Peter Ratcliff, Dr. Katarina cˇufar, Dr. Michael Grabner, Dr. Micha Beuting, Dr. Marco Malagodi, Fausto Cacciatori, Dr. Massimiliano Guido, Luca Rocca, Dr. Sarah Deters.
This project was partially funded by the Thompson-Dunlop Bequest.
References
[1] M. D. Banks, “The violin piccolo and other small violins,” Early Music, vol. 18, no., pp. 588-596, Nov. 1990.
[2] L. Mozart, A Treatise on the Fundamen-tal Principles of Violin Playing, trans. Ed-itha Knocker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1951.
[3] P. Cadell, “Sharpe, Charles Kirkpatrick,”
Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
[Online]. Available: http://www.ox-forddnb.com/
[4] J. G. Dalyell, Musical Memoirs of Scotland, with Historical Annotations and Numerous Illustrative Plates. Edinburgh: T.G. Steven-son, 1849.
[5] A. Myers, Historic Musical Instruments in the Edinburgh University Collection, Cata-logue of the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments, Vol. 2, Part K, Ancillary Equipment. Edinburgh: Uni-versity of Edinburgh, 1995.
[6] C. K. Sharpe, Letters from and to Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, ed. Alexander Allar-dyce. Edinburgh: W. Blackwood, 1888.
[7] A. Myers, Historic Musical Instruments in the Edinburgh University Collection, Cata-logue of the Edinburgh University Collection of Historic Musical Instruments, Vol. 2, Part C, Fascicle i: viols and violins. Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh, 1995.
[8] B. Hebbert, “The British Museum citole as a 16th-century violin. Context and at-tribution,” in J. Robinson, N. Speakman and K. Buehler-McWilliams, Eds., The British Museum Citole: New Perspectives.
London: The British Museum Press, 2015.
[9] E. Van Der Straeten, “Sale of the van Raalte collection of old instruments,”
Musical Times, vol. 68, no. 1014, p. 712, Aug. 1, 1927.
[10] C. Galpin, Auction Sale of the Contents of the Mansion. The van Raalte Collection.
Brownsea Castle. Brownsea Island: Fox &
Sons, 1927.
[11] Sotheby’s & Co, Dean Castle Kilmarnock.
An Inventory and Valuation of the Charles van Raalte Collection of Musical Instruments.
Made for the Purpose of Insurance. London:
author, 1975.
[12] J. Downing, “An inventory of the Charles van Raalte collection of instru-ments,” Fellowship of Makers and Research-ers of Historical Instruments Quarterly, vol.
24, pp. 57-72, July, 1981.
[14] D. Lasocki and P. Roger, The Bassanos:
Venetian Musicians and Instrument Makers in England, 1531-1665. Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1995.
[15] H. and R. St. George, The Visitation of London, Anno Domini 1633, 1634, and 1635, Vol. 1. Publications of the Harleian So-ciety. London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1880.
[16] E. Selfridge-Field, Venetian Instrumental-ists in England: A Bassano Chronicle (1538-1660). Florence: Leo S. Olschki, 1979.
[17] P. D. Matthews, The Bassanos Jew-ish Guardians of the Ancient Arts, [On-line]. Available: http://petermatthews.
com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
PAPER-v2-The-Bassanos-Jewish-Guard-ians-of-the-Ancient-Arts.pdf Accessed on:
March 30, 2018.