Interesting Mandolin (?)

[neal]

Hi, thought you guys might find this interesting. #Me? #I wouldn't know what to do with it, but could you tell me what it is? #Here it is (Ebay, of course)

[pklima]

I lack the expertise to say anything worthwhile (all I know is I've seen a photo or two of early 6-course mandos and ebony/ivory backs), but it sure does look impressive, not to mention laborious.

[Eugene]

This beast has passed eBay in the past. I don't believe it sold. The flat back-bent peghead did occur on rare occasions, but is not typical. I don't know if this piece was intended for use as a mandolino or soprano lute. I would guess mandolino...but it probably saw more use as a showpiece than a musical instrument.

[Jim Garber]

There is one instrument pictured in the Baines book and labelled as a mandore that has lutelike tuning box. Illustration 199-200 in that book.

This seller lives not too far from me. I bought a viola from him a few years ago. He is a character and scours the flea markets constantly.

Jim

[etbarbaric]

I too remember seeing this thing go by before.... It is certainly odd... and I am still not sure what to make of it. I agree with Eugene that its principal purpose seems to be ornament, rather than function. It seems to resemble nothing in particular, and everything all at once. The instrument is certainly not typical of most mandolas/mandores/mandolinos that I know (though it may indeed be a variation on one of the above). The rose, the inlay, the fingerboard points, the peghead, the chunks of ivory... all are distinctly strange. It seems even Francolini stopped short of this... though there are elements that do remind one of his not-so-subtle touch for anachronism.

In any case, I shall not be bidding! (Thank God! :-))

Eric

ps - Counter to this, I have recently been enjoying "Geometry, Proportion and the Art of Lutherie" by Kevin Coates. He makes a good argument that most successful stringed instrument models (like most architecture) are rooted in a rigorous system of geometry and proportion. One can take this idea too far, of course, but it rings true for me. According to Coates, even the Neapolitan mandolin was based on such a system... before it got carried away in the extravegances of the late 18th century :-)

[onthefiddle]

This instrument doesn't sit clearly in any of Stephen Morey's categories. It's perhaps closest to his Mandore/Mandurichen category, though these have pegboxes (either in Lute or Mandolino style) rather than pegheads, and no more than five courses. There is an example at the Victoria & Albert Museum. He does describe one unlabelled and uncategorised instrument, at the Museo Degli Strumenti in Milan, which may resemble this. There is no illustration though.

The rose is positioned very low in the body, there may be some sort of proportional scheme happening here - that's very hard to completely avoid in a musical instrument though! The rose does appear to have been designed in the tradition of Sacred Geometry, which began before the introduction of the Lute into Europe, though not in its purest form.
I think this instrument may have been inspired more by opportunistic use of the shell.

Decoration of musical instruments was one way of displaying wealth, and could be taken to extreme excess sometimes. For instance, I think that there is no point in discussing the merits of Domenico Galli's arching on the back of this Cello!

Jon

[etbarbaric]

Wow... that cello looks like it broke out in a bad rash! Check out the short original fingerboard.

I personally have no problem with ornament... even plentiful ornament... as long as it is done tastefully. Yes, yet another subjective judgement call.

Eric

[Eugene]

This instrument doesn't sit clearly in any of Stephen Morey's categories. It's perhaps closest to his Mandore/Mandurichen category, though these have pegboxes (either in Lute or Mandolino style) rather than pegheads, and no more than five courses.

I definitely would not catregorize this thing as mandore/mandurichen. It just looks to be too late and sports a full six courses. To me, it looks like a freakish hybrid of 6-course mandolino and very early Neapolitan mandolin. I don't think "taste in ornament" entered the luthier's head when he was duking up this commission!

[Eugene]

There is one instrument pictured in the Baines book and labelled as a mandore that has lutelike tuning box. Illustration 199-200 in that book.

I don't have the Baines book on hand in my office. I'll try to remember to look it up at home in the near future. However, one should always take Baines's categorization of "mandore" with a decidedly large grain (cobble?) of salt. He used that term as a term of convenience to differentiate early, non-Neapolitan mandolin types from the modern instruments. I think he even acknowledges this somewhere in the text. So, to avoid the confusion of calling things that were dissimilar to modern mandolins by the name their users would have applied (mandola, amandorla, etc., but most especially mandolino), he applied the name of a functionally extinct instrument in intentional error.

[onthefiddle]

It is a very strange beast indeed! I agree that that this is very unlikely to be a Mandore/Mandurichen.

The other instrument I mentioned from Morey is in section 13.3 "Other 6 course mandolins". He says of this mandolin "It has a large peg box with 12 posterior pegs arranged in two rows of 6", which I'm interpreting as what I would call a peghead (as opposed to a pegbox, as found on Mandolinos and Violins). He doesn't mention the peghead being set at such an extreme angle (more like that of a lute pegbox).
Other obvious differences are that he felt that the instrument in Milan didn't originally have its strings attached to the bridge, and that the instrument in Milan has a scratchplate, which this lacks.

If the lack of a scratchplate indicates that it was meant to be played with fingers, rather than a plectrum, does this give any clues to when, or even where, it might have been made?

[etbarbaric]

Hi Jon,

Something else bothered me about the photograph of the Dominico Galli cello you provided... it is actually a violin, and not a cello. Though its maker is apparently known for having made cellos.

This is what I was getting at... most of our brains are quickly able to distinguish between the subtle outline differences and attributes of these instruments. The odd little plucked instrument at the subject of this thread seems at once familiar... and at the same time utterly strange.

The difference is that the Galli instrument is clearly a violin... consistent with what we think a violin of that period should look like, and rather well proportioned at that underneath all of its over-the-top ornament. The plucked instrument just doesn't seem to fit in. It could have been built naively as a piece of ornamental furniture. It could also have been modified at a later date (again naively) such that its original form is hidden.

The ornament on the Galli violin is at least consistent, the back goes with the front and the peghead/scroll. The plucked instrument seems like a pastiche. The finely engraved fingerboard panel seems positively insulted by the strobing marquis of pearl-in-mastic that surrounds the front of the instrument. The flat-cut-out rose (again surrounded by the ever-present pearl-in-mastic) seems very plain (two dimensional) for a lute-like instrument of the 16th-18th centuries. And I keep expecting one of the panels on the back to slide aside to reveal a concealed dagger.

Maybe Alex will have some input...

Eric

[onthefiddle]

Oops! You are correct there Eric! I was actually thinking of one of his Cellos when I was typing, and did a quick search to find an example. I should have checked more carefully. On the Cello I was thinking of the carving appears to actually go right through the back in a number of places - still more extreme!

In a well designed instrument we should react to it's proportions in the same manner as to proportions in music. Geometrical proportion as it relates to musical intervals was very much in the minds of the better luthiers in the Baroque and Renaissance. This was not just in terms of looks, most Violin Makers regard the outline of an instrument as being an important factor in what makes a particular model work well. The most important other factors being the arching (which has its own geometries as well) and the size and position of the f holes (more geometry!) I'm sure that makers of other stringed instruments have the same approach, especially as they were often one and the same person!

Jon

[onthefiddle]

I think I may have typing as you were editing then Eric.
The outline of this instrument is dictated by the shell that has been used for the back.
The rose, while being plain compared to those found in many mandolin and guitar family instruments, is consistent with Lute and Cittern roses, both in its depth and geometry. The geometry of Lute roses is very traditional and symbolic, dating back to its Middle Eastern origins, carving the rose out of the soundboard is one of the marks of the skill of a Lute maker. Cittern roses generally adopted the same underlying geometry, though stylistically different. Cittern roses were normally made from a seperate piece of (pear) wood. There was a very good article published in the Galpin Society Journal some years ago on the geometry of Lute roses. I'll try and find it for you Eric.
This type of rose does appear odd when surrounded by a second inlaid rose. Perhaps it was a later addition, taken from another instrument. The positioning of the rose is also very odd. Perhaps this instrument has had more than one incarnation, and has been built from part(s) of an older one.

[etbarbaric]

Hi Jon,

Actually, I'm a lute player of sorts and I'm at least somewhat familiar with traditional lute, guitar, and mandolino rose designs and techniques (I even carved one once :-)). I'm not saying the design isn't typical, it just seems very plainly executed when compared with some of the other elements (its hard to say more from the photographs). For instance, I see almost no relief carving of the rose. I'm just saying its one more thing that seems incongruous to me... epecially with the pearl/mastic surround.

This type of rose does appear odd when surrounded by a second inlaid rose. Perhaps it was a later addition, taken from another instrument. The positioning of the rose is also very odd. Perhaps this instrument has had more than one incarnation, and has been built from part(s) of an older one.

We agree... that's why I mentioned Francolini. He was well-known for pasting together pieces of surviving instruments to "create" pieces for collections and museums. This was often done with no regard for historical appropriateness or original intent. I recently saw a Smorzone mandolino that had likely been hacked by Francolini... very sad indeed, and hardly recognizable for what it once was.

Eric

[onthefiddle]

Hi Eric,

I know of Francolini, he does spring to mind doesn't he? It may not be as bad as that though - instruments were often altered to conform to the needs of players of the time. As a Lutenist I'm sure you are familiar with that practice, the same also happened to Viols and Violin family instruments. The last surviving Citole has survived as a fiddle. If this is the case with this instrument it is perhaps not the most sympathetic of adaptations though.

I was once introduced as a Lutenist, rather than as a Luthier. I felt rather honoured, though I don't play the Lute!

Jon

[neal]

Thanks and a hat-tip, gents!

[Eugene]

There is one instrument pictured in the Baines book and labelled as a mandore that has lutelike tuning box. Illustration 199-200 in that book.

This looks like the rare instance where Baines is using the term "mandore" to describe...well, something that probably should be considered a mandore, the type of instrument, e.g., for which the material of the Skene book was intended.