adivari, but in every case
this statement has been made without a shadow of proof, either from
recorded fact or analogy. That this bare assertion should have so long
remained unchallenged is a matter of some surprise to the writer of
these pages, who fails to see anything in common between the two
makers, with the exception of the varnish, and perhaps the high
finish, as apparent in the works of the second epoch of Guarneri. The
following remarks on this point are the result of the most careful
consideration of the subject, and may serve to assist the reader in
forming an opinion.

Had Giuseppe Guarneri received his early instructions from Stradivari,
should we not expect his instruments to bear the character of the
master in some slight degree? The most diligent student will, however,
fail to discover an early work of Guarneri bearing any likeness
whatever to the work of Stradivari. Among the instruments of the
second epoch may be found a few that show some gleam of the desired
similarity in respect of high finish; but it would be to the earliest
efforts of Guarneri that we should turn in our endeavour to discover
the source of his first instructions. The faint gleam of similarity,
then, attaching to the instruments of the second epoch, be it
understood, is in no way sufficient to demonstrate that Guarneri was a
pupil of Stradivari. Upon turning to other makers, what will be the
result if we judge them by the criterion above mentioned? Bergonzi,
Guadagnini, Gagliano, and others, whose names it is unnecessary to
mention, leave upon their earliest efforts the indelible stamp of the
master who first instructed them. To suppose that Guarneri del Gesu
formed the single exception to the likeness between the work of master
and pupil, is scarcely sufficient to satisfy the inquiry.

There are three essential points of difference between Guarneri and
Stradivari. The first is the outline of the work, which, as the mere
tyro must at once observe, is totally different in their respective
instruments. The second is the sound-hole, in which, again, the two do
not approach one another; that of Guarneri is long, and a modified
form of that of Gasparo da Salo. The third is the scroll, in which
Guarneri is as distinct from Stradivari as it is possible to be.

It may be asked, then, if not from Stradivari, from whom did Guarneri
receive instruction?[10] To disagree with what is popularly accepted,
and yet to withhold one's own counter-