Does Restoration Destroy Evidence?

Author(s): John Barnes

Source: Early Music, Vol. 8, No. 2, Keyboard Issue 2 (Apr., 1980), pp. 213+215-218
Published by: Oxford University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3126779
Accessed: 09-09-2018 13:20 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Early Music

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Does restoration destroy evidence?
JOHN BARNES

j5?X
AV joy'~ ~a

Restorer's signature
now in the Kultu

In his article 'The Unverdorben lute at Fenton House' arisen, and the restorer then finds himself pressurized
(EM 7/2, April 1979), Christopher Challen rightlyinto meeting the deadline of' the inaugural recital. To
questions some of' the assumptions which seem to some extent, therefore, a conscientious restorer should
guide present-day restorations of' old instruments. be prepared to dig in his heels and defend his stan-
One of' the reasons that restoration to playing order dards
is against those museum administrators who are
more popular in museums than it deserves to be has particularly keen to serve the general public.
not, I think, been mentioned publicly, but goes someViews similar to those expressed by Christopher
Challen were argued by Edwin M. Ripin in the discus-
way towards explaining the present situation. It lies in
the career structure of museums themselves and in the sion which followed Dr Jannine Lambrechts-Douillez's
role which they are trying to play in educating and lecture 'Should the Vleehuis Instrument Collection
entertaining the general public and I feel it is impor- be restored or copied?' (at the 1970 Ruckers
tant to look realistically at some of the social problems Genootschap, Antwerp). The discussion was recorded
before becoming involved with technical ones. on tape and exists in a typed transcript, but was not
Museum curators win praise, recognition and published with the formal papers.* Ripin's contribu-
professional advancement by promoting publications, tion to this discussion was a calculated and deliberate
exhibitions and restorations. The restorations which attempt to change the attitude of' the staff of the instru-
are most popular with those who make the decisions
ment museums, who were well represented at the con-
and spend the money are those which capture ference.
the He invited Martin Skowroneck and myself' to
support
attention of' the general public. Inevitably these tend to him, which we did to the best of' our abilities,
be restorations of' important instruments to playing and I think that the initiative succeeded to some
order. We have seen recently the entry of' many extent. Ripin saw that museums were destroying t
museums into the concert-promotion field, featuring information he wished to collect and that the destruc-
their restored instruments. While most of' the effects of'
tion was largely caused by restoration. He felt like a
this are beneficial, there are a few drawbacks which collector of folksongs whose singers were dying before
tend to reduce standards of' conservation and restora- he had time to write down their songs.
tion. A concert series can throw a strain on facilities for Any examination of the assumptions which
maintaining a suitable physical environment (particu- influence restoration decisions should, I think, draw
larly as regards humidity). There is also the tempta- attention to one of the properties of' old instruments
tion to launch an important restoration by arranging a which is hardly ever mentioned. This is their ability to
public recital and, since this must be planned about a provide answers to well-directed questions. The
year in advance, the restorer is asked for a reasonable questions being asked about instruments are gradually
estimate of his completion date. As the date becoming more sophisticated and recondite. Where, in
approaches, however, it is usual to find, for a variety of' * Colloquium, Restauratieproblemen van Antwerpse klavecimbels, Ruckers
genuine reasons, that some unforeseen difficulties have Genootschap, Antwerp 1970.

EARLY M'USIC APRIL 1980 213

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
my own field of' keyboard instruments, the important instruments or more from the same workshop, in
questions used to be how the jack mechanism worked which common features will often become apparent.
and how the short octave was tuned, they are now The detection of deviant or fake instruments, wrong
more likely to concern whether a particular surviving attributions, or mere non-original parts will often
instrument has the characteristics most suited to the become unexpectedly easy after a large number of
works of a particular composer or period. It is impor- similar instruments has been examined in detail. It is
tant, therefore, to ask how old instruments provide also likely that criteria will be discovered for dating an
answers and how vulnerable to interference is the instrument which has lost part of its identification, or
information they embody. In what follows, I shall be for dating a change of* design or materials.
considering keyboard instruments specifically, but If' we examine how the various details mentioned
most of my remarks apply also to instruments of other above are deduced from the instrument, we can build
types.
up a picture of' the vulnerability of' this evidence to
The value of' an old instrument as a document interference, e.g. from restoration. This, in turn, will
depends on the questions which one is trying to answersuggest ways in which restoration practices may be
and the closeness with which the instrument is studied.
improved. The practical value of this evidence is in the
It is usually possible to learn something of the sourceextra understanding of the design and building of old
of the various woods, the tools used in preparing the instruments which it gives to the present-day builder
parts, the order in which they were assembled, the of reproductions and to the restorer of antiques. This,
methods of laying out the hitch pins, bridge pins andin turn, benefits the players of* reproduction or old
tuning pins, and the methods of' finishing the case instruments, and the listening public. In addition, the
surfaces. Less frequently is it possible to see evidenceplayer sometimes benefits directly, when wear patterns
of how the original maker carried out the stringing, on old instruments give a clue to playing techniques.
quilling and voicing operations, or how (in pianos) heAs far as the sources of' timber are concerned, the
applied hammer leather. It may also be possible to evidence will only be lost by the removal of some of'
deduce some of' the original adjustments, e.g. the the timber itself. Past restorers whose practice was to
original depth of touch or the plucking order. A clear replace jacks or soundboards are troublesome from
impression can usually be gained of' the speed and this point of view. Evidence for the use of' tools is
accuracy with which the work was done, and whether
largely in the surfaces of the worked parts; some
the maker tended to work less carefully on parts which
cleaning processes could obviously reduce the
did not show.
evidence. The order of' assembly can sometimes be
The above details concern the original maker and deduced from the cut of the joints, the marking-out
the way he worked. The instrument, however, may and the direction of the glue runs. The joints can often
carry evidence concerning its use at different periods,
be assembled only in a certain order. If two scribed
e.g. in the wear patterns of' the keys, the semitone lines cross, it is usually possible to see which was made
spacing of' the tangents of a frietted clavichord, wear
first. Glue runs can show that one part was already
patterns in plectrum holes where quills have been there when another was glued in, and often reveal
replaced and, of' course, actual alterations to the
which way up the instrument was when gluing took
compass, specification, etc. If' the strings and quills
place. Scribed lines can be damaged by moisture and
present are not original there may still be interesting
heat, and glue runs will disappear if' extensive re-
evidence concerning the way these were wound or cut,
gluing takes place.
and they may throw light on the instrument's history
Evidence for layout methods resides mainly in con-
in a later period.
struction lines, such as those along tuning pins or hitch
If' two or more instruments allegedly by the same
pins. The implication of a scribed line connecting the
maker are studied most of' the details concerning thetuning pins is that the line was made befbre the holes
original state will be relevant in deciding whether they
fbr the pins were drilled, and that the holes were
are, in fact, from the same workshop or whether thedrilled with the line visible. This means that the maker
attributions are suspect. Two or more instruments, was not using a template, i.e. a two-dimensional
especially if they are of the same design, will often
pattern, but was using a method fbr locating the lateral
provide evidence of layout procedures that cannot be
position on the line where the tuning pin should stand.
deduced from studying only one instrument. ThisThe is most likely time for this process is after the nut or
particularly true of' studies which involve a dozen
bridge pins have been fitted, because each tuning pin
EARLY MUSIC APRIL 1980 215

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 position can then be located from the adjacent nut or
SPANISH bridge-pin position using a simple jig incorporating
the side-draft angle. Construction lines often reveal
KEYBOARD MUSIC
the approximate form of the patterns which the maker
Sebastian ALBERO (18th cent.)
Treinte Sonatas ?8.10
retained in his shop for the purpose of reproducing
standard dimensions
Carlos BAGUER (1768-1808) Seis for each new instrument. It?5.30
Sonatas may
be possible to
Manuel BLASCO DE NEBRA (18th cent.)deduce further clues from a dimen-
Seis Sonatas ?3.25
sional comparison of several similar instruments, by
Joaquim MONTERO (18th cent.)
Seis Sonatas ?8.10
noting the dimensions which are accurately fixed and
Antonio SOLER those which are allowed to vary.
(1729-1783) 120Construction lines are
Sonatas
ed. S. Rubio not usually vulnerable to damage in careful restora-
Vol. 1 Sonatas 1- 20 ?7.70
Vol. 2 ,, 21- 40 ?8.10 tions but it is important that no parts of the instru-
Vol. 3 ,, 41- 60 ?8.10 ment are allowed to disappear.
Vol. 4 ,, 61- 68 ?7.70 As regards finishing methods and evidence of'
Vol. 5 ,, 69- 90 ?6.00
workmanship, it is often difficult to be sure whether a
Vol. 6 ,, 91- 99 ?7.70
Vol. 7 ,, 100-120 ?8.30 case was originally finished in one way or another and
MUSICA VASCA DEL SIGLO XVIII-- whether a soundboard was originally varnished. Such
Basque composers ?3.25 evidence is particularly vulnerable to destruction by
NEUVA BIBLIOTECA ESPANA-Works
from the 16th to 18th centuries ed. Baciero
finishes applied after restoration or conservation.
Vol. 1 ?8.10 Vol. 3 ?8.10 Evidence of workmanship is usually as permanent as
Vol. 2 ?8.10 Vol. 4 ?9.10 the construction lines mentioned above.
SEIS PIEZAS PARA CLAVE U ORGANO
While original strings, quills, etc, are usually
(18th cent.) ed. F. Civil ?5.20
thought of' as ephemera, they are especially valuable
UNITED MUSIC PUBLISHERS LTD
1 Montague Street, Russell Square, London WC1when they do survive and their disturbance is often an
B 5BS
Tel: 01-636 5171 unfortunate consequence of' deciding to restore an
instrument to playing order. If restoration manages to
retain them, the disadvantage arises that they will
MAR TIN RENSHA W usually be subject to wear friom playing the restored
instrument. Wear patterns and adjustments on non-
OR GAN MAKER AND DESIGNER ephemeral parts are usually safe in an unrestored
North Lyminge, Folkestone, Kent CT18 8EE, England
instrument, but the method of restoration can decide
Telephone: Lyminge (0303) 862595 whether or not the wear patterns and adjustments
'APT FOR VOICES OR VIOLS' survive restoration. The older kind of' restoration
usually destroyed most of this evidence but often a few
pieces of evidence have survived by accident.
The survival of evidence is closely linked to the
8' Stopped Diapason degree to which the treatment is reversible. This axiom
4' Principal should increase our interest in reversible processes and
2j' Twelfth lead us to realize that most so-called reversible pro-
2' Fifteenth
cesses are, in fact, only partially reversible.
-all oak pipes
The only operations which are fully reversible are
Compass CC-c 49 notes those concerned with the dry assembly, without force,
of' separate parts. Thus a set of'jacks may be removed
and replaced any number of times without any damage
taking place. Provided that components are identified
Copies of this important early 17th-century instrument are being as they are removed and are re-assembled accord-
made-some with transposing keyboards for continuo use, with ingly, there is no reason why such a process should
simpler oak cases and electric blowing.
involve any loss of evidence.
Orders for the first batch of five organs are now being taken.
Please send SAE for details, and to arrange inspection of prototype Next in order of degree of reversibility are the dry
copy now available. processes involving force (stringing, quilling, etc) and
processes which involve the releasing of glued joints

216 EARLY MUSIC APRIL 1980

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
and the re-gluing of separated solid parts (e.g. the The anonymous Italian harpsichord c 1620,
Russell Collection, University of Edinburgh.
removal of a soundboard). Old quills and strings are The soundbar (shown below magnified)
usually damaged in removal, and the exact mounting was discovered loose inside the instrument

relationship tends to be lost. It is best to perform and was re-glued in its former position-
see dotted lines. After the rose had been
releasing and re-gluing operations as few times as renmoved, the soundbar was manipulated,
possible, though, if carefully done they can be working through the rose hole of 94 min
diameter, without disturbing the case or
regarded for most purposes as reversible. The evidence
soundboard.
which is liable to disappear as a result of this kind of'
process concerns the original gluing of the part and
may not be of great importance.
The removal of soft parts, e.g. leather, from hard
parts, e.g. wood, is often irreversible. The choice
sometimes has to be made either to cut the soft part
dry, leaving traces still glued in place, or to soak the
glue and damage the soft part. A dry cut will usually
preserve more evidence and is therefore preferable,
especially if replacements can be glued on a neigh-
bouring spot in order to avoid covering traces of the
earlier work. Naturally the preservation of evidence
involves the preservation of the removed pieces, and
identification of their position is sometimes important.
The repair of a broken structural part in such a way
that it can again take a load or force is also often
irreversible (e.g. repair of a jack damper slot). Usually
the part has to be cut to give a good surface for joint-
ing to a new piece of material. Usually the loss of
evidence is insignificant if the piece which is cut off is
preserved. Such pieces can also be useful for micro-
scopic botanical identification of the wood.
It can be seen from the above remarks that an alter-
native to repairing a broken jack by cutting off a piece
(irreversible) is to make a new jack and remove and
preserve the old jack (fully reversible). This raises a
number of questions. Removing an old part and
replacing it with a new part is something which most
people associate with bad restoration. The old part
used to be thrown away because it was easier to make a
new one than to repair the old, a perfectly legitimate
way of servicing recently-made mechanisms such as
modern pianos or motor cars, but one that in past
restorations has destroyed a great deal of infor-
mation. The essential difference here is that the
removed old part is not thrown away. But if it is
separated from its position will it more likely be lost?
The only place where it is reasonably safe in a
privately-owned instrument is fixed inside the instru-
ment. A museum, on the other hand, ought to be
capable of preserving separated parts when it is impos-
sible or inconvenient to stow them inside the instru-
ment, and restorers ought to be able to feel a reason-
able confidence in such a storage system. Almost any
EARLY MUSIC APRIL 1980 217

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
work of restoration involves the removal of an assort- pletely new part, the object of preserving all the asso-
ment of small parts dating from various periods in the ciated evidence will be achieved. Such a procedure
might be called 'preservative replacement'.
history of the instrument, and their safe storage is part
of the obligation to document the restoration work. The problem of* wear in restored instruments ha
When it seems desirable to remove parts, a restorer
been mentioned above. In practice, the significant
should not feel unduly inhibited about doing so. wear occurs in action parts which move mechanically.
The other conclusion to be drawn from the above Often the significant wear occurs on only one of* the
two surfaces in relative motion. Thus the balance
remarks is that restorers should move carefully, choos-
ing their procedural plans and the techniques tomortices
be of keys wear much more than the balan
pins and the upper register slides wear rather mo
used so as to preserve not only the evidence they
than the jacks. The method of correction which lea
recognize but the more complex evidence that future
studies will wish to derive from future techniquesdisturbs
of* the internal evidence is to cover the worn par
with a material which can be deposited but als
investigation. If restorers were to recognize the desir-
ability of discussing their procedural plans with at removed
least again if required. This carries the valuab
additional advantage that further use wears the cover
one of their colleagues before putting them into effect,
the information content of our instruments might ing
bematerial rather than the old part which was pre-
safer. viously subject to wear. If* this method is consistent
applied, a restored instrument can be largely pro
It is against this background that a judgement
should be made of the pros and cons of restoring tected
a friom wear due to playing. Taken to its logical
particular instrument. The major factor in such conclusion,
a this would suggest that a restored
decision ought to be the amount of undisturbed work keyboard instrument should have a suitable mater
which is still left in the instrument. If recent work has covering the keyplates, new surfaces at any wor
already swept most of this away (some restorers, par- balance and guiding points of the keys and at sol
ticularly in Germany, used to be devastatingly parts of the action, and perhaps a thin plastic
thorough) the proposed restoration may involve little membrane protecting some of the soft action part
Restoration could avoid at least some of the dis-
loss, but if little has happened to the instrument over
the past century, it may well be a treasure trove of* advantages that are usually observed, if these p
information, some of which will disappear even if the ciples were logically developed.
cleaning processes are too thorough. Only when these At a time when successful reproductions are in wi
potential losses have been assessed, should the other spread use, we should further ask ourselves, when
implications of restoration be considered, i.e. whether restoration of a particular old instrument is propo
the instrument will be damaged by string tension, whether our long-term advantages are best served
whether it will make a good playing instrument or a restoring it or by measuring, documenting
good object for visual exhibition. drawing it so that accurate reproductions can be m
Reproductions even have a place in museums, as
If restoration is considered desirable after balancing
the arguments for and against, the above remarks experiences of the Vleeshuis Museum, Antwerp,
the RCM Museum, London, have shown, In both
should help a restorer to work out the procedural plan
most suited to the overall conditions. As was hinted museums the exhibition of a reproduction among a
collection of restored instruments has created an
above, the options are wider in museum instruments if*
additional interest.
the parts can be stored safely away from the instru-
ment. The making of reproduction instruments is now
sufficiently advanced to allow successful reproduction
of quite large and complicated parts. Sometimes it will
be found that interesting ephemera can remain un-
disturbed and protected from wear even though the
instrument is restored to playing order. To see whether
this can be achieved, the restorer should search for the
smallest unit which contains the part to be preserved
and can be dismantled dry. Keyboard instruments
have many such units. If the complete old unit is
removed and preserved and its place is taken by a com-
218 EARLY MUSIC APRIL 1980

This content downloaded from 193.204.40.97 on Sun, 09 Sep 2018 13:20:41 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms