Expert’s report and part restoration of a Laux Maler lute

This lute, in poor condition was sold at an auction on june 14^th 2003.
Catalogue description :
« Rare and interesting lute, XVII th century, transformed into a guitar in the XVIII th century (10 courses). Wood rosette, ash body and spruce soundboard. A lot of repairs ».

Later converted into a guitar, the instrument looks sound in spite of the countless cracks in the burr ash shell cut on « dosse ». There are no traces of worms, only some changes to match the evolution of musical practice, (various transformations) and a lot of accidental damage. The shell is old, at least 17 th century, the neck, the head and the bridge were made between the end of the 17 th century and the beginning of the 18^th century, the soundboard seems to be in good condition for its presumed age.
The rose is intact and doesn’t allow to see inside.

We remove the soundboard of this lute and discover two things :
1) The soundboard bears « Monsieur Dumesnil » in quite large letters in lead pencil, under the upper block . It seems to have its original bracing ; no old traces of glue or marks, no addition except a few bars re-positioned or replaced in the lower part, the « fan-bracing » part, and a few tiny pine pieces at the bottom of the soundboard.

*Jacques Dumesnil, luthier in Paris, in activity around 1630/60 died in 1663.
Catherine Massip, curator of the National Library, in a collective work directed by Florence Gétreau and published by the City of Paris, gives us a description of the Dumesnil and his more famed fellow worker Desmoulins workshops. She makes a detailed inventory of these two luthiers after their death, the large quantity of wood for making lutes and guitars, the ancient and contemporary instruments, guitars, lutes or violins remaining in the stocks of these two craftsmen. We note that a Laux Maler lute is clearly mentioned in the Desmoulin stock, as those instruments were still much sought-after by lutenists around 1650, one hundred years after the luthier died.

2) the shell est entirely lined with rough linen cloth.
With great care, we take off all the pieces of cloth that cover the ribs and we discover a label which we cannot identify at first sight. After browsing through all the documents at hand (museums, collections, historians, etc.) we discover at the « National Historish Museum of Nürenberg » the same lute, incomplete and modified, but bearing its label and authenticated as such : Laux Maler in activity in Bologne ca. 1515 – 1560.

Laux Maler is an important luthier, one of the creators of the modern 9 ribs lute. He is a very prolific craftsman ; he worked with his son and it is said that supplies for 1000 instruments were found in the workshop after his son died.
The rose seems identical although shifted 1/8 turn compared to the Nuremberg Museum lute. Thin straps of parchment link the ribs, other straps are laid diagonally all over the shell at regular intervals, all of which seem to be original.

We dismantle the guitar neck (5 courses), after taking off the wrought iron nail that hold it together. There ought to be 3 nails initially for each side of the nail, 2 holes are filled in by 2 wooden pegs.
The neck, the head and the bridge follow the classical pattern used by luthiers between 1630 and 1750.

Luthiers often made changes for musicians playing antique intruments, adapting them to the taste of the public and new practice for less money. The lute bridge has perhaps pulled splinters off the soundboard when it was taken off, for under the guitar bridge and its « moustaches » , a large piece of pine is inlaid, half deep, as if for hiding the damage caused by a hasty or too brutal ungluing. Unfortunately, the grain is perpendicular to the grain of the soundbox and we have to remove this wooden inclusion and make another one in the right direction.

A few Laux Maler lutes are found here and there, and we understand that reassembling will mean enormous difficulties, for we have not one single complete lute for accurate reference. We asked for photos of the Laux Maler in Vienna but as it is a taller and very different specimen, the photos did not help. We wrote to the Nuremberg Museum and Klaus Martin replied that their specimen (very close to ours according to the photos, but reassembled as a theorbo) is also incomplete. Andrew Dipper (USA) to whom we also enquired, told us that in his opinion, a narrow neck seems closer, more logical in accordance to the original. Klaus Martin agreed on that.

So we started with the body restoration, removing the numerous external pieces and add-ons, the fillings and other apocryphal substances, making the missing parts (we had an old piece of ash in stock, similar enough to restore this body). We lined in part (the least we could) the glue joints with very thin parchment, very thin oblique cotton canvas or even thin gauze (very loose woven cotton, very light but solid)

In the meantime, we thought about the soundboard. It seems to be in a relatively good condition compared to the shell. (a few missing bits and add-ons up and down, a few breaks). Of course, this ash wood is very brittle and fragile, which accounts for the numerous breaks of the body, but such an old piece of spruce should also be that way, and we are still puzzled by the difference of condition of those two elements. The bracing looks more recent than a 1520/1530 bracing should look, but again, precise and reliable data are sorely lacking.

Supposing the sounboard was changed, would the luthier (Dumesnil ?) not have preferred making a more contemporary bracing than this one which was on the soundboard to be replaced ?
Or did he make an exact reproduction of the original bracing ?
Did he make an identical rose ( shifting its position by 1/8 turn), or did he have an interpretation and/or a personal choice ?

According to our documents, the soundboard of the Nuremberg lute is very thin, the one we deal with is definitely thicker (an average 2 mm) but the different transformations in time and the numerous worm holes perhaps account for the thinness of the Nuremberg soundboard.
The big problem to date remains in the choice of the neck, its size and the number of strings to be in the closest accordance with the instrument’s original musical context, and without further modification of neither the shell nor the soundboard.

Normally, the lutes of that period (1520 – 1550) have a narrow neck for 11 stings. This lute, like others, had at least two modifications before its conversion into a guitar ; the block has been cut again, lowered (therefore enlarged), the shell and the upper part of the soundboard (shortened) too. The two ebony triangles on the upper part of the soundboard have been moved and cut again and are superimposed which proves at least two successive assemblies.

In Robert Lundberg’s « Historical lute construction », published by the Guild of American luthiers, we can see that the angle made by the neck on the batten in the lute as it is now, is much more acute than what it should be. We therefore decide to raise the body a little on the sides by making the upper block longer (the one which was reshuffled for guitar conversion). Once this block was made longer and the angle was modified according to the one described (and pictured) by Lundberg, we add small pieces of ash wood to complete the body, and so we obtain the definitive width of the upper part of the soundboard, therefore of the neck and the frets.
The outer ribs of the shell are thus 2,5 cm longer, the central rib remains as before and the soundboard is also 2,5 cm longer.

Once the block is rectified, we make the neck, calculating its size according to :
1) the width of the frets at the top of the soundboard
2) the position of the bridge. There is a very visible scar that locates it, at the precise location of the traditional bridge, that is 2/3 of the distance from the lower block to the fret at the lower part of the soundboard.

This gives us the half of the vibrationg string. The width of the neck allows for an 11 strings neck, which seems to be the most likely neck we wish to make.
In the meantime, Klaus Martin friendfully sent us documents relative to the Nuremberg lute. The body, the blocks, the design of the brague are similar to ours.
It is a surprise to find under the soundboard (cut by 1/4 at the upper part) a bracing very similar to ours ; the same pieces of bracing are under the same rose, apparently the same number and size, and the same bracing in the fan-shaped lower part of the soundboard.

We decide to make a dendrochronology which will definitely eliminate the doubt :
1520/30 or 1630/50, Laux Maler or Dumesnil, or else …
Ian Watchorn, with whom we correspond on other topics (the book about guitar) tells us he has worked on the Nuremberg lute, and is kind enough as to send us his notes (the part in English !)
When we receive them, we again notice the similarities between the Nuremberg lute and ours. Brague, lower block, assembly, bracing, marks on the soundboard.

The dendrochronology by John Topham indicates 1529 for the sounboard (1360 for the oldest rings). This is in adequacy with Laux Maler times of activity, the style and the connections being obvious, we conclude that this soundboard was really made by Laux Maler. It seems therefore that this lute has undergone 3 changes : at least twice as a lute to follow the musical practice, then as a guitar (not mentioning various breaks and repairs of more or less importance caused by accidents rather than by modifications.)

On Ian Watchorn’s initiative, we get in touch with Stephen Barber, Sandy Harris and Klaus Matius who are, together with Thomas Norwood and Wolfgang Fruh, the most interested luthiers in this Laux Maler, and who would probably like to examine it before we close it again. So we decide to meet around the instrument. Joel Dugot invites us to his laboratory at the CNSM Museum in Paris during the Musicora 2004.