e followed his art in Cremona. He afterwards removed to
Venice, where Violin manufacture was in the most flourishing
condition, and adopted the name of "Cremona" as the sign of his house.
In days when houses were unnumbered, tradesmen were found by their
sign, and they were often puzzled to select one both distinctive and
effective. The Violin-makers of Italy, having exhausted the calendar
of its Saints emblematic of Harmony, left it to the Venetian to honour
the name of himself and the city which was the seat of the greatest
Violin manufacture the world had witnessed. In Venice he soon attained
great popularity, and made the splendid specimens of his art with
which we are familiar. The instructions which he had received at
Cremona enabled him to surpass all in Venice. He gained great
knowledge of the qualities of material, and of the thicknesses to be
observed; and, moreover, he carried with him the superior form of the
Cremonese school, and the glorious varnish. Mr. Reade names him "the
mighty Venetian," an appellation not a whit too high-sounding, though
it may appear so to those not acquainted with his finest works. The
truth is, that Montagnana is less known than any of the great makers.
For years his works have been roaming about, bearing the magic labels
of "Guarnerius filius Andreae," "Carlo Bergonzi," and sometimes of
"Pietro Guarneri," although there is barely a particle of resemblance
between the works of our author and the makers named, whose labels
have been used as floats.

Montagnana was in every way original, but the fraud that has foisted
his works upon makers who were better known has prevented his name
from being associated with many of his choicest instruments, and
deprived him of the place which he would long since have held in the
estimation of the true connoisseur. This injustice, however, is fast
passing away; as ever, genius comes forth triumphant.

The time is near when the "mighty Venetian" and Carlo Bergonzi will
occupy positions little less considerable than that of the two great
masters. Already the merits of these makers are daily more
appreciated, and when the scarcity of their genuine works is
considered, it becomes a matter of certainty that their rank must be
raised to the point indicated.

It is much to be regretted that both Montagnana and Bergonzi did not
leave more numerous specimens behind them. Would that each had been as
prolific as their common master! We should then have in