Matthew Furber, London, c.1825

Description

A fine English violoncello by Matthew (II) Furber following the Amati model of William Forster, London, circa 1825.

By the end of the eighteenth century the Forster family had become both highly distinguished and highly commercial, largely as makers of instruments, but also as music publishers who played a significant role in first publishing Haydn’s works, and ultimately bringing him to England. Simon Andrew Forster, writing about the family firm in The History of the Violin (1864, p. 336) notes that during the period of William Forster (III), the firm began to produce four different classes of instruments, and connects this broader output to competition from German fiddles brought into the country by Astor, a musical instrument seller in Wych Street just meters from where the Forster shop was located on the Strand. Early in the nineteenth century, the business of making instruments seems to have waned a little bit, in preference for dealing, though instruments with all the characteristics of the Forster workshop continued to be made into the 1820s. William (IV) and Simon Andrew Forster seem to have departed from a strictly applied set of Forster models, following instead more classical Cremonese models in parallel with the activities of John Betts, their principal rival in London. I have seen incredible Nicolo Amati copies by William (IV), and several outstanding interpretations of Stradivari’s “Spanish Court” viola by Simon Andrew Forster survive. It is in this period that we see a number of workers within the Forster shop, notably Samuel Gilkes, John (II) Morrison and George Craske, although there is nothing in Craske’s later making that is reminiscent of Forster work, and contrastingly Morrison ultimately setup shop on the Strand making almost indistinguishable instruments announcing himself “from Forster’s” which appears to have made him an enemy of his former employers.

For some time this cello has been a bit of a puzzle, for the Forster’s appear to have been highly protective of their models, yet it is a good example of the modified Amati-pattern so typical of the Forster workshop, except that the shape of the corners, and the form of the scroll with a big flat centre is as familiar to the work of the Furber family as it is at odds with Forster workmanship. The golden-yellow varnish is equally alien to everything that we expect of Forster’s work. Whilst the instrument is resolutely Furber work, the number of makers in the family and the way that they cooperated with one and other often makes it impossible to provide a more nuanced attribution. Recently however, I can across a twin of this cello with the maker’s internal inscription “Matthew Furber / Maker / 77 Turnmill Street / Clerkenwell / London 1825” confirming the identity of the maker, but at a time when Ruddall & Carte the woodwind instrument makers were providing certificates of authenticity to counter forgeries of their work, and when (slightly earlier) the harpsichord maker Jacob Kirckman sued his former foreman Robert Falkner for making bootleg copies of his harpsichords, the small number of Furber instruments which are made to Forster’s pattern and yet deliberately made to look different, seems at odds with everything that is going on in London at that time until another clue emerged that seems to settle things, for a viola made to a Forster model by Matthew Furber, also yellow and also with numerous making characteristics that fall outside of the Forster style appeared with an authentic “W.Forster / 1811” signature on the ribs by the button. Given that it is difficult to account for the four grades of workmanship from the Forster workshop alluded to by Simon Andrew Forster in his memoirs, it seems highly probable that one of those grades comprised of outwork from the Furber family that lacked the typical rich red varnish and had other visible characteristics intended to demonstrate the premium value that the in-house work of the Forster family earned for itself.

I’ve decided to describe the cello as Matthew Furber, following the model of William Forster. On a technicality it could legitimately be called a Forster cello but I think that would be wrong, especially as it lacks the deep red varnish that was a hallmark of the highest quality instruments made by the Forster family and their workshop. All the same, it makes complete sense to me that the instrument was made with the intention of being sold as the third or fourth class of instrument from the Forster firm, so the original purchaser of the cello would probably have thought of it as such.

It is a lovely cello in terms of sound and condition, both as an exceptional example from the Furber family of makers, and as a modest subsitute for a Forster cello. Matthew Furber (b. 1772, d.1828) was part of a much larger dynasty of makers based around Clerkenwell who produced many instruments on their own account, mostly for resale by London music shops. This is amongst the nicest examples of their cello making that I have encountered.

Certificate: Benjamin Hebbert

Condition notes: The cello is in a good state of preservation and has undergone minor restorations.