A bridge too far?

One of the most unusual stringed instruments, the pochette can be found on show in many museum collections – but is it being displayed properly? Wim Raymaekers argues that the bridge position needs to be rethought

Paintings of pochettes from the 17th century clearly show the bridge below the soundholes and above the tailpiece.

Left to right Adriaen Coorte’s Vanitas still life in a niche (1688);

Cornelis Norbertus Gysbrechts’s Trompe l’oeil of a Letter Rack with Proclamation by Frederik III (1672);

Gysbrechts’s Trompe L’oeil with Violin, Painting Tools and Self-Portrait (1675); Simon Renard de Saint-André’s Vanitas Still Life (c.1650);

The Paston Treasure (c.1663). The full paintings can be viewed online in The Strad’s digital edition

Amuseum’s staff is confronted with numerous questions. There are many challenges with time, resources and funding that preclude realising best practices in some instances. In other instances, practicality comes into play. And then of course there are different options regarding display and, very importantly, the condition of the objects: to what extent should one return them to their original state or, on the contrary, preserve certain changes made throughout their existence?

Few musical instruments appeal more to the imagination than the pochette, also called the ‘kit’ or dancing master’s fiddle. Its small dimensions and often exuberant decoration make museum visitors curious about its underlying history, which in itself arouses wonder when they learn that dancing masters could carry it in their jacket pockets at all times to accompany the dance.

DESIGNING BRIDGES TO FIT THE NARROW SPACE BET WEEN THE SOUNDHOLES ORIGINATED IN THE 19TH CENTURY

It is therefore not surprising that these instruments find a place in the permanent display areas of many music museums around the world.

Usually they are provided with imaginative bridges, whose outlines are drawn from thin air and located between the soundholes. This especially applies to the numerous boat-shaped specimens. Designing bridges with contours that fit the narrow space between the soundholes of pochettes is a practice that originated in the 19th century.

However, positioning the bridge at the midpoint of the two soundholes is incorrect. The bridges were originally located much further down, between the soundholes and the tailpiece, as evidenced by paintings from the 17th and 18th centuries. Also, the convention of using the f-holes’ lower notches as a guide to the bridge position only began during the 18th century. Tracking the origin and development of the f-hole, based on contemporary representations, we can see that the notches were the result of a purely aesthetic design process, with no function as an indicator for the bridge location, either on violins or, by extension, on pochettes.

BRIDGES CAN BE MOVED TO THE CORRECT LOCATION WITHOUT DAMAGING THE INSTRUMENTS

The Musée de la Musique in Paris correctly displays its pochettes with the bridges located above the tailpiece

COORTE IMAGE ZEEUWS MUSEUM, MIDDELBURG. PASTON TREASURE IMAGE ZEEUWS MUSEUM GYSBRECHTS 1672 IMAGE STATENS MUSEUM COPENHAGEN. GYSBRECHTS 1664 IMAGE KONINKLIJK MUSEUM VOOR SCHONE KUNSTEN, GHENT. RENARD IMAGE MUSÉE DU LOUVRE. PARIS

So, why do so many museum displays persist in propagating this erroneous assumption about the bridge position? Perhaps it stems from the decision to display the instruments with the set-up in which they were obtained. This point of view is defensible, because it is important to respect the changes that an object has undergone since its creation. It would be absurd to attempt to restore all instruments to their original state. Extending this approach consistently would mean returning all guitars to their original number of strings, restoring Baroque necks to modernised stringed instruments and so on. It is common practice in museums to avoid the temptation of reversing the line of time and reinvent missing parts based on hypotheses, even well-documented ones.

In the case of the pochette, however, this can hardly be called a mere hypothesis, given the fact that the evidence is quite clear. Moreover, the problem with generally maintaining a set-up that is 130 or more years old is that most people, including specialists, will tend to believe that this was the ‘original state’ of those instruments. As a result, the evolution of historical insights is hampered and incorrect conclusions continue to arise – for example, regarding the pochette’s original string length. The same applies to the use of pochettes in modern music practice, as seen in videos showing attempts to do so (e.g. bit.ly/3xjA8sa ). As the player observes, the short stop length makes the pochette difficult to play – which in turn is because of the position of the bridge.

One of the tasks of a museum is to inform, not just preserve. One way to do this would be to rethink a situation that is more than a century old. For starters, more often than not, the bridges could simply be moved to the correct location without damaging the instruments. Managing a museum not only brings challenges but also opportunities.

It is quite possible to have new bridges made after old representations in works of art, given the number of good examples available. Moreover, many 17th- or 18th-century pochettes come without a bridge. Preparing for exhibition would be the perfect opportunity to restore such instruments to their original condition. Often the original tailpiece is also missing and has been replaced afterwards. Therefore the argument that a boat-shaped pochette does not have sufficient space between the tailpiece and the sound holes does not apply in most cases. But still today, more often than not, a new fantasy bridge is created to be placed between the soundholes, missing an opportunity to be original, to point a new path for others, and to break the conservatism that continues to dominate in many public collections.

Fortunately, there are examples of how to do better. The Musée de la Musique in Paris displays its pochettes with the bridges located where they were at the time these instruments were conceived.

The question of how to display pochettes – and a number of other instruments for that matter – should be reconsidered in every museum that has them. Arguments should be brought forward freely and different options should be discussed openly. This topic, no matter how insignificant in itself, deserves the attention of everyone who is passionate about historical instruments. Hopefully this article may help all involved to come to well-considered decisions in this matter.