Giuseppe & Antonio Gagliano

Conservatories, Opera, and the Golden Age of Neapolitan Musical Life

Religious life was omnipresent. Ecclesiastical institutions possessed enormous wealth and influence and served as large landowners, charitable organizations, and moral watchdogs. At the same time, the cult of miracles surrounding San Gennaro, the city’s patron saint, flourished. His famous miracle of the blood was regarded as a sign of protection or impending disaster and was a religious, social, and musical event.

The four conservatories of Naples shaped the city’s musical culture. Originally, these were ecclesiastical institutions that took in orphans and provided them with a basic education in music, but under the Bourbons, the focus shifted to elite training programs for professional musicians. Many graduates found work at European courts, in churches, or at opera houses. In this way, Naples exported not only music, but also musicians and instruments—including instruments made by the Gagliano family. The Neapolitan Conservatorio di San Pietro a Majella alone owned 10 instruments from the Gagliano family. The Neapolitan conservatories had developed a teaching method that became a recognizable “Neapolitan school” and exerted influence from Spain to Russia.

The conservatories were run and funded by the nobility and the church and were therefore conservative. Church music (masses, oratorios) and opera constantly influenced one another. After the opening of the Teatro di San Carlo, there was a greater demand for opera singers and orchestra musicians, a greater need for composers, and an expansion of the court orchestra.

Alessandro Scarlatti, Nicolo Porpora, and Giovanni Battista Pergolesi shaped the style of opera and church music far beyond Italy's borders. Under the Bourbons, Naples became one of the four major musical centers of Europe.

Alessandro, Nicolò, Gennaro, and Giuseppe and Antonio's children

The Gagliano family made a name for itself within this musical world. Their grandfather, Alessandro Gagliano (c. 1665–1732), had been the family’s pioneer. Through his contacts with violin makers in Cremona, he brought Northern Italian influences to Naples. His sons Nicolò and Gennaro established the family as a leading name in Neapolitan violin making.

Unlike in Cremona, violin makers in Naples generally did not enjoy a high artistic status. They were viewed more as specialized artisans within a broader community of instrument makers. Neapolitan makers distinguished themselves from those in Cremona by taking a somewhat more pragmatic approach to violin making. While Cremonese instruments were often built for the aristocracy, collectors, and court musicians, Neapolitan instruments were geared more toward practical use in churches, theaters, and conservatories. This partly explains the greater variety in finish and choice of materials.

Giuseppe was presumably born around 1725, shortly after his brother Ferdinando. Antonio followed in 1728, and much later, their youngest brother Giovanni. All four would go on to become violin makers. Their father, Nicolò Gagliano, was considered one of the foremost violin makers in Naples. By his own account, he was a student of Omobono Stradivari, the son of Antonio Stradivari, who had worked in Naples for some time. Nicolò had contracts with three of the four conservatories and maintained or built instruments for their students and ensembles.

Giuseppe and Antonio presumably grew up in their father’s studio, but based on stylistic similarities, experts now believe that Giuseppe was trained primarily by his uncle Gennaro. No convincing signature has been found for Antonio that would indicate he was also trained by Gennaro. According to Philip J. Kass, Giuseppe and Antonio remained involved in their family workshop until the 1750s, after which Giuseppe went to Gennaro for his training and Antonio presumably went to another family member. In Kass’s opinion, Nicolò’s last instruments were built by Giuseppe. Nicolò was regarded as a prominent maker, but Gennaro is now often considered a greater craftsman.

The Reforms of Carlos de Bourbon and Cultural Expansion

Giuseppe and his brother Antonio were still young when Charles of Bourbon took power in Naples. Driven by the Enlightenment, he reformed the government and the economy and turned Naples into a more independent and prosperous kingdom. From a peripheral province of the Austrian Habsburgs, Naples grew into an independent capital with grand political, cultural, and economic ambitions, modeled after Paris and Madrid. At least, that is how his reign began. He considered himself the “True King of Naples” and turned out to have strong ideas about what the grandeur of a great European court should look like.

He commissioned the construction of the “San Carlo,” an opera house that was to become the most beautiful and largest in Europe. New roads, aqueducts, and harbors were built. As the court grew, an unprecedented number of musicians also flocked to the city. Charles de Brosses, a writer and member of the Académie des Sciences, wrote that Naples had quickly become the musical capital of Europe. In 1759, Don Carlos de Bourbon handed Naples over to his son Ferdinand. Carlos forced him to continue his policies, but Ferdinand had a strong preference for folk culture and the lower classes, which earned him the nickname Re Lazzarone (King of the Poor). He did nothing to promote music, art, or the sciences.

Economic downturn

Around 1760, when Giuseppe and Antonio began building their own instruments, the situation in Naples took a turn for the worse. The reforms initiated by Carlos de Bourbon proved to be disastrous. Poverty and a massive migration from the countryside to the city led to overpopulation in Naples. Around 1764, thousands of Neapolitans died from malnutrition and disease.

This economic downturn also affected violin making. Nicolò and Gennaro were able to make a living from their work for the conservatories. Neither Giuseppe nor Antonio appear in their archives and had to rely on the open market.

Mozart in Naples

Despite Naples’ decline after 1764, Leopold Mozart and his son were eager to visit the city. Wolfgang Amadeus performed several times at the Pietà dei Turchini Conservatory, gave a concert in June 1770 at the home of a British diplomat, and was introduced to musical and diplomatic circles. Amadeus Mozart found some of the Neapolitans’ customs “backward” and considered them “deeply superstitious.” But he was enthusiastic about the music in the city—especially the virtuosity of the violinists. Wolfgang Amadeus did make an impression on the Neapolitans and at court. However, it did not land him the position his father had hoped for.

The Collaboration Between Giuseppe and Antonio

From around 1780, Giuseppe and Antonio worked together; they shared a workshop for several years and built a considerable number of violins together. This likely lasted until around 1800. Nicolò stopped working toward the end of 1785. There are indications that around that time, Giuseppe and Antonio gave up their own workshop and returned to their father’s workshop on Piazza Cerriglia, where they worked together for a while. Their brother Giovanni also joined them. His name appears several times on labels of their collaborative work.

No more instruments by Giuseppe have been found after 1800; Antonio’s last known instrument dates from 1823.

Giuseppe was a prolific builder, while Antonio presumably had no—or only a brief—period of independent production. Within the family, both seem to have held relatively minor positions. Whereas their eldest brother Ferdinando developed a distinct personal style, Giuseppe appears to have often worked in collaboration with others. The result of their collaboration is generally regarded as less valuable than Giuseppe’s own work, in which he sometimes approached his father’s level of craftsmanship. Antonio is considered a less refined luthier. He is scarcely mentioned in the archives as an independent luthier, but he did build violins and cellos on his own between 1788 and 1823.

The earliest labels list the names of all three: Giuseppe, Antonio, and Giovanni. Giovanni got married in the early ’90s, and shortly thereafter he started his own workshop a short distance away. Giuseppe and Antonio continued to work together in their father’s workshop. They continued to use their old label for some time, but they crossed out Giovanni’s name.

Labels, Export, and International Trade

They used labels on which they both identified themselves as “filii Nicolai”—the sons of their father—but on the same label they also stated that they were “de Nepotes Januari F,” which indicates both a family relationship and that they were followers of Gennaro. On labels, Giuseppe notably often used the name “Joseph” instead of “Giuseppe.” He presumably did this to make his name more accessible to the English, French, and German markets. Instruments made by the Gaglianos circulated throughout Europe via trade networks.

In fact, Antonio often used the Latin version of his name: “Antonius.” Labels bearing the names “Joseph” and “Antonius” appear on their joint label. While Joseph may have had international ambitions, the collaboration between the two brothers seems to have been focused much more on the local market.

Political unrest and the studio's final years

The French Revolution of 1789–1799 also had an impact on Naples. Revolutionary groups and royalist factions found themselves in sharp conflict. Around 1790, this led to a violent crackdown by the Bourbons. Persecution and executions of opponents were commonplace. What began in 1790 led to the invasion by French troops in 1799; the Bourbons fled but recaptured Naples nine months later.

For violin makers and musicians, this instability meant economic uncertainty and the loss of patrons and financiers. As early as 1790, the Gaglianos had become entirely dependent on commercial production. The collaboration between Giuseppe and Antonio thus reflects the changing economic reality of late-eighteenth-century Naples, in which a family workshop increasingly became an efficient workplace and offered less room for individuality.

Archives, Labels, and Attribution Issues

When it comes to dating and attribution, labels within the entire Gagliano family are notoriously unreliable. They were reused, forged, or shared among multiple family members. The archives also did not help with dating; they were not properly maintained, or documents were lost. Reliable information about the Gagliano family is therefore scarce.

As a result, it is difficult to clearly define their body of work. Many instruments were not attributed to specific Gaglianos of their generation until the nineteenth or twentieth century. Experts regularly reattribute works to the “Gagliano school” rather than specifically to Giuseppe and Antonio.

Architectural style, materials, and religious traditions

In terms of model and design, little changed between 1730 and 1800. Family members copied each other’s work and adopted the techniques of the previous generation. This was also true of their knowledge regarding the use of materials. Recent dendrochronological research shows that for the top—which had a major influence on the sound—they chose wood with a specific grain pattern. This pattern differed for a violin than for a cello. The wood for the back, rim, and neck could come from the local area, but that for the top came from the northern side of the Alps or even farther away.

The Gagliano family had a virtual monopoly in Naples. And since the workshop had to supply a relatively large number of instruments, production increasingly became a process in which several people worked on a single instrument.

In the collaboration between Giuseppe and Antonio, a form of standardization gradually becomes apparent: the instruments show less variation, have slightly broader contours, a more efficient construction, and less refined detailing. They appear to have been designed for rapid production. The wood was simple, and the purfling on the back was often drawn on rather than inlaid. This illustrates the brothers’ pragmatic approach; on the top, the inlay prevented the soft wood from splitting, whereas on the hard back, this was unnecessary; there, the edge inlay served purely as decoration. For the dark strips on the top, they used a cardboard-like material that, given its composition, corresponds to “carta ‘e maccarune,” the pressed paper in which loose pasta was wrapped. It was widely available, inexpensive, and easier to bend into the violin’s edge than black ebony.

They finished their instruments with a thin, transparent coat of varnish. Giuseppe’s instruments were usually orange to golden brown over a stained base, while the instruments they built together were lighter in color. They often affixed an additional label with a religious text to the inside of the top rib—a custom that was common throughout the family. Such a text is not only a sign of their personal piety but may also have served as “protection” against misfortune or illness. A few small-sized violins, cellos, and violas by both of them are known to exist.

Their label read: Joseph and Antonius / Sons of Nicoai Gagliani and Nepotes Januari F. Naples 1798.

The Last Few Years and Their Legacy

No exact year of their deaths has been found in the archives of Naples. Nor has a grave been found. Some records suggest that Giuseppe died around 1800 and Antonio around 1823, but those dates remain uncertain. There are labels attributed to Giuseppe with later dates. This has led to speculation that he remained active for a longer period. However, it is also possible that labels were reused, or that works by other family members were later attributed to him. There are known instruments bearing a Giuseppe label that are dated from 1800 to 1815. Antonio continued to build instruments until 1825. It is conceivable that, especially in the first few years after Giuseppe’s death, he continued to use their joint label—and the labels of both of them—on his own work.

Sources

DelDonna A. R., 2020, Opera, Theatrical Culture and Society in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples.

Bernabei M., Bontadi M., Sisto L., 2022, Dendrochronological analysis of bowed and plucked instruments from the San Pietro a Majella Conservatory, Naples, Napels.

DelDonna A. R., 2018, Opera, Instrumental Music in Late Eighteenth-Century Naples: Politics, Patronage and Artistic Culture.

Acton H., 1985, The Bourbons of Naples, Londen.

Gjerdingen R.O. – Music in the Naples Galant Style

Di Giacomo, S., 1924., The Four Ancient Music Conservatories of Naples, Milaan.

Florimo, F., 1882. The Music Schools and Conservatories in Naples, with a look at the musical history of Italy. Napels.

Acton, H., 1956, The Bourbons of Naples, 1734–1825. London.

Oliveri G., 1989, Two Centuries of Violin Making in Naples, Napels

Robinson M.F., 2001, Music in Eighteenth-Century Naples, Manchester.

by Lutgendorff, 1922, Violin and Lute Makers from the Middle Ages to the Present, Frankfurt.