In the last few years I've been intensely interested in flutes made, or ostensibly made in Dublin. This is part of a wider ranging research project concerning the woodwind industry in Ireland in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The woodwind trade in Dublin ( and to be fair the vast majority of the makers were based there) has been extensively and accurately documented by the Dublin Music Trade website, but since my interest began to refocus in this direction, I've been able to record around thirty previously unrecorded flutes with Dublin stamps and one, if not two, unlisted makers.
At this point, I have to acknowledge the wonderful asset that is the Flute History Channel, where collectors, performers, makers, and academics, freely exchange information to mutual benefit. And it was through that channel, and not for the first time, that I was alerted to the existence of the flute which is the topic of this blog post.
I've always been amazed where things can turn up. The internet, of course, has made such finds all the more common. Still, I look with wonder that not one, but two, instruments, crucially important to my research, have turned up in California in the last couple of years.
Reilly is a maker largely know through two rather fine ivory eight keyed flutes which are in public collections, one in the National Museum of Ireland, and the other in the Hunterian Museum in Glasgow. I've had the privilege to examine both, so I was keen to acquire an example if at all possible. In that regard, I was offered a boxwood and ivory F flute by Reilly by a Spanish collector, but the price was a little rich for me at the time. We're still in contact, so who knows.
So to the current flute. It's a boxwood and ivory one keyed instrument, absolutely typical of those being produced circa 1800.
Here it is...
I said "absolutely typical", but in fact there are several features that make this stand out from other Dublin stamped flutes of the period.
Firstly, the wood.
All of the other Dublin stamped boxwood flutes that I have, are of good, but rather plain box. This one, as you can see, is made from very highly figured wood, in fact one of the most highly figured pieces of box that I've seen in any context.
Here's the back, to emphasise the point.
What other aspects are unusual? I get the impression that this was a very well loved flute. The embouchure has been bushed with ivory, beautifully done, I would hazard to say by a professional maker, and also quite close to the original date of manufacture. It's a very small precise oval measuring 9.85 x 9.00mm, and is beautifully cut.
I'm not one to be able to accurately judge the playing quality of a flute from this period, but for me it speaks easily with a warm rich tone, and the cross fingered notes seem to me to be strong, even, and well in tune. For me, notoriously sharp blower, it's around 440, and the sounding length is 539.5mm. I'd love to hear it played by someone who knew what they were doing!
What else.
Well one of the first things that struck me when I eventually had it in hand was what we might call the non parallel nature of the head. This image explains...
By comparison, the diameter of several Dublin flutes from a similar period (this is one of many flutes that's really very difficult to date with any degree of accuracy, so circa 1800 is as accurate as it gets.) at the same position, is around 1mm less.
And then....checking the dates of Reilly in the NLI, and DMT website, I immediately realised something was seriously awry. The NLI simply lists J. Reilly as Dublin, late 19th century, and gives an address, 17 Fleet St. The DMT is more specific, saying J.(John) Reilly was active from 1843-1850. The two Reilly flutes that I've seen are comfortably within this timescale....but, and why didn't I see it earlier, the current flute is certainly not. I'd foolishly presumed that even though the Reilly flutes I'd seen were from a much later period ( in flute terms) that Reilly had also been working at this earlier period.
So is this a different Reilly?
The DMT website lists two other Reillys, William, listed at 12 Trinity Place from 1816-27 as a maker of pedal harp, piano, and violin, and Richard, listed as being on Wellington Quay from 1876-1894 as a general music shop specialising in instruments for the military. William is not listed as making woodwind, and Richard is not listed as making anything. That combined with dates given obviously rules out Richard as the Reilly in question, but is there a possibility that William could have bought in and stamped this flute?
This brings up the whole issue of the relationship between instrument makers and instrument dealers/music retailers which is so central to the history of the woodwind trade.
It's complex.
Some makers were only makers, some dealers were only dealers and retailers, but very many were a combination of both. It's well established that many dealers bought unstamped instruments from makers, often putting their own stamps on them, and also often leaving them unstamped, so is there a possibility that this flute could have been "rebadged" as it's sometimes called, by William Reilly? It's certainly true that one keyed flutes were being made as late as 1816 in some quantity, and it really wouldn't be surprising to see someone listed as a maker of stringed instruments buying in a flute to satisfy a customer.
My instinct tells me this is not the case.
It tells me that a flute of this quality would not have been bought, stamped, and resold by a minor stringed instrument maker, and aspects of the flute indicate to me that it's older than a possible 1816 date. If it was William Reilly, would someone who was essentially a string maker have gone to the trouble of making a stamp for woodwinds?
So if it is another Reilly, distinct from John and William, ( I think we can discount Richard) who could it be? There's no evidence that any of the Reillys mentioned in DMT are related, and Reilly is not an uncommon name in Ireland. But of course it's not at all impossible that it's the same family, given that three of them appear involved in the trade from 1816 to the end of the century.
One of the main things that I'm trying to establish in my research is... were any of the Dublin stamped flutes actually made in Dublin, or are they stamped imports? One neat little piece if evidence to support the former idea appeared in my look into the Reilly data in DMT. There, in one of the original card index entries for John Reilly is the following:
Mr. J. Reilly of Fleet st. has exhibited flutes, clarionetes, etc. on an improved principle, by which the notes are brought out more certainly than formally. They exhibit considerable (missing word) but as they are produced in an unfinished state, the Section, though approving of the theory, were not enabled to judge of the effect. They have therefore awarded him only a small medal.
It seems unlikely that a maker would, or would be allowed by as august a body as the Royal Dublin Society, import unfinished instruments and enter them in a prestigious exhibition.
I'm currently in contact with the RDS, asking if they have more in their records about this.
