The preceding post examined a large hammered dulcimer with two soundboards, each supporting its own set of strings, one primarily of metal and the other of gut. It was invented in the late-17th century by Pantalon (aka Pantaleon) Hebenstreit who eponymously called it a pantalon. One of his students, Johann Kuhnau, referred to it as a “Pantalonischen Cimbal” – pantalonic dulcimer – in a letter sent to Johann Mattheson on 8 December 1717.
The term pantalon also entered into the musical lexicon as a noun adjunct, with the appearance of Pantalonclavichorde – pantalon clavichords. They were later joined by keyboard instruments with small hammers of uncovered wood or hard leather – Hämmerpantalone – hammer pantalons, often referred to simply as pantalons. (Such instruments have been catalogued in museum collections as nascent pianos and differentiating the two has become a research topic of its own.)
The hammered dulcimers of Hebenstreit’s day did not have damping mechanisms, nor did his pantalon or the hammer pantalon. A core tonal attribute of such instruments is a broad sympathetic vibration of the passive strings, triggered by those that are actively struck. The sound of all strings persists while decaying to inaudibility. The concept labeled “pantalonic” in 1717, appears to have propagated into musical instrument nomenclature to denote a box zither (the classification group to which all the instruments named here belong) deliberately intended to provide this type of resonance.
This post focuses on the intersection of the pantalon with the clavichord. They initially crossed paths in the workshop of the renowned German keyboard instrument maker, Gottfried Silbermann. He both manufactured pantalons for Hebenstreit and invented an extremely wide clavichord with two separate soundboards, named the cembal d’amour.
That instrument has been discussed extensively in scholarly publications, as have the archetypal pantalonic dulcimer, pantalon clavichords, and hammer pantalons. The present text re-examines some of the detail in that narrative. It also provides links to online facsimiles of frequently cited source documents.
Clavichords are classified as fretted or unfretted, both with keys of the same design. Each acts as a rigid hammer, comparable to that of a dulcimer, but additionally setting the lengths of the vibrating strings. It is the only moving part between them and the player’s hand.
When the key that struck it is released, a string is muted by a cloth ribbon woven through the stringbed to the left of the tangents. This damping strip also prevents the sympathetic vibration of passive strings otherwise characteric of the hammered dulcimer. That resonance is enabled on the pantalon clavichord by a fixed metal support to the right of each tangent, canceling the effect of the damping strip.
The string, or multi-string course, rests on that support and is lifted off it by the tangent when a key is depressed. When the key is released, the vibrating strings land back on the support where they continue to vibrate. Since the passive strings are also undamped, they vibrate in sympathy with those that are actively struck.
The battery of supports can typically be disengaged and is termed a “pantalon stop.” Its effect is demonstrated in the next performance. (The spacing between a tangent and the proximal support has a detrimental effect on the intonation of such instruments.)
Mattheson responded to the letter from Kuhnau noted at the outset of this post, on 1 January 1718. He extended the discussion of the pantalonic dulcimer and added observations about how it might best be tuned (which I’ll revisit separately). In a footnote regarding Silbermann, he remarked:
This artist recently invented an instrument that he calls the Cembal d’Amour, of which I have a sketch, and look forward to a description by daily mail.
That sketch does not appear in any of Mattheson’s publications but an illustration of a cembal d’amour was found among the personal papers archived after his death in 1764. The following copy comes from an article by Edmond van der Straeten published in 1924, where it was reproduced from a photograph taken when the bundle of Mattheson’s papers was first opened.
In effect, this design merges the two stringbeds of the pantalon into a single metal-strung one of double length, while retaining the separate soundboards of the elder instrument. Silbermann interposed an unfretted clavichord keyboard between them (perhaps in the recess where the player of a pantalon was situated, as posited in the preceding post). This permits the strings to be struck exactly at their midpoints, dividing each into two separate segments sounding octave harmonics rather than the fundamental pitch.
The instrument has single bass strings but the upper courses are double strung. A single key therefore effectively sets up to four strings into vibration. The damping device consists of a padded block of wood surrounding each tangent, on which the strings rest. A reconstruction of the illustrated instrument is demonstrated in the following video. (The accompanying kannel is explained by its player here. A longer audio-only performance on another cembal d’amour based on the same drawing can be heard here.)
Mattheson didn’t specify the time span he had in mind when noting, in 1718, that Silbermann had “recently” invented the cembal d’amour. It was still referred to as new in the July 1721 issue of the Sammlung von Natur- und Medicin- wie auch hierzu gehörigen Kunst- und Literatur-Geschichten (Collection of Narratives about Nature and Medicine, as well as Associated Art and Literature), in an article headed:
About a new Cymbal d’Amour, that is,
Mr. Gottfried Silbermann’s of Freyberg in Meissen,
newly invented struck- stringed- Instrument or Clavichordio.
This text focuses on Silbermann’s craft and reputation, rather than the instrument itself. It lists organs for which he was well known and adds to it his production of:
…unusually beautiful harpsichords and clavichords made for many people, some sent to England, as well as the incomparable hammered dulcimers [Cymbals] made for the former virtuoso in Dresden, Mons. Pantalon [Hebenstreit]…
The additional renown Silbermann acquired thereby resulted in a commission to:
…devise an instrument with the power and functionality of a small harpsichord but with the delicacy of a clavichord…
The same narrative goes on to describe the outcome, stating that it:
…matched the loveliness of the Viola d’Amour to such an extent that…this entirely new thing should be appropriately named to mark its clear distinction from other instruments…as the Cymbal d’Amour.
The June 1723 issue of the same publication included a follow-up article headed:
Further news about the Cembal d’Amour
newly invented by Mr. Silbermann,
with an illustration thereof.
It makes no mention of Silbermann’s involvement with the pantalon. It adds nothing of substance about the cembal d’amour, either, but does include two extensive testimonials about the originality of the latter invention. This was part of an effort at acquiring exclusive rights to its manufacture. However, it may also reflect a conflict that led to legal action being taken against him by Hebenstreit, who was ultimately granted a royal privilege for the exclusive distribution of the pantalon, effective 20 November 1727.
Silbermann was not the sole supplier of pantalons to Hebenstreit, who contracted all such manufacture under the condition that it was for delivery only to himself. Silbermann had directly provided one to a third-party without Hebenstreit’s authorization. The legal remedy he therefore sought also resulted in Silbermann ceasing the production of pantalons. (This is detailed in a monograph about his work by Ernst Flade, published in 1953.)
The cited online copy of the 1723 article does not include the illustration of the cembal d’amour referred to in its title, but it has been widely reproduced elsewhere.
It appears to have been copied with somewhat eroded detail from the image in Mattheson’s personal archive, shown as follows in its present state. The date in the handwritten caption ends a sentence stating, “J[ohann] Bartholom[aeus] Oppermann made one like this in Hamburg 1748.”
A noteworthy number of such instruments were manufactured in Germany and Sweden, but only one is known to have survived, most likely made by one of the established clavichord makers in Stockholm. It was subsequently fragmented but major pieces are in the collections of the National Museum of Finland (cat. no. KM44107). A study conducted there in 2001-02 (pp. 9–11) included the dendrochronological dating analysis of the wood. This determined that it had been felled in central Sweden, and was worked into the instrument no earlier than during the interval 1734–1745.
The fragmentation entailed the separation of the instrument’s two soundboards and the halving of its stringbed. The original action was replaced at the same time and its detail cannot be determined, nor does anything remain of the left half of the instrument other than its lid. Nevertheless, it seems clear from the realignment of the two halves of the lid, keyed to the panel paintings across them, that it was built as a cembal d’amour. (It is 3 m wide, which is a figure typically reported for the pantalonic dulcimer.)
The Swedish musicologist, Abraham Hülphers, discussed what he labeled a “clav d’amour” (derived either from clavichord or claver) in his Historisk afhandling om musik och instrumenter (Historical Treatise about Music and Instruments), published in 1773. He was born in 1734, plausibly explaining why his account of seminal events during the 1720s is slightly at odds with earlier documentation. His naming and physical description of the instrument may also be based on a later modification of Silbermann’s design.
Hülphers related details of one imported from Germany into Sweden in 1728, stating that the initiator of that transaction was David Kellner (who composed the piece heard in the video demonstration of the cembal d’amour). The Mr. Grill to whom he then sold it appears likely to have been Claes Grill, who owned the manor house in Österbybruk where a cembal d’amour was documented ca. 1750. If so, the plan drawing included in that documentation becomes particularly interesting in comparison with one published in Germany in 1768, shown at the end of this review.
Johann Hähnel added two devices to Silbermann’s cembal d’amour. One was a pantalon stop that placed rigid supports on both sides of each tangent; needed for the two halves of the string to produce the same pitch. The second was a stop that permitted the strings on either side of the tangents to be damped entirely. This effectively transformed the instrument into a pair of ordinary pantalon clavichords with somewhat different sound properties.
Hähnel called his variant a Cimbel Royal and was taken to court by Silbermann for violating a royal privilege for the cembal d’amour he had been granted in 1723. The judgment, passed in 1734, was against Hähnel and imposed a fine and confiscation of a recently completed instrument that would have brought him to financial ruin. That penalty was nullified on appeal thanks to the testimony of Hebenstreit, who make a broad argument in which he stated that Hähnel was the inventor of the pantalon stop. (The two collaborated on other innovative projects.)
In 1758, Jakob Adlung published a book titled Anleitung zu der musikalischen Gelahrtheit (Introduction to the Higher Understanding of Music). He credited Hebenstreit with the invention of the pantalon (here, scan 95), and discussed the hammer pantalons derived from it (here, scan 9). Adlung went into the cembal d’amour at some length despite not actually having seen one (preceding link, scan 13), citing many of the sources noted above. He also reported that he had first learned of it from one of the journeymen in Silbermann’s workshop.
In the chapter on clavichords (same link, scan 18), he described the pantalon stop as ubiquitous and described means for voicing it to suit individual instruments. An additional device for enhancing the persisting resonance of octave harmonics reflected the central attribute of the cembal d’amour:
It is not necessary to provide a description of the clavichord here because every child is familiar with such instruments. I am therefore only going to add a few details about artistic devices that can be attached to those that are unfretted… Pantalonic stops are found everywhere in large numbers these days, that is, metal posts under each course next to the tangent that are operated by a drawstop. This is sometimes called a celestine [Cölestin], perhaps due to its beautiful almost heavenly sound. These [posts] are best left uncovered but the long decay time can be a disturbance to the player. If the instrument has a good sound in itself, it is better to cover them with leather, or if one desires even more damping, with cloth… Someone with a particular affinity for octaves with persisting resonance can interpose a small bridge with posts between the main bridge and wrestplank…at 1:2 or 1:4 [of the distance between them]… I have played on such…which have been made in fair numbers since 1732.
By 1726, Adlung had begun a manuscript for another book titled Musica mechanica organoedi. He worked on it until late in his life, which ended in 1762. His family rapidly undertook its posthumous publication, which appeared in 1768 with extensive substantive commentary by Johann Friedrich Agricola.
Adlung mentioned the “pantalonische Cembal…also called the pantalon” in that text but felt it was irrelevant to the discussion of keyboard instruments, “somewhat resembling a hammered dulcimer with gut strings.” He referred to Mattheson’s publications for further information and added nothing of importance to them.
Agricola segregated his addenda from Adlung’s narrative in clearly indicated footnotes. An English translation of the entire work, interpaginated with a facsimile of the original publication, is online here. Agricola commented at length on the cembal d’amour (pp. 124–26 in the linked edition). His remarks are well worth reading in their entirely and I’ll wrap up my own observations by citing their start (as translated by Quentin Faulkner in the linked source):
Since this instrument deserves to be more well-known and common, in spite of a few imperfections that it exhibits (which with continued reflection it may well be possible to remedy), I am including here a drawing and a short description of it, as imparted to me by a skilled instrument maker who has frequently seen Silbermann’s cembalo d’amour and taken careful note of its layout and construction. If this description is not sufficient for someone to build such an instrument from it, a skillful craftsman will at least be able to derive a good deal from it, especially since [the sketch] is drawn exactly to scale, albeit in miniature. This description will surely be sufficient to furnish a proper conception of the entire instrument.
