THE INVENTION OF THE SQUARE PIANO
A Review of some claimed early German Tafelklaviere
Many writers have claimed that the square piano, as we know it, was invented in Germany before 1760. This implies that when Johannes zumpè began making square pianos in London in the mid 1760s he was merely replicating an existing design that he had seen in Germany. This sounds very plausible, but when I made strenuous efforts to locate and examine earlier examples in Germany, or to discover some unequivocal documentary evidence to support such a claim, I found none. Written histories that make such a claim are dubious because they direct us to no contemporary source material, relying ultimately on H.C.Koch's Musikalisches Lexikon, or general musical dictionary, published in 1802. Koch's statement [s.v. 'Fortbien'] was that such instruments were invented by organ builder Christian Ernst Friederici of Gera about 1758. Though this might seem to be a useful early witness, Koch was a writer who had no specialist knowledge in this area. No square piano by Friederici has ever been cited, either as an extant instrument or a pictorial representation. 'Fortbiens' from the Friederici workshop can be confirmed only from the early 1770s, when they were praised by C.P.E. Bach.
So here on this page some reported early claimants are examined.
Johannes Socher, 1742
In 1928 antiques dealer Paul de Wit sold the above instrument to the Neupert family for their collection of historic instruments. When Rosamond Harding was researching for her Cambridge PhD the following year she visited Dr Hans Neupert and saw this instrument. Consequently it is shown in all editions of The Piano-forte: its History traced to the Great Exhibition, 1851 ( Plate VI), with the caption 'The oldest known example of a Square Piano, Johann Söcher [sic] 1742'.
It is unlikely that Harding fully understood what an extraordinary discovery this might be, for if this claim were true this would be not only the oldest surviving square piano ever reported, but also the oldest known German piano of any kind, pre-dating any surviving grand piano from Gottfried Silbermann's workshop, though this humble Tafelklavier was apparently made by an otherwise unknown village craftsman, way off the beaten track in south-western Germany. It would also be, if the date were true, the world's oldest known piano with a sustaining stop, which distinction would otherwise also belong to Silbermann. What an important instrument it might be!
In fact, in my opinion, having carefully examined it twice, it is a fraud. The date and putative maker's name can be seen on a paper label pasted very prominently on the active part of the soundboard. It reads: Joh. Socher im Obern Sonthofen Allgau. This is written not in the usual German handscript of the period, as seen in the writing of J.S.Bach and his contemporaries, but in very clear Italics. Then, spatially separated, in the border, we see the supposed date 1742. Again this is not written in the usual script of the period but in a later style with a crossed seven, such as is never seen in early eighteenth-century manuscripts. Examine any musical manuscript of the period and see what kind of seven is used in the figured bass. But let us suppose that this was done by an over-zealous restorer, and proceed to consider other features.
If it is very surprising to see this ticket pasted on to an important active area of soundboard, it may be also remarked that Stewart Pollens in 'The Early Pianoforte' (1995) observed that there are visible old scratches next to it which do not continue on top of the label but pass under it. [I can confirm that Pollens' observation is correct.] This indicates that the label was pasted down here some time after the soundboard gained these abrasions. The implication would appear to be obvious: this label was not glued on this soundboard till long after this soundboard was made. The design of this label, with a characteristically fat oval with segmental divisions, is very much what might be expected from Vienna or South Germany between 1780 and 1810. A classical period label it could be: a baroque period label it is not! Notice also that Joh. Socher is not styled 'Musical Instrument maker' or anything similar. So a possible explanation might be that the label was taken from some other item and transferred to this soundboard probably in the nineteenth or twentieth century. From its appearance this ticket could have been intended for a paste down inside a book, for example.
However, the soundboard is certainly old, and probably eighteenth-century in origin. The keyboard is certainly not of one period. The much-aged brown coniferous key levers are straight [none of the treble keys are cranked to the left in the usual clavichord or square piano design] leading one to suspect that these keys may have come from an old harpsichord or fortepiano, but it is absolutely clear that they have been re-plated (circa 1900 I would suggest) since the natural key heads are 45mm long, compared with an average of 36-38mm on genuine 18th-century German piano keys. Such re-plating was not uncommon c.1900. Pianists and piano builders were then wholly accustomed to keyboards with 50mm naturals so anything significantly shorter seemed awkward and uncomfortable.
Having examined this 'Socher' piano very carefully in 1993, and again in 1995, I have concluded that it is in fact a pastiche, an assembly of modern and antique components, that includes so many anachronisms that it does not merit serious attention in any study of piano history ― despite its inclusion in many books and websites
For more information see FoMRHI Quarterly No. 83, April 1996, pages 75-84, now available online at www.fomrhi.org.
No information was ever forthcoming from Paul de Wit as to where he bought this instrument, and as he sold a number of other very dubious specimens his reputation is not unimpeachable, to put it mildly. He was responsible, for example, for the 'discovery' of the upright piano in the Heyer Collection, Leipzig, that is inscribed 'A[nn]o. 1735' about which he was challenged by Kinsky in 1909, without getting any helpful answers.
Gottfried Silbermann, 1749
The Gemeentenmuseum in The Hague has an early German-made square piano shown above. Illustrated in Hirt, Meisterwerke des Klavierbaus (1955) this instrument has not been reported often elsewhere, which is perhaps a good thing. It has a simple retro Prellmechanik hammer mechanism, similar to the Boos clavier (shown below), and an uncommon keyboard compass, C - e3. The keys also have an unusual decoration, with twin lines of bone [or ivory] inlaid in each ebony keyplate.
A card or paper label inside the instrument purports to endorse this instrument with a very famous name. It is torn at the corner but appears to read: ...fried Silbermann fecit 1749. The last two words have been read as Feb. 1749 by some who have examined it, but the year is clear enough, as it was intended to be. It is, however, spurious. This instrument is basically a genuine eighteenth-century Tafelklavier but it has been grossly over restored, giving it a set of dampers where it probably never had any, and a bogus set of cabriole legs. There are several old instruments of a very similar design, one of which I found in the store rooms of the Germanisches Nationalmuseum. They are so similar in fact that it ought to be possible, with enough time and effort, to make a coherent attribution and identification of the workshop from which they came. All that can be said at present is that the label inside the above piano is not to be trusted. Gottfried Silbermann should not be credited with the invention of the square piano.
Franz Ignatz Seuffert, 1764
In the splendid Schloss Benrath, near Dusseldorf, they exhibit above instrument. Grossly over-restored and much altered, it has inside at the left a pasted down label with the following inscription: Franz: Ignat: Seüffert me fæcit 1764 in Wien. [The underlining of the date is inexplicable.]
Granted that we cannot give any credence to the constructional details owing to the excessive modern rebuilding, and granted also that the hammer mechanism [retro Stossmechanik with escapement, accurately drawn by Harding as her Figure 31] dates from c.1790 or later, there is still a tantalizing puzzle as regards the inscription. Franz Ignaz Seuffert was appointed organ and instrument maker to the Court in Wurzburg in 1760, and continued in the post for many years. So how he could be operating a workshop in Vienna (as in Wien implies) cannot be explained by anyone. It is very doubtful that this instrument exhibits any work that can be reliably dated to 1764.
Whether the above instrument was originally some unusual form of clavichord, or a Pantalon (like the harp-shaped claviers attributed, very dubiously, to J. M. Schmahl of Ulm), the doubts about its original condition and date are insuperable at present.
Conclusions
For the present, the oldest verified dated square pianos are those signed by Johannes zumpè in London. Of these there is no doubt whatever. Four of them survive that are clearly dated 1766, and there is also ample documentary evidence to support them.
The archival researches by Prof Christian Ahrens (Ruhr University, Bochum) seem to indicate that some 'Piano forte Claviers' advertised for sale in Leipzig newspapers in 1764/5 may have been square pianos, but no maker or place of origin is given in these texts, and no connection can be established with any extant instrument. Though there is no exact description in these newspaper notices, the way the advertiser cites them alongside 'ordinary Claviers' suggests that they were of clavichord shape, and the use of the Piano forte terminology in some of the texts would suggest a hammer action. But, unhappily, this is not very informative or conclusive. And of course we cannot tell whether they were made locally or imported.
Slightly better is the notice inserted by the organ builder Johann Peter Senft in a Coblenz newspaper in November 1765 in which he offers 'Clavier auf die neueste Art Forte Piano betiteld ... [und] auch ordinaire kleinere Clavier'. So he he was apparently making in 1765 ordinary clavichords and also similar instruments called Forte Pianos'.
If anyone can report other pre-1766 advertisements that cite Piano-fortes in rectangular form it would be a pleasure to report such texts.
Boos and Kintzing
The earliest-dated extant 'square pianos' made in Germany seem to be those by Christian Kintzing of Neuwied and J. A. Boos of Mainz. Both are dated 1767 on hand written labels and each has a simple retro Prellmechanik action with retro lever over dampers, similar to those shown by Dom Bedos de Celles (1778). [Engraving of a square piano made in 1772 see Pianoforte in the Classical Era Plate 12].
Christian Kintzing is reported to have settled in Neuwied in 1738. He was a Mennonite clock maker, and was from 1768 associated with David Roentgen, a well-known cabinet maker, who had made a study tour in England in 1766 and whose output included writing desks that sometimes incorporated a piano keyboard (most likely these were special exhibition pieces). Kintzing's 1767 instrument is on display in the Red Room in the Kreismuseum, Neuwied (sorry no picture available, but it can be seen on the museum's website at www.kreis-neuwied.de thence to the Roentgen Museum [click]). It is not exactly a standard square piano but a miniature instrument 42 inches wide (108 cm) with a four and a half octave compass from C. It would appear this instrument has been subject to significant alterations, not least because the treble part of the bridge is not sitting on free soundboard, but directly sits over the belly rail or left hand support structure which would severely damage the tone. With such ill-considered interference one wonders whether the paper label pasted inside may be trusted. It reads: 1767 C. Kintzing @ Neuwied. The overall concept is a miniature ladies clavier, with a square-taper-legged stand, suggestive of a later date. So clearly this is not a piano in original condition from 1767. The action is a simple retro Prellmechanik with hammers that have hollow cylinder heads (like those shown by Dom Bedos). Kintzing's other attributed works include a clavichord with a Pantalon stop, so it is not unreasonable to query whether this 1767 'square piano' may have been originally conceived as a Pantalon, with the requisite 'Harfenzug' replaced by the set of dampers at a later date. There are many not unreasonable questions regarding this instrument.
![[click]](_images/red room.jpg){kind=link}
There are problems of a different nature with regard to the Boos clavier. The picture below shows its general appearance.
Photo: Michael Cole
Again, the attribution of this instrument [now in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg] depends on a hand-written paper label inside. This label inside this instrument is shown below. (There is a 'nameboard' without inscription, not shown, but it is clearly of inferior quality, does not match any of the design features of the instrument itself, and is therefore not original.)
The text reads fait. J: Ant: Boos faisseur des Clavecin et organiste de St: Pierre @ Mayence ao 1767 or in translation: made [by] J. Ant. Boos maker of harpsichord[s] and organist of St Pierre in Mainz, a[nn]o 1767.
Joseph Anton Boos, born 1727, the son of an organ builder, held several organist's posts in Mainz at various times, and has several surviving instruments to his credit. The above square piano is the earliest. On the whole this is a very well made instrument, in the western German tradition of clavichord making. The soundboard bridge is of low height, ebonised, and S-shaped. The dog-legged wrestpin array, the neatly cut ebonised cap mouldings on the case sides, and its overall height and proportions reflect the better class of work from masters like H A Hass of Hamburg. The keys too are carved in the alternating crest fashion typical of German clavichords from the 1760s. This is clearly a well-made instrument from a competent craftsman, but inevitably, the question arises: was this built as a five-octave, fret free clavichord (after the Hamburg model) and then later converted to a pianoforte?
The restricted height available between the keys and the string band strongly suggests that it was conceived as a clavichord, with keys guided by an upright pin working in a notch cut in the rear of the key. This is a surprising choice for a Prellmechanik piano, and we observe that, though the wooden Kapseln (in which the hammers pivot) are unusually small, nevertheless the rear of the keys had to be reduced in height to accommodate them (see photo where the extra step lowers the height at which the hammer pivots). Any maker who set out to make such a piano would surely have planned sufficient space for the Kapsel height without having to chop into the keys to make them fit. Even so the result is a very shallow hammer stroke, and an awkwardly shallow key dip. The hammers themselves and the pearwood Kapseln are neatly fashioned, suggesting that this was not unfamiliar work to the maker, and they are similar to other makers' from the 1770s. Notice that the heads are connected to the hammer butts by metal stems, finely threaded at the end so as to make adjustment easier. Most square pianos with such hammers were originally not covered with leather at the striking surface but struck with the bare wood, unless one were to draw the moderator stop which inserted little tabs of deerskin between the hammer and its strings.
The question still remains open — was this originally a clavichord, later converted to piano action? Or was Boos here engaged in experimental designs and inevitably making a few mistakes due to lack of experience with hammer actions? There seems no reason to doubt the date and signature, but does the date 1767 refer to its conception as a piano or an earlier state?
This instrument was formerly in the Neupert Collection, now in store at the Germanische Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg.
Another Line of Investigation
Seeking for the origins of the square piano we might be better directing attention not to the middle Rhine area but to northern Germany, for in the north c.1770 there was a vogue for small rectangular keyboard instruments usually denominated Pantalon in archival records (with numerous variant spellings such as Bandalon, Pantalong and Pantaleon). These were designed to reproduce the tonal effects and musical resources of Hebenstreit's dulcimer, but with the convenience of playing them through a standard keyboard. A very important sub-class among them is distinguished by having two sets of hammers, replicating the mallets that Hebenstreit held in his hands. As with Hebenstreit's mallets these were equipped with different heads for contrasting tonal effects, suited to various compositions. One set was usually of bare wood [or some other hard material] while the second set of hammers, brought into play by a handstop, was tipped with soft leather to produce a dulcet tone. The player selected one or the other set according to the tonal requirements of the Affect of the music. An important distinguishing feature of such instruments is that they have no dampers. This was not due to the makers' incompetence; they were never intended to have any! Such instruments were, to put it simply, conceived and played as keyboard dulcimers. The hammer mechanism is nearly always a simple intro Stossmechanik, similar to zumpè's pianos. Unhappily, none of these little Pantalons made in Germany seems to have a dated inscription confirming its manufacture before 1770.
However, recently a fascinating clue arose when a long-lost 'square piano' was discovered in England bearing the inscription of Herman [or Harman] VIETOR, with the date 1767. Vietor was at that date organist of a Lutheran church at the Savoy Chapel in London, though some sort of dispute arose about the validity of his appointment. Some in the congregation favoured a man named Baumgarten, and it appears that after a re-run he was elected. Vietor may have been a competent organist but unhappily he was not a professionally trained maker and his sole surviving instrument exhibits poor craftsmanship and design. It is important to stress this because Rosamond Harding, who never saw an example of his work, suggests that he made improvements to the action of pianos, and some people have believed this. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Though the design and execution of this instrument is very imperfect, its interest as a historic specimen is greatly enhanced by Vietor's advertisements in London newspapers dating 1766 to 1768. In the earlier notices he names his instruments Coelestin d'Amour or 'Piano ex Forte'. In February 1768 however he boasts of his Forte Pianos in various sizes and constructions, of which he is the sole inventor! He also says that he 'has had the honour to sell a great many of them within the last seven years to a great part of the Nobility and Gentry in these kingdoms'. After stripping out some outrageous hyperbole we may imagine that Vietor had been making experimental hammer-action keyboard instruments before 1765, in London, and perhaps this implies that some similar instruments were made in northern Germany as early as 1761. We can place beside him Frederick Neubauer (formerly from Hamburg) who settled in London about 1758 and was advertising upright Pantalon instruments from 1763 onwards (sometimes called Clavecin de Amour [sic] by Neubauer) and other instruments, about which we know less, which in 1765 Neubauer styled 'Pyano Fortes' (square pianos?). Nothing survives that can be identified with certainty as Neubauer's work, and it was presumed that we would have no better luck with Vietor until the instrument below was offered for sale.
H. B. Vietor, 1767
Some points worth noting: the case is veneered in mahogany with vertically laid grain, very much in the style exhibited by zumpè's square piano of 1767 in the Victoria & Albert Museum (seen in Grove's entry for Pianoforte and numerous other books). Sadly the museum has now closed its musical instruments gallery. Other resemblances to zumpè's earliest pianos are the forward falling lock board, as in Hamburg clavichords, and the size and proportions of the keys. Vietor's two stop knobs, protruding from the case like a chamber organ, operate the hammer selection [sliding the hammer rail to left or right for hard or soft hammers] and a buff stop [harp] rising from under the strings. Observe: there are no dampers. Vietor's hammers though narrow, and hinged from a rail like zumpè's, have no guide pins. This feature that would certainly result in an unreliable action. The string scale is ludicrously long, largely as a consequence of Vietor's keyframe being parallel sided. Observe in the photograph his distinctively German, profiled keyboard end blocks and the ebonised side walls of the keyframe, visible under the strings. As a result of this geometry the soundboard cannot overhang the treble keys so the scaling, which zumpè designed so successfully (and influentially) at 12 inches for c2, is about 14½ inches in Vietor's instrument — actually longer than a Kirckman harpsichord! (11 inch scaling is standard in early grand pianos.) Also worthy of notice: despite his claim to have made instruments for the English gentry, Vietor has marked the notes of the scale (next to the tuning pins) with German letters. So, after a comes b, then h, then c: not what your average English patron would have found helpful! After 1771 Vietor is not heard of again*. zumpè's instruments by contrast were hugely successful and widely copied. But despite Vietor's poor craftmanship, and deserved obscurity, this instrument gives a useful glimpse into a German tradition of keyboard Pantalon making, knowledge of which he had presumably imbibed somewhere in north Germany before 1765.
* Note: further research by Dr Margaret Debenham has revealed some sad intelligence regarding Vietor's personal circumstances. In February 1771 his daughter Ann Maria Vietor, aged about 14 or 15, and living with a Mrs Ryan as an apprentice seamstress, was raped by William Phillips, a man lodging in Ryan's house. Vietor had previously prevented his daughter from sleeping at Ryan's house because he was concerned for her safety. Challenged by Herman Vietor, Mrs Ryan refused to say where Phillips was living (having made a swift departure), but one of the other girls living at Ryan's found out, and so he was brought to trial. The details can be read at the oldbaileyonline website — search for Viator [sic]. Despite what reads like overwhelming evidence the jury acquitted Phillips.
So it appears that Herman Vietor/Viator, an immigrant in London, having lost his place as organist at the Savoy Chapel, and having failed make any headway as an instrument maker, finally saw his young daughter humiliated in the most terrible circumstances. It would not be surprising if he decided that London was not the place for him, but what became of him and his family is currently unknown.
The principle which Vietor was reproducing seems to have retained some degree of currency for twenty years. An excellent specimen is exhibited in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum [MINe 166], and another in Frankfurt an der Oder (shown below). There is another in Brussels, by a different maker, and others may have had a short vogue in Dublin, made by Ferdinand Weber, originally from Saxony of course. Every one of these instruments shows signs of the north German origin of the makers' training. But such instruments fell out of fashion in the 1780s, if indeed they were ever truly in fashion. The legacy of such a tradition also survives in the Moravian congregations in Pennsylvania, for example in the 'square piano' with no dampers made by John Huber, c.1790.
Could similar instruments, made by Neubauer in Hamburg and London, and other north German craftsmen in the early 1760s, have provided the inspiration for subsequent developments leading to the square piano as we know it? Perhaps the answer should be affirmative, though the evidence is as yet fragmentary. How useful it would be to find a surviving example of Neubauer's work!
Below you will see details of a well-made example of the twin hammer Pantalon concept.
Frankfurt an der Oder: anonymous Tafelklavier (a Pantalon with two hammers for each note), ascribed by Herbert Heyde to the Magdeburg region c.1775. Significantly, it has no dampers, but the down-bearing harp stop (a semi-mute to imitate gut strings) is seen at the top, with a lever at the left to raise or lower it. A curious feature is the compressed geometry of the keyframe, resulting in the balance pins being visible in front of the 'nameboard' which its maker has not inscribed but skilfully inlaid with a parquetry decoration, now somewhat faded but visible lower right. Bottom left you can see the forward-falling lockboard. Another example, apparently by the same maker, is in the Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, where it is, or has recently been, on display. Its catalogue reference number is MINe 166.
Return to Michael Cole's Home Page.