Dulcimer Player

A true mechanical masterpiece, this exceptionally rare and enchanting dulcimer-playing android automation is both a remarkable treasure and extraordinary discovery. The exceptional piece is among the very first android automata of its kind ever made, and it is almost certainly served as the inspiration for perhaps the world’s most famous automaton, the dulcimer player (La Joueuse de Tympanon) made for Queen Marie Antoinette in 1784, and currently in the collection of the Musèe des Arts et Métiers in Paris. A truly unique and fantastic work of craftsmanship, this important automaton stands out as a shining example of the Enlightenment period’s ingenuity.

Considered by many to be the precursor to the computer, complicated automata such as this were at the forefront of 18ht-century technological beauty and wonder that entranced their 18th-century audiences. Only a small group that match the sophistication and complexity of the present example were made between 1730 and 1810, and of those, just eight were thought to exist today. All eight of those important examples are held in museums around the world. With the re-discovery of the present player, now nine examples are known, and this is the only one still in private hands.
With their clockwork mechanisms entirely hidden from view, these automata carried out sophisticated, realistic movements that mimicked the minute emotions of their human counterparts. Yet, what truly set the android automaton apart from other automata was the fact that it performed just as a human would.

In the case of the present piece, the dulcimer player moves its hammer across the springs to physically strike the correct notes. The mechanism hidden inside does not produce the music- the dulcimer player herself does.

From a technical perspective, it was exceedingly difficult to create an object that plays an instrument as human does, while also construction a mechanism small enough to be hidden entirely from view. Separate mechanisms were forged to drive each motion of the automaton, and their complexity grew with every new nuance. Astonishingly, this dulcimer player moves not only her arms to play, but also her head and eyes and torso in rhythm with the music.
Considering the complexity of such a machine, it is little wonder that the movements of automata such as this were most often constructed by the most advanced clockmakers of the period. The dulcimer player’s myriad of spring-driven gears resembles the finest of the horological arts, and only the most proficient master clockmaker could have produced such a piece.

This example was almost certainly crafted by Joseph Möllinger (1715-1772), an instrument maker and clockmaker at the court in Zweibrücken. Part of a small, but influential community of Mennonite clockmakers, it is now known that Möllinger taught clockmaking to the other famous Mennonite clockmaker, Peter Kingzing (1745-1816) – the man who would later construct the mechanism for the Marie Antoinette dulcimer player.

It is very interesting to note the similarities between this dulcimer player and the Marie Antoinette example. The mechanisms themselves are so alike in both form and placement that it is clear that one is based upon the other. There are however, three key differences that raise the following question:
Why is the movement of the present example crafted of iron? By the mid-18th century, it was understood that brass was far easier to work with.
If one player was based on the other, why is the music different? Changing the music would have been exceptionally time consuming and difficult, and if all else about the mechanism was the same, why go through the incredible expense to change the music?
Why is the case quality on the Marie Antoinette example superior to the present player?

First of all, while iron was considered outdated by this period, Möllinger was still known to have worked in the material. He was one of a handful of important German makers form the period still working in iron, as he had been trained to work in iron and his workshop was still configured to work in the material. Kingzing on the other hand, was part of the modern generation of clockmakers, and they all worked exclusively in brass.

Second, while each mechanism plays eight tunes, the compositions themselves are different. The highly logical answer is that Kingzing, in an effort to make something the Queen would love, took the time to program his dulcimer to play the music of the Queen’s favorite composer, Christoph Willibald Gluck.

Lastly, the case of the dulcimer itself differs significantly between the two works. The present example was crafted in rural Germany in the classic high German style of the day, while the Marie Antoinette player reflects the desired Neoclassical style of Louis xvi. This was due to the significant influence of Peter Kinzing’s collaborator and partner, David Roentgen, the most celebrated German cabinetmaker of the era. The dulcimer player was constructed, in part, to demonstrate to the French court Roentgen’s skill as a furniture craftsman. The final product had the desired result, and Roentgen was name ébéntiste- mechanicien to the Queen.

Perhaps most significant is the recent discovery of a letter written on 10 November 1785, which reveals that Kinzing’s inspiration for his dulcimer player came from his mentor, Möllinger, who had invented the prototype. Based on the age, materials, uniqueness, and construction of the current example, this must be the Möllinger example. The mechanism is almost exactly the same as the later automaton. While other automata similarly used cams, springs and gears to achieve movement, each was designed in a way that is unique to the maker. That mechanism clearly indicates that one was based upon the other.

The essence of the machines, however, remains the same, and the similarity of the mechanisms conclusively links them. That the present work was almost certainly constructed prior to, and thus was the impetus for, Roentgen-Kingzing’s famed player makes it an invaluable treasure of the mechanical arts and an astounding re-discovery.