Things: Mozart's Fortepiano

The piano that Mozart played upon wasn't like our modern pianos. Mozart's favorite piano, the one he had built in 1780 by the famous fortepiano designer/builder, Anton Walter, was considerably smaller and lighter than the modern piano. Mozart took it with him whenever he played a concert in Vienna.

The fortepiano has leather-covered hammers and thin, harpsichord-like strings. It has a much lighter case construction than the modern piano and, except for later examples of the early nineteenth century (already evolving towards the modern piano), it has no metal frame or bracing. The action and hammers are lighter, giving rise to a much lighter touch, which in good fortepianos is also very responsive. The range of the fortepiano was about four octaves at the time of its invention and gradually increased. Mozart (1756–1791) wrote his piano music for instruments of about five octaves.
~ Wikipedia

Of all of the Mozart piano concerti, this one is probably my favorite for a number of reasons, not the least being the wonderfully moody Adagio movement, composed in the languid and love-sick key of F-sharp minor. This is a wonderful recording, featuring John Elliot Gardner and The English Baroque Soloists, with Malcolm Bilson on the fortepiano. Now if you have a good ear for tuning and you're thinking that this sounds more like A flat than A major, you would be partially correct. During Mozart's time, the instruments were tuned to about A-435 or so, as opposed to the A-440 we are accustomed to today. It's somewhere around a quarter of a step lower than the A we use.  However, there's something magical about the authentic effect from pieces from this era that are played on period instruments.

I'm posting all three movements of this incredible concerto simply because all three movements merit a listen. So sit back and enjoy.

The Piano Concerto No. 23 in A major (K. 488) is a musical composition for piano and orchestra written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. It was finished, according to Mozart's own catalogue, on March 2, 1786, around the time of the premiere of his opera, The Marriage of Figaro. It was one of three subscription concerts given that spring and was probably played by Mozart himself at one of these. The concerto is scored for piano solo and an orchestra consisting of one flute, two clarinets, two bassoons, two horns and strings.


It has three movements:
Allegro in A major and common time.
Adagio in F-sharp minor and 6/8 time (in later editions, the tempo is listed as Andante).
Allegro assai in A and alla breve (in later editions, the tempo is listed as Presto).


The first movement is mostly joyful and positive with the occasional melancholic touches typical of Mozart pieces in A major.

The second, slow movement, in ternary form, is impassioned and somewhat operatic in tone. The piano begins alone with a theme characterized by unusually wide leaps. This is the only movement by Mozart in F sharp minor. The dynamics are soft throughout most of the piece. The middle of the movement contains a brighter section in A major announced by flute and clarinet that Mozart would later use to introduce the trio "Ah! taci ingiusto core!" in his opera Don Giovanni.


The third movement is a rondo, shaded by moves into other keys as is the opening movement (to C major from E minor and back during the secondary theme in this case, for instance) and with a central section whose opening in F sharp minor is interrupted by a clarinet tune in D major, an intrusion that reminds us, notes Girdlestone, that instrumental music at the time was informed by opera buffa and its sudden changes of point of view as well as of scene.  ~Wikipedia

People: Emperor Joseph II

Although Emperor Joseph never utters a word in So Faithful a Heart, he is mentioned often, and his presence is felt throughout. The Emperor played quite an important and influential role in both Mozart's and Nancy's lives. The following information is from Wikipedia.

Joseph II (Joseph Benedikt Anton Michael Adam; 13 March 1741 – 20 February 1790) was Holy Roman Emperor from 1765 to 1790 and ruler of the Habsburg lands from 1780 to 1790. He was the eldest son of Empress Maria Theresa and her husband, Francis I. He was thus the first ruler in the Austrian dominions of the House of Lorraine, styled Habsburg-Lorraine (von Habsburg-Lothringen in German). Joseph was a proponent of enlightened absolutism; however, his commitment to modernizing reforms subsequently engendered significant opposition, which eventually culminated in an ultimate failure to fully implement his programmes. He has been ranked, with Catherine II of Russia and Frederick II of Prussia, as one of the three great Enlightenment despots.

He married Infanta Isabella of Parma, in October 1760—a union fashioned to bolster the 1756 defensive pact between France and Austria (the bride's mother was the eldest daughter of the incumbent King of France) -- with whom he had his only child, Maria Theresa. Isabella died in 1763, and Maria Theresa in 1767. He was reluctant to re-marry; however, for political reasons, he married Maria Josepha of Bavaria in 1765. She died two years later from smallpox, and Joseph never re-married.

You can find the entire article linked here. 

Although Mozart never served in Joseph's court, the Emperor was quite fond of him, and commissioned several operas from him, including the German-language opera Die Entführung aus dem Serail, two Italian comic operas, Le Nozze di Figaro, and Cosi fan tutte.  Joseph II was regarded as "the musical king", and once said to Mozart in regards to his music, “Too many notes, my dear Mozart, and too beautiful for our ears.”  

Joseph II died on February 20th, 1790, of tuberculosis,  having never seen the last opera he commissioned from Mozart (Cosi fan tutte).  His death was a tremendous blow to Viennese musicians, for the next emperor, his younger brother , Leopold II, had no appreciation or use for the arts and as a result, refused to fund them. 

Places: Scholss Laxenburg

One of the places featured most prominently in So Faithful a Heart is the Imperial summer estate of Laxenburg.  Located about ten miles south of Vienna, the palace and grounds were built and developed by the Empress Maria Theresa and served as the Imperial Family's summer home. Maria Theresa's oldest son Josef II, regarded it as his favorite of all the Imperial estates.

Schloss Laxenburg was a generous palatial estate in the countryside, several miles outside of Vienna. Of all of Emperor Joseph’s estates, this was his favorite because contained within it were his finest hunting grounds, several lush gardens dotted with pavilions, small forests, wooded paths, a large, picturesque, pond with row boats, picnic grounds, spas, and green lawns which were ideal for all sorts of outdoor entertainment. In addition to the grounds was the palace, which housed a small theater, ballrooms, a large banquet hall, casinos, and several estate rooms. It sat just on the edge of a tiny village that boasted many fine shops, cafés, wineries and taverns, all designed to accommodate His Majesty, his retinue, and his noble guests. Whenever the Emperor took his summer recess, he generally brought his opera company along with several other musicians and performers who were housed in a row of luxurious apartments not far from the theater, and while there, were given free reign of the grounds and use of all the estate had to offer. It was a place of beauty, relaxation, indulgence, sensual pleasures and delights for the enjoyment of the Emperor and his honored guests.

 When Steph and I were last in Vienna to be filmed for a documentary about Mozart for his 250th birthday, we spent nearly an entire day at Laxenburg, where we enjoyed the lovely grounds, as well as a picnic near, Diana's Temple, which is a large pavilion located about a mile from the main palatial complex. If you're ever in Vienna, take the opportunity to travel down to Laxenburg. It's not one of the more popular or well-known tourist spots, but it's well worth any trouble it might take to get there.

Handel's Let the bright Seraphim, from Sampson

Because So Faithful a Heart is a novel about two musicians, music plays a huge role within the scope of the plot. I thought it might be interesting and helpful to do a series of posts about the music featured in the book, so that readers who might not be familiar some of the pieces could have a chance to hear some of the selections.

In chapter two, Nancy meets Mozart at a grand palatial reception designed to introduce the members of the Emperor's new Italian Opera Company. In addition to meeting Mozart, she also meets Aloysia Lange, Mozart's sister-in-law, who was, considered the best singer in Vienna at the time. Aloysia, who is already quite jealous over Nancy and the reputation she has already garnered throughout the city, receives her rather coldly.

     “I hear you are to entertain us with a taste of your talent, Mademoiselle,” Mozart interjected in an attempt to break the ice, which had frozen what was an otherwise warm introduction. “I can’t tell you how I look forward to hearing you sing. Pray, tell us what you will offer us this afternoon,” he went on enthusiastically, already charmed by her appearance and obvious intelligence.

     “I’ve chosen some arias by Paisiello and a favorite of mine by Handel, Let the bright Seraphim from Sampson, as well as one of the Countess’ arias from the Salieri piece which opens in two weeks,” she replied nervously. She suddenly realized this would be her first time to sing for Mozart, who could be rather critical. “If I may, I need to excuse myself because I believe it is almost time for me to take my place for the concert.”

Let the bright Seraphim from Handel's oratorio, Sampson, was considered one of the best arias in Nancy Storace's repertoire. It is sung here by soprano, Kathleen Battle.

Sex & Marriage in the 18th Century Western World

It has only been over the last 180 years that sex has taken on some of its more prudish trappings, especially in America. With the advent of the reign of Queen Victoria of England in 1837, the western world adopted a much stricter and often oppressive view of sex that had far-reaching effects even into the 21st century. And although sexual standards today have loosened considerably since the Victorian era, there is still an element of prudishness that exists along with a curious double standard. In America, we allow our movie stars and entertainment celebrities all kinds of sexual licenses and liberties while holding our government officials, clergy, and common folk to stricter standards, often rooted in religious restrictions and taboos. Nudity, fornication, homosexuality, prostitution, pornography, and graphic depictions of sex in film and literature abound, but if we live these things out in our everyday lives, we are judged and condemned by our society as being of "loose moral character".

In 18th century Europe, there also existed a double standard, but not in the way that it exists today in the United States. The standards and regulations for men were much looser than those for women, and although some men were condemned by society as "libertines" (such as Casanova, who indulged in sexual relationships with the wives and daughters of noblemen), most men, especially those of the noble and higher educated working classes enjoyed their mistresses, and even relations with prostitutes, with little or no condemnation as long as they kept these relationships discrete. In the 18th century, medical science taught that a man needed regular sexual release and that without it, he would become ill. So in the event that his wife was pregnant and/or lactating, he would seek his sexual release in the bed of a mistress or prostitute. A mistress was much safer, and since she generally reserved herself for one man at a time, she was considered relatively free from venereal disease, whereas there was no telling who the prostitute had slept with and how many times. The sin of adultery for a man was not in his finding himself in the beds of other women, but in finding himself in love with a woman other than his wife, for the transfer of his affections to the other woman threatened the well-being of his wife and, most importantly, his legitimate offspring.

Women were limited to two sexual roles in 18th century western society--that of wife and mother, or mistress and/or prostitute. All women, no matter their station, were the property of men and were to be used in whatever way men saw fit. The virgin daughters of royalty and nobility were expected to keep themselves pure for their future husbands, and often in an effort to keep them chaste until marriage, they were sent off to convents at very young ages and schooled by nuns until they began to menstruate. Once their periods began, usually around thirteen to fourteen years of age, they were betrothed and married off, generally to much older men of noble blood.  The wife of a nobleman was expected to be sexually faithful to her husband, for she was the vessel from which sprang his heirs. The only way to guarantee that his legitimate heirs would carry on his name and entitlements was in seeing to it that his wife engaged only in sexual relations with him. Her celibacy was paramount, while his celibacy was a personal choice and not required.

The mistress held a less respected, but generally well-loved and vital role in society, for it was the mistress who gave the man pleasure and release from the tensions at home. Mistresses were "kept" by their men, and therefore only noblemen or wealthy businessmen or members of the upper educated working classes could afford to keep them.  It was in the bed of the mistress that the man could indulge his sexual fantasies, for sex with a mistress had nothing to do with procreation and everything to do with pleasure. The only sin that a man ever committed with his mistress happened when he fell in love with her. Because the church was loathe to grant divorces, abandonment was often the lot of the wife whose husband transferred his affections to his mistress, and the man who did so was usually blackballed by members of his class and society, making it nearly impossible for him to maintain himself financially. History is rife with stories of noblemen who fell in love with their mistresses--Lord Admiral Nelson with Emma Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson with Sally Hemings, and George IV with Maria Fitzherbert--but few, if any, ultimately abandoned their wives and children and/or titles and positions in order to marry their mistresses. Ultimately the mistress was abandoned whether it be by pressure from society or by the man's death, and in these cases, the mistress was generally left shattered, both emotionally and financially.

It is very clear, then, that the institution of marriage was created to benefit men in western society. Over the course of the last two-hundred years, however, especially with the advent of Women's Suffrage, and later the Women's Liberation Movement, women have made significant gains both sexually and within the institution of marriage. With these new freedoms have come changes in our views of sex and marriage and their roles and purposes within our society that have brought a great deal of conflict and confusion. Now sex is viewed more openly and is less about procreation as for pleasure and expression, and marriage as an institution is about two people who love each other and have decided to join their lives, industry, and property together in order to better care-for and support one another. There are still those pockets of our society that wish to hold on to the old norms and traditions, but overall the changes have taken hold and the result is a much different structure and view of not only sex, but human relationships in general, than what was prominent with our 18th century forefathers.

Foreword by S.K. Waller

The following is the foreword from So Faithful a Heart, written by my partner, S.K. Waller.

To read an historical fiction it is necessary to put aside our modern world. But that’s the easy part. The real difficulty lies in being willing to take off our modern goggles and see life as it was lived centuries in the past without judgments that come from several hundred years of social evolution. This isn’t easy, and there is so much we don’t know. Even writers who have spent years in research can only imagine life before mass media, women’s rights, the abolition of slavery, the overthrow of the monarchy, and the waning of theocratic governments.

This is a book that takes us to the eighteenth century to look at the life of a woman of the theater. At that time actresses were considered little better than prostitutes and few young women were encouraged to follow that path. Still, many did, not all of them women of loose moral character. Like women in our own time, many sought to be recognized and respected for their talents and hard work, stubbornly battling the stereotypes. However, also like modern women seeking acting or singing careers, some find themselves forced to acquiesce to the demands of the “casting couch” in order to find some small control over their lives. In the eighteenth century all women submitted to men, be they directors, fathers, brothers, or husbands. In this the wife was no different than the actress: she had a role to play, which was to see to the comfort and pleasure of a man. All women were held captive by this role, although the actress certainly appeared to have a more exciting life than the wife. While the wife may have looked at the actress with some envy for her supposed freedom, the actress probably looked at the wife, envying her security. Often, the pivot point between them was the husband, who required different things from the women in his life.

Which brings us to another problem when reading an historical fiction: that is the concept of marriage in an earlier time. In the eighteenth century a marriage was seldom made for love, especially between people of the noble, aristocratic, or educated working classes. The latter certainly had a little more access to romantic bonds, but the parents had the final say. After the ceremony it was back to life as usual; there was no honeymoon, and a steady parade of children usually followed, especially in those countries where the Catholic Church still held power.

With science teaching that a man needed regular sex to maintain his health, where was he to go when his wife was constantly pregnant, in post-partum confinement, or lactating? Men were expected to seek sexual release outside the marriage, something that few wives were threatened by. It was not his sexuality that made him loyal, but his sentiments. Falling into bed was not the sin, falling in love was, because that threatened the livelihood of the wife and her children. Therefore, men who could afford to do so kept mistresses and many wives were glad of it.

Likewise, the carrying, bearing, and raising of children were not the man’s concern. A man was not part of the birth of his children, nor was he part of the washing, feeding, or diaper-changing. He was expected to support his family and to be a good provider. He was to see to their religious instruction and their social grooming, and that was all. The children of a mistress, especially, were not his concern; only the generous, financially solvent man supported his bastards. Most men did not even acknowledge their illegitimate offspring, leaving it to the mistress to seek abortions or send the children into servitude as soon as they were able to work. Ideally, the mistress took care of what birth control was available at the time.

These things seem harsh to us today, but to see the eighteenth century clearly, without our modern sensibilities intruding, we must force ourselves to remember that where these social issues are concerned, people were not like we are. The roles of men and women were clearly defined in an attempt to keep society civilized. In our century such roles are looked down upon as we evolve socially, each of us toward our own personal fulfillment, regardless of gender. Death was always around the corner, most people were grossly uneducated, and Europeans, although largely dominated by the Church, were not religious in the way that people are today. There was no fear of global self-annihilation, no Freudian analysis, and no modern American fundamentalism, which didn’t take root until a hundred years later as a backlash to the liberal theology in both England and America. The world was a much larger place, and most people never traveled beyond their own city walls.

This is a book about two musicians who had seen most of Europe and had encountered other cultures, philosophies, and religious beliefs. They had been child prodigies, were worldly and educated, relatively tolerant, and unusually broad-minded. They were acquainted with many of the same people and had visited many of the same cities. When they met, they had to have recognized these similarities and they must have spent long hours in conversation about their mutual experiences. It is not difficult to imagine that they would have found these similarities comforting and even attractive.

As difficult as it is for us to slip beneath the skin of a person of the eighteenth century, it would be even harder for someone from that time to slip beneath ours. It is my hope that by reading this book you will truly get to know the characters and accept them for what they were, without modern bias.

S. K. Waller
Autumn 2009