The Architecture under King Ludwig II – Palaces and Factories 9783035616538, 9783035615364

Citation preview

THE ARCHITECTURE UNDER KING

PALACES AND FACTORIES

THE PUBLICATION WAS FUNDED BY THE

THE ARCHITECTURE UNDER KING

PALACES AND FACTORIES

Edited by ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER With photographs by ULRIKE MYRZIK

CONTENTS

6

Greeting by Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung MARTIN HOERNES

8

Preface ANDRES LEPIK

38 40

Ludwig II: On the Legacy of an Artist on the Throne ALEXANDER RAUCH

58

Architecture as the Availability of History? Reflections on a New Understanding of the Buildings of King Ludwig II of Bavaria ROBERT STALLA

70

Sacredness in the Buildings of Ludwig II UWE GERD SCHATZ

82

Present in the Past: Ludwig II and Architecture Photography 1864–86 ULRICH POHLMANN

94

King Ludwig II’s View of the World SABINE HEYM

104

Exotic Conceptions of Space? Sources and Variations in Ludwig’s Perception of Islamic Architecture EVA-MARIA TROELENBERG

178

24

INTRODUCTION More than just Royal Palaces. On Architecture in the Kingdom of Bavaria under Ludwig II ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER

ESSAYS 116

Mediated Architectural (Dream) Spaces: Ludwig II and the Middle Ages “at Third Hand” GABRIELLA CIANCIOLO COSENTINO

126

Engineering the “Fairy Tale”: Infrastructure under Ludwig II PETER H. CHRISTENSEN

136

Municipal Authority and Aesthetic Dignity. The Competition for the Munich City Hall THOMAS WEIDNER

146

The Aestheticization of Technology in Historicism: The Neue Polytechnische Schule in Munich DIETRICH ERBEN

158

Workers’ Housing at the Time of Ludwig II VERA SIMONE BADER

168

The Kunstverein Building by Eduard von Riedel: A first Project of Ludwig II in Munich REGINE HESS

BUILDING TYPES

180

I Urban Planning

244

VII Culture and Entertainment

192

II Transportation

256

VIII Industrial Exhibitions

202

III Industry, Trade, and Commerce

262

214

IV Health, Hygiene, and Social Welfare

IX Government and Municipal Administration

272

X Military

226

V Education and Schooling

280

XI Churches and Synagogues

234

VI Housing

288

XII Palaces and Castles

304 BIBLIOGRAPHY

315 PHOTO CREDITS

316 THANKS

GREETING

W

of the monarchical system, the aspirations of the emerging bourgeoisie, and industrialization; and, secondly, the numerous examples of interaction between “high” and “low”—that is, the way in which the palaces of Ludwig II, with their exacting standards, the representation buildings oriented on them, and everyday architecture influenced one another. Architectural types and decorative programs originally found only in palace buildings began to be used for functional buildings such as factories, train stations, and beer halls; conversely, new building materials such as glass, iron, and concrete, which entered architecture through industrial buildings, were now employed also in the royal palaces.

orld-famous and yet with many barely known aspects—this could be a succinct description of the architecture under King Ludwig II of Bavaria. Together with the present publication, the exhibition by the Architekturmuseum der TUM in the Pinakothek der Moderne in Munich showcases the royal palaces, placing them against the wide background of public building activity in the Kingdom of Bavaria during the main phase of historicism that, as yet, has received little attention. The diverse spectrum of architecture presented includes a variety of traditional and new building types and still shapes the architectural landscape of Bavaria and the Rhineland Palatinate today. By extending the field of vision, the royal palaces are placed in a new light: the characteristics of this phase are, firstly, a general leveling of the previously obligatory hierarchies of building commissions, which went hand-in-hand with the general erosion

The art foundation of the entrepreneur and patron Ernst von Siemens was delighted to support the exhibition and the publication—this general theme would certainly have met with great interest from the founder. MARTIN HOERNES, Secretary General of the Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung

6

Neuschwanstein Castle, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, GEORG VON DOLLMANN and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–92 (photochrome: PHOTOGLOB ZÜRICH, ca. 1890)

7

PREFACE

[1] Portrait of Ludwig II (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, 1867)

8

ANDRES LEPIK

is Neuschwanstein, Linderhof, and Herrenchiemsee Palaces have made King Ludwig II of Bavaria better known internationally today than almost any other nineteenth-century ruler [1]. With their extremely elaborate decoration and complex visual programs these buildings represent his most significant legacy. Although, due to their lack of innovation, these palaces may not be as important for architectural history as other European buildings of the time, they have, nevertheless, developed an incomparable impact over the years. This began immediately after the death of Ludwig II in 1886, when they were opened to the general public [2]. Since that time the flood of visitors has grown continuously and today has acquired almost unmanageable dimensions: in 2015, 1.5 million tourists visited Neuschwanstein Castle alone. The numerous visitors appear to be just as impressed by the spectacular building and its position in the landscape as they are by Ludwig II, who here implemented his personal vision away from cities. Both for researchers who examine the theme in depth and for laypeople who encounter the buildings for the first time, Ludwig II remains a puzzle. Through his extreme contradictions, he challenges each of us to produce our own interpretations and projections. And his palace buildings embody one of the greatest and, as yet, inexplicable contradictions: due to the fact that during his lifetime he allowed practically nobody to visit them, after his death they became the embodiment of the desires of millions. Through the different ways in which they are understood, these fantastical buildings have developed a life of their own. Because of the way it gives visual expression to old Germanic sagas and also due to its association with Richard Wagner, Neuschwanstein Castle was a focus of interest during the National Socialist era, but only shortly after the end of the Second World War—probably on account of the pacifism of the man who built it—this castle became a symbol of a Germany cleansed of fascism. This is shown, for example, by the illustration on the cover of Life magazine in May 1954 with the title “Germany A Giant Awakened” [3]. 9

PREFACE

The enormous public success of the palaces, accompanied by the kitschy romanticization on a massive scale of the person of Ludwig II through novels, films, musicals, and tourism advertising, has almost completely obscured the view of the king’s achievements in other areas of architecture. So far, only Ludwig II’s failed attempts to build Gottfried Semper’s design for a Festspielhaus in Munich for his much-admired Richard Wagner has attracted a deeper interest from architecture historians [4]. But in fact, alongside the palaces, in the years between 1864 and 1886 an entire series of building projects and plans was implemented in the Kingdom of Bavaria, which the king supported and in some cases strongly influenced— starting with bridges and including barracks, clinics, churches, and synagogues, as well as railway stations, industrial buildings, and workers’ housing. During the reign of Ludwig II the Kingdom of Bavaria underwent a fundamental transformation involving wide-ranging building activity that is the subject of this exhibition and the publication that accompanies it. The goal is to offer an overview of the most important building commissions of this epoch through a set of carefully selected examples. While the royal palaces form part of this examination, the primary aim is to provide a wider view that encompasses the other buildings erected under Ludwig II in order to illuminate the various achievements in the field of building during his time. Essentially, the thesis presented here is that the interest of Ludwig II in architecture in Bavaria extended far beyond his private buildings and consequently his [2] Neuschwanstein Castle, “Das letztvollendete Lustschloss” influence on the architecture of (woodcut, K. PITZNER, Das Buch für Alle, 1884) 10

ANDRES LEPIK

his time should not be underestimated, despite the many political restrictions that were imposed on him. Founded in 1868 by King Ludwig II as the Neue Polytechnische Schule [5], the 150th anniversary of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) offered the occasion for the exhibition and catalogue. This is the period in which architecture as a discipline had to face competition from the technical sciences. Unfortunately, as a result of large-scale destruc[3] Life magazine, May 1954, cover tion during the Second World War, only a few fragments have survived of the facade of the predecessor to today’s TUM, which Ludwig II had built between 1864 and 1868 at a prominent location on Arcisstraße to plans by Gottfried von Neureuther. However, thanks to the extensive plans and visual material about the building that have been preserved, it has been possible in the exhibition to reconstruct a picture of this educational building, which in many respects played a pioneering role. It marked the stylistic break with the earlier, synthetic Maximilian style and the change to the neo-Renaissance, which gradually established its place as a style for public buildings under Ludwig II. It was also Ludwig II who left the architecture faculty a collection of architectural drawings that included Gottfried Semper’s designs for the Festspielhaus, which laid the foundation for the extensive collection of the present Architecture Museum. As part of its function as a research institution, this museum has regularly looked 11

PREFACE

[4] Munich, project of Richard Wagner Festival Theater, section, GOTTFRIED SEMPER, 1867

intensively at the history of architecture in Bavaria and especially at the Bavarian kings, as is shown by the exhibitions and the catalogues that accompanied them: Klassizismus in Bayern, Schwa­ ben und Franken: Architekturzeichnungen 1775–1825 (1980), Romantik und Restauration: Architektur in Bayern zur Zeit Ludwigs I, 1825–48 (1987), Zwischen Glaspalast und Maximilianeum: Architektur in Bayern zur Zeit Maximilians II, 1848–64 (1997) and also Die Prinzregentenzeit (1989). All of these were produced in close collaboration with the Münchner Stadtmuseum, where they were also presented. With the exhibition Königsschlösser und Fabriken: Ludwig II und die Architektur on the occasion of the TUM anniversary we can finally close the gap in this series and present 12

ANDRES LEPIK

this epoch in our rooms in the Pinakothek der Moderne. It is clear that Ludwig II was fully aware of the latest achievements of modernism in his time—in areas such as building technology, chemistry, electro-technology, photography, hygiene, medicine, and physics— and made use of these for his purposes. It is time to take a new look at the architecture of his reign and, finally, to correct the romanticized picture of a king interested solely in his palaces. The hope is that a new look at this epoch can draw greater attention to the other building commissions and buildings from this time and in this way contribute to their protection.

[5] Munich, Polytechnic School, south wing, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1864–68 (photo: GEORG BÖTTGER, ca. 1870)

13

Munich, Technische Universität (former New Polytechnic School), GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1864–68

Augsburg, apartment houses in Volkhartstraße, KARL ALBERT GOLLWITZER, 1885–90

Augsburg, Stadttheater, FELLNER & HELMER, 1876/77

Munich, Augustiner Brewery, XAVER RENNER, 1885–90

Linderhof Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN, and others, 1870–86

MORE THAN JUST ROYAL PALACES On Architecture in the Kingdom of Bavaria under Ludwig II By ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER “That art and trade may always blossom and flourish unhindered for the welfare of my beloved people: This is and remains my wish and my concern.”1

do justice to the actual person who ruled Bavaria in the last third of the nineteenth century.3 On the one hand, a description of the complex political situation during this time of change that was shaped by industrialization and the three Wars of German Unification (1866–71)—one of the most difficult phases of Bavarian history—offers some idea of the tensions to which the king, who was only eighteen years old when he acceded to the throne in 1864, was exposed.4 On the other hand, it is shown by a first-ever analysis of the sources that during his lifetime Ludwig II not only conscientiously met the demands of his office but also strove to bring about an improvement in the living conditions of his subjects—for example through the introduction of social reforms and the preservation of a “fortunate [relationship] between industry

T

hrough the popular narrative about the fairytale king, which developed already during the lifetime of Ludwig II and today is still present in almost all media, the image of a monarch who was uninterested in the basic problems and developments of his time and who neglected his political responsibilities was fostered over a period of many decades.2 However, as the latest research shows, in many points this cliché fails to

[1] Munich, competition entry for the New City Hall, LUDWIG and EMIL LANGE, 1866

24

[2] Munich, design for the Künstlerhaus on Lenbachplatz, GABRIEL VON SEIDL, 1886

possible in an imaginary world. In the area of public building the growing industrialization of Bavaria and the development of Munich into a metropolis contrasted strongly with the contemporaneous blossoming of late historicism and the pluralistic referencing of past epochs.

and agriculture.”5 Therefore, as Hermann Rumschöttel has suggested, perhaps he can be most accurately described as a Grenzgänger (one who crosses borders), a person whose ambivalent nature combined opposites such as “reality and irrationalism, an absolutist sense of majesty and a closeness to the people he ruled, nature and art, the duties of a ruler and artistic freedom, health and sickness, sexual convention and libertinage, piety and criticism of the Church.”6

On looking at architecture in the Kingdom of Bavaria under Ludwig II it is noticeable that state, municipal, and private building activity during this time has so far been largely ignored by research and by the innumerable studies made of his person—clearly the fame of his palaces has completely outshone all other questions. This neglect may also be attributable to the fact that Ludwig II was able to implement his architectural and urban planning visions only to a limited extent. One example here is the prominent project for a festival hall, which the young king wished to have erected for Richard Wagner from 1864 on the eastern, elevated bank of the Isar. This innovative opera house, which was planned by Gottfried Semper in conjunction with a boulevard that was to begin at the Hofgarten, failed due to the opposition of the court camarilla; it did, however, eventually lead to the

With these inner contradictions he reflected an era that was also characterized by widely divergent tendencies: an enthusiasm for technology and a belief in progress on the one hand but, on the other, a wish to return to the past and to nature.7 This dualism is also evident in the architecture of the time: For example in the royal palaces, those “accessible pictures”8 that refer to medieval sagas, the Ancien Régime, or the world of the Orient and whose unique quality is derived from their remote locations and their exceptional relationship to nature. Using all the means available to him—and, above all, with the help of innovative technology—Ludwig II strove to immerse himself as completely as 25

INTRODUCTION

[3] Nuremberg, bird's eye view of the Bavarian State, Industrial, Trade and Art Exhibition, ADOLF GNAUTH, 1882

building of the Bayreuth Festival Hall (1872–75) and of the Prince Regent’s Theater (1900–01) in Munich in its wake.9 Not only were projects initiated by the king himself blocked, but his influence on state building projects was also reduced. This is particularly illustrated by the case of the late Gothic Herstalltor, a town gate in Aschaffenburg, which, at the beginning of 1865, was to be demolished to create space for railway buildings. Against expectations, the young monarch initially rejected the application to demolish the gate on account of its historical importance—a refusal that was met with widespread astonishment. However, he gave in when the Ministry of the Interior together with the district government of Lower Franconia and the City of Aschaffenburg, upon submitting a second demolition application, indirectly threatened to mobilize public opinion against him.10

had done, should not be understood as a lack of interest on his part but rather as the outcome of a shift in power caused by the gradual erosion of the monarchical system toward the end of the nineteenth century and also by a variety of social, legal, and political conditions: the important factors here were, above all, the economic and political advance of the bourgeoisie, the increasing independence of the towns—the autonomy they gained as a result of the Municipal Edict reforms of 1869 is expressed, for instance, in the competition for the New City Hall in Munich as discussed by Thomas Weidner [1]—and the growing self-assurance of the liberal ministers, who now saw themselves as the actual backbone of the government.11 As regards public buildings, Ludwig II retained the final say over the Supreme Building Authority. Therefore not only all state building projects but also nominations for positions that were decisive for the development of architecture, such as the head of the building office or professors at the architecture faculty, required his approval.12

That Ludwig II did not present himself feudally and make grand gestures by commissioning buildings in the capital city, as his grandfather Ludwig I or his father Maximilian II 26

ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER

the three postsecondary educational buildings (Academy, Polytechnic, and University) established a system of reference between art and science that still exerts an impact today.

Nevertheless, as is shown by a number of examples below, Ludwig II supported the arts and the sciences in Bavaria in a focused way and also advanced the modernization of his kingdom—for instance by developing a forward-looking infrastructure, as Peter Christensen shows for the first time in his contribution. Above all, however, Ludwig II played a significant role, in the last third of the nineteenth century, in ensuring that Munich, alongside Paris, was regarded as the most important city of the arts in Europe. Initially—as Alexander Rauch describes in his contribution—Ludwig’s exceptional feeling for art and his strict demands in terms of quality set standards for the architecture of his time. In addition, he actively promoted important art and educational institutions and in this way significantly contributed to the fame of the royal capital city.

Ludwig supported a number of other cultural institutions in the capital that contributed to Munich’s reputation as a city of the arts. As Regine Hess, using previously unpublished sources, shows for the first time in her essay, shortly after his ascension to the throne, Ludwig II approved a new exhibition building for the Kunstverein, which the art association had been trying in vain to build for two decades. Largely ignored by earlier research, the Kunstverein building, which was erected up to 1866 to plans by Court Building Director Eduard von Riedel on the Renaissance arcades in the Lower Hofgarten, can be seen as one of the king’s earliest buildings in Munich.

ENCOURAGEMENT OF ART AND SCIENCE

It is perhaps less widely known that it was Ludwig II who paved the way for the building of the Künstlerhaus on Lenbachplatz—erected only after his death in the years 1893 to 1900—which under Maximilian II had been one of the main wishes of the Artists’ Association. As this association had no success in finding a suitable site—for instance an application made at the end of the 1870s to build on the northeastern area of Maximilianplatz was rejected by the municipal authorities—in 1883 the king transferred the “Platz beim Leinfelder” from the civil list to the association for a symbolic price but with the proviso that nothing other than a new Künstlerhaus should be erected on it.15 Essentially, the appearance of this building was determined during the king’s lifetime: the plans for the Künstlerhaus on what is today Lenbachplatz, presented by Gabriel Seidl in 1886, referred to an earlier design from 1880 by the same architect, which envisaged adapting the Himbsel building on Karlsplatz, but shows the same characteristic silhouette with a raised, tower-like central section and a gable roof in the style of the German Renaissance [2].16

Only a few years after his accession to the throne, Ludwig II founded the Neue Polytechnische Schule (today the Technical University) as an independent institution. Between 1864 and 1868 he had a representative new building erected to house it, designed by Gottfried von Neureuther and located on Arcisstraße, opposite the Alte Pinakothek. Based on Semper’s Polytechnikum in Zurich (completed in 1864), with its central and corner pavilions, this building—only fragments of which have survived—is regarded as having introduced the neo-Renaissance style to Bavaria. This replaced the synthetic Maximilian style disliked by Ludwig II and was praised by contemporaries as “the start of a new era in architecture in Munich.”13 Not only was this new university intended to contribute to the modernization of Bavaria in the areas of the natural sciences and technology but, through the attached school of architecture, whose professors were ultimately appointed by the king, it also played an important role in the development of the building sector in Bavaria. For Munich’s position as a city of the arts, the new building for the Academy of Fine Arts, an institution first established in 1808, was of primary importance. It was built in a neo-Renaissance style from 1875 onward also to plans by Neureuther. This building, too, received the active support of Ludwig II—for instance, through financial grants and the allocation of a site at an excellent location. 14 With it he placed a further accent in the Maxvorstadt, while the urban clasp formed by the museums founded by Ludwig I (Alte Pinakothek, Neue Pinakothek, and Glyptothek) and

INTERACTION BETWEEN DECORATIVE ART AND ARCHITECTURE It is a well-known fact that under Ludwig II the decorative arts experienced a heyday that continued until 1900.17 However, as yet the close connection between this development and architecture has hardly been examined at all: the boom in interior decoration benefitted from a shift in the area of public buildings to the neo-Renaissance style and its concept 27

INTRODUCTION

of the Gesamtkunstwerk, which took place at the time of Ludwig II’s accession to the throne.18 Obviously, the sizable and highly demanding commissions awarded by the ruler in connection with the decoration of his palaces also helped this branch to flourish.

this exhibition, which was held to mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Kunstgewerbeverein (Bavarian society of arts and crafts), in 1877 the organization was given its own building on Pfandhausstraße by the Munich municipal administration. Among the many architects who submitted proposals for the adaptation of this building were Lorenz Gedon, Georg von Hauberrisser, Ferdinand Knab, Josef von Schmädel, Gabriel von Seidl, Rudolf Seitz, and August von Voit.20

Of pioneering importance for the upswing in the decorative arts, which now began to arouse considerable interest among the bourgeoisie, was an arts and crafts exhibition, the Exhibition of Art and Industry, held in 1876 in the Glaspalast in Munich with the highly acclaimed section “Unserer Väter Werke” (Our Fathers’ Works), which received financial support from Ludwig II and was also under his patronage. The exhibition architecture by Lorenz Gedon and Rudolf Seitz was a particular attraction: an early example of period rooms, fully furnished and fitted for different functions, representing different historical periods, were shown. They displayed both handcrafted and industrially made pieces of the highest quality.19 As a consequence of

The Bavarian industry exhibitions [3] also experienced a real heyday under Ludwig II: he provided financial support and agreed to act as patron of these shows, which did much to contribute to the popularity of the decorative arts. They were based on the model of the world expositions, which the young monarch received with great enthusiasm and which—as Robert Stalla explains in his contribution—recent research has shown to be of particular importance in interpreting his royal palaces.21

[4] Kaiserslautern, Pfälzisches Gewerbemuseum, section through the foyer and staircase, KARL SPATZ, 1875–80

28

ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER

[5] Munich, Hauner Children's Hospital, AUGUST HARTMANN and ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1875–79 (photo: M. STETTMEYER, 1900)

ARCHITECTURE AND THE SOCIAL QUESTION

The flourishing of the decorative arts was also reflected in the founding of museums and in the buildings erected for them. In response to a suggestion made by the industrialist Lothar von Faber, the Bavarian Gewerbemuseum was founded in Nuremberg in 1869, after Faber had, a short time earlier in Munich, secured the king’s support for this idea.22 The founding was later followed by a monumental neo-Baroque building which, although the project was developed under Ludwig II, was only built in 1897 to plans by Theodor von Kramer; before it moved into the new building, the Gewerbemuseum had been housed in the Norishalle, which was originally built by Adolf Gnauth as a Kunsthalle for the Nuremberg regional exhibition of 1882 and was then moved to Marientorgraben.23

It was not only through his support of the arts, sciences, and trades but also through measures in social areas that Ludwig II attempted to improve the circumstances under which the populace lived, as Hermann Rumschöttel was able to show in 2011 through the first evaluation of the relevant sources.25 Apart from generous contributions to and expenditure on charities, which went far beyond traditional royal munificence, the social legislation that Ludwig II enacted at the end of the 1860s—many years before Bismarck’s social laws—can be seen as an active social policy. Alongside granting more freedom of trade, substantial autonomy for local authorities, freedom of movement, and equity in conscription, this group of laws resulted as well in a lasting reform of public care of the poor and the sick.26

In 1872 Kaiserslautern obtained its own Gewerbemuseum [4]: the initiator was the district president of the Palatinate, Paul von Braun, who had earlier worked in the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior and was granted a personal knighthood for his services by Ludwig II. Karl Spatz, a student of Neureuther at the Polytechnic in Munich, planned the museum building that was completed in 1880 and today houses the Museum Pfalzgalerie Kaiserslautern; an elongated neo-Renaissance building with a higher central pavilion and end pavilions, it clearly shows the influence on Spatz of his teacher’s buildings in Munich.24

This was also reflected in architecture: during this time important buildings for social services were erected or modernized to reflect the latest findings in the field of hygiene, including the Jewish orphanage in Fürth, which was built in 1868 to plans by the local city planner, Friedrich Friedreich, and which today houses the synagogue of the Jewish community; or the former orphanage on Sendlinger-Tor-Platz in 29

INTRODUCTION

[6] Munich, fountain in the courtyard of the former Marstall (court stables) on Jakobsplatz (photo: GEORG PETTENDORFER, 1913)

Munich, to which Building Director Arnold Zenetti added an outbuilding in 1869 and which was modernized by the introduction of a ventilation system and sanitary facilities— probably also to reduce the high mortality rate among the orphans and foundlings.27

As one of the consequences of this social legislation, which laid the groundwork for a state health care system, the hospital as a building commission assumed greater importance. In Munich Arnold Zenetti implemented several important hospital buildings and extensions: between 1868 and 1870 the 30

ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER

Garrison Hospital, which today forms part of the German Heart Centre of the TU Munich, was built on the Oberwiesenfeld. By express order of the king this building was erected further away from the Maximilian II Barracks (also enlarged during his reign) than originally planned in order to shield the sick from noise and to prevent the spread of infection.28 The Rechts der Isar Hospital and the General Hospital, both of which are today attached to Munich universities, were extended in stages during this time by the addition of pavilions—a system that had already proved its effectiveness in England and in France and that became widespread in Germany in the 1870s. This system did not result solely from the demands of hygiene but also reflected in built terms the development of separate specialist clinics that took place around this time.29

This thesis cannot be conclusively discussed on the basis of the examples of architecture under Ludwig II shown in the exhibition. In the framework of the preparations for the exhibition, however, large amounts of material that had not been considered by earlier research were found, which opened up new themes and questions: for instance, the entire work of the court architects who worked under Ludwig II—Eduard von Riedel, Julius Hofmann, and Georg von Dollmann—has not been researched as yet; the same applies to the achievements of the court building directors such as Arnold Zenetti or Ludwig Leybold, despite the considerable amount of drawings that have survived.32 A number of areas of building in Bavaria have hardly been examined at all—for instance, housing, which made up a large proportion of the total volume of building during this period and in which different models, in both functional and typological terms, emerged; or urban design, a field in which a number of ring road projects can be identified that followed the demolition of town fortifications in the last third of the nineteenth century and were based on the Viennese model.33 As yet little attention has been devoted to the Bavarian national exhibitions, which experienced a heyday, particularly during the reign of Ludwig II—and under his protection—and left a rich collection of plans and visual material relating to their ephemeral architecture.34

Prominent examples here include the Hauner Children’s Hospital supported by Ludwig II through a donation and a lottery amounting to 300,000 Marks [5], and the Institute for Hygiene—the first worldwide—which was built in 1879 on Findlingsstraße on the initiative of the doctor and pharmacist Max von Pettenkofer, whom the king much admired.30 Pettenkofer’s research work on urban hygiene and the prevention of epidemics—in 1836 and 1854 cholera was rampant in Bavaria—led from 1874 to the development of a modern sewage system, based on English models, in Munich and other Bavarian towns, which is still for the most part in existence, and from 1883 to the centralized supply of the capital with fresh water from the Mangfall Valley [6]. As a result Munich, which until the middle of the nineteenth century had a poor reputation on account of its unsatisfactory hygiene conditions, became a “healthy town” under Ludwig II and received praise from abroad.31

Therefore, the aim of the present publication and exhibition is to encourage the continuation of a critical, source-based discourse on the architecture of the nineteenth century, on the historical context within which it was built, and on its significance for the present day.

In the exhibition The Architecture under King Ludwig II—Palaces and Factories and in the present catalogue, the complexity and variety of the architecture of that time is presented by way of examples. At the same time, the intention is to encourage a more differentiated assessment of Ludwig II’s impact on building activity under his government along with a fundamental rethinking of the long-outdated image of the escapist fairy-tale king. To what extent he himself actively contributed to the design of the buildings discussed here or whether his influence tended to be indirect must be decided in each individual case. One thing, however, has been shown: although he was not a royal commissioner of buildings to the same extent as his predecessors—which can be attributed to a general social, political, and legal change in the last third of the nineteenth century—he shaped architecture in the Kingdom of Bavaria far more than was previously assumed. 31

INTRODUCTION

1

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9

10

Autograph from King Ludwig II to Freiherr Karl Otto Stromer von Reichenbach, 24 October 1882, on the occasion of the Nuremberg regional exhibition; Nuremberg Municipal Archive, E 6 / 766, Bestellnr. 2. See Kraus 1988, 577; Bosl 1990, 217; and Botzenhart 2004, 1. See for instance Botzenhart 2004; and Rumschöttel 2013. Among the numerous important political problems during his reign was the German or national question, which, as a consequence of the Franco-German War, led in 1871 to the founding of the Prussia-dominated German Empire, which for Bavaria meant a considerable reduction of its sovereignty and the loss of constitutional independence. Further problems included the increasingly urgent “social question,” the confrontations between state and church described as a cultural struggle, the discussion on the parliamentarian participation of the political parties, and the consequences of industrialization and the spread of mechanization. See in this regard Rumschöttel 2011a, 11; and Rumschöttel 2013, 862. Ludwig II, quoted in Rumschöttel 2011a, 45. Rumschöttel 2013, 871. See in this regard also Wiesneth 2015, 65. Friedrich Piehl, quoted in Rauch 1993, 10. See Habel 1970; and Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, especially 409–22. Ludwig II nevertheless contributed to the encouragement of music in Bavaria: in 1867, at the suggestion of Richard Wagner and Hans von Bülow, he founded the Royal Bavarian Music School, out of which the present-day University of Music and Performing Arts developed. It was housed until 1944 in the Odeon built by Leo von Klenze on Ludwigstraße, in which Ludwig II, in the founding year of the music school, had a royal box erected on the north gallery. See Habel 1967, 60; and Habel 1980, fig. 4. See Körner 1992, 401–2. Even though, following the Aschaffenburg affair, Ludwig II subsequently approved all applications for demolition in response to the pressure exerted on him, he supported monument conservation in Bavaria in a different way: in 1868 he ordered that the General Inspectorate of Historic Monuments, which was now called the Bavarian Royal General Conservancy of Art Monuments and Antiquities, should be linked with the Bavarian National Museum, and he appointed the Aschaffenburg art historian Jakob Heinrich von Hefner-Alteneck as General Conservator, with the task of advancing the inventory of the art and architecture monuments of Bavaria. In this way Ludwig II not only brought to an end a twenty-year phase in which the General Inspectorate had done practically nothing (1848–68) but also took a further step in the administrative institutionalization of monument conservation. See in this regard Fehr and Hallinger 2008, 177–78; Grau 2008, 139; Hallinger 2008, 83–87; and Erichsen 2011b, 155.

11 See Gross and Selig 2004, 76–77; Rädlinger 2005, 38–47; and Rumschöttel 2011a, especially 27–32. 12 See Joerg 1980, 13–14; and Volkert 1983, 59ff. Under Ludwig II there were also changes with regard to royal buildings. Initially the Court Directorate of Buildings was responsible, but from the beginning of 1872 responsibility was transferred to the Building Office set up in the Court Secretariat—probably to allow Ludwig to exert influence more directly. See in this regard the foreword by Gerhard Immler to the Repertorium Hofbauintendanz, BayHstA, GHA. For this kind information we are most grateful to Dr. Gerhard Immler. 13 Reber 1876, 688. See also Nerdinger 1978, 63–93; and Hufnagl 1979, 169–204. 14 See Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 118–38; and Hufnagl 1979, 205–46. 15 The legal provisions did not allow the direct donation of properties from the civil list. See in this regard Striedinger 1900, 10. Archives for the genesis of the Künstlerhaus as well as a purchase contract for the purpose of future construction can be found at the Munich Municipal Archive, DE-1992-KULA-0146 and DE-1992-KULA-0148. 16 See Striedinger 1900, 9–13. 17 See Petzet 1968, 7–70; Evers 1986, 236ff.; and Schick 2003. 18 See Nerdinger 1978, 84. 19 See Lösel 1986, 20; Bachmeier 1988, 37; and Gedon 1994, 105–10. 20 The designs for the facades are published in the association journal: Zeitschrift des KunstGewerbe-Vereins zu München 26, nos. 1/2 (1877): 13–16; nos. 3/4: 41–42; nos. 5/6: 60; nos. 9/10: 92–93; and nos. 11/12: 108–9; and Zeitschrift des Kunst-Gewerbe-Vereins zu München (1879): Plate 1. See here also Gedon 1994, 110–16. 21 See in this regard also Wiesneth 2015, 47–66. 22 Among the founding fathers were Theodor von Cramer-Klett and the first mayor of Nuremberg, Karl Otto Stromer von Reichenbach, to whom the letter from Ludwig II quoted at the beginning of this introduction was addressed. The Gewerbemuseum was based on an idea from Johann Caspar Beeg, who in his publication Die Form, which appeared in 1846, had developed a concept to encourage trades in Bavaria. See here Glaser 2008, 328–30; and Mundt 1974, 16ff., 22ff., and 44. 23 See Bach-Damaskinos 2011, 72–76. 24 See Mundt 1974, 22ff., 46–49; and Rasp 1995, 79–127. 25 See especially Rumschöttel 2011b, 122–24. 26 See Hesse 1971, 146–242, 312–19, and 368–71; Liebhart 1997, 156–57; and Rumschöttel 2011b, 123. That the king himself at least helped to initiate these reforms emerges from a letter to the Swiss jurist Dr. Friedrich Schreiber dated January 15, 1879: “I praise Bavaria’s acumen in ensuring that through a favorable mix of

32

gainful activities, through a fortunate relationship of industry to agriculture, this land is not nearly so affected by the [social] question. I can attribute a part of this good fortune also to the fact that my government on my orders dealt with this question at a time when elsewhere its importance was not recognized at all.” Quoted in Rumschöttel 2011b, 123. 27 On the Fürth orphanage, see Blume 2010, 59–86, especially 63–67. On the Munich orphanage, see Meilinger 1906, 23ff.; and Baumann 1999, 18ff. 28 See Archives of the Bavarian State Munich, KA, MKr 9029; and Lankes 1993, 597–600. 29 See Knauß 1983, 123–28 and 220–21. 30 On the Hauner Children’s Hospital, see Stehr 1982, 18–26; Locher 1996, 55–68; and Locher, Reinhardt, and Schweinitz 2008, 1. On the Hygiene Institute, see Locher 2008, 56–67; and Meyer 2016, above all 6–7. 31 See Baureferat Tiefbau 1969, especially 11–19; Gross and Selig 2004, 75; and Spinrad 2017. See also “Munich a Healthy Town,” Morning Post (London), May 5, 1890 (Munich Municipal Archive, DE-1992-GES-0135). 32 On Eduard von Riedel see the extensive material in the Bavarian State Library (BSB Nachlass_7.12.2012 / 1; BSB Cod. icon. 207 k 4-7; BSB Cod. icon. 506; and BSB Cod. icon. 507) and the material in the Architecture Museum of the TU Munich (AM rie_e-1 bis rie_e-53), in the Bavarian Palace Department, in the Munich Municipal Archive, and in the Bavarian State Office for Monument Protection. Alongside the royal palaces from 1866 onward Georg von Dollmann also planned the Holy Cross church in Munich-Giesing and, from 1869, the Telegraph Office opposite the main train station in Munich. Extensive plan and archive material on Arnold Zenetti can be found in the Munich City Museum (MStM G VIII / 12 / 1ff ), in the Archives of the Bavarian State Munich, and in the Munich Municipal Archive. An extensive estate of papers relating to Ludwig Leybold has been preserved in the Augsburg Municipal Archive, in the graphics collection of the Art Collections and Museums of Augsburg, and in the State Building Office of Augsburg. See in this regard also Arnold 1979. 33 For example, Ludwig Leybold planned a ring road for Augsburg from 1866 (carried out only in part with the ensemble Fuggerstraße, Volkhartstraße, and Schaezlerstraße); on the initiative of the industrialist Lothar von Faber, the architect Adolf Gnauth planned a ring road project in Nuremberg that was not implemented in this form (published in 1879 by Lothar von Faber in the paper Die Zukunft Nürnbergs). In Würzburg between 1878 and 1896, Jens Person Lindahl made a ring park lined by freestanding public buildings. 34 A publication by Katrin Bäumler on this theme is in preparation.

Fürth, former Jewish orphanage (today synagogue of the IKG), FRIEDRICH FRIEDREICH, 1868

Munich, former Garrison Hospital (today part of German Heart Center), ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1868–70

Deggendorf, former District Lunatic Asylum for Lower Bavaria (today Angermühle Clinic), LEONHARD SCHMIDTNER, 1863–69

ESSAYS

LUDWIG II On the Legacy of an Artist on the Throne

W

By ALEXANDER RAUCH

e cannot contend that we really know any historical figures. We never met them, they did not live in our world. Their image always appears as the sum of depictions handed down to us, repeatedly overpainted, like corrections made to a portrait. Or, to put it differently: the image of Ludwig II, too, was and is a copy of copies. In recent decades it has been reinterpreted in depth through publications and exhibitions, such as the presentation in 1968, König Ludwig II. und die Kunst (King Ludwig II and art), which greatly changed the way in which this figure is seen, or the most recent one in 2011, with the title Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods).1 If research is now turning yet again to this personality of the nineteenth century, who is as controversial as he is admired, this naturally raises the question about how great an influence the art of Ludwig II exerted on his time and on the era that followed him and also whether and to what extent a legacy of this kind can be identified in the first place. Although here, unlike with Maximilian II, we do not find any stimuli for a new style, it nevertheless seems logical to enquire about his hidden legacy in the consequences of his commissions for art and buildings. That is to say: a closer look at the personality of Ludwig and at his palaces allows us to understand his period better—just as a look at the epoch also makes his work easier to understand.

flag of mourning for the tragedy of his life. He was wrongly suspected of admiring himself in historical costume—unlike Wilhelm II, who indeed was fond of wearing such raiment. In contrast, the images of the handsome young Ludwig in uniform found in middle-class living rooms and inns are almost like a form of hero worship, ironically of a king to whom everything to do with the military, such as uniforms, was abhorrent. This too, was a glorifying, well-intended distortion of history. More has been read into his personality than into that of almost any of his contemporaries. Rarely has a ruler experienced at one and the same time Bavarian patriotic and French literary worship alongside ridicule and contempt.2 Even the question what he actually was repeatedly searches for—and finds—new answers: too closed off from the public, too unable to conform to the political reality of his time or to the dogmas of the Church. His political impact is still too little known today, even though Bismarck in his memoirs rated Ludwig, on account of his cleverness, far more highly than his ministers. His image appears to be shaped by the fact that he became world-famous almost exclusively through his palaces and his support for Richard Wagner. It is only more recent research that has revealed that this reticent night owl devoted himself conscientiously and painstakingly to the decisions called for in daily political life.3

This approach is particularly applicable to Ludwig II, because he has entered history as a fairy-tale king. His mysterious death painted a murky final varnish over his picture and blurred the outlines. There is an enormous discrepancy between the posthumous fantasy portrait by painter Gabriel Schachinger, who presented the king to us in a heavy, billowing blue ermine cloak, with a grim expression, resting his weight on his sword and prepared to stride into action—and the lifelike photographs, devoid of any theatrics, which show Ludwig in a crumpled suit and wool coat; the only decoration worn by the king, who in fact was not vain, is a badge on his hat [1]. Even when racing through the countryside at night in his golden carriage he was dressed plainly in dark clothing. He moved through the suites of rooms in his palaces like a foreign guest, wrapped in black fabric, like a

UNDERSTANDING LUDWIG II BETTER It has long been known that Ludwig’s buildings were only to a minor extent the work of his architects and artists and were in fact largely the product of this tireless patron who decided even the tiniest details himself.4 On this account alone he should be regarded as an artist. But what he additionally was is not so easily understood. He repeatedly expressed opinions on developments in Germany that were contrary to the trend of the time. After 1866, the founding of the Reich in 1871, and the annexation of the title of Emperor by Prussia, Ludwig regarded Bavaria as having been robbed of its sovereignty, and saw himself as nothing more than a “machine for signing documents.” Unlike his contemporaries, he viewed the political future suspiciously. 40

[1] Portrait of Ludwig II (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, ca. 1883)

41

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

[2] Versailles, Escalier des Ambassadeurs FRANÇOIS D’ORBAY and CHARLES LE BRUN, 1672–79 (engraving: J. M. CHEVOTET, 1723)

The impending demise of the old world of monarchies was slowly becoming apparent. In this context Ludwig can be seen as perhaps the most striking symbolic figure to emerge in the course of the failure of the old order, “the only true prince of the aeon” (Paul Verlaine), a myth. The final scenes of a historical tragedy were presented on the world stage: Ludwig’s former fiancée and cousin, Sophie von Bayern, died in a theater fire; Empress Elisabeth, his cousin “Sisi,” was stabbed to death; her son, the Habsburg Crown Prince Rudolph, took his own life. With the World War, the final act to all the monarchist presentations, which, had the circumstances been different, Ludwig might well have experienced, the curtain finally fell. To what extent Ludwig was aware of these developments and whether he had any intimation of these end times, we do not know. But his personal life was so planned that a continuation of the dynasty through Ludwig himself was inconceivable. He left the crown to his mentally deranged brother, Otto; ultimately it went to a side line of the Wittelsbachs through the Prince Regent Luitpold and to his son, the later Ludwig III. Ludwig was not understood, but this was not due only to the distance he maintained to the public. His interest in the Bourbons, which continued after 1871, was found disconcerting; initially seen as strange, it would later be proof of his madness.5

But it is not generally known that Ludwig’s problem lay elsewhere: from the time he acceded to the throne, he was constantly exposed to dangerous moves to depose or even eliminate him—and not just after the doubts that were later spread about his mental state. Nothing can better explain his obsessive fear of attacks and his understandable but neurotic flight to his places of refuge.6

LUDWIG’S SYMBOLISM The themes of his palaces and castles were equally a source of irritation. How, after 1871, could a German prince possibly honor the archenemy France by erecting a copy of Versailles? Why this cult of the Bourbons? Only the realization that his godfather was Ludwig I, whose godfather in turn was Louis XVI of France, allows us to understand that through these relationships Ludwig could regard himself as a ruler by the grace of God, and this in turn makes clear how important the sacrament of baptism was to him. It placed him in a sacrosanct connection to the royal line of France, extending back to Saint Louis. This explains why, for instance, he had Johann Baptist Zimmermann’s ceiling painting from the Nymphenburg Palace, where he was baptized, repeated in 42

ALEXANDER RAUCH

entirely new for the period between 1870 and 1886. It is also surprising how many parallels to the literature of Symbolism and of the Decadence movement can be discovered.9 It may well be that the personal tragedy of this artist on the throne was necessary so that, through his internal turmoil, works with such a poetic and condensed symbolism could be made.

the state bedroom in Herrenchiemsee Palace (although in a somewhat enigmatic way) by Eduard Schwoiser. Something that today is rarely noted must soon have become obvious to his family and contemporaries: his palaces never make references to the House of Wittelsbach. Whether this is the consequence of his poor relationship to his father Maximilian, or whether the old rumors about his physical origins are to be taken seriously plays no role for us today.7 Whatever psychological complexity may have fed his tendency to link every aspect of his life to symbolic references, ultimately it enabled him to become the creator of important works—monuments to his personal symbolism. It was only recognized later that the rooms and symbols harbor deep, coded themes.8 The decoration of these buildings is not merely a collection of arbitrary motifs from history and late Romanticism. For Ludwig each room became a time machine: each cycle of pictures tells stories about history, whether from the medieval world of myths or about the French monarchy. The fact that these palaces, as accessible pictures of history, have little to do with historicism and far more with symbolism is something

The widespread but mistaken belief that in political terms Ludwig yearned for the absolutism of Louis XIV should be corrected here. In fact it was art itself that he wanted to place on the throne. This is shown with an almost blatant obviousness by the staircase in Herrenchiemsee Palace, a completely altered repetition of the Ambassadors staircase in Versailles [2–3]. Instead of the bust of the Sun King as in Versailles, here Apollo, the sun god of the arts, stands. Instead of depictions of envoys, in Ludwig’s building the murals address the themes of teaching, defense, commerce, and skilled trades: This can be understood as Ludwig’s aspiration and also his legacy: art as the mistress of education, teaching, and handcraft.

[3] Herrenchiemsee Palace, preliminary design for the grand staircase, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1879

43

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

WORK PROCESSES 10

on the level of meaning. In Ludwig’s time, an architecture cleansed of allegories and symbols was still inconceivable, as architecture and the fine arts were conceived entirely against a background of interpretation, which had to be read. This was ultimately the privilege of those who could decipher the coded message.

Ludwig’s projects called for complex architectural operations and produced commissions for a host of painters, sculptors, and draftsmen. Art in Munich, the city that had held the leading position in Germany in this area since the time of Ludwig I, once again experienced an enormous boom. From the planning to execution stage comprehensive work processes were initiated: the acquisition of literature, historical research, contract administration, building site operations, facilities for painters and sculptors, and, not least importantly, the integration of the latest technology. We have long known about the instructions that the new technology of electricity should be integrated in these undertakings, but there were also Ludwig’s visionary ideas about transport by air or cables and balloons, for instance across the Chiemsee.11 That extensive building projects of this kind demanded constant attention is something anyone who builds a single-family house today can understand. Ludwig had all the stages of the work under control until the last year of his life, which contradicts the conjecture that his mental faculties were in some way compromised.

The nineteenth century worked strenuously to convey learning to the general public, above all in the area of teaching, through images. One such educational institution was the Maximilianeum in Munich, where large paintings present an instructive program of images. King Maximilian II had this athenaeum erected high above the city, the intention being that the students at this elite institution should experience a sense of elevation, a kind of farsightedness that was also conceptual. Ludwig also saw himself as part of such a tradition. In accordance with this way of thinking, he had planned Gottfried Semper’s Festspielhaus for Wagner’s works, also sublimely positioned on the elevated banks of the Isar. The resistance of Munich’s city (step)fathers hindered this project. That the term aspiration should be understood as an appealing challenge is shown by the public and private buildings that were erected around the time of Ludwig’s palaces and later. A return to historical styles was the mode of artistic expression of this time. But the striving for quality, in terms of both craftsmanship and content, set standards. Works with well-thought-out programs stand out from those that are merely arbitrary accumulations of decoration and visual motifs. Schools, courthouses, city halls, and administration buildings, but also artists’ villas, generally employed carefully considered visual programs, with either historical reminiscences or statements about the building’s function.

Numerous sources confirm just how the great the demands that Ludwig made actually were. For instance, we learn about the painter Wilhelm Hauschild:12 “Worthy of mention are [his …] altar paintings at Oberau near Ettal, which were made for a commission from Ludwig II […] although Hauschild could not always work in the […] palaces the way he wanted to, as the king’s wishes had to be strictly observed. […] Hauschild certainly earned [the royal] awards, as the demands that the monarch made on his artists were not inconsiderable. To satisfy the noble client tireless work was necessary.”13 The quotation shows that Ludwig also commissioned works outside his palaces; it confirms his insistence on retaining control of the work, and in addition clearly reveals the high standards that Ludwig II applied. Architecture and art were indebted to this patron not just for the numerous artists and architects from throughout Germany who were attracted by the wealth of commissions but also for the exacting standards that he insisted upon.

Among the architects and artists in the circle around Ludwig’s building activities it is noticeable how the highest aspirations and standards that were usual there affected the entire area of building. After all, the highest royal building authorities played an influential role: they provided a model for training and teaching at the polytechnics and schools of architecture and thus set standards for all the other building offices and authorities in the state. This applied to representative buildings and administration buildings alike and even to factories. A few examples suffice to illustrate this.

ASPIRATION, PERFORMANCE, AND TRADITION What is meant here is not just the demand for excellence in terms of craftsmanship. In a broader sense it includes the awareness of quality that was developed at that time, also 44

ALEXANDER RAUCH

[4] Munich, Wilhelmsgymnasium, KARL VON LEIMBACH, 1875–77 (photo: CARL SPETH, ca. 1919)

EXAMPLE: SCHOOL BUILDING

tion ethic that is no longer cultivated in this sense. Here the high aspirations become particularly clear: they are manifested in the themes of the figures, in the grandeur of the decoration and fittings, and, not least, in the pure material value which is presented to the students and which acknowledges the great value of their studies. Alone the idea of elevatio, the ascent up a magnificent flight of marble steps, is entirely in the sense anticipated by Maximilian II in his cultural and educational projects.

The Wilhelmsgymnasium in Munich, erected between 1875 and 1877 to plans by Karl von Leimbach, offers a fine example of the education policy of the extremely well read king [4].14 It stands on a corner beside the monument to Maximilian II that was designed in 1865 by Kaspar von Zumbusch. The harmony of this ensemble and the boulevard in the neo-Gothic Maximilian style is regarded as one of the most important achievements of urban design in this period. The school building itself reveals the aspirations of the architectural design. The style of the building differs clearly from that of the street, despite a similarity in color. The Renaissance provided suitable models for humanist ideas about education. The exterior instructs through the figures in the niches that represent important thinkers of classical antiquity, similar to the facade program of the Glyptothek by Leo von Klenze on Königsplatz. The noble entrance hall receives the visitor with an artistic wall relief that refers to Ludwig II and his patronage. A marble staircase, no less magnificent, leads to the upper floor. This school could indeed be called a palace of education. The fact that alongside an important library, a gymnasium, a physics laboratory, and an art room were included speaks volumes about the specific spirit of the ideas on education that prevailed at the time, and indeed indicates an educa-

This understanding of aims and aspirations also exerted an effect on later school buildings. Here a single example must suffice: The Wittelsbacher-Gymnasium on Marsplatz, erected during the time of the Prince Regent, followed these traditional standards through the use of materials that convey value, such as a marble fountain. The decoration of the main facade was entirely in accordance with this concept of education. In an article in the Neueste Nachrichten about the inauguration in 1906 one can read: “And when the Pallas Athene by the sculptor Albertshofer is enthroned on the terrace beside the main entrance, then this building will be clearly marked as a wellspring of knowledge, also externally!” 15

45

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

EXAMPLE: CITY HALL BUILDINGS

striking. The sober brick building in Berlin deliberately dispenses with any kind of picturesque decoration and instead conveys the impression of a functional administration. And indeed Wilhelmine historicism shows unmistakably martial traits—demonstrations of the political aspirations of the time. The buildings mentioned can therefore be seen as typical of their respective regions. This enables us to understand the later impact of an understanding of building form that was based on a traditional narrative mode popular in Bavaria and was probably also influenced by Ludwig’s building activity.

If art theory distinguishes between style and mode, then with regard to architecture it can, to put it simply, be said: a building—in whatever style—can differ clearly, both phenotypically and in the nature of its effect, from other buildings that meet the same function and can be either festive and courtly or deliberately plain and bourgeois. The same applies to the different appearance of buildings that serve the same function in other regions. To name a few examples: the Munich City Hall from 1867, by Georg von Hauberrisser—with its arcades, loggias, and pinnacles, its picturesque facades so rich in sculpture, and, not least, its theatrical, figural Glockenspiel—clearly belongs to the tradition of a southern German understanding of art [5]. Consequently, it differs fundamentally from the mercantile and pragmatically sober design of Hamburg City Hall (1886–97) erected around the same time by a group of architects led by Martin Haller. The difference to the City Hall in Berlin Mitte, erected between 1860 and 1869 to plans by Hermann Friedrich Waesemann, is even more

Naturally, the objection can be raised that buildings in other cities were also conceived, designed, and built in a similarly representative manner. But here it can certainly be seen that the art which Ludwig patronized in Munich had a shaping influence on other cities in Bavaria. For instance after the new City Hall in Munich but still during the reign of Ludwig II, Hauberrisser erected the new Town Hall in Kaufbeuren (1879–81), Saint Paul’s Church in Munich (1881–91), and then later the neo-Gothic City Hall in Saarbrücken (1897–1900).

[5] Munich, New City Hall, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, from 1867 (photochrome: PHOTOGLOB ZÜRICH, ca. 1890)

46

ALEXANDER RAUCH

[6] Munich, unrealized design for a synagogue on Wittelsbacher Platz, EDWIN OPPLER, ca. 1872

LUDWIG II: TOLERANCE EDICT AND SACRED BUILDINGS

at a Bavarian university.17 This monument was also the first to be erected to a Jewish individual in Bavaria and beyond. Today this may not seem particularly unusual, but at a time when anti-Semitism was flaring up again the approach taken by the Bavarian king was exemplary.18 Perhaps few know that Ludwig II forbade any form of anti-Semitism or that, after a certain time, he distanced himself from Wagner on account of the latter’s Germanic cult and hostility to the Jews. In response to Wagner’s expression of his disappointment that the monarch did not wish to support the undertaking in Bayreuth any further or more generously, Ludwig said: “I now sacrifice at other altars.” The altars referred to stood in France and, as his later projects show, in more distant cultures and worlds. The king’s attitude also places the flourishing of Jewish sacred building in a new light.

In 1875 Kaspar von Zumbusch, who designed the monument to Maximilian II referred to above, designed a further monument, this time in Erlangen, which commemorated the medical doctor Jakob Herz. Destroyed in the National Socialist era, this monument would be of little relevance to a review of architecture under Ludwig II were it not for the fact that it illustrates a response by the king to the concerns of the Jewish community in Bavaria that was far from typical for that time. In 1871 Ludwig II achieved equal rights for Jews in Bavaria, which the Tolerance Edict from 1813 had not fully provided.16 In 1862 Jakob Herz, who was born in Bayreuth, was the first Jewish doctor to obtain a lectureship 47

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

EXAMPLE: MAIN SYNAGOGUE IN MUNICH 19

was only after years of searching in vain for a site that, by personal decree of King Ludwig II, the Royal Administration of the Crown Estate made a site available opposite the Maxburg, which the community was finally able to acquire in 1881. The design and construction was undertaken by architect Albert Schmidt, who received a number of commissions in Munich before and after this project [7].21 He was awarded the Saint Michael Order of Merit by Ludwig II. Whereas in 1824 the consecration of the earlier synagogue on Westenriederstraße had taken place in the presence of King Ludwig I, the foundation stone for the later building was laid without the official participation of the ruler. The start of construction in 1884 was also without public resonance,22 an indication of the tense situation at the time. However, the consecration was all the more festive, although it was held only in 1887, a year after the king’s death. In uplifting terms,

The relationship between the Jewish community and the local administration had not been entirely positive at the time of Ludwig II. The municipal administration was almost always opposed to the needs of the community.20 The search for a site for the new synagogue was obstructed by several delays and, remarkably, the Jewish community saw itself obliged to provide an assurance that the planned new building would not disfigure the city. Nevertheless the project for the erection of a synagogue (in the northwestern corner of Wittelsbacher Platz) did not obtain approval from the building authorities [6]. The architects Matthias Berger and Emil von Lange as well as Edwin Oppler, who was an established designer of synagogues, had submitted several proposals. It

[7] Munich, former main synagogue, ALBERT SCHMIDT, 1882–87 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1890)

48

ALEXANDER RAUCH

pretext that they were an obstruction to traffic. From a present-day viewpoint one could add to the speech made at the consecration of the synagogue: the building was not just a monument to the time in which it was built but was ultimately erected thanks to Ludwig II’s support and his understanding of tolerance.

Rabbi Joseph Perles proclaimed in the name of the Jewish community gratitude to Bavaria’s king—most probably also for the fact that the equality of the Jews in the state and in public life that had finally been achieved under Ludwig II. This building was also understood as a self-confident expression of what had been achieved in social terms. The form of the building and the materials used make urban design references in a self-evident way; the neo-Romanesque style was intended to reflect a heyday of Jewish history in the early Middle Ages—that is, before the time of the pogroms, which in the fifteenth century raged in Munich, too. The use of red brick was a reference to the Cathedral of Our Lady. In 1889 the publisher of the Allgemeine Bauzeitung, Karl E. O. Fritsch, wrote about the impact of this building: “How splendidly the architectural scale of the building has been harmonized with that of the older monuments in the city, […] in conjunction with the towers of the Cathedral of Our Lady. […] Not like a new intruder in its surroundings but like an addition to the appearance of the city, long intended and now finally executed.”23 Once again, here was a demonstration of how a community, despite extreme financial burdens, was able to meet the high demands that had become standard. Ultimately the synagogue was anything but the disfigurement of the city that had been feared. This fine example of nineteenth-century Jewish sacred architecture was the third-largest synagogue of its time, surpassed only by the synagogues in Berlin and Breslau. In other large and small towns in Bavaria, Jewish religious buildings were subsequently erected which were stylistically related to the building in Munich, as it provided the source for a number of details.24 For instance, in the synagogue erected in Kitzingen in 1882–83, also in the neo-Romanesque style, cut stone as well as brick were used, while the Munich motif of the triple-arched portal front was also adopted.25

EXAMPLE: PROTESTANT CHURCH OF THE REDEEMER IN EICHSTÄTT This example [8] also illustrates Ludwig’s tolerant cultural policy.27 Protestants only began to settle in the episcopal city of Eichstätt, an important Baroque urban ensemble and long a stronghold of the Catholic Church, after 1800, and they had to wait a long time for their own place of worship to be built.28 It was only in the 1880s that the Munich architect August Thiersch was commissioned to design the building.29 For cost reasons this first design was followed by a second one. The building permit was granted by Ludwig II in 1885, the foundation stone was laid on May 11 of the following year, and the Church of the Redeemer was consecrated on November 24, 1887. The neo-Romanesque, brick-built basilica-style church is placed at an angle on a cramped site. Instead of a dominant façade, the building turns an entrance hallway made in the form of a choir toward the street space. Although stylistically related to the Romanesque cathedral, a certain closeness to the early Christian Italian style is unmistakable, partly due to the campanile-like tower. There are just a few design elements, such as the arched clerestory windows or the blind arches to the exterior of the choir that lend the building dignity. The choice of red brick, which was anything but self-evident, displays a bold self-confidence and distinguishes the building in terms of color from the Baroque ensemble, which consists entirely of painted, rendered facades.

The concluding sentence of the Festschrift by Fritsch for the Munich building was to be understood as an appreciation but also as an expression of hope: The synagogue “is, in a single word, what every mature architectural creation should be: a monument […] also to the time in which it was made. As such may it be spared adverse blows of fate and survive into far-off centuries!”26 This hope was not to be fulfilled. Only fifty years later this synagogue was the first that Adolf Hitler personally ordered to be demolished, five months before Kristallnacht. Around the same time, probably in order to gauge public reaction, the main Protestant church in Sonnenstraße was also sacrificed, both under the

Here far less consideration was given to stylistic integration in a historically developed setting than with the synagogue building in Munich. As Ludwig II was probably aware of this aspect, his permit all the more clearly expresses a tolerant attitude. On December 1, 1885, the municipal administration of Eichstätt was informed “that his Majesty, the King, has approved in aesthetic terms the plans of the second proposal for a new Protestant church building.” The building is freestanding. Thiersch’s idea of situating the main entrance,

49

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

[8] Eichstätt, Protestant Church of the Redeemer, AUGUST THIERSCH, 1885–87 (preliminary project, 1884)

LUDWIG’S KINGDOM—“NOT OF THIS WORLD […] BLOWN UP”?

reality. The twentieth-century phenomenon of film can therefore be seen as a logical consequence of the ideas of both Wagner and Ludwig: with Ludwig, total seclusion in his private performances and in spatial worlds that transported him to another time; with Wagner, the detachment of spectators from their real sphere, placing them in a pseudo-historical, apparent reality.30 The orchestra that might disturb this illusion had to vanish into a pit. For the first time in the history of the theater the auditorium was darkened!

With his term Gesamtkunstwerk, which is often wrongly understood, the composer, librettist, and producer Richard Wagner made the blending of different categories into a goal. He aimed for an artwork of a new kind: the total transportation of the spectator into an artificial, unreal, and fantastical reality. Ludwig, too, created worlds that were detached from

Just how clearly these ideas of Wagner and Ludwig matched the late Romantic goal of enabling life and art to become one is shown by Friedrich Nietzsche’s formulations from 1871 about his philosophy as “inverted Platonism: the further removed from true being, the purer, more beautiful and better it is. Life in an appearance is the goal. […] The sole possibility

with its round-arched portal, in the choir-like entrance hall is highly ingenious. In this way a picturesque element is introduced to the public square while a dominant facade is avoided. This can certainly be acknowledged as a concession to the requirement for a reference to the existing urban situation.

50

ALEXANDER RAUCH

in this way to also increase its significance. Architecture’s language of symbols refers to function and content; the iconography explains the meaning; and the iconology reveals references that are not immediately apparent.34 A clock tower can stand for a city hall, a statue of Justitia for a courthouse, a winged head of Hermes for commerce; the technical age invented the winged wheel as a symbol for the railway. The idealistic late Romanticism of Nietzsche, Wagner, and Ludwig had outlived its time. Schelling’s “annulment of idealism,” viewed with the ultimate consistency, had announced its presence. Categories such as architecture, painting, sculpture, music, etc., had to experience shifts in meaning. What followed was a cleansing process of purism discussed by Adolf Loos in “Ornament and Crime.” The rejection of symbol and allegory, indeed of iconography per se, introduced a change in how the interpretation of buildings was addressed. Since then the encouragement of art in buildings has been confronted with new task: the building as art. The building should present itself as a creative form, a demand that is only rarely met. That purification often brought with it simplification and that the lofty aspirations from the time of Ludwig were largely abandoned—in formal, content-related and material terms—is evident in current examples that are liberated from meaning. Le Corbusier’s statement “A house is a machine for living” can also be implemented in a sense conducive to investor architecture. Modern building—apart from a number of admirable examples—has freed us from the demands of reflectiveness. The formal idiom that has emerged in place of former regional styles is universally valid but nowhere really binding, a dilemma of modernism per se, commented with the argument about the logic of pure form.

of life: in art.” 31 This agrees entirely with Wagner’s views as expressed in his letters to Ludwig. “The artist, too, can say: my kingdom is not of this world [… the ideal world …] will only first emerge where the present world stops.” 32 What connected Wagner’s idea with Ludwig’s private performances was an undisturbed fascination. The panorama that was so popular at that time also pursued similar ideas—before the age of film. And so we can understand the worlds that surround us in Ludwig’s palaces as expanded panoramas, enchanted by the light produced by thousands of candles or by the most modern electrical technology.33 Ludwig’s creations can be certainly placed alongside great works, for example of the Baroque. What connects all works of aspirational art is that they appeal at every level on which they are approached—they speak to those who are unprepared, who are convinced alone by the wealth of inherently harmonious aspects, and, all the more eloquently, to the informed, who learn how to read the program. Ludwig’s buildings share a kind of coded complexity with the art of cathedrals or Baroque program concepts and, like Mannerism, they have something of an aristocratic disdain for everything that can be easily grasped. The disturbing request made by Ludwig, which has been handed down to us, that his palaces should be blown up after his death can also be understood at a far deeper level. Wagner wanted to fascinate with his art-Germanic cult and in this way to leave a legacy that would have an impact on society, a legacy that, as a message, could be politically instrumentalized—and indeed was. Ludwig did not intend anything of this kind. He knew too well that the distance of his world from reality would not be understood. It was not intended to serve as a model or a bequest. In contrast to Wagner’s intention to have a didactic effect, Ludwig by no means wanted his detachment from the world to be made into a general model. Most likely it was quite clear to him that his people, unlike himself, ought not be led into the intoxicating world of unreal artificiality—into an imaginary world which, for one who suffered emotionally as he did, represented an escape. His work was a legacy in a different regard: stimulus and aspiration.

Perhaps this, too, can be seen as a concealed inheritance or a kind of legacy of Ludwig and his time: the consideration whether, alongside soulless rationalism and materialism, there ought not to be something other than facades based on the honeycomb patterns of worker bees. It is above all a functionalism calculable in economic terms that statistically records human needs and, using the logic of physical laws, enables them to acquire built form. Only three years after the death of Ludwig, the art critic Octave Mirbeau predicted in 1889: “It is not in the studios of the sculptors and painters that the renewal is being prepared but in the factories.” 35

LUDWIG II—AND AFTERWARD Ludwig’s time was still far removed from the search for a pure form of architecture free of symbols. The aim was still to make the immanent meaning of a work legible, and 51

LUDWIG II: ON THE LEGACY OF AN ARTIST ON THE THRONE

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

The 1968 exhibition Ludwig II. und die Kunst was held at the Residence in Munich and curated by Michael Petzet; see Petzet 1968. The 2011 Bavarian national exhibition Götterdämmerung was held at Herrenchiemsee Palace and was curated by Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte; see Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011. There: Rauch 2011; the contribution follows the lecture given on the occasion of the colloquium on the exhibition. See, for example, Greciano 1967, 111. On the fame and worship of Ludwig in Bavaria, see Lindl 2011, 75ff. In contrast, see Grein 1925; and Linde 1928. More recent negative assessments include: Knopp 1970; and Prinz 1993 on Ludwig’s buildings: “their artistic quality remains doubtful—or perhaps unsuccessful without doubt.” See Rumschöttel 2011b, 122–24. Also quoted there are Botzenhart 2004; and Schuster-Fox 2011, 85–90. See in this regard Rauch 1993, with a comprehensive catalogue of plans, the complete correspondence from GHA and BSV and a first description of the entire work process. Lampert 1890: “This enthusiasm for the siècle de Louis XIV, this slavish imitation is both strange and disturbing.” Quoted in Rauch 1993, 15. See Wagner 1976–1982, including an alarming series of reports about plans to depose the king. Exhaustively quoted in Rauch 1993, 8, 15, and 28–47. Even during Ludwig’s lifetime the rumor arose that Maximilian had been infertile as the result of an illness. In 1844 the envoy De Bourgoing wrote to Paris: “It is quite certain that since the marriage [of Prinz Luitpold, the later Prince Regent] and above all since the noble pregnancy [of his spouse Auguste] the Bavarian Crown can hope for an heir, something for which the marriage of Crown Prince Max offers no hope nor makes seem likely.” Quoted in Schrott 1962, 36. It was maintained that Ludwig Freiherr von der Tann-Ratsamhausen (1815–81) was Ludwig’s father. On October 11, 1844, that is, ten months before the birth of Ludwig II, he was named personal adjutant of Max II, of whom he remained a close personal friend until the latter’s death. Furthermore, according to Prince Eulenburg-Hertefeld, Ludwig is supposed to have said that his mother did not conceive him by King Max. In a letter dated January 17, 1992, Prof. Karl Bosl wrote: “Dear Director Dr. Rauch! […] My esteemed teacher Karl Alexander von Müller spoke about this matter in his first main seminar in 1928. There are rumors that are true but that one cannot prove and/or confirm. On this account it is best that one remains silent about them in public. […]” Von Müller was the son of Ludwig II’s personal

secretary, Ludwig August von Müller, government representative at the arrest of Ludwig II in 1886, Bavarian Minister of Cultural Affairs 1890–95. In addition there are many further press reports on this matter. 8 See Rauch 1993. 9 For instance: Edgar Allan Poe, Oskar Wilde, Mallarmé, Barbey d’Aurevilly, Joris-Karl Huysmans. In texts by these poets there are worlds, even descriptions of individual rooms, which can be seen as almost identical to those of Ludwig II. 10 See in this regard Rauch 1993, 41–69. 11 First published in Rauch 1993, 288–89. (Source material appendix; with figure showing the sketch made by architect Georg von Dollmann for a crossing of the lake by cable and balloon.) 12 Wilhelm Hauschild worked in the palaces alongside Eduard Schwoiser, Wilhelm Rögge, Wilhelm Marc, Heinrich and August Spieß, Christian Jank, or Josef Munsch, etc. 13 See Holland 1905, 77–81; and Verein für christliche Kunst 1910. 14 On the Wilhelmsgymnasium see also 229 in the present volume. 15 Anonymous 1906. Georg Albertshofer studied at the Kunstakademie Munich under Wilhelm von Rümann, who worked for Ludwig II. In 1885 the king awarded him the Honorary Medal of the Royal Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts. Years earlier in a competition for a figure of Athena on the Ludwigsbrücke he had received a prize for his model of a statue of Athena. This figure was originally intended to form part of an allegory of Munich as “Athens on the Isar” and was only later made in stone for the Wittelsbacher-Gymnasium school building; see Wurm 1998. A biography and catalogue of works by Albertshofer are currently being prepared by the author. 16 Already in 1861, under Maximilian II, the strict registration laws, which were in force until then and severely restricted Jewish immigration, were repealed. Subsequently the Jewish community grew: in 1852 only 1,208 Jews lived in the city; in 1875 the number had already grown to 3,600 and in 1880 to 4,144. See Hammer-Schenk 1981, 1:379. 17 Jakob Herz (1816 Bayreuth–1871 Erlangen). Professor of anatomy in 1869, Herz was the first Jew in Bavaria to hold this position. Cast by Christoph Lenz. Holzmarkt, today Hugenottenplatz, destroyed in 1933. See Herlitz 1927–30, 2:1567. 18 See Wiedemann 1967, 79ff.; and Merta 1986, 738–39. 19 See Rauch 1994, 6–33; Selig 1988, 131–47; and Hammer-Schenk 1981, 1:375, 1:379–88. 20 See Selig 1988, 39. The conflict over the search for a location continued for years

52

from before the construction of the first synagogue by Jean Baptiste Métivier and had to be settled by a royal directive. 21 In Munich, for instance, the Löwenbraukeller on Stiglmaierplatz (1882–83), Saint Luke’s Church on the Isar (1893–96) and later the Bank für Handel und Industrie (Bank for Trade and Industry), the Deutsche Bank, and the Bayerische Staatsbank (Bavarian State Bank) (1893–94) were erected to plans by Albert Schmidt. 22 See Selig 1988, 65. 23 Karl E. O. Fritsch, Die neue Synagoge in München, quoted in Selig 1988, 131. 24 As entered in the list of monuments of the Bavarian State Office, here are just the buildings during or shortly after the reign of Ludwig II: Walsdorf, Brunnenweg 2, former synagoge, ca. 1860–70; Lichtenfels, former synagogue, 1797, renovated 1867; Theilheim, Kreuzgraben 2, former synagogue, 1872; Kronach, Johann-Nikolaus-Zitter-Straße 27, former synagogue, master builder Porzelt, 1882–83; see Petzet 1994, 115. 25 Kitzingen, Landwehrstraße 1, destroyed in 1938, was restored from 1993 making use of surviving parts, with the towers renewed; see Schwierz 1988. 26 Quoted in Rauch 1994, 16. 27 See Rauch 1989, 144–45. 28 In 1845 a provisional facility for religious services was set up in a room in the City Hall. The attempt to find a place in the former cathedral deanery failed due to the veto of the Duke of Leuchtenberg, who was unwilling to sell the building to Protestants. In the meantime the community acquired the former canons’ building at Welden. See Rauch 1989; and Stenger 1981. 29 August Thiersch, assistant to Gottfried von Neureuther at the Polytechnische Schule Munich. From 1875 he taught theory of building form and building history as a full professor. As well as the Church of the Redeemer he also built the church in Augsburg in 1870, and from 1879 planned the church of Saint Ursula in Munich. See Stenger 1981. 30 See in this regard Rauch 1993, 24ff. 31 Quoted from Rauch 1995, 173. 32 See Wagner ca. 1920, 8:7. 33 Rooms in Herrenchiemsee that were important for Ludwig follow the idea of the surrounding panorama: the Oval Salon, the Marble Bathroom. Ludwig also wanted to have a round bedroom, but technically this was not possible. 34 Reinle 1976. 35 Quoted from Hans Sedlmayr, Die Revolution der Modernen Kunst (Hamburg, 1955), after Sedlmayr 1988, 55.

Protestant Church of the Redeemer, AUGUST THIERSCH, 1885–87

Herrenchiemsee Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–86

Herrenchiemsee Palace, grand staircase, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1878–85

ARCHITECTURE AS THE AVAILABILITY OF HISTORY? Reflections on a New Understanding of the Buildings of King Ludwig II of Bavaria By ROBERT STALLA

L

“I will remain an eternal puzzle, to myself and to others.”

legal incapacitation on June 8, 1886, and his mysterious death in the Starnberger See only five days later. And, finally, the opening of his palaces to the voyeuristic gaze of the public on August 1, 1866, accompanied by an interest directed by tourism and by rumors that the king had, in fact, wanted to have them blown up.4 Since then, the assessment of Ludwig has shifted between describing him as a narcissistic psychopath or as the prototype of a sacred monarch. Regarding his buildings, they have either been seen as the paragon of a sick royal soul, or as an important contribution to the architecture of the second half of the nineteenth century.

udwig II’s testimony from April 25, 1876,1 borrowed from Schiller’s The Bride of Messina, remains valid for parts of the research literature produced to date.2 From the very start, the assessment of his royal palaces—Linderhof, Neuschwanstein, and Herrenchiemsee—as well as of his other building projects was related to the formation of legends that gave an exaggerated picture of the monarch as a myth. The basis for this was provided by, for instance, the king’s withdrawal from the world, his alienation from his people, and the exclusively private use of these “sacred places,” as “the gaze of the people would desecrate, defile them.” 3 Then there was also Ludwig’s

This reexamination of King Ludwig’s architectural legacy does not focus on individual works but rather on the entire group of buildings realized between 1867 and 1886.

[1] Paris, World Exposition 1867, bird’s-eye view (lithograph: EUGÈNE CICÉRI)

58

his architects and artists to mere agents who fulfilled his ideas—made use of all the available technical possibilities. Everything was subordinate to the goal of “using all the information that can be obtained to realize an earlier cultural epoch or a distant world in a way that is as deceptively real as possible and authentically in accordance with Ludwig’s ideas and to enable it to be experienced visually and physically.” 7

In the first part of the thesis outlined below, the special aspects and the framework for an understanding of this group of works are sketched. The second part offers for discussion two new approaches on how to interpret the work, which could help to liberate the buildings and projects of Ludwig II from their isolation and proposes to understand them not just as the outcome of personal crises but also as an important contribution to historicism. The one inquires about possible bases for these buildings in classical antiquity, the other about their encyclopedic aspirations.

The model for Ludwig’s self-perception as a commissioner of buildings, with which he placed himself in the long tradition of the Wittelsbachs who had reigned in Bavaria since 1180, was probably his much-admired grandfather King Ludwig I. His redesign of Munich through large urban planning projects and monumental individual buildings was aimed at creating an “Athens on the Isar,” which he intended to make into one of the leading German cities.8 In pursuing this aim architectural “copies” or concrete models already played a decisive role, but the sources were largely confined to classical antiquity and the Italian Renaissance. In contrast to the palaces later erected by his grandson, Ludwig I planned almost exclusively public representation buildings, which he saw as manifesting the elevation of his own person and at the same time as a way of securing a glorious place in history for himself.9

THE GROUP OF WORKS: SPECIAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FRAMEWORK A particularly remarkable aspect of the group of works commissioned by Ludwig II is their direct, at times verbatim, borrowings from historical models. As will be discussed in detail below they focus on particularly important rulers’ seats in Europe and beyond, which, put together as in a sample book, populate the Graswangtal, the Ammerwald, and the Herreninsel like full-scale models. A further striking aspect is the unusually wide spectrum of these buildings: their references to the Middle Ages and the thematic world of Richard Wagner (Neuschwanstein Castle, the project for Falkenstein Castle, the Grotto of Venus, Hunding’s Hut, the Hermitage of Gurnemanz), to the golden age of the Bourbons (Linderhof Palace, Herrenchiemsee Palace, the project Meicost Ettal) and to the Orient (Moorish Kiosk, Moroccan House, Alhambra project) including China and Byzantium (projects for a Chinese and for a Byzantine Palace).5 Within the context of historicism the nonpublic nature of these buildings and projects is unique, while the enormous intensity with which the king himself pursued their conception and their iconography, which was tailored to his requirements, is unmatched.

To arrive at an understanding of the architectural and visual spatial concepts of Ludwig II, the technique of the romantic association of ideas, which he was familiar with since his childhood, seems exceptionally important. He received crucial impressions in this regard during his lengthy stays in Hohenschwangau Castle, which his father, King Maximilian II, had rebuilt, and where Michael Nehrer in his wall painting moved Lohengrin’s departure from the Gralsburg on the Rhine to Hohenschwangau on the Alpsee.10 As a further development of this idea, on November 21, 1865, Ludwig II had Lohengrin’s arrival staged on the Alpsee in front of the castle and had the scene illuminated with electric light.11 He may possibly have found the idea for this kind of reconstruction of history in an anonymous text, dated 1837, which reads like a prophecy of his later plans: “Hohenschwangau to Schwanstein could become […] the cradle of a new Romanticism. […] Then the ruins […] of the front castle, Schwangau, […] could also be rebuilt to make a large, simple hall for celebrations and singers.”12

Ludwig II prepared each design with an enormous amount of research based on his extensive study library and his collection of models in the form of drawings, engravings, and photographs as well as material compiled especially for him.6 The highly complex planning geneses, which he monitored, were advanced by exploring all possible ways of visualization—even going as far as testing spatial effects by using stage sets. The built implementation, which he controlled down to the details—in the process degrading

On the occasion of his visit to the world exposition [1–2] in Paris in 1867 an entirely new dimension of worlds of experience opened up for the young king. In a letter written on 59

ARCHITECTURE AS THE AVAILABILITY OF HISTORY?

THE VILLA HADRIANA IN TIVOLI: IMPERIAL MODEL FOR KING LUDWIG II?

August 8, 1867, he enthusiastically recorded: “It seems almost like a miracle. […] Without tiring I spent six to seven hours continuously in the exhibition, which I looked at very carefully.”13 According to a report on the exhibition there, one could “In the shortest of time take a trip around the world, as it were, or, equally, look back from the present to the most distant past.”14 The availability of the history of very different peoples “like a gigantic kaleidoscope of the earth,”15 including for the first time the surrounding outdoor area with the national pavilions, gardens, and amusement parks for a mass public,16 presented a “museum of world architecture in miniature.”17 In this “accessible, three-dimensional world of illusions” one could “visit the rooms of the harem in the palace of the Viceroy of Egypt, take a long drink in an American Indian tent, or smoke a water pipe in a Turkish coffee-house.”18 Like the buildings of Ludwig II just a few years later, the exhibition town belonged to the tradition of the “imaginary journeys”19 that were so popular in the nineteenth century and was “beyond profane, commonplace reality,”20 like an “earthly paradise” or a “garden of pleasures and seductions” in which a “more beautiful, poetic world” could be experienced.”21

Presenting the Villa Hadriana in Tivoli here for the first time as the possible basis for the royal palaces could not only open up new perspectives as regards Ludwig II’s system of architectural references but also on his relationship to historicism. Erected between 117 and 138 CE to serve as the emperor’s summer residence and his home in old age, Hadrian’s villa [3–4] on a site of at least 130 hectares is by far the largest and most elaborate of the emperor’s villas. In terms of its concept and repertory of forms, it occupies a unique place in classical antiquity.27 Following a comprehensive history of reception and research that began in the Renaissance, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries the villa became a particular focus of interest for archaeologists, artists, those planning to erect buildings, and for tourists.28 Comparable to the sites of Ludwig’s buildings, Hadrian chose a region around 20 kilometers outside Rome, at the edge of a tuff plateau from where there was an extensive view across the Campagna, as the site for his villa.29 Parallels between both groups of buildings can also be recognized in their specific relationship to architectural models: as handed down to us by Spartius and as could be read in the encyclopedias and lexica of the nineteenth century, Hadrian too, had historical buildings and prominent regions from very different times and art landscapes copied in Tivoli in a setting of generously dimensioned green spaces, including the Lyceum, Akademia, Prytaneon, Canapo, Picilien, and Tempe, which he had got to know during his travels through the Roman Empire.30 The wide historical spectrum—comparable with Ludwig’s buildings— covered by this group of monuments is also striking and ranged from Egyptian to Greek and Roman models. Aside from mythical areas such as the Inferno, it encompassed all of antiquity in an architectural microcosm. The decorative elements and a specific repertory of forms served to differentiate between the individual buildings, which were not literal copies but only references intended to awaken specific memories in the informed viewer.31 For instance the imitation of the Canopus Canal, which can be seen in the context of Hadrian’s travels in Egypt in 130–134 CE, was made in the Egyptian taste.32

King Ludwig’s own architectural cosmos, which he began to build in 1867, shows a commitment to such impressions.22 But in contrast to the world expositions, which were directed at mass tourism—in 1867 there were almost 10 million visitors, in 1900 already 50 million—Ludwig’s buildings and projects are to be understood as places for a retreat into the private realms of a single individual. In 1866, one year after the failure of Ludwig’s attempt to keep Wagner at his court in Munich, the king reacted to his army’s crushing defeat by Prussia with thoughts about abdication and later admitted: “therefore I am […] cold and withdrawn and live more in my precious books than in the present which I hate.” 23 As he states in a letter in 1869, his buildings opened up for him new perspectives: as “poetic places of refuge where, for a time, one can forget the dreadful age in which we live.” 24 According to Louise von Kobell, he sat there “alone, sometimes for hours, absorbed in reading something. […] Or he feasted his eyes on the living images offered by a mead drinking session in the old Germanic style that was presented at his command.” 25 The immersion, “the absorption, as authentic and complete as possible, in a perfect world of experience,” is a cultural and historical phenomenon of the nineteenth century that has not yet been adequately described by research26 and can be seen as a central idea of King Ludwig’s planning and building activity.

The preconditions for Ludwig’s reference to this prominent imperial model lay in his understanding of himself in the context of his family. The family tree of the Wittelsbachs, 60

ROBERT STALLA

[2] Paris, World Exposition, 1867, chardin réservé au Champ-des-Mars

which the Crown Prince had been able to study since his childhood in the Ancestral Gallery in the Munich Residence, grew from Augustan roots.33 In Hermann Hinrichs’s Entwicklungsgeschichte des Königtums, which formed part of Ludwig’s reading material34 and probably also influenced his understanding of rule, the Roman emperor is praised as “the necessary result of the striving for autocracy.” 35 Ludwig owed deeper insights into the ancient Caesars to Suetonius’s The Twelve Caesars, which he is known to have consulted. Therefore the placing of the busts of Roman emperors— including Hadrian—in the Hall of Mirrors in Herrenchiemsee Palace should probably be ascribed a programmatic significance. Here the archetypes of Western kingship, Ludwig’s family roots, and his “memento of Louis XIV,” to whom the building of Herrenchiemsee as a “Temple of Fame” was dedicated,36 are brought together to form an idealized rulers’ genealogy in which Ludwig integrated himself by means of a complex iconography.37

to Ludwig II that one is almost led to assume he knew this material, which could, so to speak, be understood as instructions on how to read Ludwig’s buildings. This is true of the description of Hadrian as an art lover, whose “greatest passion […] was building.” 39 In particular it applies to the reflections on the villa, which Hadrian is said to have “designed according to his own drawings,” in which “the commonplace and everyday are absent” and which is “without equal in the world:” 40 “At a nod from the emperor these groves, valleys, and pillared courtyards could be populated with the mythology of Mount Olympus, with processions of priests making a pilgrimage to Canopus; the Tartarus and Elysium could be filled with the shades of Homer, swarms of Bacchantae could wander through the Tempe valley.” 41 “Bodyguards, hosts of artists, singers, and actors […] had no other purpose than to […] cheer this weary man, to relieve his boredom with Dionysian feasts, and to pretend to him that every day here is an Olympian holiday.” 42 “Hadrian immersed himself there in the memories of his Olympian itinerant life, as this villa […] was the depiction and the mirror of the loveliest and most beautiful aspects of the world that he admired.” 43

In this context Ferdinand Gregorovius’s biography of Hadrian, which appeared in 1851, deserves special attention.38 In certain passages it shows such striking analogies 61

ARCHITECTURE AS THE AVAILABILITY OF HISTORY?

[3] Tivoli, Villa Hadriana, Canopo

Ages, the Baroque and the Rococo and therefore focused on those regions and epochs in which the ruler could reign without restriction: autocratically, theocratically, or in absolutist fashion. Particularly telling is the lack of any reference to the Renaissance,46 whose revival in the nineteenth century in the writings of Friedrich Hegel, Jacob Burckhardt, and Gottfried Semper (among others) was coupled with ideas about a liberal bourgeoisie.47 On closer look, it is clear that Ludwig focused decisively on those castles and palaces in history which could be regarded as typical of rulers’ seats at a certain period or of an understanding of kingship in a certain epoch or country: Neuschwanstein Castle, like the building project for Falkenstein Castle that was worked on between 1883 and 1886, stands for the claim to power in the German Middle Ages.48 With their references to Versailles and the Petit Trianon, the palaces of Herrenchiemsee and Linderhof celebrate the high points of French absolutism under Louis XIV and Louis XV. Ideas for an Alhambra project (kubba) focused on the symbolic building of the Moorish kings.49 The plans from 1885 for a Byzantine Palace in the Graswangtal [5], with a literal reference to Hagia Sophia, relate to the traditions of Justinian’s emperorship.50 The project developed in 1886 for a Chinese summer palace in the Ammerwald referred back to descriptions of the destroyed imperial summer palace Yuen-Ming-Yuen.51 In this context the Indian king’s tent in the winter garden of the Munich Residence and the Grotto of Venus, Hunding’s hut,

However this “Sanssouci of a world ruler and art enthusiast,” 44 under whom the Roman Empire experienced a civilizational, technical, and cultural heyday, was understood in the nineteenth century as an expression of Hadrian’s high educational aims, as a presentation of his imperial power or an illustration of the wide-spanning boundaries of his empire. His palace city, in which up to 50,000 people lived and worked, was a real art world, which manifested his understanding of being a ruler. In contrast Ludwig II, increasingly devoid of any political influence, created artificial real worlds like a kind of compensatory strategy: constructs of the visualization of an ideal rulership, to which he alone gave shape.

THE PALACES AND PROJECTS OF LUDWIG II: A BUILT ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE SEATS OF RULERS? All the palaces of Ludwig II appear committed to one idea: the built encyclopedia of the most important seats of rulers from all times, countries, and cultures. This hypothesis, presented here for discussion for the first time, which by looking at the “building policy of Friedrich Wilhelm IV as the realization of architectural ideal types” finds a similar approach from around the same time, is based on an analysis of the criteria used in selecting Ludwig’s architectural models.45 As outlined above, they came from the Orient, the Middle 62

ROBERT STALLA

and the Hermitage of Gurnemanz in the park of Linderhof also gain importance. With reference to Wagner’s text Die Wibelungen: Weltgeschichte aus der Sage published in 1850, they could be regarded as examples of that “primal kingship” from which, according to the author, the Roman emperors and the emperorships of Charlemagne and of Friedrich I drew sustenance.52

in the documents as “Neue Burg Hohenschwangau” is oriented conceptually on the transformation of the castle of Pierrefonds into an imperial residential palace by order of Napoleon III, which Viollet-le-Duc directed from 1857, or on the restoration of the Wartburg that was completed in 1867, both of which Ludwig visited in that year. In concrete terms, the exterior, with its partial references to the stage set of the 1867 Munich production of Lohengrin, is understood as the Castle of the Swan Knight, while the Singers’ Hall refers literally to the Wartburg. In contrast, the throne room, the design of which—like in the other projects—was devoted particular attention, is presented as a Grail Temple with a formal reference to Leo von Klenze’s Court Church of All Saints. Consequently Neuschwanstein Castle, like each of his other buildings, underwent a complex transformation process that was dictated by the will and ideas of the monarch.

Although Ludwig always insisted on historical precision from his architects and decorative artists and checked this most exactly, he did not simply have these models literally copied.53 When, in the course of complex planning processes, he concentrated on specific built characteristics that had to do with external appearance, the selection of especially significant rooms (or series of rooms), special impressions, moods, or effects, he was aiming more at “constructed identities.” 54 At times, as in Herrenchiemsee Palace, the dimensions of the original were followed almost pedantically, while elsewhere, as in the planned re-creation of Hagia Sophia in the Byzantine Palace project, it was necessary to operate at a clearly reduced scale.55 Some buildings are even presented as the essence of an ideal. For instance, the planning genesis of Linderhof Palace can be described as a highly informed examination of the building type of the maison de plaisance.56 And Neuschwanstein Castle is revealed as a free composition derived from various models, which—like Ludwig’s other buildings—pursues a very individual iconography:57 Erected above the medieval ruins of the castle of Vorderhohenschwangau, the project listed

The understanding of architecture (in the broadest sense of visual spaces), which can be grasped here as a medium to make history available—used in a highly specific way by King Ludwig (and fashionable again barely fifty years later under totally different premises through the first wave of architectural miniature parks)—had an important model that dated from the second half of the eighteenth century: the architectural furnishing of landscape gardens.58 The series of individual buildings and beauties of nature which Prince Franz von Anhalt-Dessau commissioned from 1769 onward in his park in Wörlitz with references to the Villa Hadriana

[4] Tivoli, Villa Hadriana, topographical plan, 1905

63

ARCHITECTURE AS THE AVAILABILITY OF HISTORY?

[5] Byzantine Palace (second project), side elevation, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1885

accordance with the wishes of the person who commissioned it, the park in Wörlitz was open to everyone, whereas the palaces and building projects of the Bavarian king were planned exclusively for his own use. Unlike with Hadrian, their architectural cosmos can no longer be understood as the expression of royal power, and it should also be interpreted differently than the Potsdam Palaces planned by King Friedrich Wilhelm IV as a way of “giving visual form to his monarchist claim to power.” 62

in Tivoli (and which featured a Pantheon, Canopus, synagogue, and a Gothic house or a miniature version of the Bay of Naples complete with erupting Vesuvius) should be seen as part of a comprehensive reform program influenced by the Enlightenment: the complex was intended to combine the beautiful and the useful—to delight, instruct, and form a better human being.59 The group of buildings that King Ludwig II had erected around 100 years later in the unspoiled natural setting of Upper Bavaria (in a number of cases embedded in parks), in the Graswangtal, in the Ammerwald, and on the Herreninsel, which can be understood as a historicist landscape of monuments, is, at least in part, still committed to this tradition.60 But in one very central point it departs from this concept: the model-like quality of the park buildings was increased in size; the “quotations from travels” and the exotic individual buildings were replaced by a selection of iconic rulers’ seats. The earlier intention to educate gave way to a new, more encyclopedic aim—anticipated by the great lexicon projects of the nineteenth century 61 and redefined as experience spaces in world expositions with their totalitarian aspirations—which, as a consequence of Ludwig’s early death, can be assessed only in part. Whereas Prince Franz entrusted the architectural planning to his architect Friedrich Wilhelm von Erdmannsdorff, King Ludwig himself created and designed the program for his buildings. In

In comparison, Ludwig’s buildings seem more like poetic refuges, places of memory, and memorials, stages for his complex imagination of kingship that was based on a very personal construction of history. Here in sublimated form—while exploiting all the possibilities of the idea of a Gesamtkunstwerk and on the basis of a comprehensive, largely unique educational horizon—he cultivated a new understanding of rulership that draws a final conclusion from monarchy that had entered a crisis after the Revolutions of 1848:63 the surrender of his political power was balanced by a gain in the form of a new appropriation of the entire area of history that went far beyond the concept of a national state at that time, and in which Ludwig II paid homage to a kind of kingship that was unlimited and consciously detached from reality. Seen in this way the buildings of the Bavarian monarch can be numbered among the high points of European historicism. 64

ROBERT STALLA

1 2

3 4

5

6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

18 19

Ludwig II to the actress Marie Dahn-Hausmann, 25 April 1876, quoted in Böhm 1924, 438. The most recent overview of the extensive research literature is Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011. Quoted in Hacker 1986, 273. On the touristic aspects, see Wienrank 2015, 67–88; Göldl 2015, 119–31; and Spangenberg 2015a, especially 161–77. The statement that Ludwig II wanted to have his palaces blown up can be traced back to Alfons Weber, who in June 1886 was a servant in Schloss Neuschwanstein. It has been widely circulated since them. Information kindly supplied by Marcus Spangenberg, Regensburg. On the buildings and projects of Ludwig II see in particular: Baumgartner 1981; Evers 1986; Hojer 1986; Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011; and Petzet 1995. A good summary of various problems can be found in Wiesneth 2015, 36–75. See also Mennell 1892 and Craemer 1898. In this regard and on the following, see especially Wiesneth 2015, 41–44; see also Hacker 1986, 261–62. Wiesneth 2015, 41. See Nerdinger 1999, 187–204. See Bauer 1980, 315–24; and Putz 2013, 303–14. On Hohenschwangau Palace, see Karnapp 1971, 157–89; and Baumgartner 1987, 65–76. See Hüttl 1996, 296. GHA, estate of Maximilian II, 73/6/12, Hohenschwangau, Kunstideen. Quoted in Evers 1986, 47. Schad 1996, 411. Bericht 1867–69, vol. 1, book 1, 4–5. Illustrirte Zeitung 1867, 236. See Wörner 2014, 158–68. Fehle 1987, 114. The national pavilions in the Parc de l’Exposition with their “emphatically national character” have entered the history of world exposition architecture as the “birthplace of independent state representation buildings.” They were required to “illustrate in as clear and at the same time as interesting a way as possible the individual characteristics of the particular peoples involved with regard to their customs and habits and to their entire way of life (Ebeling 1867, 114). Here Ludwig II acquired Karl von Diebitsch’s Moorish Kiosk from the Prussian exhibition department for Linderhof, which he had redesigned to suit his needs. See Sigel 2014, 38; and Fehle 1987. See also the contribution by Eva-Maria Troelenberg in the present volume, 104–10. Storch 2009, 21. In this regard on the illusion techniques Laterna magica, Panorama, and Diorama, but also on early tours such as the Neues Elysium, which opened in Vienna in 1840 and offered an “underground trek through the entire world” in basement rooms, see: Storch 1996, 120–51; Storch 2009; and Wiesneth 2015, especially 48–49.

20 Hofmann 1991, 86. 21 Ibid., 110. 22 In later years Ludwig still kept himself well informed about world expositions. See in this regard Georg von Dollmann, Allerunterthänigster Bericht über die Besichtigung der Weltausstellung im Jahr 1878 mit Berücksichtigung für die innere Ausstattung der Appartements im königlichen Schloss Herrenchiemsee, where it says: “This final building of the Trocadero houses the Musée retrospectif, a collection of historical objects from the year 800 AD to the end of the eighteenth century, from the Orient and Occident,” GHA, Kabinettsakten König Ludwig II., no. 330. This information was kindly supplied by Katrin Bäumler. 23 Ludwig II to Baron Varicourt, April 1873, quoted in Hacker 1986, 232. 24 Ludwig II to his governess Sybilla von Leonrod, 7 January 1869, quoted in Haasen 1995, 79. 25 Kobell 1898, 110. 26 See Wiesneth 2015, 53. 27 On the Villa Hadriana see: Winnefeld 1895; Kähler 1950; and Knell 2008, especially 79–110. 28 This complex of themes is the subject of the current research project by Dr. Cristina Ruggero, Rome/Munich, “Mikrokosmos Villa Hadriana: Ein ‘künstlerischer Interaktionsraum’ im Europa des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts.” 29 In this regard see especially Mielsch 1987, 77–78. 30 “Tiburtinam villam mire exaedificavit, ita ut in ea provinciarum et locorum celeberrima nomina inscriberet velut Lycium, Academian, Prytanium, Canopum, Picilen, Tempe vocaret, et ut nihil praetermitteret etiam Infernos finixit.” Quoted from Winnefeld 1895, 41n1. See also Ersch and Gruber 1818, 443–45; and Meyer 1890, 996. 31 Mielsch 1987, 99. On the aspect of copies of architecture in antiquity, see also Felten 1997, 61–69. 32 See Winnefeld 1895, 42–52; and Knell 2008, 103–10. 33 Commissioned in 1726 by Elector Karl Albrecht, the Ancestral Gallery was intended to express the rank and connections of the dynasty and to underpin the claim to the imperial crown, which Karl Albrecht obtained in 1742. See Seelig 1980, 253–327. 34 Baumgartner 1981, 13. 35 Hinrichs 1852, 139. 36 Ludwig II to Court Secretary Düfflipp, 17 December 1868, quoted in Böhm 1924, 756. 37 See Rauch 1993, a fundamental for understanding Schloss Herrenchiemsee and its program. 38 See Gregorovius 1851 and Gregorovius 1884. 39 Gregorovius 1884, 460, and 469. 40 Ibid., 486–87. 41 Ibid., 489. 42 Ibid., 487. 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid., 486.

65

45 See Werquet 2010, 215–354, here, 215. 46 Apart from Gottfried Semper’s 1865 design for the Festspielhaus, which was never realized, that is a few years before the wave of King Ludwig’s building projects which started in 1867. 47 See above all Krause, Laudel, and Nerdinger 2001. 48 See Baumgartner 1981, 109–30; and Rösch 2016, above all 127–38. 49 See Petzet 1995, 82, 160–61, and 163–64. 50 Project description by Julius Hofmann in GHA, estate of Ludwig II, in Baumgartner 1981, 240–42. 51 See in this regard: “Project zu einem chinesischen Sommerpalast, München im Januar 1886, J. Hofmann K. Hofbaurath,” GHA estate of Ludwig II, in Baumgartner 1981, 224–26. 52 Wagner 1850. 53 Impressive in this regard are Ludwig’s meticulous efforts to ensure the historical accuracy of the stage sets for his private performances; see Hommel 1963, 280–84. 54 On the aspect of the “constructed identities” in the national pavilions of the 1867 Paris world exposition, see Prügel 2014a, 115–21. 55 On the transfer between different media and scales with Ludwig II, see the contribution by Gabriella Cianciolo Cosentino in the present volume, 116–123. 56 See Hoffmann 1999 and Bachmayer 1977. 57 On the following in particular see Petzet and Petzet 1970, 133–40; Russ 1974; Tschoeke 1977; and Evers 1986, 178–215. 58 See Stalla 2012, 20–25. 59 See Buttlar 1989, 141–52; Bechtoldt and Weiss 1996; and Eisold 2000, especially 15–22 and 133–49. On the reception of antiquity in the park of Wörlitz, see Rößler 2007, 47–53. Prince Franz later said that his villa in Tivoli Hadrian, too, had copied everything “that he saw with regard to wonders of art and nature on his travels through the Roman provinces,” Lein 1980, 92. 60 On the term landscape of monuments see Breuer 1993, 16–18. 61 See, among others, Friedrich Arnold Brockhaus, Der große Brockhaus, 1796–1808, 6 vols; Johann Samuel Ersch and Johann Gottfried Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, 1818–89, 167 vols. (incomplete); Heinrich August Pierer, Universal-Lexikon der Gegenwart und Vergangenheit, 1824–36, 26 vols.; Bartholomä Herder, Herders Conversations-Lexikon, 1854–57, 5 vols.; Joseph Meyer, Meyers KonversationsLexikon, 1857–60, 15 vols.; and Otto Spamer, Illustriertes Konversations-Lexikon, 1870–82, 10 vols. 62 See in this regard Sonne 2001, 148. 63 See in this regard also Oexle 2007, 11–116.

Linderhof Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN, and others, 1870–86

Linderhof Palace, second bedroom, JULIUS HOFMANN, EUGEN DROLLINGER and FRANZ STULBERGER, 1884–86

SACREDNESS IN THE BUILDINGS OF LUDWIG II

Y

By UWE GERD SCHATZ

religious art. Art, Wackenroder wrote, “is of heavenly origin and, for the artist, must become a religious kind of love or a beloved religion.” With their yearning for the traditional bonding force of religion, the Nazarenes wanted to produce a new religiousness through art, through a new art with old quotations.

es, this art is holy, it is the purest, most sublime religion,” wrote Ludwig II on September 5, 1865, to Richard Wagner, who had sent him the concept for a music drama that Wagner later named Parsifal and described as a “Bühnenweihfestpiel” (festival play for the consecration of the stage).1 It is a model example of the amalgamation of religion and art which had developed since the mode of literary sentimentalism emerged around 1740 and, in the course of the nineteenth century, played a most significant role in shaping art in both theory and practice. The Enlightenment had deprived religion of much of its bonding force in the fields of culture and thought. One consequence of the increasing strength of secularization was the emergence of a desire to free art from its centuries-old task of serving and explaining religion, partly by charging it hieratically, as is shown, for example, by the cult of the genius that developed around 1770. Hegel, one of the main representatives of German Idealism, was the first to use the term art religion to signify a blending of art and religion seen as desirable, which implies a new equality of art with religion, but also a new kind of faith.

Unlike the Romantics, the young Ludwig I of Bavaria did not believe that this bonding force lay only in the subjective but rather primarily in the social area and consequently also in politics, as a consolidation of existing relationships. Consequently, he emphatically supported the cultivation not only of religion but also of Nazarene art. He wrote as follows about new stained glass windows that quoted from works by medieval painters, which he funded in a number of churches: “and now [the medieval painters’] pictures glow and awaken the fire of devotion.” 3 This, too, remained an attempt in this century of attempts. This sentence also expresses another idée fixe of the nineteenth century, the notion of completion, in this case the completion of historical art and forms of art through modern technical achievements in the area of handicraft.

The term art religion and its content became of decisive importance for the Romantics. The cult of subjective sensibility, which also recognizes the irrational, is a core of the Romantic movement against rationalism. The transfer of spiritual sensibilities to and into nature is also part of this. In his famous and programmatic Herzensergießungen eines kunstliebenden Klosterbruders (1797), Wilhelm Wackenroder formulated: “I compare the enjoyment of the more noble works of art to prayer. […] He […] is a favorite of heaven, who with humble yearning awaits the chosen hours, when the mild, heavenly beam freely travels down to him, splitting the shell of earthly insignificance […] and revealing its noble interior […]. Then he kneels down, turning his open breast in still ecstasy toward the glow of heaven, and fills it with the ethereal light. […] This is the true understanding that I have of prayer.”2 This book was the foundation stone of the Nazarene movement, a group of artists who attempted both idealistically and romantically to bring about a new

The grandson of Ludwig I grew up with this art and this historicism, and they left their impact on him. Painters who had worked in his grandfather’s Nibelungen Halls painted his Neuschwanstein Castle, originally known as the Neue Burg— for him, not for the people. While Ludwig I essentially understood art in social terms, Ludwig II viewed it as something hermetic. Despite all the similarities—both intended art to be evocative—this was the diametrical difference between them, which in art made for Ludwig II led to extreme contents.

MODELS GRAIL TEMPLE From the start of the nineteenth century, the myth of the Holy Grail—probably the most consequential myth for the European Middle Ages—fascinated not only the 70

[1] Design for a Grail Hall in the form of Hagia Sophia, EDUARD ILLE, ca. 1869

reconstructions. The most comprehensive of these and the principle work of the Munich “Gothiker” is a design dating from 1834 for the Ruhmeshalle of Ludwig I that shows a Gothic centralized building on an octagonal floor plan. An ancestor of Ludwig II, Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian (1282–1347), had founded Ettal monastery in 1330. Ludwig II revered his imperial ancestor and namesake, the only one

Romantics but also medievalists and architects. Middle High German epic poems of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries generally describe the temple in which the Grail containing the blood of Christ was kept as a centralized building. The adherents of the Gothic style saw it as the primordial cathedral, which led to the production of a number of idealized pictorial and architectural 71

SACREDNESS IN THE BUILDINGS OF LUDWIG II

the construction of his Grail Hall at Ettal.” Ludwig II could have hardly formulated the reference to his ancestor in a more direct way.

of the Wittelsbachs to be made emperor in the Middle Ages, and it was from him, as well as from the Wittelsbach Karl VII (reg. 1742–45), that Ludwig II derived his own claim to the title of emperor, for which, since 1870, he had competed with the Hohenzollerns, a dynasty that could not boast any emperors in its past.

“Have been reading about the Holy Grail,” Ludwig II noted in his diary in May 1869, and he had several elevations of a Grail Hall made, based on Hagia Sophia [1]. In 1813 Joseph Görres, also one of the Munich “Gothiker,” had already suggested in his book, Lohengrin: Ein altdeutsches Gedicht, that the description of the Grail Hall in Jüngerer Titurel by Albert von Scharfenberg (around 1270) was based on the design of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.6 It was from these elevations, intended as reconstructions, that the concept and designs for a throne room in Ludwig’s Neuschwanstein Castle emerged.

In 1835, in a book to accompany the design for the Ruhmeshalle (hall of fame) for Ludwig I, the art historian Sulpiz Boisserée, one of the leading theorists of the Munich Gothic linked the design of the Ettal monastery church, a centralized building, with medieval descriptions of the Grail Hall—for instance in Wolfram von Eschenbach’s Parzival. Ludwig II had read Boisserée’s book while still a boy and accepted this hypothesis, which with regard to Ludwig the Bavarian seems entirely conceivable.4 The latter had, after all, envisaged and built Ettal as a knight’s convent—a reference to the legendary Arthurian Round Table, which suggests that the building quotes the Grail Hall. For Ludwig II this further increased the significance of his descent from Emperor Ludwig. “The church in Ettal was built according to the plans of the Grail Temple in Montsalvat,” he wrote to Wagner on June 21, 1865.5 Accordingly, in the visual program he devised for Neuschwanstein Castle from 1869, medievalist Hyacinth Holland envisaged a mural on this theme: “Emperor Ludwig the Bavarian amid the craftsmen during

LOUIS XIV The patron and name saint after whom Ludwig the Bavarian, Louis XIV, and Ludwig II were named, Louis IX of France, commonly known as Saint Louis—an ancestor of the Bourbons—had the Sainte-Chapelle erected as his court chapel in Paris between 1241 and 1248 to serve as a place of veneration for his relics of Christ’s Passion, in particular the Crown of Thorns. While his descendant, Louis XIV, the principle figure of absolutism, used Baroque forms in building his new court chapel in Versailles, it was

[2] Herrenchiemsee Palace, State Bedroom, GEORG VON DOLLMANN and others, 1870–81

72

UWE GERD SCHATZ

[3] Neuschwanstein Castle, idealized design for the Throne Hall, EDUARD ILLE, 1876

STATE BEDROOM IN THE NEW HERRENCHIEMSEE PALACE

consciously closely based on his ancestor’s Sainte-Chapelle. It was therefore only logical that Ludwig II wanted to realize his project for a “Temple of Fame” for Louis XIV of France in the surroundings of Ettal, in Linderhof, in this dense field of personal relationships made up of the nearby “Grail Temple” of his imperial ancestor, the much admired and invoked Louis XIV, and the name saint that all three shared. Privately, he used an anagram of Louis XIV’s famous saying, “L’état c’est moi,” and called his project “Tmeicos-Ettal.”

The state bedroom in new Herrenchiemsee Palace [2] bears little resemblance to the comparatively plain historical Chambre de Parade of Louis XIV in Versailles Palace, the setting for the important court ceremonies of lever (arising) and coucher (going to bed) which placed the monarch in an allegorical context with the sun and its course during the 73

SACREDNESS IN THE BUILDINGS OF LUDWIG II

day. The bedroom in Herrenchiemsee Palace is decorated with the utmost richness and in terms of the quality of the workmanship the gold embroidered panneaux are unsurpassed. This room is the climax of the art of interior decoration in the nineteenth century. Like the entire Große Appartment it was made as a monument to glorify the absolutist monarchy; its program is focused entirely on the glorification of Louis XIV as its sole function. The ideologically and ceremonially expressed equation of the ruler with the sun, allegorically—and essentially blasphemously—completed the absolutist theory that the ruler is the worldly representative of God, and therefore also of Jesus, on earth. The metaphorical equation of God with the sun had existed since early Christian times. The historical model in Versailles was a ceremonial room, whereas for Ludwig II his state bedroom was a sacred space. It was just as much an expression of a Romantic understanding of art as those of his rooms that contain actual sacred references.

THRONE ROOM IN NEUSCHWANSTEIN CASTLE The throne room in Neuschwanstein Castle [3] combines all of Ludwig II’s monarchist and dynastic references. On May 30, 1876, he dictated the following to his court secretary: “The Court Church of All Saints in Munich should be used as a model. […] The dome should represent heaven, strewn with gold stars. The blue of heaven should gleam as much as possible. The intention is to use in this throne room all the different kinds of marble listed by the architect Salzenberg in his description of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.” 7 “At the back of the space there is a large niche. […] The niche is entirely gilded and against this ground six canonized kings, separated from each other by palm trees, are depicted, above them is Christ as King of Heaven giving a blessing. […] The throne [4] is covered by a vaulted roof that rests on columns, like the altar in Hagia Sophia.”8 The iconographical program of the spaces, one of the most complex of the nineteenth century, was largely the work of Ludwig himself, who was well read in intellectual history; it also includes the “law-givers of the great civilized heathen peoples, the Indians represented by Manu, the Persians by Zoroaster, the Egyptians by Hermes, the Greeks by Solon and the world rulers, the Romans, by Augustus.”9 Moses is shown carrying the tablets of God’s commandments, Jesus as divine light, that is to say: a comprehensive allegory of the legitimized exercise of power by the grace of God. Ludwig I

[4] Neuschwanstein Castle, design for the Throne in the apse of the Throne Hall, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1884

74

UWE GERD SCHATZ

[5] Neuschwanstein Castle, chapel, winged altar, and stained glass window with depictions of Saint Louis, 1881–84

which Ludwig I erected in Munich from 1850 to serve as his burial church. In Neuschwanstein Castle, however, the theme is a different one: the six canonized kings, including Louis IX of France, the name saint of the Bavarian Kings Ludwig I and Ludwig II, who were also both born on the saint’s feast day, August 25. And so this space consecrated to the divine right of kings weaves a dense mesh of relationships between ancient history, religion, and Ludwig II’s own dynasty.

had erected the Court Church of All Saints in the Munich Residence from 1826 on, and it was from there that the design of the side walls with the columnar arcades in the throne room came. This motif was originally from Saint Mark’s Basilica in Venice and was called for specifically by Ludwig II. The throne apse is a further connection to his grandfather, as the painterly composition was taken directly from the apse of the monastery church of Saint Boniface, 75

SACREDNESS IN THE BUILDINGS OF LUDWIG II

[6] Falkenstein Castle, design for the bedroom, MAX SCHULTZE and AUGUST SPIESS, 1885

BEDROOM IN NEUSCHWANSTEIN CASTLE

the washstand based on a baptismal font with containers for toiletries that resemble historical vasa sacra; a reading chair with a baldachin in the form of part of a choir stall; a sanctuary lamp in the chandelier. The magnificent textiles show the crown and the symbols of Ludwig II’s coat of arms: the lion, swan, and diamond shapes, but also the white lily as a symbol of the Virgin Mary, patron saint of Bavaria. It is an invocation of Christian kingship, a sacred space, like the throne room. The murals, the stained glass windows, and the central painting of the altar in the oratory [5] refer to Saint Louis IX of France, the name saint of Ludwig II. In

The fact that the bedroom in Neuschwanstein Castle is the only room that uses Gothic form had to do with Louis IX, the saintly French king who built the Gothic Sainte-Chapelle in Paris and to whom the small oratory directly adjoining the bedroom is devoted. However, for this bedroom the richest possible German Late Gothic forms were chosen. There are numerous sacred quotations: the elaborate canopy above the bed in the form of the pinnacles that crown a medieval altar; 76

UWE GERD SCHATZ

1786 Louis XVI—a direct descendant of Louis IX—acted as godfather to Ludwig II’s grandfather, King Ludwig I. Ludwig II saw this as a kind of dynastic connection, which explains the sacred references. The legend that Tristan was a son of Louis IX provided the basis for the program of the images in the bedroom—scenes from the Tristan legend— and for Ludwig II further strengthened his identification with Richard Wagner’s tragic hero.

The walls are completely encrusted with gold mosaic. At the front on the right is the throne, above which two of the legendary pairs of lovers appear in a mural. Beneath the dome, allegories of the virtues are depicted. In front of the central bed apsis, which is separated from the room by curtains, a white alabaster falcon hovers, which was to carry a glowing nightlight. In the left-hand apsis there was to be a winged altar with a prie-dieu; in the right-hand one, a washstand in the form of a tabernacle from Saint Mark’s, the washstand set was to based exactly on historic vasa sacra in the church treasury of Saint Mark’s; a wine ewer provided the inspiration for the pitcher to hold the water for washing; containers for anointing oils were reinterpreted as perfume bottles and pomade jars; a pyx was to be used as the model for a sponge holder and a chalice for the tooth mug. At the center was the bed in the form of a Byzantine baldachin altar, with the bed as an altar decorated with figural reliefs, flanked by two tall standing candelabras. A depiction of the enthroned Mother of God with the infant Jesus in the half-dome of the apse was based on an icon in Hagia Sophia. In accordance with Ludwig II’s order the angels flanking this image were to be quoted from his grandfather’s Court Church of All Saints.

BEDROOM IN FALKENSTEIN The first design from 1884 envisaged only a moderately sized rectangular room with a polygonal bed alcove. The program for the pictures in the room was to show pairs of lovers from the medieval sagas that Richard Wagner had made use of for his music dramas: Venus and Tannhäuser; Siegfried and Brünnhilde; Tristan and Isolde, who are also depicted in the bedroom in Neuschwanstein Castle; Elsa and Lohengrin; Parzival and Condwiramurs; and Gahmuret and Herzeloide, the parents of Parzival. Ludwig II immediately ordered a very different bedroom, giving precise details of what he wanted. The designs from late 1884 show a square room with Byzantine forms, blind arcades, a central blue dome with golden stars, and an apse with a baldachin bed. This was essentially a combination of the bedroom and the throne room from Neuschwanstein Castle. The elevation and cross section from 1885 illustrate a concept that has been expanded further [6]. Four arcades carry the blue central dome, which is now 14 meters high. The columns below the ribs of the vault are quotations from Saint Mark’s Basilica in Venice and were ordered by Ludwig II. His grandfather, Ludwig I, had also called for architectural quotations from Saint Mark’s to be used in his Court Church of All Saints in Munich. Ludwig II ordered that the floor be designed exactly according to a description of the floor in the ruler’s bedroom in the Emperor’s Palace in Byzantium, which was to be found in a book dating from 1869 about the Byzantines of the Middle Ages that Ludwig placed at the architect’s disposal.10

1 Strobel 1936–39. 2 Wackenroder 1797. 3 Geheime Tagebücher König Ludwigs I. (The Private Diaries of King Ludwig I), GHA.

4 5 6 7

The spatial vision is the ultimate culmination of a sacred space of kingship, a completion in which all possible means were to be used. The concept of the washstand as tabernacle, the containers for toiletries based on the sacred vessels, and—above all—the bed as altar is, in fact, blasphemous. Just reflect: a bed has in historical terms nothing to do with this hieratic context. What Ludwig II, daringly and using the highest quality, wanted to achieve was to blend the Byzantine emperor; Louis IX, the saint; and Louis XIV. It was only in this absolutist ceremonial that a bed had a royal significance. It was a fascinating culmination of all the ideals of Ludwig II in the latter part of his life, but also a tragic illustration of his attempts to evoke something, which focused in particular on the sanctification of the divine right of kings—that at his time existed only on paper—and on personal salvation. A sentence from Nietzsche’s Zarathustra epitomizes Ludwig II’s life concept as regards art and religion: “On his own wings to his own heaven.”

Boisserée 1835. Strobel 1936–39. Görres 1813. Salzenberg 1854.

77

8 Düfflipp-Korrespondenz, GHA. 9 Project for the Throne Room from October 15, 1880, GHA. 10 Krause 1869.

Neuschwanstein Castle, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–92

Neuschwanstein Castle, bedroom, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1881–84

Neuschwanstein Castle, Throne Hall, apse with six sainted kings, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1881–87

Neuschwanstein Castle, Throne Hall in a southward direction, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1881–87

PRESENT IN THE PAST Ludwig II and Architecture Photography 1864–86

L

By ULRICH POHLMANN which were essentially based on the French architecture of the Ancien Régime, the Orient, and the Middle Ages [1], could be depicted with the aid of photographs. Ludwig II had got to know the palaces in Versailles and the surrounding area, which were erected under the Bourbon rulers from Louis XIV to Louis XVI, on two visits that he made to Paris in 1867 and 1874, whereas he never saw for himself the original sites of Oriental or medieval architecture, apart from the Wartburg.

ike other monarchs of his time, King Ludwig II of Bavaria was extremely open-minded as regards the new medium of photography.1 He initially saw its potential use in making and disseminating representative images of his person. While he had a horror of lengthy portrait sittings, even for famous painters and sculptors, the young ruler willingly sat as a studio model for the photographer Joseph Albert. These portraits were then sent to members of his family or to other personalities as a courtly indication of friendship or favor, or were circulated publicly. Ludwig II also soon recognized the possibilities that photography offered for his architectural designs. With the help of architectural photographs, not only could a profound knowledge of the building forms and interior decoration of the relevant models be acquired, but also the photographic documents decisively contributed to helping the king’s ideas for the architecture of the royal palaces take concrete form. His architectural fantasies,

Therefore photography had the function of recording the current state of such architecture in an authentic way, that is to say realistically. When the buildings based on these models had been erected, they were examined precisely; the smallest departures from the originals were immediately noted and the necessary alterations and corrections were ordered by the king. Upon completion, illustrations of these buildings were needed for the purposes of representa-

[1] Versailles, Chambre de Parade of Louis XIV (photo: ADOLPHE BRAUN, ca. 1877)

82

[2] Munich, view of empty interior of the Glaspalast, (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, 1865)

aimed at establishing binding guidelines for the reproduction of artworks in European museums and the economical distribution of such reproductions.2

tion, and photography was eminently suitable for this purpose. Like most of his contemporaries, Ludwig II did not see photography as art but above all as a service. He could assess the individual quality of photographs, and, based on his own judgment, he commissioned leading photography studios to make reproductions of artworks and to take photographs of architecture.

An extensive list of all the images, compiled posthumously in 1899, offers a reliable insight into Ludwig’s artistic interests. This inventory records precisely, without further details about author, technique, or date of the images, about 20,000 sheets representing all kinds of printing techniques such as lithography, engraving, photography, etc., divided into five different thematic groups: the section “Historic Illustrations” includes dynastic images of European aristocracy as well as images of history, battles, and costumes alongside public events.3 The second category, “Illustrations of Geography,” has geographical maps and views of cities, landscapes, and sights in Europe, Russia, Japan, and the Orient, taken by the photographers Pascal Sébah, Antonio Beato,

Ludwig II’s expenditure on photography amounted to several times his father’s spending; however, compared to the cost of the works that Ludwig commissioned from painters, sculptors, and skilled artisans, this sum was still relatively small. Word of the king’s interest in collecting photographs apparently spread internationally. For example, Henry Cole, the director of the South Kensington Museum in London at the time, asked the Bavarian monarch to participate in an initiative launched in England that 83

PRESENT IN THE PAST

[3] Munich, Studio of Wilhelm von Kaulbach with the monumental painting Battle of Salamis (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, ca. 1868)

only been revealed recently. This cooperation lasted from 1872 until the end of May 1886, only a few weeks before the king’s tragic death.6 Through the Bavarian legation in Paris, Braun sent to Munich or to Berg Castle hundreds of photographs of the palaces in Versailles, reproductions of artworks, and illustrations of architecture dating from the epoch of Louis XIV to Louis XVI. These photographs reflect the Wittelsbach monarch’s admiration of figures from French history such as Joan of Arc, Marie Antoinette, and the absolutist rulers.

the Abdullah Frères, Carl Durheim, Juan Laurent, Fratelli Alinari, James Anderson, or Sommer & Behles. The third chapter, entitled “Architectural Illustrations,” combines reproductions of artworks from European art collections and museums as well as architectural vedute. Here, arranged according to theme, are the palaces and building projects of Ludwig II, the royal residences and parks in Bavaria, and the most important French palaces of the ancien régime, but also secular and church buildings. The remaining categories, “Decorative Arts” and “Theater Illustrations,” include interior decoration, decorative objects, and illustrations of stage performances and theatrical scenery, as well as pictures of costumes from the opera and theater.4

Braun’s pictures, made with sepia-tinted carbon prints, served architects and the art industry as matrices, as the following examples reveal. The photographer recorded the Moroccan House at the world exposition of 1878 in Paris before, having been acquired the king, it was re-erected in a modified form in the park of Linderhof Palace. Of the innumerable photographs by Braun in the Royal Library of the Wittelsbachs, the four-part views of the interior of the Hall of Mirrors (Galerie de Louis XIV) at Versailles, which was re-created in Herrenchiemsee Palace, are mentioned here as particularly fine examples. Braun’s research work for the Bavarian king among the private collections of the French capital, such as that of the Goncourt brothers or in museums and city palaces that were difficult to gain entry to, was no less influential.

ADOLPHE BRAUN, PHOTOGRAPHER OF THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANCIEN RÉGIME Among the numerous original photographs in the royal library, those by the firms Franz Hanfstaengl, Joseph Albert, and Adolphe Braun stand out.5 The full extent of the collaboration between the Bavarian royal house and the Alsatian photography firm Adolphe Braun, which Adolphe, the founder of the firm, ran along with his son Gaston, has 84

ULRICH POHLMANN

which in Munich had achieved “an outstanding social position”9 and took part successfully in the world expositions in Paris, London, Vienna, and Philadelphia between 1855 and 1876, specialized more in the lucrative production of art reproductions and portraits. An extensive description of his studio in 1860 states that Albert “has such a command of his material that he can reproduce the shades of the original so closely that even the artist himself can scarcely tell the original and the copy apart.”10

The close link to the courtly culture of France, the socalled archenemy, and Ludwig II’s collaboration with this French photography business, which can be regarded as the first global player in the history of photography, displeased many in the German Empire—and also in France. Intensive contacts between a German monarch and representatives of French culture were highly unusual after 1871 and led to open criticism after the king’s death. But in Paris, too, Braun’s cooperation with the Prussian authorities and the Kingdom of Bavaria met with disapproval for nationalistic and patriotic reasons, so that during his lifetime Gaston Braun kept secret the fact that Ludwig II had awarded him the title of royal Bavarian court photographer.

In 1865 at the Munich Kunstverein Albert presented a spectacular view of the interior of the Glaspalast (taken from the mezzanine gallery in the west with the help of a new lens, the Steinheil periscope), which had a severe monumentality that caused considerable excitement, even in Paris [2].11 Occasionally Albert also published views of the studios of well-known Munich artists such as Wilhelm von Kaulbach. Members of the public with an interest in art visited these studios in order to look over the shoulder of the creative genius while at work, as it were [3].

THE COOPERATION BETWEEN JOSEPH ALBERT AND KING LUDWIG II While it seems unlikely that the heads of the photography business Braun and Ludwig II ever met personally, the relationship with the Bavarian photographer Joseph Albert can be described as familial.7 Since the time of King Maximilian II Albert had enjoyed the privilege of being allowed to set up his camera in the royal family’s private surroundings. The basis for this trust was established by an album about the royal castle in Hohenschwangau and other buildings, which Albert dedicated to Maximilian II and which at the end of December 1857 brought him the title of the first royal Bavarian court photographer. Among the photographs in this album, which is bound in royal blue velvet, were several views of the spot where Neuschwanstein Castle was later built and photos of the old Marienbrücke across the Pöllat Gorge, which would be replaced in 1866 by a slender iron structure commissioned by Ludwig II. In terms of quality, these photographs are among the most outstanding examples of architecture and landscape photography in Germany in the nineteenth century.

Albert’s first opportunity to prove his special abilities to the king arose when making a documentation of the winter garden, which Ludwig had ordered to be built on the roof of the Residence in Munich from 1867 onward. Photographs also played a certain role in the design of individual buildings. When the king found a first design by Franz von Seitz for the Moorish Kiosk “very unpoetic,” he issued an instruction that Seitz should “make the architecture similar to the photograph of the kiosk.”12 In creating the artificial landscape in the winter garden above the Festival Hall Building, the king wanted to have the barrel vault, an iron and glass structure, screened completely. The effect made by the landscape designed by Carl von Effner was to be as unimpaired as possible. Nothing should interfere with the impression of an Indian-Oriental fairy-tale world. Consequently Joseph Albert was instructed by the king to photograph the winter garden “without the glass roof.”13

THEATER OF ILLUSION AND THE MOST MODERN TECHNOLOGY

Joseph Albert was regarded as a “an ingenious mind and a pleasant companion, but it is difficult to pin him down; he hurries about like a restless spirit who seems to have forgotten something everywhere, which he searches for busily, always occupied with his plans and designs, researching and combining.”8 Although Albert had studied at the Polytechnic in Munich and his parents had wished him to take up the profession of architect or engineer, photographs of architecture were not his main focus. His flourishing business,

Michael Petzet has discussed in depth the theatrical character of the architecture of the royal palaces and the king’s eclecticism and has analyzed his fondness for exotic styles borrowed from Arabian and Indian culture in the context of stage sets. The “intended reality of the illusion” of nature 85

PRESENT IN THE PAST

THE ROYAL PALACES AS A TOURIST ATTRACTION

and architecture14 also determines the appearance of those photographs in imperial format that Albert made of the interior of the winter garden in 1871, using the wet collodion process. Like an elegant stage set, an artificial landscape made up of a Moorish Kiosk, Indian royal tent, artificial lake with a small boat, “Indian” swans, exotic flora, a fisherman’s hut, grotto, and painted Himalayan scenery unfolds before the viewer’s eyes as a single theatrical entity [4]. At the same time the hall’s frame-like external skin could not be entirely obscured even by adding swans on the water. But through the efforts made to reproduce the garden landscape as a magical idyll, these photographs by Albert differ fundamentally from his illustrations of the winter garden of Maximilian II in the Munich Residence that was completed in 1854—and which in comparison looks like an ordinary glasshouse. Just what an overwhelming impact this theater of illusion must have made on visitors can be gathered from an eyewitness report by the Spanish Infanta, María de la Paz, dating from 1883: “Suddenly I thought I had been magically transported to the Alhambra. A small Moorish room with a fountain in the middle, surrounded by flowers, brought me to my native land. On the walls two magnificent divans. […] From my position I glimpsed through the arches wonderful plants illuminated by differently colored lights, while from somewhere invisible choirs sang. Suddenly a rainbow appeared.” 15

Albert’s photographs were made exclusively for Ludwig II and were most probably not presented and distributed publicly during the king’s lifetime. The king endeavored to shield his own dream kingdom from the gaze of third parties and restricted access to his retreat, so that even family members were not admitted. Only a few of these impressive photographs, which are among the most exceptional achievements of European architecture photography in the nineteenth century, have survived in public collections. Individual motifs in cabinet format appeared on the market after his death. To build his palaces, the king constantly required the services of his court photographer. Albert, like other court artists and artisans, was also sent to Paris with detailed instructions to make photographs of selected artworks and interiors. As an example, mention should be made here of a commission that took the photographer to Versailles: “Photographs are to be made of […] 1. The chambers of the Queen, 2. The three rooms of the Guard, 3. The small apartments of the King, including the medallion cabinet. Where possible the photographs should always also include the ceilings.”16 If the king was not satisfied with the results of Braun’s photography,

[4] Munich, Residence, winter garden of Ludwig II with Indian tent (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, ca. 1870)

86

ULRICH POHLMANN

[5] Kulmain, Construction of the Fichtelgebirge railway, tunnel at Oberwappenöst (photo: GEORG BÖTTGER, 1877)

of Bavaria and the development of the transport network that accompanied it, photographers such as Johann Laifle in Regensburg or Georg Böttger in Munich recorded railway lines, bridges, and stations with their cameras. The latter, commissioned by the railway companies in Munich, documented over a longer period of time the construction of the Fichtelgebirge line in 1877, along with the tunnels and the laying of the tracks. Generally made with large glass negatives using the wet collodion process, these photographs, although intended to celebrate these symbols of technical progress, reveal the extensive destruction of the natural landscape caused by industrialization [5].

he sent Albert to Paris to photograph the works yet again.17 These photographs frequently served as models for making various decorative wall elements, sculptures, and paintings in the royal palaces, in which the architecture and the visual programs, as replicas, are based largely on French originals.18 The work commissioned also included photographic documentation of buildings. These served the client and the construction engineer or architect as a way of checking the work in progress.19 Photos of Neuschwanstein Castle surrounded by scaffolding kept the monarch, who impatiently urged that the work be completed, informed about the current state of progress. Photography also had a similar function with regard to other important construction sites, for example in the area of industrial architecture and, above all, railway construction. In the course of the industrialization

However, the king’s attention was, without doubt, focused for the most part on the royal palaces. After the completion of Linderhof Palace, he commissioned Albert 87

PRESENT IN THE PAST

new photographs of the interiors and exteriors of the palaces, which were offered in large editions and in a variety of different formats.20

to make stereoscopic pictures—Albert had successfully experimented with this technique in 1859–60 [6]—as well as a series of large views of the interiors of Neuschwanstein Castle and Linderhof Palace. The photographer, now confined to a wheelchair by illness, could no longer carry out this commission himself. And neither Albert, who died just few weeks before Ludwig II, nor the king lived to experience the publication of these photographs, which the publishing house Joseph Albert brought into circulation under the title Die Bayerischen Königsschlösser (The Bavarian royal palaces), probably in summer 1886, initially as a portfolio with albumen paper prints mounted on cardboard, later as collotypes in a mass edition. After the king’s death, the palaces were opened to the public, and the flood of tourists soon led to a demand for suitable visual souvenirs. In the 1890s the business, now run by Albert’s widow with considerable acumen, made numerous

As early as 1850 the British monarch Queen Victoria and her consort Prince Albert compiled extensive photo collections, which are kept today in the Royal Collections in Windsor Castle. See Lyden 2014. 2 Henry Cole to Baron Maximilian von Perglas, diplomat at the Bavarian legation in Paris, 20 July 1867, State Arivches of Bavaria Munich, Akte Gesandtschaft 1867, Paris 528. We do not know of a written response from Ludwig II. 3 In the royal library there are more than ninety photographs of the 1867 world exposition in Paris by Auguste-Rosalie Bisson (Bisson jeune), taken for a commission from Pierre Petit, as well as numerous photographs of the world expositions in Vienna 1873, Paris 1878, of the Munich art exhibitions in 1876 and 1879, and of the flower show in the Munich Glaspalast in 1882. Further sets of photographs depict the theaters of war in 1870–71 and artists’ celebrations in Munich, such as the Waldfest 1879. 4 Verzeichnis der neugeordneten Bilderwerke aus dem Nachlasse Seiner Majestät König 1

5

6 7 8

9 10 11

12

Alongside the Bavarian palaces the French models that had inspired Ludwig II were made accessible to a wider public in Munich in the form of images. The company Kaiserpanorama, founded by August Fuhrmann, presented stereoscopic photographs of the Paris world expositions from 1867 to 1900 and also recorded the art treasures in the French museums and the attractions of the imperial palaces of Versailles and Trianon. The visit to Kaiserpanorama offered members of the bourgeoisie the illusion of actually being in the place depicted and, the feeling of promenading through these stately buildings.21 Photography therefore helped to ensure that courtly architecture was no longer reserved for the gaze of just a privileged few but became part of the collective visual memory.

Ludwig II., 1899, Bibliothek der Wittelsbacher, Schloss Nymphenburg. My thanks for allowing an inspection go to Dr. Andreas von Majewski, Thomas Wöhler, and Albrecht Vorherr. Astonishingly the portfolios of photographs by Édouard Baldus, which he circulated, of the Palais de Louvre (1869), of Versailles with the Grand and Petit Trianon (1877) and of the Hôtel de Ville in Paris (1884) are missing. See Pohlmann 2017, 334–37. See Ranke 1977. Quote from Wilhelm Hackländer’s description of Joseph Albert in the novel Der Sturmvogel (The petrel), which appeared in 1872. In Nekrolog 1886, 354. Ibid. Quoted from Die Dioskuren 1860, 56. Münchner Kunst-Anzeiger 1865, 49. The photograph, which had an exposure time of 90 seconds, was presented at a meeting of the influential Société Française de Photographie in Paris. See Prissette and Trillat 1979, n.p. Ludwig II to the court secretary Lorenz von Düfflipp, 19 March 1869, quoted in

88

Schmid 1986, 71. It is possible that the Indian landscape with the Himalayas on the east wall of the winter garden was inspired by popular contemporary photographs, which the British photographer Samuel Bourne had shown at the Paris world exposition in 1867. Ludwig II was familiar with the illustration of the Himalaya expeditions by the Schlagintweit Brothers, which Joseph Albert had reproduced. 13 Lakai Welker to court secretary Ludwig von Bürkel 14 May, 1879. Quoted from Petzet 1986, 54, note 112. 14 See Petzet 1986, 55. 15 Schmid 1986, 90. 16 Petzet 1995, 232. 17 See Kobell 1898, 161–62. 18 See Rauch 1993, 149, 287, note 46, 294, note 83, 308, note 187, and 313, note 224. 19 See Pohlmann and Scheutle 2011, 7–10. 20 An overview of the publisher’s program with photographs of the palaces is offered by Kobell 1898, 493–96. 21 Lorenz 2010.

Hof, station building with “Königssaal”, GEORG FRIEDRICH SEIDEL, 1874–80

Hof, railway station with station building, GEORG FRIEDRICH SEIDEL, 1874–80

Hof, station building, GEORG FRIEDRICH SEIDEL, 1874–80

KING LUDWIG II’S VIEW OF THE WORLD

N

By SABINE HEYM

diaries and letters. But—and this has already been pointed out in different ways—Schiller’s philosophical writings, in particular the treatise Upon the Aesthetic Culture of Man, in a Series of Letters (1795), also had a considerable influence on Ludwig’s understanding of himself and the world, on his ethos as ruler, his impact on art, and his patronage of drama and opera—in particular the works of Richard Wagner.8 The fact that Ludwig II, when he became king, also viewed his building activity as an implementation of the aesthetic state postulated by Schiller is to be sketched in outline below.

euschwanstein, Linderhof, and Herrenchiemsee: today these castles and palaces of King Ludwig II are the best-known buildings in Bavaria dating from this era, but at the time of the king’s death not one of them had been completed. Many plans, for instance for Byzantine or Chinese Palaces or for Falkenstein Castle, remained unexecuted. All these buildings were conceived for pristine natural settings, far from the seat of government—elevated mountain sites, remote valleys, or, in one case, even an island. They were not intended for the public: they served neither social nor ceremonial purposes nor the legitimation of his own dynasty; they were not summer residences or hunting lodges in any traditional sense but also were not buildings for state representation.1 Ludwig II financed them out of his private means,2 but given the enormous increase in the amount of building work over the course of time it is hardly surprising that these means did not suffice and that his debts assumed vast proportions, ultimately leading to his deposition.3 When the palaces were opened to the public six weeks after the king’s death on August 1, 1886, the intention was that the buildings would serve to confirm the king’s attested state of mental illness; but in fact, the public developed a fascination with these creations of Ludwig II that has survived undiminished to the present day.

In the text On Naïve and Sentimental Poetry (1795/96) Schiller writes as follows about the physician, nature researcher, and poet Albrecht von Haller,9 whom he greatly admired: “His soul is inflamed by an ideal and his glowing feeling for truth searches in silent Alpine valleys for the innocence that has vanished from the world.” 10 Since the appearance in 1757 of A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke, at the latest, the sublime was being discovered increasingly in nature; and it is also important in the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790) by Immanuel Kant and in discussion is increasingly linked with the beautiful.11 Schiller, following Burke and Kant, writes as follows: “The Sublime, like the Beautiful, is lavishly diffused through all nature, and the susceptibility for both is implanted in all men.” 12 And further: “[Man] is presented with a larger unit of measure by the simple majesty of nature, and, surrounded by her noble shapes, his mind no longer brooks the mean and narrow.” 13

What makes these palaces unique? Why were these buildings, like theater, literature, and music, so important to the king? Beyond the physical and psychological state that has been addressed in the relevant literature and the historical, political, and social circumstances of the time, in his understanding of art the unusually well read king [1] appears to have been mostly shaped by his declared favorite poet Friedrich Schiller.4

But what is meant by “his mind no longer brooks the mean and narrow”? As regards the common or commonplace14 Schiller writes: “Everything is common which does not address the spirit, and which excites only a sensuous interest.” 15 Common is, to put it briefly, anyone concerned exclusively with their own benefit. In the sixth letter of his treatise Upon the Aesthetic Culture of Man, Schiller, with a clear criticism of the theses of Adam Smith as presented in his book An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776) 16 and of the Enlightenment and

On his thirteenth birthday Ludwig noted in his diary that he had received a present of three volumes of Schiller’s works.5 His enthusiasm for Schiller’s dramas, all of which he saw several times on the stage, had remained undimmed since he was Crown Prince.6 He could recite long passages of his “immortal Schiller” by heart.7 Innumerable quotations from Schiller’s works are woven into the king’s 94

[1] King Ludwig II, his arm resting on a book (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, 1865)

95

KING LUDWIG II’S VIEW OF THE WORLD

[2] Neuschwanstein Castle, idealized design, CHRISTIAN JANK, 1869

the French Revolution that degenerated into terror: “The new spirit of government made complete and universal this disorder which art and learning commenced in the inner man. […] The state and church, laws and customs, are now rent asunder; enjoyment is separated from labor, the means from the end, exertion from recompense. Eternally fettered only to a single little fragment of the whole, man fashions himself only as a fragment; […] and instead of coining the humanity that lies in his nature, he is content with a mere impression of his occupation, his science.” 17 Schiller continues: “The spirit of business, confined within a uniform cycle of objects, and in this still more circumscribed by formulas, must lose cognizance of the independent whole, daily becoming more impoverished in its sphere.” 18

benefit or gain. In this world there are sensual impressions but nothing sublime or beautiful, no morality that goes any further than pure egotism. But, Kant continues, this is only a part of every human being. Man can also think, can think of something beautiful, something good, something noble. In this regard, Schiller writes: “A man acts in a common way who only thinks of his own interest, and so far he is the opposite of the noble man, who can forget himself. […]” 20 As a physical being, man is, according to Kant, subject to the laws of nature; but as a thinking being, he is free. That, says Kant, is the actual destiny of man and, as he presents in his essay An Answer to the Question What Is Enlightenment? (1784), is also the mission of every individual. Developing these ideas further, Schiller says that the world of necessity is found in what he describes as the “dynamical state.” While this certainly has its own justification, mankind’s destiny is a different one: “If man, in the dynamical state of right, meets man as a power, and circumscribes his operations, or opposes him in the ethical state of duty with the majesty of the law, and fetters his will—he need only appear to him in the circle of polished

Alongside a general criticism, these thoughts also contain an abbreviated summary of important ideas of the philosopher Kant.19 As physical beings, says Kant, we, like all physical things, are subject to the laws of nature and are all citizens of the realm of necessity. In this realm man follows his sensual perceptions alone, which include hunger, thirst, and desire, and whatever he sees as his personal 96

SABINE HEYM

intercourse, in the aesthetic state, as shape, only confront him as an object for the free play-impulse. To give freedom by freedom is the fundamental law of this empire.” 21 It is only in this aesthetic state that the individual comes into his own; leaving behind the chains of utility and sensual desire, he becomes free and recognizes the humanity in himself: “The Beauty alone we enjoy at the same time as individual and as genus; that is, as representatives of the race.” 22

the circle of argument closes. With the help of his senses man can perceive the noble and the beautiful in nature. With the help of his sensitivity to both he can, however, also recognize art. This is the beautiful that is made by man. As man the thinking being can understand, this created beauty points to the eternal idea of the beautiful. According to Schiller, who here argues in a similar way to the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling,24 every work of art is an expression of the beautiful and at the same time a reference to the idea of the beautiful. But this idea exists in us humans only as free-thinking and playing beings, and therefore everyone has to discover it in him or herself. The artwork, which he perceives through his senses, assists him in doing this.

For Schiller, art created by a genius becomes a decisive element as: “It is a gift of genius alone, always to be at home even beyond the confines of what is familiar and to expand nature without going outside it.” 23 This is where

[3] Neuschwanstein Castle, sitting room with wall paintings depicting the Lohengrin saga

97

KING LUDWIG II’S VIEW OF THE WORLD

[4] So-called diary of King Ludwig II with painting on porcelain of the Temple of the Holy Grail, CARL GRÜNWEDEL, 1885

created by decree. The ethical state could, within certain boundaries, set up rules. But the only way for the individual to become a citizen of the aesthetic state was through his own free will, by a free choice. The task of art was to show him the way.

When one takes this into account, much of Ludwig II’s behavior becomes easier to understand: as king by the grace of God and with a pronounced absolutist understanding of the monarchy, he believed he was obliged to ensure the well-being of his subjects. But in his view it was the responsibility of the dynamic state (the government) to deal with the material side of this obligation. Ludwig as monarch believed it was his duty, his true vocation, to remain at a distance from this state in order to create the aesthetic state, which alone could fulfill the destiny and consequently the well-being of the people. As freedom was the most important element in this state, it could not be

The realm of freedom is also the realm of art. This aesthetic realm, the actual goal of human existence, was the realm of which Ludwig II wanted to be king. Here ruling meant much the same as creating art. This helps explain his buildings [2]: set amid sublime nature with its natural beauty, they were an expression of artistic beauty created by the 98

SABINE HEYM

become part of the finite, material world, and the whole process must begin again. In this sense the never-completed palaces of Ludwig II are, in their different forms, witnesses in stone to what is called German Idealism in the absolutist interpretation of a king. Ludwig’s concern was not art for art’s sake but, following Schiller, to lead people by means of ideal beauty to freedom as understood in the moral sense. Ultimately, the concern of the aesthetic state is the happiness of all, the knowledge of eternal ideas. Ludwig was described, not only in fin de siècle France, as the artist-king and aesthete on the throne, and was called by Paul Verlaine “the only true king of this century”; but this is accurate only if he is not at the same time understood as the prototype of the decadent or as an unrecognized artist whose work is the sole purpose of his life and who therefore antisocially and arrogantly disregards society’s values in a challenging way.28

king and intended to refer both to the idea of the beautiful and to the idea of monarchy; for Ludwig II—entirely in the tradition of Jean Bodin’s absolutist state theory25—the monarch was the envoy of God, and as such he built the beautiful in a sensually perceptible way in order to lead man to his freedom and make him a citizen of the aesthetic state conceived in monarchist terms: “The Divinity is already very near to that man, who has succeeded in collecting all beauty and greatness, all excellence, both in the small and great of nature, and in evolving from this manifoldness the great unity.”26 The rational coherence of Schiller’s philosophy, the clear distinction between the realm of necessity and the aesthetic state, which includes the realm of freedom, of self-determined purposes and which, in its highest form, is poetic, clearly shaped Ludwig II’s image of himself and the world at an early stage. With his extremely exaggerated idea of the monarchy, Ludwig, who had assumed the throne at the age of eighteen, without political experience, and during a difficult phase of Bavarian history, saw as his destiny the consistent implementation of this fundamental philosophical idea—and not in the role of a constitutional monarch in the realm of necessity.27 In his view he could only become the creator of the aesthetic state by withdrawing from dayto-day affairs. As the aesthetic world created in freedom and out of a vision is the only real one and also the only one appropriate to the freedom of mankind, Ludwig II did not restrict himself to the patronage of the arts and artists in his kingdom but himself operated intensely as a royal building client, source of ideas, and artistic creator—from a current viewpoint as a conceptual artist. To achieve this, he employed all possible means (including financial ones). In order to realize his vision, he integrated a variety of ideas from history, mythology, and literature, based on contemporary art trends and fashions as well as the latest technical developments—without ever coming into direct contact with the architects, artists, and craftspeople involved. Presented with the visual designs and detailed plans, he modified and corrected their form and content, as well as the nature and quality of the execution down to the last detail, which naturally led to constant and expensive replanning and new design work.

However, the inclinations of Ludwig II and his tendency toward elitist thought encouraged the single-sided and unconditional way in which he clearly absorbed and implemented Schiller’s philosophy. In Schiller he encountered a program in which, after having interpreted it through his self-image, he could fully immerse himself. When a child he had, to a similar extent, identified himself with Lohengrin, the Swan Knight who was sent into the world from the realm of the Holy Grail in order to support Elsa, who through no fault of her own found herself in a predicament. When Elsa asks Lohengrin for his name and in doing so breaks her promise, he must leave. A boat drawn by a swan brings him back to the kingdom of the Grail. Ludwig II knew this story from literature and from wall paintings in Hohenschwangau Castle; in 1861 Lohengrin was the first Wagner opera that he experienced.29 In the king’s world of ideas, the realm of the Holy Grail could certainly be connected with the eternal realm of the beautiful [3–4].30 In the way he understood being a sovereign, Ludwig II also regarded himself appointed by God. Therefore, in Neuschwanstein Castle on the night of June 11, 1886, when he was taken into custody by deputies of the government on the basis of attested mental illness, he must have seen this as an immense usurpation of power, as an attack on the dignity of the king and on the kingdom of the eternal.31 He had, by and large, allowed the government free rein and in return demanded equal freedom as artist-king and builder, even when his expenditure on buildings began to acquire dangerous dimensions. As the result of his disempowerment, his task of founding the aesthetic state was,

Ludwig II clearly saw himself called upon as king—that is, in freely chosen isolation, in a withdrawal from necessity, like an artist on his own—to approach his understanding of the infinite idea of the beautiful. However, the moment the artist completes a work, it slips away from him to 99

KING LUDWIG II’S VIEW OF THE WORLD

Lohengrin, he was called to return to the other, eternal world. In this way Ludwig II and his idea of kingship became something that can best be understood through the philosophy of Schelling’s later days: a mythos.32 Up to the present day this is how many people imagine a real king: the expression of a better world not caught up in trivia, living in fantastically beautiful palaces, infinitely far away and at the same time so near.33

in his view, made impossible by those who represented the dynamic state, the realm of necessity. Held in Berg on the Starnberger See, for the king several lines of argument were connected in a seemingly fatal way: as the world and his country made it impossible for him to free it from the chains of the dynamic state and to found the aesthetic state, on June 13, 1886—Pentecost Sunday and therefore also the day of the Holy Grail—he could believe that, like

1 See Ottomeyer 2011, 169–70. 2 Since the constitution of 1818, the private property of the Wittelsbachs had been united with state property. To compensate for this, a law was passed in 1834 creating a permanent civil list that guaranteed the king the upkeep of the court and of the family. From this civil list the king, as head of state, had to pay for maintenance of all those properties that he made exclusive use of (the crown goods) and had to cover all the costs of the court (including staff and administration, all the costs for representation and the allowances for the adult princes and others). What remained formed the king’s private income. It was from this—and not from the state budget— that Ludwig II financed his palaces, which through the continuous increase in spending ultimately led to the excessive debts of the court and cabinet treasury. See Aretin 2006, 20–21. 3 In 1880 the debts amounted to roughly 4.5 million Marks, in 1884 around 8 million Marks, in 1886 about 14.5 million Marks. 4 See Merta 1993, especially 738–44; Seitz 2004; Erichsen 2011a, 13; Merta 2011; and Seitz 2011. 5 Diary entry from August 25, 1858, quoted in Evers 1986, 70. 6 Ibid., 268ff. 7 Ibid., 70; see also Hacker 1986, 128. 8 See Merta 1993, 741; Merta 2011, 180; and Seitz 2004, 33–34. 9 See Fueter and Elschenbroich 1966. Haller is one of the greatest universal scholars of Switzerland and the Enlightenment. Die Alpen, his first and also his most influential great poem, was written after a journey through the Alps in 1728. 10 On Naive and Sentimental Poetry (1795/96) in Schiller 2005, 216. 11 The Irish-British writer, state philosopher, and politician Burke was a fierce opponent

of the French Revolution and is regarded as the intellectual father of conservatism. A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful is seen as the classic text of an empirically based sensualist aesthetic. 12 “Upon the Sublime,” in Schiller 1845, 251. 13 Ibid., 253. 14 “Thoughts upon the Use of the Common and the Low in Art,” in Schiller 1845, 267–75. 15 Ibid., 267. 16 Since publishing his book The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith, a Scottish moral philosopher and Enlightenment thinker, was regarded as the founder of classic economics. The book was first translated into German in 1776 and 1778 in two volumes by Johann Friedrich Schiller, a cousin of the poet Friedrich Schiller. 17 “Sixth Letter,” Upon the Aesthetic Culture of Man, in Schiller 1845, 22. 18 Ibid., 24. 19 “I will not conceal from you that the following affirmations will rest, for the most part, upon Kantian principles […],” “First Letter,” Upon the Aesthetic Culture of Man, in Schiller 1845, 2. 20 “Thoughts upon the Use of the Common and the Low in Art,” in Schiller 1845, 269. 21 “Twenty-seventh Letter,” Upon the Aesthetic Culture of Man, in Schiller 1845, 145. 22 Ibid., 146. 23 On Naive and Sentimental Poetry (1795/96) in Schiller 2005, 189. 24 F. W. J. Schelling, The Philosophy of Art (lecture 1802–3). Schelling, one of the leading representatives of German Idealism, was appointed professor by King Ludwig I in 1827 and was extremely influential in Munich. 25 Jean Bodin, Six livres de la République (Six Books of the Commonwealth), first appeared in 1583. 26 Philosophical Letters, in Schiller 1845, 362. 27 See Rumschöttel 2011a, 11. 28 In France it was in particular the Wagner cult that encouraged the decadent-aesthetic

100

veneration of Ludwig. See Kiefer 2011; Lindl 2011; and Riedl 2011. 29 Seitz 2004, 152–53, 195ff. Ludwig’s father forbade his thirteen-year-old son to attend the first performances of Wagner’s Lohengrin on February 28, 1858. 30 On June 22, 1868, Ludwig II wrote to Richard Wagner: “We, too, can proclaim Schiller’s words to the people: you see only the familiar aspect of things, as your gaze is limited by the earthly blindfold. I have seen the immortal with my eyes, I feel as though I had seen into the most holy of heaven itself—it is called the Grail through which, with the blessedness of purest belief, it confers itself to its knighthood.” Quoted in Strobel 1936–39, 2:233. 31 The financial crisis caused by Ludwig II’s passion for building led to his being deposed on the basis of a report by the psychiatrist, Professor Bernhard von Gudden (June 8), and to the proclamation of Prince Luitpold as regent (June 9/10). After being detained in Neuschwanstein Castle (June 11/12), Ludwig II was brought to Berg castle (June 12), where he and von Gudden died in the Starnberger See (June 13). 32 At the latest since his System of Transcendental Idealism (1800) Schelling dealt with mythology. Between 1828 and 1831 he developed these thoughts further, particularly in his lectures in Munich, which were always a public event; they were published after his death under the title Philosophie der Mythologie: Philosophie der Offenbarung (Philosophy of Mythology and Revelation, 1856–58). Mythos here stands for something that cannot be rationally grasped. 33 For the many discussions that provided me with insights, in particular into the philosophical context, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Anton Hueber, Munich, who also accompanied the development of this study with great patience.

Herrenchiemsee Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–86

Herrenchiemsee Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1968–86

EXOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE? Sources and Variations in Ludwig’s Perception of Islamic Architecture By EVA-MARIA TROELENBERG “[B]ut more recently it has occurred that, during his Majesty’s stay on Schachen, stable boys have had to sit in the Oriental manner in rooms decorated in Turkish style, drinking sorbet with His Majesty and smoking Turkish pipes.” 1

T

he sources for these two quotations could hardly be more different—and yet both the contemporary forensic report and the literary critical look back agree on one point: both emphasize Ludwig’s tendency to Orientalize as a way of expressing his distinctiveness. They position him as an exotic character outside the framework of European conventions, detached from his own time and anti-modern, someone to whom any standard definitions of mental health did not apply.

“[E]verything that [Ludwig II] did was characterized by an alarming, foreign quality reminiscent more of an Asian Sultan than a European ruler.” 2

[1] Munich, Residence, winter garden of Ludwig II looking west with Kiosk (photo: JOSEPH ALBERT, ca. 1870)

104

[2] Schachen, King’s House, landscape motif from the eastern part of the Munich winter garden, with architectural prospect, JULIUS LANGE, 1872

Ludwig’s interest in the so-called Orient can be traced throughout his entire reign. Although not as extensive as his large projects for palaces and castles, when viewed together the plans for architecture inspired by Byzantine, Chinese, or Islamic sources offer evidence of the intensive studies he made.

through literary descriptions and illustrations, as is clearly shown by the following three examples from the group of Orientalizing architecture—the winter garden of Ludwig II in the Munich Residence, the Turkish Hall in the King’s House on Schachen, and the Kubba project for the Stockalpe.4

A series of small architectural examples that focus on the characteristics of traditional Islamic architecture forms a separate group of works. In order to trace the origins and significance of these motifs, a look at the paths of communication and the use of sources can be helpful. Unlike many of his contemporaries, Ludwig II traveled little: he never visited the eastern Mediterranean, North Africa, or even Spain—that is to say, he did not know a single Islamic building firsthand. Therefore, contemporary forms of illustration that could be translated into various architectural modes were of particular importance for him.

PANORAMA: THE WINTER GARDEN IN THE RESIDENCE IN MUNICH From 1867 onward by order of Ludwig II a winter garden was erected on the roof of the Festival Hall Building in the Munich Residence. Covered by a free-spanning barrel-shaped steel-and-glass construction, it was intended to suggest the atmosphere of a valley in Kashmir [1].5 Set amid tropical vegetation, a lake, and an artificial grotto there was also a Moorish pergola, a so-called Indian king’s tent, and a kiosk. The most interesting element was the semicircular eastern wall, which could be covered with a

One of Ludwig’s means of contact with the Orient was filtered through the perspective of the world expositions.3 He made an even more intensive examination of this theme 105

EXOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE?

[3] Schachen, King’s House, wall elevation of the “Turkish Hall,” GEORG SCHNEIDER, 1872

painted view. On this wall the king could have mounted a landscape picture of his choice, for instance, bringing the peaks of the Himalayas to Munich or a version of a waterside Indian Palace complex which, through its perspective, increased the apparent length of the winter garden. This effect is demonstrated very clearly by a view of the completed winter garden in an oil painting by Julius Lange which Ludwig II commissioned in 1872: it shows the interplay of plants, water, and furnishings among which, like in a panorama, the transitions between built and painted architecture are barely perceptible [2].6 As the winter garden was demolished after Ludwig’s death, this painting is the most important documentation of how the architectural prospect once looked, along with a set of photographs by Joseph Albert.

Indian examples, their proportions are considerably more slender; and rather than ending in domed pavilions, they are terminated by delicate pinnacles, which could also allude to Ottoman architecture. Clearly, the interest here was not in references to any particular monument, but rather to combine individual elements in a kind of capriccio. Constructed literally as an antithesis to contemporary Realpolitik, the architectural iconography of the winter garden on the roof of the Residence certainly tends to confirm the hypothesis that the psyche of the commissioner was somewhat detached from the world. “Yearning for the East, […] well-read in Indian sagas, have also read One Thousand and One Nights, date palms, palm wine […],” Ludwig II wrote in his diary in spring 1868, at the time when the winter garden project was entering into an important planning phase.7

The details of the individual elements of the painted architecture refer to typical characteristics of Indian buildings from the Mughal era: we see domed pavilions over a polygonal plan, typical of the representative buildings of Delhi, Lahore, or Agra. The shafts of the painted minarets are structured by balconies that run around them, like those at the Taj Mahal, for instance. Compared to the

At the same time the sources from which these motifs were borrowed suggest an active interest in contemporary techniques of recording the world. Letters and cabinet documents from this period list a series of works that allows us to trace Ludwig’s intensive examination of the so-called Orient by means of literature and images.8 For 106

EVA-MARIA TROELENBERG

instance his library contained a copy of Thomas and William Daniell’s Oriental Scenery, a series of steel engravings that included a number of depictions of mosques and mausoleums.9 However, it was the Schagintweit brothers who provided the king with the most direct impressions of India. In the 1850s Hermann, Robert, and Adolf Schlagintweit had traveled across the subcontinent. They published their descriptions, watercolors, and drawings in 1881 under the title Indien in Wort und Bild (India in word and image). 10 One of the two copies that are kept in the Bavarian State Library today contains a personal dedica-

tion to King Ludwig II.11 Recent research has shown that in fact this contact existed before the work was published and dated back to the years during which the winter garden was made.12 Thus the image of the Indian Orient appears to have been communicated through a contemporary, picturesque mode of representation, which could be ideally combined with Ludwig’s literary preferences during this period.

[4] Eyüp Palace, interior of a hall, THOMAS ALLOM, ca. 1840

107

EXOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE?

[5] Project for a Kubba, view of interior, GEORG DEHN, 1878

INTERIOR: THE TURKISH HALL IN THE SCHACHENHAUS

a series of engravings after drawings by Thomas Allom.15 One of the plates is directly related to the Turkish Hall, whose fittings can be seen as a combination of the Oriental and the Rococo [3].16 Like on a proscenium stage, Thomas Allom’s engraving shows a scene in a hall of the Palace of Eyüp on the Bosporus [4].17 Built or fitted out around the start of the nineteenth century under Sultan Selim III, it is a late example of Turkish Baroque or Rococo. As the use of European decorative forms is characteristic of this style Ludwig II’s adoption of this kind of interior design can be seen as a kind of reimport. Allom’s depiction of the interior with the narrow hallway defined by a balustrade, the rectangular main space with the heavy coffered ceiling, the divans lining the space, and the windows with oculi above was adopted almost exactly for the Turkish Hall, only the layout was modified slightly. In addition to the architectural motifs the principles that underlie the decoration are, by and large, the same, down to the festoons in the coffered ceiling, the columns made of acanthus leaves, and the curved moldings of the projecting wall elements. Here an

While work on the winter garden was still proceeding, the Turkish Hall in the King’s House on Schachen above Garmisch was built in 1871–72—in this case, too, a remote location. This hall, which occupies the entire upper floor of the alpine chalet, owes its basic Oriental atmosphere above all to the fittings. It seems that at this time Ludwig was reading about Constantinople.13 This, most probably, had to do with his interest in Byzantine architecture, which was reflected in the throne room in Neuschwanstein Castle and in two projects for large independent Byzantine Palace complexes that never came to fruition.14 Apparently this geographic framework then led to contact with another variety of Islamic architecture. A typical example of descriptive travel literature is the publication Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor by Robert Walsh, which contains 108

EVA-MARIA TROELENBERG

these travel descriptions, he also studied literature on art history, for example Carl Schnaase’s Geschichte der bildenden Künste (History of the fine arts), which devotes considerable space to the Islamic architecture of Spain.21 That the reception of the Alhambra was so widely, consistently, and concretely used in the kubba project is partly due to the practical potential offered by Owen Jones and Jules Goury’s publication Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details of the Alhambra.22 It contains a detailed and comprehensive survey of the architecture and decor of Nasrid palace, which consequently became the best documented monument of Islamic art. The designs for the kubba are, without doubt, influenced by this model work—and therefore form part of a European wave of enthusiasm for the Alhambra, which continued into the twentieth century.23

entire ruler’s interior was adopted and completed by adding a number of further elements with the aim of evoking a luxurious, Oriental ambiance. Although this example is truly a copy, Ludwig II’s aim was certainly not to create a typical example of historical Ottoman art. Rather it seems that a blend of his enthusiasm for the Baroque and Rococo styles and his often invoked yearning for the East was achieved. In this way the aesthetic codes of European absolutism are connected with those of the Ottoman sultanate. An idealization of the European past goes hand in hand with a stereotypical idea of foreign cultures. Together, both suggest an anachronistic but, in the king’s view of the world, consistent spatial presentation of alterity as the expression of ideal rulership, which had become impossible in the context of modern Realpolitik.

Precisely against this background it becomes clear that Ludwig’s abbreviation of the Alhambra was anything but arbitrary—nor did it merely follow a fashionable trend: the overall image of its Oriental spaces embodies a further variation of princely architecture. Just like the winter garden and the Turkish Hall, this project was also intended for a remote location; but compared to the earlier projects, it is considerably larger in volume, and the historical details are more accurate.

PALACE: THE KUBBA PROJECT FOR THE STOCKALPE A few years after the Turkish Hall Ludwig II commissioned Georg von Dollmann to design a domed palace (kubba) with a courtyard for the Stockalpe near Linderhof. This project was never carried out. However, the surviving plans and designs allow us to conclude that here a small independent palace complex was planned which borrowed from Nasrid architecture, in particular from the elongated rectangular Court of the Lions in the Alhambra with its fountain centrally positioned at the intersection of two axial paths that lead to representative domed interiors.18 A colored design drawing shows a view looking from the colonnade of the courtyard into the central space of the adjoining hall [5].19 The space seems like an abbreviation of the Alhambra’s decorative and architectural elements. The dome with its honeycomb muqarnas vaulting and biforate window motif recalls, for example, the Hall of the Two Sisters, while the arcade zone with its system of vertically interlocking friezes and areas filled with ornamentation draws from the repertoire of the Court of the Lions as well as from the Myrtle Court.

It is certainly true that all these projects reflect the intellectual world of an eccentric client. At the same time, however, in terms of detail they are systematic and their iconography certainly shows political connotations. Neither the remote locations nor their exotic aesthetics are enough to prove an irrational or pathological kind of alterity. Rather they are part of a complex staging of authority which in technical terms makes use of the possibilities offered by contemporary construction methods and communication media while simultaneously turning away from modernism.24 Consequently they can be regarded as typical of a greater contemporary context: it was precisely during the decades of Ludwig’s reign that perspectives on the Islamic world grew rapidly. Political, economic, and technical developments—the most concrete of which was probably the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869—brought different geographical areas closer together.25 Modern technologies such as steamship travel and photography helped to transport images of distant worlds with ever-increasing speed.26 The world fairs became the showplaces and trading centers for this new image of the world.27 As a result the Islamic world was exposed in a very special way to Western gazes, influences, and desires. This triggered a late wave

“I have read Schack’s wonderful description of the Alhambra,” Ludwig wrote to his Cabinet secretary in spring 1869. “Everything shows that this heavenly monument to the heyday of Moorish architecture is among the most perfect things ever created by humanity.”20 In addition to reading 109

EXOTIC CONCEPTIONS OF SPACE?

highly colonial or imperial in character.29 As a whole this led to greater knowledge, in particular of the history of nonEuropean art and architecture—a growth of knowledge that in both the so-called Orient and also in the Western world led to different versions of hybrid historicist applications.30 Even though in terms of quality and iconographical direction the individual examples must be assessed very differently, they are all directly or indirectly part of a complex transformation of the world, whose constellations of power are also reflected in the construction and—often highly artificial—linking of geographical, historical, and architectural spatial systems.31

of the kind of Orientalism that Edward Said has critically described as an asymmetrical strategy of Western appropriation and exploitation.28 At the same time the social elites and rulers in the Middle East made use of modern media and technology on their own terms. Ludwig’s contemporaries, such as Sultan Abdulaziz in the Ottoman Empire or Nasr ad Din Shah Qajar in Persia, introduced numerous internal reforms and opened their empires more and more to Europe. The introduction of increasingly modern standards of architectural surveying and conservation is an integral part of this transcultural history. Depending on its context, this history could be

1

2 3

4

5 6

7

Medical report on the psychological state of Ludwig II, June 1886; quoted in Grein 1925, 141. Oskar Maria Graf, Das Leben meiner Mutter (1940), quote from Graf 2017, 46. This aspect is represented above all by the Moorish Kiosk in the park of Linderhof Palace and the Moroccan House, which originally stood on the Stockalpe near Linderhof. Both of these were ephemeral world fairs architectures that Ludwig II acquired as ready-made products and then had modified. See Fehle 1987; and Eichner 1998. The description of the building that follows is based in part on Troelenberg 2007, 392– 406; and Troelenberg 2008, 115–20. See Schmid 1986, 63–94; and Tauber 2013, 176–81. Julius Lange, Landscape motif from the eastern part of the winter garden with architectural prospect, 1872, oil on canvas, 82 × 135 cm, BSV, in situ in the dining room of the King’s House on Schachen, inv. no. Scha. G. 4. Entry in his diary by Ludwig II between March 17 and April 10, 1868, quoted in Evers 1986, 172.

8 GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II, nos. 314 and 315. 9 Daniell and Daniell 1813–15. 10 Schlagintweit 1881. 11 Noted in the Quart-Katalog of the Bavarian State Library. 12 Kleidt 2014, 129, 131. 13 See Evers 1986, 172. Ludwig mentions reading about Constantinople in the same diary entry from spring 1869 in which he refers to literature about India and 1001 Nights. 14 See Berger 2003, 75–85. 15 See Allom and Walsh ca. 1840. 16 See Restle 1979, 52; and Koppelkamm 2015, 105–11. 17 Thomas Allom, Apartment in the Palace of Eyoub, ca. 1840, engraving, in Allom and Walsh ca. 1840, plate 33. 18 Georg von Dollmann, First proposal of floor plan for the kubba with courtyard, 1878, colored pen and ink drawing, 71.2 × 48.3 cm, BSV, Ludwig II.-Depot, inv. no. 309/I, in Baumgartner 1981, 203, no. 358. 19 Georg Dehn, Interior of the kubba, 1878, gouache, 60.5 × 71.4 cm, BSV, Ludwig II.-Depot, inv. no. 310.

110

20 BSV, Korr. Düfflipp, March 21, 1869; quoted in Baumgartner 1981, 220, n50. 21 See Schnaase 1869; mentioned in the diary of Ludwig II on July 12, 1869, GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II, no. 70 (with thanks to Dr. Gerhard Immler, GHA Munich, for checking the archives which are not freely accessible). See also Tauber 2013, 116–22. 22 See Goury and Jones 1842–45; and Ferry 2003, 175–188. 23 See, for instance Rosser-Owen 2010, 108–45; and Troelenberg 2018. 24 This is certainly to be seen in the context of Ludwig II’s fantasies about flight and exile as described, for instance, by Christine Tauber, which represented an idiosyncratic, but very concrete reaction to the facts of Realpolitik; see Tauber 2013, 195–212. 25 See Huber 2013. 26 See Osterhammel 2009. 27 See Geppert 2017; and Çelik 1992. 28 See Said 1978. 29 See, for instance, Troelenberg 2015, 287–313. 30 See Ersoy 2015. 31 See Osterhammel 2009, esp. 168–73.

Schachen, King's House, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1869–72

Schachen, King's House, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1869–72

Schachen, King's House with the Turkish Hall, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1869–72

MEDIATED ARCHITECTURAL (DREAM) SPACES Ludwig II and the Middle Ages “at Third Hand” By GABRIELLA CIANCIOLO COSENTINO

KITSCH OR MYTH? AMBIVALENT RECEPTION OF NEUSCHWANSTEIN

as a legendary personality and his building activity as the apogee of historicism, or in some cases as anticipating Art Nouveau.3 The representatives of modernism, on the other hand, condemned his buildings as lacking in originality, creativity, and taste. HenryRussell Hitchcock, for example, in his book Modern Architecture (1929), wrote that the “gloomy” Maximilian style paved the way for Ludwig II’s “Wagnerian horrors.”4 Accordingly, for a long time Ludwig’s castles were dismissed as the epitome of kitsch.5

“We know that all these castles were his creations, from the idea behind them through their overall plan, right down to the smallest detail. […] All in all, quite objectively speaking, it was a great achievement, testifying to exceptional vigor and activity on his part. […] His misfortune was that he happened to be passionate about construction in a period that, artistically speaking, was living at second hand.” 1

T

he stimulus and inspiration behind King Ludwig II’s building projects derived not so much from “genuine” medieval buildings as from, primarily, contemporary historicist buildings and a considerable number of literary and historical sources. This can be demonstrated with reference to numerous examples, some of which will be analyzed in greater detail in the present essay.

That the imitation of historical forms is a far more complex matter than that of simple emulation was recognized very early on by researchers into Ludwig II and by art historians writing about the nineteenth century.2 Here, however, the focus will not be on the imitation of the (neo-) medieval and the relationship between new buildings and their models (architectural copy, stylistic imitation, etc.), which has received considerable attention in the literature, but rather on the perspective from which we see Ludwig’s creations, their special features, and his role as an architectural patron. With reference to designs made in imitation of (neo-)medieval buildings—in particular to Neuschwanstein Castle—an account will be given of how the king set about giving concrete form to his ideas of space and of the foundations of his overall concept of the Middle Ages. Twentieth-century art historians adopted two extreme and in part diametrically opposed positions with regard to Ludwig II and his building projects. On the one hand, Ludwig was presented 116

Over the course of time, both judgments were gradually revised, and now an extensive corpus of scholarly literature places Ludwig II in his historical context and compares his creations with similar architectural phenomena. Nevertheless, one question that is still regularly raised—and is considered in the present essay—is that of the originality and authenticity of Ludwig II’s works.6 Neuschwanstein Castle is now one of Germany’s mostvisited tourist sights. Why, has this particular castle acquired iconic status?7 Why has it become such a tourist magnet? What is behind the extraordinary power of attraction that this castle exerts upon the public? Many factors have contributed to informing how Ludwig’s works are perceived—one being the king’s approach and involvement in the design process [1].

FROM THE BOWL TO THE CASTLE: CHANGING DIMENSION AND MEDIUM It is well known that Ludwig II intervened in the design process of his buildings and had a formative influence on the concepts underlying them.8 His role as an architectural patron has been aptly compared with that of a stage director who is at the same time a stage designer, audience member, and principal actor.9 How was the image of the Middle Ages, realized at Neuschwanstein Castle, composed and staged? What intellectual and material means did the king use to construct his medieval Gesamtkunstwerk? A number of answers to these questions can be found through examination of Ludwig’s estate, which contains an impressive variety of elements that contributed to the design processes behind the individual buildings.

[1] Neuschwanstein Castle, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, GEORG VON DOLLMANN und JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–92

of armor) came together in a unified overall effect, a kind of subtle play of reflection between the castles and the objects, furnishings and architectural miniatures they housed.

One feature of Ludwig’s work as “construction director” was his ability to take into account every detail and his mastery of the various scales and dimensions of the design process, from the miniature to the monumental. As a result, the architecture, landscape, furnishings, decoration, color schemes, paintings, iconography, and even clothing (Ludwig possessed historical costumes, including, for example, a Lohengrin suit

A clasped book from Ludwig’s youth with designs for a “Lohengrin, Tannhäuser, and Flying Dutchman bowl” offers a prime example of the close interrelation and transfer between 11 7

MEDIATED ARCHITECTURAL (DREAM) SPACES

[2] Design for the Lohengrin Bowl, bridal chamber (Third Act), LEOPOLD ROTTMANN, 1863–66

tecture, while the stove in the dressing room was designed in the Romanesque style [3],14 the stove in the bedchamber is in the Gothic style, and the stoves in the study and dining rooms are imaginative variations on the Middle Ages with Rundbogenstil elements.

architecture and other media that so fascinated Ludwig II even in the early years of his life.10 The album contains a number of miniature watercolors showing medieval architectural ensembles with scenes from operas by Richard Wagner [2]. These pictures from the hand of Leopold Rottmann, which the porcelain painter Otto Wustlich copied on the three bowls intended as birthday gifts to Wagner in the years 1865 to 1867, display stylistic similarities with the interior of Neuschwanstein Castle and have therefore been regarded as a kind of preliminary design for the castle.11 The miniature watercolors are strongly reminiscent of Julius Hofmann’s designs for the Singers’ Hall at Neuschwanstein Castle with its paired columns, arches, and decorations. Hans Gerhard Evers wrote as follows on this matter: “The bowls were the first piece of work that Ludwig did on his own. This commission represents the beginning of his independence as a patron of the arts—as a client—and it marks the start of the castles, or to be more concrete, of the building of Neuschwanstein.”12

These examples demonstrate that the stylistic concept was dynamic and had little to do with the “natural historian’s sterile preserved specimen”;15 the objects are not philologically or archaeologically correct (though the careful choice of individual motifs and models is always consistent) but rather present an archetypal, ritual, mythical, poetic, evocative, and inclusive Middle Ages which integrates a great variety of elements, including Ludwig’s ideas and images of the Orient. The world of the Orient, which he studied intensively, played a major role in Ludwig’s stylistic cosmology. It should be noted that he went beyond simply regarding and using the Orient as an alternative to the Middle Ages—as in the case of the two projects for Byzantine Palace complexes from the years 1869–70 and 1885. In fact, the Orient was also a component of Ludwig’s whole conception of the Middle Ages and, accordingly, is also to be found in the architecture of the castles, into which Islamic and Byzantine elements are integrated.16 The Byzantine-style Throne Hall, the unrealized Moorish Hall with stalactite vaulting designed for

In addition, certain furnishings and objets d’art at Neuschwanstein Castle are small-scale pieces of architecture in their own right, for example the king’s bed, which Ludwig wanted to be “richly sculpted in the Gothic manner” and which elaborates upon the late Gothic style of architecture.13 Further examples are provided by the tiled stoves, which in their diversity form a kind of anthology of medieval archi118

GABRIELLA CIANCIOLO COSENTINO

CATEGORIES AND VALUES: THE QUESTION OF AUTHENTICITY

Neuschwanstein Castle,17 and the bedchamber designed in imitation of Byzantine models at Falkenstein Castle were not the result of unpremeditated stylistic choices but rather were conscious references to certain political and architectural systems, as is clear from, among other sources, the extensive documentation in Ludwig’s estate bearing the title “Reports and Studies Concerning the Ceremonial at the Byzantine Court.”18

Ludwig II did not travel much, nor was he a collector. His “antimuseum and antiantiquarian” attitude is reflected in his castles.19 However, he was blessed with inexhaustible curiosity and a broad education and culture based

[3] Neuschwanstein Castle, elevation of the south wall of the dressing room with tiled stove, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1880

119

MEDIATED ARCHITECTURAL (DREAM) SPACES

[4] Series of bronze objects, C. W. FLEISCHMANN Hof-Kunst-Anstalt Munich, 1882

by the spirit of this imaginary world. Several documents bear witness to how strongly Ludwig’s architectural wishes and commissions were influenced by books.24

on a wide-ranging fund of literary, historical, and artistic knowledge that since his childhood had been enriched by novels, plays, and poems. Even as a child he had been familiar with medieval sagas and myths.20 “The text of the Song of the Nibelungs was part of the literary equipment that Ludwig brought to the task of understanding the Middle Ages.” 21

King Ludwig’s relationship with art and architecture—and particularly with the Middle Ages—was not direct but largely mediated and thus indirect. For example, he instructed his architects to report back to him on their travels and on historical monuments and to make drawings of buildings so that he—indirectly—could get to know and experience them.25 Nor did the inspiration for the medieval spaces and forms of Neuschwanstein Castle and for the Gothic castle of Falkenstein Castle come from “true” medieval buildings: on the contrary, this inspiration was found in neo-medieval nineteenth-century buildings, such as the Court Church of All Saints and the basilica of Saint Boniface, both in Munich, and in free reconstructions such as Pierrefonds and the Wartburg.26

The index of the libraries at Linderhof Palace and Berg Castle provides a clear overall picture of the king’s interests and range of knowledge.22 The relevant fields—history, art, philosophy, literature, travel, theater—are covered by hundreds of volumes, including architectural works, volumes of engravings, pattern and specimen books, photography albums, books on interior decoration, and the like. These books and the illusionary world of the theater contributed in equal measure to his castles’ turning out as the “image of a more or less fictitious proto-image,”23 and to their being permeated 120

GABRIELLA CIANCIOLO COSENTINO

commissioned by the king from Munich firms and workshops (which specialized in the “imitation of outstanding artworks of earlier periods for decorative purposes and for practical use” or “copies of arts and crafts products from older times”) and fashioned “in the spirit of the Middle Ages” [4].32

These two castle complexes, which King Ludwig visited in May and July 1867 respectively, had a strong impact on his romantic image of the Middle Ages and, later, on the designs for his own medieval castles. Wartburg Castle at Eisenach, originally built in the eleventh century, was reconstructed and enlarged from a ruinous state in the second half of the nineteenth century; in the political context of German nationalism, it possessed a veritably mythical status.27 Similarly, the ruined medieval château of Pierrefonds in France was rebuilt between 1857 and 1885 by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc, who transformed it into an imposing castle in the Gothic style. Ludwig found inspiration in these castles. On his return to Bavaria he instructed the stage designer Christian Jank to develop the first preliminary concepts for Neuschwanstein Castle. Jank’s painterly views of a castle with an Alpine panorama are reminiscent of the imposing overall impression made by the complex of Pierrefonds with its richly varied silhouette, towers, and massive walls. The Wartburg, on the other hand, prompted several more exact imitations, as a result of which a number of individual decorative and ornamental motifs, iconographic themes, and even whole rooms, notably the Festive and Singers’ Hall, were combined in Neuschwanstein’s Singers’ Hall.28 Ludwig II found further ideas and stimuli for Neuschwanstein Castle in contemporary Munich buildings commissioned by his grandfather Ludwig I, which for their part were free imitations of early Christian and medieval Italian models in Venice, Ravenna, Rome, and Palermo. As is well known, the principal source of inspiration for the neo-Byzantine Throne Room at Neuschwanstein Castle was the Court Church of All Saints in the Residence, which Ludwig I commissioned the architect Leo von Klenze to build in imitation of “Byzantine” models (in particular the Cappella Palatina in Palermo and San Marco in Venice).29 In order to provide a reference for the design of the Throne Room apse,30 Ludwig II had drawings made of the apse of the neo-Romanesque basilica of Saint Boniface in Munich, which Ludwig I’s architect, Georg Friedrich Ziebland, had built in free imitation of churches in Rome and Ravenna.31 The architectural preferences and dreams of Ludwig I left their mark on his grandson’s buildings, not only in terms of form but also of style. Ludwig II thus drew his inspiration not from the ancient, authentic sources and models but from their modern interpretations. Furthermore, the decorative ensemble of Neuschwanstein Castle, far from consisting of original medieval furnishings and historical objects, was composed of finely crafted items 12 1

This, however, does not diminish the authenticity of Ludwig’s “medieval” castles, which were to be built “in the genuine style of the old German knightly castles” and which embody all the values of the Middle Ages as understood by the Romantics: effect, mood, impression, sublime grandeur, magical charm, painterly effect, picturesque detail, and emotional vision. If the “seal of authenticity” of a work of architecture does not necessarily depend on how ancient it is in material or stylistic terms, but on more complex and less material (social, cultural, ideological) characteristics and values,33 then Ludwig’s approach to history and his particular fondness for the Middle Ages are in fact symptomatic of a modern idea of the past, which is not understood as an organic body and authority but, rather, as a “frayed, polyvalent, and disjointed structure”:34 history as a bottomless reservoir and field of creative research which Ludwig devoted himself to studying—purposefully and accidentally at the same time, as well as emotionally.

MUSEUMS AND EDUCATION: LUDWIG’S HERITAGE A HUNDRED YEARS ON The presentation of Ludwig’s art and architecture in the museum context has given enormous impulse to scholarship and to their appreciation and reassessment. The three most important steps in this process were the opening of the castles to the public immediately after Ludwig II’s death in 1886,35 the foundation of the King Ludwig II Museum at Herrenchiemsee in 1926, and the exhibition Ludwig II. und die Kunst (Ludwig II and art) in 1968, a century after the foundation stone of Neuschwanstein Castle was laid, the latter of which not only received major positive international response but also “gave a critical stimulus for the definitive rehabilitation of […] a whole artistic period.”36 This exhibition was a major—and unexpected—success, it attracted 115,000 visitors and was accorded very positive reviews. It was held in the Festival Hall Buliding of the Residence in Munich and was designed by the architect Paolo Nestler as a “phenomenal spatial staging.” 37 The challenge for the curators lay in the nature of the exhibits themselves, which were not original works of art in the full sense but individual furnishings and decorative objects, which had been torn out of their context and thus inevitably lost a certain amount of their impact and significance.

MEDIATED ARCHITECTURAL (DREAM) SPACES

[5] Munich, Residence, exhibition Ludwig II and Art, MICHAEL PETZET (curator) and PAOLO NESTLER (design), 1968

an interconnected whole that derived its particular power from what was described as “total theater.” 38 The mixture of Pop Art and Romanticism was considered sensational and was praised in numerous press reviews, for example: “Rather than historicizing, Nestler has translated the theatrical and poetic spirit with which the king stylized his surroundings

Nevertheless, by means of theatrical presentation, backdrop effects, labyrinthine paths, surprising perspectives, and suggestive lighting, reflections, colors, and projections, Nestler succeeded in creating a fascinating and surreal atmosphere and in enhancing the effect of the objects [5]. As a result, they were no longer isolated fragments but rather parts of 12 2

GABRIELLA CIANCIOLO COSENTINO

into a highly imaginative and practical sequence of rooms and spaces. This transposition gives order to the wealth of material and at the same time, through light and colors, reproduces the aura of luxuriant artificiality in which the king lived.” 39 Essentially, what Nestler did was to interpret the spirit of Ludwig’s works and present them with “historical empathy and modern dynamism.”40

emphasized in a retrospective account, the exhibition made a significant contribution to the appreciation of Ludwig’s castles, and indeed of historicism as a whole, and constituted an important step toward the conscious preservation of this heritage as a historical monument in its own right. Among the reasons tourists in their millions stream to Neuschwanstein Castle today is the exceptional state of preservation of this castle along with its special atmosphere, in which nature and culture complement each other to an extraordinary degree.

However, the focus was not on Ludwig’s world of illusion and its magical aura alone. As the curator Michael Petzet

1 Müller 1952, quoted in Spielmann 1977, 6. 2 “When it is claimed that […] Ludwig II was ‘copying a copy,’ the claimant has not understood what a ‘reminiscence’ is. We have to feel the cosmological and reminiscing powers of historicism.” Evers 1986, 193. On this point see also Rauch 1993, “Einleitung und Überblick,” 17; and Traeger 1991. 3 See, for example, Wiesneth 2015, 74–75. 4 Hitchcock 1929, 61. 5 Until well into the 1960s, Ludwig’s castles were regarded as “kitsch castles” and historicist architecture was often dismissed as the result of unconsidered pastiche. On this matter, see Petzet 2011, 258. 6 See, for example, Wiesneth 2015, 41. 7 On the iconization of Neuschwanstein and the emergence of Neuschwanstein as a symbol for a whole country and as archetype of the medieval castle, see Spangenberg 2011, 217–26, and Spangenberg 2015c, 89–118. 8 See, for example, the exhibition catalogue Götterdämmerung. König Ludwig II. und seine Zeit, in particular “Act Three,” “Wie der König seine Gegenwelten schuf ” (“How the King created his counter-worlds”), 94ff. 9 Petzet 1986, 31–61. 10 GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II., no. 73. My thanks go to Dr. Gerhard Immler for information on the dating of these documents. On this matter, see also Evers 1986, 75–81 and 261–64 (transcription). 11 One of these bowls, which is preserved at Wagner’s house in Bayreuth, was shown in the exhibition Designs for the Dream King (London 1978/New York 1979). According to Evers, all three bowls were destroyed in 1945 (Evers 1986, 77). See also Jervis 1979, 23. 12 Evers 1986, 77. 13 In his preliminary, unrealized design for the king’s bedchamber at Neuschwanstein, Peter Herwegen imitated Viollet-le-Ducs’s “Gothic” style (Petzet 1995, 71). The design for the bed at Neuschwanstein finally used, by Julius Hofmann, is reproduced in Jervis 1979, 25. 14 On this point, see Hojer 1986, 297.

15 In a typescript with additions to his essay “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,” Walter Benjamin made the following annotation: “The nineteenth century appears to have been the first to which the concept of style appeared to be something sterile, capable of being preserved in spirit like a natural history specimen” (Benjamin 1992, 674). 16 The connection between medievalism and orientalism is neither characteristic of Ludwig II nor is it a phenomenon exclusive to this era but, rather, is found throughout the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth; see Cianciolo Cosentino 2014, 153–80. 17 The design for stalactite vaulting at Neuschwanstein from the year 1886 was composed of 3,401 prism elements in plaster of Paris; see “Aufrisse und Grundrisse der einzelnen Prismen-Elemente,” GHA, Hofsekretariat, no. 1760. 18 “Berichte und Abhandlungen über das Zeremoniell am byzantinischen Hof,” GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II., no. 303. 19 Evers 1986, 195. 20 See Schweiggert 1995, 124–25. 21 Schulze 2013, 25. 22 Bibliothek Linderhof & Berg nebst Ergänzungen. GHA, Administration König Otto v. Bayern, no. 1926. 23 Traeger 1991, 341. 24 In a letter of June 9, 1879, the castellan Josef Almesberger made the following note with regard to the Moroccan House: “His Majesty the King has stated his opinion that the colour of the brown stripes on the outer walls is not beautiful to look at; he had read that Moroccan houses are also blue-and-white on the outside.” GHA, Hofsekretariat, Schloss Linderhof, Akt 1884. In the context of the unrealized project of a kubba (or qubba) pavilion, Georg Baumgartner has noted that reference was made to the Alhambra, which Ludwig II had studied closely, using books such as Adolf Friedrich von Schack’s Poesie und Kunst der Araber in Spanien und Sicilien (Berlin, 1865), seee Baumgartner 1981, 220n.50. 25 In 1868 Ludwig II sent his court secretary Lorenz Düfflipp, the court director of

123

building, Eduard von Riedel, and the stage designer Christian Jank to Eisenach to inspect and make drawings of the castle of Wartburg. However, what was required of them was not an accurate rendering of the castle but rather a free and idealized representation (see Baumgartner 1981, 80–81). Several travel reports and descriptions of buildings are preserved in Ludwig’s estate, see Waldemar Kaden, Eine Hundstagsreise durch Süditalien, GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II., no. 85; and Georg von Dollmann. Zusammenstellung über die hervorragendsten Bauwerke Italiens (n.d. [ca. 1883]), GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II., no. 317. 26 Given that the castles of Wartburg and Pierrefonds were almost completely newly built in the nineteenth century, with the few original surviving sections being incorporated, these complexes are largely historicist. On Ludwig’s medieval visions and on the role of Pierrefonds and the Wartburg as models, see, for example, Hojer 2003, 107–14. 27 Lieb 2010, 254–63. 28 See Wiesneth 2015, 55. 29 On the Court Church of All Saints in Munich, see, for example, Zimmermann 1987 and Berger 2016. 30 GHA, Kabinettsakten Ludwig II., no. 352. 31 See Reiß 2008, 111–13. 32 Several designs, photographs, estimates of costs, and bills for “embroideries, wallpapers and upholstery, display objects, tableware, furniture, bronzes” for the “Burgbau Hohenschwangau” from the year 1882 can be found in Ludwig’s estate in the Geheimes Hausarchiv, see GHA, Hofsekretariat, Akt 1756. 33 On the concept of authenticity in architecture and cultural heritage, see Mager 2016. 34 Cellini 2016, 231. 35 On this subject, see Spangenberg 2015b, 8–34. 36 See the foreword by Duke Franz of Bavaria, “Zum Geleit,” in Petzet 1995, 44. 37 Münchner Merkur 1968, 18. 38 Rosendorfer 1968, 16. 39 Münchner Merkur 1968, 18. 40 Stankiewitz 1968, 38.

Neuschwanstein Castle, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–92

ENGINEERING THE “FAIRY TALE” Infrastructure under Ludwig II

K

By PETER H. CHRISTENSEN

with the Main River at Bamberg, and a massive modernization of Munich, all of which helped to propel Bavaria to the forefront of power in German-speaking Europe. Ludwig’s father, Maximilian II, further modernized Munich’s infrastructure. In this sense, Ludwig’s quiet support of infrastructural innovation could be explained as a sort of family doctrine, one fully aware of the accelerationist nature of technology and engineering in the nineteenth century.

ing Ludwig II’s building projects are well known, defining as they did a tumultuous, even phantasmagorical, era of identity and power in Bavaria. Seen together, the palaces at Neuschwanstein, Linderhof, Herrenchiemsee and the Munich Residence Palace apartment, along with several projects left unrealized at time of Ludwig’s death in 1886, mark a king who, more than any of his European contemporaries, saw building as both a mainstay and necessary means of projecting dynastic power.1 Ludwig’s strong patronage of the arts, particularly of Richard Wagner, and theater more generally, further testified to his self-fashioning as a king of the arts, in many ways adopting the holistic ethos of Wagner’s Gesamtkunstwerk as a sort of political position (some might say to the detriment of actual governance).2

Technological progress and infrastructural improvements at the architectural scale were certainly also part of Ludwig’s well-known castles. At Linderhof Palace and Herrenchiemsee Palace, state-of-the-art plumbing systems were embedded into the buildings, allowing the king to enjoy the modern conveniences of flushing toilets and running tap water in the hidden bathroom chambers. The fact that these state-of-the-art facilities were not showcased when so much else was points to Ludwig’s conviction that, while an imperative, modern infrastructure should make life better without being foregrounded. Herrenchiemsee Palace even included a central heating system and a heated bathtub. Neuschwanstein Castle, however, showcased some of the most impressive forays into infrastructural innovation. On its southern flank, Neuschwanstein Castle drops dramatically into the Pöllat Gorge. The castle’s position on the bluff, famous in its many iconic views, would seem to be perfectly choreographed to direct one’s gaze into the picturesque composition in which the castle sits preciously overlooking the ebb of the Bavarian Alps, as if to assert its majesty over the lands to the north. This sort of scenography was not accidental. In fact, a bridge spanning the gorge, the Marienbrücke, was completed three years prior to breaking ground at Neuschwanstein Castle in 1869 [1].

Beneath the surface of this vast sponsorship of art and architecture was also an intrinsically intertwined, if less perceptible, sponsorship of the art of infrastructure that such ambitious projects necessitated. The little that remains of Ludwig’s own writings, largely lost in the Second World War, convey negligible interest in engineering and infrastructure, and yet his personal projects, as well as a number of public works across Bavaria, testify to a significant investment in state-of-the-art engineering, a fact that is often subsumed to the romantic ethos of the era and the primacy architecture tends to take over defining royal legacies. This short essay will argue, through a wide series of case studies, that Ludwig’s legacy is also a significant one in terms of infrastructure that facilitated Bavaria’s technological and economic rise even as it was subsumed into the German empire. The development of infrastructure had actually been a core priority for the House of Wittelsbach for a few generations. Ludwig’s paternal grandfather transformed Bavaria from a modest, largely agricultural corner of Europe into one of its most modernized regions by the end of his reign in 1848. His projects included the development of a great number of intraregional railway lines, the construction of the Ludwigskanal, a canal connecting the Danube River at Kelheim

Ludwig directed the engineering firm Maschinenbau-Gesellschaft Nürnberg, under the supervision of the building minister Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, to construct the Marienbrücke, supplanting a wooden bridge for horses that had been constructed by Ludwig’s predecessor Maximilian II in 1845.3 The bridge, poised a full ninety meters above the 12 6

[1] Hohenschwangau, Marienbrücke (footbridge) across the Pöllat Gorge, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1866

gorge, is particularly impressive in its use of only two anchors on either side of the gorge. But perhaps most important, the bridge framed the optimal position from which the king could behold his future castle.

Gerber’s role in Ludwig’s investment in infrastructure cannot be understated. Trained at the polytechnic schools in Nuremberg and Munich, Gerber rose to acclaim as a railway engineer in the Bavarian Staatsbaudienst. His early 12 7

ENGINEERING THE “FAIRY TALE”

[2] Railway bridge near Regensburg, watercolor from the series Views of Towns on the Bavarian Eastern Railway, ALBERT EMIL KIRCHNER, 1859

projects, completed under Maximilian II, included the Großhesseloher and Rhine-Mainz railway bridges. In both projects, Gerber pioneered a type of iron construction system for railway bridges that comprised prefabricated parts. While Gerber’s most widely recognized achievements were his elegant bridge designs, characterized by their extreme lightness and filigree, he also used his major state commissions, particularly those under Ludwig, to create innovative methods and elements for system-built architecture. This included patents and internationally recognized innovations, such as the girdar system with exposed bearing points and the cantilever bridge system, which Gerber employed in both Bamberg and Haßfurt.4 Gerber’s role was also managerial; he took an executive position and later became a board member of the Maschinenfabrik Augsburg-Nürnberg (MAN), guiding some of the most significant railway and bridge projects across the German empire.

While bridges functioned as showpieces for railway construction, it was the actual laying of track that consumed the most amount of time and investment, and, despite increasing state debt, Ludwig maintained firm support for the expansion of railways under his reign. Under Maximilian II, investment in the Bavarian Eastern Railways, one of the state’s most profitable, had come to a standstill. Although it is often thought that Ludwig was preoccupied only with himself and his castles, his reinvestment in the Bavarian Eastern Railways is a testament to a broader, more civic vision for Bavaria that was centered on infrastructure [2]. Prior to German imperial unification, Ludwig granted a concession to patch up a number of problems and build detours in the existing railway network that made it significantly more efficient, not to mention profitable.5 The construction of entirely new lines continued through 1880, despite the recession that 12 8

PETER H. CHRISTENSEN

on Joseph Paxton’s Crystal Palace of 1851) and for taking the life of Ludwig I’s wife (and Ludwig II’s grandmother), Therese. Queen Therese’s death in particular prompted the construction of new pipe systems for rain and cooking wastewater but regulations required that human waste still needed to be carted off, a process that was subject to carting costs.7 To avoid these extra costs, Munich residents saw an opportunity with the new pipe systems, sneaking out in the night to dump the contents of bedpans into them illegally.8

followed the Franco-Prussian War. As several railway lines floundered financially during the recession, Ludwig supported the decision to nationalize most of the railway lines in Bavaria, issuing bonds totaling 167 million marks, effectively creating a sort of public trust in state infrastructure.6 As railways proliferated, so did several problems. The modernization efforts of Ludwig’s predecessors were not able to protect Munich from several cholera pandemics that spread across Europe in the nineteenth century. In 1811, under Maximilian I Joseph, Munich built its first closed sewage canal, from the Promenadeplatz to the Hofgraben. Although this predated the major pandemics, covered sewers were already understood to be beneficial to human health and sanitation. In just a few short years, nearly 20 km of covered sewers were constructed, extending throughout the most densely populated parts of the city. Nevertheless, a great deal of both human and early industrial waste found its way into the Isar, which may have played an important role in spreading cholera in the severe pandemics of 1836 and 1854. The latter pandemic is particularly notorious for having disrupted the Glaspalast exhibition (an exhibition building of iron and glass modeled

Ludwig, who must certainly have been haunted by his grandmother’s death, made the decisive move to take sanitation infrastructure to the next level when yet another pandemic swept the city in 1873, affecting the city’s prisoner population with particular force. Ludwig directed city officials to enlist the services of the British engineer James Gordon, a widely recognized expert on comprehensive sewerage systems that handled all forms of waste, who was completing the Frankfurt sewers at the time. Gordon’s work dovetailed with that of Max von Pettenkofer, a prominent Munich chemist and pharmacist and the first-ever professor for hygiene in German lands, who published various writings on hygienic waste disposal methods.9

[3] Munich, sewage system (photo: BERND HALSNER, 2017)

12 9

ENGINEERING THE “FAIRY TALE”

[4] Munich, Fish Fountain on Marienplatz, KONRAD KNOLL, 1862–66 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1870)

Pettenkofer’s insistence on the use of impermeable cement and clinker bricks for the construction of sewers was heard and incorporated in Gordon’s plans, which broke ground in 1881 and ultimately encompassed 225 km of sewerage lines 10 [3]. Ludwig also concurred with Pettenkofer’s insistence that Munich’s expanded sewage system needed to anticipate an urban conglomeration well beyond its approximate 150,000 residents.11

Pettenkofer’s influence on Munich’s water systems was not limited to wastewater, he was also deeply invested in the city’s drinking water. In 1865 his firm, Pettenkofer Waterworks, established a water source in Munich’s southern district derived from subsoil springs. Under Ludwig, Pettenkofer successfully petitioned the Munich and Bavarian governments to source much of Munich’s water supply anew, this time from the fresher spring and stream water of the 130

PETER H. CHRISTENSEN

favor and patronage Knoll would enjoy under Ludwig’s rule, including a privately commissioned marble rendering of the Greek poet Sappho and the massive renderings of Henry the Lion and Ludwig of Bavaria adorning the Old Town Hall of Munich.16

Mangfall Valley at the foot of the Bavarian Alps.12 Because of this, Munich became, and remains, a city with one of the highest-quality water supplies in the world.13 One way of showcasing the city’s new, unsullied relationship with water was through the construction of statelier fountains, conspicuously bringing water into the city more ceremoniously than through the basic wells and pumps that remained from centuries prior. Since the fourteenth century, one of Munich’s main fountains was located at Schrannenplatz, today known as Marienplatz.14 Under Ludwig, a new fountain by the sculptor Konrad Knoll was commissioned and ultimately installed in September 1866 [4].15 The tripartite form of the fountain’s central column consisted of four butchers, topped by four children playing musical instruments, topped in turn by a journeyman holding aloft a chalice. Sadly, the fountain was completely destroyed in the Second World War. The selection of Knoll for the fountain’s sculptural program was auspicious, signaling the

As the professor of sculpture at the Technical University of Munich, Knoll was also part of a much larger legacy. Perhaps Ludwig’s single most important civic achievement, the establishment of the TU (then known as the Polytechnische Schule München) was on the face of it a move to enhance Bavaria’s continental reputation as a center for learning and knowledge, particularly in the sciences [5]. But it was also beneficial specifically to the art and science around infrastructure of all kinds. While the neighboring Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich was already an important center of learning in the humanities, the TU propelled Munich—and Bavaria (which already had strong universities in Nuremberg and Ingolstadt)—to the forefront of technical

[5] Munich, New Polytechnic School, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1864–68 (photo: CARL TEUFEL, ca. 1869)

131

ENGINEERING THE “FAIRY TALE”

learning in German lands and marked a distinct moment in its transition from an agricultural to a knowledge-based economy. Numerous leading experts, particularly from the fields of structural engineering, surveying, architecture, mechanical engineering, chemistry, and physics converged in Munich to fill the new professorships. In a very short amount of time, this boon of brain power made Munich one of the most cutting-edge centers of engineering technology in Europe, rivaling Paris and London, and it was at the TU that a generation of engineers who would transform the disparate German lands into a cogent infrastructural whole after imperial unification in 1871 were educated.17

An excellent original source with illustrations and descriptions of Neuschwanstein, Hohenschwangau and Linderhof is Steinberger 1907. For Herrenchiemsee see Steinberger 1903. Both volumes offer some basic insights into the infrastructural innovations of the various projects. See also Petzet 1968; Hojer 1986; Merkle 2000; Nöhbauer 2007; and Wrba and Kühler 2008. 2 Regarding the enduring legacy of Wagner, the Gesamtkunstwerk and architecture see Koss 2010. 3 See Schlim 2001, 35. 4 See Fernández Troyano 2003, 354–55. See also Sbrzesny 1964, 255; and Freytag 1920, 93–102. Heinrich Gerber’s original writings include: Über Berechnung der Brückenträger nach System Pauli (Nuremberg, 1865); Das Pauli’sche Trägersystem und seine Anwendung auf Brückenbauten (Nuremberg, 1869); Mittheilungen über pneumatische Fundationen beim Bau der kgl. 1

5

6 7 8 9

Given the opulence of his castles, it is easy to see why Ludwig II’s quiet investment in infrastructure has not taken center stage in retrospective views of his building program. And yet it is intrinsically intertwined with the ambition that characterized the renovation of the built environment in the eventful decades of Ludwig’s reign. Moreover, it may represent the single most progressive if not avant-garde component of his building programs, cementing Bavaria’s reputation as the capital of technological and engineering innovation, even as it ceded much of its political clout to the greater project of the German empire.

bayer. Staatsbahnen (Munich, 1874); and Über zulässige Beanspruchung von Eisenkonstruktionen (Berlin, 1896). See Bräunlein 2000. With regards to labor relations and railway construction, see Blessing 1978, 357–75. See Bräunlein 2000. See Reichlmayr 2013, 95–112. Ibid., 103. See Roeske 2007, 7. Key original writings by Max von Pettenkofer include: “Boden und Grundwasser in ihren Beziehungen zu Cholera und Typhus,” Zeitschrift für Biologie 5, no. 2 (1869): 171–310; Über den Werth der Gesundheit für eine Stadt: Zwei populäre Vorlesungen (Braunschweig, 1873); Ueber Chemie in ihrem Verhältnisse zur Physiologie und Pathologie (Munich, 1848); and “Notiz über eine neue Reaction auf Galle und Zucker,” Annalen der Chemie und Pharmacie 52 (1844): 90–96. Pettenkofer’s study of the cholera outbreaks in the Munich

132

10

11 12 13 14

15 16 17

prisons was even translated into English for use in the Anglophone world: Outbreak of Cholera Among Convicts: An Etiological Study of the Influence of Dwelling, Food, Drinking-Water, Occupation, Age, State of Health, and Intercourse upon the Course of Cholera in a Community Living in Precisely the Same Circumstances. London: Asher, 1876. See The Sanitary Record 1879, 209–10. Gordon also published a number of pamphlets and short papers on his schemes. Ibid. See Childs 1898, 351. See Pantel 2014. For a prehistory to the innovations of the nineteenth century see Winiwarter, Haidvogel, and Bürkner 2016. See Biller and Rasp 2003, 233. See Holland 1906. See Herrmann 2006; Dienel and Hilz 1993; and Wengenroth and Dienel 1993.

Hohenschwangau, Marienbrücke (footbridge) across the Pöllat Gorge, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1866

Regen, railway bridge across the River Ohe, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1877

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND AESTHETIC DIGNITY The Competition for the Munich City Hall

T

By THOMAS WEIDNER

he royal building policy, which from 1806 onward had shaped the face of the Bavarian capital, ended with a curious turnaround. While a number of major projects failed, in particular the Festspielhaus (which had been planned from 1865 for a site on the elevated bank of the Isar and was directed by an ambitious constellation made up of King Ludwig as client, Richard Wagner as the source of the idea, and Gottfried Semper as architect), and while the royal passion for building was increasingly focused on the construction of palaces in remote Alpine locations, for the first time a new client for buildings emerged in Munich: the City of Munich itself. With the construction of the new City Hall on Marienplatz, it operated the city’s most prominent urban building site from 1865 to 1905.

To find a communal achievement of a comparable size we must look far back into the history of the local architecture—to be precise, as far back as the building’s late medieval predecessor, the Altes Rathaus (Old Town Hall), or Tanzhaus (dance hall), which, under the dictate of the local rulers, had been erected, or at least financed, by the city around 400 years earlier. The indecisive description of this first representational building’s function indicates that the city administration was, in fact, accommodated elsewhere, in a separate building known as the Kleines Rathaus (Small Town Hall), on the neighboring Petersbergl. This building, which had become too small for the municipal administration of a large city that had grown rapidly since 1854 through the incorporation of outlying

[1] Munich, design for the New City Hall, ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1865

136

[2] Munich, competition entry for the New City Hall, LUDWIG and EMIL LANGE, 1866

consisted of two bodies: first, the Rat der Gemeindebevollmächtigten (council of municipal representatives), similar to the present-day city council with its party seats decided by public elections; and second, the Magistrat (municipal administration), which was headed by two mayors and a number of administrative lawyers (and today is divided into various specialist departments, such as the Building Department, which consists of hundreds of municipal public servants and employees). To pass resolutions, majorities had to be found in both these bodies. This applied from the planning stage to the awarding of the contract and the construction of the City Hall.

districts, has long since disappeared from contemporary consciousness. The opportunity to design a new building on Marienplatz arose when the government of Upper Bavaria, which was also expanding, vacated its old location at the corner of Dienerstraße in order to move to Maximilianstraße, which allowed a new use to be found for the site, which on its northern side extended as far as Landschaftstraße. However, the new City Hall and the ideas about municipal self-determination that accompanied it were also based on the expansion of the relevant legal basis. This was established by the introduction and decisive reform of the Municipal Edict, which finally came into force in 1869 and gave the city’s administration previously inconceivable powers. In structural terms, the municipal authority

The form of the City Hall—or at least the first section of it—is the product of an architectural competition. While the competition procedure could be seen as a call 13 7

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND AESTHETIC DIGNITY

[3] Munich, competition entry for the New City Hall, ALFRED BLUNTSCHLI and OTTO TAFEL, 1866

planning engineer who had already worked for fifteen years in the administration—the modernized city of Munich owes to him a number of excellent service buildings and a properly functioning sewerage system. For the new City Hall Zenetti designed a Renaissance building based on Italian palace architecture [1]. In terms of architectural history his design could be read as a continuation of the Altes Rathaus, which under his direction had been stripped of elements that dated from a redesign in the Baroque era and restored to its medieval appearance. In this historicist re-Gothicizing of the old building Zenetti himself had pursued the idea of a Gothic city. While the municipal administration approved the economical design by its urban master builder, in the council a number of individual voices were raised that enquired whether the municipal administration might not deserve a “richer and more worthy” facade. The competition was set up to find a solution, a procedure that had long been standardized and frequently tested with a tradition extending back to Italian building practice of the fourteenth century, when, for example, the Duomo in Florence was erected, a monumental building which, from the piers lining the nave to the later projects for the dome, was realized through a number of competitions.2

to participate in public decisions, it could equally be regarded as an admission of helplessness on the part of the planners, which, in the early stages of a previously unknown freedom, might seem understandable. However, none of this applies. In brief, the competition idea was simply a pretext which offered a way to prevent a highly practical proposal that already existed in sketch form from being realized. These tactics had nothing to do with intrigues and rivalries between favorites who always had to protect their closeness to the ruler, a situation familiar from the court and exemplified by the earlier internal competition for the design of the Bavarian Ruhmeshalle (Hall of Fame) between court architects Leo von Klenze and Friedrich von Gärtner. For the City Hall, the crux of the matter was the interpretative sovereignty of a Gothic style regarded as German (which was to be given the traditional “rights of the elders”) in opposition to a progressive—which at the time essentially meant French—understanding of form.1 Once the City had redefined the building site in summer 1865, a concrete proposal for the design of the new building and the layout of the spaces in it was immediately produced. This was submitted by Arnold Zenetti, a city 13 8

THOMAS WEIDNER

took part. Their proposals were presented to a jury made up of the well-known architects August von Voit, Joseph von Egle, and in particular, Gottfried von Neureuther, all of whom were acknowledged experts. To ensure impartiality, the drawings examined by the jury members did not

The competition for the Munich City Hall was publicly announced on November 7, 1865, and plan documents, most of them ten-part, were submitted up until March 31, 1866. They consisted of an elevation, sections, and floor plans of the individual stories. A total of twenty-seven architects

[4] Munich, competition entry for the New City Hall, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1866

139

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND AESTHETIC DIGNITY

[5] Munich, final design for the New City Hall, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1866

models—by the young office partnership Alfred Friedrich Bluntschli and Emil Otto Tafel, a student of jury member Joseph von Egle [3]. For Bluntschli, a student of Semper, taking part in this competition did not represent a lost investment, as together with Georg Lasius he later wrote the entry on “Stadt und Rathaüser” for the encyclopedic Handbuch der Architektur, a contribution that precisely lists the typological, epochal, and national characteristics of this building type up to that time, and that also could be used to demonstrate how his own design for Munich would have been eminently suited to the existing buildings and together with them would have created a spatially well-conceived ensemble.3

bear signatures. Each of the respective participants chose a code word that could be used to identify the project when and if this became necessary. One participant entered the competition under the slogan “Vorwärts” (Forward). Ludwig Lange, a teacher at the Munich Academy, entered the fray under the motto “Zeit gebeut” (Time demands) against mostly younger competitors and together with his son Emil von Lange produced a finely drawn and detailed design in a neo-Renaissance style [2]. The authorship, identifiable from the artistic signature, was probably no secret to the jury. Although Lange was declared the winner, he was only given second prize, while the first prize was not awarded at all. Up to the present day this is not an unusual practice in competitions of this kind, which, of course, as a consequence lose something of their binding quality. To try and ensure that his design was built, the architect unsuccessfully took legal action—also not an unusual occurrence. A third prize went to a design—also based on Renaissance

A remarkable aspect of the jurors’ choice is that by selecting Zenetti’s original plan, they gave a stylistic recommendation—indeed, they produced a definition. To put it simply, this plan reflected a formal language that was taught at the 140

THOMAS WEIDNER

it was certainly possible to convince every councilor entitled to vote that his future place of assembly should have the appropriate dignity, there was still an urgent need for arguments that could persuasively show that, for a German city hall, this dignity could only be achieved with Gothic architecture. The sharp-tongued commentaries in the newspapers with which the intellectual art critic Friedrich Pecht followed the proceedings of the City Hall commission— describing the neo-Gothic Pfaffenstyl (priests’ style) as a “reactionary Gothic fad”—clearly illustrate the situation at the time. While most of the members of the council were, he wrote, either “not inclined toward the Gothic” or were indifferent as regards such questions, on the council there was, however, a “friend of the Gothic style” who most certainly wanted to have a Gothic city hall. He was referring to Ferdinand von Miller the Elder, a bronze founder from Fürstenfeldbruck and well known in Munich’s art history. With his enthusiasm for the neo-Gothic idea, Miller had been able to steer the discussion in a direction that suited his own interests.

Parisian École des Beaux-Arts, an educational institution that set the tone throughout the world, and consequently in a certain sense announced a fresh wind for Munich. The speaker for those who favored this project was unmistakably Gottfried von Neureuther, who at that time was working on the designs for the Polytechnische Schule (the predecessor of the Technical University), the most important neo-Renaissance building in the whole of Bavaria, which was destroyed in the Second World War. One might wish that he had also built Munich’s City Hall. After the inconclusive competition, a commission made up of local political representatives was set up to produce a result that could be agreed upon. The commission used the money reserved for the first prize to purchase three further entries. These included a neo-Gothic design that the jury had rejected and had believed to be the work of Heinrich von Ferstel, the winner of the competition for the Votive Church in Vienna, which had become the beacon of the neo-Gothic church building movement. While thus neo-Gothic design for the City Hall did indeed come from Austria, it was not by Ferstel but by an unknown, twentyfive-year-old newcomer by the name of Georg von Hauberrisser, who came from Graz [4]. That his entry then provided the basis for the design that was actually carried out had nothing to do with the line favored in the competition and in fact remains inexplicable.

Miller’s astonishingly powerful influence on the city’s destiny was derived from his biography, which, in addition to technical achievements such as the infamous story about the casting of the statue of Bavaria, also included his social ascent in the fields of politics and business.4 Having trained as a spoon smith, Miller achieved prominence in the Royal Foundry under King Ludwig I. He developed the foundry into an export business with a worldwide reputation and, ultimately, a family business organized on a private economic basis that achieved dynastic proportions of a kind that in Munich, a city of art and beer, was usually reserved for brewers. A Gemeindebevollmächtigter (municipal representative) since 1859 and also directly involved in the decisions about building the City Hall, Miller entered the Parliament as a member of the Bavarian Patriot’s Party and was a deputy in the Reichstag in Berlin from 1874 to 1881. He prefigured, so to speak, the type of conservative politician who is sent to Berlin to fly the Bavarian flag there. From this ultramontane perspective the aim was to use all available means to prevent the erection of a city hall using forms that could be seen as representing liberal ideas that came from France, the country of the traditional archenemy—a term that seems particularly curious when used in connection with a bronze founder.

A rule that generally applies to all architecture competitions is that the entries are rarely of a higher quality than the definition of the competition requirements and objectives. The tasks set in the Munich competition reflected external requirements such as staying within the budget, completing the building on schedule, and properly integrating the spaces and functions required in the floor plans—today we would speak of a user requirements brief. Incidentally, when finally carried out, the neo-Gothic design met none of these requirements. Around 1870 consideration was actually given to stopping the construction work and demolishing the parts executed, as the building threatened to exceed the budget and run over schedule. Ultimately, however, above and beyond any administrative framework, it was an aesthetic criterion that was decisive in awarding the commission. The adjective würdig (worthy), which is repeatedly used in the statements about the individual designs, and the call for a dignified main facade to the City Hall represent a revival of the ideas of dignitas and decorum as formulated in early architecture theories, that is to say the concept of a form appropriate to the particular building type. Although

It would hardly be an exaggeration to describe Ferdinand von Miller as the spiritual architect of Munich’s City Hall. As an important authority among the personalities of 141

MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY AND AESTHETIC DIGNITY

[6] Munich, Marienplatz with New and Old City Hall buildings (photochrome: PHOTOGLOB ZÜRICH, ca. 1890)

terminates the facade [5–6]. Both these motifs were borrowed from Zenetti. The central bay is shown in Zenetti’s initial plans, while the stepped crenellations are characteristic of the re-Gothicizing of the Altes Rathaus, for which Zenetti was also responsible. These adaptations probably confirmed Miller’s conviction that for a German city hall only a German building style would be suitable. This wishful thinking remained unaffected by the awareness that emerged during this period that the Gothic architecture of the Middle Ages was a development that originated in France. Of all people, August Reichensperger from the Cologne Dombauverein (cathedral building association), a party colleague of Miller and apologist for German neo-Gothic, had to admit this as the result of his research

the monarchist parties and a guiding force on the specialist commission he was able to negotiate his way around Zenetti’s original proposal by means of a competition. He arranged for a rejected design from this competition to be purchased and modified. He sent the easily influenced young architect “from Au to Haidhausen” to canvass directly for the reworked design with his colleagues on the council before permission to carry out the neo-Gothic design was granted on September 21, 1866, by both bodies—in the Magistrat with a majority of just a single vote. The architectural detailing in Hauberrisser’s construction drawings is most curious. Two newly introduced design elements stand out in particular: one is the projecting central bay, the other a stepped gable clad with tracery, which 14 2

THOMAS WEIDNER

work on Amiens Cathedral. Nevertheless, Hauberrisser remained steadfastly faithful to his old competition motto “Im deutschen Sinn. Für deutschen Sinn” (In a German spirit, for a German purpose) and also to his protector, who had died in 1887, in particular when in 1897 he designed the extension that was added to the west of the existing building in the direction of Weinstraße. This extension meant that the Munich City Hall occupied an entire city-center block: not only was Hauberrisser’s tower taller than the towers of town halls in other cities, he also made extensive use of books on neo-Gothic architecture and decoration with all their decorative patterns, abutments, flying buttresses, and turrets. The program for the statues that stand under various baldachins includes no fewer than forty Bavarian rulers going back to Henry the Lion and ending with Miller’s equestrian statue of Prince Regent Luitpold von Bayern and puts any optimistic assertions of the power of the city firmly in their place by returning to notions of obedience and submission to the ruler. During his lifetime, Ludwig II was present in a portrait in which, wearing the uniform of the Hubertus Knights, he presided in effigy in the Großer Sitzungssaal (large meeting room). He refused to attend the foundation laying ceremony in 1867—which, in accordance with tradition, was scheduled for the king’s birthday on August 25; it rained buckets.5

1

The course of the competition, here described only in outline, is examined in detail using the archive sources, in particular the documents kept in Munich Municipal Archive under “Mayor and Council” and “Building Office,” in Nerdinger and Stenger 1982, 151–77, a volume of essays that systematically covers the construction of city halls during the imperial period. All the quotations that follow come from this source. The surviving competition drawings, that is,

Above and beyond the building project itself, despite the backward-looking formal idiom employed, the failed architecture competition for the Munich City Hall nevertheless shows that the city had ineluctably arrived in the present; society discovered in the nineteenth century the principle of the competition in general, a motor that has driven it up to the present day.6 This model became decisive at a number of very different levels, whether in the competition within the party political system or in the play of (allegedly) free forces in the economy, which counter the competition of supply and demand with cartelization and in this way attempt to regulate the market. Toward the end of the century the rules of competition dictated trials of strength between nations, initially in the form of ritualized contests at the Olympic Games, then a short time later on the battlefields of the World Wars. Seen in an even more elementary way, the idea of competition ultimately asserted itself in the natural historical dimension of the Darwinian struggle for life, the competition for resources that forms part of the theory of evolution, from which the idea of the survival of the fittest was derived and which essentially determines our existence. The history of the construction of the Munich City Hall offers a confirmation of this theory.

those that were awarded prizes or purchased, are in the Munich City Museum, Collection of Graphics and Paintings, G VIII 2b. On the building itself see Huber 2006. 2 On the early architecture competitions, see Middeldorf Kosegarten 1980, 167–86; and Lepik 1995, 10–20. A historical description of the history of the architecture competition in general remains an open theme; Haagsma and Haan 1988 is only of limited use and actually inadequate; most recently, there is Chupin, Cucuzzella, and Helal 2015.

14 3

3 See Bluntschli and Lasius 1900. 4 On Miller, see Volk 1994, 516–17; and more recently Seckendorff 2006.. 5 The tools used for this ceremony, which Hauberrisser had decorated in a neo-Gothic style, can be seen in the permanent exhibition Typisch München in the Munich City Museum. 6 Suggestions for an examination of the idea of competition that could lead further can be found in Gerber 2001.

Munich, Marienplatz with New City Hall, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1866–1909

THE AESTHETICIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN HISTORICISM The Neue Polytechnische Schule in Munich

M

By DIETRICH ERBEN conflict, which even today is far from being resolved, came to a head in the course of the nineteenth century partly as a result of the fact that technical and industrial reality collided with a culture that was focused entirely on historicism. This referred retrospectively to the achievements of earlier ages in order, through “recall campaigns” (Martin Warnke), to make these fruitful for the present.

any places and goods associated with the industrial production of the nineteenth century have been aestheticized in the present age. Factories are converted into apartments, power stations are made into museums, coal mining areas become recreation areas; items once regarded as work clothing such as overalls, dungarees, or jeans are today worn as leisure wear. Within the framework of structural change in industrialized society, many areas of production that once were part of a technical and industrial working reality have become sectors for consumption.1

THE PROBLEM OF REPRESENTING TECHNOLOGY AS ADDRESSED BY ART THEORY

In the following essay this perspective is turned around and the view is directed at the starting point around the middle of the nineteenth century. The era of Ludwig II was also the age that saw the development of heavy industry, which was followed by the emergence of new branches of industry, above all electrical and chemical industries, from around 1880 onward. During these decades the understanding of education and its content also changed. Education was now required to keep pace with the rapidly changing realities of the technical and industrial world. The immediate consequences of this accelerated change was the establishment of the secondary school known as the Realgymnasium, which focused on the natural sciences and technology, and of polytechnics alongside the traditional educational facilities that concentrated on the humanities and intellectual formation.2

In a lecture given in 1887 Jacob Burckhardt, using the institution of the stock exchange as an example, noted with regard to the allegory as a form of depiction that the traditional means of communication failed in the present day. Stock exchange buildings as the “center of a luxury district in a large city” should certainly “be given a rich built physiognomy” but for this purpose “lions, guided by genii” were senseless. For “The actual abstracta in a stock exchange would be the forms of the boom and the slump, and these could be mounted on the pediment of such a building with a horizontal iron beam that could move in the wind, not to mention further allegories that the place might suggest, for instance the demons of a stock exchange collapse.”4 Behind the irony and the sarcasm of this perceptive insight lies a demand that, like in premodern times, contemporary art should communicate current social and economic movements in society as well as the complexity of technology.

Because forms of visual representation for “proper” culture had become established over the centuries but had yet to be developed for the technical and industrial world, people at that time were already confronted with the question whether traditional means of depiction using narratives and symbolic figures could adequately deal with the new realities of collaboratively organized trade workshops and laboratories and the mostly hidden mechanisms of technical apparatus.3 Or, to put it more simply: could the material reality of natural sciences and technology be made into an element of visual art and therefore of culture in the first place? This

The classicist and archaeologist Hugo Blümner questioned the relevance of the symbolic depiction of innovations in the world of technology and the natural sciences.5 He attempted to show various strategies of visualization. Given the uniformity of mechanical processes, he initially doubted whether a personification of natural sciences according to the model of the arts could succeed in the first place, as no artist was, he said, in a position “to distinguish between the 14 6

[1] La Nature se dévoilant à la Science (Nature unveiling herself before Science), LOUIS-ERNEST BARRIAS, marble statue, 1899

of a speeding railway train.” On the same level as this kind of “realism” is the suggestion that “real representatives of branches of industry and commerce drawn from life” should be made the theme of a picture. While portraits of inventors and industrialists appeared acceptable, the depiction of workers was rejected with a decisive rhetorical warning:

individual sciences through spiritual expression.” Conversely he maintained that a visualization of the natural forces tamed by technology was conceivable and that, for instance in the area of steam power, there were options such as painting “an allegorical depiction of steam power,” “a genuine treatment of railway life” or “the very prosaic [image] 14 7

THE AESTHETICIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN HISTORICISM

[2] Munich, New Polytechnic School, facade decoration of the north wing, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1866

also made use of the means of visual representation through architecture and art in competing with the old cultural institutions. The famous example of the personification of “nature unveiling herself to the sciences” offers an excellent example of this [1]. In 1898 Louis-Ernest Barrias was commissioned to make this statue by the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers, which had been founded in 1794 as a higher-level technical institution.6 The figure appears before the viewer with the sensual presence of a female allegory revealing her face and breasts, which Barrias, with great expenditure of skill, opulently worked out of various kinds of marble. The title La Nature se dévoilant à la Science guides our understanding: here the old idea of natura abscondita that hides its secrets and now reveals them to scientific research is taken up again. The bold, affirmative quality of the statement made by the work lies in the clear allocation of hierarchical gender roles in the form of a seductive female Nature who offers herself to be conquered by research. Such individual examples of the symbolism of the natural sciences are joined by extensive decorative programs, in which the visual representation of technical institutions unfolds in a more detailed way.

“What would it look like if we wanted to adorn a railway station with statues of a stoker, engine driver, conductor, or similar!” From Blümner’s efforts to present various options for discussion, a skeptical summary emerges: if “with technology a concrete object that can be depicted is the goal, whether it is a house, a picture or a machine etc.” then technology, even with the means to depict objects in this way or “with depictions of technical achievements” would always “have to remain purely external” and “one ought to protect art from such tasks.” These reflections can be summarized as follows: art is not in a position to convey an image of technology as an institution. The many visualizations of technology that developed in the course of the late nineteenth century on the one hand make it clear that the difficulties involved in visualizing technology diagnosed by Burckhardt and Blümner were not merely the expression of scholarly reservations. On the other hand, both historians underestimated the need for representation that existed at that time. Neither artists nor their clients obeyed any fatalistic ban on images, and all the emergent technical and natural science institutions 14 8

DIETRICH ERBEN

VISUAL DECORATION OF TECHNICAL INSTITUTIONS: THE POLYTECHNIC IN MUNICH

architecture and understood it as a symbolic mediator of humanist educational ideas for the present day. The purpose of the building, he said, represented “a major aim of the century: to proclaim in monumental form its nature, which is driven by real, worldly forces, and yet is also something ideal, as it focuses on the formation of human nature at the highest level.” 9

Even the choice of location for the Polytechnic, close to the collections of antiquities on Königsplatz and the two Pinakotheks, one for older art, the other for the contemporary art of the time, leaves no doubt about the intention of both client and architect that the new educational institution should integrate itself with the canon of education in the arts but should also self-assuredly contrast with it.7 In addition, the choice of style for the building, which was completed in 1868 after a planning and construction period of just four years on the basis of plans by Gottfried von Neureuther, made a double assertion about continuity and competition. Here the neo-Renaissance style is clearly founded on new humanist ideas about education. During his career Neureuther represented the conviction “that the art of the Renaissance best meets the demands of beauty and of intellectual formation of our time.” 8 Julius Meyer, later director of the Gemäldegalerie in Berlin, described the new building in terms of models of High Renaissance

In the program of images that was planned for the exterior and for the representative rooms of the staircase foyer and the auditorium, this fundamental idea is taken up and developed further for the history of natural sciences and of technology. It was conceived by the painter Eugen Napoleon Neureuther, obviously in collaboration with his brother, the architect of the building, and was only realized in part: an exceptionally extensive, thematically wide-ranging program with several cycles of images, of which only the main outlines can be recapitulated here.10 On the main facade, opposite the Alte Pinakothek, there was a kind of ancestors’ gallery in the form of a series of painted portrait medallions below the point where the

[3] Munich, New Polytechnic School, “Mechanics,” cartoon for wall decoration of the northern part of the technical department, EUGEN NAPOLEON NEUREUTHER

14 9

THE AESTHETICIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN HISTORICISM

[4] Munich, New Polytechnic School, “Electricity,” cartoon for a cupola over the main staircase, EUGEN NAPOLEON NEUREUTHER, 1868

basis for heavy industrial production. Accordingly its representative is depicted as the personification of Industry, with a crankshaft reinforced with gearwheels as her scepter. The cloak is embroidered with formulas, a transmission belt serves as clasp, geometric bodies at the foot of the enthroned figure and the herms of Arithmetic and Geometry at the sides refer to the mathematical basis of the discipline. In the side zones winged genii demonstrate the principles of the lever and utilize the force of gravity with carts. The rudimentary achievements of mechanics are illustrated here in an anecdotal way. In this and in other areas of images the use of motifs is not entirely consistent: symbolism appears alongside genre-like scenes; elementary laws of nature alongside natural science; and modern artifacts beside archaic technical applications.

roof begins [2]. It presented the “most important men of the early period” from the areas of “the exact sciences, belles-lettres, national economy, visual arts, and technology,” in particular chemists, engineers, and mechanical engineers.11 On the facade of the south wing that housed the relevant institutes, these branches were depicted as a succession of images of technical allegories and industrial production. Here technology was not only integrated with the course of history but was also placed on an equal footing with the other arts and humanities. For instance, in a visual formula used repeatedly, mechanics appears as a personification at the center surrounded by technical appliances and ancillary scenes [3]. Mechanics was regarded as one of the central subjects in every polytechnic, as it provided the 150

DIETRICH ERBEN

was understood changed and he became a beneficent hero in the service of human progress, one on whom factory owners could also call.13

The visual world of portraits, symbols, and narratives was heightened even further in the interior of the Polytechnic. If the entire program had been executed as originally planned, the series of images in the entrance vestibule, staircase galleries, and auditorium would have depicted, for the first time in nineteenth-century monumental painting, a history of the development of culture, in which the stages were not defined by history, religion, and intellectual history “but by the progressive appropriation of nature.” 12 The main painting on the ceiling of the entrance vestibule depicted the myth of Prometheus, who, under the aegis of the goddess Athena, created Man. In the late nineteenth century Prometheus underwent a remarkable role change: whereas initially the rebellious son of the Titans was regarded as the archetype of the artist—which is how he was represented in the fresco in the entrance hall to the Glyptothek—the way in which he

The galleries surrounding the spacious staircase hall, which led to the library and the auditorium on the upper floor, offered room for an expansive cultural history of technology. The ceiling paintings in the galleries presented the “discovery of the eternal laws of nature through the enlightened researchers of later times,” the “discoveries and inventions that then emerged from the understanding of these laws,” and “the use of the same to disseminate knowledge and physical well-being throughout the whole of human society.” 14 The dome, which was devoted to the theme of electricity, referred to the most modern technical development of that time [4]. Neureuther was for the most part forced to refer back to the earlier history of science and to

[5] Brighton, Royal Pavilion, JOHN NASH, from 1815

151

THE AESTHETICIZATION OF TECHNOLOGY IN HISTORICISM

alchemistic experiments. In the main area was depicted the famous experiment of Luigi Galvani, who by introducing an electrical charge into the thigh of a frog caused the muscles to twitch. The side images took up the theme of experiments with animation, for which Prometheus was the inspiration. In contrast another side picture shows the mechanical production of electricity by a flywheel driven by an engine. However the rapid technical development of electricity, which already included the discovery of electromagnetic waves, the invention of the arc lamp, and the patenting of the production of power, still completely avoided being depicted.

facade.” 16 Ludwig II opposed a design and decoration concept for the Polytechnic building that asserted the equal status of culture and technology in principle. In addition the neo-Renaissance, which was associated equally with the ideological cementing of historicism, the educational epoch of humanism, and the emancipation of citizens in the city republics, was regarded as an explicitly bourgeois style.17 Logically, therefore, Ludwig II never used this architectural style for his palaces and castles and employed stylistic reminiscences of—if one likes—the “feudal” Middle Ages and the Baroque era ideologically for his politics of monarchist restoration.

The decoration of the staircase hall together with the planned decoration of the auditorium, which was intended to make the space “appear like a pantheon of modern culture,”15 clearly reveals an eminent aspiration. Just as, by using the formal language of the neo-Renaissance, the architecture of the Polytechnic referred to the Alte Pinakothek that stood opposite, in formal and content-related terms the same can be said of the paintings in the dome. In these works Eugen Neureuther continued the pictorial disposition of the dome frescoes by Peter Cornelius in the loggias of the Pinakothek, in this way signaling a continuity that was also thematic. While in the art museum, the history of the development of fine art unfolds through the systemization of the collection and the visual decorations on the piano nobile, in the Polytechnic there is a continuation of culture as the history of the development of material civilization. The history of art is continued as the history of the progress of technology—this is where the challenging assertion of innovation lies, an assertion made not only by the architecture and the visual decoration of the Polytechnic but by the institution itself.

We know that Ludwig in realizing his historical dream worlds ensured that use was made of modern construction methods and up-to-date building services.18 The mechanically raised tables in Linderhof Palace and Neuschwanstein Castle became emblematic symbols of Ludwig’s demands in terms of technical standards, along with the electrical lighting fitted in his coaches and sleighs, the wave machine in the grotto in Linderhof Palace, the acquisition of a steamboat for Chiemsee, and the purchase of the prefabricated cast iron Moorish Kiosk and the Moroccan House for Linderhof Palace. In the roof garden on the Festival Hall Building, an advanced glass and iron construction method was adapted for a residential wing. While this was produced by Cramer-Klett, a Nuremberg machine factory and iron foundry, the Johannes Haag machine and pipe factory based in Augsburg supplied the central heating system used in the palaces. The internal shell of the Venus Grotto’s artificial stalactite cave in Linderhof Palace was built in 1876 in a manner similar to the Rabitz construction patented in 1878. In addition to the underwater wave machine, the grotto had an electrical lighting system, supplied by Siemens, with a projector to create a rainbow, and a warm air heating system, among other features.19

KING LUDWIG II OF BAVARIA AND TECHNOLOGY

In terms of their construction and technical fittings, the palace buildings of the Bavarian king (along with the illusionistic spaces that formed part of them) used the possibilities available for private buildings between the mid-nineteenth century and the Gründerzeit era. These standards were set by an elite of wealthy bankers and entrepreneurs—one thinks here of the Palais Jacquemart André (1869–75) in Paris, the city palace of Richard Wallace in London, and of the gentlemen’s club buildings there; and in New York, of the William K. Petit Chateau (1879–83), or of the Villa Hügel in Essen for the Krupp family (1870–73).20 Ludwig II shared his fondness for

There is nothing to indicate that these intentions were shared by the monarch, under whose government the building of the Polytechnische Schule in Munich was completed in 1868 and then occupied. On the contrary: his intervention at the presentation of the plans in March 1866, in which he expressed his reservations about the design of the facade, should be understood as a fundamental rejection of the claim to dignity formulated by a technical institution; to him it “seemed richer than is appropriate” and he thereupon decreed “a less decorated 152

DIETRICH ERBEN

technology with other monarchs of his time. In the circle of rulers who opposed social modernization decisively but ultimately unsuccessfully, Ludwig, with his personal tic about technology, did not stand alone. In the German Confederation Ludwig’s uncle, Friedrich Wilhelm IV of Prussia, a representative of a strictly neo-absolutist understanding of the state, is the most striking parallel.21 When still Prince of Wales, the later English King George IV endeavored at the start of the nineteenth century to create a princely alternative world by erecting the Royal Pavilion, an eclectic fantasy palace, in the seaside resort of Brighton [5].22

1

2 3

4 5 6 7

8 9

See generally in this regard: Welsch 1996, 9–61; Hieber and Moebius 2001; and Reckwitz 2017. See above all: Daum 1998; Rüegg 2004; and Weber 2002, especially 154–60 and 195–219. See in this regard above all: Buddensieg and Rogge 1981; Kittler 1986; Maag 1986; Pfeiffer, Jauß, and Gaillard 1987; Möbius and Berns 1990; Harvie, Martin, and Scharf 1976; and Erben and Frenkler 2018 (in preparation). Burckhardt 1997, 245–46. The following paraphrases and quotations are in Blümner 1881, 78–82. See Pierre 2018; and Orensanz 2016. On the building see Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 63–93; and Nägelke 2000, 118–22 and 432–37. Quoted from Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 12. Meyer 1868, 150.

These comparisons and parallels cannot obscure the fact that Ludwig’s interest in technical sophistication was limited in instrumental terms. Advanced technical means were only used in order to allow a lifestyle of monarchist escapism and to simulate historically remote worlds as a place to retreat to. This was the reason for producing perfect aesthetic illusions.23 These reservations must be expressed, when the popular cliché about Ludwig II’s affinity to technology is aired.24 Ludwig II was, one could say, a technology enthusiast but certainly not a systematic supporter of the technical developments of his time.

10 On the following, see fundamentally: Wagner 1989, 217–38. 11 Neureuther 1870, 247. 12 Wagner 1989, 226. 13 On the fresco by Peter Cornelius in the Glyptothek, see Büttner 1980–99, 1:203–6. On the change in the meaning of the figure of Prometheus, see Wagner 1989, 228–29. 14 Neureuther 1872, 27. 15 Neureuther 1870, 248. 16 Quoted from Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 68. 17 On this fundamentally, see Brix and Steinhauser 1978, 199–327 (on the neo-Renaissance as an explicitly “bourgeois style,” see in particular 268–72); and Dauss 2007, especially 82–88, and 364–66. 18 As an overview of the material, see Schlim 2015 and the entries on the section “Ludwig II. und die Technik” in Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, 2:223–33.

153

19 On the grotto, see the conference Die Venusgrotte in Linderhof: Illusionskunst und High-Tech im 19. Jahrhundert. Internationale Tagung von ICOMOS und der Bayerischen Schlösserverwaltung, October 11–13, 2017. 20 On domestic comfort, see Reulecke 1997; Brönner 1994; and Buddensieg 1984. 21 See fundamentally Barclay 1995; and Bartoschek, Betthausen, and Kahlau 1995. On the close contacts to Ludwig II, see Tauber 2013, especially 207–11. 22 See Saul 1998; and Morley 2003. 23 See arguments regarding a revision in Tauber 2013, especially 174–81 on the winter garden in the Residence, 249–51 on technical simulation; and 279–80 and 304–5 on the retreat worlds. 24 On this, see Schlim 2015; and entries on the section “Ludwig II. und die Technik” in Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, 2:223–33.

Regen, railway bridge across the River Ohe, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1877

Munich, Technical University, remaining facade of the former building by GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER in southeast courtyard

Kulmbach, Meußdoerffer’sche Malzfabrik (today Ireks GmbH), 1883

WORKERS’ HOUSING AT THE TIME OF LUDWIG II By VERA SIMONE BADER

L

THE LIVES OF WORKERS

result of rent increases, the dwellings, which were in any case small and stuffy, often became overcrowded. People known as Schlafgänger (lodger) shared the use of a tenant’s bed. A survey produced in 1902 showed that in more than 73.5 percent of the workers’ dwellings in Bavaria examined, at least six people of both genders lived in one room.6 “There can be no doubt that, from a moral point of view, such conditions are most questionable,” the authors concluded.7 Indeed, in the course of the nineteenth century the proportion of births out of wedlock grew from around 4 to 25 percent.8

etters addressed to the king, legal texts, and public statements by prominent persons from the era of the Industrial Revolution give a clear picture of how hard the life of a factory worker was in Bavaria.1 In 1840 the workday was usually at least twelve hours long with only a one-hour midday break and shorter breaks, each of fifteen minutes, in the morning and the afternoon. In addition, the stale air, unbearable noise, and intolerable working conditions at the machines meant that the factory as a workplace made extreme demands on workers’ health. Depending on what was produced in a factory, the situation could be even worse. In a report written in 1901 about the BASF chemical factory in Ludwigshafen, the social democrat Franz Josef Erhart graphically described the exploitation “of human beings by human beings” as follows: “during the midday break hundreds crouched in the rain and wind in a ditch near the factory and choked down the pitiful lunch brought to them. As their skin was stained bronze, copper, or green they looked like exotic races of human beings, and their miserable appearance alarmed every stranger. […]Masses of workers could been seen whose noses, mucous membranes, etc., [had been] eaten away by the poisons.” 2

THE SOCIAL ECONOMIST In numerous commemorative publications issued by companies, housing for company workers is described as an “ambitious project by the company to provide housing,” and is praised as both “generous” and “pioneering,” as it led to an improvement in the housing situation of the workers.9 In fact, many entrepreneurs saw themselves compelled to provide acceptable workers’ accommodations as a way to retain their workforce by reducing the high turnover rate among skilled workers that resulted in part from the housing shortage. Just how many workers’ housing estates were built in Bavaria between 1860 and 1890 cannot be said with certainty today. A survey of Bavarian factories and larger industrial firms made in 1873–74 showed that of 692 businesses, roughly one-half undertook the construction of housing or provided housing subsidies. Of these businesses, 117 had a total of 3,227 rental dwellings; however, the sources do not reveal whether these were in fact apartments or just places to sleep.10 A comparison of the figures from Bavaria with those in Prussia, where at this time private mining companies alone owned 11,242 rental dwellings in around 2,800 buildings, clearly shows that up to this point only a limited amount of workers’ housing was constructed in southern Germany.11 In the years that followed, the construction of accommodations for workers grew continuously: in 1905 there were already 2,000 single- and multiple-family houses, containing around 10,000 dwellings.12

The catastrophic housing situation made everyday factory life even more arduous. Many workers lived in suburbs outside the city, far from the place of production, and had to travel long distances to reach their workplace.3 In their accommodations on the periphery as well as in the urban centers hygiene standards were extremely low.4 There were a number of reasons for this: in addition to Bavaria’s rapid population growth in the years between 1840 and 1890, industrialization led to an increase in the flight from the countryside and therefore to the explosive development in the cities, which in turn created a housing shortage. This meant that many people lived together in generally unheated, two- or three-room apartments— only some of which had a kitchen [1]. It was not unusual for the toilet to be located outside the dwelling.5 As a 158

[1] Berlin, workman’s dwelling, ca. 1860

Castell in Stein (from 1858), the Mechanische BaumwollSpinnerei und Weberei Bayreuth (1861), BASF in Ludwigshafen (from 1872) [2], the Augsburger Kammgarn-Spinnerei (from 1876), and the Zwirnerei und Nähfaden-Fabrik Göggingen (from 1891)—required completely different concepts for their larger numbers of employees and had entire housing estates erected for their workers.

Businesses employed a number of very different methods to meet their workers’ housing needs. In smaller branches of industry with lower levels of mechanization such as the glass, lumber, and paper industries, a tradition familiar from earlier centuries was still continued whereby a worker was provided with accommodations in the household of his master.13 However, businesses with large factories—such as Faber159

WORKERS’ HOUSING AT THE TIME OF LUDWIG II

[2] Ludwigshafen, BASF, main turning shop (photo: ANONYMOUS, 1921)

As models for this form of subsidized housing, they could use complexes that had been built only a few years earlier in England and France.14 For example, in 1851 the English textile manufacturer Titus Salt had Saltaire, a worker’s town for 5,000 people, erected beside his new factory complex. It consisted of long rows of terraced houses laid out in a grid. Numerous communal facilities were placed along an axis that led to the factory’s main entrance.15 The cité ouvrière in Mülhausen (Mulhouse), Alsace, which was founded in 1853, looked very similar. Plans of this development were shown at the world expositions in Paris in 1855 and 1867. It served as a model for similar complexes in Germany, partly because at the time it was featured in numerous publications, which helped disseminate the ideas behind it.16 Authors analyzed the workers’ housing in Mülhausen and assessed the various building types with a view to their suitability for future developments.

Bavarian businesses must have known such publications. Lothar von Faber, for instance, the owner of the famous Faber pencil factory in Stein near Nuremberg, knew about the development in Mülhausen from the little volume Extrait des bulletins de la Société industrielle de Mulhouse published in 1865, as he had a copy of this book in his library, which today is kept in the company archive.17 He most probably examined the row houses presented in the book along with a new house type that is also mentioned there—the cottage with a cross-shaped floor plan. After all, he himself had tested various types of houses and, as far as hygiene, fresh air, and the appropriate number of rooms was concerned, he was always well informed about the latest developments.18

160

VERA SIMONE BADER

THE DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING TYPES In Bavaria in the area of housing for industrial workers there were principally two house types, which developed from the 1850s onward in smaller and medium-sized cities: the workers’ tenement house and the multiple-family housing estate. These two types developed quite differently. The former type stood alone and was not necessarily located in the same area as the factory. In contrast, the latter were either arranged in rows of buildings or were freestanding, but laid out on a grid system. Precisely where these complexes of multiple-family houses stood is shown in nineteenth-century vedute [4]. In these we see factories with their elongated production buildings and chimney stacks belching smoke, the tall office buildings, and the richly decorated directors’ houses. These buildings generally presented a uniform overall appearance, with the individual functions differentiated architecturally and organized in a hierarchical

way. Workers’ housing was outside the walls of the factory site but in the immediate surroundings along the main road that led to the production facility, such as in Saltaire. Their plain design unmistakably demonstrated that this housing was aesthetically part of the functional ensemble of the industrial complex. As early as 1858 Lothar von Faber had taken steps to provide housing for his rapidly growing workforce. Driven by necessity, he had a seventeenth-century Reformed church converted to residential purposes by inserting partition walls and introducing ceilings.19 Each of the rented apartments in the building—which now had four stories—had a kitchen, a living room, and a bedroom. As in many other apartment buildings of this time, not every apartment had its own entrance and access, which meant that families were not completely separated from one another. This spatial openness, however, conflicted with the moral concepts that were propagated a few years later in the relevant specialist literature.20 Although

[3] Bayreuth, “Swiss Cottages” of the Mechanische Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei, 1861 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1910)

16 1

WORKERS’ HOUSING AT THE TIME OF LUDWIG II

[4] Augsburg, bird’s-eye view of the worsted yarn spinning mill, 1888

were erected around the same time. The latter consisted of a row of twelve “half houses,” 88 meters long; each had a living area measuring 53 square meters as well as a small garden in which, to ensure self-sufficiency, vegetables could be grown and small animals kept.25 These row houses were generously sized for their time. In terms of architectural decoration, however, the design was extremely economical. Despite what the name might imply, there are hardly any elements (apart from the pitched roofs) that might suggest that these houses were modeled on a romantic ideal from Switzerland. A local public official was responsible for planning this row of houses;26 so, as in Stein, no architects were involved.

for the reasons mentioned and, at the latest, since the world exposition of 1867 the workers’ tenement house was frowned upon as an inadequate building type, in 1881 Lothar von Faber had a tenement for workers erected close to his own home.21 His reasons for doing this are not known. However, no single men were allowed to live in this tenement, only families, and through the way the entrances were positioned, each dwelling was separate from the others—that is to say, moral propriety was explicitly taken into account.22 Despite being subjected to vehement criticism, the workers’ tenement did not subsequently vanish completely from the repertoire of workers’ housing types. However, the “strict separation of the individual dwellings […] to ensure a comfortable family life”23 certainly became a standard feature of the construction system.

During this development phase, the design of workers’ housing was generally regarded as the responsibility of the planners in the building office of the respective factory.27 The unambitious nature of the designs produced by these anonymous technicians can be seen as one of the reasons that the first such estate houses in Bavaria were later allowed to be demolished. 28 No one saw any reason to

From the 1860s onward, semidetached houses placed along a street were also built alongside workers’ tenements in Stein.24 In terms of simplicity and size, they are comparable to the “little Swiss cottages” of the Mechanische Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Bayreuth [3], which 16 2

VERA SIMONE BADER

preserve them as a monument for posterity. It was only with the increase in commissions at the end of the nineteenth century that architects began to show an interest in housing for factory workers as a design project, which led to the aesthetic treatment of such buildings.29 An early example of this is the Augsburger Kammgarn-Spinnerei (AKS) [4]. As early as 1873 this firm commissioned the experienced architect Jean Keller to design its workers’ housing. Keller had already made his name with apartment buildings, offices, and exhibition buildings and had designed impressive villas for well-to-do citizens.30 For the factory, he designed quite a number of buildings, including twenty workers’ houses, which he planned for a total of 138 families.31 He decorated the external walls with pilasters, cornices, and arched moldings, which clearly gave the houses a superior character; part of this development has been preserved as a monument of the Industrial Revolution.32 The building permit plans also show that Keller developed three different building types for workers, ranging from simple to elaborate, and designed buildings of different sizes, according to who would live in them: skilled workers or master craftsmen [5]. With this kind of decorative de-

sign he underpinned the structure of factory society and expressed its hierarchy in the architectural form. The business could only profit from this development in architecture, as through the complete formalization of the entire site it also reached the people who lived and worked there.

THE IMPACT As already outlined above, in the larger housing developments many businesses, as well as building living space, also provided communal facilities for their workers such as wash- and bathhouses, laundries, drying rooms, a library, infirmaries, and bathing cabins.33 As the workers were self-sufficient—each dwelling had its own garden intended for growing vegetables and keeping small animals—they hardly needed to leave the housing estate at all. However, this gesture was not quite as altruistic as the businesses may have liked to suggest.34 It increased the level of control over the workers, subordinating their lives completely to the concerns of the business. In addition, these housing developments were not intended for the entire factory

[5] Augsburg, Kammgarn-Quartier (Spinning Mill District), a “House containing 4 dwellings for master craftsmen,” JEAN KELLER, 1873

16 3

WORKERS’ HOUSING AT THE TIME OF LUDWIG II

were clearly the principal concern. During this time, however, the workers’ movement also grew stronger, leading to increased pressure on those who ran the businesses.41 As a result the construction of housing for workers increasingly became a compelling necessity. That such housing offered a possible way of counteracting social conflicts was also recognized by King Ludwig II, who publicly supported initiatives of this kind. One of his major fears was certainly that the Social Democrats would obtain greater power and that this might lead a rebellion of the workers.42 Therefore in 1879 he appointed factory inspectors who supervised businesses on his behalf and made sure that shorter working hours were actually observed and that the amount of work by women and children was restricted.43 Various sources provided him with reports about workers’ gatherings, and he was kept informed about the measures used by factory operators “in order to avoid a strike and to deprive the Social Democrats of a basis for agitations.”44 Although he did not financially support the construction of workers’ housing—partly because the construction of housing for factory workers was seen as a matter for the private sector—Ludwig II did demonstrate his support for such projects by officially decorating factory owners such as Lothar von Faber for his paternalistic welfare projects, which also included the establishment of health insurance and pension schemes as well as savings banks for workers.45 Conferring this title was to be understood as an appeal to other factory owners to show an interest in their workers’ welfare and in this way to contribute to the positive development of the country.

workforce.35 In the AKS in 1911 less than one-quarter of the workers were provided with a dwelling. The main aim of the businesses was to retain skilled workers who were important to them. They were offered comfortable dwellings at reasonable rents. In the case of the unskilled workers, who numerically represented the majority and were plentifully available on the labor market, no thought was given to tying them to the factory. Finally, most of the factory dwellings were only rented, which allowed the firm to draw up rules that the tenants had to observe. This could even go so far as obliging other family members to work in the same factory.36 If a worker gave notice, he not only lost his job; his entire family lost their accommodations. This situation was explosive, as it was around this time that workers began to organize themselves and to put up a fight against poor working conditions. Friedrich Engels criticized “the pressure [the employers] can exert on striking workers if they are also these workers’ landlords.” 37 But in these dependent relationships that were so heatedly discussed there were also developments: factories such as the Zwirnerei und Nähfaden-Fabrik Göggingen sold their housing, thus allowing the workers greater independence. As long as the repayments were made regularly, the loan for the purchase of a house could not be recalled, and workers could pay it off through a nine-year repayment plan.38 Much the same applied to the Hemshof workers’ housing development, which BASF had built in Ludwigshafen.39 Here workers and factory officials even lived in the same district, which consisted of two- and four-family houses and was laid out in a garden structure. Here, explicitly, no attempt was made to re-create the factory’s social hierarchy. Just how effective this approach was for the business is shown by the Reichstag elections of 1898. In those urban districts close to the factory that had the highest proportion of workers, the Social Democrats, the party of the workers, received the majority of the votes.40 It was only in the housing development itself that the National Liberals, with their distinctly antisocialist program, were successful. This result was certainly attributable to the fact that here workers lived alongside a considerable number of factory officials. At the same time, however, it also demonstrates that factory workers’ housing had a considerable influence on people’s thinking. For the business this was a real success. To summarize, it can be said that factory owners’ main reason for promoting the construction of workers’ housing was because they recognized the potential to secure and increase production in the factory. Economic interests 16 4

VERA SIMONE BADER

1

2 3 4

5 6

7 8 9

10 11

On this and what follows, see the sources in Grimm et. al. 1985, vol. 3, especially 197 (sources about the Augsburg factories and their workforce); working hours and wages at MAN (Augsburg); 199 (police order for the workers of the weaving school of the Mech. Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Augsburg); 200 (factory order of the Mech. Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Augsburg); and 207 (submission about the reduction of working hours presented to the king by the Augsburg factory workers, October 24, 1865). Braun 1994, 127. See Grimm et. al. 1985, vol. 4, 132–33. Ibid., 100–101. These conditions led to a cholera epidemic in Bavaria in 1854. See Cahn 1902. Ibid., 7–9. A similar study was also made in Augsburg. The average occupancy of the 3,420 workers’ dwellings was 4.8 persons. There were, however, some cases in which seven to eight persons shared a room. See also Plößl 1985, 51–52. Cahn 1902, 31. See Grimm et. al. 1985, vol. 4, 100–101. See, for instance, the anniversary publications from the pencil factory Faber-Castell, the Mechanische Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Bayreuth AG, or from the Augsburger Kammgarn-Spinnerei. See Heinrich 1970, 77–78. Ibid., 78. The great statistical differences between these two states can probably also be attributed to Bavaria’s “industrial backwardness.” Although in his contribution Ferdinand Kramer questions the “reduced levels of industrialization” in Bavaria that are frequently mentioned in research, he nevertheless comes to the conclusion that, despite enormous efforts, Bavaria did not

achieve a matching level of widespread industrialization until 1875. See Kramer 2011, 94. 12 Heinrich 1970, 88. See also Bayerisches Statistisches Büro 1906, 69. 13 Heinrich 1970, 88. 14 See Schall 1879, 2; Buschmann 1985, 36. 15 Buschmann 1985, 36. 16 For more on this, see Klasen 1879. 17 Thanks to Ms. Edith Luther for kindly providing this information. 18 See the different house types presented by Christian Koch in Koch 1986, 122–41. 19 Ibid., 128. 20 For more on this see Bömches 1868. 21 Ibid. In Stein, a building known as the Großes Haus was also erected, an elongated, three-story workers’ tenement. Each of the eighteen dwellings had a floor area of 40 square meters and consisted of a kitchen, living room, and bedroom. 22 Unmarried men were accommodated in the “Casino” and later also in the attic of the castle. 23 Klasen 1879, 1. 24 Koch 1986, 135. 25 Although in the specialist world, workers’ housing was often described as cheap, the higher standard—compared with houses in the medieval town center—is impossible to overlook. There are no great differences between these two types of houses, at least in visual terms. 26 Mayer 2003, 27. 27 Buschmann 1985, 44–45. 28 For example, the “Schweizerhäuschen” in Bayreuth were demolished in 1973. 29 In 1914 there were said to be 140,000 dwellings that had been built for factory workers. See Saldern 1995, 52. 30 The list of building monuments of the Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege for

16 5

Augsburg contains numerous buildings designed by Jean Keller, which today are listed buildings; http://geodaten.bayern.de/denkmal_static_data/externe_denkmalliste/pdf/ denkmalliste_merge_761000.pdf, accessed January 14, 2018. 31 A number of the plans have survived in the archive of the Staatliches Textil- und Industriemuseum Augsburg; for example, Inv. nos. 312 and 313. 32 The former wash- and bathhouse of the workers’ housing estate has been a listed building since 1997. 33 See Engelhardt 1985, 289–317; Loibl 2012, 49ff. 34 See, for example, anniversary publications such as those from the Mech. Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Bayreuth AG, “Mechanische” Bayreuth in den Stürmen der Zeit (Bayreuth, 2003), 27–28. 35 On this and the following, see Fischer 1977, 189–91. 36 See Loibl 2012, 49–50. 37 Engels and Marx 1980, 105. 38 See Butz 1887 (Staatliches Textil- und Industriemuseum Augsburg, Archiv, Inv. no. 415). 39 On this and the following, see Hippel 1983, 362–63. 40 Ibid. 41 Thamer 1985, 373. 42 See Rumschöttel 2011b, 122. 43 SeeVolkert 1983, 298. 44 Report made by the Stadtkommissariat Nürnberg to King Ludwig II about a gathering of workers from the Maschinenfabrik Cramer-Klett on October 29, 1871. See Bott 1985, 383. 45 Under Maximilian II, Lothar von Faber received the civilian service order of the Bavarian Crown; under Ludwig II, he was granted a hereditary knighthood in 1881. See Koch 1986, 136.

Augsburg, former working class district of sewing thread factory Göggingen, JEAN KELLER, 1873–77

Augsburg, former working class district of sewing thread factory Göggingen, JEAN KELLER, 1873–77

THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING BY EDUARD VON RIEDEL A First Project of Ludwig II in Munich

N

By REGINE HESS

ot long after his accession to the throne on March 10, 1864, King Ludwig II cleared away a backlog of reforms that had accumulated in the Munich Kunstverein: in October 1865 the young monarch granted permission for the association to erect its own exhibition building in the Renaissance arcades of the Lower Hofgarten. He personally approved the designs by Eduard von Riedel, the Court Director of Buildings (Hofbauintendant) and member of the Kunstverein, and gave the Kunstverein a site from the royal civil list.1 In this way the “plans for an independent premises to meet the association’s needs,” which had been discussed “for two decades” were finally brought to a successful conclusion.2 Riedel erected a three-story building at the eastern part of the arcade that borders the northern side of the Hofgarten, which dated from the time of Duke Albrecht V.

On the southern side, this building stood on land owned by the Wittelsbachs, while the northern part was on ground owned by the city. The City of Munich gave the site to the Kunstverein free of charge.3 The Kunstverein building from 1865–66 is the first building that Ludwig II ordered to be built in part of the Residence grounds.4 So far it has been largely overlooked in research work on Ludwig II. This essay enquires about Ludwig’s relationship to contemporary art in Munich and looks at the Kunstverein as well as the areas in which it was active.5 The focus is on the building which, until it was destroyed in the Second World War, served as the headquarters of the association. In the conclusion, the question about the importance that this building held for the young king will be addressed.

[1] Munich, Kunstverein building, EDUARD VON RIEDEL (with extension by FRIEDRICH VON THIERSCH), 1864–66 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1930)

16 8

[2] Munich, Kunstverein, perspective from the northeast, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, ca. 1864–65

LUDWIG II AND CONTEMPORARY ART

verein. With the exception of the state portraits and in contravention of the customs of his predecessors, no portraits of Ludwig were painted; by eclecting to have images made by means of photography, the king chose a new method of self-presentation that he could more easily control. This loosens the relationship between the king and the members of the Kunstverein. A reference to Munich landscape painting in Ludwig’s vicinity is made by the author Heinrich Kreisel, who mentions overdoors decorated with painting of this kind in the royal apartments in the Residence and refers to Ludwig’s preference for the schools of Karl von Piloty, Peter von Cornelius, and Moritz von Schwind for wall paintings.7 According to the distribution of artworks at that time, the representatives of this kind of painting also showed their work in the Kunstverein, where it could reach a bourgeois public. The interest in contemporary art, which had characterized the reign of Ludwig I, who had the Neue Pinakothek

In the first years of his reign, the relationship of Ludwig II to the Kunstverein, which had been founded in 1823 by Domenico Quaglio, Peter von Heß, Friedrich von Gärtner, and Joseph Karl Stieler, appears to have been a close one. Like his father, Maximilian II, Ludwig II was an admirer of history painting in which artists gave visual expression to the sagas of heroes from Wagner’s operas. Like most Munich artists, they were members of the Kunstverein. Ludwig had artworks that had been acquired at the world exposition in Paris 1867 immediately displayed in the new Kunstverein building, to enjoy them but also as a model for the artists there.6 But the sources reveal little about his relationship to contemporary Munich portrait, landscape, and genre painting, fields which were also cultivated at the Kunst169

THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING BY EDUARD VON RIEDEL

[3] Munich, Kunstverein, elevations of the southern and northern façades, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, 1865

In this sense, therefore, the relationship of the king to the Kunstverein was an aspect of his patronage of art; his role was that of a princely superior and patron. Further developed by Ludwig I to serve his requirements for representation as a ruler, the Kunstverein produced a climate favorable for artists and a closely woven personal network, while also

(1843–46) erected to show this kind of work, was, strictly speaking, also evident in Ludwig II: in the palaces and the parks of Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee, contemporary historicist art was developed further, principally by making copies of and variations on the art of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 1 70

REGINE HESS

tory painters Wilhelm Hauschild, Joseph Munsch, Theodor Pixis, Fritz Schwörer, Eduard Schwoiser, and Heinrich Spieß.14 The veduta and genre painter Michael Neher, who was conservator at the Kunstverein for many years, was involved in painting the frescoes to decorate Hohenschwangau Castle.15 This indicates that the Kunstverein was linked with the Wittelsbachs through both its location and its artists.

enabling the king to control its art and activities. During his lifetime Ludwig I was protector of the Munich Kunstverein and after his death was succeeded by Ludwig II and, in 1886, by the Prince Regent Luitpold. In 1887 the board of the Kunstverein praised the fact that, as the result of the attendance of the Prince Regent at the weekly exhibitions, these shows offered more and better work,8 which suggests that Ludwig II had no longer taken active part in these activities. A contrast to this is offered by Ludwig’s commitment to the Munich Artists’ Association, the founding of which he had approved in 1868. In 1875 he sold the site then known as Platz beim Leinfelder, on what is today Lenbachplatz, from the civil list to this society for favorable terms, under the condition that the Künstlerhaus and nothing else should be erected on it.9 He also made an important contribution to the erection of this building. The project, by Gabriel von Seidl, which differed only a little from the building that was erected between 1896 and 1900, was produced as early as 1886.10

LUDWIG II AND EDUARD VON RIEDEL After Klenze’s death on January 27, 1864, Eduard von Riedel advanced from the position of Court Building Inspector to head of board of the Court Building Directorate. At this stage Riedel, a former student of Friedrich von Gärtner, built the Beamtenreliktenanstalt (1858–65), a home for widows of public servants, commissioned by Maximilian II; he had designed a Wittelsbach National Museum in the former Maxburg (1856– 58), which he realized in the form of a grand freestanding building on Maximilianstraße (1859–63), and planned an extension to the university by the addition of the priests’ seminary building and the Georgianum (1862–63).16 Under Maximilian a kind of “drying out” of the Court Building Directorate had started, which Ludwig II put an end to by creating new positions and with them opportunities for promotion.17 Riedel, who became Director of Court Building in 1872, stood at the apex of this hierarchy until the end of his life.

THE KUNSTVEREIN AND ITS BUILDING Although older than the Artists’ Association, the Kunstverein had to wait longer for its own building, in fact for more than forty years: During its founding phase the association was based in the private apartment of a man called Raphael von Winter and later in an apartment building on Maximiliansplatz owned by the building contractor Johann Ulrich Himbsel. Between 1826 and 1866 the exhibitions, auctions, and meetings of the association were held in an apartment on the second floor of the North Pavilion of the Bazaar Building at the Upper Hofgarten, which Leo von Klenze had newly projected. This building was erected by Himbsel and financed by court banker Simon Freiherr von Eichthal. By using fireproof construction with a stone staircase, copper roof, and warm air heating and ensuring good light through tall windows, Klenze had tailored the building to suit the needs of the Kunstverein.11 Nevertheless in 1865 the association regarded the rooms in the Bazaar Building as only a “provisional solution” and was happy to leave them, as their cramped layout had supposedly threatened the future existence of the association.12 As early as 1862 an unsuccessful appeal had been made to Maximilian II to erect a new building behind Klenze’s Röschenauer House on Galeriestraße.13 The royal family, which also joined the Kunstverein, frequently visited the association’s exhibitions and acquired works there. Conversely, artist members of the association worked for the kings; in the case of Ludwig II these included the his-

Ludwig II’s relationship to Riedel, who had first taken office under Maximilian, was probably an ambivalent one, even though he commissioned Riedel in 1868 to draw up the plans for Neuschwanstein Castle. When Ludwig had his apartments fitted out from 1867 to 1869 in the corner pavilion of the Festival Hall Building of the Munich Residence that faces northwest toward Odeonsplatz, he did not commission the Court Building Director (whom he had taken over from his father), although Riedel was responsible for the buildings of the Residence. Instead the commission went to Franz von Seitz, the director of the Court Theater, who was entrusted with directing the decoration work, even though Riedel had submitted designs for this.18 This indicates a gradual differentiation between the branches of architecture and interior design which occurred in the age of historicism and which Ludwig II encouraged through his passion for theater design. It characterizes his understanding of architecture and the detachment of the external shell from the interior space, which is particularly evident in Linderhof Palace and in the King’s House on the Schachen. For the architect and Court Building Director 17 1

THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING BY EDUARD VON RIEDEL

Lespilliez and Klenze, determined the proportions and dimensions of the Kunstverein building [1]. In the Riedeliana (the Riedel collection in the Bavarian State Library), six different designs for the nine-bay building are preserved. A perspective shows that the building was four stories on the southern front facing the Residence and three stories on the northern city side, on Galeriestraße. It was finished in a light reddish-brown render, with finely articulated double casement windows with semicircular fanlights [2]. In the Munich Municipal Archive, a set of plans has survived which were granted a building permit by the authorities: by Riedel as Court Building Director (in a double function as design architect) and by the War Minister Eduard von Lutz, who was involved because of the neighboring barracks [3]. In these plans the entrance front on Galeriestraße has two round-arched entrances at ground level on either side of the central axis and narrow windows for the functional rooms; above the windows are four tondi with allegories of history painting, architecture, sculpture, and landscape painting. The exhibition level above a powerful cornice has tall, round-arched windows, a continuous impost cornice, flowers in the spandrels, and pilasters with Corinthian capitals. The lower, five-bay roof element has upright rectangular window openings below a cornice decorated with garlands, and a gently pitched hipped roof. The Hofgarten side has entrances and windows to the well room, which already existed in the basement, and, at entrance level, the arcade integrated in the facade and two entrances. The three statues of Hercules standing on the parapet are part of a group of eight approximately two-and-a-half-meter-high oak figures made between 1779 and 1781 by Roman Anton Boos. They replaced a cycle of plaster figures by Kaspar Riedl that depicted the labors of Hercules and were placed under Maximilian I in the niches in the inside wall of the arcade. These sculptures referred to Maximilian as the German Hercules who defeated his enemies.25 Photographs from the twentieth century [see 1] show that the south facade (which at that time was walled up to provide protection from sunlight) had an impost cornice and panels in the parapet and was thus made like the north side.

Riedel’s being obliged to hand over commissions to stage designers such as Seitz or Christian Jank represented a loss of the influence that his predecessor Klenze had built up in the course of numerous confrontations with the king and the court.19

THE LOCATION OF THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING The costs of the gallery building were 45,216 Gulden, which the Kunstverein financed from its reserve funds and through a loan.20 It stood on the boundary between the Lower Hofgarten and the Schönfeld district, an extension of the city between Ludwigstraße and the English Garden planned by Klenze under Ludwig I from 1816 on. Since the time of Albrecht V this old boundary of the Residence had been marked by an arcade of round arches, which in the area of the Lower Hofgarten incorporated the Court Well House and in the course of the centuries had been repeatedly redesigned and built over: initially—probably under Wilhelm V (r. 1579–97)—a second series of thirteen arches was added as an upper floor, which Riedel later developed as the entrance floor of the Kunstverein. It took up the change in level to the Upper Hofgarten and created a promenade extending to the end of the Hofgarten in the west.21 The arcades were walled up during the eighteenth century. Under Elector Karl Theodor, between 1779 and 1783 Karl Albert von Lespilliez made the Hofgarten arcades out of them, adding a second floor. The royal painting gallery was housed here until the opening of the Alte Pinakothek. The Hofgarten arcades were subsequently extended by Klenze, and the “United Collections,” the later ethnology collections, were shown there.22 To the south was a house, similar in style to the Kunstverein, which Riedel designed for State Councilor Franz von Pfistermeister (1866),23 the northern Hofgarten gateway and the Court Well House with tower from 1700, both rebuilt by Klenze (1838–40 and 1845–46). When the Kunstverein moved into its own premises in 1865, this building completed the development of the arcades in the Lower Hofgarten. The new building bordered the barracks erected between 1801 and 1807 in the south of the Hofgarten by Joseph Frey, for which the Lower Hofgarten had been transformed into a parade ground.24

Inside the Kunstverein the staircase was positioned centrally [4]. Reflecting the model provided by the museums referred to above, the entrance level accommodated the sculpture halls, while the rooms in which the paintings were shown were on the upper level. On the long axis they followed the arcade while transversely the rooms were laid out around the central staircase axis. Practically nothing is known about the painting and decoration of these rooms; a single floor plan shows the careful ornamentation of the colored floor tiling on the first and second stories.26

RIEDEL’S KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING In designing his first building as Court Building Director, Riedel was therefore tied to traditional models in the Hofgarten. The Renaissance arcades, just like the Hofgarten arcades by 172

REGINE HESS

[4] Munich, Kunstverein building, floor plans of entrance level and upper floors, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, 1865

from the neoclassicism of Klenze and from the neo-Romanesque, early Renaissance style of Gärtner. It also avoids the Gothicized style of Maximilian, which Riedel used for the National Museum that was built at around the same

The building was around 36 meters long, 11.5 meters wide, and 17.5 meters high and at first glance appears to be a product of late Bavarian neoclassicism.27 However, it also quotes Baroque models and in this way not only distances itself 173

THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING BY EDUARD VON RIEDEL

[5] New Schleißheim Castle, central pavilion from the west, HENRICO ZUCCALLI and JOSEPH EFFNER, from 1701

are also found in Schleißheim Castle, and represent a further development of a motif used by Francesco Borromini in the Palazzo Barberini (Carlo Maderno, Gianlorenzo Bernini, and Francesco Borromini, 1628–38) in Rome.29 A further connection between Riedel and Schleißheim is provided by a biography from 1899, according to which Riedel is supposed to have completed the north arcade in the castle.30

time. Therefore we must look for models elsewhere: If one compares the New Schleißheim Castle [5] with the Kunstverein, certain similarities can be noted in the arrangement of height and length of the small building, in the rows of round arches, and in the relatively plain ornamentation, despite the use of a colossal order that was deployed at Schleißheim Castle. A version of the facade by Riedel also shows round-arched windows on the upper level with splayed reveals that are continued into the arches,28 which 1 74

REGINE HESS

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHOICE OF STYLE FOR THE KUNSTVEREIN BUILDING

per’s Festspielhaus would have been built in the immediate vicinity of the Kunstverein and would have been flanked on the south side by Klenze’s Festival Hall Building of the Residence. The site belonged to the Crown and according to the plans of Ludwig I and Klenze, the barracks was due for demolition (which did not occur).33 It is conceivable that ever since Semper’s first inspection of the site in December 1864, the project in the Hofgarten had been regularly discussed, which might have led to the design of the Kunstverein’s being harmonized with the Festspielhaus. In 1867 Semper still spoke in favor of the Hofgarten as the site for his building.34 In this case Ludwig II would have conceived a large-scale plan for the Residence, which—alongside the monumental Festspielhaus—would also have included the modest building of the Munich Kunstverein. It seems possible that this was why Riedel in his design referred to the Bavarian Baroque with a classic Roman stamp, conveyed through France, in order to place a small but dignified art building35 alongside the Festspielhaus, the “magnificent building of the future”— to quote Ludwig II.36

The Kunstverein building was a first building for Ludwig II and for Riedel in his position as Court Building Director, and one which, additionally, stood at a very prominent position. The gallery building shows that in the royal capital the king no longer wished to build in the Maximilian style—although in 1865 Ludwig allowed Riedel to add a neo-Gothic tower to Berg Castle, but this building had been erected in this style by Klenze under Maximilian.31 A look at Gottfried Semper’s project for a Richard Wagner Festival Theater gives a more informative answer to the question about the choice of style.32 Two sites on the elevated banks of the Isar were suggested for the theater, which, based on Roman models, was to be adorned with colonnades—one of these sites stood on the extended axis of Galeriestraße. But from 1866 onward, there were plans for an alternative version at the eastern end of the Hofgarten, replacing the barracks. Thus, Sem-

1

2 3 4

5

6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13

Eduard von Riedel to the State Ministry of Finance, 28 October 1865, Bavarian State Archives (BayHStA), Akten des königlichen Staats-Ministeriums der Finanzen betreff Kunstvereinsgebäude in München, 1851–1929, MF 68411. Bericht 1866, n.p. [II]. Ibid. No details about this are to be found in records of the Court Secretariat or in the cabinet records of King Ludwig II in the Geheimes Hausarchiv, Munich. On the history of the Munich Kunstverein and for a description of the building, see Langenstein 1983, 190–93. See Bericht 1868, n.p. [II]. Kreisel 1965, 69–88, especially 71–72. See Bericht 1888, n.p. [II]. See Striedinger 1900, 6–7. The records of the Künstlergenossenschaft in Munich Municipal Archive also include the contract with the Kunstverein about the granting of the Hofgarten site (DE-1992-KULA-0146). I am grateful to Katrin Bäumler for providing this information. See Striedinger 1900, 10–14. See Langenstein 1983, 73–74, 103–4. See Bericht 1866, n.p. [II]. This letter is accompanied by two plans that show a two-story building with a fivebay, round-arched arcade at the short end; Bavarian State Archives (BayHStA), Akten des königlichen Staats-Ministeriums der Finanzen betreff Kunstvereinsgebäude in München, 1851–1929, MF 68411.

14 Hans Gerhard Evers shows a group photo of Philipp Foltz and his pupils and identifies the painters named as “working for Ludwig II”, without going into any further detail. See Evers 1986, plate 51; see Bericht 1865, n.p. 15 See Evers 1986, 105. 16 See Dunkel 2007, 212–15, 217–20, and 227–28. 17 Ibid., 219–20. 18 See Petzet 1995, 27–28. 19 This conflict about the powers of the Court Building Directorate (Hofbauintendanz) is documented in the correspondence between Ludwig I and Klenze. See Glaser 2004–11. 20 See Bericht 1867, n.p. [III]. For comparison: For the construction of the archducal Kunsthalle in Karlsruhe by Heinrich Hübsch 100,000 Gulden were made available from the civil list; see Landtagsbeschluss 1837. 21 This series of arcades was left standing following the demolition of the war ruins of the Kunstverein around 1951–52 and, in the course of erecting the Bavarian State Chancellery on the site of the former Army Museum (the former barracks), was given a protective transparent roof; see Habel, Hallinger, and Weski 2009, 320–29. 22 See Nerdinger 2000, 307–9. 23 See Habel, Hallinger, and Weski 2009, 323. In Klenze’s Bazaar building, Riedel had designed the Steigerwald’s glass shop and the interior of Café Tambosi. See Dunkel 2007, 214. 24 See Nerdinger 1980, 147–48; and Nerdinger 2000, 493–95. 25 See Habel, Hallinger, and Weski 2009, 325. 26 BSB, Cod. Icon 207 k, 3, 209/210.

175

27 Dimensions calculated on the basis of the scaled plans in the Municipal Archive, DE-LBK-1992-03068. 28 BSB, Cod. Icon 207 k, 3, 207. 29 See Paula and Weski 1997, 172–95, especially 176. 30 See Holland 1889, 520. See also Harrer 1993, 15. Harrer refers to the biography of Riedel by Hans Moninger; see Moninger n.d. A critical reworking of the biography of Riedel can be found in Dunkel 2007, 227. However, no mention is made there of Riedel working at Schloss Schleißheim. 31 See Nerdinger 2000, 483. For Riedel, the erection of the Festspielhaus and Semper’s success might well have reduced his area of responsibility, as Semper also negotiated for a position as director of all buildings in Munich; see ibid., 420. 32 See Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, 409–22. 33 See Nerdinger 2000, 493–95. 34 See Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, 420. 35 Unfortunately this did not happen. Instead Emil von Lange improved the lighting in the Kunstverein (Plan in Munich Municipal Archive, DE-1992-LBK-03068) in 1877 by making two roof lights to the right and left of the roof story. The building was extended in 1890 by Friedrich von Thiersch, who added five bays and a glass roof (plans including colored interiors in the Architecture Museum of the TU Munich, thie_f-23). The extensions planned by Theodor Fischer in 1928 were not carried out (ibid., fis_t-146). 36 Ludwig II to Richard Wagner, 13 September 1865, see Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, 420, note 18.

Munich, remaining hofgarten arcade in front of former Kunstverein

BUILDING TYPES

I

Urban Planning

[1] Plan of Munich, historical-synoptic map showing the buildings from 1850 (in black) and 1890 (in red), LUDWIG WENNG, 1890

REDUCTION OF THE MONARCH’S INFLUENCE ON URBAN DESIGN

the eastern side of the Hofgarten, was to be connected to the city by a boulevard starting at the Hofgarten and by a magnificent bridge over the Isar. Although the project failed due to objections raised by the ministry, the municipal administration, and the populace, only a few years after the king’s death the concept was taken up again in the form of the Prinzregentenstraße: a grand avenue, also leading eastward—but shifted somewhat to the north—with a bridge over the Isar and, as point de vue, a theater on the elevated bank of the river, the interior design of which made clear references to the Festspielhaus project.1

W

hen compared to the extensive building activities of both his father and grandfather, it becomes apparent that Ludwig II’s opportunities to implement his ideas on urban planning were extremely restricted, due for the most part to a very different political, legal, and social situation. A prominent example of this is the Richard Wagner Festival Theater, which Ludwig conceived for Munich shortly after he acceded to the throne and for which Gottfried Semper provided the plans. The opera house, for which a number of different locations were proposed on the eastern banks of the River Isar or on

As the historical-synoptic map by Ludwig Wenng that chart the Munich city area in the years 1850 and 1890 clearly shows [1], during this period the capital 180

city grew dramatically from a population of around 96,000 to 349,000. Despite the increasing restriction of royal influence, Ludwig II actively participated in the urban development of Munich, in particular through the carefully considered positioning of important buildings such as, for example, the Polytechnic, the Academy of Fine Arts, the Kunstverein, the Künstlerhaus, or the synagogue. This subsequently led to the development of the streets and squares around these buildings.

urban expansion competition set up by the city in 1892 and in a phased building plan by Theodor Fischer from 1904. This plan, in which the city was to become gradually lower in height and less densely developed toward the periphery, included irregular, picturesquely curved streets and squares; it still shapes the appearance of the city of Munich today. At the same time, a change from “geometric” to “romantic” city planning took place, which was marked by a change also in perception of the spatial dimension. This new way of looking at things emerged already under Ludwig II with the increase in perspective depictions of buildings.2 One example is the bird’s-eye view of Max von Heckel’s project from 1883 for the redesign of Königsplatz as a great museum forum, which was never implemented [2].3

THE IMPACT OF THE EMANCIPATION OF THE BOURGEOISIE AND COMMUNAL SELF-ADMINISTRATION ON URBAN PLANNING

GÄRTNERPLATZ AND OSTBAHNHOF QUARTERS: TWO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ERECTED USING THE CLOSED BUILDING SYSTEM

Of decisive importance for urban design in the Kingdom of Bavaria was the change from planning decided upon by the monarch to planning by the municipality, a situation recognized by Ludwig II in 1869 with the revision of the Municipal Edict of 1818. This marked a caesura in urbanism in Munich: whereas under royal directives this kind of design had been restricted to individual streets, a start was now made with the development, in stages, of a general plan for the city as a whole. The demands that emerged in the 1870s in this regard resulted in an

Under Ludwig II the geometric approach to town planning initially remained dominant. The Gärtnerplatz quarter and the area around the Ostbahnhof are two examples that today still shape the appearance of the city. Planned from 1860 onward, the Gärtnerplatz

[2] Munich, project for the redesign of Königsplatz, MAX VON HECKEL, 1883

181

[3] Munich, planned streets and building lines around the former Haidhausen railway station, ca. 1875

The Ostbahnhof district in Haidhausen [3] was developed within the context of project for the Ostbahnhof (East Train Station) and the railway line to Rosenheim laid by the Ostbahngesellschaft from 1868. The municipal building office commissioned Arnold Zenetti to draw up an urban expansion plan for this area. In this plan, the area in front of the station, which was owned by Karl von Eichthal, was developed as a district of uniform apartment buildings. It is based on a symmetrical system of three radiating lines that start from the train station. Inscribed in a rectangular grid it creates differently shaped public squares at the street junctions. Originally planned to consist of continuous, fourto five-story apartment buildings, this development was carried out only in part.5

quarter was, after the Maxvorstadt erected under Max I. Joseph, the second planned area of apartment buildings in Munich. Gärtnerplatz is conceived as a circular open space from which streets radiate like the points of a star—a design that still refers back to neoclassical concepts. In contrast the fact that this urban expansion project resulted from a private initiative represented something new: the Eichthal banking family wanted to divide the unused land they owned into lots and sell these off profitably. Continuous development around the edges of the lots consisting of four-story apartment buildings promised to bring good returns. To make the district more attractive from 1864 an Aktienvolks­ theater (privately owned theater) was erected on Gärtnerplatz, which was acquired by Ludwig II after it declared bankruptcy in 1867.4 18 2

I URBAN PLANNING

THE THERESIENWIESEN QUARTER: AN EARLY EXAMPLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BASED ON THE PAVILION SYSTEM

until its completion in 1905. Alongside the large gardens, the pavilion-like arrangement of the building masses and the relaxed, picturesque grouping are characteristic elements.6

At the same time, the open building system based on detached, freestanding houses also became established. The first residential district in Munich to be built according to the pavilion system was the Wiesenviertel [4]. A conflict of interest between the city, site owners, and the police department arose that lasted years; various plans were drawn up by Carl von Effner, Georg von Hauberrisser, and Arnold Zenetti, before a design by August von Voit was carried out from 1882 on. Taking into account the municipal administration’s requirement that the Theresienwiese should be preserved for sanitary reasons, it was declared that in the western part, an area of around 150 Tagwerk (1 Tagwerk = 40,000 square feet) was to be kept free of building, while on the eastern part of the site, a villa district was built in accordance with strict building regulations that remained in force

RING ROAD SYSTEMS AND PROJECTS FOR AUGSBURG, WÜRZBURG, AND NUREMBERG A special aspect of this period is a series of ring roads, based on the Viennese model, which are related to the demolition of the fortifications undertaken in many cities during the last third of the nineteenth century: in Augsburg in 1864 the removal of the city’s fortified character led to a new era in urban planning. To replace the demolished fortification ring, Ludwig Leybold, who was appointed city planner by Ludwig II in 1866, envisaged a ring road around the old town which was, however, carried out only in part. In the context of a generous urban expansion project in the west, around the newly laid-out railway station in the area of the present-day

[4] Munich, preliminary project for the development of the Wiesenviertel, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1879

18 3

I URBAN PLANNING

[5] Würzburg, Ringpark, JENS PERSON LINDAHL and HEINRICH SIESMAYER, 1878–96

south, for example, by the new university or in the north by the railway station.7

Fuggerstraße, Volkhartstraße, and Schaezlerstraße, an elegant ensemble with residential buildings in both closed and open systems was created, with the ends of the streets accentuated by freestanding public buildings such as the municipal theater or the courthouse.

For Nuremberg the important industrialist Lothar von Faber proposed a project—never realized in its planned form—for a ring road around the old town and commissioned architect Adolf Gnauth to develop the design. Faber published his idea together with perspectives of individual streets in the document Die Zukunft Nürnbergs (Nuremberg’s future). Here, once again, parks were to alternate with public buildings and, alongside the railway station, great importance was given above all to the Bavarian Trade Museum (Gewerbemuseum), an institution founded by Ludwig II of which Gnauth was the director.8

Inspired by the Ringstraße in Vienna, the city of Würzburg undertook the redesign of the former glacis as a ring of parks in 1878 [5]. The Swedish landscape gardener Jens Person Lindahl was commissioned to provide a concept for this green belt, which was completed by 1896 and which, from the west, forms a semicircle around the old town that had been freed from its fortifications. Like Vienna’s Ringstraße, this park, designed in the manner of an English garden, is flanked by freestanding public buildings—in the

1 See Hederer n.d.; Habel 1988b; and Rall, Petzet, and Merta 2005, 15–18. 2 In this regard and on the following, see Fisch 1988, especially 122–24, 132–33, and 165–66;

KB

and Gross and Selig 2004, 67–86, especially 85–86. 3 See Altenbuchner 2001; and Altenbuchner 2006. 4 See Selig 1983, especially 46–73; Gross and Selig 2004, 78–79; and Kruse

et. al. 2009, 60. 5 See Selig 1983, 74–87; and Kruse et. al. 2009, 59–60. 6 See Selig 1983, 88–97. 7 See Bartholomäus 1990; and Heid and Raftopoulo

18 4

1996, especially 9–20. 8 My thanks are due to Edith Luther, Archiv FaberCastell, for kindly providing this information and for the opportunity to view the archive material.

URBAN PLANNING PROJECTS – Munich, project for a boulevard leading to the Richard Wagner Festival Theater, Gottfried Semper, 1865–67 – Munich, project for the extension of Königsplatz, Max von Heckel, 1883 CLOSED OR CONTINUOUS BUILDING SYSTEM – Munich, Gärtnerplatz quarter, Arnold Zenetti, from 1860 – Munich, Ostbahnhof quarter, Arnold Zenetti, from 1870

OPEN OR FREESTANDING BUILDING SYSTEM – Munich, Wiesenviertel, August von Voit the Younger, 1882–1905 – Munich, project “Villenkolonie Neuwittelsbach,” August Thiersch, ca. 1880 RING ROAD SYSTEMS AND PROJECTS – Augsburg, ring road around the old town (implemented in part), Ludwig Leybold, from 1860 – Nuremberg, project for a ring road around the old town, Lothar von Faber and Adolf Gnauth, 1879 – Würzburg, park ring, Heinrich Siesmayer and Jens Person Lindahl, 1878–96

Munich, Weißenburger Platz, Ostbahnhof quarter, ARNOLD ZENETTI, from 1870

Munich, Weißenburger Platz, Ostbahnhof quarter, ARNOLD ZENETTI, from 1870

Munich, view of Thierschstraße with Maxmonument and Mariannenplatz with Saint Lukas Church, from 1875

Munich, Gärtnerplatz with former Königliches Volkstheater, ARNOLD ZENETTI, from 1860

II

Transportation

[1] Munich, Main Railway Station, new train shed, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1876–84 (photo: M. GEMOSER, 1880)

I

for industrial development. Great importance was also attached to the railway from a strategic viewpoint, in particular as regards the mobilization of troops. Characteristic of the rule of Ludwig II is the substantial increase in the density of railway lines, the development of an overall rail network plan, and the amalgamation

n the area of transport in the second half of the nineteenth century the railway, the most rapid form of transportation at that time, was a principal focus of interest. Apart from bringing people from one place to another, it also offered new ways of moving goods and consequently created opportunities 19 2

of numerous private railways to form the Bavarian State Railway. A prominent example of this process is the nationalization of the chartered Bavarian Eastern Railways in 1875.

In big cities stations were generally erected on the urban periphery. Their separation in functional terms into the station building and the train shed also expresses the differentiation between the disciplines of architecture and civil engineers: the station buildings were designed by architects as traditional massive structures and are generally—like a kind of city gateway—oriented toward the urban center and at times given an almost sacred character by the use of ornament and the basilica type. Behind this representative city facade (and facing away from the city) the train sheds were large engineering structures made of glass and iron without cladding.2

RAILWAY BUILDINGS Although most of the work on the railways that was carried out under Ludwig II focused on expanding the railway network—in 1883 the Bavarian State Railway amounted to 4,300 kilometers of railway lines—in terms of architecture it is the railway stations and their buildings and train sheds that stand out. Characteristic of this building commission, which was still new at the time of Ludwig II, is the development of different railway station types and categories which reflected their specific locations and functions. Provincial railway stations built from a rational viewpoint and to standardized plans contrast with large “cathedrals of transportation,” which clearly reveal loftier architectural aspirations. The latter are also an example of the leveling of the hierarchies between different types of building commissions that emerged at the high point of historicism and that led architects when planning functional structures to employ design elements previously reserved for representative buildings.1

An example of this is the former Central Railway Station in Munich, a terminus, which was erected between 1847 and 1849 by Friedrich Bürklein. It consisted of a wide station building in the Rundbogenstil, with a gabled front building, a portico, and pavilions at the sides, reminiscent of the nearby basilica of Saint Boniface, and a barrel-vaulted, timber-built train shed. As early as 1857–64 Bürklein extended the station building by adding symmetrical side wings to the main front. The amalgamation of various private railway lines to form the Bavarian State Railway and the changeover to double track lines made further adaptations necessary. The extension designed by Jakob Graff in a neo-Renaissance

[2] Ludwigshafen, design for the administration building of the Pfalz Railways, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, ca. 1870

193

[3] Details of standardized buildings for the Bavarian Eastern Railways (from undated folio volume containing 59 plans)

style and erected in three stages between 1876 and 1884 envisaged retaining the front designed by Bürklein. The new terminus was placed behind this front and had three entrance halls that were connected by a transverse passageway. A King’s Pavilion erected at the south wing contained several salons and was reserved for use by the royal court. The four-aisle train shed designed by Heinrich Gottfried Gerber and constructed of iron and glass was regarded as an outstanding feat of engineering know-

how. It was the largest hall of its kind in Europe at the time it was built; it included sixteen tracks and was the same size as the present-day train shed [1].3 The main railway station in Würzburg, erected from 1863 to 1869 to plans by Friedrich Bürklein and demolished in 1960, was equally representative. The elongated station building was articulated by two taller pavilions and a central row of arcades. This through station replaced a terminus that had been erected just 19 4

II TRANSPORTATION

protective roof above the platforms, which in Rosenheim were connected for the first time by an underground tunnel.6 A particular feature of this epoch are the waiting rooms designed especially for the court such as the Princes’ Room in Bad Kissingen or the King’s Hall in Hof.

a few years earlier, between 1853 and 1856, within the town’s ring of fortifications—an elegant complex with a tripartite transverse station building and a fourtrack train shed, remarkable for its technically innovative iron structure designed by Friedrich August von Pauli and the frescoes on the east wall. The architect was Gottfried von Neureuther, who—before he was commissioned to design important university buildings by Ludwig II—worked above all in the field of railway station design. Neureuther’s Würzburg station building represents the first use of a neo-Renaissance stylistic vocabulary for a functional building.4

BRIDGES The construction of bridges for the railways, carriages, and pedestrians is among the most outstanding achievements in the field of engineering under Ludwig II. The considerable developments in the field of bridge building were a response to the new demands made by the railway in terms of span, stability, and ability to handle vibrations, as well as by the use of the new materials like iron and concrete.7 Most of the bridges constructed under Ludwig II were the work of engineer Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, who from 1858 headed the bridge building department of the Nuremberg machine factory Klett & Company and one year later founded the MAN-Werk Gustavsburg. In 1866 he was granted a patent for what is known as the Gerber beam, a system of girders with exposed bearing points, a structural principle first used in 1867 for the Haßfurt road bridge, which was subsequently adopted for use in many bridges with large spans. The bridges erected in Munich between 1867 and 1870 to his designs include the twin-track railway bridge for the Munich-Rosenheim-Braunau line, in which single-span girders on stone piers crossed the River Isar, and the former

Around 1870, Neureuther designed the building (no longer in existence) for the management of the Palatinate Railway in the rapidly developing industrial town of Ludwigshafen [2]. The facade of this monumental neo-Renaissance building on the station forecourt was articulated by projecting pavilions and decorated with larger-than-life figures in niches and sgraffito and offers a characteristic example of how the railway was ennobled during this period.5 The extensive development of the Bavarian rail network also required the construction of hundreds of stations in various small towns and provincial locations, which led to the formulation of specific types for the stations and the other functional railway buildings on a very new scale [3]. At important transportation hubs, however, individual solutions were still used, for instance for the stations in Bad Kissingen, Hof, or Rosenheim. The new aspects here included a

[4] Munich, road bridge across Isar to Bogenhausen, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1875–76 (watercolor: ANONYMOUS, 1876)

195

II TRANSPORTATION

[5] Passau, road bridge across Danube, HEINRICH GOTTFRIED GERBER, 1869–70 (photo: THEODOR LIST, 1869)

ects: from 1878 onward in the construction work on Herrenchiemsee Palace, materials were transported by a steam-operated railway used for this function alone, for which a narrow-gauge track was built especially on the Herreninsel;9 the winter garden which Ludwig II had built from 1867 to 1871 on top of the Residence in Munich was roofed by a nine-meter-tall barrel vault—similar to train shed roofs from this time—made by the Nuremberg machine factory Klett & Company as a self-supporting glass-and-iron structure. The king also had the Marienbrücke, which is visible from the Neuschwanstein Castle, erected by Heinrich Gottfried Gerber in 1866 to span the Pöllat Gorge, using a delicate and innovative iron construction.

Bogenhausen road bridge, built in 1875–76, for which a competition for an articulated girder construction was set [4]. Considerably more representative in character was the Wittelsbach Bridge, also no longer in existence, which was erected from 1874 to 1876 and had richly decorated cast-iron portals designed by August von Voit. Gerber also used the structural system developed by Friedrich August von Pauli with lenticular fish-belly girders, which have a slender structure and use little material. One example is the Max Bridge erected over the Danube in Passau in 1869–70 [5].8 From 1868 to 1870 Ludwig not only had the salon carriage of his father’s court train redesigned in the style of Louis XIV, he also used technical innovations in the area of transportation for his private building proj-

1 See Knauß 1983, 151ff.; Hetzer and Tröger 2001, especially 13–16 and 97– 101; and Kahle 2001, 358. 2 See Knauß 1983, 92–99; and Hetzer and Tröger 2001, 162. 3 See Knauß 1983, 95–97 and 173–74; Krings 1985, especially 182–87; Lisson

KB

1991, 39–46; Toussaint 1991, especially 37–76; Hetzer and Tröger 2001, 174–75; Kahle 2001, 361; and Klar 2002, 242–49.  4 See Knauß 1983, 97–98; Hetzer and Tröger 2001, 167–69 and 231; Kahle 2001, 358–59; and Klar 2002, 254–58.

5 See Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 94–100; and Hufnagl 1979, 76–83. 6 See Knauß 1983, 92–93 and 174; and Hetzer and Tröger 2001, 226–31.  7 See Evers 1974, 249. 8 See Lucks 1976, 330–61; Knauß 1983, 109–11; Sembach and Hütsch

19 6

1990, especially plates 61–64, 66, 71–74, and 102–103; and Rädlinger 2008, especially 110–15. 9 Illustrated in a woodcut by J. Wopfner in Illustrirte Zeitung of 1880, shown in Spangenberg and Wiedenmann 2011, 125.

RAILWAY STATIONS IN LARGE CITIES – Munich, former Main Railway Station (second extension), Jakob Graff and others, 1876–84 – Würzburg, former railway station with station building, Friedrich Bürklein, 1863–69 RAILWAY STATIONS IN SMALL TOWNS OR IN THE PROVINCES – Bad Kissingen, railway station with station building, Friedrich Bürklein, 1871–74 – Hof, railway station with station building, Georg Friedrich Seidel, 1874–80 – Rosenheim, railway station with station building, Jakob Graff, 1873–76 OTHER RAILWAY BUILDINGS – Ludwigshafen, former building for the management of the Palatinate Railway, Gottfried von Neureuther, 1870–73 – Munich, former central workshops of the Bavarian State Railways, 1873–74

RAILWAY BRIDGES – Munich, Braunau railway bridge, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1867–70 – Regen, railway bridge across the River Ohe, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1877 ROAD AND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES – Haßfurt, former road bridge across the River Main, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1867 – Hohenschwangau, Marienbrücke over the Pöllat Gorge, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1866 – Munich, former Wittelsbach Bridge, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber and August von Voit, 1874–76 – Munich, former road bridge across the River Isar to Bogenhausen, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1875–76 – Passau, former Max Bridge across the Danube, Heinrich Gottfried Gerber, 1870

Bad Kissingen, railway station with station building, FRIEDRICH BÜRKLEIN, 1871–74

Bad Kissingen, entrance hall, railway station, FRIEDRICH BÜRKLEIN, 1871–74

Bad Kissingen, regency room in station building at railway station, FRIEDRICH BÜRKLEIN, 1871–74

III

Industry, Trade, and Commerce

[1] Munich, former Pschorr Brewery on Bayerstraße, from 1864 (photo: ANTON SCHIESSl, 1883)

I

n terms of economic development, the years of Ludwig II’s reign are regarded as a kind of “founders’ period” during which the Kingdom of Bavaria experienced a significant growth in industrialization. Nevertheless, due above all to its lack of raw materials and the largely agrarian and handicraft-based economic structure, Bavaria lagged behind other German states—in particular Prussia and Saxony—in terms of industrial development. This “backwardness” was evident mostly in rural areas, whereas in the Bavarian centers of industry such as Munich, Augsburg, Fürth, Nuremberg, the Upper Palatinate, and the Rhineland Palatinate with Ludwigshafen, internationally important advances were made during this period.1

The fact that the level of industrial penetration was lower in Bavaria than in other German states, and that agriculture and handicraft were still dominant in large areas of the country, was not viewed as something necessarily negative by the king–particularly in regards to social questions. In a document dating from 1879 he stated: “I praise Bavaria’s acumen in ensuring that through a favorable mix of gainful activities, through a fortunate relationship of industry to agriculture this land is not nearly so affected by the [social] question.”2 All the same, Ludwig II introduced important measures to promote industry and the economy. Examples of these include the founding of the Polytechnic in Munich in 1868, industry exhibitions held throughout Bavaria, and the introduction in 1882 of the nonhe202

MUNICH: THE RAILWAY AND THE BREWING INDUSTRIES

reditary title Kommerzialrat, which was intended to provide an incentive for exceptional achievements in the world of business and for involvement in social issues and themes.3

In the royal capital many smaller branches of industry flourished, such as Franz Mayer’sche Hofkunstanstalt on Stiglmaierplatz, which made glass windows for the royal palaces, but which also received international orders; or the glove factory Roeckl, which built a factory in 1871 on Isartalstraße in order to exploit water power for tanning leather. Large industrial businesses developed in the fields of the railway and brewing: here an important role was played by Joseph Anton von Maffei, who developed a hammer works in Hirschau that he had acquired in 1838 into Bavaria’s first locomotive factory; by around 1870 it had become the largest works in Munich and met orders from around the world. In 1866 Maffei was confronted with competition in Munich when Georg von Krauss, a former member of his staff, set up a locomotive factory on Marsfeld and was able to acquire the services of Carl von Linde as the first head of construction. This business, too, was successful and delivered its one thousandth locomotive in 1882.5

Thanks to the numerous large-scale and highly ambitious commissions awarded by Ludwig II in connection with the decoration and furnishing of his palaces— most of which went to Bavarian firms—the Bavarian arts industry experienced a boom and began to operate at an international level. Purveyors to the royal court presented their businesses at world expositions in Europe and the USA; they found clients among the aristocracy and the upper-middle class who were keen to have their palaces furnished by the specialists who worked for the Bavarian king.4

IMPORTANT INDUSTRIAL SECTORS AND CENTERS A characteristic of Ludwig II’s time is that industries specializing in particular sectors developed at a number of different locations in Bavaria. The railway and the first power stations to produce electricity provided important prerequisites for development into largescale industries.

The brewing business in Munich, which has roots dating back to the fourteenth century, experienced an important wave of modernization under Ludwig II.

[2] Augsburg, textile district, former factory hall with the spinning mules of the Augsburger Kammgarn-Spinnerei (AKS), from 1870 (photo: ANONYMOUS, 1913)

203

tall buildings in which the various stages of the production process were arranged on different floors on account of the weight of the machinery used, weaving mills were usually accommodated in single-story shed buildings—large halls with a series of sawtooth roofs [2]. One of the earliest examples was erected in 1866–67 for the Augsburger Kammgarn-Spinnerei (AKS) to plans by Karl Albert Gollwitzer. The Zwirnerei und Nähfadenfabrik Göggingen (ZNFG) also commissioned a prominent Augsburg architect, Jean Keller, to plan a major part of its factory buildings—including a steam boiler chimney dating from 1880: the tall chimney stack symbolized the firm’s prosperity [3].7

The sizable increase in demand on the local market— the population of Munich had grown from around 82,000 in 1840 to 230,000 in 1880—required businesses to undertake costly expansion projects. On the one hand, this led to the disappearance of numerous small breweries, but on the other, to the formation of large breweries and their transformation into financially strong joint stock companies. This development was aided by the railway, which provided access to new markets, and by technical innovations such as Carl von Linde’s refrigeration plant, which allowed beer to be brewed throughout the year. Among the important large breweries of this time was the Pschorr Brewery, which between 1864 and 1894 had a steam-operated brewery built to the most modern standards on Bayerstraße [1]. Or the Augustiner Brewery, which built new production facilities (1884–90) on Landsbergerstraße. This complex, most of which has survived to the present day, consists of three large brick buildings with their eaves along the street, which house the brewhouse and the old and new malthouses, as well as two tall chimneys, with further production facilities in the courtyard. The brewing industry boomed in other areas of Bavaria, too, leading to an increased demand for malt and the relevant specialization. For instance the Meußdoerffer malt factory in Kulmbach specialized in the production of this raw material. The new building erected outside the town in 1883, which still exists, gives a very clear impression of a factory building from that time.6

UPPER PALATINATE:  SMELTING INDUSTRY As regards the smelting industry and the production of raw iron—an important product in the industrialization process—the Maxhütte (smelter), founded in the Upper Palatinate in 1853, is of major importance. In the 1870s it experienced a boom due largely to collaboration with the Bavarian Eastern Railway for which the ironworks produced tracks and long sleepers. In 1864–65 three coke smelting furnaces were erected for this purpose near Sulzbach-Rosenberg, followed in 1867 by one of the first steel works in Germany to produce Bessemer cast steel. The iron ore, most of which came from the company’s own mines nearby, was transported by cable railway in gondolas to the furnaces.8

AUGSBURG: TEXTILE INDUSTRY

RHINELAND PALATINATE: CHEMICAL INDUSTRY

In the second half of the nineteenth century the textile district of Augsburg, which lies to the east of the old town, included a series of internationally important textile businesses. Among them were the Mechanische Baumwoll-Spinnerei und Weberei Augsburg (SWA) which was founded as a joint stock company in 1837 and which by 1910 had four production facilities. The Rosenau works from 1887, which has not survived, was an early example of the new type: Here feudal forms of representation were employed in a factory building with references to the palace as a building type, which lent the building a monumental quality. While spinning mills were generally

Bavaria played a leading role in the area of the chemical industry in Germany. One example is the Badische Anilin- & Sodafabric, founded in Ludwigshafen in the Rhineland Palatinate in 1865, which in 1866 already had production facilities abroad and by the end of the century became one of the biggest chemical operations worldwide. The architecture of the factory complex in Ludwigshafen was influenced to a considerable extent by the engineer Paul Eugen Haueisen, who was responsible from 1874 onward for the central planning of the works site. Character204

III INDUSTRY, TRADE, AND COMMERCE

istic was the block structure he developed, in which single-story sheds made of exposed brickwork were interspersed with buildings several stories high, positioned at right angles.9

TRADE AND COMMERCE Alongside factories, during the reign of Ludwig II a variety of buildings related to trade in agricultural products were also erected. In Munich—partly for reasons of hygiene—it was urgently necessary to amalgamate around 800 slaughterhouses to form a central abattoir and stockyard, which was realized between 1876 and 1878 by Arnold Zenetti outside the city, but with a rail connection [4]. The large symmetrical complex of brick buildings surrounded a central market hall that was flanked on either side by three abattoir buildings placed one beside the other; the animal pens were to the south. The tripe works was given special architectural emphasis: octagonal in plan, it included a machine house and a steam boiler.10 In the course of the nineteenth century the Victuals Market in Munich, which had been in existence since 1807, grew constantly and from 1870 was given fixed stands. To serve residents of the western Maxvorstadt from 1879 there was a further, initially provisional Victuals Market at the corner of Dachauer Straße and Augustenstraße. In 1886–87 fixed sales stands were built; the row of vegetable stands was framed on one side by a pavilion-like kiosk and on the other by a butcher’s stall.11 In Augsburg a central Schrannenhalle (market hall) was erected in 1871–72 to designs by Ludwig Leybold, near the main railway station. This sales building on a rectangular floor plan had a sawtooth roof construction with clerestory windows, carried on cast-iron columns. The large areas of glazing on the long sides of the building could be opened as required. Each of narrow ends was closed by a solidly built transverse block, which housed offices and ancillary spaces and was articulated by means of side pavilions and a central projection with a representative entrance.12

[3] Augsburg, textile district, details of a steam chimney in the Zwirnerei und Nähfadenfabrik Göggingen (ZNFG), JEAN KELLER, 1880

KB

205

III INDUSTRY, TRADE, AND COMMERCE

[4] Munich, abattoir and stockyard, ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1876–78 (from: Das Buch für Alle, no. 9, 1882)

1 On the development of industry in the Kingdom of Bavaria in comparison to other German states see Kramer 2011, 91–95. See also Krauss 2011; Schuster-Fox 2011; and Winkler 2011. 2 Ludwig II to the Swiss lawyer and hotel owner Dr. Friedrich Schreiber, 15 January 1879, quoted in Rumschöttel 2011a, 44–45. 3 See Krauss 2011, 100. 4 Ibid.

5 See Bott 1985, 52 and 355; Gross and Selig 2004, 70–71; Kraus 2006, 68– 70; and Kramer 2011, 94. 6 See Sailer 1929, 72–77 and 82–87; Knauß 1983, 161–62; Gross and Selig 2004, 74; Kraus 2006, 60–65; and Meußdoerffer 2006, 281–82. 7 See in this regard and for the following: Knauß 1983, 158–61; Ruckdeschel 1984, especially 112–14; Debold-Kritter 1991;

Burgner 2004, 28; Ruckdeschel 2004, especially 88–90; and Loibl 2006. 8 See S. E. Fromm, Die Maxhütte: Deren Entste­ hen, deren Entwicklung und jetzige Lage (Munich, 1881), reprinted in Nichelmann 1965, 155–65. See also Knipping and Höhmann 2001; Kraus 2006, 211–15; and Braun 2007. 9 See Krätz 1985, 207. My thanks are due to Dr. Isabella Blank, BASF

206

Corporate History, for kindly drawing attention to the company architect Haueisen and for the opportunity to inspect visual and plan material. 10 See Zenetti 1880; and Knauß 1983, 164–65. 11 See Kruse et. al. 2009, 174–75. 12 See Leybold 1875; Arnold 1979, 103; and Knauß 1983, 186.

FACTORIES – Augsburg, former Göggingen spinning works and sewing thread factory (ZNFG), main factory building, Jean Keller, 1861 and 1880; steam boiler chimney, Jean Keller, 1880; and turbine house, Carl del Bondio, 1881 – Augsburg, former Augsburg worsted yarn spinning mills (AKS), shed halls, Karl Albert Gollwitzer, 1867 – Augsburg, former Mechanical Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills (SWA), works II Rosenau, 1887 – Kulmbach, Meußdoerffer’sche Malzfabrik (today Ireks GmbH), 1883 – Ludwigshafen, Badische Anilin- & Sodafabrik, Paul Eugen Haueisen, from 1864 – Munich, former Pschorr Brewery, from 1864 – Munich, Augustiner Brewery, Xaver Renner, 1885–90

BUILDINGS FOR TRADE AND COMMERCE – Augsburg, former Schrannenhalle, Ludwig Leybold, 1871–72 – Munich, abattoir and stockyard, Arnold Zenetti, 1876–78 – Munich, project for sales stands for the Victuals Market (Viktualienmarkt) in the Maxvorstadt, 1886

Kulmbach, Meußdoerffer’sche Malzfabrik (today Ireks GmbH), 1883

Munich, Augustiner Brewery, XAVER RENNER, from 1883

Munich, abattoir and stockyard, ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1876–78

IV

Health, Hygiene, and Social Welfare

[1] Munich, Rechts der Isar Hospital, Pavilion II, ARNOLD ZENETTI, ca. 1870

A

tion by recent research. For example, Ludwig II promulgated social legislation at the end of the 1860s, many years before Prussia did so. This bundle of laws also led to substantial reforms of public care for the poor and the sick as well as favoring the institutionalization of these areas.1

lthough the impoverishment of the population associated with industrialization did not lead to such an extreme phenomenon of pauperization in Bavaria as in other European countries, social issues were among the main political problems during the reign of Ludwig II. The oft-mentioned paucity of interest shown by the king in these topics has, however, been put into propor2 14

HOSPITALS

The growing population and the reorganization of the hospital into departments (internal medicine and surgery) in 1866 made sizable additions necessary. They were designed by Zenetti between 1868 and 1870 as six three-story pavilions with a capacity of a hundred beds each, laid out in two rows and connected by corridors; in the middle there were to be two transverse, single-story wings for the offices and the isolation ward. Pavilion IIa in the southwest (now 502 Central) was the first to be completed. However, the buildings constructed to the north of it during the 1870s deviated from Zenetti’s plans to some extent.4

These political and social measures combined with new discoveries in medicine and hygiene promoted the construction of hospitals. This came to be considered equally important as other building tasks for which civic or religious authorities were responsible, such as town halls or churches. The result was a number of new hospital buildings or extensions in the royal capital. In addition to the Garrison Hospital by Arnold Zenetti, built for the army on the Oberwiesenfeld2 (1868–70), the existing public hospitals (Rechts der Isar Hospital and the General Hospital) were extended on a large scale. The new model was the pavilion system, which had already proved its worth in England and France. During the 1870s, it prevailed in Germany, supplanting the multistory, corridor type, which had been standard up to then. It not only offered advantages in terms of hygiene, but was also in step with the architectural differentiation of specialized clinics, which was beginning at that time.3

The then emerging trend toward the differentiation and establishment of specialist clinics is exemplified by the Hauner Children’s Hospital in Munich—assisted by a donation by Ludwig II—and the District Lunatic Asylum for Lower Bavaria, now the Angermühle Clinic in Deggendorf [2]. The Children’s Hospital, designed by August Hartmann and Arnold Zenetti, was built in the immediate vicinity of the General Hospital from 1875 to 1879. The new building consisted of a plain, two-story central block flanked by three-story wings,

The transition from the corridor layout to the pavilion system is evident in the Rechts der Isar Hospital [1].

[2] Deggendorf, former District Lunatic Asylum for Lower Bavaria (today Angermühle Clinic), LEONHARD SCHMIDTNER, 1863–69

2 15

tively high in Munich compared to other European cities, he advocated measures such as building a modern sewer system and improving the drinking water supply, and he sought to convince people that fresh air and physical cleanliness were essential for good health. Pettenkofer’s findings—as well as the capital city’s often bemoaned unhygienic conditions and yet another outbreak of cholera in 1873—contributed significantly to the decision to thoroughly improve its sewerage, which had been begun in the early nineteenth century and existed only in isolated sections without an overall system. In 1875 the British engineer James Gordon was commissioned to develop a uniform system of gravity sewers with watertight pipes; in the first phase of construction, from 1880 to 1885, a total of 26 kilometers of pipes were installed along 63 streets in accordance with his plan [3].7

with the special-purpose rooms on the ground floor and the wards on the upper floors. It represented a fundamental improvement in pediatric care in the city.5 The opening of the new building for the psychiatric clinic in Deggendorf in 1869 brought an end to a reprehensible practice that had continued for decades, by incorporating aspects of the no-restraint system devised in England in 1839, which had substantially renounced physical coercion.6 Built outside the city, the large complex was designed as a strictly symmetrical quadrangle with orthogonally attached wings; the central axis is accentuated with an imposing administration building on the south side and the institution’s church behind it. Both the grid-like floor plan and the composition of the fair-faced brick facade in the neo-Romanesque style display references to the outstanding Ospedale Maggiore designed by Filarete in Milan, which dates from the mid-fifteenth century.

BUILDINGS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE

The field of health, hygiene, and social welfare was decisively influenced by the work of Max von Pettenkofer, who founded the world’s first Institute of Hygiene in Munich in 1879. It was accommodated in a new building in Findlingstraße. To reduce mortality rates, which were rela-

Pettenkofer also pointed to social welfare obligations, in particular with regard to reducing infant mortality, which was comparatively high in Munich.8 This probably also played a role in the alterations—

[3] Munich, sewage system with visitor accessat Akademiestraße, ca. 1884

2 16

IV HEALTH, HYGIENE, AND SOCIAL WELFARE

[4] Bad Kissingen, competition design for a “shareholderowned bathing establishment,” ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1867

capacity made it possible to admit boys from all over Bavaria and—from 1884–85—girls, for whom an additional wing was built on the north side.10

under Ludwig II—to the city orphanage on the Findlingstraße, which had been founded in 1819. The work was carried out in 1869 on the basis of plans by Arnold Zenetti; it included the installation of a water supply and ventilation equipment as well as the addition of an agricultural building. A few years earlier, in 1861, the city council had handed over the running of the institution to the Order of English Ladies. In contravention of the city orphanage’s founding charter, it thus became a Catholic institution, which accepted only children who were members of that religious denomination.9

BATHS The new discoveries in medicine and hygiene also manifested themselves in the creation of several public baths. In 1866 a competition for a “shareholder-owned bathing establishment” was held in the town of Kissingen, which had been awarded the status of a spa by Ludwig II in 1883; Arnold Zenetti was one of the entrants. However, his design “in the Romanesque style” [4], according to a written reply of January 1867, “did not receive the acclaim of the jury to the same degree [...] that it had received, by virtue of its fair proportions, [...] from most of the shareholders. Professor Geul’s design was given precedence because it met the design brief in every respect.”11 The spa baths complex, consisting of three single-story wings open to the north, was built in a neo-Renaissance style. One of the largest in Europe, it was completed in 1871. Between 1878 and 1880, a spa hall (now the Luitpold Casino) designed by Heinrich von Hügel was added on the northern side.

The first Jewish orphanage in Germany had been founded in 1763 in Fürth, a city with one of the largest and most important Jewish communities in the German-speaking world. At first, it was reserved for male children from the city. It was to Fürth that Ludwig II traveled in December 1866. Among the places on his itinerary was the seventeenth-century synagogue building, known as the Altschul, which had undergone major alterations in the year before. In the same year, the orphanage foundation there had begun work on a new orphanage building, which was completed in 1868. The three-story neoclassical sandstone-clad building, which also contained a synagogue, was designed by Fürth’s municipal architect Friedrich Friedreich. The increased 217

IV HEALTH, HYGIENE, AND SOCIAL WELFARE

[5] Nuremberg, project for a public baths, award-winning competition entry, OTTO TAFEL, 1875

In 1877 a competition for a modern bathing establishment was also held in Nuremberg. To be situated on Marientorgraben, it was primarily intended to promote the “cleanliness and health [...] of the lower classes.”12 In addition to affordable, comfortable bathtubs, the design brief specified a swimming pool that could be used all the year round—an idea of the

latter is given in the perspective view submitted by Otto Tafel, whose entry was awarded the second prize [5]. The ambitious Nuremberg public baths project was abandoned, however, because of its high cost and technical complexity.

1 See Rumschöttel 2011a, 45–48; and Rumschöttel 2011b. In addition, after the foundation of the German Empire in 1871 and the enactment of Bismarck’s social legislation (which Ludwig supported) in the 1880s, health insurance (1883) and accident insurance (1884) were introduced in Bavaria. 2 For the Garrison Hospital, see the chapter on military buildings in the present

97; and Gradinger 2012. 5 See Zenetti 1883; Murken 1974, 168; Stehr 1982, 18–26; Locher 1996, 55–68; Locher, Reinhardt, and Schweinitz 2008, 1.  6 See Buchmüller 2014, especially 4–5, 32–47, and 66–82. 7 See Pettenkofer 1873, especially 18, 32, 37, and 44; Baureferat Tiefbau 1969, especially 11–21; Locher 2008, 56–67; Meyer 2016, especially 6–7.

KB

volume, 272–277. See also Bavarian State Archives (BayHStA), KA, MKr 9029; and Lankes 1993, 597–600. 3 See Murken 1974, 160ff.; and Knauß 1983, 123–28 and 220–21. 4 See Architekturmuseum der TUM, oa-149-1. See also Zenetti 1869; Murken 1974, 164; Knauß 1983, 221; Lauter 1984, 39–50; Knechtel and Knobling 2018, 282–83, and 296–

2 18

8 See, for example, Pettenkofer 1873, 35. 9 See Baumann 1999, 18–25. 10 See Paulus 2008; and Blume 2010. 11 Letter to Arnold Zenetti, January 1867. For this and the design submitted by Zenetti, see Munich City Museum, Graphics and Painting Collection, G-VIII-12-48. 12 Quoted from Bauernfeind 2011, 58.

HOSPITALS – Deggendorf, former District Lunatic Asylum for Lower Bavaria (today Angermühle Clinic), Leonhard Schmidtner, 1863–69 – Munich, Rechts der Isar Hospital (extension), Arnold Zenetti, 1868–70 – Munich, Hauner Children’s Hospital, August Hartmann and Arnold Zenetti, 1875–79 – Munich, former Institute of Hygiene, 1879 BUILDINGS FOR SOCIAL WELFARE – Fürth, former Jewish orphanage (today synagogue of the IKG), Friedrich Friedreich, 1866–68 – Munich, former orphanage and foundling home (extension and alterations), Arnold Zenetti, 1869

BUILDINGS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE – Augsburg, waterworks at the Hochablass weir, 1878–79 – Deisenhofen, distribution shaft for the reservoir tanks, 1881–83 – Munich, sewage system, Arnold Zenetti and James Gordon, 1875–85 – Speyer, water tower, Adolf Friedrich Lindemann, 1883 BATHS – Bad Kissingen, Luitpoldbad (“Actien-Bad-Etablissement”), Albert Geul, 1867–71 – Nuremberg, competition for public baths, 1875

Augsburg, waterworks at the Hochablass weir, KARL ALBERT GOLLWITZER, 1878–79

Bad Kissingen, Luitpoldbad (former “Actien-BadEtablissement”), ALBERT GEUL, 1867–71

Bad Kissingen, Luitpoldbad (former “Actien-BadEtablissement”), ALBERT GEUL, 1867–71

Bad Kissingen, Luitpoldbad (former “Actien-BadEtablissement”), staircase, ALBERT GEUL, 1867–71

V

Education and Schooling

[1] Munich, Polytechnic School (elevation and floor plan), GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, ca. 1872

A

in 1868, can be seen as a complementary development of the traditional humanistic secondary schools and universities.2 At the same time it also represented a link to a development that was occurring throughout Europe: the model for the Polytechnic in Munich was provided above all by the École polytechnique founded in Paris in the eighteenth century and by the polytechnics in Vienna (1815), Karlsruhe (1832), Stuttgart (1840), and Zurich (1854).

lready in the first year of his reign Ludwig II issued a royal decree to reform the school system with the aim of improving education in the areas of natural sciences and technology, in order to advance the process of industrialization in the Kingdom of Bavaria.1 The school type known as the Realgymnasium, which was set up with these aims in mind, and in particular the Royal Bavarian Polytechnic School in Munich [1–2], which was opened 226

Building Authority, a strong advocate of the neo-Renaissance style, was commissioned to design this important building.6 He presented his plans in 1866, but Ludwig II refused initially to approve them—not because of the floor plans, style choice, or the start of construction, but rather because of the design for the facade: “I find the facade as designed richer than seems appropriate. Chief architect Neureuther should therefore design a less decorated facade.”7 After revisions to the plans reduced the amount of facade decoration, this building, which marked the arrival of the neo-Renaissance in Munich, was erected. The building’s complex visual program, which was not implemented in its entirety, was based on a combination of allegories of technology, science, and art and corresponded with the Alte Pinakothek opposite.8

The first attempts to establish a polytechnic in Bavaria had already been made under Ludwig I and Maximilian II.3 However, the initial proposals for a polytechnic building—presented by the architects Boullenois (1848), Friedrich Bürklein (1857), and August Voit the Younger (1861)—only indicated a general interest in this idea and remained unimplemented.4 It was only under Ludwig II that these intentions were given institutional form in 1868 with the Polytechnic School (from 1877, it was known as the Technical College; since 1970 it has been known as the Technical University of Munich). The representative building erected for this purpose between 1864 and 1868 (only fragments of which have survived)—an elongated building articulated by projecting bays and recessed ancillary buildings—indicates the great importance that was attached to the new educational facility.5

Ludwig II had yet another representative university building with a supraregional impact erected in Munich: the new building for the Royal Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts, built between 1874 and 1886, also to plans by Gottfried von Neureuther. At that time, the

The choice of architect alone marked a break with what is known as the Maximilian style, propagated by Maximilian II. Gottfried von Neureuther, professor for civil engineering and chief architect of the Supreme

[2] Munich, Polytechnic School (facade, part elevation), GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1864–68

227

U-shaped, three-wing complex with a projecting central pavilion was acclaimed as “the most important monumental building in modern Munich” [3].9 The academy, which had been founded in 1808, made an important contribution to Munich’s reputation, and in the last third of the nineteenth century Munich was regarded as Europe’s most important city for art alongside Paris.10 Nevertheless, the first projects for an academy building were unsuccessful and when plans were revived under Ludwig II in 1873 they were again threatened with failure due to a dispute about a suitable building site.11 In 1874 Ludwig II—with the condition that the design be undertaken by Neureuther—ordered that the academy should be built to the west of the Siegestor (Victory Gate). The overall urban planning concept played an important role in his decision.12

The history of the building clearly shows the shifts in the constellation of power between monarch, government, and citizenry: as a result of an overrun of the budget, in 1880 the Parliament ordered that the construction work be stopped—in opposition to the decision of the king, who had already permitted the continuation of the work; it was only a citizens’ petition warning that “art is moving away from Munich and Bavaria to the detriment of the city and the country,” which ensured that the building could be completed by winter of 1885.13 Contemporary critics assessed Neureuther’s university buildings erected under Ludwig II as “vitalizing,” as representing a break with the “confusions of the Maximilian style” and, in particular, emphasized their

[3] Munich, Academy of Fine Arts, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER (photochrome: PHOTOGLOB ZÜRICH, ca. 1890)

228

V EDUCATION AND SCHOOLING

[4] Munich, Wilhelmsgymnasium (preliminary design, elevation to Maximilianstraße), KARL VON LEIMBACH, 1873

Ludwig Leybold (1872–73); a diocesan seminary for boys in Freising by Matthias Berger (1868–70); the Jewish school in Fürth (1866–69); the royal Gymnasium in Kaiserslautern; and an elementary school on Sendlinger-Tor-Platz in Munich by August von Voit the Younger (1876–77).

successful combination of architectural form and artistic and technical education.14 The new building for the Wilhelmsgymnasium in Munich, erected in 1876–77 to plans by Karl von Leimbach, also indicates a connection of this kind [4]. Ludwig II also supported this building by making a gift of the site on Maximilianstraße, also an exceptional location, to this traditional humanities-based high school.15 The three-story neo-Renaissance building, with an L-shaped floor plan, flanked by corner pavilions, stands opposite the Max II memorial which was unveiled in 1875, one of the most important monuments of this epoch in urban planning terms and located in the immediate proximity of the Maximilianeum, a foundation for gifted students that was conceived under Max II but only achieved its legal form in 1876 under Ludwig II.16

The Realgymnasien established through the school decree of 1864—for instance in Munich, Nuremberg, Regensburg, Schweinfurt, and Würzburg—represented a new development. Augsburg and Speyer were among the few towns in which new buildings were erected especially for this school type [5].17 With its focus on the natural sciences and technology, the Realgymnasium, conceived as the preparatory level for the Polytechnic School, could be seen as a response to technical and industrial changes and to the demands that these made on education. This process was actively shaped by Ludwig II through the school decree of 1864 and the erection of the Munich Polytechnic and a number of Realgymnasien. At the same time, by encouraging institutions that focused on the humanities and the arts—as exemplified for instance by the new buildings for the Academy of Fine Arts or the Wilhelmsgymnasium—he ensured that a balance was achieved.

These examples show that Ludwig II, above all by allocating building sites and by the final assessment of design plans, exerted an influence on the implementation of buildings. In particular, the creation of urban axes and the integration of the new buildings in the existing cityscape were regarded as important. Among the numerous school buildings from this period that can be included in this same category are a girls’ school on the Stadtpflegeranger in Augsburg by

KS 229

V EDUCATION AND SCHOOLING

[5] Speyer, Realgymnasium at Siebertplatz, MAX SIEBERT, 1865–68 (photo: attributed to CONRAD HACKENJOST, ca. 1867)

1 Neue Schul-Ordnung 1864. For the historical background see Osterhammel 2011. 2 Neue Schul-Ordnung 1864, 63. 3 In 1823 the Städtische Polytechnische Schule in Nuremberg was constituted as the first of its kind in Bavaria. In Munich in 1827 the Polytechnische Centralschule was founded, but was dissolved again in 1833 and was attached to Munich University as the Technische Hochschule. See Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 63–68; and Hufnagl 1979, 169–75. 4 See Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 66–67. 5 On the history of founding and erecting the Polytechnic School Munich, see Neureuther 1870; Neureuther 1872; Nerdinger

and Hufnagl 1978, 63–93; and Hufnagl 1979, 169–204. 6 In 1864 Neureuther had already been involved as consultant for the choice of site. He rejected the initially planned use of a maternity hospital (today the Isar-Klinikum) on Sonnenstraße and argued in favor of erecting a new building on the site later chosen between Arcis-, Gabelsberger- and Theresienstraße, with the explanation that “this location […] allowed a building that is free on all sides […], that it is not far from the University and the Royal Court and State Library, [while] all the more important public art collections are in close proximity.” Bericht Polytechnische Schule 1869, 31 (I). 7 Ludwig II, April 26, 1866. Bavarian State Archives

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15

2 30

(BayHStA), Abt. I, MK 19602, April 26, 1866; quoted in Hufnagl 1979, 180. See Neureuther 1872, 25–27; and Hufnagl 1979, 194–98. See also the contribution by Dietrich Erben in the present volume, 146–153. Fritsch 1883, 29 (quotation). On the history of the building see: Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 119–38; and Hufnagl 1979, 205–50. See Büttner 2006. See in this regard Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 120. See Nerdinger 1978, 122; and Hufnagl 1979, 233. See Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 125–126. Fritsch 1883, 29. See Bauer 1877, 24; and Karnapp 2010, 111–13. On the history of the building of the Wilhelmsgymnasium, see

Häfner 1959, 96–109; and Karnapp 2010, 109–24. 16 See Nerdinger 1997, 297–98. 17 On the Königliches Realgymnasium in Augsburg, which was built from 1876 to 1879 on An der Blauen Kappe, probably to plans by Wilhelm von Hagen—only fragments of which have survived—see Arnold 1979, 131–32. On the Realgymnasium in Speyer (no longer in existence) erected in 1865– 68 on Siebertplatz to plans by Max Siebert, in which a high school for girls, a school for business and commerce, and, from 1869 onward, the Historisches Museum der Pfalz were also housed, see Ansprache Realgymnasium 1866; Engels, Engels, and Hopstock 1985, 88– 120; and Ruppert 2017, 170–77.

UNIVERSITY BUILDINGS

SCHOOL BUILDINGS

– Munich, New Polytechnic School, Gottfried von Neureuther, 1864–68

– Augsburg, girls’ school on Stadtpflegeranger, Ludwig Leybold, 1872–73

– Munich, Royal Bavarian Academy of Fine Arts, Gottfried von Neureuther, 1874–86

– Freising, former diocesan seminary for boys (today Diocesan Museum), Matthias Berger, 1868–70 – Fürth, former Jewish school (today Jewish Community Center), 1866–69 – Kaiserslautern, Royal Gymnasium (today Albert-SchweitzerGymnasium), 1876–79 – Munich, elementary school on Sendlinger-Tor-Platz, August von Voit the Younger, 1876–77 – Munich, Wilhelmsgymnasium, Karl von Leimbach, Max Häusler and Carl August Wintergerst, 1873–77 – Speyer, Realgymnasium on Siebertplatz, Max Siebert, 1865–68

Munich, Academy of Fine Arts, GOTTFRIED VON NEUREUTHER, 1874–86

VI

Housing

[1] Munich, former Palais Schack at no. 19 Brienner Straße, HEINRICH HÜGEL and LORENZ GEDON, 1865 and 1872–75 (photo: ANONYM, ca. 1900)

[3] Munich, apartment house at no. 53 Adalbertstraße, JOHANN WIDMANN, 1882–83 (photo: ANONYM, 1910)

O

competed with the way in which the nobility lived in their houses. On the other hand, the flight from the land and the housing shortage that accompanied the industrialization process led to an increase in the number of apartment houses in urban expansion areas. The examples presented here should not obscure the fact that large sectors of the population lived in very simple housing conditions, as the depictions of life in the country by the painter Joseph Watter show.1

f the volume of buildings erected under Ludwig II, house construction made up the major part. It is represented by several very different typologies and can essentially be divided into three categories: palaces, villas, and houses; apartment buildings; and workers’ housing. Two very important tendencies of the time are manifested here: on the one hand, the strivings of the bourgeoisie were reflected by richly fitted and decorated representative buildings that 234

PALACES, VILLAS, AND HOUSES

in Munich to be conceived in the style of the German Late Renaissance it attracted considerable attention. The new features included an asymmetrically designed facade and prominent, sculptural decorative elements, which gave the painterly overall effect called for by the client.2

Munich’s fame as a city of art led to the erection of several villas and palaces for artists, collectors, and patrons under Ludwig II. One important example is the palace of art collector Adolf Friedrich von Schack (no longer in existence), which stood at a prominent location to the west of Königsplatz [1]. In the mid-1850s Schack had bought a small villa at number 19 Brienner Straße, very close to a house that Ludwig II had made available to Richard Wagner in 1864. In 1869, only a few years after the composer had had to leave the city due to public pressure, Schack acquired this villa together with a further house. These two buildings were then combined to form a palace by the young architect Lorenz Gedon. As the first private building

Among the important artist’s houses in Munich from this time are the former studio building which Franz von Seitz, the director of the Court Theater—who also often worked for Ludwig II—erected on Liebigstraße in 1872–73; the dwelling house of the painter Franz von Defregger, which Georg von Hauberrisser built on Königinstraße in 1881–82; and the Grütznerschlößl, still in existence today, which Leonhard Romeis built in 1882–83 for the genre painter Eduard von Grützner at the English Garden, near the Maximilianeum. The

[2] Munich, former Schwarzmann apartment house on Kanalstraße, EMIL LANGE, ca. 1880

2 35

the closed building system, in which the buildings are erected side by side to form a continuous front, was closely related to the new professionalized approach to urban planning that emerged throughout Germany from around 1860. The initiative now no longer came from the monarch but from private investors and an increasingly autonomous municipal administration. By erecting uniform housing blocks, urban districts were created that showed a previously unknown homogeneous quality. A main characteristic of the new building type known as the Mietshaus (apartment building) is the way in which the concept for the interior is, for the most part, detached from the design of facade, which was the main focus of the architectural input. At the same time, numerous illustrated publications appeared that offered models for facade design—including in 1868 the guidelines by Albert Geul for urban dwellings and apartment houses, which also looked at the situation in Munich.6

irregular, angular exterior in the style of the German Renaissance, with bay windows, loggias, and a tower, served to house the artist’s collection, and the size of the living rooms, studio, and reception rooms were dictated by the historical ceilings and paneling for which they were intended.3 Outside Munich, Haus Wahnfried, which Richard Wagner had built in Bayreuth between 1872 and 1874, represented a rather different kind of artist’s house. The facade is accentuated by a striking central projection containing the main entrance with an aedicula surround and above it a sgraffito by Robert Krausse with the title Das Kunstwerk der Zukunft (The artwork of the future), so that the facade combines architectural allusions to Palladio with grisaille painting regarded as essentially German to create a hybrid style.4 There are a number of villas built for industrialists dating from the time of Ludwig II: for Franz Xaver Schwarzmann, a manufacturer of leather goods, Emil von Lange designed a house on Kanalstraße in Munich, which also shows the influence of the German Renaissance [2]. On the grounds of the Faber pencil factory in Stein, a villa was erected for Wilhelm von Faber between 1882 and 1885 to plans by Berlin architect Hermann Krengel: a two-story, neo-Renaissance building with an interior that reflected the highest standards of the time and included a hot-water-operated heating system and electric lighting. The villa that the architect Friedrich Geb built in Bamberg between 1883 and 1885 for the Jewish hops merchant, Carl Dessauer, offered a similar level of comfort.5

In Munich, the royal capital, population growth initially was made up largely of lower- and middle-ranking public servants. This led to a demand for, above all, smaller housing units, which was reflected in the floor plans of the apartment buildings in the residential districts developed at that time on Gärtnerplatz and near the Ostbahnhof. The facades tended to be simple; around 1880 a restrained neo-Renaissance style was dominant. As a rule, the entrance level was structured by rustication, and a gently pitched roof, which was barely visible from the street, rose above a powerful cornice. The fenestration of the three- to four-story buildings was generally regular, and the facades offered a variety of possibilities for design and decoration. Initially, the decoration consisted solely of simple window surrounds; from the 1880s bay windows, balconies, and turrets were used to enliven facades, which could be formulated in either a neo-Baroque or a late Gothic “altdeutsch” (literally: “old German”) style. In addition to facades finished in light-colored render, there were also buildings with exposed brick facades, propagated in particular by Georg von Hauberrisser. A good example is the Haylerhaus Am Kosttor from 1880–81 with its richly articulated exposed brick facade, and a row of houses (only partially preserved) on Adalbertstraße [3]. In Augsburg the urban apartment house was developed above all by Karl Albert Gollwitzer, who in 1882 published a collection of ideas for apartment house facades [4].7

APARTMENT BUILDINGS From the middle of the nineteenth century onward the process of urbanization brought about a fundamental change in the area of housing. The rapid increase in population in German cities—according to the census figures between 1864 and 1890 the population of Munich grew from about 167,000 to 340,000—and the emergence of capitalist land speculation at a larger scale accompanied by an increase in the price of land led to taller buildings and greater building density. The resulting development of apartment buildings according to what is called 2 36

VI HOUSING

[4] Augsburg, Premauer Houses at the corner of Holbeinstraße-/Schaezlerstraße 10 and 12, KARL ALBERT GOLLWITZER, 1870–71 (from: Karl Albert Gollwitzer, Grundrisse & Façaden von Wohnhäusern […] für moderne Stadtanlagen [Augsburg, 1882])

WORKERS’ HOUSING

built for larger factory complexes outside the capital city. Examples include the workers’ housing districts developed in the 1870s in the textile district in Augsburg by Jean Keller for the Göggingen sewing thread factory and the worsted spinning mill, or the BASF colony Hemshof, in Ludwigshafen, built by Paul Eugen

Although between 1872 and 1875 a first model workers’ housing estate for railway workers from the central workshops in Neuhausen was built, most of the workers’ housing estates erected under Ludwig II were 23 7

VI HOUSING

[5] Stein, housing on Altenburger Straße for workers from the Faber pencil factory, 1859 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1900)

Haueisen from 1872. The workers’ housing in Munich Augsburg and Ludwigshafen have in common a strict layout consisting of rows of standardized, two-story houses, for two to four families, surrounded by a garden, and with a separate entrance for each dwelling. The workers’ housing erected around the same time

for the Faber pencil factory in Stein departs from this model: in this case—for example on Altenburger Straße—a large number of dwelling units was accommodated in a single building [5].8

1 See in this regard: Joseph Watter, Reisezeichnungen und Bauaufnahmen, 1864–1910, Architekturmuseum der TUM (AM, wat-1 to wat-4). 2 See Pophanken 1993, especially 119–20, and 127–29; and Gedon 1994, 49–54.

Museum of TU Berlin (inv. nos. 7688–7698). 6 See Geul 1868–74; on Munich, see 1:65–67. See also Merten 1974; Breuer 1982; and Muthesius 2015. 7 See Burgner 2004, especially 78–93. 8 See Horn and Karl 1989, 115, 147. My thanks

KB

3 See Hoh-Slodczyk 1985, 47–58. 4 See Habel 1985, especially 489–615; and Schuth 2016, especially 147–51. 5 See in this regard the plans in the Architecture Museum of the TUM (lange_l-11) and in the Architecture

23 8

are due to Edith Luther, Archive and Collections at Faber-Castell, and to Dr. Isabella Blank, BASF Corporate History, for kindly placing material on the workers’ housing in Stein and Ludwigshafen at my disposal.

PALACES, VILLAS, AND HOUSES – Bamberg, Villa Dessauer, Friedrich Geb, 1883–85 – Bayreuth, Haus Wahnfried, Wilhelm Neumann and Carl Wölfel, 1872–74 – Munich, former Palais Schack, Heinrich Hügel and Lorenz Gedon, 1862 and 1872–75 – Munich, former Seitz residence, Franz von Seitz, 1872–73 – Munich, former Schwarzmann residence, Emil von Lange, around 1880 – Munich, former Defregger residence, Georg von Hauberrisser, 1881–82 – Munich, Grützner House, Leonhard Romeis, 1882–83 – Stein, Villa Wilhelm von Faber, Hermann Krengel, 1882–85

APARTMENT BUILDINGS – Augsburg, apartment houses (Holbeinstraße and Volkhartstraße), Karl Albert Gollwitzer, 1870–71 and 1885 – Munich, apartment house (Buttermelcher-/Reichenbachstraße), 1863 – Munich, apartment house (Heßstraße), Jakob Freundorfer, 1879 – Munich, Haylerhaus (Am Kosttor), Georg von Hauberrisser, 1880–81 – Munich, apartment house (Adalbertstraße), Johann Widmann, 1882–83 – Munich, apartment house (Amalienstraße), Josef Baudrexl, 1885–86 WORKERS’ HOUSING – Augsburg, former workers’ housing estate of ZNFG, Jean Keller, 1873–77 – Augsburg, former workers’ housing estate of AKS, Jean Keller, 1873–81 – Stein, workers’ housing of the Faber Company (Altenburger Straße), 1859–81

Bayreuth, Haus Wahnfried (today Richard Wagner Museum), WILHELM NEUMANN and CARL WÖLFEL, 1872–74

Bamberg, Villa Dessauer, FRIEDRICH GEB, 1883–85

Bamberg, Villa Dessauer, parlor, FRIEDRICH GEB, 1883–85

VII

Culture and Entertainment

[1] Munich, project for a Richard Wagner Festspielhaus, concert room and hall, GOTTFRIED SEMPER, 1867

THE RICHARD WAGNER FESTSPIELHAUS IN MUNICH AND RESULTING PROJECTS

T

per to build a festival theater [1]. Its innovative design ranks as the most important contribution to theater architecture in Bavaria during Ludwig’s reign. Although it was never built, it influenced several subsequent projects, such as the Festspielhaus in Bayreuth and the Prince Regent’s Theater in Munich. Ludwig II knew that a large theater would take a long time to complete, so in 1865 he commissioned Semper to

he passion that Ludwig II felt for opera is well known: in 1864, soon after ascending to the throne, he summoned Richard Wagner to Munich and commissioned Gottfried Sem24 4

design. For example, in order to improve the visual illusion and the focus on the onstage action, the stage space—conceived as a kind of picture box—was to be separated from the audience in the house by a double proscenium arch and a narrower stage opening; the orchestra pit was to be hidden and the auditorium darkened.2

create a temporary theater space—also never built— in the Glaspalast (Glass Palace) in the Old Botanical Garden, in order to try out Wagner’s reform ideas as soon as possible.1 Semper had acquired the necessary experience in 1854, when the Crystal Palace was re-erected in the London borough of Sydenham. He had inserted a neoclassical theater in the barrel-vaulted main gallery of the structure that had, in 1851, housed the first world exhibition.

Between 1872 and 1875, Otto Brückwald built the Festspielhaus for Wagner in Bayreuth, funded by the city, private donations, and a grant from Ludwig II. Contrary to Semper’s ideal of festival theater design, it was deprived of its monumental stone cladding, which was not fitted until later. Inside, however, it adopted Semper’s proposals for Munich, in particular the neoclassical auditorium, the concealed orchestra, and the narrow proscenium opening. Its ceiling was given the appearance of a canopy, evoking the open-air theaters of classical antiquity. This allowed no possibility of hanging a chandelier, so the lights were attached to the side walls, thus extending the apparent depth of the space.3

Like the Maximilianeum on the east bank of the Isar, the Munich Festspielhaus would have been a prominent landmark overlooking the city. In contrast to the concave front of the Maximilianeum, it would have presented a convex facade with a two-story arcade. This semicircular form was the external expression of the auditorium, which was modeled on amphitheaters. Designed in the style of the High Renaissance, the building had two-story staircase wings that would have extended into the surrounding parkland. The interior design represented the first attempt to implement the ideas that Wagner had developed on reforming theater

[2] Augsburg, Stadttheater, FERDINAND FELLNER and HERMANN HELMER, 1876–77 (photo: CARL JOCHNER, 1877)

24 5

round arches, a striking console frieze, a standing figure and acroteria. In contrast, the design for a Volkstheater near the Maxburg Palace, drawn up by Ludwig and Emil Lange in 1864, shows a central block, neoclassical building, extending to occupy the plot between the Maxburg and the Leinfelder Hotel—on which the Künstlerhaus was later built.6

The public debate over the Festspielhaus that had begun during Ludwig’s reign bore fruit after his death in the form of the Prince Regent’s Theater, which was built in 1900–1901. Designed in the Munich variant of Art Nouveau by Max Littmann, it was financed with a private donation from the director of the State Opera, Ernst von Possart. In its location on the east bank of the Isar, its connection to the city center along a magnificent boulevard and its architectural concept—in particular the amphitheater form of the auditorium and the projecting convex front—it exhibits parallels to Semper’s plans for the Festspielhaus.4

The Stadttheater in Augsburg was built in 1876–77 by the architects Fellner & Helmer from Vienna, who were responsible for around 150 theater buildings throughout Europe [2].7 Designs for it by the architects Johann Michael Voit and Ludwig Leybold have also survived. Whereas Voit proposed a neoclassical building similar to Munich’s Nationaltheater, Leybold opted for a central block building in a neo-Renaissance style along the lines of Semper’s first Dresden Hoftheater.8 Fellner & Helmer likewise submitted a design in a neo-Renaissance style, which, like Semper’s Festspielhaus project, separates the audience from the stage space. The narrowness of the plot, situated where Fuggerstraße broadens out, compels the ground plan to exploit the depth, but the theater’s five-bay facade with a two-story arched arcade and rusticated ground floor nonetheless defines the character of the adjacent urban space.

THEATER BUILDINGS IN MUNICH AND AUGSBURG Three other major theaters were built in Bavaria during Ludwig’s reign: the Königliche Volkstheater on Gärtnerplatz by Franz Michael Reiffenstuel senior (1864–65), the Stadttheater (main house) in Augsburg by Ferdinand Fellner and Hermann Gottlieb Helmer (1876–77), and the Kurhaustheater by Jean Keller in Augsburg’s Göggingen district (1885–86). Reiffenstuel’s Volkstheater had been built before Semper produced his design for the Festspielhaus. Ludwig II permitted its construction in 1864 and purchased the theater in 1870 after its owners went bankrupt.5 With its trapezoidal footprint and the concave curve of its entrance portico, it responds to the circular layout of Gärtnerplatz. The narrow building is given a visual presence by its lateral articulation. Its neoclassical aesthetic is emphasized by shallow facade modeling,

Designed in a historicist style by Jean Keller, the Parktheater in Göggingen was part of the Hessing foundation’s spa and therapeutic facilities, serving additionally as a ballroom and a venue for other events. Situated in a park, the circular building with its rusticated ground floor and three-part loggia was partly built of prefabricated components, such as the High Renaissance ornamentation on the exterior and the cast-iron

[3] Kaiserslautern, Pfälzisches Gewerbemuseum, KARL SPATZ, 1875–80

24 6

VII CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENT

[4] Munich, preliminary project for the Künstlerhaus (location Maximiliansplatz), MATTHIAS BERGER, 1882

three-story building of nine axes with a plastered facade, located at the Hofgarten. The construction of the Munich Künstlerhaus on Lenbachplatz owed much to Ludwig II, especially his provision of a plot of land for this specific purpose after the project’s organizers had spent years trying in vain to acquire a suitable site. Its high status is evident from the fact that architects as reputable as Matthias Berger, August Thiersch, August von Voit, and Gabriel von Seidl all vied for the commission. Among the projects planned for various other locations was Berger’s design for Maximiliansplatz, reminiscent of a baroque pleasure palace [4]. The architectural design of the Künstlerhaus, by Gabriel von Seidl, was also essentially settled under Ludwig II. Built from 1896 to 1900, the four-gabled building and its corner pavilions are still a characteristic Munich landmark.10

columns inside. The generous fenestration as well as the large dormer windows show that it was meant to be used both during the daytime and at night.9

MUSEUM AND EXHIBITION BUILDINGS During the reign of Ludwig II, the Kunstverein (Art Association) building by Eduard von Riedel was erected in Munich and the Pfälzische Gewerbemuseum (Palatine Trade Museum) by Karl Spatz in Kaiserslautern. In addition, preparations were made to build the Munich Künstlerhaus (House of Artists). It was also planned to build a museum for plaster casts of sculptures on Königsplatz. A design for the latter was produced by Max von Heckel in 1883, but the project was abandoned.

LEISURE BUILDINGS

The Gewerbemuseum in Kaiserslautern, erected by Karl Spatz between 1875 and 1880, housed a collection of pattern samples, a specialist library and training workshops [3]. This monumental neo-Renaissance building boasted nineteen window axes, a rusticated ground floor, and an upper-floor arcade with paired columns, making it quite the equal of large museum buildings in the nearby ducal capital of Karlsruhe. The exhibition building of the Munich Kunstverein, which no longer exists, was a

The railway age brought a huge increase in tourism, which in turn stimulated the spread of hotels, cafés, and restaurants in Munich, as well as the beer cellars typical of the city. Among the more important examples are the Belle-Vue Hotel on Karlsplatz by Lorenz Gedon and Johann Schraudolph (1867), the Imperial Café (Pini-Haus) by Joseph von Schmaedel (1877), the Deutsches Haus 24 7

VII CULTURE AND ENTERTAINMENT

[5] Munich, Löwenbräukeller on Stiglmaierplatz, ALBERT SCHMIDT, 1882–83 (photo: CARL TEUFEL, 1889)

restaurant in Sophienstraße (1879–80) by Gabriel von Seidl and Rudolf von Seitz, and the Löwenbräukeller on Stiglmaierplatz by Albert Schmidt (1882–83). Their architecture reflects the Munich version of late historicism, which was inspired by the Renaissance buildings of old Bavarian towns. Thus the Deutsches Haus, for example, has a corner oriel of several floors with an onion cupola, as well as a stepped gable and an external mural several stories high. Whereas hospitality buildings

were incorporated in city blocks, beer cellars were complexes made up of different parts that stood by themselves in the city scene. This is illustrated especially well by the Löwenbräukeller, which features a curved outside steps with balustrades, the landmark round tower with a steep conical roof, and an obelisk-topped round-arched arcade [5].

1 See in regard to this and the following: Laudel 2003, 133–37; and Habel 1985. 2 See Altmann et al. 2003, 416. 3 Ibid., 420. See also Habel 1988a; and Jung 2010, 92–95.

7 See Arnold 1979, 115; and Jung 2010, 113. 8 A total of five designs shown in floor plans, elevations and sections are in the keeping of the Architecture Museum of the TUM: AM voit_j-12-1;

RH

4 See Laiblin 2016, especially 64–101. 5 See Cromme 2015, 19ff. 6 A perspective presentation drawing of this can be seen in the Architecture Museum of TUM: AM lange_l-3-1.

24 8

and Augsburg Municipal Archive, Leybold Bequest. See also Arnold 1979, 107–16. 9 See Schatz 1998; and Jung 2010, 104–7. 10 See Striedinger 1900, 6–15.

THEATER BUILDINGS – Augsburg, Stadttheater, Fellner & Helmer, 1876–77 – Augsburg-Göggingen, Kurhaustheater, Jean Keller, 1885–86 – Bayreuth, Festspielhaus, Otto Brückwald, 1872–75 – Munich, project for a Richard Wagner Festival Theater, Gottfried Semper, 1864–67 – Munich, Gärtnerplatz Theater, Franz Michael Reiffenstuel senior, 1864–65 MUSEUM AND EXHIBITION BUILDINGS – Kaiserslautern, Pfälzisches Gewerbemuseum (today Museum Pfalzgalerie), Karl Spatz, 1875–80 – Munich, former Kunstverein building, Eduard von Riedel, 1865–66 – Munich, Künstlerhaus (outline designs), Matthias Berger, Gabriel von Seidl, August Thiersch and August von Voit, 1872 onward

– Munich, Bayerisches Kunstgewerbehaus, Lorenz Gedon, 1877 – Munich, project for a plaster cast museum, Max von Heckel, 1883 LEISURE BUILDINGS AND HOTELS – Munich, former Belle-Vue Hotel, Lorenz Gedon and Johann Schraudolph, 1867 onward – Munich, Imperial Café (today Pini-Haus), Joseph von Schmaedel, 1877 – Munich, Deutsches Haus restaurant, Gabriel von Seidl and Rudolf von Seitz, 1879–80 – Munich, Löwenbräukeller on Stiglmaierplatz, Albert Schmidt, 1882–83

Augsburg, Stadttheater, FERDINAND FELLNER and HERMANN HELMER, 1876–77

Bayreuth, Richard Wagner Festival Theater, OTTO BRÜCKWALD (based on the design by GOTTFRIED SEMPER), 1872–75

Munich, remaining hofgarten arcade in front of former Kunstverein

VIII

Industrial Exhibitions

[1] Paris, Exposition universelle, Moorish Kiosk (acquired for Linderhof Palace by Ludwig II), CARL VON DIEBITSCH, 1867 (photo: PIERRE PETIT und BISSON JEUNE, 1867)

U

exhibition has wonderful things to offer, that is undeniable; it borders on the miraculous, I very much advise my dear friend not to miss it; I spent 6–7 hours continuously in the exhibition without feeling tired, and I looked at it in great detail.”2 The concept of national pavilions was tried out there for the first time, allowing people to experience “walk-through pictures”3 of very different countries just by strolling from one pavilion to another. According to recent research, it also had an influence on the conception of Ludwig’s royal palaces.4 Like the world fairs, the Bavarian industrial exhibitions exemplify the divergent currents of thought during the decades of Ludwig’s reign. On the one hand there was a marked belief in progress, which was evident in the display of the latest technology and inventions, but on the other

nder the aegis of Ludwig II, industrial, trade, and art exhibitions flourished in Bavaria for the first time, starting in the mid-1870s. These major events, held under the patronage of the king and with his financial support, were impressive demonstrations of manufacturing capabilities and of the industrial expansion that had begun in Bavaria around 1860. They were planned by state bodies and by professional associations with the express intention of promoting commercial and industrial development, as well as taking advantage of the increasing internationalization of trade.1 The standard had been set by the world fairs, which Ludwig II followed with great interest. In 1867 he wrote enthusiastically to Cosima Wagner about his visit to the Exposition universelle in Paris [1]: “The 2 56

hand—and equally typical of the time—there was nostalgia for the past, which expressed itself both in a historicist formal vocabulary and in the presentation of architectural features and spaces belonging to earlier ages.

position of metal goods, fabrics, glasses, and even works of art” was now perceived as monotonous, the exhibition aimed to offer a more comprehensive, contextualized presentation of older German art and of emerging artistic trends in the fledgling German Empire.5

ART AND ART INDUSTRY EXHIBITION OF OLD AND NEW GERMAN MASTERS, MUNICH 1876

Whereas the pavilions at the Paris Exposition of 1867 had mostly been assigned country by country, the organizers of the Munich show opted for a chronological structure.6 In the section on “Our Fathers’ Works,” designed by Lorenz Gedon and Rudolf Seitz, visitors were led through a series of rooms that were typical of significant periods in German history and which were fully furnished in each case, be it a kitchen or a sumptuous chamber. The combination of works of high, fine art with arts and crafts exhibits was also especially innovative, with the latter category including both manually and industrially produced goods. These stylishly arranged “cultural pictures” were meant to

The start came in 1876 on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Bavarian Arts and Crafts Association. The Glaspalast (Glass Palace) in Munich was the venue for an “art and art industry exhibition of old and new German masters,” based on a concept devised by Ferdinand von Miller and the exhibition architect, Josef von Schmädel [2]. They abandoned the conventional approach of presenting objects according to their genre. Since the “endless juxta-

[2] Munich, art and art industry exhibition with the section “Works of Our Fathers,” JOSEF VON SCHMÄDEL, LORENZ GEDON, and RUDOLF SEITZ, 1876

2 57

express the “temporal character” of each epoch and to exert a positive influence on the development of taste in general.7

child of Wilhelm von Beetz, professor of physics at the Technical University of Munich, and Oskar von Miller, who later founded the Deutsches Museum; Josef von Schmädel was once again the lead exhibition architect.9 The stimulus came from the Exposition internationale d’électricité, which had been held in 1881 in the Palais de l’Industrie on the Champs-Élysées in Paris. With the aim of popularizing electrical engineering, countless new achievements and applications in this field were illustrated by practical electrotechnical experiments with large-scale apparatus designed to appeal to the public. The dualism of the age is evident in attempts to integrate these with traditional architectural styles and artificial landscapes: before a chapel of medieval appearance by Lorenz Gedon hung an electrically illuminated, mandorla-shaped votive chandelier with a Madonna; a neo-Baroque theater aroused enthusiasm on account of its adjustable lighting system, and over an artificially created rock face poured a waterfall that was driven from Miesbach, a village 57 kilometers away, by a steam-powered dynamo. 10

The trendsetting presentation in spatial ensembles met with considerable interest—and not only from members of the public: Ludwig II also visited the exhibition and purchased many of the exhibits. The “Old German burghers’ lounge” by Gabriel von Seidl, which was furnished in the style of the German Renaissance, attracted a great deal of attention. The exhibition was thus a ground-breaking event for the neo-Renaissance movement, which shaped the appearance of Munich’s architecture up to the end of the nineteenth century.8

INTERNATIONAL ELECTRICITY EXHIBITION, MUNICH 1882 In 1882 the Munich Glaspalast also hosted the first international electricity exhibition to be held in a German-speaking country [3]. It was the brain-

[3] Munich, International Electricity Exhibition at Glaspalast, LORENZ GEDON et al., 1882 (graphic print: E. TOURNOIS, from: La Lumière Électrique, 1882)

2 58

VIII INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITIONS

[4] Nuremberg, Bavarian State, Industrial, Trade and Art Exhibition, Kunsthalle, ADOLF GNAUTH et al., 1882 (photo: J. B. OBERNETTER, 1882)

BAVARIAN STATE INDUSTRIAL, TRADE, AND ART EXHIBITION, NUREMBERG 1882

tracted more than two million visitors and was a great success. The architecture, which owing to its “noble architectural proportions and rich artistic ornaments” seemed to contemporaries “equal to a fairytale castle,” and the park, which was given the character of a landscaped garden with restaurants and cafés, together played an essential part in making laymen, too, enthusiastic about this “great center of adult education.”11 At the same time, the emphasis was clearly placed on the entertainment aspect.12

In parallel to the Electricity Exhibition of 1882, the first Bavarian state exhibition was held in Nuremberg [4] with the aim of providing a broad overview of the development of Bavarian industry, as well as the craft trades and the arts. The elaborate exhibition architecture conceived by the director of the Nuremberg School of Applied Arts, architect Adolf Gnauth, went even further here, in the search for a presentation that would be as close to perfection as possible. An exhibition park was even created especially for the event. It was located on the Maxfeld—the present-day Stadtpark—and boasted some 120,000 square meters of exhibition space. The whole site was lit by electric lamps produced by the Schuckert works, and it was connected to the city by horse-drawn tram. The exhibition halls were ephemeral structures, which no longer exist, and they were characterized by multifarious references to a wide variety of styles. Their extroverted character was not without effect, as the exhibition at-

SWABIAN DISTRICT INDUSTRIAL, TRADE, AND ART HISTORY EXHIBITION, AUGSBURG 1886 The concept behind the Nuremberg exhibition was adopted for the district exhibition of 1886 in Augsburg [5]. This is apparent from the papers left by the lead architect, Ludwig Leybold.13 Here too, an exhibition park was created on the perimeter of the city especially for a temporary event; it was subsequently turned into a public park, the Stadtgarten. As in 2 59

VIII INDUSTRIAL EXHIBITIONS

[5] Augsburg, Swabian District, Industrial, Trade and Art History Exhibition, main building (preliminary design), JEAN KELLER and JULIUS WAHL, 1885

to baroque palaces. The architecture of the exhibition thus showed clear evidence of the eclecticism that would find its full expression in public and private buildings later, during the 1890s. Like the exhibitions that preceded it, the Augsburg district exhibition was held under the auspices of Ludwig II, who died while it was still being shown.14

Nuremberg, the largely wooden exhibition structures replicated traditional architectural status symbols. For instance, the site was entered through an imposing portal that recalled Renaissance temporary triumphal arches; the main catering area was marked by a double-tower facade with a belfry, borrowed from sacral architecture; and the main exhibition building, whose facade was articulated into three pavilions with portals reminiscent of triumphal arches, alluded

1 Kerkhoff 1985, 245. For Bavarian industrial exhibitions in general, see Ruppert 1980; and Stalla 2006. 2 Ludwig II to Cosima Wagner, 8 August 1867, quoted in Schad 1996, 411. 3 For this term, see Rauch 1993, 10. 4 See Wiesneth 2015, especially 47ff. See also the contribution by Robert Stalla in the present volume, 58–65.

5 Schmädel 1876, 1. 6 However, the Paris world fair of 1867 had included a cultural history section: “Histoire du Travail.” The idea for an exhibition covering periods in art from the Middle Ages to the eighteenth century first appeared in the work of Carl Förster. See also Koch 2000, 32. 7 Schmädel 1876, 3. See also Lichtenstein 1876;

KB

Eitelberger 1879; Schack 1976; and Koch 2000, 28–35. 8 See Roth 1971, 34–35; Lösel 1986, 20; and Koch 2000, 32–35. 9 The Construction and Decoration Committee included Max Siebert, Arnold Zenetti, Lorenz Gedon, Jakob Graff, Emil von Lange, Josef von Schmädel, and Gabriel von Seidl. See Beetz 1883, 4. 10 See Beetz 1883, 9–13,

2 60

11

12

13

14

41–43, 54–61, and 101– 6. See also Carl 1882. Exhibition newspaper 62 (1882), 3; quoted from Kerkhoff 1985, 247. See Kerkhoff 1985; Obernetter 1882; Bericht 1883; and Bach-Damaskinos 2011. See Augsburg Municipal Archive, estate of Ludwig Leybold, family chronicles. See Bericht 1889; and Arnold 1979, 140–45.

INDUSTRIAL, TRADE, AND ART EXHIBITIONS – Augsburg, Swabian District Industrial, Trade, and Art History Exhibition, Ludwig Leybold, Jean Keller, and Karl Albert Gollwitzer, 1884–86 – Munich, Art and Art Industry Exhibition of Old and New German Masters, with a section titled “Our Fathers’ Works,” Josef von Schmädel, Lorenz Gedon, and Rudolf Seitz, 1876 – Munich, International Electricity Exhibition, Wilhelm von Beetz and Oskar von Miller, 1882 – Nuremberg, Bavarian State Industrial, Trade, and Art Exhibition, Adolf Gnauth and others, 1882

IX

Government and Municipal Administration

[1] Munich, New City Hall, first construction phase, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1866–81

A

that in 1865—rather than building an existing functional design from the municipal city planner Arnold Zenetti in a neo-Renaissance style—a competition was set up nd total of twenty-seven architects took part. The planning process was marked by a battle of styles— Renaissance against Gothic—which reveals strong links between politics and specific building forms.1 Following the completion in 1910 of the two extensions, which were also designed by Hauberrisser, the City Hall occupied the entire city block on Marienplatz, as had been anticipated in the design by Ludwig and Emil Lange that had taken the top prize in the competition.

n important characteristic of the buildings for the government and administration erected under Ludwig II is the way in which they are differentiated according to their particular function. This was a result of the technical, economic, and legal changes during the last third of the nineteenth century and of the increased expenditure on state and municipal administration. The building for the new City Hall [1] provides an excellent illustration of bourgeois emancipation and the autonomy of the Munich Magistrat (municipal administration), which was achieved in 1869 through the revision of the Municipal Edict from 1818. The monumental neo-Gothic building, erected on Marienplatz between 1867 and 1881 to plans by the young Austrian architect Georg von Hauberrisser on the site of the former Landschaftsgebäude (landscape building) still shapes the character of the inner city today. The great importance attached to this building by the Magistrat is also highlighted by the fact

The main facade of the four-story complex built of brickwork and cut shell limestone is symmetrically composed, with a slightly projecting five-bay central section, Gothic tracery and pinnacles, and an elaborately worked stepped gable. The second floor, on which the most important meeting and representative rooms are 262

situated, is emphasized by a loggia decorated with allegorical figures representing civic virtues (commercial industriousness, domesticity, civic courage, and charity). Ludwig II is represented in the interior by a life-size

portrait in the council meeting chamber; on the exterior of the building he appears as a statue in the Königslaube (King’s Loggia), which was built on the second level of the tower during the third building phase.2

[2] Kaufbeuren, Town Hall, GEORG VON HAUBERRISSER, 1879–81

263

[3] Munich, former Landtagsgebäude, MAX SIEBERT, 1884–85

von Neureuther in the Renaissance style. Through this redesign, the building known as the Redoutenhaus (ballroom), which had been used since 1818 as the Estates Assembly and extended several times, was transformed into a homogeneous three-story building complex.6

According to Ludwig II’s wishes, this building, the foundation stone for which was laid on August 25, 1867, his birthday and name saint’s day, was intended to “serve as the city’s greatest ornament and to be a constant symbol of its flourishing, prosperity, and greatness.”3 According to a letter from the architect, Ludwig II, who was the final authority regarding the design, required only minor changes and “approved the plans, which he liked very much, the noble Gothic, the fine drawings and was in complete agreement with the use of this style on the public square.”4 Hauberrisser also designed the Town Hall in Kaufbeuren, erected between 1879 and 1881 [2]. Like the Old Town Hall in Ingoldstadt, which was redesigned by Gabriel von Seidl and Lorenz Gedon between 1882 and 1884, it also shows the stylistic influence of the German Renaissance.5

In Augsburg, a new courthouse was erected to plans by Viennese architect Theodor Reuter from 1872 to 1875. The three-story main facade of the elongated neo-Renaissance building is articulated by corner pavilions and a taller, three-bay central projection. The building is crowned by a balustrade with pediments decorated with coats of arms and a bust of Ludwig II on the central axis.7 Industrialization and technical advances also had an impact on administration buildings; for example, the growth of international railway transport and the opening of the Munich-Salzburg railway line in 1860 made it necessary to build a new Main Customs House [4]. It was erected between 1871 and 1874

With the conversion of the Parliament building on Prannerstraße (no longer in existence) by Max Siebert between 1884 and 1885, Munich obtained its first neo-Baroque facade [3], after the decision had been taken not to implement an earlier design by Gottfried 264

IX GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

the four-story Telegraph Office, a new kind of building commission, was erected between 1869 and 1871. The architect was Georg von Dollmann, who achieved particular prominence through his designs for the castles of Ludwig II but also designed the Holy Cross parish church in Giesing (1866–86).10

to plans by Friedrich Bürklein on Bayerstraße, close to Munich’s Central Railway Station; Bürklein had already designed the original station building.8 This brick building, which is no longer in existence, was articulated on the street front by a central projection and corner pavilions and at the back opened into a large U-shaped courtyard with a loading and inspection area, to which six radially laid train tracks led across a railway turntable.9 To the east of the Central Railway Station, directly opposite the arrivals building,

The District Archives for Central Franconia in Nuremberg also represented a new building type. Erected between 1877 and 1880 as the first new archives

[4] Munich, former Main Customs Office, FRIEDRICH BÜRKLEIN, 1871–74 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1905)

265

IX GOVERNMENT AND MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION

early English insurance buildings in particular, exhibits a certain simplicity of design.12

building in Bavaria, it was designed by Oberbaurat Degmaier. It is also the earliest German archive building in which the administration rooms and the residence were separated from the storerooms. This resulted in a two-winged structure with a representative central projection as the storeroom building; behind it is the administration building with apartments for the employees. The two buildings are clearly differentiated not just in terms of their different functions but also in their floor plans and the architectural language employed—the public building is separate from the more private building behind it; they are connected only by a yard and a corridor.11 The former Town Archive in Augsburg is yet a further archive building erected under Ludwig II. It was built in an Italianate neo-Renaissance style to plans by Max Treu.

More representative in formal terms is the building for the Bayerische Vereinsbank erected on Promenadeplatz in Munich from 1885 to 1886, which today lacks some of its original facade decoration. As there were no precedents for this kind of building in Munich, the Berlin architect Wilhelm Martens, who specialized in bank buildings, was commissioned to provide the design. The exposed location of this neo-Renaissance building, with a white, grooved sandstone facade based on French models, demanded particular attention in marking the junction of Cardinal Faulhaberstraße and Maffeistraße, which is emphasized by a round-arched entrance and numerous crowning elements. The concept for the interior envisaged the layout of the most important business spaces around a glass-roofed courtyard, which also served as a public area. The Deutsche Bauzeitung from August 6, 1887, reviewed the much acclaimed new building which, the paper wrote, was marked by “its complete functionality, dignified monumentality, and a character of noble seriousness” and which represented the “most important commission in profane architecture to be undertaken in the Bavarian capital since the erection of the Academy building and the new arrivals building at the Central Railway Station.”13

Also important in this context are the new administration buildings in the areas of finance and insurance. A fine example is the neo-Renaissance building for the Bavarian Insurance Chamber in Sternstraße in Munich, which was completed between 1877 and 1879 and which resulted from the transformation of the Royal Fire Insurance Association into a central state insurance authority by decree of Ludwig II. Although the U-shaped concept may recall palace complexes, here under the direction of the Munich State Building Office, a functional public building was erected which, in comparison with the

1 See Nerdinger and Stenger 1982, 164ff. The first designs were by Eduard Mezger (1865) and Arnold Zenetti (1865). Competition entries were submitted by, among others, Bluntschli & Tafel, Martin Gropius, Friedrich Hügel, Emil and Ludwig Lange, Eduard Mezger, Johann Georg Poppe, and Arnold Zenetti. However, no first prize was awarded; the second prize was given to Ludwig and Emil Lange.

KS

After intensive political wrangling, Hauberrisser, who was only twenty-five, proved successful, his cause having been cleverly advanced by the Gemeindebevollmächtigter (municipal representative) Ferdinand von Miller. See in this regard Nerdinger and Stenger 1982, 153–64; and Huber 2006, 30–41; as well as the contribution from Thomas Weidner in the present volume, 136–143.

2 See Nerdinger and Stenger 1982, 170–72. 3 Ludwig II to the Munich Magistrat, June 18, 1867. Copy in Munich Municipal Archive, Hochbauamt 400 (quoted from Huber 2006, 45). 4 Georg von Hauberrisser to his parents, 4 May, 1867. AM, hau_g-1-200. 5 See Guggemos 2004; and Lübbeke 1982, 302–3. 6 See HdbG n.d. 7 See Arnold 1979, 121–22;

266

and Knauß 1983, 198–99. 8 See Hartmann 1876, 44– 48; Knauß 1983, 208–9; and Klar 2002, 189ff. and 268–69. 9 See Klar 2002, 189ff. 10 On the Holy Cross Church see 281 in the present volume. 11 See Löher 1882; and Leiskau 2008, 36–37. 12 See Knauß 1983, 197–98. 13 See Deutsche Bauzeitung 1887, 373 and 376; and Knauß 1983, 194–95.

BUILDINGS FOR THE STATE AND THE MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION – Augsburg, Courthouse, Theodor Reuter, 1872–75 – Ingolstadt, Old Town Hall, Gabriel von Seidl and Lorenz Gedon (Facade), 1882–84 – Kaufbeuren, Town Hall, Georg von Hauberrisser, 1879–81 – Munich, New City Hall, Georg von Hauberrisser, 1867–1908 – Munich, former Parlament building (conversion), Max Siebert, 1884–85

ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS – Augsburg, Town Archive, Max Treu, 1885 – Munich, Telegraph Office, Georg von Dollmann, 1869–71 – Munich, former Main Customs Office, Friedrich Bürklein, 1871–74 – Munich, Bavarian Insurance Chamber, Landbauamt München, 1877–79 – Munich, Bayerische Vereinsbank, Wilhelm Martens, 1885–86 – Nuremberg, District Archive for Central Franconia, Oberbaurat Degmaier, 1877–80

Munich, Bayerische Vereinsbank, WILHELM MARTENS, 1885–86

Ingolstadt, Old Town Hall, GABRIEL VON SEIDL and LORENZ GEDON (Facade), 1882–84

X

Military

[1] Munich, Maximilian II Barracks, MATTHIAS BERGER, 1860–77

D

to achieve special and reserved rights, including the right of command over the Bavarian army, which was to be held by the King of Bavaria.3

uring the reign of Ludwig II considerable attention was given to buildings for the military. This may not be immediately apparent because these building projects were either extensions to existing complexes or were still at the planning stage at the time of the king’s death.1 At the same time, under Ludwig II the military was fundamentally reformed, in particular through defense legislation that came into force in 1868.2 The period of Ludwig’s reign was marked by two wars of German unification. The first was the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, in which Bavaria joined with the states that remained loyal to a confederation under the leadership of Austria but suffered defeat against Prussia. The second was the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, in which Bavaria—which had committed itself to a defensive and offensive alliance with Prussia as a result of the earlier defeat—provided Prussia with extensive and successful military assistance.

Under Ludwig II Munich, as the royal capital and the largest garrison location in Bavaria, was continuously developed in terms of military buildings. An excellent example of this is the Maximilian II Barracks [1], which had been started in 1852 by Maximilian II as defense barracks in the case of internal upheavals on the Oberwiesenfeld, on an area defined today by Hilble-, Schachenmeier- and Pfänderstraße. Following earlier designs by Georg Friedrich Ziebland and Eduard von Riedel, Matthias Berger, an architect for civilian buildings who was entrusted with erecting the building in 1860, designed new facades which “are extremely simple to build, all conceived in brickwork in different colors, without any render.”4 After the southwestern wing D and the northeastern wing B were occupied in 1865, a field camp followed in 1866 and new stables in 1868 and 1873. The erection of the southeastern wing A between 1874 and 1877 was of particular significance as this building connected the two existing wings and made the Maximilian II Barracks into a horseshoe-shaped

The Prussian victory resulted in the founding of the German Empire under Prussian hegemony in 1871, which also meant a substantial loss of sovereignty for the Kingdom of Bavaria. However, Ludwig II was able 272

tillery Workshops, and in the decades that followed developed into a major business employing more than a thousand people.6

complex with a front facing southeast, toward the city. Even though the barracks were severely damaged in the Second World War and subsequently demolished in 1948, the former barracks site continues to shape the topography of Neuhausen and is consequently a visible symbol of the history of the city’s expansion.5

Until 1905 the Arsenal housed the Bavarian Army Museum, which Ludwig II had founded in 1881 in order to bring the military history collections that were scattered throughout Bavaria together at a single place. In 1915 this institution was given its own museum building on the site of the former Hofgarten Barracks. Partly destroyed in the Second World War, today the surviving domed middle section of this building forms the central building in the newly erected State Chancellery (Staatskanzlei).7

Under Ludwig II a new Arsenal on Lothstraße, which is still in existence, was completed in 1866 [2]. It was designed from 1861—under Maximilian II—by Andreas Friedlein and erected in the immediate proximity of the Maximilian II Barracks. The symmetrical complex has a taller central block on a U-shaped floor plan, recessed two-story side wings and three-story corner pavilions. It appears today as an exposed brick building, but originally the brickwork was whitewashed. Two other important facilities established under Ludwig II are connected with the Arsenal. The first from 1865, when the shell of this building had been almost completed, in response to an application by the War Ministry the King approved to move the arsenal workshops and a laboratory for the production of percussion caps to Oberwiesenfeld. Later, in 1872, this became the Royal Bavarian Ar-

Of particular importance for the appearance of the city of Munich was the extension of the infantry barracks, only fragments of which have survived, on Türkengraben in the Maxvorstadt, on a site today occupied by the Pinakothek der Moderne.8 The plans proposed a U-shaped, three-winged complex: from 1823 the elongated main front on Türkenstraße was built in its entirety, while the side wings on Theresienstraße and Gabelsbergstraße were only built in part, as far as the central pavilions. Under Ludwig II the latter were 273

require the building to be evacuated.”10 Thereupon a project was developed to adapt the Old Isar Barracks on the Kohleninsel to serve as the new military hospital.11 Ultimately, in 1867 Ludwig II approved a site near the Maximilian II Barracks that was located somewhat closer to the city. For this site Zenetti designed an extensive complex, which through the choice of materials and axial connections referred to both the Maximilian II Barracks and the Arsenal.12

extended in 1872–73 in accordance with the original concept. On account of its importance the barracks were connected to the municipal drinking water supply at a comparatively early date, in 1885.9 However, under Ludwig II building for the military was not confined to extensions alone, but also included a number of important new buildings. In this category the Garnison Hospital in Munich, a military hospital, can be seen as particularly significant. It was erected between 1868 and 1874 to plans by Arnold Zenetti on Lazarettstraße, in the immediate proximity of the Maximilian II Barracks and the new Arsenal [3]. Similar to the situation with the buildings for education, the question about a suitable site here led to an animated discussion. The king initially expressed objections to the proposed site opposite the Maximilian II Barracks: “on account of the incessant noise that prevails in barracks, the constant drumming, trumpeting, and marching, and also the shooting practice on the nearby parade ground [one fears] the most harmful influence on the sick and those recuperating from illnesses, while epidemics in the hospital could represent a threat for those living in the barracks and might even

In addition, under Ludwig II a large forage store was erected in 1873–81 on the edge of the Oberwiesenfeld, and from 1885 onward a military bakery was planned nearby (completed in 1890). Between 1881 and 1886 plans for the Marsfeldkaserne, an infantry barracks first proposed in 1858, were revived. However, the handover of this building only took place in 1888, after the death of Ludwig II.13 The development of military buildings outside Munich was equally diverse. Particular mention should be made of the extension and fortification of the outpost belt of Ingolstadt which—after earthworks had been built in front of the defense works from 1866 onward—

[2] Munich, New Arsenal, ANDREAS FRIEDLEIN, 1861–66

2 74

X MILITARY

[3] Munich, Garrison Military Hospital, ARNOLD ZENETTI, 1868–74

between 1882 and 1884 for the infantry regiment stationed there, is of particular importance [4]. This elongated, richly articulated exposed-brick building along Schertlinstraße was acquired by the City of Augsburg in 1994 as a conversion area and was used to accommodate housing shops and cultural functions. Today it shapes the character of the urban district of Hochfeld.17

became increasingly important after 1873.14 The new buildings erected in Ingolstadt under Ludwig II included the New Arsenal on Lower Graben, a three-story exposed-brick building that dates from 1868–71 and the Friedenskasernen (barracks), erected on the Esplanade between 1878 and 1880, also in exposed brickwork.15 In 1883 the Kriegslazarett (war hospital) was extended by the addition of a south and an east wing.16 In Augsburg, the building for the Prinz Karl Barracks, erected

KS

275

X MILITARY

[4] Augsburg, Prinz Karl Barracks on Hochfeld, 1882–84 (photo: FERDINAND BRAUER, 1884)

1 See Lankes 1993, 650–51. 2 See Lehner 1868. 3 See Lankes 1993, 50–57; Botzenhart 2011, 56–57; and Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Catalogue, 67–91.  4 MStm. Graph. Slg. MIII/109/B2, quoted in Karnapp 1997, 385. 5 See Lankes 1993, 147–56; Karnapp 1997, 383–85; and BayHStA, KA, MKr 8937 Prod. 70. 6 See Lankes 1993, 324–

25; Karnapp 1997, 385– 86; Biller and Rasp 20093, 131–332; 209–210; BayHStA, KA, MKr 8972. 7 See Lankes 1993, 324–25; Karnapp 1997, 385–86; Biller and Rasp 2009, 131–32; 209–310; and “History of the Bavarian Army Museum,” Bayerisches Armeemuseum, accessed April 8, 2018, http:// www.armeemuseum.de/ en/collections/history. html.

8 Later also known as Prinz Arnulf Barracks or Türkenkaserne. 9 See Lankes 1993, 133– 39, especially 138; and BayHStA, KA, MKr 8904. 10 Ludwig II to the War Ministry, 28 July 1865, BayHStA, KA, MKr 9029 (9). 11 See BayHStA, KA, MKr 9029 (X). 12 See BayHStA, KA, MKr 16085; BayHStA, KA, MKr 9029; Lankes 1993, 597–600.

2 76

13 See Lankes 1993, 56. 14 See BayHStA, KA, Altbestand C9f1 and C60a3 (C 179 and 669–71). 15 See Becker, Grimminger, and Hemmeter 2002, 96f.; and Strobel 1985, 20. 16 See BayHStA, KA, Plansammlung Ingolstadt 599–612. 17 See Grünsteudel and Wahl 2011; and Arnold 1979, 136.

BARRACKS – Augsburg, Prinz Karl Barracks, 1882–84 – Ingolstadt, Friedenskasernen, 1878–80 – Munich, Extension of former Maximilian II Barracks, 1865–77 – Munich, Extension of former infantry barracks on Türkengraben, 1872/73 – Munich, Marsfeldkaserne, 1881–88 ARSENALS – Ingolstadt, New Arsenal, 1868–71 – Munich, New Arsenal, Andreas Friedlein, 1861–66

MILITARY HOSPITALS – Ingolstadt, Extension of Kriegslazarett (war hospital), 1883 – Munich, former Garrison Hospital (today part of German Heart Center at TU Munich), Arnold Zenetti, 1868–74 MILITARY SUPPLY BUILDINGS – Munich, former Royal Bavarian Artillery Workshops, 1865–72 – Munich, former Fourage store on the Oberwiesenfeld, 1873–81 – Munich, former military bakery on the Oberwiesenfeld, 1885–90

Augsburg, former Prinz Karl Barracks, 1882–84

Ingolstadt, former Friedenskaserne, 1878–80

XI

Churches and Synagogues

[1] Munich, competition project for Saint Benno’s Catholic parish church (perspective), J. BECKER, 1885–86

[2] Weißenhorn, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Catholic parish church (elevation, floor plan and detail), AUGUST VON VOIT, 1865–70

D

institution and strove to limit its influence on politics— in particular ever since the conservative Patriots’ Party, which supported the causes of the Catholic Church, achieved a majority in the Parliament elections of 1869 and became a new political force.2 In addition, since the establishment of the German Reich in 1871, which considerably increased confessional heterogeneity, it was regarded as important to reduce any tensions between religions.

uring the reign of Ludwig II the conflict between State and Church was one of the major problems. In Bavaria this cultural struggle (“Kulturkampf”) was shaped largely by the liberal and anticlerical policies of the education minister Johann von Lutz, which were aimed at ensuring the rights of the State against the demands of the Catholic Church. Lutz’s cultural policy received the support of Ludwig II.1 Although a believer and Catholic, the king was critical of the Church as an 2 80

Despite the liberal and anticlerical politics, the construction of Catholic churches in the Kingdom of Bavaria experienced a new heyday in the second half of the nineteenth century. This was a result not only of population growth but also of social change. The building of new churches was propagated by communities and parishes and was advanced by the aspirations of an upwardly striving bourgeoisie that sought to distance itself from the emergent proletariat by emphasizing conservative values.3 Alongside Catholic churches several important new Protestant churches and synagogues were erected, a number of which were actively supported by Ludwig II.

From the late 1870s onward, several Catholic parish churches were planned in Munich, but for financial reasons were not completed until after the death of Ludwig II. The first was Saint Ursula’s Church, planned from 1879 by August Thiersch as a new parish church for Schwabing. Unlike most of the church buildings of the time, it was built in the Italian Renaissance style, which can be explained by the intended references to Ludwigstraße, as originally it was planned that the church would stand on the extended axis of that street.5 From the start of the 1880s the newly founded Zentralverein für Kirchenbau (Central Church-Building Association) planned three churches: Saint Benno’s, Saint Max’s, and Saint Paul’s. The most urgent of these projects was the construction of Saint Benno’s in the Maxvorstadt [1], for which Ferdinand von Miller, a brass founder and a conservative, donated the building site. Erected by Leonhard Romeis between 1885 and 1895 as the center of an ensemble, Saint Benno’s reflects the ideal of a Romanesque basilica with a twin-tower facade, transept, and tower at the crossing. Compared with the neo-Gothic, this style, thanks to less thick walls and the fact that the detail elements could be mass-produced, was less expensive to build.6 The parish church of Saint Anna in Lehel was also built in the neo-Romanesque style to plans by the architect Gabriel von Seidl, who wasselected through a competition process. Above all the picturesque effect made by this triple-aisled basilica with west transept and octagonal tower at the crossing, which is harmoniously inserted in the existing ensemble on the square, proclaimed a new kind of spatial perception.7

In contrast to public building, in which the neo-Renaissance style was dominant, in the area of sacred building the adherence to the neo-Gothic style, which had been widespread in this field since the 1840s, is striking: the neo-Romanesque style, which also referred to the Middle Ages, was employed as well. Important impulses for these references to the Gothic were provided by the re-Gothicizing of the Frauenkirche in Munich, which was finished in 1868, and the completion of Regensburg Cathedral in 1872.

CATHOLIC CHURCHES Of the numerous neo-Gothic parish churches that were built during the reign of Ludwig II the Holy Cross Church in the Munich suburb of Giesing, which was erected between 1866 and 1886 offers a fine example.4 It is a triple-aisled hall church on a Latin cross plan, to the west side of which, facing the city, an octagonal tower is attached that occupies an elevated position on a slope and is consequently an important accent in the silhouette of the city. The Giesing church shows the close relationship of Ludwig II to the architectural ideas of his grandfather, who here exerted a considerable influence on the design. This is made particularly clear as regards the architect Georg von Dollmann, whom Ludwig I had commissioned to build the Holy Cross Church; subsequently, from about 1868, Dollmann worked for Ludwig II, who appointed him royal building councilor in 1872, and a few years later entrusted him with the entire royal building works.

Numerous Catholic churches were built outside the capital, too; the parish church of Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in Weißenhorn offers a fine example. It was built between 1865 and 1870 to plans by August von Voit [2]. In terms of the floor plan this triple-aisled hall church, with a polygonal apse to the choir and the transepts, has similarities with the Holy Cross Church in Giesing; but through the asymmetrical positioning of the campanile-like tower and the combination of Romanesque, Gothic, and Byzantine elements, it nevertheless represents an individual solution.8

2 81

PROTESTANT CHURCHES

bell tower in the manner of a campanile. Through the style that was oriented on Italian Romanesque models and the use of exposed brickwork without render, the building also distances itself from the Baroque character of the town.10

Alongside August Thiersch, Voit also took part in the planning of the second Protestant church in Munich— today known as Saint Mark’s—which was designed from 1870 onward for the growing Protestant community [3]. His proposal for a neo-Romanesque centralized building on an octagonal floor plan with a single tower facade was strongly criticized, but only a short time later the centralized building became established in the area of Protestant church building. The design eventually implemented was by Voit’s former student, Rudolf Wilhelm Gottgetreu. He also envisaged a single tower facade but designed a triple-aisled church with side galleries.9

SYNAGOGUES Under Ludwig II several synagogues were built in Bavaria—for example in Kaiserslautern, Munich, and Nuremberg [4–5]. Their representative architecture reflected the new status of Jewish communities who had been granted equal rights with the founding of the Reich in 1871. The history of the construction of the synagogue in Munich is extremely complex: in 1870 a location on Wittelsbacherplatz was initially envisaged, but after the community had to abandon this site (for reasons to do with building authorities) and a site on Westenriederstraße turned out to be unsuitable on account of the elaborate foundation works needed, in 1882 Ludwig II allocated the community a building site on Herzog-Max-Straße from the civil list.

From 1882 August Thiersch planned the Church of the Redeemer with a rectory for the Protestant diaspora community in Eichstätt. To make the church more visually prominent—despite its somewhat cramped position between the high school and the Jesuit church—on the entrance side he placed a two-story convex hall in front of the nave and, on the long northwestern side, a

[3] Munich, preliminary project for Saint Mark’s Protestant church (perspective), AUGUST THIERSCH, 1870

282

XI CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES

[4] Munich, preliminary project for a synagogue, MATTHIAS BERGER, 1880

al,” while also referring to the heyday of synagogue building in the Ashkenazy era—for instance to the synagogues in Worms, Speyer, and Prague. Oppler decisively rejected the Oriental style that was proposed, for example, by Matthias Berger [4] in his design for the Munich synagogue, as it had “no relationship to Judaism” and therefore could not be the expression of a building that “the German Jew in the nineteenth century, as a citizen of the German Empire with equal rights, would erect to the honor of God.”11

The planning was originally entrusted to Edwin Oppler along with Ludwig Lange. Oppler had already achieved prominence with a number of synagogue buildings and in 1868 had presented an initial project for the synagogue in Nuremburg [5]. Even though Oppler’s design from 1872—a neo-Romanesque basilica with a double tower façade, transept and a dome above the Holy of Holies—was not carried out, it provided the model for the building that was eventually erected to plans by Albert Schmidt. This building was also in a neo-Romanesque style, which Oppler in his reflections on architectural theory regarded as preferable for Jewish religious buildings because it was, he said, “nation-

KB

283

XI CHURCHES AND SYNAGOGUES

[5] Nuremberg, preliminary project for a synagogue, EDWIN OPPLER, 1868

1 See Körner 2012. 2 See Botzenhart 2011, 58–59; and Rumschöttel 2011a, especially 16–17. 3 See Blessing 1982, 133; and Schickel 1987, 157– 63. 4 See Habel 1971, 30–31; Schickel 1987, especially 183–97; and Schmid 2008.

5 See Habel 1971, 39; Stenger 1981, especially 1:40–54; Götz and Schack-Simitzis 1988, 183; and Appuhn-Radtke 2013. 6 See Habel 1971, 35; and Götz and Schack-Simitzis 1988, 184–88. 7 See Doering 1924, 12–15; Bößl 1961, 76–88; Habel 1971, 32–35; and Götz

8

9 10 11

284

and Schack-Simitzis 1988, 188–89. See Habel 1971, 28– 30; and Kotzur 1978, especially 51. See Kotzur 1978, especially 152. See Stenger 1981, 1:55– 59. Quoted in Hammer-Schenk 1981, 1:381. See also

Fritsch 1888; HammerSchenk 1981, 1:379–87; Hammer-Schenk 1988, 225–35; Angermair, Heusler, and Ohlen 1999, 65–83; and Bauer and Brenner 2006, especially 99–100 and 234.

CATHOLIC CHURCHES

PROTESTANT CHURCHES

– Munich, Holy Cross parish church, Georg von Dollmann, 1866–86

– Munich, second Protestant church, Rudolf Gottgetreu, 1870–77

– Munich, Saint Ursula parish church, August Thiersch, 1879–97

– Eichstätt, Lutheran Church of the Redeemer with rectory, August Thiersch, 1882–87

– Munich, Saint Benno parish church, Leonhard Romeis, 1885–95

SYNAGOGUES

– Munich, Saint Anna im Lehel parish church, Gabriel von Seidl, 1885–92

– Kaiserslautern, former synagogue, Ludwig Levy, 1884–86

– Weißenhorn, Assumption of the Blessed Virgin parish church, August von Voit, 1865–70

– Munich, former synagogue on Herzog-Max-Straße, Albert Schmidt, 1884–87 – Nuremberg, former synagogue, Adolf Wolff, 1868–74

Munich, place of former synagogue on Herzog-MaxStraße, ALBERT SCHMIDT, 1884–87 (memorial stone, HERBERT PETERS, 1989)

Munich, Holy Cross parish church, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1866–86

XII

Palaces and Castles

[1] Neuschwanstein Castle, idealized view, CHRISTIAN JANK, 1868

T

were by no means arbitrary, having a decidedly political significance in each case. Thus the neo-Renaissance, for example, which is associated with the rise of the bourgeoisie and which was the predominant style of public buildings during the last third of the nineteenth century, is absent from the palace buildings of Ludwig II— probably as a deliberate move to distinguish them from the bourgeois architecture of the time.

he royal castles and palaces of Neuschwanstein, Linderhof, and Herrenchiemsee, which Ludwig II began planning in 1868, all remained uncompleted at his death in 1886. Enhanced by remote natural locations, they have since become Bavaria’s best-known buildings in a historicist style and the most famous German castles in the world. The king also commissioned other buildings (not all of which have survived), such as the winter garden in the Munich Residence, the Hubertus Pavilion in Ammerwald, and the King’s House on Schachen, as well as projects that were never built, including extensive palace complexes on a Byzantine or a Chinese model. From the neo-Gothic and neo-Romanesque to the neo-Baroque, neo-Rococo and Orientalist styles almost the entire stylistic repertoire of historicism found expression in these buildings and projects, which were of the highest quality. Their references to historical forms

THE ROYAL PALACES IN THE CONTEXT OF HISTORICIST PALACE DESIGN The fascination aroused to this day by the palaces and castles of Ludwig II stems not least from the fact that the king’s passion for building and the debts that resulted from it were accepted as evidence of “para2 88

styles likewise found their way into palace design. An outstanding example of this is the Wilhelma (1842– 46) near Stuttgart, which was built by Karl Ludwig von Zanth for King William I of Württemberg.1

noia,” attested in the course of deposing him from the throne in 1886. In the context of historicist palace design, Ludwig’s palaces (which he paid for from his own funds), seem less eccentric. In terms of their number, size, and choice of style, as well as their artistic elaboration and financial outlay, they are certainly comparable to other palaces that European rulers built—mainly in reaction to the ideas of the French Revolution—between the end of the eighteenth century and the First World War. Among them are numerous castles that were built in medieval styles on existing fortress ruins, such as Franzensburg (1801–36) in Lower Austria, built for Emperor Francis II; Stolzenfels Castle (1826– 47) near Koblenz, built for King Frederick William IV of Prussia; and Burg Hohenzollern (1850–67), built on the Swabian Alb as a monument to the eponymous Prussian dynasty. The neo-Baroque and neo-Rococo styles, harking back to the ancien régime, were already established in the 1860s, when Ludwig II began planning his castles; they were used primarily for interiors, such as those created for Schönbrunn Palace under Emperor Ferdinand I. Elements borrowed from Oriental

FEATURES PECULIAR TO THE ROYAL PALACES Despite the aforementioned parallels, the palaces of King Ludwig II differ significantly in certain respects from other historicist palace buildings. First and foremost, this is true of their function, as they were intended neither for public and official occasions nor for residential purposes. Whereas the majority of palace buildings dating from this era were primarily meant as a material demonstration of the venerable age of the dynasty concerned—and thus of its right to rule—the references to the house of Wittelsbach in Ludwig’s royal palaces are considerably less overt. Here, the owner had wholly different intentions: in keeping with the ideas of Richard Wagner, whose opera reform

[2] Linderhof Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN, et al., 1870–86 (photo: ANONYMOUS, ca. 1887)

2 89

in the unbuilt design for Falkenstein Castle. There, the bedroom was conceived as a sanctuary of kingship with a bed in the form of a canopy altar.5

aimed to create the best possible illusion of ideal worlds—and rather like the popular imaginary journeys and man-made paradises that could be experienced at world fairs and other nineteenth-century public displays—the royal palaces served above all to provide an all-but-perfect immersion in poetic refuges and alternative political universes to the constitutional kingdom. These buildings were created to suit the realms of Ludwig’s imagination and were therefore not publicly accessible, in contrast to the usual practice. The royal buildings and projects concentrate on three themes, which the extremely well read king studied thoroughly: these are the medieval legends, the ancien régime, and the world of the Orient.2

ANCIEN RÉGIME The absolutist monarchy of the Bourbons—especially Louis XIV, with whom Ludwig II considered himself connected by the sacrament of baptism—is alluded to in the palaces of Linderhof and Herrenchiemsee as well as the no longer extant Hubertus Pavilion in Ammerwald. Built in the Graswang Valley in 1870, Linderhof Palace falls into the category of a royal villa [2]. The evidently processual character of its genesis was typical of the other royal palaces. To begin with, the “king’s house” of Maximilian II received a three-roomed extension of timber studwork, whose plain exterior gave no hint of its magnificent neo-Rococo interior. Step by step, the building developed into its present form, which was ultimately clad in masonry with neo-Baroque elements, beginning in 1873.6

THE WORLD OF MEDIEVAL LEGENDS In addition to Falkenstein Castle, which was never built, this theme includes Neue Burg Hohenschwangau— the initial name of Neuschwanstein Castle, which was planned from 1868 onward for a site near Füssen: a mountain ridge by the name of Jugend (Youth) [1]. Built in sight of his father’s castle Hohenschwangau, which was itself decorated with picture cycles illustrating medieval legends, Ludwig’s new castle was to be “in the true style of the old German knights’ castles.”3 Its architecture and furnishings were inspired by the locations and settings of Wagner’s operas and of the medieval epics on which they were based. Ludwig II also picked up some ideas for its design on journeys to Thuringia and Paris in 1867, in the course of which he visited two rebuilt castles. In June, wanting to see the scene of the minstrels’ contest featured in Wagner’s opera Tann­ häuser, he visited Wartburg Castle near Eisenach, which had been restored by Hugo von Ritgen in 1853. On his visit to Paris a month later, he was invited by Napoleon III to see the emperor’s future residence in Pierrefonds, which was being built to a design by Eugène Viollet-leDuc on the ruins of a medieval castle.4

In 1868 Ludwig II began planning another palace, under the code name of “Tmeicos Ettal”—an anagram of “L’état c’est moi,” which is often attributed to Louis XIV. Like a perpetual theatrical performance, it quotes important elements from three eras of the palace of Versailles in abbreviated and symbolically condensed form. The site in the Graswang Valley, which the king preferred because it was relatively near to Ettal, had to be abandoned, owing mainly to an inadequate water supply, after the design had progressed through about thirteen phases and grown from a “torso” into a spacious palace complex. The project was relocated to the island of Herrenwörth in the Chiemsee, which was purchased in 1873. In addition to Herrenchiemsee’s famous Hall of Mirrors, Ludwig II reflected the glory of French absolutism with an interpretive reconstruction of the Ambassadors’ Staircase, which had been removed from Versailles in the eighteenth century and was known only from engravings and descriptions.7

Neuschwanstein Castle has a complex iconographic program, in particular for the throne room. This subsequently much enlarged hall in the Byzantine style contains references, for example, to the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul as well as the Court Church of All Saints and Saint Boniface’s Abbey in Munich. The sacral overtones that became evident here would be intensified

ORIENTALIST BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS Even in his earliest buildings, Ludwig II made reference to the architectural traditions of the so-called 2 90

XII PALACES AND CASTLES

[3] Munich, Residence, winter garden of Ludwig II, Moorish Kiosk (first project), FRANZ SEITZ, 1868

liest Orientalist buildings, known as the Kings House, was built on the Schachen alp; its upper floor contains the Turkish Hall, modeled on the interior of Eyüp Palace near Istanbul.9

Orient, which had received a great deal of attention since the world fairs of 1851 in London and 1867 in Paris. In the fully glazed, iron-framed winter garden that he ordered built on the roof of the Munich Residence (1867–71), he planned to install an Indian royal tent and an Indian fisherman’s hut as well as a Moorish pavilion or kiosk, for which he had two projects carried out. The first of them was ultimately erected at Berg Castle [3].8 From 1869 to 1872, one of Ludwig’s ear-

For the park of Linderhof Palace, Ludwig II purchased the Moorish Kiosk, which he had seen at the Paris Exposition in 1867. Designed by a Prussian architect, Carl von Diebitsch, it had initially been bought by an 291

XII PALACES AND CASTLES

[4] Neuschwanstein Castle, preliminary design for a Moorish Hall, ca. 1885

industrialist, Bethel Henry Strousberg. The king also bought a prefabricated building from the 1878 Paris Exposition, to which Georg von Dollmann had been sent as his agent. This was the Moroccan House, which had indeed been made in Morocco; the king had it redecorated and reassembled near Linderhof, on the slopes of the Kreuzspitze. Another project planned for Linderhof concerned a Kubba with a courtyard modeled on the Alhambra (which was by far

the most popular source of references in Orientalism), but this did not come to fruition. The same fate befell a neo-Moorish hall that Georg von Dollmann began designing in 1882 for the first upper floor of Neuschwanstein Castle; it was still under construction at the time of Ludwig’s death and therefore remained unfinished [4].10

1 See Hojer 1986; Rauch 1993; and Ottomeyer 2011.  2 See Ottomeyer 2011; Schatz 2011b; Spangenberg 2015b; and Wiesneth 2015. 3 Ludwig II to Richard Wagner, 13 May 1868, quoted after Hojer 1986, 289.

Voit 2012, especially 47– 60; and Wiesneth 2015, especially 44–46. 7 See Rauch 1993; Petzet 1995, 126, 222–54; Rauch 1995. 8 See Schmid 1986, especially 67ff. In regard to this and the following, see also Hojer 1986, 426–51;

KB

4 See Hojer 1986, 289–98; Petzet 1995, 45–82; Spangenberg 1999; Schatz 2011b; and Spangenberg 2015b, 14–20. 5 See Petzet 1995, 82–88; Schatz 2011b, 94–95; and Rösch 2016, 127ff.  6 See Hojer 1986, 304ff.; Petzet 1995, 125–59;

292

9 See Hojer 1986, 428–30 and 433–34; and Hojer, Schmid, and Schmid 1993. 10 See Hojer 1986, 426–33.

THE WORLD OF MEDIEVAL LEGENDS

ORIENTALIST BUILDINGS AND PROJECTS

– Neuschwanstein Castle, Christian Jank, Eduard von Riedel, Georg von Dollmann, and Julius Hofmann, 1868–86

– Munich, Ludwig II’s winter garden on the Residence, Eduard von Riedel, Carl von Effner and others, 1867–71

– Falkenstein Castle (unbuilt project), Christian Jank, Max Schultze, and Julius Hofmann, 1883–86

– King’s House on the Schachen with the Turkish Hall, Georg von Dollmann, 1869–72

ANCIEN RÉGIME – Linderhof Palace, Georg von Dollmann and Julius Hofmann, 1870–86

– Byzantine Palace (first and second projects not built), Georg von Dollmann and Julius Hofmann, 1869–70 and 1885

– Herrenchiemsee Palace, Georg von Dollmann and Julius Hofmann, 1868–86

– Moorish Kiosk, Carl von Diebitsch, 1867 (erected in the park of Linderhof Palace in 1876)

– Hubertus Pavilion (partly built, no longer extant), Julius Hofmann, 1884–86

– Moroccan House, designer not known, 1878 (erected near Linderhof in 1878) – Kubba (unbuilt project), Georg Dehn and Georg von Dollmann, 1878–79 – Neuschwanstein Castle, Moorish Hall (unbuilt project), Georg von Dollmann, 1882–86

Linderhof Palace, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN and others, 1870–86

Linderhof Palace, hall of mirrors, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN, and others, 1870–86

Linderhof Palace, bedroom, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, JULIUS HOFMANN, and others, 1870–86

Schachen, King’s House, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, 1869–72

Neuschwanstein Castle, Throne Hall, JULIUS HOFMANN, 1881–87

Neuschwanstein Castle, Singers' Hall, CHRISTIAN JANK, GEORG DEHN, and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–84

Neuschwanstein Castle, EDUARD VON RIEDEL, GEORG VON DOLLMANN, and JULIUS HOFMANN, 1868–86

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A ALLOM and WALSH ca. 1840: Allom, Thomas, and Robert Walsh. Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor Illustrated. London: Fisher, Son, [ca. 1840]. ALTENBUCHNER 2001: Altenbuchner, Klaus. “Der Königsplatz in München: Entwürfe von Leo von Klenze bis Paul Ludwig Troost,” Oberbayerisches Archiv 125 (2001): 7–126. ALTENBUCHNER 2006: Altenbuchner, Klaus. “Königsplatz: München,” Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, August 2, 2006, https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/ Königsplatz,_München. ALTMANN et al. 2003: Altmann, Bernd, et al. “Werkverzeichnis Nr. 77–110.” In Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, 330–428. ANGERMAIR, HEUSLER, and OHLEN 1999: Angermair, Elisabeth, Andreas Heusler, and Eva Ohlen. Beth ha-Knesseth—Ort der Zusammenkunft: Zur Geschichte der Münchner Synagogen, ihrer Rabbiner und Kantoren. Munich: Stadtarchiv, 1999. ANSPRACHE REALGYMNASIUM 1866: Ansprache nach der feierlichen Grundsteinlegung des königl. Realgymnasiums, der Gewerbe- und Handels-Schule sowie der höheren Töchterschule der Stadt Speyer bei Gelegenheit der 50jährigen Jubelfeier der Wiedervereinigung der Pfalz mit der Krone Bayern am 6. Mai 1866. StadtA Speyer 5. APPUHN-RADTKE 2013: Appuhn-Radtke, Sibylle. St. Ursula in München-Schwabing: Harmonie als zeitlose Qualität: Ein Kirchenbau von August Thiersch. Munich: Schiermeier, 2013. ARETIN 2006: Aretin, Cajetan Freiherr von. Die Erbschaft des Königs Otto von Bayern: Höfische Politik und Wittelsbacher Vermögensrechte 1916 bis 1923. Munich: Beck, 2006. ARNOLD 1979: Arnold, Matthias. Architektur des 19. Jahrhunderts in Augsburg: Zeichnungen vom Klassizismus bis zum Jugendstil. Exh. cat. Städt. Kunstsammlungen Augsburg. Augsburg: Himmer, 1979.

B BACH-DAMASKINOS 2011: Bach-Damaskinos, Ruth. “Marientorgraben 8 II: Kunstpavillon—Glaspa-

last—Norishalle 1882–1945.” Norica: Berichte und Themen aus dem Stadtarchiv Nürnberg 7 (2011): 72–82.

BAUMGARTNER 1981: Baumgartner, Georg. Königliche Träume: Ludwig II. und seine Bauten. Munich: Hugendubel, 1981.

BACHMAYER 1977: Bachmayer, Monika. “Schloss Linderhof: Architektur, Interieur und Ambiente einer ‘Königlichen Villa.’” Diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1977.

BAUMGARTNER 1987: Baumgartner, Georg. Schloss Hohenschwangau: Eine Untersuchung zum Schloßbau der Romantik. Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft 15. Munich: Scaneg, 1987.

BACHMEIER 1988: Bachmeier, Doris. “Lorenz Gedon 1844–1883: Leben und Werk.” Diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 1988.

BAUREFERAT TIEFBAU 1969: Baureferat Tiefbau, ed. Stadtentwässerung München. Munich: Harbeke, 1969. BAYERISCHES STATISTISCHES BÜRO 1906: Kgl. Bayerisches Statistisches Büro, ed. Arbeiterwohlfahrtseinrichtungen in bayerischen Fabriken und größeren Gewerbebetrieben: Denkschrift. Munich: C. Wolf & Sohn, 1906.

BARCLAY 1995: Barclay, David E. Anarchie und guter Wille: Friedrich Wilhelm IV. und die preußische Monarchie. Berlin: Siedler, 1995. BARTHOLOMÄUS 1990: Bartholomäus, Christine. “Die Ringparkanlagen.” In Gärten und Grünanlagen in Würzburg: Ihre Entwicklung und Bedeutung, edited by Hatto Kallfelz and Ulrich Wager, 211–50. Munich: Generaldirektion der Staatlichen Archive Bayerns, 1990.

BECHTOLD and WEISS 1996: Bechtold, Frank-Andreas, and Thomas Weiss, eds. Weltbild Wörlitz: Entwurf einer Kulturlandschaft. Exh. cat. Deutsches Architekturmuseum Frankfurt am Main. Stuttgart: Hatje, 1996.

BARTOSCHEK, BETTHAUSEN, and KAHLAU 1995: Bartoschek, Gerd, Peter Betthausen, and Irene Kahlau. Friedrich Wilhelm IV.: Künstler und König, edited by the Stiftung Preußischer Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-Brandenburg. Exh. cat. Neue Orangerie Sanssouci Potsdam. Frankfurt am Main: Fichter, 1995.

BECKER, GRIMMINGER, and HEMMETER 2002: Becker, Frank, Christina Grimminger, and Karlheinz Hemmeter. Stadt Ingolstadt: Ensembles, Baudenkmäler, Archäologische Denkmäler. 2 vols. Denkmäler in Bayern 1. Munich: Lipp, 2002. BEETZ 1883: Beetz, Wilhelm von. Offizieller Bericht über die im königlichen Glaspalaste zu München 1882 unter dem Protektorate Sr. Majestät des Königs Ludwig II. von Bayern stattgehabte Internationale Elektricitäts-Ausstellung verbunden mit elektrotechnischen Versuchen. Munich: Autotypie-Verlag, 1883.

BAUER 1877: Bauer, Wolfgang. Die Eröffnung des neuen Wilhelms-Gymnasiums in München am 24. October 1877. Munich: n.p., 1877. BAUER 1980: Bauer, Hermann. “‘Der Herrschaft Größe vor der Kunst verschwindet, …’: Die Bedeutung der Kunst bei Ludwig I. von Bayern.” In Festschrift für Wilhelm Messerer zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Klaus Ertz, 315–24. Cologne: DuMont, 1980.

BENJAMIN 1992: Benjamin, Walter. Nachträge, Part 2. Vol. 7 of Gesammelte Schriften, edited by Rolf Tiedemann and Hermann Schweppenhäuser. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1992.

BAUER and BRENNER 2006: Bauer, Richard, and Michael Brenner. Jüdisches München: Vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Munich: Beck, 2006.

BERGER 2003: Berger, Albrecht. “Les projets byzantins de Louis II de Bavière.” In Byzance en Europe, edited by Marie-France Auzépy, 75–85. Saint-Denis: Presses universitaires de Vincennes, 2003.

BAUERNFEIND 2011: Bauernfeind, Martina. “Marientorgraben 8 I: Bäderlandschaft am Fluss—das Nürnberger Volksbadprojekt von 1875.” Norica: Berichte und Themen aus dem Stadtarchiv Nürnberg 7 (2011): 54–71.

BERGER 2016: Berger, Albrecht. “Byzantium in Bavaria.” In The Reception of Byzantium in European Culture since 1500, edited by Przemysław Marciniak and Dion C. Smythe, 115–31. Farnham: Ashgate, 2016.

BAUMANN 1999: Baumann, Günther. Das Münchner Waisenhaus: Chronik. 1899–1999, edited by the Sozialreferat der Landeshauptstadt München. Munich: Buchendorfer Verlag, 1999.

BERICHT 1865: Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des Münchener Kunstvereins während des Jahres 1864,

304

erstattet vom Verwaltungs-Ausschuß in der Generalversammlung vom 31. Januar 1865. Munich, 1865. BERICHT 1866: Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des Münchener Kunstvereins während des Jahres 1865, erstattet vom Verwaltungs-Ausschuß in der Generalversammlung vom 31. Januar 1866. Munich, 1866. BERICHT 1867: Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des Münchener Kunstvereins während des Jahres 1866, erstattet vom Verwaltungs-Ausschusse in der Generalversammlung vom 31. Januar 1867. Munich, 1867. BERICHT 1867–69: Bericht über die allgemeine Ausstellung zu Paris im Jahre 1867, edited by K. K. Österreichischen Central-Comité. Vienna, 1867–69. BERICHT 1868: Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des Münchener Kunstvereins während des Jahres 1867, erstattet vom Verwaltungs-Ausschusse in der Generalversammlung vom 31. Januar 1868. Munich, 1868. BERICHT 1883: Die Bayrische LandesIndustrie- Gewerbe- und Kunst-Ausstellung Nürnberg 1882. Nuremberg, 1883. BERICHT 1888: Bericht über den Bestand und das Wirken des unter dem Allerhöchsten Protektorate Seiner Königlichen Hoheit des Prinz-Regenten Luitpold von Bayern stehenden Kunstvereines München während des Jahres 1887. Munich, 1888. BERICHT 1889: Bericht über die Schwäbische Kreis-, Industrie-, Gewerbeund kunsthistorische Ausstellung Augsburg 1886 verbunden mit landwirthschaftlichen Fachausstellungen. Augsburg, 1889. BERICHT POLYTECHNISCHE SCHULE 1869. Bericht über die Königl. Polytechnische Schule zu München für das Studienjahr 1868–1869. Mit einer Abbildung und Beschreibung des Neubaues der polytechnischen Schule von dem Vorstande der Hochbau-Abtheilung Professor Gottfried Neureuther. Munich, 1869. BILLER and RASP 2003: Biller, Josef H., and Hans-Peter Rasp. München: Kunst & Kultur: Stadtführer und Handbuch. 2nd ed. Munich: Südwest, 2003. BILLER and RASP 2009: Biller, Josef H., and Hans-Peter Rasp. München: Kunst & Kultur: Stadtführer und Handbuch. 3rd ed. Munich: Südwest, 2009. BLESSING 1978: Blessing, Werner K. “The Cult of Monarchy, Political

Loyalty and the Workers’ Movement in Imperial Germany,” Journal of Contemporary History 13, no. 2 (April 1978): 357–75. BLESSING 1982: Blessing, Werner K. Staat und Kirche in der Gesellschaft: Institutionelle Autorität und mentaler Wandel in Bayern während des 19. Jahrhunderts. Kritische Studien zur Geschichtswissenschaft 51. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. BLUME 2010: Blume, Gisela Naomi. “Die israelitische Waisenanstalt Fürth,” Fürther Geschichtsblätter 60, no. 3 (2010): 59–86. BLÜMNER 1881: Blümner, Hugo. Laokoon-Studien: Erstes Heft: Über den Gebrauch der Allegorie in den bildenden Künsten. Freiburg: Mohr, 1881. BLUNTSCHLI and LASIUS 1900: Bluntschli, Friedrich, and Georg Lasius. Handbuch der Architektur, Part 4, Half-volume 7, Book 1, Stadt- und Rathäuser, 3–138. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Bergsträsser Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1900. BÖHM 1924: Böhm, Gottfried von. Ludwig II. König von Bayern: Sein Leben und seine Zeit. 2nd ed. Berlin: Engelmann, 1924. BOISSERÉE 1835: Boisserée, Sulpiz. Ueber die Beschreibung des Tempels des Heiligen Grales. Munich, 1835. BÖMCHES 1868: Bömches, Friedrich. Die Arbeiter-Häuser auf der Pariser Weltausstellung von 1867. Vienna: Allgem. Bauzeitung, 1868. BOSL 1990: Bosl, Karl. Bayerische Geschichte. 7th ed. Pfaffenhofen: Ludwig, 1990. BÖSSL 1961: Bößl, Hans. “Der Architekt Gabriel von Seidl und seine Münchener Bauten.” Diss. Technische Universität München, 1961. BOTT 1985: Bott, Gerhard, ed. Leben und Arbeiten im Industriezeitalter: Eine Ausstellung zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Bayerns seit 1850. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg/Centrum Industriekultur Nürnberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1985. BOTZENHART 2004: Botzenhart, Christof. “Ein Schattenkönig ohne Macht will ich nicht sein”: Die Regierungstätigkeit König Ludwigs II. von Bayern. Schriftenreihe zur Bayerischen Landesgeschichte 142. Munich: Beck, 2004.

BUDDENSIEG and ROGGE 1981: Buddensieg, Tilmann, and Henning Rogge, eds. Die nützlichen Künste: Gestaltende Technik und Bildende Kunst seit der Industriellen Revolution. Berlin: Quadriga, 1981.

BOTZENHART 2011: Botzenhart, Christof. “König Ludwig II. von Bayern: Ein politischer König?” In Ludwig II.: Tod und Memoria, edited by Bernhard Lübbers and Marcus Spangenberg, 51–59. Kataloge und Schriften der Staatlichen Bibliothek Regensburg 4. Regensburg, Universität-Verlag Regensburg, 2011.

BURCKHARDT 1997: Burckhardt, Jacob. “Die Allegorie in den Künsten.” In Die Kunst der Betrachtung: Aufsätze und Vorträge, edited by Henning Ritter, 240–61. 2nd ed. Cologne: DuMont, 1997.

BRAUN 1994: Braun, Günter. Schicht-Wechsel: Arbeiter und Gewerkschaft in der Chemie-Stadt Ludwigshafen. Mannheim: Ed. Quadrat, 1994.

BURGNER 2004: Burgner, Willfried. Karl Albert Gollwitzer 1839–1917: Ein Augsburger Baumeister, Architekt und Visionär. Augsburg: Architekturmuseum Schwaben, 2004.

BRAUN 2007: Braun, Helmut. “Industrialisierung,” Historisches Lexikon Bayerns, January 22, 2007, http://www. historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/Industrialisierung.

BUSCHMANN 1985: Buschmann, Walter. “Architektonische und städtebauliche Formen im Arbeitersiedlungsbau des 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland.” In Arbeitersiedlungen im 19. Jahrhundert: Historische Entwicklung, Bedeutung und aktuelles Erhaltungsinteresse, edited by Johannes Biecker and Walter Buschmann, 23–66. Bochum: Brockmeyer, 1985.

BRÄUNLEIN 2000: Bräunlein, Manfred. Die Ostbahnen: Königlich privilegiert und bayerisch: Von den Anfängen bis zur Verstaatlichung, 1851 bis 1875. Nuremberg: Spindler, 2000. BREUER 1982: Breuer, Rüdiger. “Expansion der Städte: Stadtplanung und Veränderung des Baurechts im Kaiserreich.” In Kunstpolitik und Kunstförderung im Kaiserreich, edited by Ekkehard Mai, Hans Pohl, and Stephan Waetzold, 225–43. Kunst, Kultur und Politik im Deutschen Kaiserreich 2. Berlin: Mann, 1982.

BUTTLAR 1989: Buttlar, Adrian von. Der Landschaftsgarten: Gartenkunst des Klassizismus und der Romantik. Cologne: DuMont, 1989. BÜTTNER 1980–99: Büttner, Frank. Peter Cornelius: Fresken und Freskenprojekte. 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1980–99.

BREUER 1993: Breuer, Tilmann. “Naturlandschaft, Kulturlandschaft, Denkmallandschaft,” Icomos: Hefte des deutschen Nationalkomitees/Journals of the German National Comittee/Cahiers du Comité National Allemand 11 (1993): 13–19.

BÜTTNER 2006: Büttner, Frank. “Die Akademie und das Renommee Münchens als Kunststadt,” Zeitenblicke 5, no. 2 (September 19, 2006) www.zeitenblicke.de/2006/2/Buettner/index_html.

BRIX and STEINHAUSER 1978: Brix, Michael, and Monika Steinhauser, eds. “Geschichte im Dienst der Baukunst: Zur historistischen Architektur-Diskussion in Deutschland.” In “Geschichte allein ist zeitgemäß”: Historismus in Deutschland, 199–327. Gießen: Anabas, 1978.

BUTZ 1887: Butz, B. Arbeiter-Wohnhäuser an der Möllenburger Straße der Zwirnerei und Nähfadenfabrik Göggingen. Göggingen, 1887.

C CAHN 1902: Cahn, Ernst. Ein Arbeiterwohnungsviertel in einer süddeutschen Provinzstadt (Bayreuth): Eine sozialistische Studie. Berlin: Heymann, 1902.

BRÖNNER 1994: Brönner, Wolfgang. Die bürgerliche Villa in Deutschland 1830–1890. 2nd ed. Worms: Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1994.

CARL 1882: Carl, Philipp. Unter dem Protectorate seiner Majestät des Königs: Catalog für die Internationale Elektricitäts-Ausstellung verbunden mit Elektro-Technischen Versuchen im Königl. Glaspalaste zu München. 3rd ed. Munich: Knorr & Hirth, 1882.

BUCHMÜLLER 2014: Buchmüller, Maximilian A. “Psychiatriearchitektur als Ausdruck gesundheitsreformerischer Programme in Bayern und Österreich bis 1880.” Diss., Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz, 2014.

ÇELIK 1992: Çelik, Zeynep. Displaying the Orient: Architecture of Islam at Nineteenth-Century World’s Fairs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.

BUDDENSIEG 1984: Buddensieg, Tilmann, ed. Villa Hügel: Das Wohnhaus Krupp in Essen. Berlin: Siedler, 1984.

305

CELLINI 2016: Cellini, Francesco. “Storia e progetto.” In Francesco Cellini, 230–32. Milan: Electa, 2016. CHILDS 1898: Childs, Christopher. “The History of Typhoid Fever in Munich,” The Lancet, 151, no. 3884 (February 5, 1898): 348–54. CHUPIN, CUCUZZELLA, and HELAL 2015: Chupin, Jean-Pierre, Carmela Cucuzzella, and Bechara Helal, eds. Architecture Competitions and the Production of Culture, Quality and Knowledge: An International Inquiry. Montreal: Potential Architecture Books, 2015. CIANCIOLO COSENTINO 2014: Cianciolo Cosentino, Gabriella. “Gotisch oder Arabisch: La riscoperta dell’arte dei barbari fra medievalismo e orientalismo.” In Architettura dell’Eclettismo: Ornamento e decorazione nell’architettura, edited by Loretta Mozzoni and Stefano Santini, 153–80. Naples: Liguori Editore, 2014. CRAEMER 1898: Craemer, Josef L. Die Bayerischen Königsschlösser in Wort und Bild. Munich, 1898. CROMME 2015: Cromme, Rasmus. “Vom ‘Actien-Volks-Theater’ zur ‘Bourgeois-Amüsieranstalt’: 1865–1899.” In“Dem Volk zur Lust und zum Gedeihen”: 150 Jahre Gärtnerplatztheater, edited by Stefan Frey, 18–35. Exh. cat. Deutsches Theatermuseum München. Leipzig: Henschel, 2015.

D DANIELL and DANIELL 1813–15: Daniell, Thomas, and William Daniell. Oriental Scenery. 6 vols. London, 1813–15. DAUM 1998: Daum, Andreas. Wissenschaftspopularisierung im 19. Jahrhundert: Bürgerliche Kultur, naturwissenschaftliche Bildung und die deutsche Öffentlichkeit 1848–1914. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1998. DAUSS 2007: Dauss, Markus. Identitätsarchitekturen: Öffentliche Bauten des Historismus in Paris und Berlin (1871–1918). Dresden: Thelem, 2007. DEBOLD-KRITTER 1991: Debold Kritter, Astrid. “Das Textilviertel in Augsburg: Beschreibende und photographische Analyse einer historischen Kultur- und Industrie-Landschaft mit ihren Baudenkmälern.” In Beiträge zur Denkmalpflege: Tillmann Breuer zum 60. Geburtstag, 217–35. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen

Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege 56. Munich: Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, 1991. DIE DIOSKUREN 1860: “Kunst-Chronik,” Die Dioskuren 5, no. 7 (February 12, 1860): 56–57. DIENEL and HILZ 1993: Dienel, Hans-Liudger, and Helmut Hilz, eds. Bayerns Weg in das technische Zeitalter: 125 Jahre Technische Universität München, 1868–1993. Munich: Hugendubel, 1993. DIRRIGL 1984: Dirrigl, Michael. Maximilian II. König von Bayern: Das Kulturkönigtum der Wittelsbacher. Studien zur Literatur-, Kunst-, Kultur- und Geistesgeschichte Bayerns 2. Munich: Hugendubel, 1984. DOERING 1924: Doering, Oscar. Zwei Münchener Baukünstler: Gabriel von Seidl, Georg von Hauberrisser. Die Kunst dem Volke 51. Munich: Allgemeine Vereinigung für Christliche Kunst, 1924. DUNKEL 2007: Dunkel, Franziska. Reparieren und Repräsentieren: Die Bayerische Hofbauintendanz 1804–1886. Munich: Beck, 2007.

E EBELING 1867: Ebeling, Adolf. Die Wunder der Pariser Weltausstellung von 1867. Cologne: Bachem, 1867. EICHNER 1998: Eichner, Wolfgang. Dokumentation zur Wiedererrichtung und Restaurierung. Vol. 2 of Das Marokkanische Haus im Schlosspark Linderhof. Munich: Bayerischen Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, 1998. EISOLD 2000: Eisold, Norbert. Das Dessau-Wörlitzer Gartenreich: Der Traum von der Vernunft. Rostock: Hinstorff, 2000. EITELBERGER 1879: Eitelberger von Edelberg, Rudolf. “Das deutsche Kunstgewerbe: Betrachtungen aus Anlass der Münchner kunstgewerblichen Ausstellung im Jahre 1876.” In Oesterreichische Kunst-Institute und kunstgewerbliche Zeitfragen, 344–69. Vol 2 of Gesammelte kunsthistorische Schriften. Vienna: Braumüller, 1879. ENGELHARDT 1985: Engelhardt, Thomas. “Arbeitswelt in Fabrik und Büro: Menschen nach Maß: Fabrikdisziplin und industrielle Zeitökonomie während der Industrialisierung Bayerns.” In Leben und Arbeiten im Industriezeitalter: Eine Ausstellung zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Bayerns

seit 1850, edited by Gerhard Bott, 289–317. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1985.

mode im 19. Jahrhundert. Miscellanea Bavarica Monacensia 130. Munich: UNI-Druck, 1987. FEHR and HALLINGER 2008. Fehr, Hubert, and Johannes Hallinger. “4. Vom personalen Nebenamt zur selbständigen Behörde: die Anfänge des Generalkonservatoriums der Kunstdenkmale und Altertümer Bayerns.” In Entdeckungsreise Vergangenheit: Die Anfänge der Denkmalpflege in Bayern, edited by Gerhard Hetzer and Michael Stephan, 177–79. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv/ Bayerischen Landesamt für Denkmalpflege München. Munich: Volk, 2008.

ENGELS, ENGELS, and HOPSTOCK 1985: Engels, Heinz-Josef, Renate Engels, and Katrin Hopstock. Augustinerkloster—Schule—Sparkasse: Geschichte auf einem Speyerer Bauplatz (erschienen aus Anlaß der Eröffnung des neuen Hauptstellengebäudes der Kreis- und Stadtsparkasse Speyer—Am Siebertplatz). Speyer: Kreis- und Stadtsparkasse Speyer, 1985. ENGELS and MARX 1980: Engels, Friedrich, and Karl Marx. Wohnung, Siedlung, Lebensweise: Aus Werken und Briefen von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels, edited by Gerhard Schmitz. Berlin: Verlag für Bauwesen, 1980.

FELDBAUER 2011: Feldbauer, Otto. “Der Chiemgau und der Bau des Schlosses Herrenchiemsee.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 117–21.

ERBEN and FRENKLER 2018: Erben, Dietrich, and Fritz Frenkler, eds. Technik als ästhetisches Problem. In preparation.

FELTEN 1997: Felten, Florens. “Antike Architekturkopien.” In Komos: Festschrift für Thuri Lorenz zum 65. Geburtstag, edited by Gabriele Erath, 61–69. Vienna: Phoibos, 1997.

ERICHSEN 2011a: Erichsen, Johannes. “Ein König auf dem Theater.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Catalogue, 11–14.

FERNÁNDEZ TROYANO 2003: Fernández Troyano, Leonardo. Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective. London: Thomas Telford, 2003.

ERICHSEN 2011b: Erichsen, Johannes. “Ludovicus Conservator.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 155–62.

FERRY 2003: Ferry, Kathryn. “Printing the Alhambra: Owen Jones and Chromolithography,” Architectural History 46 (2003): 175–88.

ERSCH and GRUBER 1818: Ersch, Johann S., and Johann G. Gruber. Allgemeine Encyklopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste, Part 1. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1818.

FISCH 1988: Fisch, Stefan. Stadtplanung im 19. Jahrhundert: Das Beispiel München bis zur Ära Theodor Fischer. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1988.

ERSOY 2015: Ersoy, Ahmet. Architecture and the Late Ottoman Historical Imaginary: Reconfiguring the Architectural Past in a Modernizing Empire. London: Routledge, 2015.

FISCHER 1977: Fischer, Ilse. Industrialisierung, sozialer Konflikt und politische Willensbildung in der Stadtgemeinde: Ein Beitrag zur Sozialgeschichte Augsburgs 1840–1941, 189–91. Abhandlungen zur Geschichte der Stadt Augsburg 24. Augsburg: H. Mühlberger, 1977.

EVERS 1974: Evers, Hans G. “Brücken.” In Grote 1974, 247–56. EVERS 1986: Evers, Hans G. Ludwig II. von Bayern: Theaterfürst, König, Bauherr: Gedanken zum Selbstverständnis, edited by Josef A. Schmoll. Munich: Hirmer, 1986.

FREYTAG 1920: Freytag, Ludwig. “Heinrich Gerber, Altmeister der deutschen Eisenbaukunst,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der Technik und Industrie 10 (1920): 93–102.

F

FRITSCH 1883: Fritsch, Karl E. O. “Das neue Kunst-Akademie Gebäude zu München,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 17, no. 6 (1883): 29–33.

FANELLI 2016: Fanelli, Giovanni. Histoire de la photographie d’architecture. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes, 2016.

FRITSCH 1888: Fritsch, Karl E. O. Die neue Synagoge in München von Albert Schmidt. Munich: J. B. Obernetter, 1888.

FEHLE 1987: Fehle, Isabella. Der Maurische Kiosk in Linderhof von Karl von Diebitsch: Ein Beispiel für die Orient-

306

FUETER and ELSCHENBROICH 1966: Fueter, Eduard K., and Adalbert Elschenbroich. “Haller, Albrecht von.” In Grassauer–Hartmann, 541–48. Vol. 7 of Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1966.

G GEBAUER n.d.: Gebauer, Dietmar. “Abriss der Geschichte des Wittelsbacher Gymnasiums: Gründungsgeschichtlicher Abriss,” Wittelsbacher-Gymnasium München, accessed May 10, 2018, http://wittelsbacher-gymnasium.de/schulleben/geschichte/. GEDON 1994: Gedon, Brigitte. Lorenz Gedon: Die Kunst des Schönen. Munich: Nymphenburger, 1994. GEPPERT 2017: Geppert, Alexander C. T. “Weltausstellungen.” In Europäische Geschichte Online, accessed December 8, 2017, http://ieg-ego.eu/ de/threads/crossroads/wissensraeume/ alexander-c-t-geppert-weltausstellungen/at_download/dnb. GERBER 2001: Gerber, David J. Law and Competition in Twentieth-Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001. GLASER 2004–11: Glaser, Hubert, ed. König Ludwig I. von Bayern und Leo von Klenze: Der Briefwechsel. 3 vols. Quellen zur neueren Geschichte Bayerns 5: Korrespondenzen König Ludwigs I. von Bayern. Munich: Kommission für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, 2004–11. GLASER 2008: Glaser, Silvia. “Gründung und Frühphase des Bayerischen Gewerbemuseums in Nürnberg.” In Gründerzeit: 1848–1871, edited by Ulrike Laufer and Hans Ottomeyer, 328–30. Exh. cat. Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin. Dresden: Sandstein, 2008. GÖLDL 2015: Göldl, Marianne. “König Ludwigs Schlösser in der Werbung: Sammelbilder und Reklamemarken um 1900.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 119–31. GORDON 1876: Gordon, Joseph. Die Canalisation der kgl. Haupt- und Residenzstadt München. Munich: E. Mühlthaler, 1876. GÖRRES 1813: Görres, Joseph. Lohengrin: Ein altdeutsches Gedicht. Heidelberg: Mohr & Zimmer, 1813. GÖTZ and SCHACK-SIMITZIS 1988: Götz, Norbert, and Clementine Schack-Simitzis, eds. Die Prinzregentenzeit. Exh. cat. Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Beck, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY GOURY and JONES 1842–45: Goury, Jules, and Owen Jones. Plans, Elevations, Sections and Details of the Alhambra. 2 vols. London: Owen Jones, 1842–45. GRADINGER 2012: Gradinger, Reiner. Das Klinikum rechts der Isar im Wandel der Zeit, edited by Reiner Gradinger and the Klinikum rechts der Isar. 2nd ed. Munich: HM Scherer, 2012. GRAF 2017: Graf, Oskar M. Das Leben meiner Mutter. Berlin: Ullstein Taschenbuch, 2017. GRAU 2008: Grau, Bernhard. “Naturdenkmalpflege: Die Anfänge des Naturschutzes in Bayern im 19. Jahrhundert.” In Entdeckungsreise Vergangenheit: Die Anfänge der Denkmalpflege in Bayern, edited by Gerhard Hetzer and Michael Stephan, 43–63. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv/Bayerischen Landesamt für Denkmalpflege München. Munich: Volk, 2008. GRECIANO 1967: Greciano, Georges. “Louis II de Bavière et la France.” In Der König: Beiträge zur Ludwigsforschung. Festschrift zur Enthüllung des Münchner Ludwigdenkmals, edited by Hans Keller, 111–15. Bavarica 1. Munich: Verlag der Grotius-Stiftung, 1967. GREGOROVIUS 1851: Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Geschichte des römischen Kaisers Hadrian und seiner Zeit. Königsberg: J. H. Bon, 1851. GREGOROVIUS 1884: Gregorovius, Ferdinand. Der Kaiser Hadrian: Gemälde der römisch-hellenischen Welt zu seiner Zeit. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1884. GREIN 1925: Grein, Edir [Erwin Riedinger], ed. Tagebuch-Aufzeichnungen von Ludwig II., König von Bayern. Schaan: Quaderer, 1925. GRIMM et al. 1985: Grimm, Claus, et al., eds. Aufbruch ins Industriezeitalter. Vol. 3, Quellen zur Wirtschaftsund Sozialgeschichte Bayerns vom ausgehenden 18. Jahrhundert bis zur Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts; and Vol. 4, Führer durch die Ausstellung zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Bayerns von 1750–1850. Munich: Oldenbourg, 1985. GROSS and SELIG 2004: Gross, Gerhard, and Heinz Selig. “Aufbruch zur Großstadt: 1860–1918.” In München wie geplant: Die Entwicklung der Stadt von 1158 bis 2008, edited by the Landeshauptstadt München et al., 67–86.

HABEL 1988b: Habel, Heinrich. “Gottfried Sempers städtebauliche Entwürfe für den Bereich um Hofgarten und Marstallplatz in München.” In Denkmäler am Münchner Hofgarten: Forschungen und Berichte zu Planungsgeschichte und historischem Baubestand, 135–45. Munich: Lipp, 1988.

Exh. cat. Stadtmuseum München/Referat für Stadtplanung und Bauordnung/Stadtarchiv München. Munich: Schiermeier, 2004. GROTE 1974: Grote, Ludwig, ed. Die deutsche Stadt im 19. Jahrhundert: Stadtplanung und Baugestalt im industriellen Zeitalter, Studien zur Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 24. Munich: Hirmer, 1974.

HABEL, HALLINGER, and WESKI 2009: Habel, Heinrich, Johannes Hallinger, and Tim Weski. Landeshauptstadt München Mitte: Die Bezirke Altstadt und Lehel, Maxvorstadt sowie der Englische Garten, edited by Michael Petzet and Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Munich: Lipp, 2009.

GRÜNSTEUDEL and WAHL 2011: Grünsteudel, Günther, and Karl Wahl. “Prinz-Karl-Kaserne,” Augsburger Stadtlexikon, last updated February 24, 2011, https://www.stadtlexikon-augsburg.de/index.php?id=114&tx_ttnews [swords]=Kaserne&tx_ttnews[tt_ news]=5063&tx_ttnews[backPid]=115&cHash=6f5a879454.

HACKER 1986: Hacker, Rupert, ed. Ludwig II. von Bayern in Augenzeugenberichten. 3rd ed. Munich: DTV, 1986.

GUGGEMOS 2004: Guggemos, Egon. Das Hauberrisser-Rathaus in Kaufbeuren. Kaufbeuren: Verkehrsverein Kaufbeuren, 2004.

HÄFNER 1959: Häfner, Siegfried. Festschrift zur Vierhundert-Jahr-Feier des Wilhelms-Gymnasiums, 1559–1959. Munich: Das Gymnasium, 1959.

H

HALLINGER 2008: Hallinger, Johannes. “Der Weg zu einer selbständigen Denkmalbehörde: königliche Ambitionen, der Landtag und Staatsminister Anton von Wehner.” In Entdeckungsreise Vergangenheit: Die Anfänge der Denkmalpflege in Bayern, edited by Gerhard Hetzer and Michael Stephan, 83–103. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv/ Bayerischen Landesamt für Denkmalpflege München. Munich: Volk, 2008.

HAAGSMA and Haan 1988: Haagsma, Ids, and Hilde de Haan. Architekten-Wettbewerbe: Internationale Konkurrenzen der letzten 200 Jahre. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1988. HAASEN 1995: Haasen, Gisela. Ludwig II.: Briefe an seine Erzieherin. Munich: Bruckmann, 1995. HABEL 1967: Habel, Heinrich. Das Odeon in München und die Frühzeit des öffentlichen Konzertsaalbaus. Neue Münchner Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte 8. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1967.

HAMMER-SCHENK 1981: Hammer-Schenk, Harold. Synagogen in Deutschland: Geschichte einer Baugattung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (1780–1933). 2 vols. Hamburger Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Juden 3. Hamburg: Hans Christians, 1981.

HABEL 1970: Habel, Heinrich. “Die Idee des Festspielhauses.” In Die Richard-Wagner-Bühne König Ludwigs II., edited by Detta Petzet and Michael Petzet, 297–316. Munich: Prestel, 1970.

HAMMER-SCHENK 1988: Hammer-Schenk, Harold. “Die Architektur der Synagoge von 1780 bis 1933.” In Die Architektur der Synagoge, edited by Hans-Peter Schwarz, 157–286. Exh. cat. Deutsches Architekturmuseum Frankfurt am Main. Frankfurt am Main: DAM, 1988.

HABEL 1971: Habel, Heinrich. Der Münchner Kirchenbau im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert. Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1971. HABEL 1980: Habel, Heinrich. “Klenzes Entwürfe für das Odeon in München,” Jahrbuch der Bayerischen Denkmalpflege 32 (1980): 201–26.

HARRER 1993: Harrer, Cornelia A. Das Ältere Bayerische Nationalmuseum an der Maximilianstraße in München. Schriften aus dem Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität München 63. Munich: Tuduv, 1993.

HABEL 1985: Habel, Heinrich. Festspielhaus und Wahnfried: Geplante und ausgeführte Bauten Richard Wagners. Munich: Prestel, 1985.

HARTMANN 1876: Hartmann, August. “Der Neubau des Haupt-Zollamt-Gebäudes München,” Zeitschrift des Bayerischen Architekten- und Ingenieur-Vereins 8, nos. 2/3 (1876): 44–48.

HABEL 1988a: Habel, Heinrich. “Das Bayreuther Festspielhaus,” Deutsche Kunst und Denkmalpflege 46 (1988): 31–38.

307

HARVIE, MARTIN, and SCHARF 1976: Harvie, Christopher, Graham Martin, and Aaron Scharf, eds. Industrialisation and Culture 1830–1914. 3rd ed. London: Macmillan, 1976. HDBG n.d.: Haus der bayerischen Geschichte. “Landtagsgebäude Prannerstraße 20, München (1819–1933),” hdbg.de, accessed April 13, 2018, http:// www.hdbg.de/parlament/content/ toDetail.php?id=1. HEDERER n.d.: Hederer, Oswald. Die Pläne von Friedrich von Gärtner und Gottfried Semper für die städtebauliche Gestaltung Münchens. Architekturmuseum TUM, hed-35-1. HEID and RAFTOPOULO 1996: Heid, Ulrich, and Joachim G. Raftopoulo. Der Würzburger Ringpark: Kulturdenkmal und Naherholungsgebiet, edited by the Umweltreferat und Stadtarchiv Würzburg. Würzburg: Schöningh, 1996. HEINRICH 1970: Heinrich, Adolf F. “Die Wohnungsnot und die Wohnungsfürsorge privater Arbeitgeber in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert.” Diss., Philipps-Universität Marburg, 1970. HERLITZ 1927–30: Herlitz, Geord, ed. Jüdisches Lexikon: Ein enzyklopädisches Handbuch des jüdischen Wissens in vier Bänden. 5 vols. Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag, 1927–30. HERRMANN 2006: Herrmann, Wolfgang A., ed. Technische Universität München: Die Geschichte eines Wissenschaftsunternehmens. 2 vols. Berlin: Metropol, 2006. HESSE 1971: Hesse, Horst. Die sogenannte Sozialgesetzgebung Bayerns am Ende der sechziger Jahre des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ein Beitrag zur Strukturanalyse der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Miscellanea Bavarica Monacensia 33. Munich: R. Wölfle, 1971. HETZER and TRÖGER 2001: Hetzer, Gerhard, and Otto-Karl Tröger. Weichenstellungen: Eisenbahnen in Bayern 1835–1920. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv. Munich: Generaldirektion der Staatlichen Archive Bayerns, 2001. HEYM 1986: Heym, Sabine. “König Ludwig II.: Leben, Politik, Bauten: Ein chronologischer Überblick.” In Hojer 1986, 127–44. HIEBER and MOEBIUS 2001: Hieber, Lutz, and Stephan Moebius, eds. Ästhetisierung des Sozialen: Reklame,

BIBLIOGRAPHY Kunst und Politik im Zeitalter der Medien. Bielefeld: transcript, 2001.

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1889.

HILDMANN and JOCHER 2008. Hildmann, Andreas, and Norbert Jocher, eds. Die Münchner Kirchen: Architektur, Kunst, Liturgie. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2008.

HOLLAND 1905: Holland, Hyacinth. “Wilhelm Hauschild.” In Harkort–Kalchberg, 77–81. Vol. 50 of Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1905.

HILMES 2013: Hilmes, Oliver. Ludwig II.: Der unzeitgemäße König. Munich: Siedler, 2013.

HOLLAND 1906: Holland, Hyacinth. “Knoll, Konrad.” In Kálnoky– Lindnr, 259–62. Vol. 51 of Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1906.

HINRICHS 1852: Hinrichs, Hermann. Die Könige: Entwicklungsgeschichte des Königtums von den ältesten Zeiten bis auf die Gegenwart. Leipzig: Costenoble, 1852. HIPPEL 1983: Hippel, Wolfgang von. “Stadtentwicklung und Stadtteilbildung in einer Industriesiedlung des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ludwigshafen am Rhein 1853–1914.” In Urbanisierung im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Historische und geographische Aspekte, edited by Hans J. Teuteberg, 339–72. Städteforschung, Reihe A: Darstellungen 16. Cologne: Böhlau, 1983. HITCHCOCK 1929: Hitchcock, Henry-Russell. Modern Architecture: Romanticism and Reintegration. New York: Payson & Clarke, 1929. HOFFMANN 1999: Hoffmann, Tobias. Schloss Linderhof: Eine Maison de Plaisance? Eine bautypologische Untersuchung. Munich: Tuduv, 1999. HOFMANN 1991: Hofmann, Werner. Das Irdische Paradies: Motive und Ideen des 19. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Prestel, 1991. HOH-SLODCZYK 1985: Hoh-Slodczyk, Christine. Das Haus des Künstlers im 19. Jahrhundert. Materialien zur Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 33. Munich: Prestel, 1985. HOJER 1986: Hojer, Gerhard, ed. König Ludwig II.: Museum Herrenchiemsee: Katalog. Munich: Hirmer, 1986. HOJER 2003: Hojer, Gerhard. “Neuschwanstein, Wartburg und die Opernbühne Richard Wagners,” Jahrbuch der Stiftung Thüringer Schlösser und Gärten 6 (2003): 107–14. HOJER, Schmid, and Schmid 1993: Hojer, Gerhard, Elmar D. Schmid, and Gregor M. Schmid. Das Jagdschloss des Märchenkönigs: Das Schachenhaus Ludwigs II. Munich: Ludwig, 1993. HOLLAND 1889: Holland, Hyacinth. “Eduard von Riedel.” In Reinbeck–Rodbertus, 520–21. Vol. 28 of

JUNG 2010: Jung, Carsten. Historische Theater in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010.

K KAHLE 2001: Kahle, Ulrich. “Die Bahnhöfe der Kgl. Bayerischen Staatseisenbahnen 1835–1920.” In Hetzer and Tröger 2001, 352–62. KÄHLER 1950: Kähler, Heinz. Hadrian und seine Villa bei Tivoli. Berlin: Mann, 1950.

HOMMEL 1963: Hommel, Kurt. Die Separatvorstellungen vor König Ludwig II. von Bayern: Schauspiel, Oper, Ballett. Munich: Laokoon, 1963.

KARNAPP 1971: Karnapp, BirgitVerena. “Georg Friedrich Ziebland: Studien zu seinem Leben und Werk.” Diss., Universität Innsbruck, 1971.

HORN and KARL 1989: Horn, Heinrich, and Willibald Karl. Neuhausen: Geschichte und Gegenwart, edited by Richard Bauer. Munich: Hugendubel, 1989.

KARNAPP 1997: Karnapp, Birgit-Verena. “Militärbauten.” In Nerdinger 1997, 376–95.

HUBER 2006: Huber, Brigitte. Das Neue Rathaus in München: Georg von Hauberrisser (1841–1922) und sein Hauptwerk, edited by the Stadtarchiv München. Ebenhausen, 2006.

KARNAPP 2010: Karnapp, Birgit-Verena. “‘… Ein Wall gegründet gen geist’ge Nacht’: Zur Baugeschichte des Wilhelmsgymnasiums in München.” In Serenissimi Gymnasium: 450 Jahre bayerische Bildungspolitik vom Jesuitenkolleg zum Wilhelmsgymnasium München, edited by Julius Oswald SJ, Rolf Selbmann, and Claudia Wiener, 109–24. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2010.

HUBER 2013: Huber, Valeska. Channelling Mobilities: Migration and Globalisation in the Suez Canal Region and Beyond, 1869–1914. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. HUFNAGL 1979: Hufnagl, Florian. Gottfried von Neureuther (1811–1887): Leben und Werk. Miscellanea Bavarica Monacensia 91. Munich: Wölfe, 1979.

KERKHOFF 1985: Kerkhoff, Ulrich. “Bayerische Landesausstellungen.” In Leben und Arbeiten im Industriezeitalter: Eine Ausstellung zur Wirtschaftsund Sozialgeschichte Bayerns seit 1850, edited by Gerhard Bott, 245–54. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg/Centrum Industriekultur Nürnberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1985.

HÜTTL 1996: Hüttl, Ludwig. “König Ludwig II.” In Schwangau: Dorf der Königsschlösser, edited by Wilhelm Liebhart, 287–319. Sigmaringen: Thorbecke, 1996.

I

KIEFER 2011: Kiefer, Bernd. “Vom Traum-König zum Illusions-Künstler: Das Nachleben Ludwigs II. in Literatur und Film.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 246–56.

ILLUSTRIRTE ZEITUNG 1867: Illustrirte Zeitung, no. 1240, April 6, 1867, 236.

J

KITTLER 1986: Kittler, Friedrich. Grammophon Film Typewriter. Berlin: Brinkmann & Bose, 1986.

JERVIS 1979: Jervis, Simon, ed. Designs for the Dream King: The Castles and Palaces of Ludwig II of Bavaria. Exh. cat. Victoria and Albert Museum London/Cooper-Hewitt Museum New York. London: Debrett’s, 1979.

KLAR 2002: Klar, Alexander. Im Dienste des bayerischen Königs: Leben und Werk des Baumeisters Friedrich Bürklein (1813–1872). Munich: Scaneg, 2002.

JOERG 1980: Joerg, Roland. “Die Organisation der Bayerischen Staatsbauverwaltung: Historischer Rückblick und heutiger Stand.” In 150 Jahre Oberste Baubehörde im Bayerischen Staatsministerium des Innern. Munich: Nord-Süd-Werbung, 1980.

KLASEN 1879: Klasen, Ludwig. Die Arbeiter-Wohnhäuser in ihrer baulichen Anlage und Ausführung, sowie die Anlage von Arbeiter-Kolonien. Leipzig: K. Scholtze, 1879.

308

KLEIDT 2014: Kleidt, Stefanie. “Die Sammlungen der Gebrüder Schlagintweit.” In Über den Himalaya: Die Expedition der Brüder Schlagintweit nach Indien und Zentralalsien 1854 bis 1858, edited by Moritz von Brescius, Friederike Kaiser, and Stefanie Kleidt, 113–37. Cologne: Böhlau, 2014. KNAUSS 1983: Knauß, Hans. Zweckbau-Architektur zwischen Repräsentation und Nutzen: Konzeption und Ästhetik ausgewählter Zweckbauten in der Zeit von ca. 1850–1930 in Bayern. Tuduv-Studien/ Reihe Kunstgeschichte 5. Munich: Tuduv, 1983. KNECHTEL and Knobling 2018: Knechtel, Miriam, and Clemens Knobling. “Bauliche Entwicklung des Klinikums rechts der Isar.” In Bauten + Kunst: Technische Universität München 1868–2018, edited by Wolfgang A. Herrmann, 282–313. Munich: Technische Universität, 2018. KNELL 2008: Knell, Heiner. Des Kaisers neue Bauten: Hadrians Architektur in Rom, Athen, und Tivoli. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 2008. KNIPPING and HÖHMANN 2001: Knipping, Detlef, and Rolf Höhmann. “Die Maxhütte in Sulzbach-Rosenberg: Ein Denkmal der bayerischen Eisen- und Stahlindustrie im europäischen Kontext.” In Denkmalpflege in strukturschwachen Regionen: Probleme und Chancen; 11. Jahrestagung der Bayerischen Denkmalpflege, edited by Susanne Böning-Weis and Karlheinz Hemmeter, 33–54. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege 115. Munich: Lipp, 2003. KNOPP 1970: Knopp, Norbert. “Gestalt und Sinn der Schlösser König Ludwigs II.” In ARGO: Festschrift für Kurt Badt zu seinem 80. Geburtstag am 3. März 1970, edited by Martin Gosebruch and Lorenz Dittmann, 340–53. Cologne: DuMont, 1970. KOBELL 1898: Kobell, Louise von. König Ludwig II. von Bayern und die Kunst. Munich: Jol. Albert, 1898. KOCH 1986: Koch, Christian. “Ordnung, gute Arbeit und Lohn: Industrielle Disziplin und soziale Versorgung der Bleistiftarbeiter seit Lothar von Faber.” In Das Bleistiftschloss: Familie und Unternehmen Faber-Castell in Stein, 122–41. Exh. cat. Schloss Faber-Castell Stein. Munich: Hugendubel, 1986. KOCH 2000: Koch, Michael. “‘Unserer Väter Werke’: Der Bayerische Kunstgewerbeverein im Zeitalter des Historismus.” In Form—vollendet: Der

Bayerische Kunstgewerbeverein 1851–2001, edited by Christoph Hölz, 18–37. Munich: Hypo-Vereinsbank, 2000. KOPPELKAMM 1987: Koppelkamm, Stefan. Exotische Welten Europäische Phantasien: Exotische Architekturen im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Exh. cat. Institut für Auslandsbeziehungen im design center stuttgart des Landesgewerbeamtes Baden-Württemberg. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, 1987. KOPPELKAMM 2015: Koppelkamm, Stefan. “The Orient of Ludwig II.” In The Imaginary Orient, 105–11. Stuttgart: Axel Menges, 2015. KÖRNER 1992: Körner, Hans-Michael. Staat und Geschichte im Königreich Bayern 1806–1918. Schriftenreihe zur Bayerischen Landesgeschichte 96. Munich: Beck, 1992. KÖRNER 2012: Körner, Hans-Michael. “Kulturkampf im Königreich Bayern: Staat und Kirche in der Regierungszeit König Ludwigs II,” Zur Debatte, no. 1 (2012), accessed May 31, 2018, https://www.kath-akademie-bayern.de/tl_files/Kath_Akademie_Bayern/Veroeffentlichungen/zur_debatte/ pdf/2012/Vortrag_Koerner.pdf. KOSS 2010: Koss, Juliet. Modernism after Wagner. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010. KOTZUR 1978: Kotzur, Hans-Jürgen. “Forschungen zum Leben und Werk des Architekten August von Voit.” 2 vols. Diss., Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 1977. KRAMER 2011: Kramer, Ferdinand. “Gründerzeiten: Aspekte der industriellen Entwicklung des Königreichs Bayern im Vergleich zu anderen deutschen Staaten.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 91–95. KRÄTZ 1985: Krätz, Otto. “Zur Entwicklung der chemischen Industrie in Bayern.” In Leben und Arbeiten im Industriezeitalter: Eine Ausstellung zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Bayerns seit 1850, edited by Gerhard Bott, 202–7. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg/Centrum Industriekultur Nürnberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1985. KRAUS 1988: Kraus, Andreas. Geschichte Bayerns: Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. 2nd ed. Munich: Beck, 1988. KRAUS 2006: Kraus, Werner, ed. Schauplätze der Industriekultur in Bayern. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2006.

KRAUSE 1869: Krause, Johann H. Die Byzantiner des Mittelalters in ihrem Staats-, Hof- und Privatleben. Halle: G. Swetschke, 1869.

LAUDEL 2003: Laudel, Heidrun. “Sempers Theaterbauten: Stätten monumentaler Festlichkeit.” In Nerdinger and Oechslin 2003, 133–37.

LIEBHART 1997: Liebhart, Wilhelm. Bayerns Könige: Königtum und Politik in Bayern. 2nd ed. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1997.

KRAUSE, Laudel, and Nerdinger 2001: Krause, Walter, Heidrun Laudel, and Winfried Nerdinger, eds. Neorenaissance: Ansprüche an einen Stil: Zweites Historismus-Symposium. Dresden: Philo Fine Arts, 2001.

LAUTER 1984: Lauter, Hans, ed. 150 Jahre Krankenhaus rechts der Isar, 1834–1984: Von der Haidhauser Armenund Krankenhausanstalt zum Klinikum der Technischen Universität. Gräfelfing: Demeter, 1984.

Linde 1928: Linde, Fritz. Ich, der König: Der Untergang Ludwigs II. Leipzig: G. Kummer, 1928.

KRAUSS 2011: Krauss, Marita. “Von Ludwig II. zu Ludwig III.: Modernisierungsprozesse in Bayern.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 96–106.

LEHNER 1868: Lehner, Hannibal. Das Wehrverfassungs-Gesetz für das Königreich Bayern vom 30. Januar 1868: Mit Auslegungsbehelfen aus den Referaten, Protokollen und Berichten beider Kammern mit praktischen, den Vollzug wesentlich erleichternden Zusätzen. Munich: J. J. Lentner, 1868.

KREISEL 1965: Kreisel, Heinrich. “Ludwig II. als Bauherr: Die geistigen Grundlagen seines Bauens,” Oberbayerisches Archiv 87 (1965): 69–88.

LEIN 1980: Lein, Kurt. Führer durch den Landschaftspark Wörlitz, Geschichte und Beschreibung: Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten Wörlitz, Oranienburg und Luisium. Wörlitz: Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten, 1980.

KRINGS 1985: Krings, Ulrich. Bahnhofsarchitektur: Deutsche Großstadtbahnhöfe des Historismus. Munich: Prestel, 1985. KRUSE et al. 2009: Kruse, Christian, et al. Städte im Aufbruch: München und Moskau 1812–1914. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv/ Stadtarchiv München/Museum für die Geschichte Moskaus. Munich: Generaldirektion der Staatlichen Archive Bayerns, 2009.

LEISKAU 2008: Leiskau, Katja. “Architektur und Geschichte der staatlichen archivzweckbauten in Deutschland 1871–1945.” Diss., Philipps-Universität Marburg, 2008. LEPIK 1995: Lepik, Andres. “Das Architekturmodell der frühen Renaissance: Die Erfindung eines Mediums.” In Architekturmodelle der Renaissance: Die Harmonie des Bauens von Alberti bis Michelangelo, edited by Bernd Evers, 10–20. Exh. cat. Kunstbibliothek im Alten Museum Berlin. Munich: Prestel, 1995.

KÜNDIG 1913: Kündig, Hugo. “Geschichte der bayerischen Arbeiterschutzgesetzgebung.” Diss., Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1913.

L

LINDL 2011: Lindl, Stefan. “‘Le Roi Maudit’: Mechanismen königlicher Macht Ludwigs II. im Allgäu und in Tirol.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 75–79. LISSON 1991: Lisson, Peter. Drehscheibe des Südens: Eisenbahnknoten München. Darmstadt: Hestra, 1991. LOCHER 1996: Locher, Wolfgang. 150 Jahre Dr. von Haunersches Kinderspital 1846–1996: Von der Mietwohnung zur Universitätsklinik. Munich: Cygnus, 1996. LOCHER 2008: Locher, Wolfgang. “Max von Pettenkofer (1818–1901) als Innovator der Münchner Trinkwasserversorgung.” In Quellen für München, edited by Christian Ude, 56–67. Munich: Hanser, 2008. LOCHER, REINHARDT, and SCHWEINITZ 2008: Locher, Wolfgang G., Dietrich Reinhardt, and Dietrich von Schweinitz. “Das Dr. von Haunersche Kinderkrankenhaus in München—von der Stiegenwohnung zur medizinischen Spitzenleistung,” Hauner Journal, nos. 31/32 (July/August 2008): 8–16. LÖHER 1882: Löher, Franz von. “Das Kreisarchiv im neuen Gebäude,” Archivalische Zeitschrift 7 (1882): 298–314.

LAIBLIN 2016: Laiblin, Martin. Theater. Bau. Effekte! Der Architekt Max Littmann und München zur Prinzregentenzeit. Leipzig: Henschel, 2016.

LEYBOLD 1875: Leybold, Ludwig. “Die Schrannenhalle zu Augsburg,” Zeitschrift des bayerischen Architektenund Ingenieurvereins 1 (1875), n.p.

LOIBL 2006: Loibl, Richard. “Themenroute: Industriestadt Augsburg.” In Kraus 2006, 26–35.

LANDTAGSBESCHLUSS 1837: “Landtagsbeschluss zur Gründung der Kunsthalle Karlsruhe 1837,” Großherzoglich Badischen Staats- und Regierungsblatt 22, July 18, 1837, 145.

LICHTENSTEIN 1876: Lichtenstein, [S.]. “Die deutsche Kunst- und Kunstindustrie-Ausstellung in München,” Zeitschrift des Kunst-Gewerbe-Vereins, nos. 7/8 (1876): 1–2.

LOIBL 2011: Loibl, Richard. “Götterdämmerung: König Ludwig II. und Bayern: Mythos und Realität.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Catalog, 15–25.

LANGENSTEIN 1983: Langenstein, York. Der Münchner Kunstverein im 19. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Entwicklung des Kunstmarkts und des Ausstellungswesens. Miscellanea Bavarica Monacensia 122. Munich: UNI-Druck, 1983.

LIEB 2010: Lieb, Stefanie. “Der ‘Mythos Wartburg’ im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert: Mechanismen der Inszenierung und Instrumentalisierung und ihre Auswirkungen auf die bauliche Gestaltung der Burg.” In Die Burg: Wissenschaftlicher Begleitband zu den Ausstellungen Burg und Herrschaft und Mythos Burg, edited by G. Ulrich Großmann and Hans Ottomeyer, 254–63. Exh. cat. Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin/Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg. Dresden: Sandstein, 2010.

LOIBL 2012: Loibl, Richard. “Die Industriestadt Augsburg um 1900.” In Industriekultur in Bayern, edited by the Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 40–55. Regensburg: Pustet, 2012.

LANKES 1993: Lankes, Christian. München als Garnison im 19. Jahrhundert: Die Haupt- und Residenzstadt als Standort der Bayerischen Armee von Kurfürst Max IV. Joseph bis zur Jahrhundertwende. Militärgeschichte und Wehrwissenschaft 2. Berlin: E. S. Mittler, 1993.

309

LORENZ 2010: Lorenz, Dieter. Das Kaiser-Panorama: Ein Unternehmen des August Fuhrmann. Exh. cat. Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Münchner Stadtmuseum, 2010. LÖSEL 1986: Lösel, Eva-Maria. “‘Unserer Väter Werke’: Zu Kopie und

Nachahmung im Kunstgewerbe des Historismus,” Unsere Kunstdenkmäler: Mitteilungsblatt für die Mitglieder der Gesellschaft für Schweizerische Kunstgeschichte 37, no. 1 (1986): 19–28. LÜBBEKE 1982: Lübbeke, Wolfram. “Das kleine Bayerische Rathaus.” In Mai, Paul, and Waetzoldt 1982, 301–58. LÜBBERS and SPANGENBERG 2015: Lübbers, Bernhard, and Marcus Spangenberg, eds. Traumschlösser? Die Bauten Ludwigs II. als Tourismus- und Werbeobjekte. Exh. cat. Staatliche Bibliothek Regensburg. Kataloge und Schriften der Staatlichen Bibliothek Regensburg 12. Regensburg: Peter Morsbach, 2015. LÜBKE 1886: Lübke, Wilhelm. “König Ludwig II. und die Kunst.” In Kunstwerke und Künstler, dritte Sammlung vermischter Aufsätze, 521–39. Breslau: S. Schottlaender, 1886. LUCKS 1976: Lucks, Kai. “Der Eisenbau.” Vol. 2 of “Die Münchner Isarbrücken im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert.” Diss., Technische Universität München, 1976. LYDEN 2014: Lyden, Anne M., ed. A Royal Passion: Queen Victoria and Photography. Los Angeles: Getty Trust Publications, 2014.

M MAAG 1986: Maag, Georg. Kunst und Industrie im Zeitalter der ersten Weltausstellungen: Synchrone Analyse einer Epochenschwelle. Munich: W. Fink, 1986. MAGER 2016: Mager, Tino. Schillernde Unschärfe: Der Begriff der Authentizität im architektonischen Erbe. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2016. MAI, PAUL, and WAETZOLDT 1982. Mai, Ekkehard, Jürgen Paul, and Stephan Waetzoldt, eds. Das Rathaus im Kaiserreich: Kunstpolitische Aspekte einer Bauaufgabe des 19. Jahrhunderts. Berlin: Mann, 1982. MAYER 2003: Mayer, Bernd. “Mechanische”: Bayreuth in den Stürmen der Zeit Mech. Baumwoll-Spinnerei & Weberei Bayreuth AG. Bayreuth, 2003. MEILINGER 1906: Meilinger, Lothar. Das Münchener Waisenhaus: Eine Studie. Munich: C. A. Seyfried, 1906. MENNELL 1892: Mennell, Arthur. Die Königsphantasien: Eine Wanderung zu den Schlössern König Ludwigs II. von Bayern. Leipzig: Literarische Gesellschaft, 1892.

MÖBIUS and BERNS 1990: Möbius, Hanno, and Jörg J. Berns, eds. Die Mechanik in den Künsten: Studien zur ästhetischen Bedeutung der Naturwissenschaft und Technologie. Marburg: Jonas, 1990.

MERKLE 2000: Merkle, Ludwig. Ludwig II. und seine Schlösser. Munich: Bruckmann, 2000. MERTA 1986: Merta, Franz. “König Ludwig II. im Spiegel der Neuerscheinungen zum 100. Todestag,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 49 (1986): 719–44.

MONINGER n.d.: Moninger, Hans. “Eduard von Riedel,” Verzeichnis einer Sammlung von Originalschauplätzen, Skizzen, Aquarellen etc., n.d. BSB Cod. Icon. 207k/5, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

MERTA 1993: Merta, Franz. “‘Gottes Licht auf Erden zu verkünden’: Das Herrscherethos König Ludwigs II. von Bayern und die Entstehung des König-Ludwig-Kults,” Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte 56, no. 3 (1993): 725–68.

MORLEY 2003: Morley, John. The Making of the Royal Pavilion, Brighton: Designs and Drawings. London: CHP Editions, 2003.

MERTA 2011: Merta, Franz. “‘Und dieser König stirbt in Wahrheit nicht’: Das Herrscherethos König Ludwigs II.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 179–83.

MÜLLER 1952: Müller, Karl A. von. “König Ludwig II.” In Unterm weißblauen Himmel, 152–72. Stuttgart: Klipper, 1952.

MERTEN 1974: Merten, Klaus. “Das Wohnhaus in Münchens städtebaulicher Entwicklung von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zum Ersten Weltkrieg.” In Münchener Fassaden: Bürgerhäuser des Historismus und des Jugendstils, by Heinrich Habel et al., 37–38. Materialien zur Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 11. Munich: Prestel, 1974.

MÜNCHNER KUNST-ANZEIGER 1865: “Kunstverein,” Münchner Kunst-Anzeiger: für Künstler, Kunstfreunde und Kunsthändler (1865), 49.

MEUSSDOERFFER 2006: Meußdoerffer, Franz G. “Kulmbach, Mälzerei Meußdoerffer.” In Kraus 2006, 281–82.

MUNDT 1974: Mundt, Barbara. Die deutschen Kunstgewerbemuseen im 19. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts 22. Munich: Prestel, 1974.

MÜNCHNER MERKUR 1968: “Heute wird in der Residenz die ungewöhnlichste Kunst-Schau des Jahres eröffnet,” Münchner Merkur, June 20, 1968, 18.

MEYER 1868: Meyer, Julius. “Das neue Polytechnikum zu München und die moderne Stilfrage,” Zeitschrift für bildende Kunst 3 (1868): 149–55.

MURKEN 1974: Murken, Axel H. “Die Architektur des Krankenhauses im 19. Jahrhundert: Berlin, Düsseldorf, Hannover und München.” In Grote 1974, 150–74.

MEYER 1890: Meyers Konversationslexikon: Eine Encyklopädie des allgemeinen Wissens 7. Leipzig: Bibliographisches Institut, 1890.

MUTHESIUS 2015: Muthesius, Stefan. “Das ‘deutsche Mietshaus’ im späteren 19. Jahrhundert: Versuch eines Überblicks.” In Stil und Charakter: Beiträge zu Architekturgeschichte und Denkmalpflege des 19. Jahrhunderts: Festschrift zum 75. Geburtstag von Wolfgang Brönner, edited by Tobias Möllmer, 173–92. Basel: Birkhäuser, 2015.

MEYER 2016: Meyer, Nadine Y. “Das Hygieneinstitut der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München unter Max von Pettenkofer als internationale Ausbildungs- und Forschungsstätte.” Diss. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, 2016.

N

MIDDELDORF KOSEGARTEN 1980: Middeldorf Kosegarten, Antje. “The Origins of Artistic Competitions in Italy.” In Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo tempo: Atti del Convegno Internazionale di studi […] 1978, 167–86. Florence: Olschki, 1980.

NÄGELKE 2000: Nägelke, HansDieter. Hochschulbau im Kaiserreich: Historistische Architektur im Prozess bürgerlicher Konsensbildung. Kiel: Ludwig, 2000.

MIELSCH 1987: Mielsch, Harald. Die römische Villa: Architektur und Lebensform. Munich: Beck, 1987.

NEKROLOG 1886: “Nekrolog auf J. Albert,” Photographische Correspondenz 309 (1886): 352–56.

310

NERDINGER 1978: Nerdinger, Winfried. “Polytechnische Schule in München.” In Nerdinger and Hufnagl 1978, 63–84. NERDINGER 1980: Nerdinger, Winfried, ed. Klassizismus in Bayern, Schwaben und Franken: Architekturzeichnungen 1775–1825. Exh. cat. Architektursammlung der TU München/ Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Stadtmuseum, 1980. NERDINGER 1997: Nerdinger, Winfried, ed. Zwischen Glaspalast und Maximilianeum: Architektur in Bayern zur Zeit Maximilians II 1848–1864. Exh. cat. Architekturmuseums der TU München/Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Stadtmuseum, 1997. NERDINGER 1999: Nerdinger, Winfried. “‘Ein Bild des reinen Hellenismus in unsere Welt verpflanzen’: Leo von Klenzes Bauten für Isar-Athen.” In Das neue Hellas, edited by Reinhold Baumstark, 187–204. Exh. cat. Bayerisches Nationalmuseum Munich:. Munich: Hirmer, 1999. NERDINGER 2000: Nerdinger, Winfried, ed. Leo von Klenze: Architekt zwischen Kunst und Hof 1784–1864. Exh. cat. Architekturmuseum der TU München/Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Prestel, 2000. NERDINGER and Hufnagl 1978: Nerdinger, Winfried, and Florian Hufnagl. Gottfried von Neureuther: Architekt der Neorenaissance in Bayern 1811–1887. Exh. cat. Architektursammlung der TU München/ Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Lipp, 1978. NERDINGER and Oechslin 2003: Nerdinger, Winfried, and Werner Oechslin, eds. Gottfried Semper (1803– 1879): Architektur und Wissenschaft. Exh. cat. Architekturmuseum der TU München/Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur, Departement Architektur der ETH Zürich. Munich: Prestel, 2003. NERDINGER and STENGER 1982: Nerdinger, Winfried, and Birgit Stenger. “Das Münchner Rathaus: Architektur zwischen Politik, Ehrgeiz und Intrige.” In Mai, Paul, and Waetzoldt 1982, 151–77. NEUE SCHUL-ORDNUNG 1864: Neue Schul-Ordnung für die technischen Lehranstalten im Königreiche Bayern: Königlich Allerhöchste Verordnung v. 14. Mai 1864 mit Inhalts-Uebersicht. Munich: G. Franz, 1864.

BIBLIOGRAPHY NEUREUTHER 1870: Neureuther, Gottfried. “Der Neubau des Polytechnikums in München,” Deutsche Bauzeitung 4, no. 29 (1870): 233–36; no. 31, 247–48, and no. 33, 270. NEUREUTHER 1872: Neureuther, Gottfried. “Neubau der polytechnischen Schule in München,” Allgemeine Bauzeitung 37 (1872): 22–28. NICHELMANN 1965: Nichelmann, Volker. “Zur Geschichte der eisenschaffenden Industrie in der Oberpfalz: Die Zeit von 1871–1918,” Verhandlungen des Historischen Vereins für Oberpfalz und Regensburg 105 (1965): 89–199. NIETZSCHE 1883: Nietzsche, Friedrich. Also sprach Zarathustra. Chemnitz: Ernst Schmeitzner, 1883. NÖHBAUER 2007: Nöhbauer, Hans F. Auf den Spuren König Ludwigs II: Ein Führer zu Schlössern und Museen, Lebens- und Erinnerungsstätten des Märchenkönigs. 3rd ed. Munich: Prestel, 2007.

O OBERNETTER 1882: Obernetter, Johann B. Bayerische Landes- IndustrieGewerbe- und Kunst-Ausstellung Nürnberg 1882. Munich: Obernetter, 1882. OEXLE 2007: Oexle, Otto G., ed. “Krise des Historismus—Krise der Wirklichkeit: Eine Problemgeschichte der Moderne.” In Krise des Historismus—Krise der Wirklichkeit: Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur 1880– 1932, 11–116. Veröffentlichungen des Max-Planck-Instituts für Geschichte 228. Göttingen, 2007.

sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/trinkwasser-in-bayern-muenchner-trinken-das-sauberste-wasser-1.1935681. PAULA and WESKI 1997: Paula, Georg, and Timm Weski. Landkreis München: Ensembles, Baudenkmäler, Archäologische Denkmäler, edited by Michael Petzet, Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Denkmäler in Bayern I.17. Munich: Lipp, 1997.

POHLMANN and SCHEUTLE 2011: Pohlmann, Ulrich, and Rudolf Scheutle, eds. IndustrieZeit: Fotografien 1845–2010. Exh. cat. Stadtmuseum München/Städtische Galerie Neunkirchen/Museum Industriekultur Nürnberg. Tübingen: Wasmuth, 2011.

PETZET 1968: Petzet, Michael. König Ludwig II. und die Kunst. Exh. cat. Residenz Munich:/Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen/Bayerischer Rundfunk. Munich: Prestel, 1968.

POPHANKEN 1993: Pophanken, Andrea. “Graf Adolf Friedrich von Schack und seine Galerie: Anmerkungen zur Münchner Sammlungsgeschichte.” In Sammler, Stifter und Museen, edited by Ekkehard Mai, 114–34. Cologne: Böhlau, 1993.

PETZET 1986: Petzet, Michael. “Architektur und Theaterdekoration: Die Bauten König Ludwigs II. als Bühne seines Lebens.” In Hojer 1986, 31–61.

PRINZ 1993: Prinz, Friedrich. Ludwig II.: Ein königliches Doppelleben. Berlin: Siedler, 1993.

PETZET 1994: Petzet, Michael, ed. Denkmäler jüdischer Kultur in Bayern. Arbeitshefte des Bayerischen Landesamtes für Denkmalpflege 43. Munich: Lipp, 1994.

OSTERHAMMEL 2009: Osterhammel, Jürgen. Die Verwandlung der Welt: eine Geschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Munich: Beck, 2009.

PETZET 2011: Petzet, Michael. “König Ludwig II. und die Kunst: Rückblick auf eine Apotheose des bayerischen Märchenkönigs im Jahr 1968.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 257–63.

PANTEL 2014: Pantel, Nadia. “Warum die Münchner das sauberste Wasser trinken,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 4, 2014, http://www.

POHLMANN 2017: Pohlmann, Ulrich. “‘Es weht doch die Luft von Versailles darin’: Brauns Tätigkeit für den bayerischen König Ludwig II.” In Adolphe Braun: Ein europäisches Photographie-Unternehmen und die Bildkünste im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Ulrich Pohlmann and Paul Mellenthin, 334–37. Munich: Schirmer, 2017.

PETTENKOFER 1873: Pettenkofer, Max von. Ueber den Werth der Gesundheit für eine Stadt: Zwei populäre Vorlesungen. Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1873.

PETZET 1995: Petzet, Michael. Gebaute Träume: Die Schlösser Ludwigs II. von Bayern. Munich: Hirmer, 1995.

P

PLÖSSL 1985: Plößl, Elisabeth. Augsburg auf dem Weg ins Industriezeitalter. Munich: Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1985.

PAULUS 2008: Paulus, Simon. “Fürth, Altschul: Frankfurt/Main, Synagoge Judengasse.” In Synagogenarchitektur in Deutschland: Dokumentation zur Ausstellung “... und ich wurde ihnen zu einem kleinen Heiligtum ...,” Synagogen in Deutschland, edited by Aliza Cohen-Mushlin and Harmen H. Thies, 117–22. Schriftenreihe der Bet Tfila—Forschungsstelle für jüdische Architektur in Europa 5. Petersberg: Imhof, 2008.

ORENSANZ 2016: Orensanz, Camille. “Louis-Ernest Barrias (1841– 1905), un sculpteur sous la Troisième République.” Diss., Université de Paris, 2016.

OTTOMEYER 2011: Ottomeyer, Hans. “Alter Adel, Neues Geld—Europäischer Schlossbau als Legitimationsstrategie.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 163–70.

PIERRE 2018: Pierre, Caterina Y. “Louis-Ernest Barrias and Modern Allegories of Technology.” In Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide 11, no. 2 (Summer 2012), http://www.19thc-artworldwide.org/summer12/caterina-pierre-louis-ernest-barrias.

PRISSETTE and TRILLAT 1979: Prissette, Jean, and Jean-Jacques Trillat. Les trésors de la Société Française de Photographie. Exh. cat. Trianon de Bagatelle. Paris: Société française de photographie, 1979. PRÜGEL 2014a: Prügel, Roland. “Konstruierte Identitäten.” In Wege in die Moderne: Weltausstellungen, Medien und Musik im 19. Jahrhundert, edited by Jutta Zander-Seidel and Roland Prügel, 114–33. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg. Nuremberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 2014.

PETZET and PETZET 1970: Petzet, Michael, and Detta Petzet, eds. Die Richard-Wagner-Bühne König Ludwigs II. Munich: Prestel, 1970.

PRÜGEL 2014b: Prügel, Roland, ed. Geburt der Massenkultur: Beiträge der Tagung des WGL-Forschungsprojekts im Germanischen Nationalmuseum Nürnberg: Wege in die Moderne. Weltausstellungen, Medien und Musik im 19. Jahrhundert. Nuremberg: Verlag des Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 2014.

PFEIFFER, JAUSS, and GAILLARD 1987: Pfeiffer, Helmut, Hans R. Jauß, and Françoise Gaillard, eds. Art social und art industriel: Funktionen der Kunst im Zeitalter des Industrialismus. Munich: W. Fink, 1987.

311

PUTZ 2013: Putz, Hannelore. Für Königtum und Kunst: Die Kunstförderung König Ludwig I. von Bayern. Munich: Beck, 2013.

R RÄDLINGER 2005: Rädlinger, Christine. Lokalbaukommission München 1805 bis 2005: Geschichte der Münchner Bauaufsicht. Munich, 2005. RÄDLINGER 2008: Rädlinger, Christine. Geschichte der Münchner Brücken: Brücken bauen von der Stadtgründung bis heute, edited by the Baureferat der Landeshauptstadt München zum 850. Stadtgeburtstag. Munich: Franz Schiermeier, 2008. RALL, PETZET, and MERTA 2005: Rall, Hans, Michael Petzet, and Franz Merta. König Ludwig II.: Wirklichkeit und Rätsel: Mit einer umfassenden Übersicht über die Aufenthalte des Königs in den Residenzen, Schlössern und Berghäusern von Franz Merta, 153–92. 3rd ed. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2005. RANKE 1977: Ranke, Winfried. Joseph Albert: Hofphotograph der bayerischen Könige. Munich: Schirmer, 1977. RASP 1995: Rasp, Ute-Konstanze. “Das Gewerbemuseum und die Königlichen Kreisbaugewerkschulen und Kunstgeschichtlichen Fachschulen Kaiserslautern, 1874–1918.” Diss., Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, 1995. RAUCH 1989: Rauch, Alexander. Stadt Eichstätt: Ensembles, Baudenkmäler, archäologische Geländedenkmäler, edited by Michael Petzet, Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege. Denkmäler in Bayern, I.9/1. Munich: Schnell & Steiner, 1989. RAUCH 1991: Rauch, Alexander. “‘Apollo im Olymp der Götter,’ Zu dem bislang unbekannten Vorentwurf von Eduard Schwoiser für das Deckengemälde ‘Der Göttermorgen’ in der Chambre de Parade im Schloß Herrenchiemsee Ludwigs II. Hermann Bauer zum 60. Geburtstag.” In Ars Bavarica 65/66 (1991): 115–33. RAUCH 1993: Rauch, Alexander. Schloss Herrenchiemsee: Räume und Symbole. Munich: Koehler & Amelang, 1993. RAUCH 1994: Rauch, Alexander. “Münchens jüdische Denkmäler.” In Petzet 1994, 6–33. RAUCH 1995: Rauch, Alexander. Schloss Herrenchiemsee. Munich: Koehler & Amelang, 1995.

BIBLIOGRAPHY RAUCH 2011: Rauch, Alexander. “Der Symbolismus Ludwigs II.: Ein Schlüssel zur Lösung des ‘ewigen Räthsels’?” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 171–78.

ROSSER-OWEN 2010: RosserOwen, Mariam. Islamic Arts from Spain. London: V & A, 2010.

RECKWITZ 2017: Reckwitz, Andreas. The Invention of Creativity: Modern Society and the Culture of the New, translated by Steven Black. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2017.

RÖSSLER 2007: Rößler, Detlef. “Italien—England—Mitteleuropa: Wege der Antikenrezeption: Das Beispiel Wörlitz.” In Zentren und Wirkungsräume der Antikenrezeption: Zur Bedeutung von Raum und Kommunikation für die neuzeitliche Transformation der griechisch-römischen Antike, edited by Kathrin Schade, Detlef Rößler, and Alfred Schäfer, 47–53. Münster: Scriptorium, 2007.

REICHLMAYR 2013: Reichlmayr, Georg. Geschichte der Stadt München. Erfurt: Sutton, 2013.

ROTH 1971. Roth, Eugen. Der Glaspalast in München: Glanz und Ende 1854–1931. Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1971.

REINLE 1976: Reinle, Adolf. Zeichensprache der Architektur. Munich: Artemis, 1976.

RUCKDESCHEL 1984: Ruckdeschel, Wilhelm. Technische Denkmale in Augsburg: Eine Führung durch die Stadt. Augsburg: BRV, 1984.

REBER 1876: Reber, Franz. Geschichte der neueren deutschen Kunst. Stuttgart: Meyer & Zeller, 1876.

REISS 2008: Reiß, Anke. Rezeption frühchristlicher Kunst im 19. und frühen 20. Jahrhundert: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der christlichen Archäologie und zum Historismus. Dettelbach: Röll, 2008. RESTLE 1979: Restle, Marcell. “Türkische Elemente in der bayerischen Architektur des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts.” In Die Türkei in Europa: Beiträge des Südosteuropa-Arbeitskreises der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft zum IV. internationalen Südosteuropa-Kongreß der Association Internationale d’Etudes du Sud-Est Européen, Ankara 1979, edited by Klaus-Detlev Grothusen, 45–52. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979. REULECKE 1997: Reulecke, Jürgen, ed. Das bürgerliche Zeitalter 1800–1918. Vol. 3 of Geschichte des Wohnens. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlag-Anstalt, 1997. RIEDL 2011: Riedl, Peter P. “Die Pathologie des Ästhetizismus: Ludwig II. und die Literatur der Jahrhundertwende.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 210–16. ROESKE 2007: Roeske, Wolfgang. Trinkwasser-Desinfektion. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007. RÖSCH 2016: Rösch, Adina C. Das Burgschloss König Ludwigs II. auf dem Falkenstein: Ein “kaum existierendes Kunstwerk.” Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Burgenvereinigung e.V. Reihe A: Forschungen 18. Braubach: Deutsche Burgenvereinigung, 2016. ROSENDORFER 1968: Rosendorfer, Herbert. “Der Märchenkönig: Ludwig II. und die Kunst an Hand einer Ausstellung,” Zeit 35 (1968): 16.

Schloß Neuschwanstein.” Diss., Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg, 1974.

S SAID 1978: Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978. SAILER 1929: Sailer, Josef. Münchener Bier-Chronik. Munich, 1929.

RUCKDESCHEL 2004: Ruckdeschel, Wilhelm. Industriekultur in Augsburg: Denkmale der Technik und Industrialisierung. Augsburg: BRV, 2004.

SALDERN 1995: Saldern, Adelheid von. Häuserleben: Zur Geschichte städtischen Arbeiterwohnens vom Kaiserreich bis heute. Bonn: Dietz, 1995. SALZENBERG 1854: Salzenberg, Wilhelm. Alt-christliche Baudenkmale von Constantinopel vom V. bis XII. Jahrhundert. Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1854.

SCHILLER 1845: Schiller, Friedrich. The Aesthetic Letters, Essays, and the Philosophical Letters of Schiller, translated by J. Weiss. Boston: Little and Brown, 1845.

SAUL 1998: David, Saul. Prince of Pleasure: The Prince of Wales and the Making of the Regency. London: Little Brown, 1998.

SCHILLER 2005: Schiller, Friedrich. Essays, edited by Walter Hinderer and Daniel O. Dahlstrom, translated by Daniel O. Dahlstrom, Elizabeth Wilkinson, and L. A. Willoughby. The German Library 17. New York: Continuum, 2005.

SCHACK 1976: Schack von Wittenau, Clementine. 125 Jahre Bayerischer Kunstgewerbeverein, edited by Stadtmuseum München/Bayerischer Kunstgewerbe-Verein. Exh. cat. Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1976.

RUMSCHÖTTEL 2011a: Rumschöttel, Hermann. Ludwig II. von Bayern. Munich: Beck, 2011. RUMSCHÖTTEL 2011b: Rumschöttel, Hermann. “König Ludwig II. und die soziale Frage.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 122–24.

SCHAD 1996: Schad, Martha, ed. Cosima Wagner und Ludwig II. von Bayern: Briefe: Eine erstaunliche Korrespondenz. Bergisch Gladbach: Lübbe, 1996.

RUMSCHÖTTEL 2013: Rumschöttel, Hermann. “Das Ludwig II.-Jahr 2011: Aspekte des landesgeschichtlichen Ertrages zwischen public history und wissenschaftlicher Forschung.” In Wittelsbacher-Studien: Festgabe für Herzog Franz von Bayern zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by Alois Schmid and Hermann Rumschöttel. Munich: Beck, 2013.

SCHAD 2011: Schad, Martha. “König Ludwig II., Richard Wagner und Cosima von Bülow im Spiegel ihres Briefwechsels.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 184–89. SCHALL 1879: Schall, Martin. Das Arbeiter-Quartier in Mühlhausen. 2nd ed. Berlin: Fr. Kortkampf, 1879.

RUPPERT 1980: Ruppert, Wolfgang. “Vom König eine Prämie: Landesausstellungen.” In Industriekultur in Nürnberg: Eine deutsche Stadt im Maschinenzeitalter, edited by Hermann Glaser, 91–94. Munich: Beck, 1980.

SCHATZ 1998: Schatz, Uwe G. Das Kurhaus Göggingen: Ein Märchenschloß aus Gold, Glas und Licht. Augsburg: Parktheater, 1998.

RUPPERT 2017: Ruppert, Karsten. Die Pfalz im Königreich Bayern: Geschichte, Kultur und Identität. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 2017.

SCHATZ 2011a: Schatz, Uwe G. “Bequemes Mittelalter.” In Unser Bayern 60, no.4 (2011): 16–18. SCHATZ 2011b: Schatz, Uwe G. “Gebaute Gegenwelt.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Catalogue, 94–95.

RUSS 1974: Russ, Sigrid. “Die Ikonographie der Wandmalerei in

312

SCHICK 2003: Schick, Afra. Möbel für den Märchenkönig: Ludwig II. und die Münchner Hofschreinerei Anton Pössenbacher. Stuttgart: Arnoldsche, 2003. SCHICKEL 1987: Schickel, Gabriele. Neugotischer Kirchenbau in München: Vergleichende Studien zu Architektur und Ausstattung der Kirchen Maria-Hilf in der Au und Heilig-Kreuz in Giesing. Beiträge zur Kunstwissenschaft 18. Munich: Scaneg, 1987.

SBRZESNY 1964: Sbrzesny, Walter. “Gerber, Johann Gottfried Heinrich,” In Gaál–Grasmann, 255. Vol. 6 of Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1964.

RÜEGG 2004: Rüegg, Walter, ed. Universities in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries (1800–1945). Vol. 3 of A History of the University in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

SCHENDEL 2008: Schendel, Wolfram. “Die Evang.-Luth. Erlöserkirche München-Schwabing.” In Hildmann and Jocher 2008, 83–90.

SCHLAGINTWEIT 1881: Schlagintweit, Emil. Indien in Wort und Bild: Eine Schilderung des indischen Kaiserreiches. 2 vols. Leipzig: Schmidt & Günther, 1881. SCHLIM 2001: Schlim, Jean L. König Ludwig II. von Bayern: Traum und Technik. Munich: Buchendorfer, 2001. SCHLIM 2015: Schlim, Jean L. Ludwig II.: Traum und Technik. 4th ed. Stuttgart, 2015. SCHMÄDEL 1876: Schmädel, Josef von. “Zweck und Ziel der allgemeinen deutschen Kunst- und Kunstgewerbe-Ausstellung in München,” Zeitschrift des Kunst-Gewerbe-Vereins, nos. 3/4 (1876): 1–4. SCHMID 1986: Schmid, Elmar D. “Der Wintergarten König Ludwigs II. in der Münchner Residenz.” In Hojer 1986, 63–94. SCHMID 2008: Schmid, Michael A. “Heilig Kreuz in Giesing.” In Hildmann and Jocher 2008, 175–82. SCHNAASE 1869: Schnaase, Carl. Geschichte der bildenden Künste. 2nd ed. Düsseldorf: Buddeus, 1869. SCHROTT 1962: Schrott, Ludwig. Der Prinzregent: Ein Lebensbild aus Stimmen der Zeit. Munich: Süddeutscher Verlag, 1962.

SCHULZE 2013: Schulze, Dietmar. Ludwig II. und Richard Wagner: Der Nibelungengang in der Münchner Residenz: Bau, Ausmalung und Untergang. 3rd ed. Drebkau: VDSD, 2013. SCHUSTER-FOX 2011: Schuster-Fox, Angelika. “Die Wirtschaftspolitik König Ludwigs II. zwischen 1864 und 1872.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 85–90. SCHUTH 2016: Schuth, Dietmar. “Etwas steif symmetrisch, aber schön und sicher.” In Wahnfried: Das Haus von Richard Wagner, edited by Markus Kiesel and Joachim Mildner, 144–51. Regensburg: ConBrio, 2016. SCHWEIGGERT 1995: Schweiggert, Alfons. Der Kronprinz: Kindheit und Jugend König Ludwigs II. von Bayern. Pfaffenhofen: Turmschreiber, 1995. SCHWEIGGERT 2011: Schweiggert, Alfons. Ludwig II.: Ein König zwischen Gerücht und Wahrheit. Munich: Volk, 2011. SCHWIERZ 1988: Schwierz, Israel. Steinerne Zeugnisse jüdischen Lebens in Bayern: Eine Dokumentation. Munich: Bayerischen Landeszentrale für politische Bildungsarbeit, 1988. SECKENDORFF 2006: Seckendorff, Eva, ed. Die Millers: Aufbruch einer Familie. Munich: Buch & Media, 2006. SEDLMAYR 1988: Sedlmayr, Hans. Verlust der Mitte: Die bildende Kunst des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts als Symptom und Symbol der Zeit. 10th ed. Berlin: Ullstein, 1988. SEELIG 1980: Seelig, Lorenz. “Die Ahnengalerie der Münchner Residenz: Untersuchungen zur malerischen Ausstattung.” In Quellen und Studien zur Kunstpolitik der Wittelsbacher vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, edited by Hubert Glaser, 253–327. Munich: Hirmer, 1980. SEITZ 2004: Seitz, Gertrud M. “Vor Schiller zog der Kronprinz seinen Hut … Das Werk Friedrich von Schillers im Selbst- und Weltverständnis Ludwigs II. von Bayern,” Literatur in Bayern 75 (2004): 26–35. SEITZ 2011: Seitz, Gertrud M. Ludwig II. König von Bayern: Ein Wittelsbacher zwischen Kunst und Tragik. Darmstadt: S. Toeche-Mittler, 2011. SELIG 1983: Selig, Heinz. Stadtgestalt und Stadtbaukunst in München, 1860 bis 1910. Munich: Kirchheim, 1983.

SELIG 1988: Selig, Wolfram, ed. Synagogen und jüdische Friedhöfe in München. Munich: Aries, 1988.

hinten dran,” Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 25, 2017, http://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/kanalsystem-wohin-das-muenchner-abwasser-verschwindet-1.3476735-2.

SEMBACH and HÜBSCH 1990: Sembach, Klaus-Jürgen, and Volker Hütsch. Industriedenkmäler des 19. Jahrhunderts im Königreich Bayern. Munich: Schirmer-Mosel, 1990.

STALLA 2006: Stalla, Robert. “Die Bayerische Jubiläums-Landesausstellung in Nürnberg 1906 und die Anfänge moderner industrieller Formgebung.” In Essays, 116–20. Vol. 2 of 200 Jahre Franken in Bayern: 1806 bis 2006, edited by Werner K. Blessing et al. Exh. cat. Museum Industriekultur Nürnberg. Veröffentlichungen zur bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur 52. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2006.

SIGEL 2014: Sigel, Paul. “‘Mit ausgesprochenem Nationalcharakter’: Länderpavillons auf Weltausstellungen als Medien staatlicher Selbstdarstellung.” In Prügel 2014b, 36–49. SONNE 2001: Sonne, Wolfgang. “‘Architektonisches Fluchtreich’ oder ‘Weltherrschaftsgedanke in Stein’? Die Schlossbauten von Friedrich Wilhelm IV. in Potsdam und ihre französischen Vorbilder.” In Krause, Laudel, and Nerdinger 2001, 133–48.

STALLA 2012: Stalla, Robert. “Piccolo Mondo: Zur Verfügbarkeit der Architektur/Geschichte.” In Stadt:Gestalten: Festschrift für Klaus Semsroth, 20–25. Vienna: Springer, 2012.

SPANGENBERG 1999: Spangenberg, Marcus. Der Thronsaal von Schloß Neuschwanstein: König Ludwig II. und sein Verständnis vom Gottesgnadentum. Große Kunstführer 206. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 1999.

STANKIEWITZ 1968: Stankiewitz, Karl. “Vor dunklen Spiegeln sprach der König so gern seine Monologe: Münchner Schau: Ludwig II. und die Kunst,” Berliner Morgenpost, July 20, 1968, 38.

SPANGENBERG 2011: Spangenberg, Marcus. “Wie keines, das ich je gesehen!: Neuschwanstein: Geburt einer Ikone.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 217–26.

STEHR 1982: Stehr, Susanne. “Zur Geschichte der Münchner Kinderheilkunde: 1818 bis 1980, insbesondere der Zeit nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg.” Diss., Technische Universität München, 1982.

SPANGENBERG 2015a: Spangenberg, Marcus. “‘Bis auf Weiteres’: Die Öffnung der Schlösser Ludwigs II. von Bayern und deren touristische Entwicklung bis hin zu Objekten der Werbung.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 161–247.

STEINBERGER 1903: Steinberger, Hans. Der Chiemsee und das Königsschloss Herren-Chiemsee. Prien: F. Speiser, 1903. STEINBERGER 1907: Steinberger, Hans. Neuschwanstein, Hohenschwangau und Linderhof. Munich: F. Humar, 1907.

SPANGENBERG 2015b: Spangenberg, Marcus. “Profanierte Heiligtümer? Ludwig II. und seine Schlösser.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 8–34.

STENGER 1981: Stenger, Birgit. “August Thiersch (1843–1916). Geplante und ausgeführte Kirchenbauten.” 3 vols. Diss., Technische Universität München, 1981.

SPANGENBERG 2015c: Spangenberg, Marcus. “Schloss Neuschwanstein oder: Wie ein Symbol entsteht.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 89–118.

STORCH 1996: Storch, Ursula. Die Welt in Reichweite: Imaginäre Reisen im 19. Jahrhundert. Vienna, 1996.

SPANGENBERG and WIEDENMANN 2011: Spangenberg, Marcus, and Sacha Wiedenmann, eds. 1886: Bayern und die Schlösser König Ludwigs II. aus der Sicht von Hugues Krafft. Regensburg: Schnell & Steiner, 2011.

STORCH 2009: Storch, Ursula, ed. Zauber der Ferne: Imaginäre Reisen im 19. Jahrhundert. Weitra: Bibliothek der Provinz, 2009. STRIEDINGER 1900: Striedinger, Ivo. Das Künstlerhaus in München. Munich: Verlag des Künstlerhausvereins, 1900.

SPIELMANN 1977: Spielmann, Heinz. Die Schlösser Ludwig II. Herrsching: Ammersee Pawlak, 1977.

STROBEL 1936–39: Strobel, Otto. König Ludwig II. und Richard Wagner. Briefwechsel, edited by the Wittels-

SPINRAD 2017: Spinrad, Viktoria. “Beim Abwasser war München lange

313

bacher Ausgleichs-Fonds and Winifred Wagner. 5 vols. Karlsruhe: Braun, 1936–39. STROBEL 1985: Strobel, Benedikt. Vom Militärbauwesen im Königreich Bayern zur bayerischen Finanzbauverwaltung. Munich: Länderdienst, 1985. SYKORA 2011: Sykora, Katharina. “Souvenir, Souvenir: Erinnerungspraktiken an Ludwig II. von Bayern.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 227–35.

T TAUBER 2013: Tauber, Christine. Ludwig II.: Das phantastische Leben des Königs von Bayern. Munich: Beck, 2013. THAMER 1985: Thamer, Hans-Ulrich. “Die Arbeiterbewegung zwischen Reform und Revolution.” In Leben und Arbeiten im Industriezeitalter: Eine Ausstellung zur Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte Bayerns seit 1850, edited by Gerhard Bott, 373–77. Exh. cat. Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg. Stuttgart: Konrad Theiss, 1985. THE SANITARY RECORD 1879: “The Drainage of German Towns,” The Sanitary Record, April 4, 1879, 209–10. TOUSSAINT 1991: Toussaint, Angela. Der Münchner Hauptbahnhof: Stationen seiner Geschichte. Dachau: Bayerland, 1991. TRAEGER 1991: Traeger, Jörg. “Schlösser für einen Ausgeschlossenen: Über Neuschwanstein und Herrenchiemsee.” In Aufsätze zur Kunstgeschichte: Festschrift für Hermann Bauer zum 60. Geburtstag, edited by Karl Mösender and Andreas Prater, 339–49. Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1991. TROELENBERG 2007: Troelenberg, Eva-Maria. “Orientalismen im Königreich Bayern: Islamisierende Architektur bei König Ludwig II,” EOTHEN 4 (2007): 392–406. TROELENBERG 2008: Troelenberg, Eva-Maria. “Zur Rezeption islamischer Architektur bei König Ludwig II. von Bayern (1864–1886),” Beiträge zur Islamischen Kunst und Archäologie 1 (2008): 115–20. TROELENBERG 2015: Troelenberg, Eva-Maria. “Drawing Knowledge, (Re-)Constructing History: Pascal Coste in Egypt,” International Journal of Islamic Architecture 4, no. 2 (2015): 287–313.

TROELENBERG 2018: Troelenberg, Eva-Maria. “Modern Diffusion of Islamic Styles.” In Transnational and Global Design Issues in Asian Design, edited by Christine Guth. Vol. 4 of The Encyclopedia of Asian Design. London: Bloomsbury, 2018. TSCHOEKE 1977: Tschoeke, Jutta. “Neuschwanstein: Planungs- und Baugeschichte eines königlichen Burgbaus im ausgehenden 19. Jahrhundert.” Diss., Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 1977.

V VEREIN FÜR CHRISTLICHE KUNST 1910: Festgabe des Vereins für christliche Kunst in München: Zur Erinnerung an das 50-jährige Jubiläum den Ehrenmitgliedern, Mitgliedern und Gönnern gewidmet. Munich: J. J. Lentner, 1910. VOIT 2012: Voit, Vanessa. Vom Lynder-Hof zum Schloss. Munich: Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen, 2012. VOLK 1994: Volk, Peter. “Miller d. Ä., Ferdinand von.” In Melander–Moller, 516–17. Vol. 17 of Neue Deutsche Biographie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994. VOLKERT 1983: Volkert, Wilhelm. Handbuch der bayerischen Ämter, Gemeinden und Gerichte, 1799–1980. Munich: Beck, 1983.

W WACKENRODER 1797: Wackenroder, Wilhelm. Herzensergießungen eines kunstliebenden Klosterbruders. Berlin: Unger, 1797. WAGNER 1976–82: Wagner, Cosima. Die Tagebücher, edited and annotated by Martin Gregor Dellin and Dietrich Mack. 4 vols. Munich: Piper, 1976–82. WAGNER 1989: Wagner, Monika. Allegorie und Geschichte: Ausstattungsprogramme öffentlicher Gebäude des 19. Jahrhunderts in Deutschland. Tübingen: E. Wasmuth, 1989. WAGNER 1850: Wagner, Richard. Die Wibelungen: Weltgeschichte aus der Sage. Leipzig: O. Wigand, 1850. WAGNER ca. 1920: Wagner, Richard. Sämtliche Schriften und Dichtungen. 16 vols. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, [ca. 1920].

WEBER 2002: Weber, Wolfgang E. J. Geschichte der europäischen Universität. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2002.

WOLF, LOIBL, and BROCKHOFF 2011: Wolf, Peter, Richard Loibl, and Evamaria Brockhoff, eds. Götterdämmerung: König Ludwig II. und seine Zeit. Exh. cat. Bayerische Landesausstellung Schloss Herrenchiemsee. 2 vols. Veröffentlichungen zur Bayerischen Geschichte und Kultur 59–60 Darmstadt: Primus, 2011.

WELSCH 1996: Welsch, Wolfgang. “Ästhetisierungsprozesse: Phänomene, Unterscheidungen, Perspektiven.” In Grenzgänge der Ästhetik, 9–61. Stuttgart: Reclam, 1996. WENGENROTH and Dienel 1993: Wengenroth, Ulrich, and HansLiudger Dienel, eds. Technische Universität München: Annäherungen an ihre Geschichte. Munich: Technische Universität, 1993.

WÖRNER 2014: Wörner, Martin. “Die Weltausstellung als Vergnügungsort.” In Prügel 2014b, 158–68. WRBA and KÜHLER 2008: Wrba, Ernst, and Michael Kühler. The Castles of King Ludwig II. Würzburg: Stürtz, 2008.

WERQUET 2010: Werquet, Jan. Historismus und Repräsentation: Die Baupolitik Friedrich Wilhelms IV. in der preußischen Rheinprovinz. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010.

WURM 1998: Wurm, Herbert. “Die Wiederentdeckung der ‘Pallas Athena.’” In 90 Jahre WittelsbacherGymnasium München 1907/08–1997/98. Begegnung—Besinnung (Festschrift zur 90-Jahrfeier des Wittelsbacher-Gymnasiums), 28–30. Munich: Wittelsbacher-Gymnasium, 1998.

WIEDEMANN 1967: Wiedemann, Albert. “Ludwig II. und die Juden.” In Der König: Beiträge zur Ludwigsforschung: Festschrift zur Enthüllung des Münchner Ludwigdenkmals, edited by Hans Keller, 79–81. Bavarica 1; Verein zur Wiedererrichtung eines Denkmals für König Ludwig II. von Bayern. Munich: Verlag der Grotius-Stiftung, 1967.

Z ZENETTI 1869: Zenetti, Arnold. “Krankenhaus zu München: Vorstadt Haidhausen,” Zeitschrift des Architekten- und Ingenieur-Vereins zu München 1 (1869): 45–47.

WIENRANK 2015: Wienrank, Mylene. “Schloss Herrenchiemsee als Tourismusobjekt.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 76–88.

ZENETTI 1880: Zenetti, Arnold. Der Vieh- und Schlacht-Hof in München. Munich: Franz, 1880.

WIESNETH 2015: Wiesneth, Alexander. “‘Reisen’ in vergangene Zeiten und zu fernen Orten: Die Königsschlösser Ludwigs II. auf dem Weg zum UNESCO-Welterbe.” In Lübbers and Spangenberg 2015, 35–75.

ZENETTI 1883: Zenetti, Arnold. “Der Neubau des Haunerschen Kinderspitals in München,” Zeitschrift für Baukunde 6 (1883): 142–54. ZIMMERMANN 1987: Zimmermann, Florian. “IV. Residenz und Königsbauten: 35 Allerheiligenhofkirche in der Residenz, München, 1826–1837.” In Romantik und Restauration: Architektur in Bayern zur Zeit Ludwigs I. 1825–1848, edited by Winfried Nerdinger, 216–20. Exh. cat. Architektursammlung der TU München/ Stadtmuseum München. Munich: Hugendubel, 1987.

WINIWARTER, Haidvogl, and Bürkner 2016: Winiwarter, Verena, Gertrud Haidvogl, and Michael Bürkner. “The Rise and Fall of Munich’s Early Modern Water Network: A Tale of Prowess and Power,” Water History 8, no. 3 (September 2016): 277–99. WINKLER 2011: Winkler, Richard. “Made in Bavaria: Technische Innovationsleistungen bayerischer Unternehmen zur Zeit König Ludwigs II.” In Wolf, Loibl, and Brockhoff 2011, Essays, 107–16. WINNEFELD 1895: Winnefeld, Hermann. Die Villa des Hadrian bei Tivoli. Berlin: Reimer, 1895. WOLF 1926: Wolf, Georg J. König Ludwig II. und seine Welt. 2nd ed. Munich: Hanfstaengl, 1926.

314

PHOTO CREDITS AUGSBURG, KUNSTSAMMLUNGEN UND MUSEEN: 260 [Grafische Sammlung, G 18873] AUGSBURG, STATE TEXTILE AND INDUSTRY MUSEUM (tim): 162 [11684] 163 [11683] 203 [F273] 205 [269] AUGSBURG, CITY ARCHIVE: 237 [KPS_03618] 245 [FS_FA_D_657] 276 [FS_FA_E_1187] BAYREUTH, HISTORICAL MUSEUM (Bernd-MayerFoundation): 161 BERLIN, BPK­BILDAGENTUR (stock photo agency): 147 [70238267] BONN, FRIEDRICH­EBERT­ FOUNDATION: 159 [Bildarchiv, FB 004565] HANNOVER, CITY ARCHIVE: 47 [NL Oppler 547-46-20] 284 [NL Oppler 547-132-4] HONGKONG, 123RF (Visions of America LLC): 62 [20801461] KAISERSLAUTERN, MUSEUM PFALZGALERIE (mpk): 28 [18/2898] 246 [18/2899] LONDON, BRIDGEMAN IMAGES: 151 [LLM460949] LOS ANGELES, GETTY RESEARCH INSTITUTE: 256 [2002.R.11*14] LUDWIGSHAFEN, BASF CORPORATE HISTORY: 160, back cover MARBURG, FOTO MARBURG: 131 [fm 120497] 234 (left) [fm 1080489] 248 [fm 120502a] 262 [fm120137g] MUNICH, ARCHITECTURE MUSEUM OF THE TECH­ NISCHE UNIVERSITÄT (AM): 11 [jank-1-200] 12 [semp-11-49] 13 [neur_g-199-57]

26 [gna-1-1] 50 [thie_a-60-18] 122 [nes-22-1001] 148 [neur_g-199-50] 184 [oa-84-1] 193 [neur_g-206-4] 206 [zene-2-200] 214 [oa-149-1] 226 [neur_g-199-3] 227 [neur_g-199-48] 235 [lange_l-11-2] 244 [semp-11-56] 263 [hau_g-12-200] 272–73 [berge_m-5] 275 [oa-162-2] 280 (links) [becke_j-1-5] 280 (rechts) [voit-14-12] 282 [thie_a-48-12]

98 [Ludwig II-Depot, ResMü. F.V. III, Bd. VII, fol. 1375, Nr. A 1145] 105 [Scha. G. 4] 108 [Ludwig II-Museum, 310] 119 [Ludwig II-Museum, 473] 174 [Bildarchiv] 289 [Bildarchiv] 291 [Graph. Slg. Res. Mü. I, f, Nr. 1/78] 292 [Ludwig II-Museum, 429]

MUNICH, THE ARCHIVES OF THE BAVARIAN STATE (BayHStA): Dept. I/II: 180 [Kartensammlung, 1175/3] 195 [OBB KuPl 6718] 215 [OBB KuPl 1490] 217 [G-VIII/12/48d] 229 [OBB KuPl 3245] 264 [OBB KuPl 3566] Dept. III (Geheimes Hausarchiv): 41 [Königshaus, Ludwig II. – XI, 38/46d] 118 [Kabinettsakten König Ludwig II., 073] 120 [Hofsekretariat, 1756] Dept. IV (Kriegsarchiv): 274–75 [MKr 8972]

MUNICH, STAATLICHE GRAPHISCHE SAMMLUNG: 150 [26094]

MUNICH, BERND HALSNER: 129 MUNICH, THE DEUTSCHES MUSEUM (DMM): 192 [Archiv, NL 044/vorl.Nr. 845 GF] 194 [Archiv, S 33 F 04] 196 [Archiv, NL 044/vorl.Nr. 0813]

MUNICH, CITY ARCHIVE: 29 [DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT2-3807] 30 [DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT1-3173] 48 [DE-1992-FS-NL-WEIN-0017] 130 [DE-1992-FS-NL-WEIN-0426] 170 [DE-1992-LBK-03068] 173 [DE-1992-LBK-03068] 182 [DE-1992-PS-C-2936] 202 [DE-1992-FS-NL-WEIN-0365] 234 (right) [DE-1992-FS-PKSTR-02480] 265 [DE-1992-FS-NL-PETT1-0483] MUNICH, STADTENT­ WÄSSERUNG: 216

MUNICH, BAYERISCHES LANDESAMT FÜR DENKMALPFLEGE (BLfD): 168 [AM2009_12_7_01020217]

MUNICH, THE MÜNCHNER STADTMUSEUM: 24 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2b-7a] 83 [FM_1864-65] 84 [Sammlung Siegert, 07721] 86 [Sammlung Fotografie, II-d, 22-2] 87 [Sammlung Fotografie] 104 [Sammlung Fotografie, II-d, 22-6] 136 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2-2] 137 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2b-7] 138 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2b-1f] 139 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2b-12] 140 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-2b-13a] 149 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, M-IV-1615-28] 181 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-9-31a] 183 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, G-VIII-9-34] 247 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde,

MUNICH, THE BAYERISCHE STAATSBIBLIOTHEK (BSB): 8 [Bildarchiv, Portr.A. Ludwig II., König von Bayern (7)] 45 [Bildarchiv, Portr.A. München (212)] 107 [from: Allom/Walsh o. J., Tafel zu 33] 169 [Cod. icon 207 (3, [Taf. 218]] 258 [Tech. 57 w-1882.1883] MUNICH, THE BAVARIAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE­ OWNED PALACES, GARDENS AND LAKES (BSV): 42 [Ludwig II-Museum, 2589] 43 [Ludwig II-Museum, 330] 64 [Ludwig II-Museum, 543] 71 [Ludwig II-Museum, 416] 72 [Bildarchiv] 73 [Ludwig II-Museum, 418] 74 [Ludwig II-Museum, 1704 k/1] 75 [Bildarchiv] 76 [Ludwig II-Museum, 3057] 95 [Ludwig II-Museum, 96]

315

G-VIII-9-33] 257 [32/294/1; aus: Sembach/Hütsch 1990, Tafel 16] 283 [Sammlung Grafik/Gemälde, P-1071] MUNICH, WITTELSBACHER AUSGLEICHSFONDS (WAF): 82 [Kgl. Bayerische Familienbibliothek, Bestand Ludwig II.] 96 [B VIII 156] 106 [BV III 877] 288 [B VIII 151] MUNICH, THE ZENTRAL­ INSTITUT FÜR KUNSTGESCHICHTE (ZI): 259 [4°Kat. Ausst. Nürnberg 1882 R] NUREMBERG, DB MUSEUM: 128 NUREMBERG, CITY ARCHIVE: 218 [A4/11 Nr. 2 GF] REGENSBURG, COLLECTION OF MARCUS SPANGENBERG: 10 RHODE ISLAND, BROWN UNIVERSITY LIBRARY: 61 [https://repository.library.brown. edu/studio/item/bdr:86976/] SPEYER, HISTORICAL MUSEUM OF THE PALATINATE: 230 [from: Engels/Engels/Hopstock 1985, 99] STEIN, ARCHIVE AND COLLECTION OF FABER­CASTELL: 238 STRIEDINGER 1900: 25 WASHINGTON, DC, LIBRARY OF CONGRESS (LoC): 6 [LOT 13411, no. 0179] 46 [LOT 13411, no. 0059] 58 [https://lccn.loc.gov/00652015, 25.06.2018] 142 [LOT 13411, no. 0072] 228 [LOT 13411, no. 0062] WIKIPEDIA: 63 [25.06.2018] IMAGES BY ULRIKE MYRZIK: 14–23, 33–37, 53–57, 66–69, 78–81, 89–93, 97, 101–3, 111, 112–15, 118, 124–25, 127, 133–35, 144–45, 154–57, 166–67, 176–77, 186–91, 198–201, 208–13, 220–25, 232–33, 240–43, 250–55, 268–71, 278–79, 286–87, 294–303

F

THANKS

irst of all we wish to thank Wolfgang A. Herrmann, President of the Technical University of Munich (TUM) and the Architecture Faculty for the generous support provided for the Architekturmuseum over many years, which also made possible this exhibition in TUM’s 150th anniversary year. The preparation and realization was accompanied by an expert committee whose members not only provided us with valuable information and constructive suggestions but also supported us through contributions to the catalogue and important loans. Here our thanks are due in particular to Peter J. Brenner, who as coordinator of the TUM anniversary gave us most useful support, and to Isabella Fehle, Wolfgang M. Heckl, Manfred Heimers, Gerhard Immler, Hans-Michael Körner, Ferdinand Kramer, Margit Ksoll-Marcon, Michael Petzet, Mathias Pfeil, Alexander Rauch, Hermann Rumschöttel, Uwe Gerd Schatz, Marcus Spangenberg, Robert Stalla, Michael Stephan, Christine Tauber, and Katharina Weigand. We also thank the other authors of the catalogue for their contributions, which introduce a number of important aspects that help to advance research into architecture under Ludwig II. Sincere thanks are due to Herzog Franz von Bayern, who not only supported the exhibition financially but also kindly provided important loans from the Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds and from the Geheimes Hausarchiv. We owe a debt of thanks to our numerous lenders, who are listed below and without whose generous cooperation this exhibition would not have been possible. For the active support and helpful discussions during the lengthy preparation work we are especially indebted to the Bavarian Department of State-owned Palaces, Gardens and Lakes, with Bernd Schreiber, Sabine Heym, Uwe Gerd Schatz, Peter Seibert, Alexander Wiesneth, Andrea Fürstenau, Daniela Güthner, Jan Braun, Sonja Wallinger, Thomas Steffny, Willi Reichert, Veronika Endlicher and Julia Meyer; to the Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds, with Andreas von Majewski, Fritz-Richard Demmel, Brigitte Schuhbauer, and Thomas Wöhler; to the Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, with Margit Ksoll-Marcon, Bernhard Grau, Gerhard Fürmetz, Martina Haggenmüller, Laura Scherr, Thomas Steck, and Monika Dressel and, 316

attached to it, the Geheimes Hausarchiv, with Gerhard Immler, Elisabeth Weinberger, and Andreas Leipnitz; the Münchner Stadtmuseum, with Isabella Fehle, Thomas Weidner, Ulrich Pohlmann, Nico Kirchberger, Michael Zellner, Rudolf Scheutle, Monika Bartsch, Alexandra Schöfberger, and Elisabeth Stürmer; the Archive of the Deutsches Museum, with Wolfgang M. Heckl, Wilhelm Füßl, and Matthias Röschner; the Stadtarchiv München, with Michael Stephan, Manfred Heimers, Andreas Heusler, Anton Löffelmeier, Bettina Pfotenhauer, and Matthias Röth; the Staatliches Textil- und Industriemuseum Augsburg, with Karl Borromäus Murr, Ernst Höntze, and Robert Allmann; the Archiv Faber-Castell in Stein, with Renate Hilsenbeck and Edith Luther; the Stadtarchiv Nürnberg, with Michael Diefenbacher, Wiltrud Fischer-Pache, Ruth Bach-Damaskinos, Dominik Radlmaier, and Thomas Dütsch; the Stadtarchiv Hannover, with Cornelia Regin and Holger Horstmann; and the Museum Pfalzgalerie Kaiserslautern, with Britta E. Buhlmann, Heinz Höfchen, and Andreas Kusch. For helpful information and stimulating questions we are most grateful to Birgit-Verena Karnapp, Christian Jonathal, Franz Meußdoerffer, and Gregor Nagler. Very special thanks are due to Ulrike Myrzik for the series of photos of selected buildings from the time of Ludwig II which reveal a new view of the historical architecture. We wish to thank the exhibition architects Je Ahn, Klara Bindl, and Esther Escribano from Studio Weave in London for the design of the exhibition and for the inspiring collaboration. We also are grateful to Maike Backhaus and Klara Bindl, who developed special exhibits for children. At this point we would also like to express our very special thanks to Hannes Aechter for the richly imaginative design of the catalogue and the exhibition brochure and for developing the exhibition graphics. The catalogue is produced in collaboration with Birkhäuser Verlag—for this our thanks go above all to Ulrich Schmidt, Regina Herr, Amelie Solbrig and Heike Strempel, and to the copy editor Ilka Backmeister-Collacott, as well as to the translators Christiane Böhme-Wilk, Richard Toovey, and Roderick O’Donovan. 31 7

We warmly thank the entire team of the Architekturmuseum for all the support provided during the preparation and implementation of the exhibition and the catalogue, above all Regine Hess, who initially had the idea for an exhibition on the architecture under Ludwig II; Thilo Schuster for his help with the research work and for dealing with the loans; Anton Heine for restoration work and mounting the graphics; Andreas Bohmann and Thomas Lohmaier for implementing the exhibition architecture; Anja Schmidt for dealing with the exhibits from our own collections; Dietlind Bachmeier for the support with fund-raising and the organization of the support program; Simone Bader for the press work; Teresa Fankhänel for the public relations work; Daniel Talesnik for proofreading the English texts; Ester Vletsos and Rita Burkhardtsmaier for photos and digitalization; and Marlies Blasl, Rike Menacher, Tanja Nyc, and Inge Oberndorfer (†) for the secretariat. Additionally, we would like to thank Kevin Schumacher as well as Clara Bergado, Hanna Böhm, Cristina Fischer de Saa, Chiara Ursini, and Federica Pisetta for their work on many different areas during the preparations in the last few months before the opening of the exhibition. With the restorations, a number of which were quite complex, Anton Heine was supported by Tanja Wimmer—to whom we also owe our thanks. Likewise we thank Anselm Baumann and Jörg Kallmeyer who built a model showing the construction phases of Linderhof Palace. Parallel to the exhibition and in collaboration with the exhibition architect Klara Bindl from Studio Weave London, in the summer semester 2018 a workshop was held at TUM during which the walls in the two exhibition spaces were designed together with students. In this regard we wish to thank in particular Tatiana Chatziioannou, Maria Cecilia Collet Heller, Milad Damash, Friederike Drewes, Ella Eßlinger, Maddalena Gioseffi, Ioannis Jyftopoulos, Livia Medici, Alina Pinardi, Federica Pisetta, Gloria Maria Vlad, and Philippa Wenzl. In the framework of a seminar during the summer semester 2017, various ways of depicting the complicated construction history of the palaces of Ludwig II were developed and discussed together with TUM students, 318

THANKS

some of which were used in the exhibition. Our thanks here are due to Elitsa Bankova, Cristina Fischer de Saa, Alexander Florea, Philipp Lanthaler, and Julia Ludes. We owe special thanks to our sponsors, whose generous support made the exhibition and the catalogue possible. First and foremost we thank PIN, Friends of the Pinakothek der Moderne e. V., above all Dorothée Wahl and Katharina von Perfall, who not only helped us financially but were also able to find further sponsors for the exhibition—including Baywobau and the “Ludwig II.-Zirkel,” which is headed by Herzog Franz von Bayern. We thank them all most sincerely. A debt of gratitude is also owed to the Förderverein des Architekturmuseums der Technischen Universität München e. V., in particular Andrea Gebhard and Manfred Probst. They, too, were able to expand the circle of our patrons by the addition of Ralf Büschl for the Büschl-Unternehmensgruppe and Jobst Kayser-Eichberg, Munich. We wish to express our heartfelt thanks to all of them for their personal commitment to this unique project. For the important support provided for the exhibition and the educational program we also thank the Kulturstiftung der Länder, above all Isabel Pfeiffer-Poensgen, Frank Druffner, and Markus Hilgert. The Ernst von Siemens Kunststiftung financed the present publication—here we extend our sincere thanks to the Secretary General Martin Hoernes as its representative. ANDRES LEPIK and KATRIN BÄUMLER LENDERS Alex Alice Paris Architekturmuseum, Technical University of Berlin Archive and Collections Faber-Castell Stein Augustiner Brewery Munich BASF Corporate History Bavarian State Library Munich Bavarian Administration of State-owned Palaces, Gardens and Lakes Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Munich Bavarian State Office for Monument Protection Bavarian Economic Archive Munich Nuremberg Transport Museum Deutsches Museum Munich German Theater Museum

gta Archives, ETH Zurich Foto Marburg Geheimes Hausarchiv Munich Grafische Sammlung der Kunstsammlungen und Museen Augsburg Historical Museum of the Palatinate Speyer Library of Congress Washington, D.C. Lokalbaukommission Munich MAN Historical Archive Mayer’sche Hofkunstanstalt Munich Munich Stadtmuseum Musée Hôtel Le Vergeur Reims Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe Hamburg Museum Pfalzgalerie Kaiserslautern Parish of Saint Benno Munich Richard Wagner Museum Bayreuth

319

Staatliche Graphische Sammlung Munich Staatliches Textil- und Industriemuseum Augsburg Augsburg Municipal Archive Bad Kissingen Municipal Archive Fürth Municipal Archive Hanover Municipal Archive Hof Municipal Archive Ludwigshafen Municipal Archive Munich Municipal Archive Nuremberg Municipal Archive Speyer Municipal Archive Stadtentwässerung Munich Stadtmuseum Kaufbeuren Wittelsbacher Ausgleichsfonds Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte Munich

IMPRINT

This catalogue is published in conjunction with the exhibition

THE ARCHITECTURE UNDER KING

PALACES AND FACTORIES Architekturmuseum der TU München in der Pinakothek der Moderne 26 SEPTEMBER 2018–13 JANUARY 2019

CATALOGUE Editors: ANDRES LEPIK, KATRIN BÄUMLER Photographs: ULRIKE MYRZIK Editing: KATRIN BÄUMLER, ANDRES LEPIK, and DANIEL TALESNIK Editorial assistant: KEVIN SCHUMACHER Translation from German into English: RICHARD TOOVEY (IV Health, Hygiene, and Social Welfare; VII Culture and Entertainment; VIII Industrial Exhibitions; XII Palaces and Castles); RODERICK O’DONOVAN (all others, except: Engineering the “Fairy Tale”: Infrastructure under Ludwig II) Project management: REGINA HERR Production: AMELIE SOLBRIG, HEIKE STREMPEL Layout, cover design and typesetting: HANNES AECHTER Fonts: PORTRAIT, THEINHARDT, MARIAN Paper: MUNKEN LYNX, 130g/m² Printing: DZA DRUCKEREI ZU ALTENBURG GmbH, ALTENBURG Building types texts: KATRIN BÄUMLER (KB), REGINE HESS (RH), KEVIN SCHUMACHER (KS)

EXHIBITION Curation: KATRIN BÄUMLER Photographs: ULRIKE MYRZIK Exhibition design: STUDIO WEAVE LONDON (JE AHN, KLARA BINDL, ESTHER ESCRIBANO) Graphic design: HANNES AECHTER Children’s path: KLARA BINDL, MAIKE BACKHAUS Assistants: KEVIN SCHUMACHER, HANNA BÖHM, CLARA BERGADO, CRISTINA FISCHER DE SAA and CHIARA URSINI Restorers: ANTON HEINE, TANJA WIMMER Registrar: THILO SCHUSTER Archive: ANJA SCHMIDT Hanging: ANDREAS BOHMANN, ANTON HEINE und THOMAS LOHMAIER Press: SIMONE BADER Public Relations: TERESA FANKHÄNEL Supporting program: DIETLIND BACHMEIER Office: MARLIES BLASL, RIKE MENACHER, TANJA NYC and INGE OBERNDORFER

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018942667

Bibliographic information published by the German National Library: The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

Cover images: Neuschwanstein Castle, photo: ULRIKE MYRZIK, 2017 (front); Ludwigshafen, BASF Hauptdreherei, photo: ANONYMOUS, 1921 (back)

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in other ways, and storage in databases. For any kind of use, permission of the copyright owner must be obtained. ISBN 978-3-0356-1536-4 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-0356-1653-8 German Print-ISBN 978-3-0356-1535-7 © 2018 Architekturmuseum der TU München; Birkhäuser Verlag GmbH, Basel P.O. Box 44, 4009 Basel, Switzerland Part of Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston 987654321

Catalogue and exhibition were made possible by courtesy of:

www.birkhauser.com