The politics of the German Gothic revival: August Reichensperger 9780262121774

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
Acknowledgments (page vii)
Introduction (page 1)
I August Reichensperger: Background, Biography, and Political Philosophy (page 7)
II August Reichensperger and Cologne Cathedral (page 25)
III Die Christlich-Germanische Baukunst: Reichensperger's Campaign for Architectural Reform (page 57)
IV English Inspiration (page 87)
V The Shape of Reichensperger's Gothic (page 111)
VI Building Gothic Society: Reichensperger in Berlin (page 139)
VII "Better Rust than Whitewash": The Conscience of the Gothic Revival (page 165)
VIII Reichensperger Triumphant: High Tide of the Gothic Revival (page 205)
IX "Dignified Detachment": Architectural Politics in the German Empire (page 241)
Notes (page 269)
Bibliography (page 295)
Index (page 301)
Credits (page 307)

Citation preview

The Politics of the German Gothic Revival August Reichensperger

BLANK PAGE

Michael J. Lewis

The Politics of the German Gothic Revival August Reichensperger

THE ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY FOUNDATION, INC. New York, New York The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London, England

© 1993 by the Architectural History Foundation and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Printed and bound in the United States of America. No parts of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers and the editor. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lewis, Michael J., 1957— The politics of the German Gothic revival: August Reichensperger (1808-1895) / Michael J. Lewis.

p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-262-12177-8 1. Reichensperger, August, 1808-1895. 2. Architects—-Germany—Biography. 3. Gothic revival (Architecture)—Germany. 4. Architecture and society—Germany—History—19th century. I. Title. NA1088.R45.L49 1993 720'.92—dce20 [B]

92-38723 CIP

The Architectural History Foundation is a publicly supported, not-for-profit foundation. Directors: William Butler, Adele Chatfield-Taylor, Colin Eisler, Elizabeth

G. Miller, Victoria Newhouse, Annalee Newman, Adolf K. Placzek. Editorial Board: David G. De Long, University of Pennsylvania; Christoph L. Frommel, Bibliotheca Hertziana, Rome; William H. Jordy, Brown University, Emeritus; Barbara Miller Lane, Bryn Mawr College; Henry A. Millon, CASVA, National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.; Marvin Trachtenberg, Institute of Fine Arts, New York City

Michael J. Lewis is assistant professor of art, Williams College, Massachusetts. Designed and typeset by Bessas & Ackerman Published with the assistance of the Getty Grant Program.

Contents

Acknowledgments Vil Introduction ] I August Reichensperger: Background, Biography,

and Political Philosophy 7

Il August Reichensperger and Cologne Cathedral 25 lll Die Christlich-Germanische Baukunst: Reichensperger’s Campaign for Architectural Reform 57

IV English Inspiration 87 V The Shape of Reichensperger’s Gothic 11 VI Building Gothic Society: Reichensperger in Berlin 139 VII “Better Rust than Whitewash”:

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival 165

VIII Reichensperger Triumphant:

High Tide of the Gothic Revival 205

Notes 269 Bibliography 295 Index Credits301 307

IX “Dignified Detachment”:

Architectural Politics in the German Empire 24]

In memory of Béla Karoly Zichy

Acknowledgments

This book has its origin in the seminar conducted by Professor Giinther Kokkelink at the Universitat Hannover in 1980-81. Kokkelink was the first modern scholar to identify the importance of August Reichensperger for the Gothic Revival in his dis-

sertation on Conrad Wilhelm Hase; this study builds upon the foundation of that pioneering work. For his generous advice, always thoughtful and enthusiastic, I am profoundly grateful. My thanks are also due to Monika Lemke, Gundi Lemke, and Luise Kokkelink for years of kindness and hospitality. I also owe a deep debt to the scholars and staff of the Institut fiir Bau- und Kunst-

geschichte of the Universitat Hannover. In particular I would like to thank my friend Professor Hans-Josef Boker for sharing with me his knowledge of German medieval

architecture. Professor Harold Hammer-Schenk has helped me unstintingly with advice and sharp insights into German nineteenth-century architectural theory and history. Others whose assistance I appreciate include Sid Auffarth, Professor Gerda Wangerin, and especially Professor Cord Meckseper, who shared with me his collection of Reichensperger material. I must also mention Monika Miiller and Gabi Rosendorf-Becker, who were sources of strength during the dark northern winters; to them, to the other familiar and friendly faces at the Institut, and to Professor Georg Hoeltje, who never failed to captivate and inspire us, I say thank you. I must mention Udo Liessem, who, more than anyone else in recent years, has been responsible for keeping alive the memory of August Reichensperger. I am grateful to him for his generous encouragement, his invariably incisive and witty advice, and also for unstintingly sharing his collection of Reichensperger materials. His assistance brought this book to life. I was fortunate to find scholars and historians throughout Germany who gave gladly of their time, insights, and encouragement. In Koblenz I am indebted to Gertrud Roéder for securing me introductions and for opening the doors of the Rhineland to me. Among the many who assisted me are Dr. Ulrich Theuerkauf and

Ekkehard Langner of the Stadtbibliothek in Koblenz; Dieter Radicke of the

Acknowledgments Vill

Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin; Dr. Doris B6ker, who gave me access to her materials concerning Georg Ungewitter and Hessian architecture; Dr. Eva Borsch-Supan, who provided insights into nineteenth-century Berlin; and Dr.

Hermann Hipp, who provided the same for nineteenth-century Hamburg. I also thank Evi Jung, who shared with me her research and ideas about Hamburg’s architecture, Ann Kristin Maurer, who kindly made available her manuscript on Theodor Bulau, and especially Dr. Hans Caspary of the Landesdenkmalamt in Mainz.

German archives consistently assisted me with thoroughness and kindness. I would like to single out Dr. Wolff and Dr. Lauer of the Cologne Cathedral Archive for graciously allowing me to examine the records of the Dombauverein. Among the many other historians and institutions who assisted me are the Eidgendssische Tech-

nische Hochschule in Zurich, which made available to me Gottfried Semper’s letters to Theodor Biilau, and Dr. Renata Kassal-Mikula of the Museen der Stadt Wien.

Other scholars assisted me in placing Reichensperger in the larger context of German history. Profound thanks are due to Erik von Kuehnelt Leddihn and Dr. Jonathan Sperber for their remarks on German political and social history in the nineteenth century. Stefan Muthesius also gave valuable advice and discussion. | owe a special debt of thanks to the woman who first taught me about German architecture and politics, Dr. Barbara Miller Lane. I will not forget the warm hospitality of many people throughout Germany who shared with me their time and their homes. Besides seeing me through the difficul-

ties that accompany life in a foreign country, they were my sounding board for many ideas connected with this book. In Hanover I am grateful to Pastor Holger, Angelika Gifhorn, and the members of the Bodelschwinghkirche congregation. | Owe my deepest gratitude to my friends Heinz, Susanne, and Nadine Baldermann for opening their doors and hearts. Countless other friends in Hanover gave me kind encouragement, particularly the families of Wilhelm Knocke, Michael and Gabi Brodmann, and Rita and Bernfried Miiller. The members of the Bauhiitte zum weissen Blatt, whose roots can be traced to Reichensperger’s work in Cologne, also gave

me warm support. Sylvie Lachard graciously assisted me in translating Montalambert’s letters to Reichensperger. Finally, I would like to thank my friend Siegfried Vollprecht in Berlin and the Vollprecht family in Quakenbriick. I am grateful to the staff of the Fine Arts Library at the University of Pennsylvania for their support. Thanks also to my family and friends—Tom Amos, Thomas

Demarco, David Richards, Helmut Knocke. Special thanks are in order to my Philadelphia friends—Jeff Cohen, DeDe Ruggles, Rebecca Foote, Peter Kohane, Julie Harris, Pekka Korvenmaa, Laura Lee Greene, and Mark Crinson; during the course of this project they carried me on their shoulders, often literally.

Acknowledgments 1X

I want to acknowledge those institutions that supported me financially. My research was funded by a Fulbright Fellowship in 1980-81; a travel fellowship from

the Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Pennsylvania, in 1984; and a Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) fellowship at the Universitat Hannover. The Canadian Centre for Architecture (CCA) generously provided me with photographs.

Finally I would like to thank my teachers George E. Thomas, who first taught me about the language of buildings, and David B. Brownlee, who kept a patient watch over this book. And thanks also to Susan Glassman, the inspiration for all of this. I owe them my deep, deep gratitude.

BLANK PAGE

Introduction

Old age was no shipwreck for August Reichensperger. On March 22, 1890, the day he turned eighty-two, he was as usual in the middle of things. Except for some progressive deafness and a trembling in his hands that had afflicted him for decades, he was in robust health. He was writing an article for the Koblenzer Volkszeitung, firing off another feisty salvo of his views on the latest spurt of urban growth in Koblenz. Various letters needed to be written, and he was awaiting word from Paul Wallot in

response to his latest missive, insisting that the architect should renounce the classicism of his Reichstag building and take up the cause of Gothic architecture. But on this day he put such pressing matters aside for the usual round of birthday visits. Among those who called at Klapperhof 14 in central Cologne to pay tribute was the young Catholic historian Ludwig Pastor. Reichensperger’s second-floor study was a mirror of his life.’ Everything was Gothic. The room was dominated by his paper-strewn desk and the great neogothic chair designed by his friend George Gilbert Scott, the English architect. Above the desk hung a ten-foot-long view of the Rhine shore of Cologne in the Middle Ages, a reproduction of an old woodcut. Beside it were views of Gothic buildings, medieval and modern. There were images of the Cathedral of Antwerp, the Stefansdom in Vienna, the Rathaus in Miinster, and even Scott’s own Nikolaikirche in Hamburg.

Across the room were portraits of Reichensperger’s friends and of Europe's Catholic religious and political leaders. Alongside the popes Pius IX and Leo XIII hung portraits of Daniel O’Connell, the Irish activist, and Charles de Montalambert, the French parliamentarian and author. Dominating all was the death mask of Joseph Gorres, the champion of Rhenish religious and political freedom. It was not here that Pastor was led, but to the anteroom of the study, a room paneled almost entirely with bookshelves. In this quiet room, surrounded by engrav-

ings by Diirer and portraits of Memling, Raphael, and Peter Cornelius, Reichensperger kept his diaries. Dating back to the 1830s, these small, leatherbound volumes recorded in painstaking detail the entire course of Reichensperger’s

private and public life. He and Pastor had often reminisced about that life since

2

August Reichensperger

meeting in the early 1870s, and the younger scholar had proved an eager listener. Now, on the afternoon of his birthday, Reichensperger gestured to his diaries and

other papers. His wife had joined them in the meantime. Upon his death, so he instructed her, Pastor was to receive the papers. The work of assembling the biography of the leader of Germany’s Gothic Revival was to be his.”

Reichensperger had reason in 1890 to contemplate his past and muse about his legacy. The year marked the fiftieth anniversary of his campaign for the completion of Cologne Cathedral and the beginning of his lifetime crusade for Gothic architecture. At the same time, architectural taste was undergoing upheaval and it was becoming clear that the century’s final decade would witness a resurgence of Romanesque architecture in Germany, forming a coda to the Gothic Revival. The Gothic movement was ending as it had begun, jostling for position among a crowd of contending round-arched, classical, and synthetic styles. When Reichensperger died in 1895 Pastor was ready. Seldom was a biography prepared with more love—or with more Teutonic thoroughness. Within weeks of Reichensperger’s death Pastor had written to every one of his important correspon-

dents, or their estates, asking for the return of Reichensperger’s letters. From throughout Germany, from France, from Belgium, from England the letters returned, accompanied by outpourings of grief and testimonials to Reichensperger. (In Ramsgate, the daughter of the great English architect A. W. N. Pugin recalled fondly, “He was a most wonderful man.”)° In 1899, four years after his death, there

appeared Pastor’s monumental and superbly researched biography, August Reichensperger 1S08—J895: Sein Leben und sein Wirken. This two-volume study crowned years of research and deliberation by a historian who would later win fame for his history of the popes. The biography was a definitive history of the man. His reputation seemed assured.

August Reichensperger (1808-95) was the central figure of the German Gothic Revival from the middle of the 1840s until his death (Fig. 1). With his dedication to

the cause of completing Cologne Cathedral, beginning in 1840, he helped to make the Catholic Rhineland the center of the movement. A member of the Prussian Parliament and later of the Reichstag, he used those chambers as a pulpit from which to plead the cause of medieval architecture. As a tireless author and journalist he wrote

the critical manifestos on which that revival was based; among the most important was Die christlich-germanische Baukunst und ihr Verhdltnis zur Gegenwart (1845), which immediately became the central statement of German neogothic theory. Reichensperger also befriended Germany’s leading Gothic architects: Georg Gottlob Ungewitter, Vincenz Statz, Friedrich von Schmidt, and Conrad Wilhelm Hase. By

(eed Introduction

* ‘

Sieeceaaies: + iat

co ESSA SRS ee ee a

STREET RRR aa a ec ra

x Be oe

; TE ESie x3 2 pene cee ne fee # Sees sé es eg *;,ws va Se Wh ee an ay p33 See ee &. Bt -Fd oe eee abeceet Se raf s Sy RS5 x *isis ESL roa i. Biwrstsesann

‘e se

2 aeBo ee ety. , RR ie RSthee ea 3 edse ; see A Ss aoe ae: ee ;5Bs ee :Baste pierces oe :Ee ;PRR B éoe cai. aaa 3an Caen : :Ba ea } ge ee me E 3Re ce Re ees : By Yo eA Fae ¥OP ae Menten eae 4a Sic f Re psec 23 bis ak Sa2 POR ORRhein ERG eo‘5 8 BS Bo. Maerua ecneneeostcsisre cena ane

: eS ; E Be

a4: :*Coaesii.cane : Pe RF; : ee Geetee ; * Boy See es

eeu’ee Heo~ EEBS © a Ra os : es ee28)eee

H eeateesoee B52 y Bees Po ee as icone aaa 3383

;see Hee, "8Reece ¢Spat :iaEUR RCL ni ee Nec ; : 34iSe ts aS SRS tsaLe SeRiad NRL RO :ay ¥% een near nea gt BN Pana hen ane eee ear Bs BOS See eeNe AU atthe < : : jst ; Beech sci tig RES éte. 2Sig aeee Gute eine ea Fics Sea eae : 2 Bi: Pay KeSecrest tne aoe eetzae Ra

ORs EE ot a Geos ee ge Ree tie tae eae ee

RSERaly Rk cr es 1a Be ee Be EG ee i Aco iRenee le es sean ccaeeccareceeeeeeettcaec Peace 2eeNGae pe ee See Beeeecstiasaaeeeateceaine es er ret siiore: :cantioearesttssis cae ee eeeee ee: reece trace ea oncwe Bee ieee j Roa 2 nti: RRS aOR EEE eRe Pee PERE Ea ocean | i EH a eet f SS es weet { = na oo. :

gah ho eel ee BE

8. Cologne Cathedral, c. 1830, showing the medieval choir and the incomplete south tower 1n a painting by J. A. Lasinsky.

Whether by preference or by innate conservatism in the building lodges, her archi-

tects still clung to the robust forms and massive construction of the Romanesque, although pointed arches were occasionally used ornamentally. Not until the second quarter of the thirteenth century did Germany’s first Gothic buildings rise: the Liebfrauenkirche in Trier (begun shortly after 1235) and St. Elisabeth’s in Marburg (begun in 1235).'' Immediately following these two buildings, Archbishop von Hochstaden’s building was the third great German Gothic monument and the first

cathedral. Despite the influence of the architecture of the Ile-de-France, these churches were more than mere copies of the French Gothic; much was subtly transformed or modified, from the plan and massing to the profiles of moldings and tracery. Trier and Marburg illustrated that process of Germanization of French forms on the scale of a medium-sized church, but Cologne was the great crucible in which the idea of the French cathedral was recast in a German mold.

A characteristic German version of the Gothic style thus emerged, fully formed and developed, seemingly without a process of evolution and experimenta-

tion; the German Gothic had reached its pinnacle at the very outset. The trio of churches at Cologne, Trier, and Marburg demonstrated that there was a vital and indigenous German building tradition, capable of mastering a new style and giving it a uniquely German expression, accomplishing this through a virtually instanta-

AugustReichensperger 30

neous process of assimilation and adaptation, without discernible intermediate stages. In the early nineteenth century this lack of clear pedigree or predecessors for Germany’s Gothic architecture—for scholars at that time did not yet know of the relationship between Amiens and Cologne Cathedral—had important consequences for German nationalism; Cologne, for a variety of reasons, came to be regarded as the most German of Gothic monuments and was the focus of that nationalism. Rather than dispelling such nationalist myths, early scholarship tended to support them, and the increasingly refined chronology of Gothic monuments only

confirmed the primacy of Cologne. Until the 1840s no one challenged the notion of Gothic architecture as a spontaneous creation of Germanic genius. At the end of the eighteenth century, when antiquarians began to appreciate the Gothic style, interest in Cologne flared anew. Twenty years after Johann Wolfgang von Goethe praised Strasbourg Cathedral in Von deutscher Baukunst (1772), Georg Forster published his Ansichten vom Niederrhein (1791), the first Romantic

elegy to Cologne Cathedral.'* These first Gothic enthusiasts were not aware of Cologne’s pioneering role in the Gothic, and were not interested in its historical primacy. Nor did they cherish the cathedral for the intellectual achievement that it rep-

resented. Despite Friedrich Schlegel’s attempt, in his Grundziige der gothischen Baukunst (1804-5), to explain the principles of Gothic architecture, its appeal remained romantic and not rational in character.'? The powerful pull that Cologne Cathedral exerted on German Romantics around the turn of the century was based

nearly entirely on its scale and the pathos of its incompleteness. This Romantic enthusiasm coincided with the nadir of the cathedral’s fortunes: just after the French

occupation of Cologne in 1794 it was seized, secularized, and converted into a warehouse. For the next two decades this situation remained unchanged, until the French defeat at Leipzig and the liberation of the Rhineland through the national alliance against Napoleon. At almost the very moment of this liberation came the providential discovery of a medieval drawing for the western elevation of the cathedral, showing the intended form of the two great towers. Seldom was historical accident so timely.

The disappearance and rediscovery of the drawing coincided with the way stations of the French occupation. During their tenure in the Rhineland, the French had systematically plundered art collections, archives, and libraries, shipping much of their booty back to France in the name of making it accessible to the world. This roused the patriotic ire of Joseph Gorres, who railed that “a people ought not let their history be stolen away from them.”'* To him the defense of Germany’s cultural heritage was as important as the defense of her territory, and he made the return of her art treasures a rallying point of nationalism. Among those collections

a ee ee a 31

Cologne Cathedral

scattered by the French were the archives of the Cologne bishopric, which included a drawing of the cathedral’s western elevation, measuring roughly three by four feet,

and dating from the end of the thirteenth century. The drawing had survived, virtu-

ally forgotten, in the cathedral’s archives until 1794, after which it was presumed

destroyed. But in 1814 the architect Georg Moller found the upper half of it in a barn in Darmstadt; shortly afterward his friend Sulpiz Boisseree found the remaining half in Paris, in the hands of an art dealer.'° The drawing was fascinating (Fig. 10). First and foremost, it ended speculation about the intended form of the building, making completion a tangible possibility. Furthermore, it evoked the building in its planned entirety, refuting for all time the allegation that the Gothic cathedral arose through an unplanned process of

sie =Ded ~4-: "iae" — oe. b/d? ah .+e ee oe .. yeh

ogee ; raL me + oe oee®hy@| .de SsPy | sty A fe .. he:

{ . | | a ee 7 aS ae L. | egies. by anaer hese

ad * 2 ™ | oe B shy ea > a oe bag a : ie Ce

Bp ew BE ees. ee A (we ee | ie Fe eae eles oe

i a |a | a ara ae Eseae La a
1 OO ae On GBR eS | | Gee MiB C. as | “— (se eg Li Tis oe SP BA Al} Betas) A MMU tl ee a

hy 4) iia a eae ee ae

1okWeds (lee eo) eeaeial” eee ree Baad Teh i haere Eg ee lL ee Clg ee raga ON ra th ca, fal ae ae | ht Lie | Aa,ae > iP. faerie SF "ie 1 inate Ah oy) || Fal | fio MT? @ 8ey(hea ow a(oeee ee moOE i meee ha “Soe ViSecomm ifeoCeeeoySe 4) ee ee) ee OS eee Se ee aoe: Re ck eee

Oe (eee os aS

YOR Po ae ee ee i ee

ee ia EO. = =?’ . | eSSS ee % eeeCJ —

sors So roe ag oe he ot 1 ote oe ia sofas Sc oe BE inn. PAR to ty ae cca lg Noor ge no eR ay ed A oe) ra page. \ Seas. Wie “ects 2 eas : OSE: ei ODT fe TE pags a. ta, Ce” Gee

22. Anton Hallmann, project for a Berlin cathedral, 1840.

AugustReichensperger 62

thing. Everything ever made by him and his kind is nothing more than an arbitrary patchwork of building fragments, ripped out of their unity.”

With some elaborations but without any fundamental change, this became Reichensperger’s position with respect to the Rundbogenstil. While he appreciated the early Rundbogenstil of Lassaulx for its structural consistency and its decidedly local character, the style as practiced in the 1840s had cast off all rules—it was, to paraphrase Macaulay, all sail and no anchor.

Against this background of a stagnant classicism, an overly permissive and inclusive Rundbogenstil, and a pathetically unschooled Gothic, Reichensperger draft-

ed Die christlich-germanische Baukunst und ihr Verhdltnis zur Gegenwart. The titke—Christian Germanic architecture and its relationship to the present—was delib-

erately provocative, for it was by no means clear to his contemporaries that Gothic architecture had any relationship whatsoever to the present. Increasingly convinced

of the importance of his growing manuscript, which had begun life as an article, Reichensperger soon set his sights higher and decided to publish it as a book.'” In October 1844 he proudly announced to Thimus that he had finished the

manuscript and was delivering it to Dieringer, the editor of the Katholische Zeitschrift, a Trier journal. After its serialization there he took another look at it and

decided that, coming from a provincial Catholic publication, it was too parochial for a wider audience, and required some sort of apology. For this tactical reason he added as an appendix Schinkel’s 1816 report advocating the completion of Cologne Cathedral. In so doing he was cleverly borrowing the prestige of Germany’s most prominent architect, a Protestant Prussian. In 1845 Die christlich-germanische Baukunst was published as a book by the Trier firm of Linz. The article had become a manifesto. Die christlich-germanische Baukunst was Reichensperger’s first publication to deal with architectural theory.'' His earlier works, such as Einige Worte and his book

reviews in the Kdlner Domblatt, had dealt largely with Germany’s relationship to its architectural past; now he laid out an agenda for Germany’s future architecture. His manuscript was more than a call for stylistic reform, for his work in the Cologne Dombauverein had shown that Gothic architecture was dependent on social and political structures. Aiming for more, Die christlich-germanische Baukunst called for the revival of medieval architecture as well as of those institutions which had made that architecture possible during the Middle Ages. The idea for the book came from England, where the Gothic Revival had won much wider acceptance than in Germany. The center of the English movement was the Anglican Cambridge Camden Society, recently reconstituted as the Ecclesio-

Architectural Reform 63

logical Society. But Reichensperger was particularly impressed by the work of the young Catholic convert Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin (1812-52). Pugin was

the prodigy of the English revival, having progressed from drawing medieval vignettes for his father’s publications to building Gothic churches and, most recent-

ly, to designing the details for the new Houses of Parliament. Above all, Reichensperger was captivated by Pugin’s book, The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture."

From Pugin’s True Principles Reichensperger learned that the Gothic style was guided not by mere aesthetic laws, but by eternal principles, such as truth. These principles were a bridge by which architecture and construction could be linked to moral qualities; Christian virtue could be present in an architectural detail.

Pugin’s stamp is everywhere apparent in Die christlich-germanische Baukunst. From it came not only Reichensperger’s uncompromising moral tone but virtually the entire discussion of Gothic construction. Never before and never again did Reichensperger draw so heavily upon a non-German work.

Before Pugin and before his involvement with Cologne Cathedral, Reichensperger, like everyone of his generation, thought of Gothic architecture in essentially aesthetic terms. In his diary entry of May 7, 1840, while discussing the design of Milan Cathedral, he wrote of “the three fundamental principles of Gothic architecture: the most effective alignment of masses; the use of perspectival effect; and an all-dominating pyramidal form.”!* He had a good memory; this was a virtual paraphrase of a book published more than two decades earlier: Georg Moller’s 1818 volume about Cologne Cathedral. Moller found the essence of the Gothic to lie in “taking meaningful consideration of the laws of sight” and that “the eye should be drawn without interruption from the foot to the highest peak." Moller represented the conventional wisdom of the early nineteenth century. Trained by the classical architect Friedrich Weinbrenner, he had an optical notion of the Gothic, one that addressed only its visual and formal characteristics. That its construction was also bold and daring was coincidental, of mere technical interest, and not a principal shaping agent of Gothic form. His views were colored by a lingering late-eighteenth-century dread of and fascination with the style, as if it were a powerful and beautiful, but ultimately untamable, wild animal. Reichensperger soon cast off this outdated residue of early-nineteenth-century ideas about Gothic architecture. He became aware of the intimate connection between Gothic construction and Gothic form. Between 1840 and 1844 he moved beyond the simple aesthetic considerations of Moller. In Pugin’s True Principles he found a theory of Gothic architecture that accounted for everything he had learned in the Cologne building lodge.

64

AugustReichenspeger stst— alae ae

oe : : fee Ms wr} ve dwt al ell eliat ol etal eat vl at elptatabetutatal e alaatatstalabplstylehGMaMe 60 )1Ermeg Sage

eee cecisioreaisiian Ke is, MR ate AER nN RN

28. Charles Barry with A. W. N. Pugin, the Houses of Parliament, London, 1835-60.

ing th d | d Iwork.!” H rt -

was preparing the wood carving and metalwork.'” Here was a vigorous artisan com

munity worthy of the medieval guilds whose disappearance he had lamented in his Christlich-germanische Baukunst:

Where have they disappeared: the filigree workers, the wood and ivory carvers, the gold and silk artisans, the email painters, whose masterpieces we still do not know how to comprehend? They have, one and all, been pulverized by our machines. .. . 7° In England, it was becoming clear, these skills had not entirely died out, or at least they had been reborn. The Houses of Parliament was a building project of national scope, acting as a school where these traditional crafts could be cultivated. This invited ready comparison with Cologne Cathedral, which could follow the example of the English building and become “a lodge in the true sense of the word, from which the old art rises rejuvenated like a Phoenix.’’*! The ultimate effect was to for-

tify Reichensperger in his conviction that modern mass production through machines need not rule out a healthy craft tradition. Thus did he draw very different

conclusions for Germany than had Schinkel, who had made his own pilgrimage to England two decades earlier, in order to study the achievements of the Industrial Revolution. Whereas Schinkel’s England was a model of modernity, Reichensperger’s was a sanctuary for the past, preserving an older way of life in the face of a threatening, dislocating modernity. While in London, Reichensperger was surprised to meet Adolphe Napoléon Didron (1807-66), the French publisher of the Annales archéologiques, who was

95

also visiting.** Reichensperger was familiar with Didron, having met him at the

Lille archaeological conference in 1845. He had also published an article in Didron’s journal, which in its devotion to the whole range of medieval art and archi-

tecture was a close counterpart to the Kélner Domblatt.** Here was a portentous conjunction of two of the leaders of the Continental Gothic Revival, meeting in the nation that was the cradle of the movement. Linked by their common commitment to medieval architecture, the German and the Frenchman inspected some of the recent English buildings against which the neogothic work of their own countries would be measured. Reichensperger and Didron represented different points of view, corresponding to the differences between French and German society. In centralized France interest in Gothic architecture itself was closely dependent on the government, and the Commission des Monuments Historiques, the principal instrument of the movement, was part of the government administrative apparatus. Reichensperger, in frac-

tured Germany, was striving to promote the Gothic Revival outside of government control. For him, the signal trait of the movement in England was its independent and private character. Inevitably, this issue arose in their conversations: when Reichensperger was asked to report to the Annales archéologiques on his English travels, he wrote about “Sociétés archéologiques de I’ Angleterre,” pointedly informing his French readers that the dominating principle for the whole of English society was that of self-government.”

Reichensperger left London after a stay of nearly two weeks, first visiting Windsor and Oxford and then, following Scott’s second itinerary, turning northward to Birmingham.” These cities were more to his liking than the capital. London’s seventeenth- and eighteenth-century architecture disconcerted him, with its repetitious rows and its monotonous brick classicism. This lay in the nature of things, and was intertwined with London’s function as a capital city. As in Germany and indeed all of Europe, classicism had become the servant of the state, a fitting symbol

for power and authority that sought to compare itself to the archetypal measure of power and authority, imperial Rome. Thus classicism, patronized by the state, had

established the modern urban character of London. But outside the capital Reichensperger found towns still preserving their medieval character and their medieval buildings: Exactly there [i.e., London], where the new stood in harshest contradiction to the nature of the people, this led consequently to the most studied ugliness. To this has London been reduced by its academic and classical striving. Indeed, I know of no more unbeautiful city created in the past few

AugustReichensperger 96

centuries than London, just as I know no cities more imposing than Oxford and Cambridge.”©

Scott’s itinerary for the north of England was primarily architectural, but Reichensperger’s gaze was soon drawn to places and events of a different nature. Now he made his way to the island’s distant outposts of Catholic culture. Northern England, geographically protected by the marshlands to the south of Lancashire, had been the last bastion and sanctuary of English Catholicism since the Reformation. It maintained traditionally close ties to the Catholicism of nearby Ireland. The Catholic leaders and institutions centered here were Reichensperger’s goal. Unerringly he set his sights on that part of England which offered the closest parallel to his native Rhineland, where a Catholic minority was likewise embedded within a predominantly Protestant nation whose attitude was at best one of benign neglect, occasionally flaring into open hostility. Here, as in the Rhineland, a Catholic resur-

gence had taken place in recent decades, resulting from the gradual repeal of England’s discriminatory laws against Catholics in the early nineteenth century, in the

Emancipation Act of 1829 and subsequent acts of the 1840s. Reichensperger was curious to compare the workings of a Catholic college, a Catholic newspaper, and various Catholic charitable organizations with their Rhenish counterparts. The focus of his inquiry was St. Mary’s College at Oscott, near Durham, “the flower of English Catholicism and... place of refuge for men of the Oxford Movement and other converts subjected to oppression.””’ Reichensperger spent two days at Oscott, the guest of Bishop Wiseman. Here he found that the minority status of English Catholics had not demoralized them, but that they had made a virtue out of adversity. Such a lesson, he confided to his friend Eduard Steinle, was ‘‘shameful for us German Catholics.” The courage and fortitude of English Catholics recalled for him the triumph of early Christianity over official hostility.?* In particular, he admired Wiseman’s work in publishing the

Dublin Review, a politically independent journal of opinion that reminded Reichensperger of his own efforts in promoting the Rhenish press. Wiseman and his efforts at Oscott validated, by way of example, the importance of Catholic activism in Germany. If anything, the scope for private action and initiative was larger than Reichensperger had imagined. Catholic England had suffered poverty since the 1650s, when the confiscatory taxation under Cromwell and his Protectorate had liquidated many Catholic estates and drastically shrunk others. There was nonetheless a considerable patronage of the arts on the part of some wealthier Catholics. Most prominent of these was the Earl of Shrewsbury. Bishop Wiseman provided a letter of introduction to

97

English Inspiration

2 a ae a

Co oe== :pee SF afteaBee ES VaA a Ye Ee.

I fea = = i. 41. Georg Gottlob Ungewitter, construction details in brick, from his Vorlegeblatter fiir Ziegel- und Steinarbeit.

designer. He had traveled to Hamburg, hoping for commissions in the wake of the great fire there, and taken a position in the office of Johann Klees-Wiilbern, who was then erecting the synagogue on the Poolstrasse, one of Germany’s first synagogues in the Rundbogenstil. Afterward, Ungewitter established a partnership with another young Munich-trained architect, Gustav Martens (1818-72), with whom he worked for six years. Martens & Ungewitter began by working in the characteristic Munich Rund-

bogenstil mode. They built lofts and warehouses, town houses and country villas, and tried their luck at the great Hamburg competitions of the decade (Fig. 42). In 1844 they competed unsuccessfully for a building to house the Hamburg Patriotische Gesellschaft, a powerful patriotic association, and for the Nikolaikirche. Their proposal for the church was a Rundbogenstil effort, like Semper’s and like most of the other German entries that Reichensperger had criticized so vehemently. Later Ungewitter found himself apologizing for these sins of his architectural youth. When he had entered these competitions in 1844, he now confessed to Reichensperger, he was still standing “in the ranks of the Progressive Architects.””* In later letters, Ungewitter revealed the influences that had brought him to Reichensperger’s writings. Hamburg was central to the story. If Ungewitter’s training with Burklein had acted as harness and bridle, the recent architecture of Hamburg was a spur. Ungewitter quickly became aware of the city’s rugged legacy of

medieval brick architecture, as well as of the recent brick experiments of Chateauneuf and Bilau, particularly the latter. Biilau (1800-1861) was an odd and rather aloof figure. Reichensperger himself was an admirer of his book, the study of medieval Regensburg he had coauthored with Justus Popp, with its intriguing propositions about the origins of German Gothic architecture. Since this pioneering work of the 1830s, Biilau had turned from scholarship to architecture, and Reichensperger had lost track of him. When Ungewitter came across him, the architect was practicing privately in Hamburg, working in a kind of willful isolation.”*

126

August Reichensperger

eN Unlike his childhood friend Gottfried Semper, Bulau

iia , had become a confirmed Gothicist, and exclusively 7h. pursued his own distinctive Gothic mode. His buildpT pays | ings were utilitarian brick warehouses and private if Ait th houses with high, stepped gables and—unlike so Was a ry : ee : much of Germany’s early neogothic architecture— poate ft were characterized by a profoundly constructional ie ah Every element shapedbrick in accordance Ef | otny ai gag | [a |sensibility. with the constraints of the was prescribed construc-

ee tion. This is not to say that ornamental considerations 42. Martens & Ungewitter, loft | were completely subordinated to structural concerns,

a. but rather that the construction itself became the pri~ | mary decorative feature. Molded brick surrounds, profiled segmental arches, corbeled cornices, a stepped gable looming above all: Biilau’s entire armory of forms was pulled from the medieval brick vocabulary of the old Hanseatic towns (Fig. 43). Like few other German architects, he avoided the decorative frivolities of Heideloff’s work and the picturesque mania of Prussia’s state architects. His were the first German buildings that might actually have been taken for true fourteenth-century Gothic work. It was a revelation when Biilau won the competition for the Haus der patriotischen Gesellschaft (1843-48).*° Ungewitter came to study the building, perhaps to find fault with the design that had defeated his own entry, but instead he found a Gothic masterpiece, embodying medieval planning principles as did no other recent

German building. Set on an irregular site, the edifice resolved itself into a picturesque assembly of detached parts, the composition governed more by inner function than by external visual criteria (Fig. 44). Ungewitter was filled with admiration for the way that Biilau’s building revived long dormant crafts, as in the magnificent stairhall, with the wrought-iron railing that followed its stair. Gradually Bulau’s

work began to lure Ungewitter away from the forms of the Munich Rundbogenstil. Biilau was a solitary figure. His work had little immediate resonance outside Hamburg. The Rhineland was still the center of interest in the Gothic, while Hamburg was on the distant periphery. Worse, Biilau was caustic and sharp-tongued, and his uncompromising insistence on Gothic architecture cost him commissions. But his was clearly the best German Gothic work of the decade, graced by a rare simplicity and structural consistency. Ungewitter watched him closely, and learned.

Around 1846 Ungewitter had encountered Die christlich-germanische Baukunst and found in it an architectural theory that could be applied to Bilau’s neogothic work. His own work swiftly changed in character as he exchanged the

a L27

Reichensperger’s Gothic

oimimi eye P |i! 2S

mle i | Pm Uhl ll | COA | iF

BE | LL ve (| Goa | Oe! Sf L J { | le a ‘gi tie ea ie , — : = ie a ae ae 7 : a e ai A ee is ‘| ;

Gg sa es pene a & Ye are SeiAE: SAE 5 iedae apomaeacierste - : in a Age Ss 44. Bilau, Haus der patriotischen . Gesellschaft, Hamburg, 1843-48.

43. Theodor Bilau, house on Ferdinandstrasse, Hamburg, 1847, from the Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst, vol. 8, 1848.

round-arched modernity of Munich for buildings of more medieval, even vernacular

character. He turned to segmental rather than pointed arches, introduced constructional polychromy, and above all began building in exposed brick, articulating it according to the precedent of the secular medieval architecture of the Hanseatic cities. He especially loved to profile soffits with molded brick and to insert colon-

nettes of twisted brick “cable,” or Tausteine, into the jambs. By the end of the decade there was little left of Munich Rundbogenstil in his work. Word of Ungewitter’s defection to the Gothic spread. In fact, Reichensperger was one of the last to

hear about his newfound ally in Hamburg. In far-off Munich an upset Biirklein had already heard, and had sworn he would come north to bring his former pupil back to reason. 26

The firm of Martens & Ungewitter dissolved during the revolutionary upheavals of 1848. Building activity was disrupted in much of Germany, paralyzing the architectural profession and sending scores of young architects overseas in search of work. Some, like Gottfried Semper and Frederick Peterson (the architect of the Cooper Union in New York), were political rather than economic refugees. Others, like Gustav Martens, heeded a different call to arms and joined a Freikorps when war broke out with Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein. When Ungewitter received a commission to build a house in Liibeck, he promptly left Hamburg for good.

128

August Reichensperger

In Liibeck he found a Hanseatic city that, even more than Hamburg, had pre-

served its medieval brick character (Fig. 45). As his new town house rose, he used his free time to conduct a private investigation of the local brick architecture. Even his house design showed his respect for the brick Gothic of the city: building over the

foundation of a late-medieval town house, he decided not to demolish the existing cellar and vaults, but to incorporate them into his building, and to base his work on the existing material (Fig. 46). The interior was executed in exposed wood construction, not painted but oiled and varnished. The wood details, Ungewitter insisted in his published description of the building, were treated in a way abstracted from historical

precedent, and based as closely as possible on the properties of wood construction.*’ Wood was a sawn and carved material, ideally suited for frame and panel construc-

tion; its architectural language was that of beam, board, and joint, and out of these

parts all ornamental embellishment should come. It would never do to ornament wood with the moldings and decorative tracery meant for massive construction in coursed stone. Medieval principles, rather than medieval forms, predominated in Ungewitter’s town house. Clearly he had been reading Reichensperger.

The book that thrust Ungewitter to Reichensperger’s attention, the Vorlegebldtter, had been prepared during the political turmoils of 1848, when no commis-

sions were forthcoming. Reichensperger did not suspect how much the book was indebted to his own work, but he should have, had he examined the introduction carefully. Its central idea was his own: the notion that architectural ornament was the automatic reflex of sound construction. Ungewitter made his point concisely: despite the stylistic chaos of Germany’s streets, and the confusion of architectural tongues, there was not really a legion of contending styles. Instead, there was but a single style, based on construction, which was masked differently from building to building: “One builds nearly everywhere in the same way; one stuccoes, however, with great variation.”’® Here was the same sarcastic tone of Die christlich-germanische Baukunst, applied to the same foes; small wonder that Reichensperger loved the book.

The early letters of Reichensperger and Ungewitter, beginning in August 1850, were giddy with mutual admiration, but there were still sensitive issues to be

discussed. Ungewitter was no Statz, eager to function as someone else’s architectural arm. He had a thorough grounding in architectural history and theory, and his own ideas about Gothic architecture. From the beginning there was tension between the two men in their choice of historical models. The crenellated parapets and bat-

tlemented towers that played across Ungewitter’s pages lacked the austerity of Reichensperger’s early Gothic. Although Reichensperger praised the Vorlegeblatter to Didron, he also warned about the architect’s inclination to the late Gothic.

SUE Reich

129

eichensperger’s Gothic

Co ee ee ek ee ee ee See Beeson Ree a pb Peace RRC SE ee Bae 2 ESE CSC Pee CERES SRR RR TA ERR CLR REL OT R SONGSRE SECA CRS TASTER CNS SCR PE GI SR

Se DS ertEe Ree OU Ee rr > eM ol si ss— le ¥—— ee a i‘ = = —rr—“_—..—i“( .”,smhmhmhmhm—m—~—~—~—~——~—~—~—~—S

Be ee a end ee ic ee cea et eu ue es an nuniens ec ee ee Cea ie tomn ee meee

oy mB SR MS oo ea

ee

ee

siahcustecu basta ssh in tanccanenaabian non sete aetna ec oan aoa tier arn canara ns Nee rete mc naan ae aang a sce een a atean aba na goatee con diate unas ennui ns a etnies cicoee acannon ceee nee naa ent Se ceca eR aes bee eae a ree ae,

Soe eas A een Gc ee Rte Aor cnt Marcu NC ayy: eettren tote a CO ie uae SiMe ne eeurce teat ae ern ih i

hate eta Cr emir acts he ene ua IO er enema ete RR GRACO SeMRtU re Rtas Natoma ht ters, ttre ya Neca pee eee eee Nee gion ene eRe Rope re

Pen cosine ic cn tas Menor e ee ee nanan noi oN mca . Heme me cea Navaucn Ca uaa cate anne Rp eon a cei

i Rane eee onue es vane cou aur ec nena na uc Rute Cumin scone nen nny, .{” Uns te URS: CAM Gee ue ete Stein Se Sauna nn ces

Bae eae en toe EGE a eR cee; Sc Saeee a ee CRU ei Sy ee pee.fcEasce ESSN OSS aniaTORE en ne IES $2 Tee, eae aI NE CKecee

St Poe ae lc i i‘“‘“(“‘OC‘CSSS llc r—is—O—C—iCisS ER Se oePhas ear, es oe santcke tec orients Reena tne go aM rahi ae eS eRe Craenc NCS eC SRC € Crecanoe Base nenen nanan emune Nu nntntamn anata painter onte ost nnrarea SeBiichae ee pece Seeoe SSeS RONSON ONE Bets SRE at ORE. Ne 4 > eR Wetieserenne am ornate cnn ccrata uae neccnante tesa Sea: naon wh hacen BOSE ee. Batunucan ac Coe Sak eee EES eearteea Resban cuiiy nana AA tee tetn ae mea tiara tentraura at Cee < Gena? Sapa sure nasenance tea3 caC oeeerte RP ceecui RUNGE O! Ser a GARR ERE A rua Cs AR OUR RON suena pier cencennt eye au Giue MR MS Sees Hs Sirncer he oie ene Marie Pi cgeniey Ge atae

BEL Ste eRe escGir meesssmaC MeN Mr SeON ae et SENG TE REIN COMER ONE Gnna RSSRR Rte RS TRteONL acs SO te rate Ge aene te Ari Re ae AgNO a NE ANRCO eR RN Be BONE: \ Serco: Rye eer site poner ene

BE ORS RGSS ORNS Bue RNR SURE CG eae oC Peat? : BNR ets Reece pitas cosh eon at s PER Caste esis es REA SEN MN SN a ae ee: SESE O NUL CNSR Ne ces eons ea gic NENG ISR SRA RE rats HO ARS USAT RGE TERROR As eR ee * SRST RISC RENO ON SRN eae

BP RSI GS Se oo Ce

Ree ceeeeuBAC NARS on eC‘ ae Oeca COs Ceram i ORO COG UeaN eeDaRea Sahn Guan ate Reine Mme ent at ON ONTOS SOU PRIA OG SE ONENERE SS aOR ENGR v4 LI ee ee eee aire eee eee TS Rs ERE OAS So cher emo enaiton eta aN nt

ie SER? 3 rm |Asie bs SNAG TSU area pen eS Hee SPEC s esf-ENOLCRE Veg Oe MS egeg ( SD aa ea BE eRSoh ead Coes : 5 ERR R Saale 3 Beexe FOCoy I SUaNA IN x : Fass Re Bees aks eck ee oa | Wie etme caren ger een ear tee Ot

: eR Bee eS Se RS ORS eh

: 4K :Aia;Bee PRN OO ee aS : Stoo } AD nr Se SgBape eSRe so Soa PREM Wry Rai eaReis tee CG 7} fa ia “el es‘ Pa wttK Se TC): POUR og OEE team y5SS Resetenser + RES: ae ine at ; Bee A IY neeBo1aeo eeaeeee! Wee ee Sas. Het { £ Been iM amped WN SUR ed * Poy eek 4 ‘| } j { # 1 a x ppetFt 5 4 ae oe : Ree Se he geet sed H z Sette a Bae 2. we Ponaas RCesAreERECT ES RRRES SERENE ekaRas Sates eree aeNe ceaeZ % 3BSS : oo RES eae BS we. _ cook eeea PR ergOe NSNg Soane ie Se

; ss w a) i Wesel kame i eters 3) Bee Pe : \)\ Pe Se fa aeSIS8weenie ee e pes eete ? OR? ONEEE) einen Fe. BS aay Se.aSe ieee SEO ee Sy

;=aabate a a Bp ee — Sree Rk A sade took Re edeee AR aaTIEN mn GREE ORE eee OEE ar on SS =eS fib IRF — Se ahi eg Tee Oe een eee Se Ng BNE ose? aEaSe = eee hie aairuaurmenie rsSeer eeeWicks anceLi SS Sooes tSSRRELS ==es a eS eS ROR erat Retay | Steere rom 2 Sey Sey Se: ecnie mee OOS Mpend oa IO Tete gg ACeee PE TON =k) =. =A a4rae SSSSS eaeBes BFPS takan Sik PRESSOR omen Se EP I TRESS OE ACBU Maen RRS Eee eshets2 3 ea ee LE >re,eae maga aSReDe hy ee Ee eeeaane teoes peepee i Fao eg SSNS eeOA Bata ator Reps e ee ee eR eae”OW RIO we Brome Bite ee eee

SSS 9 Sea See he Pe eepasha peomeoa ene ete Searespare Bee Spee CS pgseee Soeeeey Paw ttemennes Coeeters one aN Becerra SS § Sees Seescee rom meer ohnSm” ee Toe me saree a

Set se sets Page3 he eratefe.BE ent OE ee rns eet A Sool et meat na EN mete eenA oe eeteee err ee Seca seen OeSRS Saban— ¢ cored tr caver tS) emp epee Sema) Woahnthe aathente So sence cytes parent pease

=O SS asa FSae mee TED LIE onl ete = poe ere Eeeek ME Po Neti Ng Oe ES anySeek nas a LEE wi AaIS—os AN Shee eae = ——S Nee -a Saxe =OEae (Ss. eeutraeetae RS >So — =ateer=Oepeaz= -pemceemeng oofete nee :eee Fes >> .->s rgnaONjews aeaSaaS ee Sea oe SS RS Safe oe aa eee Swe reaHt eens EE Stang St ee - paaananasanse =oy age Ra EE ee Soe 3 aLPR rrr esAMA Nate og Te=e SORES Whoosh eeteno aee eScat engS —Es — >ee soe =YSEs

4$9)ee aneEe caseer va % eben -Bnd eyars Se ane Sho eaeSee eae aseee Tents) pe SRIEE TRE> Piden VOSS. smhetee Ss STON ommay,. + GS erate a eee) |) | a : S . j ae” Gi) fd a ot fox. \ 'owe AY de a Sees : ail Tl OS ARE (fnaL ted Poe ee ,,SeKk ee A i SS UeSS&4,me ey)ed: |iefl le co Tet: a tate io. IIIs Si Vat date, ESN ee pee | ei) Bae | Bb Beers 1) Ae Bes ee | BR ee BEE a ee SD Pai eh ee

Ome od Od (Ae A een ae Hg PL EER, pr Gate Pt Bee “ a eects Kate: Meee ER Pas Wate SE e

ik BasalPath seBeat: ee§a GPSPL pot SNR RIP TadFARA Vl | BF | feETAT HW Be reAS CRA Bpeee Fs ae Se a:EPs eM BYBe Coen SOI ES EIT YW a Ee) eT ae 1 a oe s ne Se Ems | haa Bh FecF ia 3 3

mmm i ag ima at an i a

gk.» ee PE Seg ED bee er ok co Sean Wer Bi gh cag ae @ ee eee | fre Oe iesAPae! Bee ataloes ie gi3 , Bp Pe ioLEA aes essa ls GN LBS FRte CRC ee Bhan £. TEEees

a 3 Re isc Sieh oe, He Sie os i ELLE ATS Dees ere cadet | tate tent Fa ; ee ee Neha mipaiaet a cURL

Mette ARE FTTHF Get issara, Wielegg gee Peetemas ER Tefeeca ee ABoman a rece a & dintBeate Aya Me. cote . fone geneseS eASeeaiee ater bein asahsSeg jj a. 5 pee ET cess! SSPE ARE ASE 15 5 23 % “4 S$ ene ARMrcetec py sR RRRB PUGS | SORRY ergoeM tae THR EFKarlie en ee Pt 8h Fy eg

iil LAN Ri praca . ee ora 2°| ae: Set@ Oeeae Oe oy Sarita «5 @@sae

een Avex ag eer Page es RSS. oe bb ee eamesMe tat et) eeee rk) ieee coe enh ae Sa 7 PO EN oe ire teeats Bek tem eeeee |canafeel: ope

Ma: borPSPrSrret te a bie tenbebe beeinesfe| & ©i A titre hee eo esc cee se atten ae rents tera ES ihiee ccc Pisseterstnl st castaxetsstehes secu steed lye :

‘Be rr Bre Oe eebey Veta earses pee eeYBr GSgeOG ehceteSy es

SMR Sinica Ss Sic RN os ee Omen es Boer io hc aaa tite a ee

a ac 187

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival

a 2h. h Sie | | aerors came ty bil OU Shae

: ct ie

(Gin asismmscancaaarmcr mer se he Lee ean i) 3 ae te 2 — oe

| a2es—Pee z ¢ : hs i “= 3 — : e EEG Pee Gr, yy Ve.

ee Be ek ae A Bet FO fei od 4 ieaeh, ue Le Pee, F cscs

eS .. Es | ae Ly. a ae eh nary ae = _eererere 2828S. 5,8 ‘ J ge. oc te i. ee =e Tae

piece reas att? i we Noches Jee a LEC AUTEM LS HW

en pC le a a ie oy Ss ia

‘ i ait ee : aust ae ie DE. a4 _% Sas 3 ig DI Re ae Sag Rte sont 63. George Gilbert Scott, project for the Hamburg Rathaus, 1854, perspective.

were medieval in origin or in general character. He crusaded for Gothic churches, schools, and hospitals, and wasted little time pleading for Gothic theaters or train stations. And the Hamburg town hall, like Cologne Cathedral, served exactly as had its medieval predecessor, its arcades, clock tower, and great assembly hall fulfilling ancient functions. Hamburg, for Reichensperger, was the great example of a German city where medieval self-government had survived intact. It was a living fossil of the Middle Ages, still thriving in the presence of the new and powerful absolutist cities, Berlin, Vienna, and Munich. At stake in Scott’s project was not merely a new architectural fashion, but a vision of a modern Germany operating on decentralized medieval lines. Such was the root of Reichensperger’s passion for the building. Reichensperger, in his article, went on to compare Scott’s building to other German medieval town halls, including those of Danzig, Breslau, Brunswick, Cologne, and Liibeck. These examples did double duty. They confirmed the existence of a corpus of stately medieval town halls in Germany’s most prominent cities; they would also give any Gothic design, even one by an Englishman, an indigenous pedigree. He cleverly managed to cite those cities that Scott himself had studied. Thus, from the outset Reichensperger shrewdly tried to portray Scott’s proj-

ect as a Germanic rather than an English creation; a Gothic victory would mean “giving a German city a German building.”

AugustReichensperger 188

Forty-three entries had arrived by the October 1854 deadline, seventeen of them designs for Gothic buildings. Oddly enough, the most prominent Gothic designs

by Germans came from two Berlin architects: Wilhelm Stier and Eduard Knoblauch.

Theodor Biilau’s entry was in an ornate late-Gothic style of the sort that Reichensperger usually condemned. Only Scott’s Gothic entry seemed worthy of notice to him. The rest of the designs were evenly divided between Renaissance and Rundbogenstil projects, with the Berlin and Munich Schools especially well-represent-

ed.* Ironically, in a bizarre reversal of the Nikolaikirche competition, this time it was Semper’s entry, rather than Scott’s, that came in late and was disqualified!

Despite the efforts of the commission, controversy dogged the competition.

The drawings were exhibited publicly, identified only by their mottoes (Scott’s design was labeled “Gott mit uns’’). Although the identities of the competitors were

to be kept secret until after the judging, the veil of secrecy was quickly pierced. Soon after the exhibition began their names were revealed, presumably through a combination of educated guessing and discreet leaks. Within a few weeks it was

possible for the Allgemeine Bauzeitung to reveal in print all of the identified names.** Now even the pretext of fair or impartial judging collapsed. The Bauzeitung seemed to have its own agenda, which included torpedoing Scott’s entry.

His building was too expensive, the journal argued, and his plan did not correspond to the program. But more seriously, it attacked the design at precisely the point on which Reichensperger had been most confident: its national character. Seeing its

rectangular massing, its bold continuous cornices, and its rich polychromy, the Bauzeitung searched in vain for the germanic character that Reichensperger had praised; to the editors it was more florentinisch than deutsch. Although praising a few of the other designs, the journal primarily used its review to discredit open competitions in general and the Hamburg one in particular. The article in the influential Bauzeitung failed to influence the outcome of the competition. Scott’s dramatic perspective drawing captivated the public, whose outspoken interest in the competition made it a force in the deliberations of the jury. Eventually, the stunning quality of his design overwhelmed the theoretical debate over Gothic architecture, and Scott was declared the winner at the end of 1854. It now seemed a matter of course that the architect be entrusted with the exe-

cution of his own project. After all, this had been the case with the Nikolaikirche, and the city had eventually come to forget the competition battle and admire the building as it rose. But this time Scott’s victory had only scattered his foes, not destroyed them. Opposition to the Gothic Rathaus shifted from the competition jury to the public press, and in Hamburg’s newspapers the battle over the building flared again in early 1855. Some of the worst of it came from far afield, from the rabid

189

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival

English-baiting of Ludwig Lange, an architect and professor in Munich, who, like Semper, had lost two competitions to Scott. Much of this opposition covered welltrod territory, such as the expense of Gothic architecture, its poor lighting and ven-

tilation, and its incompatibility with a modern building program. Reichensperger,

alarmed over this “aesthetic battle,” tried to muster support in a series of articles praising Scott’s building: The plan of Mr. Scott recalls the town hall of Ypres in its magnificent simplicity and in its stately tower, which will complement the dignity of the city above which it will soar; there is also a faint echo of the Doges’ Palace in Venice. The front is less picturesquely massed than the rear elevation on very apt grounds, since there the dominating rectilinearity is sufficiently relieved by the tower.* How swiftly times had changed! Only four years earlier Reichensperger, seeing the new Rathaus annex in Hanover, had complained of the “miniature Doges’ Palace.” “Hanover and Venice are too far apart,” he had written, “to give occasion for introducing Venetian masks into the former.’*° But in the intervening years John Ruskin

had cast his stamp on the Gothic Revival, and English architects had discovered Italy and its polychrome architecture. Suddenly, with Scott’s design, a Venetian

“echo” was permissible. There could be no more poignant illustration of Reichensperger’s willingness to follow the English lead in things architectural. In Scott’s design Reichensperger saw an important lesson for German archi-

tects. Its sheer surfaces—their Italian roots notwithstanding—helped refute the canard that the “essence of Gothic architecture lay in its decoration with finials, rosettes, foliage and all kinds of tracery.” Scott’s solid building showed that a Gothic design need hardly be awash in ornament. Instead, good Gothic architecture con-

sisted “in its proportions, in the massing of the individual components of the building, in the inner distribution being made manifest on the exterior, in the lively contrast of the principal lines—in fact, in the character of the whole.”*”

Fighteen fifty-five passed without any move to start construction of the Rathaus. Reichensperger, uneasy at the delay, tried to keep the building in the public

eye. In an unusual move, he ensured that the Kolner Domblatt reprinted a large portion of the descriptive text that Scott had submitted along with his drawings. He insisted on leaving Scott’s German unchanged, despite some oddities of expression, in order to convey the sense of the architect’s personality. Here Scott explained in detail the design process that had generated his project: the decision to raise the building on a tall arcaded base to give it more prominence above the densely builtup streetscape; the decision to use polychromy, which was too often neglected in

AugustReichensperger 190

Germany; the decision to make the rear elevation picturesque and irregular, in con-

trast to the main elevation. Scott even justified his reasons for working in the spirit of early-Gothic architecture, when most of the precedents he had studied came from

a later date: the greatest prosperity of northern Europe’s medieval towns had occurred when their architecture was already in a state of decline. Only the architecture of around 1300, with its simplicity and vigor, was appropriate for the gravity of a town hall. Reichensperger had reason to be flattered by Scott’s program. In it his own views on Gothic architecture were quoted, coyly cited as being those of “‘a

great author.’ For all his efforts, Reichensperger’s campaign for Scott and his Rathaus design came to naught. Opposition to the English architect ran higher than ever and

the Hamburg senate postponed taking any measure to fund the new building. The delay grew suspicious. Two years later, in February 1857, Reichensperger was still complaining to Ungewitter about the “intrigue” and “agitation” against the design.”

Ungewitter responded with his own gossip, recounting that Scott’s rival Meuron suffered from nervous trembling and had had to hire a painter to render his perspective of the Rathaus. But other matters soon claimed Reichensperger’s attention. Scott was selected in 1858 to design the new Government Offices building in London, a commission that now claimed all his energies, and Reichensperger publicized this prestigious new project in a series of articles. Once again he saw the cause of secular Gothic architecture vindicated, and urged his German readers to acquire Scott’s Remarks on Secular and Domestic Architecture.°° In the flurry of activity, the furor over the Hamburg Rathaus was gradually forgotten. Although it was never formally rejected, Scott’s design languished for two decades, until a second competition was ordered in 1876; this time entry was restricted to German architects.

Progress versus Orthodoxy Reichensperger’s growing authority as an architectural critic now began to achieve international recognition. He emerged as the principal correspondent for German architecture for both the Ecclesiologist and the Annales archéologiques. Periodic visits to France and England confirmed his status and kept him in constant contact with Europe’s architectural eminences. With justification he could claim to be the spokesman for the Gothic Revival in Germany. His international contacts gratified him, and he felt confident of the course he had charted, parallel to that of his English and French counterparts. Now he discovered in 1856 that the international movement was no longer as unified as he had believed. In particular he came to assert himself against the newest stylistic movements of England. The occasion was the competition for the

19]

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival new Catholic cathedral in Lille, France, one of the principal architectural competitions of the decade. From the moment it was announced in December 1854 until

long after its resolution in April 1856, it earned the attention and eventually the wrath of the European architectural community. Reichensperger was drawn into the competition jury through his ties with Adolphe Napoléon Didron, who, along with Arcisse de Caumont, was responsible for managing the competition. Didron sought from the first to make the competition an international affair. Reichensperger was a logical choice as juror, having been well-known in French antiquarian circles since 1845 through his efforts on behalf of Cologne Cathedral. In that year he had attended the Congrés archéologique held in Lille. There began his friendship with Caumont and Didron. Reichensperger periodically renewed his ties with his French colleagues and was a valued speaker and guest at their assemblies, beginning with that in Trier in 1846. Thus, Caumont invited him to visit the congress of the Society for the Preservation of Antiquities, held in September 1850 in Nancy. (There he was pleased to find little revolutionary or republican sentiment among the visitors.) In August 1853 Reichensperger traveled again to France, where he renewed his ties to Didron; immediately afterward the Frenchman asked him to serve on the Lille jury, flattering his friend as “le Montalambert de la Prusse,” the Prussian Montalambert.?' Didron had also sought to win the Ecclesiological Society to serve in an advisory role, which they declined. That Reichensperger was the only German invited to serve indicated his paramount role in Germany, roughly equivalent to that of the Ecclesiological Society for England. Although as a member of the Prussian Parliament his time was short, he accepted the invitation out of friendship to Didron.

From the outset it was clear that the Lille competition would summon the best Gothic architects of France and England. Concerned that Germany make a respectable showing in Lille, Reichensperger encouraged his friends to prepare designs. In response Ungewitter wrote on April 11, 1855, asking for a copy of the program, which Reichensperger promptly sent.°* But the architect was depressed by the hostility and indifference that had rewarded his efforts in Kassel, and perhaps also disillusioned by the failure of his Votivkirche submission, and he aban-

doned the idea of entering the foreign competition. On May 11 he wrote Reichensperger that to work upon such projects when he had no commissions was nothing but a “pleasant illusion.”°? But Statz took the bait, as did a new friend of Reichensperger’s, August von Essenwein.

August Ottmar von Essenwein (1831-92) had just made a study trip to Cologne in early 1855, accompanied by his mother, and he introduced himself to Reichensperger. As a gift he brought a copy of his first book, Norddeutschlands

AugustReichensperger 192

Backsteinbau im Mittelalter. He explained that he had trained with Heinrich Htibsch

in Karlsruhe, where he had learned the Rundbogenstil, and only later encountered the writings of Reichensperger, which had inspired him to study the Gothic through trips to France and the Low Countries. Reichensperger was taken with the painfully

shy architect, “fragile and delicate in build, preferring milk to spirituous drinks,” and promptly took him to the Cologne building lodge to meet Statz and Friedrich

von Schmidt (who sought in vain to introduce the young man to stronger bever-

ages). Within a few weeks of this meeting, Essenwein was encouraged by Reichensperger to enter the Lille competition.°* He and Statz, along with eight other architects, comprised the German and Swiss competitors.

Reichensperger arrived in Lille in late March 1856. Unfortunately, the judg-

ing took much longer than he had expected, there being dozens of entries from throughout Europe, requiring considerable study and comparison. After the first round of judging, completed by March 25, he had to return to Berlin. He did for his

friends what he could. For the second session, held on April 10, he left a written memo containing his evaluation of the entries. Although Reichensperger was not present for the voting, the German contin-

gent fared well. Essenwein was awarded an honorable mention and Statz won a gold medal and a premium. In the work of Statz Didron saw an “artiste expérimenté” and an “esprit sagace,” a man “accustomed to finding the beautiful through pursuit of the useful.”°° Statz’s design was later lost, but contemporary descriptions confirm that it was a thirteenth-century essay, close in spirit to his restrained Votivkirche entry. Doubtless it would have been competent and canonical, which was at once the strength and affliction of all of Statz’s work. But against the vivid polychromy and invention that distinguished the work of George Edmund Street and William Burges, this cautious thirteenth-century orthodoxy paled. The English architects easily carried the day over their French and German competitors alike; the first prize was awarded to Burges and the second to Street. The design of Burges was astonishing, assertively original in massing and distinguished by robust detail and color. This was no timid exercise in the moldings and tracery of the thirteenth century. Even the French architects were overwhelmed by their English competitors and the best of these, Lassus, only placed third. (Nonetheless, Reichensperger took Lassus’s motto—L’eclecticisme est la plaie de lart—to heart and made it one of his favorite aphorisms.) The Lille competition gave Reichensperger an opportunity to reacquaint himself with English architecture, which had changed much since his visit in 1851. He noticed with a shock how far the tradition had diverged from that of Germany. True, he could take pride in the prizes won by his friends. The last time that German

193

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival architects had faced Englishmen in a competition, in 1844 in Hamburg, they had been disgraced. This time, scrimmaging again in an international competition, they came away proudly, with respectable reviews. Under Reichensperger’s tutelage, German architects had assimilated the message of Pugin and the dogma of the early Ecclesiological Society; in short, they had mastered English architectural theory of the 1840s. They were armed and ready—but only to compete against English architects of the previous decade. At Lille they met men of the next generation, architects such as Burges and Street whose philosophy of design was that later termed “High Victorian.” Rather than follow the thirteenth-century orthodoxy of ten years earlier, these men worked from a permissive architectural theory that encouraged them to mimic the process of historical development in their designs; to incorporate modern materials; and to work inventively, from medieval principles, rather than cautiously, from medieval examples. Statz and Essenwein were far from copyists, but compared to Street and Burges, with their powerful, crackling projects, they were archaeologists, rather than architects.

On his visits to England in 1846 and 1851 Reichensperger had found inspiration for German architecture, but the recent English trends he saw at Lille left him

rather cold. While he appreciated the boldness and imagination of Burges and Street, he found their modernism off-putting. Scott and Pugin remained his ideals

and English architecture of the 1840s his model. As late as 1865, when Reichensperger had occasion to speak of architectural polychromy, he ignored the obvious example of Street’s work and instead praised the vivid interior of Pugin’s St. Giles, Cheadle, which had been consecrated during his English trip in 1846.°’ To pass over the brilliant stone, tile, and brick polychromy of the 1850s and reach back across two decades to point at one of Pugin’s painted and gilded interiors— here was a revealing vignette of Reichensperger, turning his back on all that the High Victorian movement meant for English architecture. It was not as if Reichensperger was caught completely unawares at Lille. He was kept apprised of both the buildings themselves and the theoretical trends by the chief actors in the movement. During the middle of the decade he befriended A. J. Beresford-Hope, one of the Ecclesiological Society’s inner circle, who after Scott became Reichensperger’s closest English friend.°® Like his German counterpart, Beresford-Hope was a conservative political leader and a prominent parliamentarian; and like the German he considered architecture, and not politics, to be his life’s work. But beneath the warmth of their personal relations and their common dedication to the Gothic cause was a growing divergence on the details of their architectural theory. Beresford-Hope was the patron and the mind behind All Saints Church, Margaret Street (1849-59), William Butterfield’s declaration of independence from

AugustReichensperger 194

the cautious orthodoxy of the Ecclesiological Society, and England’s first High Vic-

torian building. The church was the vanguard of a new kind of Gothic architecture, modern and synthetic; it was one of those rare buildings in which changing theory and practice marched together in lockstep. Nonetheless, Reichensperger had little

to say, in his copious notices on English architecture, about it or its successors. It was as if the whole architectural doctrine that accompanied High Victorian design was anathema to him. A vigorous architectural polychromy, derived from the materials of construc-

tion; a permissive canon of forms, allowing the combination of motifs from differ-

ent historical periods and different regions; and, above all, a theory of historical development whereby modern architecture could take up the forms and principles of

medieval building and further evolve them—such were the hallmarks of High Vic-

torian design. But for Reichensperger, such were also the codewords for the German Rundbogenstil. This was the villain against which he had directed most of his energies since 1845, opposing the synthetic eclecticism of the style and the doctrine

that the modern round-arched mode was a consistent development from medieval

Romanesque architecture. Development, or Entwicklung, was a trigger word for him, and he reacted badly to it, whether in architecture or when used by Hegel to justify the historical evolution of the modern enlightened Prussian state. Development, after all, was the banner under which had gathered Hallmann’s Berlin Cathedral project and Semper’s Nikolaikirche entry. Having once applied the brakes to

free invention in design, he was not now about to remove them. Reichensperger continued to follow the cautious approach codified in his Fingerzeige. Ungewitter followed Reichensperger’s cue, and was likewise disappointed that England’s architects had given way to changing fashion and taste. The Venetian Gothic fad of the mid-1850s distressed him in particular. He wrote in 1860 that he

constantly kept his eye on the English journal The Builder, and shared Reichensperger’s conviction that the English movement had lost track of some of its

early principles. Like Reichensperger, he feared the talk about the “style of the future,” traces of which he even found in Scott’s article “On the Rationale of Goth-

ic Architecture.’ He wrote Reichensperger that the Proceedings of the Architectural Society in London have left me a little troubled in this respect; having already sampled their way through the various phases of the English Gothic and then having gone on to the most fashionable medieval styles of the Continent, it appears that they have just now discovered the Italian Gothic.*”

195

The Conscience of the Gothic Revival Even more faithful to Gothic orthodoxy than Ungewitter was Vincenz Statz. His swift rise to prominence in the 1850s was chiefly the legacy of Reichensperger’s

patronage. In the late 1840s Statz was still a mason in the building lodge, turned amateur architect in his spare time, struggling with his first small commission at Nippes. Within three or four years, he had dozens of commissions in hand and was the most sought-after church architect in the region; by 1854 he was officially estab-

lished as the diocesan architect in Cologne. Without Reichensperger’s guidance and aid this remarkable ascendancy would have been impossible. The elder man and his friends had pushed Statz wherever they could, bringing him commissions through-

out the Rhineland and for Catholic congregations in far-off Prussia and Hanover. By the middle of the 1850s he was so preoccupied with his architectural career (although, astonishingly, he was still working as a construction superintendent at the cathedral) that Zwirner had to ask him to leave the Bauhiitte. Statz was Reichensperger’s architectural arm. The jurist brought him commissions, gave him a theoretical foundation upon which to base his designs, and worked with him in refining his designs. It could not have been a closer or more intimate collaboration; there 1s nothing else like it in nineteenth-century Germany. Statz referred to this period of collaboration, the 1850s and 1860s, as die gotische Zeit, the Gothic time: Every day friend Reichensperger came to study the cathedral, and often sought me out for advice on architectural questions. So began the Gothic time, beautiful and unforgettable for [both] young and old. When I later became diocese architect [1854], our friendship first truly developed. Church building now became the main mission and commissions arrived almost daily; from all the world Reichensperger received inquiries and requests for advice. He then came to me with the drawings and we criticized them jointly. And so—in the interest of this good cause—we evaluated

thousands of plans. Statz’s churches followed the letter of Reichensperger’s theory scrupulously. Characteristic of these was the Mauritiuskirche (1857-64), a vaulted basilica with

an axial western tower, erected in the heart of Cologne.°! It illustrated how a dogmatic insistence on thirteenth-century models could bring about a design that was both original and theoretically acceptable. Statz confronted a daunting task: he was charged with designing a large and spacious church on a severely constricted site, incorporating into it the remains of an earlier Romanesque church, while being limited by Reichensperger’s doctrine to early Gothic precedent. His solution was ele-

AugustReichensperger 196

gant, and took for its inspiration the Liebfrauenkirche in Trier which, along with Cologne Cathedral and the Elisabethkirche in Marburg, was one of the great trio of early German Gothic churches. The Liebfrauenkirche was distinguished by polygonal transept ends, echoing the form of the apse and creating the effect of three intersecting apses, which made of the traditional basilica a vast centralized space. Statz’s

original 1857 design borrowed the polygonal apse and transepts of the Liebfrauen-

kirche and grafted them onto the short nave of the Romanesque Mauritiuskirche, creating a vastly expanded seating capacity. This plan was abandoned in 1859, when

the battered remains of the earlier church had to be sacrificed, and a more conven-

tional nave built. Nonetheless, Statz retained the apselike transept arms of the Liebfrauenkirche, as well as its massive early-thirteenth-century character (Fig. 64). The result was one of Statz’s best works, and certainly his most prominent building in the Rhineland.

As has been seen, Reichensperger knew and cherished the Liebfrauenkirche from his tenure in Trier and from his visits with the architect Christian Schmidt. Whether or not he specifically recommended that Statz use the church for his precedent is unclear, although he certainly approved. Furthermore, he clearly appreciated

the formal and practical constraints that dictated using the Liebfrauenkirche as precedent—for he described these factors in a letter to his English friend BeresfordHope in the fall of 1859.°* Beyond giving indirect—and possibly direct—theoretical

guidance, Reichensperger used his good offices with the church hierarchy to see that Statz’s plans were completed as the architect intended. When costs began to mount and it appeared that money could only be saved by finishing the church with a simple truncated tower, Reichensperger personally intervened. As a result, the steep masonry spire that Statz had projected was eventually built. Typically, the jurist remained Statz’s patron throughout the design and construction process, helping to win the architect commissions, giving theoretical guidance, ensuring that funds were realized, and placing each project squarely in the public eye during the course of its building. The artisans and craftsmen who collaborated on the ornamenting and furnishing of Statz’s churches were also men of Reichensperger’s circle. The Marienvotivkirche in Aachen (planning, 1855-58; built, 1861-63) was a splendid example of this collaboration. The church itself was unusual for Statz: a basilica with transepts, it omitted the standard western tower in favor of a crossing tower. As a result, the western facade was less massive than in most other neogothic German churches and was given over to a large portal, crowned by a mighty expanse of traceried window (Fig. 65). Here was opportunity for sculptors and artists alike. A team of five sculptors was assembled, including the famous Peter Fuchs in Cologne. For

ee |} 2 { : y | s“i' The Conscience of Revival science of the Gothic

Fer ee : — a|eeSecS—rr—”—“‘=™N a ‘j.eeeoSABe ae::Rear LU — — Be z Sstfee ne . :s ;‘ chasse cote

fee PSE 2 SeSerer : a :hs ES Ren esRENO eee Bis paces eh Rem eae Ga * : a pee ane ee ieee beet Chee metus gs A ee Sees ES a Sire Paesccnen pantera Saas nn nt pS Seen, pants S -8 AeERR See ee ener eetieeeit eres: easaiees ect se : — aeee PESee ee co ERS Be ee: sees : SS

{a se Oe : : oy oS es Co -— . ee ier ee ie ss Senate t ge seen SS eee sin i : : oun ete ee oe — ee oe fae af

; fea ee oe Ss oe i : oes is a ee SS eee pores Be a

| Ate : + ih Bi i HA i} & ee : js x4

nig

‘g

ie:

*~

a ee 3 ”%. oe ee :.: ; , xt, Shee : camel . ¥ tA . 4 { ¢ te ae “*¢

om geet

ee -ok ° 5 ee

-a gee oe Bes 3 4 ae $Aes >ee¥ Pe oa 2se;ed iae 4* Bibi: Fe (oP fA Pie: Ah ik ds ewes aee €EOE BYBh ey pf t5 Bee a a Se Fes 2 £*| ,+e :tek i g8 ype Tae ae as =Peaaeeea!>lA Toh

if t [i 2 ee of at ee,

ae), eee Pf ot7ee aeSON NI] 8 Se lf ' PW ere SS ag ar ca Coe I I Ap a Peel . | fit Os | a8 i Y i li ile a ae

ee Bl 2 | a vale ree houses, Prinzenstrasse 10, iJeaes BiHanover, 1872-73. architecture based on medieval forms and principles. In their rigorously functional planning, their picturesque composition, and their dogmatic structural morality, they more than satisfied the theoretical demands raised in Die christlich-germanische

Baukunst. There was even a building lodge patterned on the example of that in Cologne.'> The Hanover School had earned, by any just measure, the unqualified praise and approval of Reichensperger.

They did not receive it. Reichensperger remained uncharacteristically silent about the Hanover School in his articles and reviews. While he loudly applauded even the tiniest new chapel by Statz or Schmidt in the Organ fiir christliche Kunst, he took scant notice of the great churches, schools, railroad stations, and town halls built by Hanover architects. Reichensperger’s architectural world, for all his distant connections, remained parochial and Cologne-based—just how parochial is revealed

by a curious incident in November 1862. While entertaining Thimus at home he

was unexpectedly visited by a young and elegant Silesian nobleman, Baron Friedrich von Klinggraff, who owned an estate in Mecklenburg. By way of apologizing for his interruption, the baron begged Reichensperger to tell him where he could have Gothic furniture made. But when Klinggraff launched into a tirade about modern church restoration, Reichensperger realized that here was one of the most eccentric medievalists he had ever met, “his fanaticism going so far that he wanted to eat from Gothic forks and spoons.”'® Eventually, the plea for advice developed into a request for an architect to remodel the baron’s estate into a Gothic fantasy.

For such an architect there was a logical choice: someone from nearby Hanover, either Hase or someone of his circle. Their brick style would have been

219

High Tide of the Gothic Revival uniquely appropriate for the region around Neubrandenburg, where the baron’s estate stood. But Reichensperger pointedly ignored the Hanover School, which he professed to admire, and instead recommended Heinrich Wiethase as architect.’ Wiethase was another architect with impeccable Gothic credentials, having worked with all three of Reichensperger’s protégés: Ungewitter, Statz, and Schmidt. Still, it

was telling that Reichensperger kept returning to the Rhenish architects, chiefly Catholic, with whom he worked at Cologne Cathedral. Surely personal connections played the largest part in this. Reichensperger had once betriended the Protestant architects Ungewitter and Hase, but had few ties with their younger followers. These youthful architects were products of the schools and were not bonded to Reichensperger by the battles of the 1850s, as those first Gothic pioneers were. Added to this was the changed nature of the architectural debate. Reichensperger was typically most prolific and energetic when in opposition. His career was organized into great bursts of focused activity—first for Cologne Cathedral, then for Gothic church architecture, then for monumental public architecture. His early writings, and his ties with Ungewitter and Hase, had provided much of the impetus for the rise of the Hanover School. By the start of the 1860s that movement had already achieved its own momentum; Reichensperger’s direct intervention was not needed. He turned his attention away from secular Gothic architecture toward other concerns. Thus, during the 1860s much of his time was taken up dealing with the interconnection between politics and art; in the next decade he was preoccupied with the aftershocks of German unification. The Hanover School was something Reichensperger seems to have regarded with benign neglect, as a sort of illegitimate child. Nonetheless, he must have felt a surge of pride at seeing that child suddenly achieve independence and success on its own.

Ecumenical Triumphs Reichensperger’s Gothic proselytizing had won him many allies; it also won him a number of determined enemies, and not only among the members of the Prussian art and architectural establishment. In September 1857 he was elected president of the General Assembly of christliche Kunstvereine, or Christian Art Societies, which met that year in Regensburg. After lecturing on historical issues—the history of the two-aisled church and the significance of the number of towers on medieval church-

es—he saw that a number of praetical resolutions were passed. Foremost of these was a pledge that the art societies would combat the use of mass-produced statues and plaster ornament in church furnishings. As a consequence, Reichensperger was angrily attacked by several industrialists who manufactured these wares, and who

understandably felt that they were serving the cause of religious art. But

AugustReichensperger 220

Reichensperger was unyielding, refusing to sanction “the purely mechanical imitation of old models and the reproduction of existing church pictures by the factory.” Such stubbornness earned him further enemies, some of whom would patiently wait for the chance to avenge themselves.

Nonetheless, Reichensperger came to feel at home in Berlin, where he had spent so much time during the 1850s. He continued to use the city as a base from which to explore the culture and society of northeastern Germany, a predominantly

Lutheran region that he knew only remotely from his student years. In late May 1861 he traveled to Saxony, where he visited the painter Carl Andreae, with whom he viewed the superb collection of the Dresden museum. He admired the Old Masters, praising Ruisdael and Canaletto, and damning most contemporary painters, particularly the Diisseldorf School, whose work he found as flat and glossy as porcelain painting. The visit convinced him more than before that his friend Steinle represented the best of current monumental painting. But during these same weeks important

events were under way in Eisenach, where the biennial Lutheran general assembly

was drafting a set of rules for Protestant church architecture. As Reichensperger strolled through the galleries with Andreae, musing about Christian and pagan art, his ideas on church building were being enshrined in the so-called Eisenach Regulativ, bringing the rules of Catholic architecture to German Protestants.

Reichensperger’s victory over Protestant architectural doctrine had come gradually. As early as 1845 the Nikolaikirche had proved that protestant Germans could happily build in the Gothic style, although they did so for different reasons than did Catholics. Unlike Catholics, who followed Reichensperger’s example and saw the Gothic as a vessel of Catholicism and regionalism, Lutheran Germans saw the style in chiefly nationalist terms. In fact, for historical reasons it was difficult to

assign any religious character to the Gothic that was explicitly Protestant, for by the time of Luther’s appearance in the early sixteenth century the style was virtually extinguished. For this reason Scott’s shrewd public-relations effort during the Nikolaikirche competition had stressed the nationalist proposition, presenting arguments and ideas much like those Schinkel had used thirty years earlier to advance his plan for a Gothic cathedral to commemorate German unity. This nationalist symbolism was even more attractive to Protestant Germans in the 1850s, as it became increasingly clear that Austria would be excluded from a future unified Germany. A

national Germany would in all likelihood be a Prussian-dominated Germany, and therefore a largely Protestant Germany. This, of course, was on Reichensperger’s mind in his campaign for regional autonomy and identity. In the meantime, religious as well as political changes had rendered the Gothic style more acceptable to Protestants. During the first half of the nineteenth centu-

22]

ry there was a general movement away from the Enlightenment doctrines that had

informed the church during the preceding century, but that had never fully supplanted more traditional sources of German Protestant theology. There had always been a strain of inward-turned, communally oriented thought, tending often toward mysticism, and unwilling to surrender the doctrine of revelation for that of reason, all of which was embodied in that characteristic German creation, pietism.'® In the wake of the Napoleonic Wars the pietist strand was woven together with that thread of Protestant orthodoxy that had been shocked by the excesses of the French Revolution. There was a new consensus, and a broad popular basis, for a traditional Protestantism. For the frosty vision of an exalted and idealized reason as proclaimed

by the theologians of the Enlightenment, many congregations had little sympathy. Nor did they have any for the austere and rationalized architecture which this theology had favored in the past. As the tremendous and unexpected popularity of Scott’s Nikolaikirche made clear, there was a great untapped reservoir of Protestant sentiment for the Gothic. Many congregations wanted to build in the Gothic, and sought to do better than the progressive and self-consciously modern Gothic of the previous decades. Like their Catholic counterparts, they were hungry for standards. Reichensperger’s writings offered such a set of rules. Quite fortuitously—for he had never aspired to influence Protestant church architecture—his writings came to answer a particular need in these circles. No Protestant theorist spoke so clearly and convincingly for the Gothic as did he. There were glib apologists for the style, but none who could offer a practical program for church building. Where they did present suggestions, these resembled Reichensperger’s recommendations for Catholic architecture. One such Gothic apologist was the Hamburg painter Carl Koopmann (1797-1894), whose 1855 Der evangelische Kultus und die evangelische Kunst paralleled Reichensperger’s Fingerzeige in many ways.'? Koopmann argued for the symbolic and nationalist suitability of the Gothic for Protestant worship. Insisting on the purpose of the church as the place where the sacraments were celebrated, he demanded that this be reflected architecturally. He acknowledged a renewed interest in the original, sixteenth-century form of Lutheranism, when its sacraments and rites had more nearly followed the Catholic model. The later German Protestant architecture of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries had emphasized the function of the church as a preaching space; now, in the middle of the nineteenth century, the altar began to dislodge the pulpit. This phenomenon corresponded to the ascendancy of “Catholic” tendencies in the Anglican church at the same time. In each case the theological shift was associated with an interest in Gothic art. This revival of the traditional Protestant liturgy had already begun to affect church architecture in the 1830s. Even before the Gothic was widely accepted, a

AugustReichensperger 222

series of reforms had prepared its way. Without committing themselves to a partic-

ular style, Prussian church administrators had passed rules in 1835 and 1842 that upheld the importance of the chancel and decreed that the altar must be freestanding.*° The practice of placing the altar against one of the back walls, a badge of Lutheran churches of the Enlightenment, had reflected the absolute ascendancy of the pulpit as the most important point of the church, both theologically and architecturally. The church consistorial offices of other German states moved in the same general direction. In Wiirttemberg the consistorium mandated the orientation of the altar to the east and the differentiation of the nave and chancel as early as 1840.

This separation of the nave from the chancel struck at the very heart of Protestant church design. By making the altar the focus of the church, by placing it in a chancel oriented to the east, and by directing a longitudinal nave toward it, the Wurttemburg consistorium had—without explicitly saying so—banned the central

plan; in its place they prescribed a traditional axiality. Naturally, this had serious implications for the role of the liturgy, and demonstrated the renewed importance attached to the celebration of the traditional sacraments. Having been dislodged by the pulpit, the altar dislodged it in return. Further measures downgraded the impor-

tance of galleries, without actually banning them, and made it possible for church

architects to dispense with them. The gallery was still a litmus test for Protestant church architecture, indicating that concern with acoustics and the visibility of the pulpit which distinguished the Protestant church as a preaching space. By proscribing central-plan churches and by discouraging galleried churches, Protestant church design was losing the traditional means by which it had differentiated itself from Catholic church design. In the 1850s this new orthodoxy in Protestant church planning came to be firmly linked to the Gothic. At the 1856 Kirchentag (a biennial conference of the German Lutheran church) in Dresden twenty theses were drafted regarding church design.*' These were drawn up by the Liturgical Committee, not by any conference on church art, indicating the new importance assigned to the relationship between liturgy and church form. These recommendations held that a church must be laid out on a rectangular plan or a Latin cross, and must never show a circular or polygonal plan. Galleries were permissible only where there was no.reasonable alternative.

The Dresden theses were not binding, although they were intended to be rati-

fied by the state-run church bureaucracies of the various German territories. They were a sign of the growing national consensus about a traditional approach to liturgy, insofar as it affected church design. In the absence of any other national Lutheran organization, the Kirchentag was the only occasion when the decentralized

223

Tigh Tide of the Gothic Revival German church could speak with anything like a unified voice. The 1858 meeting in Hamburg reinforced the trend to a liturgical Lutheranism. At the 1860 Kirchentag in Barmen the theses of Dresden were reviewed and overhauled, and a new set of rules ratified. Now there were two paragraphs—sections fifteen and sixteen—that specifically addressed architectural style and endorsed medieval modes of building.” This

portended the long-prepared and long-postponed official endorsement of Gothic architecture at Eisenach. In late May 1861 there assembled in the medieval town of Eisenach in Saxony a committee charged with preparing a set of rules for Protestant religious architecture. Three prominent architects, all with extensive church-building experience, were appointed to advise the committee drafting the rules: Christian Friedrich Leins, Friedrich August Sttiler, and Conrad Wilhelm Hase. These rules were codified in the sixteen theses of the so-called Eisenach Regulativ, which was formally approved on June 5. Most significant was the third thesis:

Dignity requires the use of one of the historically developed Christian architectural styles. Therefore it is recommended [that the church be built] in the

basic form of a longitudinal rectangle .. . preferably in the so-called Germanic (Gothic) style.” Charitably, the rules also permitted Romanesque churches or those patterned after the early Christian basilica, as the Barmen theses had allowed, but these were secondary choices; for Protestant churches the Gothic style now stood supreme.

Reichensperger exerted a direct influence on the Regulativ, having a spokesman for his views at Eisenach. Of course, all three consulting architects had

built Gothic churches. Leins (1814-92) of Stuttgart was an eclectic of no particular dogmatic shade, but had produced several competent Gothic designs.** And Stiiler was a codirector of the Berlin Bauakademie who had done some of the best German Gothic work of the 1840s, although his architectural philosophy remained that

of an eclecticist, as was fitting for Schinkel’s most distinguished pupil. Invariably, his monumental public buildings were classical. It was left to the youngest of the architects at Eisenach, Conrad Wilhelm Hase, to represent Reichensperger’s views most forcefully, particularly against the opposition of Stiiler. Hase had been a convinced Gothicist since the mid-1850s. He had already begun to exert a considerable influence in Hanover because of his teaching at the

Polytechnische Hochschule and by virtue of the stout stone and brick Gothic churches with which he had been peppering the countryside around the north-German city. In 1860 he was appointed consistorial architect, charged with supervising the construction of Hanover’s Lutheran churches; it was was on this basis that Hase

224

August Reichensperger

: nL

ee

Re) Le ee A .aeie a i) ol ee

Po, ae) “ee Gl ma BM ds MU

3 =|impe\ae, wml. \ be : eee aeFhe ( Be eeu) aie |hf! geenV 1h ee eds) =} ‘*/1aiAc ;aa éRBS yex i;7 he a : Be AS ie \ FS ays Sees x i , | fetal"? | i i 83. Hase, Christuskirche,

| me @ostes | Ee a: =View # ‘.from jh en it eee = «© Hanover,: 1858-65.

WOE an southeast.

Ach ED had been asked to advise the Eisenach committee.

eR eee 5 . ° : 4 1 1 + # oe ¢ ’ ° °

aNe“3 . ae ;

i, oe al When Reichensperger met Hase in 1860, the

«eae architect had just begun planning of his most impor-

z SF | Bao ee 4 ap: oh ;

" eae iy tant work to date, Hanover’s Christuskirche ti asa ae ) + (1858-65), the first fully developed statement of his A cee ! brick Gothic style. The edifice was among the finest jay _ = vg ES German churches of the period, comparable to the — a best work of Statz, Ungewitter, and Schmidt. A high-

4 iy | a waisted, brick hall church, it had a western tower = =r, - incorporated into the first bay of the nave that termi-

, ’ icant nated with one of the earliest and best tributes to the = & openwork spire of the Freiburg Miinster (Fig. 83). At its east end the church blossomed outward in a

es Se - - « French array of radiating apses (Fig. 84). When they 84. Plan of the Christuskirche, | ©Stablished relations in 1860, Hase presumably

from the Zeitschrift des sought out Reichensperger’s advice for the design

Architektenund Inge; oo | : and the interior furnishings. Reichensperger could nieurveretns Zu Hannover, vol.

13, 1867. easily have approved of all of it: the complete vault-

225

High Tide of the Gothic Revival

ea.

ical

(oan | Aa AAD yet se

4 ee . vi Re

aA eeee be ee2 a ', i PAL HANI Far

yeuW Aa Po)

= lug Wag | \emete) A Na ig a

Oe ye Oe |

= i} Woy lea ei. eS

ly NIE ~SsS8S.. western rir & yee=O ee ft way Ve a oeChristuskirche, / oe sl

eR oes = - &§ Pett ° ete aaa Sa aen |

Gia ea cee ai) > Ts . ae Se v4 elevation, from the Zeitschrift des

rh VeeSid ea aei | SNS Tl] a WE Architektenund Ingenieurvereins wee ee aee bic SPS SSS SSS SAU UAT SIC GR SEES EIS SSS SESS Zu Hannover, vol. 13. 1867.

ing, the inflection of the design in accordance with local tradition and regional mate-

rials (apparent here in the brick construction and the north-German hall-church arrangement in three aisles of equal height), and even the masonry spire rising organically from the nave (Fig. 85). When the question arose at Eisenach of how a Gothic Protestant church should look, Hase could do more than quote theory: he could unfurl his Christuskirche plans. After Reichensperger established ties with Hase, sculptors from the Cologne workshop (including perhaps the best of the group, Peter Fuchs) were dispatched to Hanover. They were to execute the jamb figures within the portal of the new Christuskirche.*> Apparently Reichensperger was instrumental in providing the Cologne sculptors. This remarkable collaboration—the principal shop of Catholic artisans working hand in hand with a north-German Protestant architect—demonstrated how much had changed, in large measure because of Reichensperger. Protes-

tant and Catholic architectural ideals were on converging trajectories. Hase remained grateful for the assistance over the course of the ensuing years. Going far

AugustReichensperger 226

beyond what even the Eisenach Regulativ prescribed, his churches of the following

decades followed Reichensperger’s theoretical strictures as closely as those of any Catholic architect. It was against this background of a burgeoning friendship with Reichensperger that Hase went to Eisenach.

Whether or not it was Hase alone who represented Reichensperger’s views at the conference, the final document bore the unmistakable stamp of the Rhenish jurist.2° Some of the Eisenach theses reflected those of the previous conferences in Dresden and Barmen, but the language and word choice were directly modeled on Reichensperger. For example, in his Fingerzeige he had defined the ideal form for a

church as a rectangular nave with a projecting eastern apse: “Die beste Grundform...ist das langliche Viereck mit vorspringendem nach Osten gerichteten Chore.” Compare this definition with the first rule of the Regulativ: “Die dem evan-

gelischen Gottesdienst angemessenste Grundform der Kirche ist ein langliches Viereck ... Eine Ausladung im Osten fiir den Altarraum und in dem ostlichen Theile der Langseiten fiir einen nordlichen und siidlichen Querarm giebt dem Gebidude die bedeutsame Anlage der Kreuzform.”?’ Reichensperger’s requirements for a church tower were rigid, and he insisted

on a single western tower, placed above the entrance. Twin towers, even if Gothic like those of Ferstel’s Votivkirche in Vienna, were not to be tolerated. At the same

time, the tower could not be detached from the main body of the church, like the campanile of the Italian basilica. The Eisenach Regulativ followed Reichensperger closely on these measures, even though they flew in the face of much recent Protestant church building. For example, the detached campanile was a favorite motif of Protestant churches in the 1840s, including examples as diverse as Anton Hallmann’s 1840 Berlin Cathedral project, Ludwig Persius’s renowned Friedenskirche at Potsdam, and Ludwig Lange’s Gothic entry for the Nikolaikirche competition. Nonetheless, Reichensperger’s judgment was respected at Eisenach. Again com-

pare his language—“Der Haupteingang des Gebdudes gehort in die Westfronte ... Nach den Grundsatzen des christlichen Baustyles sollen die Thiirme ein organisch entwickeltes Pfeilersystem sein.”—with that of Eisenach’s sixth rule: “{Der Turm steht] in einer organischen Verbindung mit der Kirche.””®

There were other parallels. Reichensperger’s absolute condemnation of sham

construction was echoed by rule four of Eisenach, which declared that churches must be built of durable and permanent materials. Banished were the stuccoed rubble and half-timbered walls of early-nineteenth-century churches. In general, however, the Protestant rules were more lax than Reichensperger’s. Where he demanded complete masonry vaulting, the Regulativ permitted wooden ceilings, arguing that they had acoustic qualities superior to those of unrelieved stone surfaces. Nonethe-

227

High Tide of the Gothic Revival less, the Protestant framers of the Regulativ accepted the traditional Catholic hierarchy of the parts of the church, and agreed that the apse, at least, must be vaulted in

stone. Even one of Reichensperger’s most unusual and difficult ideas, the notion that existing historical fragments should be incorporated into a new building and serve as a determinant of the design, found expression in Eisenach. With characteristic bureaucratic sloth the Regulativ codified much that had already been practiced in many areas for at least a decade, but it finally placed the Lutheran church’s official stamp of approval on the Gothic. What had been common practice was now doctrine. This was the ecumenical truce of the German Gothic Revival, for never had Protestants and Catholics come so close to one another in their conception of what a church was, and what it must look like. Reichensperger’s Gothic orthodoxy did not go entirely unchallenged at Eisenach. There were many kinds of Gothic architecture besides his narrow, thirteenthcentury orthodoxy. It was by no means a given, for example, that Protestants would

decide that Gothic churches could only be built longitudinally, with axial towers, and not with central plans. Stiiler, for one, had a different conception of Gothic architecture. He had seen and appreciated the asymmetrically planned churches of

England firsthand, and come to value them. He had little interest in exploring Reichensperger’s rigid models of Gothic geometry: England was important not for

its canon of fixed rules, but because of the irregular and picturesque composition of its Gothic buildings. Having been trained by Schinkel and steeped in the informal picturesque of the latter’s rural buildings, Stiiler understood English architecture in German terms. His buildings were published in his 1846 Entwiirfe zu Kirchen, Pfarr- und Schulhdusern, which became the authoritative manual for church building in Prussia.*’ The book established a Prussian tradition of a picturesque medieval-

ism, rambling in composition and of an informal brick construction. This style, spread by the architects of the Prussian building office, came very close to being the predominant Protestant form of the Gothic. As a quasi-official Prussian style, with the prestige of Germany’s preeminent Protestant state attached to it, it provided a model for Protestant churches througout Germany. Eisenach changed all this.

Stuler resisted the new orthodoxy that Hase advocated and strongly dissented from the more “Catholic” strictures of the Regulativ, such as those against centrally planned churches or the use of galleries.°” He even argued against the compulsory western tower that Hase—and Reichensperger—had mandated, surely one of the least onerous of the Eisenach rules. Stiiler claimed that it would interrupt the westerm gable end, violating a standard element in many of the brick churches of northeastern Germany. Reichensperger, it seems, was not the only German who could stand on the pillar of indigenous authority.

228

August Reichensperger

ne he ree ae Ttae ‘ ia oS Pipi he Ty,

AAA et fia ae j e q =

eo ee it “ise a ese) {eae ESS e : io AOR = | ta eaea| rat Or 1c Ses ,ey A ees ts ies. onal= 4ee! a abi bhnieceili ii aN e*

: | oe. fo oes iat RSENS i a ne eile RS oe

Bee, — Pe -, easement we — —

86. Augustus Stiiler, designs for Lutheran churches, from his Entwiirfe zu Kirchen, Pfarr- und Schulhdusern.

There was a personal component as well to Stiiler’s dissent, for the new rules clearly challenged some of his own important work. The Regulativ would have rendered invalid most of the model churches in his Entwiirfe zu Kirchen, Pfarr- und

Schulhdusern. These churches—including projects by Ludwig Persius, August Soller, and others besides Stiiler—had been characterized by their informal massing, relieved with corner or side towers (Fig. 86). Stiiler regarded the picturesquely placed

tower as a valuable compositional device; thus he protested vehemently at Eisenach against the compulsory western tower, a mainstay of Reichensperger’s theory. Stiiler had resented Reichensperger ever since the latter’s notorious speech

calling for the dissolution of the Berlin Bauakademie. But Stiiler could not assert himself against the Gothic orthodoxy preferred by Hase and the liturgical committee, and he failed to prevent the ratification of the Eisenach Regulativ. Instead, he had to wait until he was back in Berlin to make quiet revisions and emendations to the document, diluting the stringency of its Gothic rules.*! Unable to kill the document in public, he succeeded in mutilating it in private. These changes, which were approved by the Prussian Ministry of Religious Affairs, reflected his more permissive attitude toward design, and sanctioned the asymmetrical tower and a greater

variety of plan solutions. This could only be viewed as a rearguard action. Reichensperger’s supporters had carried the day.

229

The Eisenach Regulativ, by translating Reichensperger’s program into a set of

Protestant rules, removed any lingering vestiges of Catholic symbolism. Reichensperger’s triumph in the affair was not so much that he brought Protestants

to the Gothic—for that shift was already well under way before he began to write. What he did influence was the kind of Gothic that Protestants chose to build. That the more severe and historically exact Gothic came to be favored was in large part due to his tireless propaganda. His message that geometric regularity, and not the external laws of pictorial composition, was the basis for the true Gothic reached

sympathetic Protestant ears. The Gothicists of Berlin were taught a lesson at the hands of the provincial subjects of the Rhineland. Oddly enough, Reichensperger followed the events in Eisenach with detachment, and summer 1861 found him with more pressing matters on hand. In August he attended the Art Historical Congress in Antwerp, serving as vice-president. Two months later he was a guest at the coronation in K6nigsberg of King Wilhelm I, the new Prussian king and future German kaiser. He seems to have ignored the debate over Protestant church architecture during these turbulent months. Perhaps he felt that, having written a manual on church architecture and furnishings, he had made his views on the subject clear. His articles were tending more and more to deal with restorations or secular Gothic architecture. In fact, after the Lille Cathedral competition Reichensperger wrote little more about church design. He may have felt that he had placed the great vessel on course, and that he could now turn its helm over to others while he shifted his efforts to different matters.

Vienna: High Tide of the Gothic Revival On August 1, 1863, the first blocks of stone were removed from the wall between the medieval choir of Cologne Cathedral and its newly completed nave. The sixhundred-year-old “temporary” wall was to be demolished, a project that would take weeks, and Reichensperger and Thimus were on hand to observe the progress. For the first time it would be possible to stand in the entrance and take in at a glance the whole majestic breadth of the cathedral, and to look at the luminous crown of windows surrounding the high altar. The towers remained unfinished, but to see the complete interior was deeply gratifying to Reichensperger. He had begun to realize that he was happiest when working with art and architecture, and that his parliamentary career had become dissatisfying. Prussian militarism tainted the recent

deliberations of the Parliament, where the liberals, the so-called Fortschrittspartei, had finally won a clear majority, depriving Reichensperger’s Catholic Center of its role as coalition builder. And Bismarck, the new minister-president, was showing that he could easily outflank the opposition of the left and center in Parliament. Bis-

AugustReichensperger 230

marck ordered taxes; Parliament rejected them, but they were collected anyway. In

this hostile atmosphere Reichensperger was coming to believe that his political effectiveness was at an end. On September 12 the last stone was removed from the choir wall; eleven days later he announced his retirement from Parliament. Reichensperger was not renouncing his judgeship, and he still had to make periodic circuits to sit on the assize courts in Aachen and Elberfeld, but now he would have more time for art, family, and friends. In particular he looked forward to

spending time with Thimus, who was also an appeals judge in Cologne. Thimus, that “enlightened Falstaff,’ as Reichensperger termed him, was his closest companion and a fellow admirer of art. Alternating between gregariousness and bouts of melancholy (when he occasionally wished himself a Trappist monk), ‘Thimus was an

amiable though eccentric companion. He spent much of the decade preparing a monumental study of the theory of harmony and proportion in the Middle Ages, hoping to extend Reichensperger’s idea of the mathematical roots of Gothic architecture into other sciences. Reichensperger’s parlor became a congenial laboratory,

where the two friends sought to find universal geometric forms in the natural world—flower petals, seeds, crystals, the cleavage patterns of fruit—and to apply them to medieval optics, geometry, music, and architectural quadrature. Statz was summoned for periodic experiments, and was once asked to design a Gothic window surround whose profiles were based on musical proportions.** Among these friends Reichensperger found the relaxed intimacy he had missed in Berlin. He hoped for a peaceful time in Cologne, but he was bitterly disappointed. In

early 1864 his daughter Johanna caught typhus and after a brief illness died on March 20, just eighteen years old. Reichensperger was shattered, pouring out his sorrow into his diary. It was a year of grief all around. Later that year Ungewitter finally died of the tuberculosis that had afflicted him since the start of the decade, the end surely hastened by overwork on a stream of church commissions and restorations. Reichensperger immediately published his lively correspondence with the architect as a small book and quietly donated the proceeds to Ungewitter’s widow.

After a summer of mourning for his daughter Reichensperger took Clementine on a circuitous vacation and study trip through Bavaria and Austria to Geneva and the Swiss Alps. Gradually he shook himself out of his lethargy. In Munich, he visited the recent architecture, took “terribly boring” tours of the Glyptothek and the Pinakothek, and shook his head over the overweening Grecian influence in the

buildings. Leaving after five days, he decided that the beer was the one aspect of Bavaria that pleased him best of all. In Linz the couple observed the rising foundation of Vincenz Statz’s great cathedral and then continued to Vienna, where they

oD)

High Tide of the Gothic Revival

Fi ur Se A

COC 87. Friedrich von Schmidt in a wood engravSSE ing from a photograph by Victor Angerer,

— 189].

viewed the new buildings of his old friend Friedrich von Schmidt (Fig. 87). The architect had just completed his Gymnasium Aula, a work in the best and most sober thirteenth-century Gothic style. He had also had just replaced the iron spire of the Viennese St. Stephen’s Cathedral with one of stone. Both works delighted Reichensperger.*°

Schmidt was on the threshold of a dazzling career, and Reichensperger was glad to renew their friendship. Until now he had had only false starts and defeats. After losing the Votivkirche competition Schmidt had designed a Rathaus for Trier in 1855-56, using the surviving fragments of the medieval building as his model,

but his plans had been rejected. Most infuriating of all was the way in which Schmidt had won and then been robbed of the Berlin Rathaus commission. This commission ought to have been a triumph for Reichensperger as well, for the jurist had been coaching his friends for some time on the proper way to build a modern town hall. In particular, he had sent them photographs of George Gilbert Scott’s unbuilt Hamburg Rathaus, hoping that the ordered and symmetrical facade would function as a model for their work.** The hint had worked: in 1857 Schmidt entered

the competition for a Berlin town hall and served up a German version of Scott’s plan (Fig. 88).°° Gone were the polychromy and the red granite columns, gone the Venetian Gothic character; but retained were the thirteenth-century forms, the ground-story arcading, the horizontal orderliness, and the symmetry. The design had won in open competition and for a brief and heady moment it appeared as if a Gothic crown were to be set upon Schinkel’s classical Berlin. But once again, as in Hamburg, the promised funds were never allocated. In 1861 the Gothic plans were finally abandoned and a brick Rundbogenstil building by the Prussian architect Her-

za it& 3ahbdnair pe P % — ._See aoe SS i See Rey SON ee ag eae Aan ae ee : Shi: pM = ced aS +Ge pier ee Cl #e =eae Re So £ener -aes fF. se pe PG il ee Oe ,—~— aBaeeeee ita! eee Eee Se Pe Mig — | ee! pe oe ca ee A 2 WR Sh, ee ais Pc SM Re eG) — i em UlUcUhmhmUmUmUhUL Tl eC ee eee (eer~~ ee Boe ge eeeeSonera fa ERIN Oi ee Bi prea ct RaRMe és 4 ee Eee ee BeSeZ«nae RiteRRR cae age Se a Gee Reesoaee A Mi eee Se ee ee Sees eae Se de ne HES? ee ee

Fa Fe~ foe oe.rlloe me — Ff, CE Pee 6 S oo ee a Yo Fe y OC Fr a ee aa£ ee Ss= ¢.pele eeou Coe YY * ae. ~*~ et es i ore Re Be Sl : ot ae ee [= eee ee SRS a {ape aati onc otl TE east aed : peers: eens Serene Ree ccna . Pree Sate ge

— —F- eS ~~ mt, §,, | Ma < -

Bets age cnease sunset SeySepa LASS.Bees OT See eee caFP ORC le FWES BRB oS rare. Bescon RE oeeats BiSieg Se eae. ayhate gO" Se. rrr

ARR Stare nn fete Bean ne meee ¢ Speco Saeeeen nobnecthecngey, Vacances” Saar ae Re Ras ee aioe. ea Rae Se Brig Sheet S SS ee :Se : See parca es aati. aeRacca Ree fier a ea Benicia? i re eaA ae iyaegotcee eet.coco: SeenSet Seege See 2 seenter 2 geeaime ae Soca

Beart itt eae GR SS ae a 3aECA Samee eames Seeee een ee cs” Reece ncn {SED ER cooeRe a|) eapee RES gee o - Be A.Sie Ricecere carting, ei peaSie eee Hae ee Rae een SO. aee ieeeaega

Be Ef a ie 8 oe coe

—FFSee |eercc ee L A MR Bae recmmnics geen Si ee aae ee Re Bs al . Ee es ‘ities Pae SgeoIe Bei ee. Oe se De acon ge eae y eae en GE

-ee eePee Ae , ee Pe ee = at # ee eae Be en auc ; fee 3 secssaeee ee ie iia Seca Be CR Se ae eee ace cee ¥ BES apeeneenattt gece fi gece ames a ace noe See o SHaeheiee seater ts Fe

ee — eS ret ee tees 4 fp yo HES ae Bee - e ea er

i _Rey spelen aRees = fee ate. pene 4 oo ee SOleft: € Zen ee _Oa— &ee: eee ttRS. oeRs ee. r ,: 'iefrom ere Menai gee “4 = a Nie cd rgere ; : hee bchages ree ate Game aeRR : ae pee he BS I L t

ees Oe

es2. i eiaeHeSO es sew : svpe 4 %ae > 8is@be +A R‘ :: h i | Pies ‘ : Pe Saree $e a a Ee ae oae Ludwig Windthorst, Peter ee ee—_ ee ee oa~ 4eeaie oe Reeichensperger, Ss ae cnc a ees z ee rsRand cg 2 eee eee ee: Se een h _ d des =e Hermann aye 2 3 Bini cod cae cae aa sais St Sopra Ser ee RRR . . Se Bi. Stpnces 4 Be eS see, fee ie etees cc Rl aS aeFe: BREET Rese po Hy _* * *. oi, Be ea & SMe ee vsnoiS fo. OA (ae Behe “eea Si, oeeeeeeee ee ; ba ee eeBee AT Zqgti i. SFaETS Se ee ee eae | Be it'sFF . FETT? r jay 6S RESjs as eye i Sie s. : / eae & 7 tae Pie ee ass Es ie * oe i nS ‘ he Bg Pe we ; E Pe a PeOR | ga 61 : BORE : Ae RR aneROe, RE xFON aaa3 astate ne :PEG BeoeGee

ehh she OW —s y NN Lee hp ABS ee =e bd & -

ae cs a gf PS i ;‘Ao NS Sie pera se HES aeOER RE cs as >ae § bc (hays *ttSe, a eedTARA : iid ::;ss san : ag ye ‘ gee a Se ce 4 % go : | bes 2 04 et ee Bei auscommie gerne:ne: ee es fh Ee eee me, cs A sai ee es:vaere

Se eSReen : _{ \ieaseaaeoe ee eo, ce oe ae Ere > aeHaaecone SSeee aeae ; eh ang Finhe, tg 4—) ‘ Se—— a=—_ ‘ es Bes ge SS aeOe Me ein neers a= 2%, & EE me Hg eae Age

Se cit en *GO hawSir “oe, :au. We oa © : oe BRS Bi gia eared 4 or | sccaosliemamammmeee ie et, Jeena i om ee

eee ears Peo BR ae _— pon ol 3 ptt (i... Cheat eer

oo ee is] WMcsert ie tn ERs RES UE eer he aes Be ee — si ONG ex si dake PEER si ne > te r BeRae eee dane ee oe ee gM Cit Bie Sas Bee Bi te ssa gee eae ee aes *tan :% eyines y ean . ieshy:5 aeF SieCea ee bas RE Backs Sig baer ¥ > res cee eee ce A 2 Pi a Be Beceem 01% ci Oe iamen A YeLi w ae EWS ORE : eeei. i «ig eMfc ity Pee er“ ch petites aa Pee aaeeega ee “Sa oe ; : as (ue ov er eR Beer twee 91 Ms, OF GS | ss: aa A ne ee >

C6Cologne Cathedral, 1875d, 102. Cathedral,

ee 259

|rice+‘

Architectural “chite he = Politicsés in th Bi e German Empi e mpuire

*

re Lo . ae cafe Bins

ri a NE et ARN ane sai ee" R. +

eee 3 ae wigs Bes PE Set |/7S: , By Ass ue SS. iv ce pie estes ces Bas Reece a | ee oe ae 4 jee Nie Beas) Ral? pues AW fo L i ie ce ey |Sooty elf ,aiebee e Std: : Sc Beh| ced a Ae TE Are | ee cal ie 4 ti Vi el Pou SatoiHei ttvon 1A :me Ey ae rly| = ae vi }Bia atA BeMey ‘ifs oh) i aA 4 ly is Peer ie ea TN oer *oRotfi at i tee ne : Ree ee. Bhs > Ngee NY og es Bea Bee eG 2 3 al BP ome i ie ee Ts PookPoe UAB 6 HAE fo: i s vce ta oS2 % Me Te Bake Sg rt Fe

A ee Bs i i if hen ey A wee fis Bk" the i f al mr all; es Ley oy be ais

a aeila 1 2)Vt i Hele e BieAY te Febs Hey ee) 2Rae ied eta Be ec ae 3 ih iegeLe “tee btetPeLae LeMuu ere aee iePot VAP MPR iit yor tect GES oH aeifs P43See 5Alb Sn Pe ey eefee Bees Al alegag a eset aE RY Veetrat a, gin us

NI/ CVE es ay SCPE eae Fe LRA hgeimeee aaae Be| iiim if ia4 te ‘A aoy 13Te betes i ids Tel ram oNye) BEA betesay if ee PG Bi oe ie beer eS Shar: ig ee tt oe a Peay See ee gua t ae NE? hi raries: fiiad & ck comm a NM aera Pea) Bae 3 fe ee Fa) Pia

bE PAT ae Ha ea cei os0 MAS iil oe ; Lge ee EE HG fee if i Yai i a ae : ’ a HAG) \ oe : ee Oe es Say

ce ] atte, Baie i Pig tinta een Ags 1 8 PEL eek)aLtei Bi Na gM reysgede) eee asat eee A Yoeele Pid) dlt ae teas Nelile Ee @ Goode a) Boe eeeet. ae met hl i| |Sie ivaéee §laeee eee i ae Re Ree. tee bee aoe bea INbeta PiaoV4 ae3 hee eee ee © ret ae ie ie me GD tae set cite Aire ee eee ig Hi a --! i : a) We ie a) al . Be GM) hee Mond ye tele TEEN eg TE ee itl eli Sie an ie a foe iy a aa bela ehhs co oa2 ei. a tai eeCe| EW if Se eeseahsryPT ee a aaa fe eencrin 4 pO wee ta ABS eneoeRee ae gee in ; ae ie oN ety Somer a Styr aeie reeoe Aeeae? ea FoBe tae aged ¢ es £8 2 fifa t in Bi: ve yi Cy teas if eae e cen Bes Si Ags Sh TY PS SS ok eee AE ‘ome y 44 i Poet ii ae A om ee me. ts Wes. ‘Wildia: alaalinn cl He Mik Lael stan | Bee Jes ky Bt RT PS nd 5 A a ie Le oe Ss oe ee

ee lea wear 11h ee ory SE ieaehu; Ge ie at eeeB ) ae pce ee ue a eee: iewe 30Bee : ee fbere Pe RU tipsna ba ee oe = peea ee a eesri oe we FP eg

oaGea aS: eeeaemeee (ALLEL tee aee¢tea.te| i-t.° 1 §-(ORT re | fs bake 3 ae i |— i eeoe 4 aHel io aScusa -_eal eeaenia tue 3aeoeyt=el Be Aee!Ss. oO “

2 « «ee llkseeatt ee |Sag fe et SeRL te Serf ekee es ele ee Sr

ae = ee a: he PB apg he 4 ge & pe epee cy: See PP eee eee: Pas ce een hese

&ee _— oe ae fez er Ses ee eg — oe me” (ee SLE LL PR Fuge © NA P| Po ae Oe it est ases wer.bs1 itsee ens 8 SORE ae ceace eS oe ae pee see tats iheak nee as eae ® esBae ee aoePiHea ggEer ee euitec oS Sorat eee Be Sine Ps ® i os

ee ee ee : oa fi Pee pehe te 2 ee Se See ee a

as eee Se aiePte oe6eeye - ee &= oe ae ee rrrreeee ee OP Ras OR es 8ree. re Oe. ee rm Soc Mi C—O tf fe EMRE tee ss —Sti‘“_ a Po Ae ee — me ge |. _ i—ee oa tateie f/f 777] ere. a. Re s—O_—=izCOUi‘iRCO tg ee eee Bice Sal aee ee -eeCees TOMS eae a; et: ORE aes ey Re Ge aeSES of ee ee pe % —Pea— See ee eefs.:ii eg eeBo Veahe Bee we Le NE ARSE aS RP co ws py poe |Sie Oca com A seo7° Se Deel 8BA csper og COPE a AL =Oh ae | ._—:._._—S—s—=_z=«d 7 x

Ppa BES 2ST

FAG sah nore: Hien

WANEEyNea NACE er EA ea ap tA Ma ‘J pA Aine i a ae a Ca Lease Secs Nt cae

Aabee eae a eae Aa iy Cle fer

ANS ES aA we} Healing '

eats te 4 WOT Peed Li a Nees nd Fae yiche ie! ee seh ear HA eee eat a

Ri Ae, 7 isVEN if LAA as ae Hf AEokteeteata

Pe i} ‘ Lea Ty es if isa eet ighSEL es -teat a aei aed hat Hh

ete poate Wen:

—e, tee tea | as BN nee,

f ieCER Meat Gaeta aarp Ree ele

SeaeHeciee : Weepies i) feaee Bhate | PERE 1gatt ieeeeal “ih

' a. el ae eae) (ae ret | eeSE ai fe | OF MM, Bi : an \ Bp ae) ees pia ik Ack ta

ema ik hey iMe aSewes mt SE gh ‘| ieee HaeSalad erry esbh. te i} Re ORR m8. a Jah) Sag Ebekie ) EM Gece EO , aS ee io Ses ed He -ncaw’ Ga eT eae

IREogne Oo eeCathedral os F:Cc;1°ae4Ae Be &Phify) fukialin Woe Ms ror. “ 3tae — i: ha vt US : oO Ss a os Mi hae ALL BADE nase cit,eS ee:See aes iesBe IEcd es ee, tes ares Pac mit © co os com) itfie

S ® before : Ye os +. oa we = ear, *oF shortly thene dedicati Nae HE a‘ome oh Pe ; ;Pedication Se aape WO 7sfile. oe — en ee i ee. oh | ss Aee ites. ceremonies one ) h

i ila mae iy al ai Se Bi

Dacha bethige burn wimn Ae Oe ws Zap jpil '"°SA Muar MUM YU“ ies aes kb | ey, 4 fp \ es MWA

mm (3 wii wn em Habe bE f ; Gn i} Ly \ \ we hay LAA Phu orhunr ah nw Untihhivw '% Mj! y/ se, NYY WK Z A

pian tah Ha AU ' ny Uyjrthiin Sak vr Od arn an — 2STS a —E > uy Cece Dame Meteo ~~ LZ—_

a ae re .

phair sat) Onn Sn Rbariatyirtastiittn ie - We pee nnn a Mer ow) cnn, HM. bun.Charan, aisVb afKer Vig ANS Was FG ty ' } jyAin

: | Aan MAMAS IA), GYWArtw =: PAs nr 1 Std Fr Huts Ki

niin 4m AA — . Se oy ; Fenty h

$6 yr Sric dann rin MUmAUz mW - MAA Yee st (OTas bikes Menten ete «PeiC ante on ; bs a n == | a2 oe = pe osia} ae a ate Pas Gul op am 108.eWallot, comparison

== oo kek toa soe havd 14 fhe Laine between northern and southern

os aAYE ge Miyeras a ois ne icin architecture, from a letter to | Corea eek as ae ie Reichensperger, May 24, 1890.

AugustReichensperger 264

different dialects of a single language, he insisted; from his main point—that Goth-

ic architecture, “properly understood,” was the true Christian architecture—he would not retreat an inch.*’ Nonetheless, the views of Wallot, who was then perhaps the most renowned architect in Germany, corresponded much more closely to

those of the profession at large, while Reichensperger’s were everywhere under attack.

Reichensperger himself had glimpsed the truth nearly forty years earlier in one of his diary jottings: “The particular gift of our century—the ability to abstract from oneself and to identify with others—stands in an intimate causal relationship with its barrenness.”°* There was simply too much history. By being able to cata-

logue and reflect about all of it, the nineteenth century could never re-create the naive and single-minded appreciation of Gothic architecture that a unified and lasting revival required. Reichensperger and his party came close, perhaps closer than any of the other revivalists of the nineteenth century, but in the end they could not think away the Renaissance. Although Reichensperger continued to write, to lecture, to advise, and to trav-

el on behalf of Gothic architecture, his days as the firebrand of the Revival were over. The enfant terrible had become the Grand Old Man. In 1881 he wrote a commemorative volume, reviewing his lifelong efforts for Cologne Cathedral. He was no longer writing from a burning agenda, but was seeking to set the record straight. By the late 1880s the great revival had become diffuse, having lost the conviction about architectural style that had been at the core of the movement. Other tenets of the movement were still vigorous and attractive, and it was still possible to speak out—for functional planning, for a decentralized society, for a guild organization of labor—in short, for every Gothic Revival cause except the pointed arch and the buttress. It was a sign of Reichensperger’s flexibility that his texts of this late stage did not simply repeat the familiar arguments of Die christlich-germanische Baukunst; instead, he tried to apply the analogies drawn from medieval architecture and society to the new architectural problems that characterized the late nineteenth century. The most notable result of this effort was his treatise on the Ringstrasse devel-

opment of Cologne beyond its medieval wall: Zur Profan-Architektur: Mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Erweiterung der Stadt K6dln (1886). Here he addressed not only architectural style but issues such as workers’ housing, the responsibility of the city for planning and regulating new construction, and even

the conflicting roles of the parent and the state in education.’ Typical of Reichensperger’s later work, the book was far less polemical in tone, more concerned with concrete suggestions and practical results, and less caustic toward his foes. Where Die christlich-germanische Baukunst was a young man’s thunder, Zur

265

Architectural Politics in the German Empire

Profan-Architektur was a reasoned and learned treatise from a judicious civic leader.

It was Reichensperger’s last book.

He was withdrawing from active public life, refusing entreaties to run again for the Reichstag. His final speech to his supporters in Cologne was among his most hyperopic: he attacked the German colonial program and its requisite naval buildup.

He predicted that the burgeoning fleet would one day bring Germany into “embar-

rassment” with England and France, a prediction that found fruition a quarter-century later, in that dress rehearsal for World War I, the crisis of Abukir in 1911. After sounding this warning tocsin he retired from the Reichstag in 1884. His friend Wallot despaired. “I regret,” he wrote, “that since your retirement, the architectural profession no longer has a spokesman in the Reichstag.”

Reichensperger in Judgment Reichensperger, in the winter of the nineteenth century, could look with pride on his successes (Fig. 109). He could also look calmly at the approaching signs of failure. The Gothic Revival had already reached the high-water mark of its influence and prestige. The movement was losing the compact and fervent cohesion that it had enjoyed when it was an embattled minority. As Gothic architecture became accepted by the architectural schools and by public taste, it began to fall under their control. The movement spread—and spread thin, becoming diffuse in the process.

Sa ee a. Rowe >-\% SAN See ge)

AMA a ee

SSSR SST EE near aeselweeA' PQRREESQWW oe hE oe

BNO SO BAA AAS SSS RRR

iAKC BNEAAW cu ee SR RRR AGERE HARERAE RRS CK CHLX— R?;RYV|SV_E_ESA . RRQ NSS KG SSK SSGET NNANT \ AY

XK ANU 109. Reichensperger in 1890, in a woodcut by Heinrich Lauenstein.

266

August Reichensperger

Imperial Germany offered a very different artistic climate, as the outcome of the Reichstag competition had shown. In the Kaiser’s Germany the power of the state architectural schools and the national building bureaucracy was undiminished. Against their institutional power,

Reichensperger’s Bauhiitten had not made much headway. Time itself played its role. The generation of great Gothic architects who had come of age in the 1850s

had passed their prime; Ungewitter had died and those still practicing—Statz, Schmidt, and Hase—were not much younger than Reichensperger. In their place was a second generation of Gothic architects, including Heinrich Wiethase and Johannes Otzen. This second generation was greater in number and superbly trained, and in many ways fulfilled dramatically just those things that Reichensperg-

er had demanded of modern architects (Figs. 110, 111). They had assimilated the scholarly side of Gothic architecture; they had also mastered its craftsmanship, and had a thorough practical knowledge of Gothic wood carving, furniture making, and metalwork. Nonetheless, they lacked much of the single-minded commitment that had distinguished the men of the 1850s. For all their technical and scholarly knowl-

edge, they were as likely to design a Romanesque church as a Gothic one. To make matters worse, Wilhelm II, the new Kaiser, was a keen patron of round-arched architecture. Much of the medieval sentiment and nationalism that the

Gothic cause had tapped so successfully and for so long was now being drained toward Romanesque building. Catholic and particularist associations had come to

At ia

Sle

no i ie ee ea

RE A 7\— ae

Sige)! AI BV es i i fee a aa nag Se 110. Johannes Otzen, Lutherkirche, Berlin,

a eee =—1 888-94, from Otzen, Ausgefiihrte Bauten,

! : Berlin: Wasmuth, 1905.

267

Architectural Politics in the German Empire

3 Re a ee ee

BoeaN NNO a af i PP OR be i pie Ve th Bee ER We ae rah OMT ON BESO SEN NA BES (OY aM OR a

Cae Wh ey Wa

we ER We ey ft alae BY vaees | | eee Ee

Ree AL aes Be OO

eisees, eA NR ROARS eR CN ore Ses Ve as 4) [Oo ee Ae EE eZ WR Se aaa UN aed Ssh

Ree CANE We we SNE

~ Yi i ‘Ge Wh WR Ga | SO Sen)adda em oo « eee | % ileR ae=COA Healtee=

ti Yi | A= aFerenc WE ae | ee asseee RR

ERC ee [4 | be es wee: ee een pe =

= nga / ge sateve oNielie,iee-)E | cseyiRa mam Ff we bhie!

oa sl | eee ee Oe

iS= af. H | ay 2. aa ome: Ze.alSRO Meee Fo ee

i ———— 111. Otzen, Lutherkirche, interior view, from ||Br|eee§=§=OtZen, Ausgefiihrte Bauten. taint Gothic architecture in the eyes of Reichensperger’s foes. Here in the Roman-

esque was a Style free of those associations. By the middle of the 1880s, the Romanesque fad was in full swing. Apart from the enclave of Hanover, where the Gothic banner waved until World War I, German architecture was once more distinguished by a mixture of round-arched and eclectic styles, just as Reichensperger had found it a half-century before. August Reichensperger died in the early spring of 1895. He had become a familiar figure in Cologne, given to rambling walks around the old city, sometimes reading a

book as he walked, often absentmindedly passing friends and family while lost in reveries. In the last weeks of his life he wrote a few final articles, as if he felt that his life’s work was still somehow not finished. But if unfinished, the work he had accomplished was monumental. When he began his crusade for Cologne Cathedral, the Gothic movement in Germany was a stylistic affair with diffuse political and nationalist associations. Under his stewardship, it became a true revival, with consequences for the whole range of German political and social life. During the 1840s he successfully unified two strands of thought that had been largely separate until

then. These strands can be summarized in the two figures who loomed over Reichensperger’s intellectual awakening: Joseph Gérres and Sulpiz Boisseree. Gorres represented a distinct political and historical vision. The example of

the French Revolution always before him, he sought a political equilibrium for

AugustReichensperger 268

Europe, midway between the tyranny of reaction and the dictatorship of revolution. For Gorres, the concentration of power in the state was the central fact and the cen-

tral threat of modern history. Only the establishment of counterweights to state power could restore the equilibrium that had prevailed in the Middle Ages. These counterweights were to be found in the church, and also in an interlocking network of voluntary organizations that distributed power and decentralized authority. Upon the foundation of this theory, Reichensperger had helped to build the Catholic Center party and to establish its political program.

The good friend of Gérres, Sulpiz Boisseree, claimed the other side of Reichensperger. First scholar of Cologne Cathedral, dauntless pioneer of German study of Gothic art, revered patriarch to every German architect with an interest in medieval architecture from Moller and Schinkel to Hitibsch and Zwirner, Boisseree

represented the artistic vision that took hold of Reichensperger. But Boisseree shunned politics and elevated art to a different realm. For all his unrequited devotion to medieval architecture, he never attached a political meaning to it. Nor did he ever claim that it alone was valid. A connoisseur and a scholar of the Gothic, not its par-

tisan, Boisseree was a thorough and unreconstructible eclectic. He could praise Schinkel’s classicism, Lassaulx’s Rundbogenstil, and Zwirner’s Gothic, without reservation or sense of contradiction. Abstract aesthetics, detached from history and politics, removed from morality and religion, informed his artistic philosophy. These two aspects, the political and the aesthetic, despite their frequent points

of intersection, were still fundamentally distinct in 1840. Reichensperger wedded them. By linking Boisseree’s understanding of medieval architecture with Gorres’s

understanding of medieval society, he created that peculiar synthesis that made the German Gothic Revival so distinct from that in England and in France. In clipped time, even before the end of the 1850s, Reichensperger was able to take a regional movement that was largely antiquarian and scholarly in character and make of it a national cause, uniting architects, artists, and political leaders throughout Germany and even beyond. Where Boisseree and his circle had studied Gothic art as if it were the bleached bones of an extinct animal, Reichensperger had reassembled the animal, clothed it in muscle and sinew, and brought it back to roaring life. The Gothic Revival that commenced in the 1840s was more than a narrowly based aesthetic or religious movement, it was a vital force acting to shape German society during the struggle for unification. In large part this was Reichensperger’s legacy and his most lasting testimonial.

Notes

In citing works in the notes, short titles have gener- Reichensperger 1881 Zur neuern Geschichte ally been used. Archives frequently cited are identi- des Dombaues in Koln. fied by the following abbreviations:

ETH Eidgendssische Technische Hochschule, Introduction

Zurich 1. Ludwig Pastor, August Reichensperger

HAK Historisches Archiv K6In 1808— 1595: Sein Leben und sein Wirken, 2 vols. LHK Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz (Freiburg: Herder, 1899). See vol. 2, pp. 360-62.

2. Pastor, Ludwig Freiherr von Pastor Certain works by Reichensperger are cited by the 1854-1928: Tagebiicher—Briefe—Errinnerungen, following abbreviations, to distinguish among mul- Wilhelm Wir, ed. (Heidelberg: Kerle, 1950), p.

tiple editions: 239.

Reichensperger 1840 Einige Worte iiber den 3. Letter, Jane Welby Pugin to Marie Le Hanne

Dombau zu Coln. (Reichensperger’s daughter), January 2, 1896. LHK Reichensperger 1845 Die christlich-german- 700.138, 186. ische Baukunst und ihr Verhdltnis zur Gegenwart. 4. Pastor’s diaries are filled with accounts of his Reichensperger 1852 Die christlich-german- visits and interviews with Reichensperger. See, for ische Baukunst und ihr Verhdltnis zur Gegenwart, example, Zagebiicher, vol. 2, pp. 264-65, 268, 278,

second edition. and passim.

Reichensperger 1854 Fingerzeige auf dem 5. See Franz Schmidt, August Reichensperger: Gebiete der kirchlichen Kunst, first edition. Eine Sammlung von Zeit- und Lebensbilder, no. 24 Reichensperger 1855 Fingerzeige auf dem (Monchengladbach: Volksvereinsverlag, 1918). Gebiete der kirchlichen Kunst, second edition. Also see Leo Schwering, August Reichensperger Reichensperger 1856 Vermischte Schriften (Diilmen: Laumann, 1936).

liber christliche Kunst. 6. Heinrich Gotthard von Treitschke, Deutsche Reichensperger 1860 Die christlich-german- Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert, 5 vols. ische Baukunst und ihr Verhdiltnis zur Gegenwart, (Leipzig: Hirzel, 1879-96). Treitschke was enor-

third edition. mously influential for English historians of GerReichensperger 1863 Eine kurze Rede und many. The crucial English translation was History

eine lange Vorrede liber Kunst. of Germany in the Nineteenth Century (London: JarReichensperger 1864 Ein Riickblick auf die rold and Sons, 1915-19), which has been frequently letzten Sessionen des preussischen Abgeordneten- reprinted, most recently in abridged form by the

hauses. University of Chicago Press (1975). Reichensperger 1865 Die Kunst jedermanns 7. Thomas Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte Sache. 1800-1866 (Munich: C. H. Beck, 1984). Reichensperger 1866 Georg Gottlob Ungewit- 8. Giinther Kokkelink, “Die Neugotik Conrad

ter und sein Wirken als Baumeister. Wilhelm Hases: Eine Spielform des Historismus,”

gebiete. 1-211.

Reichensperger 1867 Allerlei aus dem Kunst- Hannoversche Geschichtsbldtter 22 (1968): pp.

Reichensperger 1877 Augustus Welby North- 9. Ulrich Theuerkauf, ed., August Reichensperg-

more Pugin. er und die Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ausstel-

Reichensperger 1880 Parlamentarisches tiber lungskatalog zum 90. Todesjahr, exh. cat. (Koblenz:

Kunst und Kunsthandwerk. Stadtbibliothek/Stadtarchiv, 1985). Also see the

270

Notes to pages 6-22

essays in the companion volume: Udo Liessem, 6. Ibid., pp. 35-37. Helmut Proéssler, and Hans-Josef Schmidt, August 7. “Man liebt diese Sorte keineswegs wegen Reichensperger (1808-1895) und die Kunst des 19. ihrer Ahnung der Unendlichkeit in uns, sondern Jahrhunderts (Koblenz: Stadtbibliothek/Stadtarchiv weil sie pikant sind und neu.” Letter, ReichenspergKoblenz, 1985). Reichensperger and his circle also er to Ludwig Braunfels, July 30, 1833. Cited in Pasfigure prominently in the very important work edit- tor, vol. 1, p. 50. Unless otherwise noted, all ed by Willy Weyres and Eduard Trier, Die Kunst des _ translations are mine.

19. Jahrhunderts im Rheinlande, 5 vols. (Diissel- 8. “Ich kenne fast keinen Monarchen, der mir

dorf: Schwann, 1980-81). mehr zuwider ware als dieser prunkende, herzlose, 10. “Verzeichnis der Briefsammlung August herrische Theaterko6nig Ludwig XIV.” Cited in Pas-

Reichensperger,” in Johannes Simmert, comp., tor, vol. 1, p. 55. Veroffentlichungen aus rheinland-pfdlzischen und 9. “Dieser kolossalen Vergniigungsmaschine.” saarldndischen Archiven (Kleine Rethe) no. 10 Reichensperger, diary entry, November 19, 1833. (Koblenz: Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz, 1977). Cited in Pastor, vol. I, p. 66. 11. Ekkehard Langner, August Reichensperger: 10. This pamphlet was published in Cologne by Eine Bibliographie aus Anlass der Gedenkfeier zum | Romeo Maurenbrecher (1803-43), a Rhenish attor-

90. Todestag, vol. 1 (Koblenz: Stadtbibliothek, ney, later a law professor in Bonn. Langner,

1985). Reichensperger Bibliographie, p. 3.

12. Also see my “August Reichensperger 11. Beleuchtung der Schrift: Andeutungen tiber (1808-1895) and the Gothic Revival” (Ph.D. diss., den Entwurf eines rheinischen Provinzial-GesetzUniversity of Pennsylvania, 1989), which includes buches, von einem Rheinldnder [i.e., August additional material of more narrow scholarly inter- Reichensperger], (Koblenz: Hélscher, 1834). est, sacrificed here in the interest of brevity and flu- 12. “Diesen Morgen war ein héchst eigenes

ency. Schriftchen zur Correctur hier, welches einem

andern Entwurf eines rheinischen Provinzialgesetz-

Chapter 1 buches ein wenig die Zahne zeigen soll. Letzteres

1. Among the excellent histories of Germany for _ will unsere ganze Gesetzgebung zerfetzen und dann

this period, besides Nipperdey’s Deutsche einige altpreussische Placken darauf naéhen. Gegen Geschichte, is Hajo Holborn, A History of Modern dergleichen muss sich jeder wehren, so gut er kann, Germany, 4 vols. (New York: Knopf, 1959-69). selbst wenn ministerielle Missbilligung zu befiirchAlso see Karl Buchheim, Ultramontanismus und ten ware, wie hier wohl. Jetzt nach dem Druck bin Demokratie: Der Weg der deutschen Katholiken im ich gar nicht mehr damit zufrieden, es nahm sich 19. Jahrhundert (Munich: Késel, 1963). A valuable geschrieben weit besser aus. Es kommt mir so zeriscollection of primary sources can be found in Lud- sen und fragment vor. Thut nichts. Vielleicht bleibt wig Bergstrasser, ed., Der politische Katholizismus: mein Name geheim, was ich sehr wiinsche. Alles Dokumente seiner Entwicklung, 2 vols. (Munich: muss angefangen und gelernt sein, selbst das BuchDrei Masken Verlag, 1921-23; reprint, 2 vols. in 1, machen.” Reichensperger, diary entry, January 23,

Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1834. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 69.

1976). 13. The biography of Gorres remains to be writ-

2. In Pastor, August Reichensperger, vol. 1, pp. ten. See the ongoing series Joseph Gorres: Gesam4-5. The following account of Reichensperger’s melte Schriften, published by the venerable Bachem youth is based nearly entirely on the account in Pas- —- Verlag in Cologne. Also see Axel Kuhn, ed.,

tor, August Reichensperger, vol. 1, pp. 1-42. Addi- Linksrheinische deutsche Jakobiner (Stuttgart:

tional material, which complements rather than Metzler, 1978), pp. 71-76. revises Pastor’s narrative, has been assembled in 14. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 32. Liessem et al., Reichensperger und die Kunst des 19 15. “So ein geistreicher Frémmler ist tausendJahrhunderts. Subsequent references to Pastor, mal unterhaltender als ein trockener GeschaftsAugust Reichensperger, are indicated simply as Pas- = mann.” Ibid., p. 45.

tor. 16. “Wegphilosophiert.” Reichensperger, diary 3. See Eduard Hegel, Das Erzbistum Koln zwi- entry, April 30, 1833. Ibid., p. 47.

schen Barock und Aufkldrung vom pfdlzischen 17. See Rudolf Lill, Die Beilegung der Kdlner Krieg bis zum Ende der franzosichen Zeit, Wirren, 1840-1842 (Diisseldorf: Schwann, 1962). 1688— 1814, vol. 4 in the Geschichte des Erzbistums 18. Lord Acton, “Ultramontanism,” Essays on Koln series (Cologne: Bachem, 1979), pp. 475-545. Church and State, Douglas Woodruff, ed. (New 4. See Frank Schwieger, Johann Claudius von York: Thomas Crowell, 1968), p. 43. Lassaulx 178]— 1848 (Neuss: Rheinischer Verein fiir 19. Nipperdey, Deutsche Geschichte, p. 419.

Denkmalpflege und Heimatschutz, 1968). The political ideas in Gorres’s Athanasius were fur-

5. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 17-21. ther elaborated in his articles in the Historisch-poli-

eee 271

Notes to pages 22—34

tische Blatter, a journal that under his influence Dollinger (Rome, Freiburg, and Vienna: Herder,

began publication in 1838 in Munich. 1968), pp. 7-24. 20. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 78. 7. See Paul Clemens, Der Dom zu Kéln (Diissel21. “Wie ein Gewitter,” according to Pastor, vol. —_ dorf: Schwann, 1937, photographic reprint,

I, p. 83. This, along with many other of Schwann, 1980). Also see the recent commemoraReichensperger’s remarks quoted by Pastor without tive volume on the centennial of the cathedral’s providing a source, appears to have been taken from _—_ completion, with its exceptional bibliography: Hugo

one of the numerous interviews Reichensperger Borger, ed., Der Kélner Dom im Jahrhundert seiner gave during the early 1890s, when the plan for Pas- Vollendung, 3 vols. (Cologne: Museen der Stadt

tor’s biography had already been formed. Koln, 1980); and August Reichensperger, Zur 22. The best account in English of the Catholic neuern Geschichte des Dombaues in Kéln (Cologne: revival in the Rhineland is Jonathan Sperber’s Pop- Bachem, 1881), hereafter Reichensperger 1881.

ular Catholicism in Nineteenth-Century Germany 8. Arnold Wolff, “Die Baugeschichte des Kélner (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984). Domes im 19. Jahrhundert,” in Borger, ed., Kél/ner 23. See Hans-Joseph Schmidt, “Reichensperger Dom, vol. 1, pp. 24~35.

und der Borromdausverein und Vincenzverein,” in 9. Clemens, Dom zu K6ln, pp. 53-60. Theuerkauf, ed., Reichensperger und die Kunst des 10. Ibid., pp. 64-65.

19. Jahrhunderts, pp. 133-37. Also see Heinz 11. For the principal monuments of early-Gothic Hurten, “Katholische Verbinde,” in Anton Rausch- architecture in Germany, see Ernst Gall, Niederer, ed., Der Soziale und politische Katholizismus: rheinische und normdnnische Architektur im Zeital-

Entwicklungslinien in Deutschland 1803-1963, ter der Friihgotik (Berlin: Reimer, 1915); (Munich and Vienna: Gtinther Olzog, 1981), vol. 2, Karl-Wilhelm Kastner, Die Elisabethkirche in Mar-

pp. 215-77. burg (Marburg: Verlag des Kunstgeschichtlichen

24. The key source for information on this is Seminars der Universitat, 1924); Jiirgen Michler, Karl Buchheim, Geschichte der Kélnischen Zeitung, Die Elisabethkirche zu Marburg (Marburg: E. G. ihrer Besitzer und Mitarbeiter, vol. 2 (1831-50) Elwert, 1984); and Nicola Borger-Keweloh, Die

(Cologne: Bachem, 1930). Liebfrauenkirche zu Trier (Trier: Rheinisches Landesmuseum, 1986).

Chapter 2 12. Georg Forster, Ansichten vom Niederrhein 1. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 89-158. (Berlin: Voss, 1791).

2. “Der Papst schien sehr zu leiden unter all dem 13. For a general history of the literary figures Prunke, nicht ein einziges Mal schlug er die Augen behind the German Gothic Revival, see Agnes auf, er sass unbeweglich da wie eine Statue, nur Addison Gilchrist, Romanticism and the Gothic dass er fast unaufgesetzt mit der Hand den Segen Revival (New York: R. Smith, 1938). ertheilte. Er hielt selbst das hohe Amt ab, und es 14. “Ein Volk aber soll sich seine Geschichte war ruhrend zu sehen, wie das Haupt der Christen- nicht abstehlen lassen.” See Joseph Garres, “Die heit die hilfeleistenden Diakone dreimal umarmte, Zurticknahme der Kunst und wissenschaftliche um dadurch zu erkennen zu geben, dass er nicht Werke” (1815), in Josef Gérres: Ausgewdhlte

bloss Vater, sondern auch Bruder ist.” Werke, vol. 1, Wolfgang Frtihwald, ed. (Freiburg, Reichensperger, diary entry, December 25, 1839. Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1978), p. 278.

Ibid., p. 117. 15. Reichensperger 1881, p. 3.

3. “Ich muss freilich zugeben, dass ich ausser- 16. “In seiner triimmerhaften Unvollendung, in halb Rom hochst wahrscheinlich meine From- seiner Verlassenheit, ist es ein Bild gewesen von migkeit nicht bis zu dieser fabelhaften HGhe Deutschland, seit der Sprach- und Gedankenver-

getrieben haben wiirde.” Ibid., p. 117. wirrung; so werde es denn auch ein Symbol des 4. “Ein hagerer, langer, ernster Mann mit einem neuen Reiches, das wir bauen wollen.” Joseph GorBedeutungsvollen Gesicht ... Overbeck erklarte res, Der Dom von Coln und das Miinster von Strasalles sehr bereitwillig; ich sprach viel mit ihm tiber burg (Regensburg: Manz, 1842), p. 3; originally den Verfall der Kunst im siebzehnten und achtzehn- _ printed in Rheinischer Merkur, no. 114 (November

ten Jahrhundert, namentlich in Rom, fand meine 20, 1814). Ansichten ganz bestatigt.” Reichensperger, diary 17. Ernst Zwimmer, Vergangenheit und Zukunft

entry, December 28, 1839. Ibid. des kélner Dombaues (Cologne and Aachen: Lud5. “Ein einfacher gothischer Bau, héchst wig Kohnen, 1842), p. 4. wurdig, das schonste Gebaude der Art, welches ich 18. Eva Brties, “Die Rheinlande” in Margarete je gesehen.” Reichensperger, diary entry, May 1, Kiihn, ed., Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Lebenswerk

1840. Ibid., p. 151. (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1968), pp. 304-69. 6. See Lill, Beilegung der Kélner Wirren. Also 19. See Herbert Rode, “Ernst Friedrich Zwirners see Victor Conzemius, ed., Die Briefe Aulikes an Planentwicklung fiir den Ausbau des kélner

272

Notes to pages 34-40

Domes,” Kélner Domblatt, no. 20 (1960-61): pp. 30. “Fiir die wiirdige Erhaltung und den Fortbau

45-98. der katholischen Kathedral-Domkirche in Koln

20. Reichensperger 1881, pp. 4—5. nach dem urspriinglichen Plane.” Cited by Wolff, in 21. Reichensperger, Vermischte Schriften iiber Borger, ed., Kélner Dom, vol. 1, pp. 27, 28. For the christliche Kunst, hereafter Reichensperger 1856, p. formation of the Dombauverein, see the Kdlner 3. Those who boycotted the cathedral in solidarity Domblatt, no. 1, July 3, 1842, and its supplemental

with Archbishop Droste-Vischering adopted the introduction,“Vorbericht,” on the early history of earthy motto, “Don’t dwell on the sheepfold until the society. Also see the volume of correspondence you’ve got the shepherd back” (“Es sei an die and clippings, the Dombauverein-Akten, on the Hiirde erst dann zu denken, wenn man den Hirten early history of the Verein at the Dombauarchiv,

zurtick hat’). Cologne Cathedral, no. 361.

22. “Der Dom erhebt mich mehr als je. Ich 31. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 166-67. Pastor reprints méchte weinen, dass das Mittelalter uns nur diese the text of a letter, now lost, from Koblenz Advokat Bruchstiicke davon gemacht hat. Ich bestieg mit (magistrate) Christ to Albert von Thimus, dated Thimus das Gertist am Chor. Wir kamen beide fast June 22, 1841, describing Reichensperger’s tactics ausser uns. Diese furchtbaren Massen in die zier- during the formation of the Dombauverein.

lichsten Formen verfliichtigt, diese Einheit in der 32. “Das Urbild zugleich und die schénste Mannigfaltigkeit, diese Beschrankung im tiber- Bliithe deutsch-christlicher Kunst.” Ibid., p. 168. schwanglichsten Reichthum, so viel Besonnenheit 33. “Unter uns gesagt, eine Anregung bei Sr. neben so viel Phantasie, dieser Schwung, dieses Majestat stets nothig erscheint, um irgend einen Leben bis ins kleinste Gebild—alles, alles ist Entschluss zu fassen.” Ibid., p. 169. Boisseree also untibertrefflich, und ich will es gar nicht versuchen, entered into correspondence with Reichensperger

Ordnung und Klarheit in die Idee zu bringen, shortly after the formation of the Koblenz Dombauwelche dieser Wunderbau in mir aufregt.” Pastor, verein. See Sulpiz Boisseree, Briefwechsel, Tagevol. 1, p. 70. Apparently Pastor recorded this pas- biicher, vol. 1 (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1862), p. 798 sage from Reichensperger’s lost diary for 1834. (Pastor mistakenly gives this as p. 198).

23. Ibid., p. 161. 34. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 169.

24. Ibid., pp. 162-63. 35. Diary entry, September 28, 1841. Sulpiz

25. “Welches ... durch und durch den Geist des Boisseree, TJagebiicher, vol. 3, Hans-J. Weitz, ed. Katholizismus athmet . . . der CélIner Dom ist ein (Darmstadt: Eduard Roether, 1983), p. 784. kerndeutscher Bau, ein Nationaldenkmal im voll- 36. Pastor, vol.1, p. 170. Wittgenstein is an sten Sinne des Wortes.” Reichensperger, 1840; excellent example of that group of civic and indus-

reprinted in Reichensperger, 1856, pp. 7, 19. trial leaders from which so many of the first patrons 26. “So weit die Vélker germanischer Abkunft of Gothic architecture came. He became one of sich hindehnten, fand diese Umwandlung [in der Reichensperger’s close friends during this period. Architektur] statt, vorzugsweise aber im Lande der See Hasso von Wedel, Heinrich von Wittgenstein, Alemannen und Franken, dieser Kernstémme der 1797— 1869 (Cologne: Rheinisch-Westfalischer deutschen Nation, den Rhein entlang . . . Er ist der Wirtschaftsarchiv, 1981). Reichensperger appears to strahlendste Edelstein im reichen Schmucke des have served as managing editor at the formation of

Mittelalters.” Ibid., pp. 10, 14. the Domblatt. See his letter to Ernst Zwirner, dated 27. “Durch eine thatigere, regere Theilnahme April 22, 1842, inviting him to the first editorial

Seitens der Privaten namlich.” Ibid., p. 17. meeting of the journal, in the Dombauverein-Akten, 28. “So mégen die Rheinlander um so kraftiger no. 361, Dombauarchiv, Cologne Cathedral. ihren religidsen und patriotischen Eifer an diesem Reichensperger served as secretary to the executive Werke bethatigen und zeigen, dass der edle Stamm, committee (Verwaltungsausschuss) and all of the

welchem sie angehéren, wenn auch durch die minutes are in his hand until April 1844. See Die Ungunst der Verhaltnisse von der erhabenen Stelle Verhandlungen des Verwaltungs-Ausschusses, Regiverdrangt, welche er vordem im deutschen Gemein- _stratur des Central-Dombauvereins zu Koln, Domwesen einnahm, doch noch keineswegs entartet ist; bauarchiv.

dass er vielmehr, an den Marken Deutschlands, 37. “Der Katholik baut an seinem Gotteshaus, in Deutschlands Ehre noch wohl zu behaupten weiss.” — welchem der Genius der Kunst auf den Schwingen

Ibid., p. 20. der Religion den héchsten Flug angenommen; alle 29. “Nicht ein Denkmal des Katholizismus, son- _—_ aber fordern das herrlichste Denkmal deutschen

dern vor allen Dingen des deutschen Geistes.” Franz Sinnes, deutscher Kraft, deutscher Eintracht. Es gilt Kugler, Deutsches Kunstblatt, February 23, 1841. ja das Heiligste und das Schonste: Religion, Vater-

Pastor, p. 166. land, Kunst, sie rufen mit vereinter Stimme.” Kol-

273

Notes to pages 40-51

ner Domblatt, no. 1 (July 3, 1842). Cited in Pastor, out its flying buttresses, using iron tie beams in their

vol. 1, p. 170. place. This suggestion indicates a knowledge of

38. Ibid., p. 172; Boisseree, Tagebiicher, vol. 3, Schinkel’s 1838 plan, although it is not clear how

pp. 891-93. Reichensperger came to learn of it, whether through 39. Boisseree, Tagebiicher, vol. 3, pp. 893-94; Zwirner or, as is more likely, through Reichenspergalso see Kolner Domblatt, no. 12 (September 11, er and Schinkel’s mutual friend, Lassaulx. See

1842). Reichensperger 1856, p. 21.

40. “Wir wollen bauen, bauen, bauen!” Bois- 47. “Die piinctlichste Genauigkeit, das servilste seree, diary entry, September 5, 1842, Tagebiicher, Anschliessen an das tiberlieferte Urbild muss noth-

vol. 3, p. 894. wendig stets das héchste Gesetz sein.”

41. Reichensperger’s speech on Steinle’s behalf Reichensperger, “Die vierzehn Standbilder im Domis reprinted in A. M. Steinle, ed., Edward v. Steinle chore zu Céln” (1842); reprinted in Reichensperger und August Reichensperger in ihren gemeinsamen 1856, p. 36.

Bestrebungen fiir die christliche Kunst aus ihren 48. Reichensperger 1881, pp. 26-27.

Briefen geschildert (Cologne: Bachem, 1890). 49. Ibid., p. 27. Zwirner and Boisseree were both irritated by 50. Ibid. Zwirner’s revised north-portal design Reichensperger’s constant—and as they felt, of August 1843 is illustrated by Wolff, “Der K6lner blind—support of Steinle. See Zwirner’s letters to Dom,” in Weyres and Trier, eds., Kunst des 19, Boisseree, December 17, 1842, and May 15, 1843; Jahrhunderts im Rheinlande, vol. 1, Architektur,

Boisseree Nachlass, 1018/392, nos. 6, 10, His- 1980, pp. 61-62). Also see the letters from Ernst

torisches Archiv der Stadt K6In. Zwirner to Sulpiz Boisseree (May 15, 1843; July 2, 42. Steinle’s painting was part of a cycle depict- 1843; September 20, 1843), Boisseree Nachlass, ing vignettes from the history of Cologne, commis- 1018/392, nos. 10—12, Historisches Archiv der Stadt

sioned to decorate the stairway of the Wallraf Koln. Museum. Although all were destroyed in the Sec- 51. “Wo ganz bestimmte Anhaltspuncte manond World War, the image is preserved in a prelimi- geln, an welche die Restauration sich anschliessen

nary study in the K6Iner Dombauarchiv. kann, da wird eine dngstliche Nachahmung des 43. See Rode, “Zwirners Planentwicklung.” Styles der Alten in allen seiner Eigenheiten leicht in 44. “Es ist entsetzlich, mit welchem Leichtsinn Manier oder gar Caricatur ausarten.” August man bei den ersten Reparaturen in dieser Beziehung —__Reichensperger, ““Amtliche Mittheilungen,” K6/ner

verfahren hat, und zum gréssten Ungliicke musste Domblatt, no. 12 (September 11, 1842). auch noch gerade der reichste Theil des Chors unter 52. Wolff, Borger, ed., Kdlner Dom, pp. 31-32.

so ungeschickte Hande fallen.” Einige Worte, 53. Ibid. Reichensperger confined his agitation reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, p. 22. against the lottery scheme to the private delibera45. “Die erste Restauration des Célner Dom- tions of the Verein. For a man who otherwise spoke chores betreffend” appeared in the Kdlnische publicly and at great length about the direction the Zeitung, no. 10 (January 10, 1841); it is reprinted in building of the cathedral should take, it is telling Reichensperger 1856. The piece was a response to that he wrote nothing about the lottery dispute. Evian anonymous article in the same paper, “Ansicht dently the entire affair disheartened him.

eines Célners tiber den Dombau zu Coln,” no. 364 54. “Im Uebrigen ist Zwirner ein guter,

(December 29, 1840). traitabler Mann, mit dem wohl auszukommen ist, 46. “Bei den Herstellungsarbeiten selbst muss sobald nur einmal die gegenseitigen Stellungen die peinlichste Gewissenhaftigkeit in Allem, was in fixirt sind.” Letter, Reichensperger to Steinle, Formen sowohl, als die Verhdltnisse betrifft, das December 17, 1842; reprinted in Steinle, ed.,

hdchste Gesetz sein, und man soll nicht wagen, Edward vy. Steinle, p. 14. irgend eine 4ndernde Hand daran zu legen. Da ist 55. “Er beweist, dass durch blosse Empirie und nichts, dem nicht tiefere Bedeutung einwohnte, dussere Nachahmung, nichts gewonnen ist”; reprintkeine Gliederung, keine Durchbrechung, kein ed in “Schreiben des Herrn A. Reichensperger,” Staébchen und keine Kehle ohne bestimmten Zweck, Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst

ohne tieferen Zusammenhang und ohne Riick- 10 (1850): p. 388. wirkung auf das Ganze, so dass jede Veranderung 56. August Reichensperger, “Die Bedachung nothwendig zu einer Entstellung wird.” Einige des Domes zu K6ln betreffend,” Kolner Domblatt, Worte, reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, p. 22. no. 102 (September 4, 1853); reprinted in Oddly enough, despite his insistence on slavish Reichensperger 1856, pp. 454-56. Also see the docfidelity, Reichensperger had still been prepared in uments on the construction of the iron roof truss in 1840 to accept the completion of the cathedral with- _ the Inventarium der Dombau-Akten, no. 186,

274

Notes to pages 51-60

1816-31, Dombauarchiv, Cologne Cathedral. 1792-1847 (Munich: Prestel, 1976). 57. Reichensperger, “The Spire and Roof of 4. “Ein streng objectives Skelett-. . . Die Cologne Cathedral,” Ecclesiologist 56, no. 116 Gebdude werden nicht mehr einen historisch-con-

(1856): pp. 349-51. ventionellen Character erhalten, so dass dem Ge58. “Die Domsacristei betreffend,” Kdlner fiihle, ehe es sich Kund geben darf, zuvor Domblatt, no. 256 (1866), and no. 273 (1868). archdologischer Unterricht ertheilt werden muss.” 59. Clemens, Dom zu Koln, pp. 105-6. Clemens Heinrich Hiibsch, Jn welchem Style sollen wir also reproduces measured drawings of the sacristy. bauen? (Karlsruhe: C. F. Miiller, 1828), pp. 51-52.

60. Reichensperger, “Uber Lettner,” Kélner 5. Johann Heinrich Wolff (1792-1869) had studDomblatt, no. 216 (February 28, 1863); and “Zur ied with Charles Percier in Paris and later became a Lettner-Frage,” Kélner Domblatt, no. 236 (October convinced apostle of the Rundbogenstil. In 1832 he 31, 1864). The drawings for the proposed rood became a professor at the Kassel Akademie. He screen are in the Dombauarchiv, Cologne Cathedral; —_ nourished an abiding hatred of neogothic architecZwirmer’s is preserved among his papers at the His- ture that was reflected in his teaching and writing. torisches Archiv in Cologne. The hostility to rood See, for example, his vicious attack on Daniel screens in the 1860s persisted into the twentieth Ohl miiller’s “Mariahilfkirche in der Vorstadt Au zu century and in 1937 the cathedral’s biographer, Paul Miinchen,” Literatur- und Anzeigeblatt fiir das BauClemens, could only regard the unbuilt designs with = fach: Beilage zur Allgemeinen Bauzeitung 2, no. 16 Schrecken, “horror.” See Clemens, Dom zu Koln, p. (1845): pp. 243-50. Here Wolff suggested that the

320. architect intended his building to be taken as a kind

61. August Welby Northmore Pugin, A Treatise of joke (“eine Art Scherz,” p. 246)! For Wolff’s on Chancel Screens and Rood Lofts (London: Dol- work in Kassel see Siegfried Lohr, “Planungen und man, 1851). Pugin’s arguments are reiterated in Bauten des Kasseler Baumeisters Julius Eugen

Reichensperger 1881, pp. 63-64. Ruhl, 1796-1871,” in Kunst in Hessen und am Mit62. “Disput iiber Lettner. Alle gegen mich, der telrhein, no. 23 (Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmudafiir eintrat.” Reichensperger’s lost diary entry for seum, 1984). Ernst Ebeling (1804—51) not only

June 29, 1864. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p 563. established the school of architecture at the Poly63. Steinle, ed., Edward v. Steinle, pp. 31-32. technische Hochschule in Hanover, but also 64. “So vieles mich hier auch in sachlicher designed the school’s Rundbogenstil building. See Beziehung interessiert, so scheide ich von den Per- “Die hdhere Gewerbeschule zu Hannover,” in sonen ohne grossen Schmerzen, Ramboux und Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 6

Wittgenstein allein ausgenommen. Mit Zwirner (1846): pp. 10-15; plates 1-2. stehe ich zwar jetzt in Folge des Beistandes, den ich 6. For a superbly comprehensive history of ihm durch Dick und Diinn geleistet habe, auf dem Hanover’s nineteenth-century architectural history, besten Fusse; aber ich weiss nicht, wie es ist, immer see Harold Hammer-Schenk and Giinther Kokkefiihle ich doch, dass wir in ganz verschiedenen link, eds., Vom Schloss zum Bahnhof: Bauen in HanAtmosphdren athmen.” Letter, Reichensperger to nover, exh. cat., Hanover, Historisches Museum. Steinle, March 18, 1844; in Steinle, ed., Edward v. (Hanover: Institut fiir Bau- und Kunstgeschichte,

Steinle, p. 32. 1988). Also see Theodor Unger, Hannover: Fiihrer durch die Stadt (Hanover: Klindworth, 1882), pp.

Chapter 3 109-12, 123-25. The work of Tramm is discussed 1. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 171-82. in Helio A. Greven, “Leben und Werke des Hof2. See the essays in Heinrich Hiibsch, baumeisters Christian Heinrich Tramm 1795-1863, exh. cat., Karlsruhe, Prinz-Max-Palais (1819-1861), Hannoversche Geschichtsbldatter 23, (Karlsruhe: C. F. Miiller, 1983). Hiibsch was not the —_ no. 3-4 (1969), pp. 149-268. Significantly, the first

only influential teacher in Karlsruhe, which had two Rundbogenstil architects in Hanover were remained a center of German architectural educa- pupils of Friedrich Weinbrenner: Ernst Ebeling and tion since Friedrich Weinbrenner established his pri- _ the city architect August Andreae (180446). See vate architectural school there at the beginning of Unger, Hannover, pp. 108-9, and Georg Hoeltje, the century. Among the other faculty members in Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves (Hanover: Stein-

the 1840s were Friedrich Eisenlohr and Carl Lud- bock, 1964). wig Thierry, a former associate of Weinbrenner. 7. The principal source for Schinkel’s life is the 3. See Klaus Eggert, “Die Hauptwerke Friedrich monumental Karl Friedrich Schinkel Lebenswerk,

von Gaertners,” in Neue Schriftreihe des Paul Ortwin Rave and Margarete Kiihn, eds. Stadtarchivs, vol. 15 (Munich: Stadtarchiv, 1963). (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1939ff). A superbly Also see Oswald Hederer, Friedrich von Gartner, researched and well-documented account of Berlin

eee 275

Notes to pages 60-70

architecture in the decades following Schinkel’s 16. Reichensperger 1845, p. 12. Also see

death is Eva Borsch-Supan, Berliner Baukunst nach _ Reichensperger, “Die vierzehn Standbilder im Dom-

Schinkel, 1840-1870 (Munich: Prestel, 1977). chore zu Coln” (1842); reprinted in Reichensperger 8. “Zuviel das Streben bei der Nachahmung 1856; see especially pp. 32-35. einer speciellen Epoche des Styls und gerade nicht 17. “Ich darf hoffen, dass erstere bald so viel immer der schdnsten. An uns, ihren Nachfolgern, ist | Kraft erlangt haben wird, um die schreckliche es nun einen Schritt weiter zu gehen, wir kennen die — Todesbotschaft, von der sie noch keine Ahnung hat, verschiedenen Richtungen, die der Style genommen __ ertragen zu kénnen. Ich zittere vor dem Tage, an und die Ausdrucksweise, deren er fahig ist, fassen welchem das Wort gesagt werden muss. Es wird

wir denn alles dieses zusammen und folgen dem bald nothwending werden, die arme Frau durch Prinzipe, das sich darin ausspricht, aber ohne Vor- Nachrichten tiber die Erkrankung ihres Vaters liebe fiir einzelne Periode seiner Entwickelung!” vorzubereiten.” Letter, Reichensperger to Thimus, Anton Hallmann, Kunstbestrebungen der Gegen- April 3, 1846. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 199.

wart (Berlin: Buchhandlung des Berliner Lesecabi- 18. Reichensperger 1845, p. 100.

nets, 1842), p. 81. For Hallmann, see Sabine 19. Alois Hirt, Die Baukunst nach den GrundKimpel, “Der Maler-Architekt Anton Hallmann sdtzen der Alten (Berlin, 1809); Heinrich Hiibsch, (1812-1845),” (Ph.D. diss. University of Munich, Ueber griechische Architektur (Heidelberg: Mohr,

1974). 1822); Carl Botticher, Die Tektonik der Hellenen

9. “Freches abgeschmacktes Schriftchen von (Potsdam: Riegel, 1844-52.) Also see David Watkin Hallmann ... lacherliche Wut gegen den K6lner and Tilman Mellinghof, German Architecture and Dom und Grossprecherei fiir Erfindung und Produk- —_— the Classical Idea (London: Thames and Hudson,

tivitét, als wenn er denn was erfinden kénnte; alles 1987).

was er und seines Gleichen gemacht haben, ist 20. Johannes Wetter, Geschichte und Beschreinichts als ein willktirliches Zusammenstoppeln bung des Domes zu Mainz (Mainz: C. G. Kuenze,

wohlbekannter aus ihrer Einheit gerissener 1835), pp. 39-50. Baustiicke.” Diary entry, October 13, 1842. Bois- 21. “Neue Functionen wurden nothwending; seree, Jagebiicher, vol. 3, p. 912; and April 17, darum wurden neue Organe in den Organismus

1842; p. 850. aufgenommen. Es war ein Fortschritt vergleichbar 10. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 197. jenem von einer Thiergattung niederer Ordnung zu

11. Revised editions were published in 1851 and _ einer Gattung von héherer Ordnung.” Wetter, again in 1860. A French translation later appeared: Geschichte und Beschreibung, p. 47.

L'art gothique au XIX° siécle, trans. Camille 22. Justus Popp and Theodor Biilau, Die

Nothomb (Brussels: Devaux, 1867). Architektur des Mittelalters in Regensburg (Nurem12. See Augustus Welby Pugin, The True Princi- burg: Sebald, 1834-39), Heft 9, 1839, n-p.

ples of Pointed or Christian Architecture (London: 23. For a recent appreciation of Matthias RorWeale, 1841), and Phoebe Stanton, Pugin (New itzer (also spelled Matt&us, or Mathes Roriczer) and York: Viking, 1971). Since Reichensperger’s later his application to the question of Gothic design, see correspondence with Pugin has been lost, it is diffi- Lon R. Shelby, ed., Gothic Design Techniques: The cult to determine when he first became aware of the Fifteenth-century Design Booklets of Mathes RorEnglish architect’s work. Presumably it was either iczer and Hanns Schuttermayer (Carbondale: Souththrough the well-connected Boisseree or, as Muthe- ern Illinois University Press, 1977). Also see sius believes, Didron. See Stefan Muthesius, Das Francois Bucher, Architector: The Lodge Books and englische Vorbild (Munich: Prestel, 1974), p. 33. Sketch Books of Medieval Architects, 4 vols. (New 13. Reichensperger, diary entry, May 7, 1840. York: Abaris, 1979ff.). Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 15. The original diary was 24. Gesetze der Pflanzen- und Mineralienbil-

lost in the course of the dispersal of the dung angewendet auf den altdeutschen Baustyl Reichensperger papers after the Second World War. (Stuttgart, 1835); Ornamentik aus deutschen 14. Georg Moller, Facsimile der original Zeich- Gewdchsen (Munich, 1842).

nung des Doms zu K6ln (Darmstadt: Steyer und 25. Frankfurt-am-Main: Schmerber, 1840. For Leske, 1818), pp. 10-11. Moller identified in the an exegesis of Hoffstadt, see Werner Miiller, “Die Gothic both “sinnvolle Rticksicht auf die Gesetze Zeichnungsvorlagen fiir Friedrich Hoffstadt’s Gothdes Sehens” and that “das Auge unaufhaltsam vom isches A.B.C.-Buch und der Nachlass des NiirnbergFuss bis zur hochsten Spitze fortgezogen wird.” er Ratsbaumeisters Wolf Jacob Stromer, 15. Pugin, True Principles, p. 1; Reichensperger, 1561-1614,” Wiener Jahrbuch fiir Kunstgeschichte Christlich-germanische Baukunst, \st ed., 1845, 28 (1975): 39-54. Cited in Bucher, Architector, vol.

hereafter Reichensperger 1845, p. 16. 1, p. 200.

276

Notes to pages 71-81

26. “Schon oben wurde erwdhnt, dass die 31. Ibid., p. 63. Verzierungen des Styles ins geometrische und veg- 32. Ibid., p. 246; first published in the Ké/ner etabilische zerfallen. Dies fiihrt darauf, dass im Domblatt, no. 27 (1847). gothischen Style zwei Elemente herrschen, das der 33. Reichensperger 1845, p. 20.

Geometrie und das der Natur. Aus dieser Ver- 34. “Ein so geistreiches und geisteskraftiges schmelzung geometrischer und Naturbildung im Volk das seiner Kunst schon fast die ganze Welt Style folgt schon von selbst, dass die Geometrie von _ eroberte.” Ibid., pp. 59-60.

den alten Meistern nicht als abstrakte Wissenschaft 35. A thoughtful account of Schinkel’s Gothic gedacht, sondern als im innigsten Zusammenhang phase is found in Erik Forssman, Karl Friedrich mit der Natur erkannt, und auf eine praktische Art Schinkel: Bauwerke und Baugedanken (Munich and ausgetibt wurde. Die Symmetrie, welche in allen Zurich: Schnell und Steiner, 1981), pp. 64-83.

Bildungen der Natur herrscht, weist auf gewisse 36. Wetter, Geschichte und Beschreibung, p. 42. urspriingliche Bildungsgesetzte hin, welche mit den 37. “Wie die Griechen 4gyptische Kunst mit

Gesetzen der Geometrie, namlich mit den dem Stempel der Freiheit und des Sieges, ihres geometrischen Grundfiguren der Vielecke oder mit edeln Ursprungs und thres heiteren Himmels der Kreistheilung véllig zusammentreffen; und umprdgten, so fassten die Deutschen, gleich reinen wenn die Geometrie ihre Figuren in abstracto con- Stammes, gleich unvermischt und unbezwungen mit struirt, so finden wir in den Naturbildungen gleich- starker Hand die fallende Griechenkunst und trugen sam eine lebendige Geometrie; eine lebendig-freie sie, ktihn nach ihrer Weise umbildenend, mit ihren Schépfung nach geometrischen Gesetzen.” Hoff- Siegen durch Europa.” Biilau, in Popp and Biilau,

stadt, A.B.C.-Buch, p. ix. Architecktur des Mittelalters, Heft 1, 1835, n.p. 27. “Vor allen thut es daher wohl Noth, dass das 38. “Die gothische Architektur ist ganz repubStudium des mittelalterlichen Bauwesens .. . auf likanischer Art, sie ist das Erzeugnis freier Volker dieses sich generirende Gesetz sich werfe, dass man — germanischen Stammes und daher in Frankreich,

das Netzwerk der Construktionslinien, die England, Schweden und Deutschland vorziiglich zu geometrische Grundformel, gleichsam das Kristalla- finden. Die Deutschen des Reichs und Hansarepub-

tionsgesetz der grossen Bauwerke jener Periode liken haben sie erfunden, wenn ich so sagen darf, mehrs in’s Auge fasse, als ihre 4ussere Erschei- und Franken u. Angelsachsen, wenn auch nicht in

nung...’ Reichensperger 1845, p. 64. einem eben so freien Zustande begriffen, die Idee, 28. The reprint of Roritzer’s text forms the den Geschmack ihrer Landsleute.” Letter, Theodor appendix to Carl Alexander Heideloff, Die Bauhiit- Biilau to Gottfried Semper, June 12, 1835, Semper ten des Mittelalters in Deutschland (Nuremberg: Archive, ETH. These politically sensitive themes

Stein, 1844). Heideloff himself seems to have were apparently to be made an explicit part of the become convinced of the geometric basis for Gothic | Popp and Biilau series, but far-reaching cuts were design by the mid-1840s. This 1s made clear in the made by the censors. See letter, Biilau to Semper,

pamphlet published in 1845 to commemorate the February 5, 1835, Semper Archive. completion of his new church at Sonneberg, the 39. Rudolf Wiegmann, Ueber den Ursprung des design of whose twin towers was based on the Spitzbogenstils (Diisseldorf: Buddeus, 1842), pp.

derivation of the octagon from the square: “Die 23-24. Quadratur ist die Grundform der altdeutschen AQ. Speaking of Wiegmann, Carl Schnaase, Franz Bauart, und aus ihr entwickelt sich die Regel des Kugler, and the other figures connected with the Achtorts.” See H. C. Hensoldt, Die neue Stadt- Deutsches Kunstblatt, Reichensperger quipped: pfarr-kirche in Sonneberg im Herzogthum Sachsen- “Thnen aber liegt zum gréssten Theil die Wissenschaft

Meiningen (Nuremberg: Stein, 1845), p. 9. mehr am Herzen als die Kunst.” See Reichensperger, 29. The translation appears to have been already “L’Artetl’archéologie en Allemagne,” Annales under way by January 1845, when Reichensperger archéologiques 10, (1850): pp. 566-70; also see the wrote to Thimus, discussing the editing of the book German version in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir prakand Thimus’s payment. Letter, Reichensperger to tische Baukunst 11 (1851): p. 39. Thimus (written on inside of envelope), January 19, 41. “Die fast gleichzeitige Griindung der Dome

1945, LHK, 700.138. in Strassburg und Céln, und die Anlegung von 30. “Wo in den Hervorbringungen der modernen __ Bauhiitten an diesen Orten vereinte hier bald alles Gothik das Copiren ein Ende hat, fangt in der Regel —_ hdhere ktinstlerische Leben; denn indem diese

sofort die Verwirrung an... . Das generirende Schulen sich glénzend erhoben, stellten sich die Gesetz ... welchem alle diese Einzelheiten Nachbarlander in ein abhangiges Verhdltniss zu entwachsen und gehorchen.” Reichensperger 1856, ihnen. Mit Recht darf man daher die christlich-mit-

pp. 56, 57. telalterliche Baukunst von der Mitte des dreyzehn-

277

Notes to pages 81-90

ten Jahrhunderts an “die Teutsche” nennen, und Koln, Bestand 1018, and Tagebiicher, vols. 3-4. eben so darf der Dom in Coln, der nach einem Among the English luminaries personally known to einzigen Plane angelegt wurde, als Muster und Vor- —_— him were Henry Gally Knight (1786-1846),

bild dieser Kunst betrachtet werden.” Bernhard William Whewell (1794-1866), and Edmund Grueber, Vergleichende Sammlungen fiir christliche Sharpe (1809-77). The ties between these figures Kunst, vol. 2 (Augsburg: V. Zanna, 1841), p. 7. and Boisseree and Moller are discussed in Marie Boisseree’s diaries paint an amusing picture of a Frélich and Hans-Giinther Sperlich, Georg Moller: congenial and nearly deaf Grueber. See Boisseree, Baumeister der Romantik (Darmstadt: Eduard Tagebiicher, vol. 3, pp. 689ff., and other references Roether, 1959), pp. 99-104. The question of archi-

throughout the 1830s and 1840s. tectural ties between England and Germany, and 42. “En voici un de votre connaissance.” “Oui, their cultural implications, is treated in Muthesius’s certes, c est Cologne.” “Non pas, c’est Amiens.” De thoughtful and wide-ranging Englische Vorbild. Roisin, “Les Cathédrales de Cologne et d*Amiens,” 3. For a general account of the place of the

Annales archéologiques 7 (1847): pp. 179 ff. Gothic in German cultural history, see Herrmann Reichenspeger also drew upon the advice of other Schmitz, Die Gotik im deutschen Kunst- und Geisarchitects. For example, he cited Christian Schmidt tesleben (Berlin: Verlag fiir Kunstwissenschaft,

as the source for the discovery that the Cologne 1921). Cathedral towers had been revised to reflect the 4. See Hederer, Friedrich von Gartner, pp. stylistic changes established by Strasbourg Cathe- 162-65. Also see the frequent references to the dral. This was an important step in showing that the architect in Boisseree’s Tagebiicher, passim.

original Cologne plan, allegedly unchanged, had 5. See Alfred Jericke and Dieter Dolgner, Der been continually updated and revised as construc- Klassizismus in der Baugeschichte Weimars

tion unfolded. See Reichensperger 1856, p. 383. (Weimar: Bolau, 1975), pp. 265-66. 43. Reichensperger, “Der Baumeister des K6l- 6. Pastor lists Reichensperger’s English friends, ner Domes—Ein Belgier,” Kdélner Domblatt, no. 10 Pastor, vol. 2, pp. 336-38. Besides George Gilbert (September 4, 1842); “Die Portale der Kathedrale Scott, Beresford-Hope, and A. W. N. Pugin, these

zu Amiens,” Kdlner Domblatt, nos. 11, 12, 13, included John Sutton (1820-73), Lord Shrewsbury (1845); “Der K6Iner Dom und die Kathedrale von (d. 1857), and the historian John Henry Parker. Very

Amiens,” Kélner Domblatt, nos. 16, 17 (1846), few of Reichensperger’s letters to his English reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, pp. 381-99; friends survive, but the extant fragments suggest a ‘Ueber den Plan und Meister des K6lner Domes,” lively and voluminous correspondence. It is likely

Kélner Domblatt, no. 20 (1846). that the English letters among Reichensperger’s 44. “Anmassendes Dilettanten-Wesen.” Bois- papers were gathered together in one of those bunseree, diary entry, November 29, 1845, Tagebiicher, dles that disappeared after World War II.

vol. 4, p. 187. 7. “Das frische und energische, seinem Grund45. Sulpiz Boisseree, K6lner Domblatt, no. 15 typus nach echt germanischen Wesen seiner [i.e., (1845). England’s] Einwohner.” Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 46. Reichensperger 1856, pp. 381-99. 591-92.

47. “Widerwartiger advokatischer Sophist.” 8. He had already decided upon the trip as early Boisseree, diary entry, April 25, 1846, Tagebiicher, as June 1846, when it is first mentioned in his corre-

vol. 4, p. 262. spondence. There is an unidentified letter in the

4§. Letter, Zwirner to Boisseree, June 13, 1846. Reichensperger Papers that provides him with the Zwirner Nachlass, 1018/392, no. 37, Historisches names of England’s most prominent Catholic clerics

Archiv der stadt Koln. and politicians. Although the signature, beginning

49, Ibid., no. 20. with S, is indecipherable, it is postmarked from

Bonn, suggesting that Reichensperger had written to

Chapter 4 one of his acquaintances at the seminary there. He

1. “Das Allerbeste wire freilich, wenn man alle sought out several of the names on this list, includNeubauten und bedeutenderen Restaurationen um ing Bishop Wiseman and Lord Shrewsbury. etwa ein Jahrzehend hinausschieben kénnte, um den 9. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 210. Scott spoke of Zwirner Bauleuten Zeit zur Orientirung und zum Hintiber- as his friend, although he did not refrain from dislenken in die rechte Bahn zu gewdhren.” Reichen- paraging his work, namely, the Apollonariskirche.

sperger 1845, p. 83. See George Gilbert Scott, Personal and Profession2. The principal sources for Boisseree’s connec- _—_al Recollections (London: Sampson Low, Marston,

tions with English antiquarians and architects are Searle & Rivington, 1879), pp. 113-18, 147.

his letters in the Historisches Museum der Stadt 10. Reichensperger’s itinerary is reconstructed

278

Notes to pages 90-96

in Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 207-23. Because of the unfor- unausgesetzter Thatigkeit die Gliedmassen des tunate disappearance of Pugin’s diary for 1846, his Riesenkorpers zurichtete. Die fiir die Lords beswhereabouts during this time are difficult to pin- timmte Localitaéten fand ich der Vollendung bereits point precisely. See Alexandra Wedgwood, Augus- sehr nahe und staunte tiber die Schonheit und den tus Welby Northmore Pugin and the Pugin Family Reichthum des Ornamentes, insbesondere der (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1985). Holzsculpturen und Metallarbeiten welche meist 11. “Ich machte hier gleich eine Wahrnehmung, nach Zeichnungnen des Architekten Pugin ausge-

welche ich durch alles was ich spater gesehen, fiihrt sind.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 215. bestatigt fand, dass ndmlich die englische Gothik 20. “Wo ist die Kunst des Schmiedens, des zwar durch Reichthum des Gliederwerks, ueber- Treibens, Eiselierens, Durchbrechens hingerathen? haupt der Ornamentik hoch hervorrage, dass sie Wo findet sich die Filigranarbeiter, die Holz- und jedoch was Reinheit der Linien und Verhdltnisse Elfenbein-Schnitzer, wo die Gold- und Seidenwirk-

sowie Consequenz der Durchfiihrung des er, wo die Emailleurs, deren Prachtwerke wir kaum Grundgedankens anbelangt sowohl hinter der noch zu entrathseln wissen?—Sie sind sammt und franzOsischen als der deutschen weit zurtickstehe.” sonders kleingestampft von unsern Maschinen und

Cited in Pastor, vol. 2, p. 209. zu einem Breie zusammengekocht.” Reichensperger 12. What remains of Alfred Reumont’s corre- 1845, p. 43.

spondence with Reichensperger is preserved in 21. “Was der K6lner Dom fiir die deutsche

LHK, 700.138, no. 297. Baukunst werden konnte, das wird ohne allen 13. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 210. Zweifel das Parlamentshaus fiir die englische—eine 14. “Nichts als leere, kalte Wande, an welche Hiitte im echten Sinne des Wortes, aus welcher die der Zopfclassicismus seine marmornen Prachtstiicke alte Kunst neuverjiingt wie ein Phonix her-

angelehnt hat; nackte Victorien, Minerven, vorsteigt.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 215. Flussgotter, Fregattenkapiténe als homerische 22. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 215. Reichensperger had Helden maskirt, einige Parlamentsredner und been following the course of the Annales Armenvater in romische Togen verwickelt .. . alles archéologiques since 1844, when he reviewed the liber die Massen frostig, maniert, gedanken- und journal in no. 95 of the Kélner Domblatt. His first

empfindungslos.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 212. letter to Didron, a “communication” about the 15. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 210. Reichensperger wrote medieval hospital of St. Elisabeth in Trier, appeared a lively memorandum describing his fateful meeting —_in the Annales of 1846, vol. 5, pp. 278-81.

with Scott, published posthumously in A. J. Beres- 23. The parallel courses of the Domblatt and ford-Hope, Some Impressions of a Private Member Didron’s Annales archéologiques are discussed in Given in Letters Addressed to the Late Dr. Augustus detail by Georg Germann, The Gothic Revival in Reichensperger by the Late A. J. Beresford Hope, Europe and Britain: Sources, Influences, and Ideas

M.P. (London: C. Eyre, 1895), pp. 30-31. This (New York and Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, exceedingly rare pamphlet does not appear to exist 1973). in any German library or archive. I am grateful to 24. “Le principe dominant dans tout l’organisme Mark Crinson for discovering a copy in the library anglais politique et social, le principe du ‘self-gov-

of the Royal Institute of British Architects. ernment,’ régit également ces sociétés sans excep16. Ibid. Also see Beresford-Hope, Some tion.” Reichensperger, “Sociétés archéologiques en Impressions of a Private Member, pp. 31-33. The Angleterre,” Annales archéologiques 6(1847): pp. two itineraries provided by Scott, still quick and 241-47, p. 242 quoted here; reprinted in serviceable tours of northern England and Scotland, = Reichensperger 1856, pp. 543-47.

are a fascinating insight into the way in which the 25. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 219. early neogothic architects viewed the nation’s 26. “Gerade dort, wo das Neue mit dem Naturell

medieval landscape. des Volkes im grellsten Widerspruche war, fiihrte es 17. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 210-11, Scott, Recollec- naturgemass zur studirtesten Hasslichkeit. Dazu ist tions, p. 128. Burlison was among the earliest mem- —_ London durch seine akademischen, seine classibers of Scott’s office. See David Cole, The Work of schen Bestrebungen gekommen. Ich kenne in der

George Gilbert Scott (London: Architectural Press, That kaum eine unschonere Stadt, als London in

1980), p. 232. denjenigen Theilen, welche in den letzen Jahrhun18. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 211. derten geschaffen wurden, wie ich kaum imposan-

19. “Durch die besondere giite des Baumeisters tere Stadte kenne, als Oxford und Cambridge.” Barry erheilt ich Zutritt in das Innere des Baues Reichensperger, speech, February 20, 1852, in the sowohl als die verschiedenen Modellkammern und Second Chamber of the Prussian Provincial ParliaWerkstatten worin ein Volk von Ktinstlern mit ment; reprinted in Romberg, ed., “In welchem Style

279

Notes to pages 96-106

sollen wir bauen?” Zeitschrift fiir praktische plete set of entries for the Nikolaikirche competition

Baukunst 12, no. 14 (1852), p. 296. apparently survived intact in the Hamburg Stadt27. “Einer Hauptpflanze des Katholizismus in archiv until the Second World War. Apart from the England und wahrend langerer Zeit einer besondern _—_— roughly ten competitors whose work is discussed in

Zufliichtstatte der Oxforder und sonstiger in Faulwasser and Stoter’s works, the names of the bedrangter Lage sich befindenden Convertiten.” remaining competitors have not been brought to

Pastor, vol. 1, p. 219. light.

28. “Namentlich fand ich das religidse Leben 37. “Une trentaine de concurrents se disputérent und Streben unter den englischen Catholiken eben le prix, et la lutte, a laquelle participait le public,

so erhebend an sich als beschdmend fiir uns était trées-acharnée.” Letter, Reichensperger to Deutsche. Fast gemahnt es Einen, als ob die Zeiten Didron, October 1853, “L’ Art et l’archéologie en der ersten Bliithe des Christenthums wieder ange- Allemagne,” Annales archéologiques 13 (1853); brochen seien.” Letter, Reichensperger to Eduard reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, p. 345. Steinle, October 12, 1846, in Steinle, ed., Edward v. 38. Stéter, Geschichte und Beschreibung des St.

Steinle, p. 57. Nikolai Kirchenbaues, pp. 29-30.

29. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 219-20. 39. The competition entries of Strack, Lange, 30. “Alton Towers bildete sozusagen einen and Semper were published in the Viennese AllgeBrennpunkt der damals in England beginnenden meine Bauzeitung (1848), plates 172-76. christlichen Renaissance.” Reichensperger, Augus- 40. “Eine eigene Taufkapelle pitoresquer Weise tus Welby Northmore Pugin: Der Neubegriinder der [wurde] der Kirche angetheilt.” Letter, Biilau to christlichen Baukunst in England, Sammlung his- Semper, May 10, 1845; Semper Archiv, ETH.

torischer Bildnisse, 3d ser., no. 10 (Freiburg: 41. [Franz Stoter], Andeutungen iiber die AufHerder, 1877), p. 29; hereafter Reichensperger gabe der evangelischen Kirchenbaukunst (Ham-

1877. burg: Agentur des Rauhen Hauses, 1845), pp.

31. “Von der friiheren Liebhaberei Pugin’s fiir 25-27. For other pamphlets, see Faulwasser, St. den Burgensty! oder sonstige unpraktische mittelal- Nikolai-Kirche, p. 69. terliche Eigenthtimlichkeiten fand sich keine Spur.” 42. Oscar Mothes, Handbuch des evangelisch-

Ibid., p. 33. christlichen Kirchenbaues (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, 32. Steinle, ed., Edward v. Steinle, p. 58. 1898), p. 173.

33. The principal histories of the Nikolaikirche 43. Faulwasser, St. Nikolai-Kirche, p. 64. competition are Julius Faulwasser’s Die St. Nikolai- 44. Ibid., p. 69. Kirche in Hamburg (Hamburg: Boysen & Maasch, 45. Stéter, Geschichte und Beschreibung des St. 1926); and F, Stoter’s Geschichte und Beschreibung Nikolai Kirchenbaues, pp. 28-29.

des St. Nikolai Kirchenbaues in Hamburg (Ham- 46. Letter, Biilau to Semper, March 1845, Semburg: C. Boysen, 1883). These works cite further per Archive, ETH. literature, including the numerous contemporary 47. Boisseree, Tagebiicher, vol. 4, pp. 160-62, newspaper accounts, which discuss individual com- 183. petition entries in detail. The importance of the 48. Boisseree, Tagebiicher, vol. 4, pp. 160-61. Nikolaikirche for the German Gothic Revival is dis- | His memo is reprinted in Stoter, Geschichte und cussed in Muthesius, Englische Vorbild, pp. 26-32. Beschreibung des St. Nikolai Kirchenbaues, pp.

34. See Giinther Lange, Alexis de Chateauneuf 194-203.

(Hamburg: Weltarchiv Verlag, 1965); Stephan 49. St6ter, Geschichte und Beschreibung des St. Tschudi Madsen, The Works of Alexis de Nikolai Kirchenbaues, p. 29; Faulwasser, St. NikoChateauneuf in London and Oslo (Oslo: Fortidsmin- __lai-Kirche, pp. 70-73. Also see letter, Zwirner to

nesmerkers Bevaring, 1965). Boisseree, April 21, 1845, Boisseree Nachlass, 35. The principal biographical source for the (1018/392, no. 25, Historisches Archiv der Stadt architects of Hamburg is Fritz Schumacher, Wie das _—_ Koln.

Kunstwerk Hamburg nach dem grossen Brande 50. See “Die Nikolaikirche in Hamburg,” in enstand (Berlin: Carl Kurtius, 1920). Also see Reichensperger 1856, pp. 426-29, originally pubSchumacher, “Die neuen Regungen des hamburger lished in Zugabe zur Deutschen Volkshalle, no. 15, Backsteinbaus in der Mitte des 19. Jahurhunderts,” 1850. Also see “L’ Art et archéologie en AlleZentralblatt der Bauverwaltung 43, no. 11-12 (Feb- _ magne, troisieme article,” (originally published in ruary 7, 1923): pp. 61-65; no. 13-14 (February 14, Annales archéologiques 13 (1853): pp. 338-54); 1923): pp. 73-78; no. 23—24 (March 21, 1923): pp. reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, pp. 570-86.

131-38. 51. “Es ist tiberhaupt eine bemerkenswerthe

36. Scott, Recollections, pp. 113-18. The com- Erscheinung, dass in neuerer Zeit fast kein Kirchen-

280

Notes to pages 106-114

bau im gothischen Style unternommen worden ist, so will, der “Vaterlichkeit’ hin. So ist... in England der nicht sofort die Opferwilligkeit geweckt hatte, die Ausiibung der Baukunst an keinerlei Bedingung wohingegen es wohl schwer fallen diirfte, auch nur gebunden—der Schneider, Conditor und der ein einziges Bauwerk von griechelnder, modern- Haarkrausler von heute k6nnen morgen sich dem academischer Art namhaft zu machen, dem die Publicum als Architekten vorstellen und sofort Herzen entgegengeschlagen hatten.” Reichensperg- daran gehen, Hauser, Palaste und Kirchen

er 1856, p. 427. anzufiihren ... Besser aber keine Art von Ein52. “A Hambourg, M. Scott s’est rapproché schraénkung, als ein Monopolisirungssystem, welchautant que possible des types allemands du XIII° et es jede Freiheit der Entwicklung hemmt, jede du XIV° siécles, sans pourtant renier pour cela son Thatigkeit in ein festes Geleise einzwangt und individualité. La nouvelle église n’est rien moins dieselbe nothigt, eine bestimmte Richtung einzuhalqu’un pastiche”; reprinted in “L’Art et archéologie ten, wie sehr auch das Naturell und die Ueberzeu-

en Allemagne, troisieme article,” Annales gung sich dagegen strduben mégen.” archéologiques 13 (1853): p. 346. Reichensperger Reichensperger, introduction to Vincenz Statz and observed how successfully and intimately Scott col- | Georg Ungewitter, Gothisches Musterbuch, vol. | laborated with Hamburg’s architects and civic lead- — (Leipzig: Weigel, 1856), p. 8. ers in refining his design and making it even more

appropriate for German soil. For example, the Ham- Chapter 5 burg Syndikus Karl Sieveking, who had lobbied for 1. For Heideloff’s early work see Michael Brix, so long to win Scott the commission, encouraged Niirnberg und Liibeck im 19. Jahrhundert (Munich: Scott to revise the plans to include a transept and in Prestel, 1981), pp. 89-100. Also see the article by March wrote to Boisseree that his suggestions had Norbert Gotz, “Um Neugotik und Niirnberger Stil,” been accepted. Letter, Sieveking to Boisseree, in Niirnberger Forschungen 23 (Nuremberg: SelbstMarch 17, 1846, Boisseree Nachlass, 1018/324, no. verlag des Vereins fiir Geschichte der Stadt Ntirn-

1, Historisches Archiv der Stadt K6In. berg, 1981); and Carl Alexander Heideloff, 53. Reichensperger 1856, p. 427. Architektonische Entwiirfe und ausgefiihrte Bauten 54. “Zu kleinen Bauanlagen werden die Formen, — im byzantinischen und altdeutschen Styl von Carl Verhaltnisse, Ornamente von riesigen Cathedralen, Heideloff (Nuremberg: Vaterlandischer Bau- und mittelst blosser Reducirung des Massstabes, benutzt | Gewerkverein, 1850-53).

und so z. B. Zwergdome in die Welt gesetzt, statt 2. “Die Caricatur des Sch6nen ist dann nattirlich schlichter Kapellen.” Reichensperger Fingerzeige weit widerwartiger, als das von Haus aus auf dem Gebiete der kirchlichen Kunst, 2d ed., p. Hassliche.” Reichensperger, Christlich-germanische

26, hereafter Reichensperger 1855. Baukunst, 3d ed., p. 26, hereafter Reichensperger 55. “Meiner Ansicht nach ist England gerade 1860. deswegen so gross und machtig, weil es, wie wir es 3. “Dort stiilpt man, in Heideloff’scher Manier, leider nicht gethan haben, sich das Franzosenthum steinfarbig angestrichene spitzbogige Gewdlbe aus und das Neuheidenthum vom Halse zu halten Brettern auf pfeifenstielartig diinn gestreckte Pfeigewusst ... England hat stets an seinen alten Tradi- ler; anderwarts endlich wird auf Stein berechnetes tionen festgehalten, und wenn es dieselben einmal Gliederwerk aus Eisen gegossen und zu Stein verlassen hatte, so hat es bald die Faden wieder gepinselt.” Ibid., p. 26; also see p. 61. aufgesucht, um das Neue daran anzukniipfen. Sie 4. Ernst Kopp, Beitrag zur Darstellung eines wissen, wie Macaulay, der Geschichtsschreiber der reinen einfachen Baustyles, 16 fascicles (Erfurt: englischen Revolution . . . sagt: dass deshalb die J. G. Kramer, 1837; Stuttgart: Weise und Stoppani, Revolution eine heilsame und ihre Friichte dauernd 1839-40; Jena: Weise und Stoppani, 1845-50; Jena:

gewesen, weil sie eine conservative Revolution J. G. Schreiber, 1851). gewesen.” Reichensperger, “In welchem Style 5. See Kopp’s Beitrag zur Konstruktion der altsollen wir bauen?” Zeitschrift fiir praktische deutschen Bauart (Erfurt: J. G. Kramer, 1831-34),

Baukunst 12, no. 14 (1852), p. 296. which was among Germany’s early manuals of 56. “Der auch nicht ein einziges Examen neogothic construction. Also see his biographical gemacht hatte und blutwenig griechisch versteht.” sketch of himself in Kopp, Beitrag eines Baustyles, Reichensperger, “Literarische Anzeigen,” Monats- no. 14 (Jena: J. G. Schreiber, 1851).

blatt des Vereins vom heiligen Karl Borromdus 7 6. Ecclesiologist 15 (June 1857), p. 179.

(1846): p. 27. 7. “Dank dem trefflichen und wohlfeilen neuen

57. “Wie man in England das Princip der Fret- Wein mehren sich die Priigeleien in erschreckendem heit, des Gehen- und Gewéarenlassens vielfach zu Masse, und ich muss dann immer fast hyanenartig weit treibt, so hangt man diesseits des Canales viel hintendrein ziehen.” Letter, Reichensperger to zu sehr nach der Seite der biireaukratischen Bevor- Steinle, August 27, 1847; reprinted in Steinle, ed., mundung, des Absolutismus, oder, wenn man lieber Edward v. Steinle, p. 64.

281

Notes to pages 115-125

8. Hans Vogts, Vincenz Statz (1819-1898) 18. “[C’ Jest accompagné d’une chapelle; il est (Monchengladbach: B. Kiihlen, 1960), pp. 16-17. bati tout en briques, dont l’appropriation au style Also see E. W. [Ernst Weyden], “Korrespondenz, gothique était déja prouvée de la maniére la plus Koln,” Kdlner Domblatt, no. 34 (October 31, 1847). _ brillante par nos villes du Nord, spécialement

9. “Gegen das dreizehnte Jahrhundert hin Lubeck et Dantzig.” Letter, Reichensperger to gewann das Chor immer mehr an Ausdehnung und Didron, “L’ Art et l’archéologie en Allemagne,” architektonischer Bedeutung, so dass es auch nach reprinted in Annales archéologiques 13 (1853): p.

aussen hin seine erhabene Bedeutung sofort zu 343. See also Organ fir christliche Kunst 4 (1854):

erkennen gab.” Reichensperger, “Das Chor,” in p. 17. Joseph Aschbach, ed., Allgemeines Kirchenlexikon, 19. “Cet architecte est M. Statz, employé de M.

vol. 2 (Frankfurt: Aschbach, 1847), p. 33. Zwimer, qui a le mérite d’avoir reconnu un rare tal10. This useful device for precisely describing ent dans son germe et d’ avoir introduit le jeune the form of a polygonal apse as a fraction (e.g., 2) artiste dans la carriére qu’il parcourt avec tant de has not received widespread enough use in English succés. D’abord garc¢on menuisier, puis charpentier, literature, certainly because of the near-total pre- encouragé par M. Zwirner qui avait vu des dessins

dominance of square-ended apses in English exécutés de sa main, il échangea la scie et le rabot medieval architecture. The convention, followed in contre l’équerre et le compas. Sans avoir jamais

this book, deserves wider acceptance. franchi le seuil d’une académie ou école d’architec-

11. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 504. ture, par la seule observation, par la pratique et 12. “Das Chor ist das Fundament und die Grund- __|’étude la plus assidue des monuments du moyen regel des ganzen Gebdudes, nach dessen Werte nicht age sous tous les rapports, M. Statz est monté 4 un

nur die Starke der Umfassungsmauer, der Stre- trés-haut degré de son art, comme I!’ attestent des bepfeiler, die Weite der Fenster, sondern auch aus der _ preuves incontestables. Non moins de trente-cinq gefindenen Mauerdicke alle Bretter zu den Simsen plans d’églises, maintenant finies ou en construc-

und Gliedern des Werkes gesucht werden.” tion, son sortis de son crayon. Outre cela, il a dirigé Reichensperger, “Ueber das Bildungsgesetz der goth- _ bien des restaurations importantes, et, pour ces conischen Baukunst,” in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir structions, presque toujours il a dessiné en méme

praktische Baukunst 10 (1850): p. 208. temps tout le mobilier, jusqu’aux moindres objets. I] 13. Berlin und seine Bauten, vol. 2. Edited by va sans dire que tout est en style gothique, que M. the Architekten-und Ingenieurverein zu Berlin Statz puise a ses sources les plus pures.” Annales

(Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst und Sohn, 1896), pp. archéologiques, pp. 342-43. 430-31. Also see Philipp Hille, Erinnerungsblatter 20. “Ein anderes wichtiges Werk von praktischaus der Geschichte des katholischen St. Hedwigs- er Tendenz ist die Reihenfolge von Vorlegeblattern Krankenhauses zu Berlin (Berlin: Germania, 1896). des Architekten Ungewitters fiir Ziegel-, Stein und

The hospital stands, much altered, on the same Holzarbeiten.“ See Ungewitter’s own translation of block in the former East Berlin as the ravaged hulk Reichensperger’s letter to Didron in “Kunst und of the great Oranienburger Synagogue of Eduard Archeologie in Deutschland,” in Romberg, ed., Knoblauch, which now, in 1992, is finally undergo- Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 11 (1851), pp. ing its long-awaited restoration. I am grateful to the 39-42.

sisters of the hospital, who generously allowed me 21. “Durch Ihre Broschiire ‘Die christlich-gerto inspect the building at a time when such kindness —s manische Baukunst und ihr Verhdltniss zur Gegenhad its risks, and who called my attention to various —_ wart’ [wurde ich] zuerst von der Nichtigkeit des

archival materials. modernen Plunders, dem ich damals zufolge meiner 14. Letter, Aulike to Reichensperger, March 5, in Miinchen gemachten Schule noch mehr als billig

1851, LHK 700.138. ergeben war, tiberfiihrt und auf den einzig rechten 15. Reichensperger, “Korrespondenz,” Han- Weg gebracht.” Letter, Ungewitter to Reichenspergnoversche Zeitung, no. 110 (May 10, 1851): p. 642. er, August 30, 1850, in Reichensperger, Georg Gott-

16. A. N., “Das katholische St. Hedwigs- lob Ungewitter und sein Wirken als Baumeister, pp. Krankenhaus in Berlin,” Bau- und Kunstgewerbe 18-19, hereafter Reichensperger 1866.

Zeitung fiir das deutsche Reich 3 (1887): p. 189. 22. Reichensperger 1866, pp. 1-19. Claus, Also see Axel Hinrich Murken, “Die Architektur “Georg Gottlob Ungewitter,” Deutsche Bauzeitung

des Krankenhauses im 19. Jahrhundert,” Die 38, no. 66 (August 17, 1904): pp. 409-10. Also see Deutsche Stadt im 19. Jahrhundert, Ludwig Grote, Muthesius, Englische Vorbild, pp. 83-85.

ed. (Munich: Prestel, 1984), pp. 154-55. 23. “[Ich] der damals noch in den Reihen der 17. “Die Backsteinbauten . . . sind in ihrer Art Fortschritts-Architekten mit konkurrirte.” Letter, eben so bewundernswerth und kiinstlerisch vollen- Ungewitter to Reichensperger, November 17, 1850, det... weil sie nicht mehr scheinen wollen, als sie in Reichensperger 1866, p. 30. Some of these works

wirklich sind.” Reichensperger 1845, p. 19. are illustrated in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir prak-

282

Notes to pages 125-139

tische Baukunst 7 (1847): pp. 343-44, 385-86; 1850, in Reichensperger 1866, pp. 35-36.

plates 32-33, 38-41. 32. “Allein damit anzufangen, erscheint mir um 24. Building designs by Biilau were published so schwerer, als einestheils sehr wenige Ueberreste regularly in the Zeitschrift fiir Bauwesen. See, weltlicher Baukunst aus jenen Zeiten noch vorhanamong others, vol. 7 (1847); pp. 343, 443-46; plates den sind, anderntheils aber namentlich die bauliche

53-54. Praxis des 15. Jahrhunderts Vieles enthdlt, was

25. Biilau’s Haus der Patriotischen Gesellschaft leicht heutigen Tages wieder einzufiihren ist, und still stands in Hamburg, although it has been signifi- | zwar mit dem grdssten Vortheil in jeder Hinsicht, cantly altered. I am indebted to Anna-Kristin Mau- besonders in Hinsicht auf das, was man Comfort zu

rer for sharing with me her research and notes on nennen pflegt.” Ibid., p. 36.

Biilau. Also see Theodor Biilau, Das Haus der 33. Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, OctoPatriotischen Gesellschaft in Hamburg oder Einiges ber 10, 1850, in Reichensperger 1866, pp. 25-26,

liber einen Neubau (Hamburg: Nobiling, 1849). 35. See also “Wohnhaus und Pergamentfabrik des

26. Reichensperger 1866, p. 34. Herrn Schlenck in Leipzig,”in Romberg, ed., 27. Ungewitter, “Wohnhaus in Ltibeck,” in Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 10 (1850): p. Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 8 102, plates 15-18.

(1848), p. 417. 34. “Um der baulichen Tiichtigkeit, die ja ein

28. Ungewitter, “Gebaut wird fast iiberall auf Grundzug der altdeutschen Bauweise ist, nichts zu die gleiche Weisegebaut, geputzt aber auf sehr ver- vergeben [war] ich fast auf jede dussere Zier zu schiedene,” foreword to his Vorlegebldatter fiir verzichten genothigt .. . Hierbei erwahne ich nur Ziegel- und Steinarbeit (Leipzig: Romberg, 1849), noch, dass ich gleich nach Durchlesung Ihrer Schrift

n.p. ‘Christlich-germanische Baukunst’ von der Stelle

29. “Vielleicht nahern sich diese Blatter ein darin, wo Sie sagen: ‘von der Wetterfahne bis zum wenig zu sehr dem Styl des 15. Jahrhunderts wie Klopfer an der Hausthiir’ usw. besonders ergriffen, schon Hoffstadt und Pugin thun.” Reichensperger, den Thiirdriickern eine besondere Liebe zuwandte.”

‘Kunst und Archeologie in Deutschland,” in Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, October 10, Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 1850, in Reichensperger 1866, pp. 25-26.

11 (1851), p. 42. 35. “Ich zufallig Gelegenheit gefunden hatte, an 30. “In dem Sinne also soll man zundchst und geeigneter Stelle ein Wort einzulegen.”’

im Allgemeinen an die friihgothische Zeit sich Reichensperger 1866, pp. 34-35, 45. anschliessen, dass man mit dem Einfachsten und 36. “Im diesem Jahre noch wird, wie mir der dem Klarsten den Anfang macht und damit zugleich = Schwiegervater des Herrn Brockhaus sagte, in ein Einsehen in die Genesis der gothischen Kunst, dessen Verlag ein grosses architektonisches Werk

in diejenigen Momente bekommt, welche ihr von Semper erscheinen, welches, wie er denkt, Aufkeimen und Wachsen bedingt haben. Durch die einen totalen Umschwung bewirken soll.” Letter, Erkenntnis dieser Momente gelangt man denn auch Ungewitter to Reichensperger, January 21, 1851, in

dazu, das Wesentliche vom Unwesentlichen zu Reichensperger 1866, p. 43. unterscheiden, tiberall gleichsam den Lebensnerv 37. Among the other Ungewitter designs pubherauszufiillen und begegnet man am wirksamsten lished in the Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst are der Gefahr, dem blos Aeusserlichkeiten, Zufalligen an asymmetrical gardener’s house in Hamburg (vol. tiber die Gebiihr sich hinzugeben. Es bleibt demzu- 9, 1849, pp. 109-12, plates 6-9); and a rugged stone folge noch immer Spielraum genug fiir die Selbst- house in a sloping vineyard (vol. 9, 1849, pp. thatigkeit, ein weites freies Feld fiir Combinationen 457-58, plates 41-42).

und Gestaltungen aus Elementen der Gegenwart 38. Reichensperger 1866, pp. 39-40, 44-45, sowohl als der Vergangenheit zu einer lebendigen, 54-56, 74. freudigen Einheit.” Reichensperger, introduction to 39. Hermann Gemmel, “Ueber die BestrebunStatz and Ungewitter, Gothisches Musterbuch, vol. gen der Herren Romberg und Ungewitter, die mitte-

1, p. 6. lalterliche Architektur wieder zur Anwendung zu

31. “Sie geben dem 4lteren gothischen Styl den bringen,” in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische Vorzug vor dem des 15. Jahrhunderts. Dariiber kann Baukunst 12 (1852): p. 65ff.

denn auch wohl kaum ein Zweifel aufkommen, dass 40. Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, dieser Vorzug vollkommen gerechtfertigt ist . . . Ich August 1, 1851, in Reichensperger, 1866, pp. 60,

glaube und ich hoffe, dass man allm&hlig auch auf 116. dem Gebiete der Civilarchitektur in den Styl des 14.

oder 13. Jahrhunderts wird hineinarbeiten konnen.” Chapter 6 Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, December 23, 1. “Mein Bruder macht mir meine antiquarisch-

283

Notes to pages 139-155

asthetischen Studien und Arbeiten zum Vorwurf und fiir die Ganzheit meines Vaterlandes gestritten, fiir legt ein f6rmliches Inhibitorium ein, wahrend er doch die stufenweise und historische Entwicklung seiner zu gleicher Zeit der Liebhaberei durch eine Anzahl Institutionen, fiir seine Befestigung auf dem Boden Bilder, so er mir geschickt hat, neuen Nahrungsstoff einer mehr moralischen als mechanischen Einheit.” vorwirft.” Letter, Reichensperger to Thimus, December _Reichensperger 1856, pp. 548-49.

8, 1847. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 227. 12. R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton, A History of 2. “Ich tiberzeuge mich immer mehr, dass etwas —_— the Modern World (New York: Knopf, 1965), pp.

geschehen muss, und zwar etwas Derartiges, wenn 491-92. das Unkraut nicht allen Rest von guter Aussaat 13. “Mein seliger Vater wiirde sich dreimal im tiberwuchern soll.” Letter, Reichensperger to Grabe herumdrehen, wenn er horte, dass ich der

226. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 319.

Thimus, October 9, 1847. Cited in Pastor, vol. 1, p. Schreiber eines jiidischen Gelehrten geworden bin.”

3. “Betet fiir die Vélker.” Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 14. Ibid., p. 331.

229-30. 15. Ibid., pp. 316-35. Also see Moring, ed., 4, “Meine ganze Laufbahn ... kniipft sich an Josef von Radowitz, pp. 228-29. unsern Dom; in der kleinen Schrift Einige Worte 16. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 341-43. Indispensable as liber den Dombau zu K6ln wiirzelt meine ganze a general study of political Catholicism in the nineOffentliche Thatigkeit.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 232. teenth century is Buchheim’s, Ultramontanismus 5. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 245-48. Also see Herbert und Demokratie; a valuable collection of primary Homig, Rheinische Katholiken und Liberale sources can be found in Bergstrasser, ed., Politische (Cologne: Wienand, 1971); and Peter Reichensperg- = Katholizismus.

er, Erlebnisse eines alten Parlamentariers im Revo- 17. Hans Kapfinger, Der EOS-Kreis 1828— 1832:

lutionsjahre 1848 (Berlin: Springer, 1882). Ein Beitrag zur Vorgeschichte der politischen 6. See August and Peter Reichensperger, Parla- Katholizismus in Deutschland (Munich: Pfeiffer,

mentarische Reden der Gebriider Reichensperger 1928). (Regensburg: Manz, 1858), pp. 65-69; also see Pas- 18. Reprinted in Gorres, Gesammelte Schriften,

tor, Tagebiicher, vol. 1, pp. 283ff. Franz Binder, ed. (Munich: In commission der Lit7. August and Peter Reichensperger, Parlamen- erarisch-artistischen Anstalt, 1858), pp. 407—24.

tarische Reden, pp. 23-31. 19. Ibid., pp. 93-96.

8. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 299. Also see Walter 20. See August and Peter Reichensperger, ParMoring, ed., Josef von Radowitz: Nachgelassene lamentarische Reden, pp. 560-63, 696-703.

Briefe und Aufzeichnungen zur Geschichte der 21. Reichensperger 1866, pp. 113-14, 128. Jahre 1548—/853 (Berlin and Stuttgart: Deutsche 22. “Ueber das Bildungsgesetz der gotischen

Verlags-Anstalt, 1922), p. 88. Baukunst, nebst Beilage: Des Meisters L. Lacher 9. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 300ff. Unterweisung,” in Reichensperger 1856, pp. 10. Bergstrasser, ed., Politische Katholizismus, 125-55. Also see “Die Bauhiitten des Mittelalters,”

vol. 1, pp. 196-219. ibid., pp. 156-67.

11. “Die politische Katzenmusik, weit entfernt 23. “Dass ich keineswegs zum ‘Ikonoklasten mich zu zerstreuen und zu betauben, hat mir im werde gegen die Werke der gegenwart,’ .. . dass es Gegentheil meine alten Neigungen noch lieber und praktisch geschehe durch Bauen, Meisseln, slisser gemacht. Fur die Architektur habe ich eine Schnitzen ... nicht blos theoretisch durch ‘Samsehr ergiebige Lehrzeit durchlebt, indem ich diesem — mein, Aufbewahren, Zeichnen, Erkladren.. . ’” Letpolitischen Thurmbau von Babel zusah, der gegen- ter, Reichensperger to the editor, Deutsches wartige von allen, Meistern wie Gesellen, verlassen Kunstblatt, no. 7 (January 21, 1851): p. 54. dasteht .. . In ihrer Ueberzeugung von der Allmacht 24. “Ich glaube, dass, wenn dasjenige, was so ihrer Lehrsatze und Phrasen glaubten diese Him- oft hier besprochen und in Aussicht gestellt worden, melstiirmer mit der Bewegung ihrer Lippen alles ndmlich eine Vereinfachung der Staatsverwaltung, bewirken zu kénnen; zudem wollten sie ganz allein einmal zur Wirklichkeit geworden ist, dann das hier aufbauen, und zwar alles in einem Augenblicke. in Rede stehende Institut und alle mit ihm verWeder die Geschichte noch die Thatsachen wurden wandten Institutionen aus unserem Budget verin Frankfurt beriicksichtigt, wenn sie nicht in das schwinden miissten. Ich hoffe, dass wir alsdann System passten, welches einige von Eitelkeit aufge- wieder einfache Lehrlinge und schlichte Meister blasene und nur durch den Ehrgeiz geleitete Profes- erhalten.” August Reichensperger, speech in the soren aufgestellt hatten; man schnitt alles zu kurz Second Chamber, Prussian Abgeordnetenhaus (Febab, indem man decretirte, anstatt selbst noch so rad- ruary 20, 1852); reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, ical zu reformiren, revolutionirte man... Ich habe pp. 481-88. Reichensperger’s speech, as well as the

284

Notes to pages 155-163

response by the Zeitschrift fiir Bauwesen, 1s reprint- 34. “In der ererbten Sitte, der Tracht, der ed in Romberg, ed., “In welchem Style sollen wir Mundart und den sonstigen Eigenthiimlichkeiten bauen?” Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 12 beruht zumeist ein machtiges Element, wie der

(1852): p. 295. Kraft, so auch der Schonheit; von ihnen wird die 25. Reichensperger, “Die Bauhiitten des Mittel- Individualitat, der Charakter des betreffenden alters,” Kélner Domblatt, no. 73 (March 2, 1851). Stammes getragen, wohingegen die Flach-und 26. “Der Abgeordnete Reichensperger und die Gleichmacherei ihn entnervt und mit den Anderen Baukunst,” Zeitschrift fiir Bauwesen, vol. 2 (1852): zu einer grossen Heerde umformt, die schliesslich

p. 234; this article was reprinted, along with vom Despotismus—dem monarchischen oder dem Reichensperger’s speech and his subsequent rebut- radikalen—nur noch nach Nummern gezahlt, taxirt tal, in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische und geschoren wird.” Reichensperger, Die Kunst

Baukunst 12 (1852): pp. 298-302. jedermanns Sache. Broschiirenverein, vol. 7 (Frank27. Romberg, ed., “In welchem Style sollen wir — furt: Hamacher, 1865) p. 11, hereafter Reichen-

bauen?” Zeitschrift fiir praktische Baukunst 12 sperger 1865.

(1852): p. 291. 35. This translation, which aptly catches the 28. Letter, Montalambert to Reichensperger, tone of the original, is taken from the version of Die

May 8, 1852, LHK 700.138, 54. Kunst jedermanns Sache that was published in the

29. Pastor, vol. 2, p. 12. Ecclesiologist. See “M. Reichensperger on Art,” 30. “Lebendigen, nicht mechanisch wirkenden Ecclesiologist, no. 173 (1866): p. 79.

Autoritaéten,” Reichensperger, Stenographische 36. “Ein weit verbreitetes Vorurtheil geht dahin, Berichte des Abgeordneten Hauses, 1856/57, Janu- die Kunst sei etwas ganz Apartes, eine Art Luxusarary 12, 1857, pp. 46-48. Reichensperger’s speech is __ tikel fiir die reichere und vornehmere Klasse, etwa reprinted in Parlamentarische Reden, pp. 960-66. wie Austern und Caviar. Diese Ansicht ist mit der 31. “Uebrigens haben fast allerwarts die Zim- zuvor gedachten Renaissance aufgekommen . . . Insmermeister gewissermassen in die von den Stein- besondere aber hatte dem christlichen Mittelalter metzen aufgegebene Erbschaft angetreten; ganze die Kunst als ein wesentliches Element seiner Generationen derselben haben noch die Gothik, in Gesundheit und Frische gegolten. Nichts erschien ihren allgemeinen Ziigen wenigstens festgehalten, ihm zu kostbar, wo es galt, diesem Bediirfnisse ein als langst schon der Steinmetzengrund unter dem Genitige zu thun und damit zugleich die Macht und Einflusse der italienischen und franzosischen Hof- Wiirde des Gemeinwesen ans Licht zu Architekten der Vergessenheit anheimgefallen war. stellen... Die Kunst war ins Herz des Lebens Aus den Domen und Paladsten vertrieben, fliichtete aufgenommen; Alles, selbst die schlichtesten sich die edle deutsche Baukunst in die Dorfer und TOpferwaaren und das Kiichengerathe nicht ausBauernh6fe, bis sie endlich sogar in den Waldern geschlossen, bekundete lebendigen . . . ausgebilde-

und auf einsamen Bergeshéhen Obdach suchen ten Schénheitssinn.” Reichensperger 1865, p. 9. musste, wie sie dasselbe denn auch zur Stunde noch 37. In The Gothic Revival: Sources, Influences in Tyrol und dem Schwarzwalde findet.” Reichen- and Ideas (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press). sperger, “Aus Westphalen,” Hannoversche Zeitung, 38. See the letters Reichensperger sent to his

no. 270 (November 17, 1851). wife during his visits to Hope’s estate. LHK 32. “Berlin hat keine Volkskunst, sondern nur 700.138, 3-5. Also see Beresford-Hope, Some eine Hofkunst. Berlin birgt ferner keine deutsche, Impressions of a Private Member, pp. 11-12.

germanische Kunst, sondern nur imitierte, 39. Letter, Beresford-Hope to Reichensperger, namentlich griechische Kunst in sich, die fiir den May 1867; ibid., p. 18. kalten Norden durchaus nicht angebracht ist — AQ. Pastor, vol. 1, pp. 585, 599; vol. 2, p. 337. Berlin hat meistentheils nur Schaustiicke, die ihrem 41. “Cette régéneration de |’ art religieux n’est du Zwecke sehr wenig oder gar nicht entsprechen, reste, comme vous I|’avez si bien compris, qu’un des obwohl die Technik an ihnen haufig eine ausge- cétes de la grande renaissance catholique a laquelle zeichnete ist.” Germania, May 3, 1877; also see nous avons le bonheur d’assister depuis le comReichensperger, diary entry, May 1, 1877, p. 99, mencement de ce siécle.” Letter, Montalambert to

LHK 700.138, 81. Reichensperger, November 17, 1854, LKH 700.138, 33. “Was man die Verfeinerung der Kiinste 54. “Je pense tout a fait comme vous sur I’ inqualifinennt, ist der Weg zur Korruption,” Reichensperger, able conduite de la Commission de Lille; mais je Allerlei aus dem Kunstgebiete (Brixen: A. Weger, n’en dis rien, parce que j’aurais |’ air de vouloir me 1867), p. 43, hereafter Reichensperger 1867. Also venger de la servilité qui les a portés a m’exclure de see P.-J. Proudhon, Du principe de l’art et de sa leur sein.” Letter, Montalambert to Reichensperger,

destination sociale (Paris: Garnier, 1865). October 24, 1856, LHK 700.138, 54.

285

Notes to pages 163-173

42. Ibid., November 17, 1854, LHK 700.138, 54. Reichensperger 1855, p. 17. 7. “Der edle, ernste, kerngesunde Sty! des

Chapter 7 dreizehnten Jahrhunderts.” Ibid, p. 27.

1. “Es scheint fast unbegreiflich, wie es méglich 8. For Lange’s entry see Ludwig Lange, Werke war, in unserer Zeit gleichsam mit einem Schlage der hoheren Baukunst fiir die Ausftihrung entworfen

die untergegangene Kunstherrlichkeit friiherer und dargestellt (Darmstadt: Gustav Lange, Jahrhunderte in solcher Weise wieder ins Legen zu 1846-60), Heft 3 (1855). rufen.” Reichensperger, “Ein Wort tiber den Lon- 9. “Ein Baumeister von der rechten Art wird vor doner Glaspalast,” supplement to the Deutsche Allem das etwa noch vorhandene Alte so viel thunVolkshalle (1851); reprinted in Reichensperger lich mit dem Neubau zu verbinden suchen. Nicht

1856, pp. 432-41. blos die Thtiirme, sondern auch wohl das Schiff, das 2. “Da ist nichts Geniales oder auch nur Orig- Chor k6nnen zuweilen ganz fiiglich erhalten werden inelles, keinerlei moralische Wirkung, nicht eine und dem Neubaue dienen; hier kann ein bisheriges Form, die der Ausdruck irgend einer ktinstlerischen Hauptschiff als Seitenschiff fungiren, dort eine Anschauung ware ... Nur das Querschiff bringt Capelle, eine Sacristei u.s.w. aufrecht bleiben.”

eine Art von Bewegung in die Anlage... Reichensperger 1855, p. 21. Hier sieht man einen vollstandigen Altar nebst 10. “Sie sind... lichtdurchwirkte Teppiche. Es allem Zubehor, Bildwerke, Leuchter, Teppiche, Bet- —_ist eine Flachen- und Decorations-Malerei, welche,

stiile, Kronleuchter, Stickereien aller Art, ihrer Natur nach, alle feineren Schattirungen und gemusterte Fussbéden, sodann aber auch Hausmo- zarten Einzelheiten ausschliesst.”” Reichensperger

bilien, z. B. einen wahrhaft grossen Credenztisch 1855, p. 52.

(Biiffet), einen Porzellanofen, mit Gitterwerk 11. “Schwung in der Composition, sorgfaltige umgeben, Becken aus Marmor, alles auf die Modellirung, Mannichfaltigkeit der Fleischtone, gediegenste Weise gearbeitet und ein festes, schar- lebendiges Hervortreten aus der Umrahmung.”

fes Geprage an sich tragend. Kein Stiick zeigt ein Ibid., p. 53. bloss mechanisches Copiren alter Meister; es ist 12. “Alles reducirt sich auch hier im Grunde vielmehr eine geistige Geburt offenbar dem Wirken wieder auf die Frage, ob die Kunst der Kirche, oder der Hand vorhergegangen, eine Durchdringung mit ob die Kirche der Kunst zu dienen hat.” Jbid., p. 54.

jenen Principien, in welchen die Grésse und Her- 13. See Johannes Ralf Beines, “Zur Geschichte rlichkeit der mittelalterlichen Kunst und selbst ihrer — farbiger Verglasungen vorzugsweise im Gebiete der

Technik wiirzelt. Alles gehorcht einem festen Bil- Bundesrepublik Deutschland von 1780-1914” dungsgesetze mathematischer Natur, welches in (Ph.D. diss., University of Bonn, 1979).

unendlichem Formenwechsel zur Erscheinung 14. See Johann Anton Ramboux: Maler und kommt, wdhrend in der Behandlung des Stoffes Konservator 1790-1866, exh. cat. (Cologne: Wallstets das Streben nach Echtheit und Wahrheit durch- _raf-Richartz-Museum, 1967).

waltet.” Ibid., translation from “A Word on the 15. Hans Vogts, “Die Glasmalereiwerkstatt von Crystal Palace,” Ecclesiologist 12, no. 87 (Decem- Friedrich Baudri in K6In (nach seinen Tagebitichern

433, 1960).

ber 1851): pp. 385-87. 1854-1871,” Im Schatten von St. Gereon: Erich 3. “Kornige Kraft.” Reichensperger 1856, p. Kuphal zum 1. Jul: 1960 (Cologne: Verlag der Lowe,

4. “Es war mir... der Auftrag zu Theil gewor- 16. “Als oberste Regel, so wenig wie méglich

den, eine praktische Anleitung fiir die Pflege der und so unwahrnehmbar wie méglich zu restauchristlichen Kunst abzufassen.” Reichensperger riren.” Reichensperger 1855, p. 33. Muthesius has

1866, p. 28. proposed that Reichensperger’s restoration philoso-

5. “Das Stempel der Wahrheit und Gesundheit; phy was not directly influenced by Ruskin (see da ist alles frisch, voll Kraft und der Bestimmung Muthesius, Englische Vorbild, p. 193, n. 119). angemessen; . . . ist sie originell und doch streng im 17. “Eine einfache Form von unzweifelhafter

Stil.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 508. Urspriinglichkeit verdient mehr Berticksichtigung, 6. “Moge die Kirche dem Staate die Concurrenz _als eine weit vollendetere spatere Zuthat, und letzin allem Guten und Schénen machen. Es wird sich tere sollte hinwiederum auch einer noch so brillanten bald zeigen, auf welcher Seite der h6here Beruf Neuerung nicht Platz machen: man spare seine liegt und wer am weitesten kommt; ob z.B. die vom __ Erfindungsgabe fiir andere passendere Gelegenheit-

Staate besoldeten, biireaukratisch gegliederten en auf. Es giebt wenig alte Kirchen, welche nicht Wohltatigkeits-commissionen, oder die frommen einen ganz bestimmt ausgesprochenen Chararakter Congregationen, die vom Staate nichts fordern, als an sich tragen; diesen erhalte man ihnen auf das ungest6ért sich dem Gemeinwohl opfern zu diirfen.” sorgsamste.”’ Reichensperger 1855, p. 36.

286

Notes to pages 173-184

18. “Jahresringe,” ibid., p. 35, “Ich bin ein cenz Statz, pp. 37-39. Verehrer des Patinas, des edlen Rosts”; “Lieber Rost 25. Stier’s design is reproduced in Wibiral and als Schminke.” Reichensperger’s aphorisms were Mikula, fig. 7. A large portfolio of Stier drawings is printed regularly in the Kél/ner Domblatt, and preserved at the Plansammlung der Fakultat fiir reprinted in translated form in the Ecclesiologist Architektur, Technische Universitat Berlin. during the late 1850s and early 1860s. For antholo- 26. Schmidt and Statz’s programs for the gies of the aphorisms, see Reichensperger 1856, pp. _—«- Votivkirche are reprinted in the Allgemeine

513-40, and Reichensperger 1867, pp. 46-71. Bauzeitung 22 (1857): pp. 1-2, 38-40. 19. “Fehlen einzelne farbige Scheiben, welche 27. The drawings are in the Plansammlung der nicht gleich ersetzt werden kOnnen, so flicke man Fakultat fiir Architektur, Technische Universitat die Stelle mit gewOhnlichem Fensterglase aus, Berlin, Inv. 12.311—-14. Some of these are reprodamit der Mangel sich sofort als solcher zu erken- duced in Jutta Schuchard, Carl Schafer, 1844-1908

nen giebt; eine ungefdhre, blos auf Tauschung (Munich: Prestel, 1979), plates 1-3. abzielende Wiederherstellung (etwa durch Ueber- 28. “Dessen pyramidale Tendenz sich schon in schmieren mit Oelfarbe!) sollte nie stattfinden.” den unteren Geschossen zu erkennen giebt.”

Reichensperger 1855, p. 41. Reichensperger 1855, p. 30. 20. Alexander Ferdinand von Quast (1807-77) 29. “Je hoher wir das Talent des Herrn Ferstel was the Prussian Generalkonservator der Kunst- und das bisher von ihm auf dem Gebiete der Gothik denkméailer, and is rightly regarded as the father of Geleistete schatzen, um so dringender méchten wir organized historic conservation in Germany. He fre- __ ihn bitten, die Verlockung nach dem Ruhme der quently dealt with Reichensperger, both profession- _—-Vielseitigkeit von sich zu weisen und entweder ein ally and personally, and the two seem to have had a ganzer Gothiker, oder aber, falls er das nicht fiir hin-

warm relationship. For a critical discussion by reichend zeitgemdss erachten sollte, ein ganzer Reichensperger of Quast’s attitude toward restora- Renaissancist zu werden. Wer hatte woh] dem tion, see Die Liebfrauenkirche zu Trier und deren Paganini den Rath ertheilen mégen, auch noch die Restauration (Trier: Linz, 1865), pp. 20-25. Most of Virtuositaét auf dem Claviere, oder einem Liszt, die their correspondence has been lost, although five auf der Geige anzustreben?” Reichensperger, “Die

letters from Quast are preserved in the Wiener Votivkirche betreffend,” Organ fiir Reichensperger papers, LHK 700.138, 2. christliche Kunst 17 (1867): no. 12, p. 258. This 21. See Norbert Wibiral and Renata Mikula- was no idle metaphor; Reichensperger had heard Steiner, Heinrich von Ferstel (Wiesbaden: Steiner, Paganini perform in Berlin. 1974), pp. 3-11. Also see Renata Kassal-Mikula’s 30. The history of the important Hamburg comessay and bibliography of the Votivkirche in Hein- petition has been well-documented. See Julius rich von Ferstel (1828-1883): Bauten und Projekte Faulwasser, Der grosse Brand und der Wiederauffiir Wien, exh. cat. (Vienna: Historisches Museum bau von Hamburg (Hamburg: Otto Meissner, 1892);

der Stadt Wien, 1983). also see Heinz-Jiirgen Brandt, Das Hamburger 22. Letter, Reichensperger to Didron, published Rathaus (Hamburg: Broschek, 1957). The imporin Reichensperger, “L’art et l’archéologie en Alle- tance of the Hamburg Rathaus competition for secumagne,” Annales archéologiques 13 (1853): pp. lar architecture, particularly in England, has been 338-54; reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, pp. discussed in Muthesius, Englische Vorbild; Ger-

570-86. mann, Gothic Revival; and, most recently, by David

23. “Dass Statz bei der Wiener Votivkirche B. Brownlee, The Law Courts: The Architecture of konkurrirt und dort viele Chancen fiir sich hat, ist George Edmund Street (New York and Cambridge, mir bereits von einem dortigen Bekannten mit- Mass.: Architectural History Foundation and MIT

getheilt worden. Ich habe es auch versucht, ohne Press, 1984).

mir jedoch im Mindesten Illusionen tiber 31. See Giinther Lange, Alexis de Chateauneuf, irgendwelchen Erfolg zu machen. Sie wiirden von pp. 35-36, 99. In addition, the Hamburg Stadtarchiv mir gar keine Mittheilung tiber mein Wagniss erhal- _ contains a series of studies by Theodor Biilau for a

ten haben, wenn es mir nicht fast wie Diinkel Gothic Rathaus. Also see letter, Sieveking to Boisvorkéme, das, aller Wahrscheinlichkeit nach, seree, May 17, 1846; Boisseree Nachlass, 1018/324. bevorstehende Fiasko zu verheimlichen.” Letter, Historisches Archiv der Stadt K6In. Ungewitter to Reichensperger, February 23, 1855, 32. Faulwasser, St. Nikolai-Kirche, pp. 132-33.

cited in Reichensperger 1866, p. 132. 33. Johann Hermann Detmold was a noted 24. Allgemeine Bauzeitung 22 (1857): p. 1; also satirist. He was intensely admired by Reichenspergsee Wibiral and Mikula-Steiner, Heinrich von Fer- er for the biting vision of the world of artists and art stel, p. 8. Statz’s entry is discussed in Vogts, Vin- critics created in his Kunstkenner . . . in drei Stun-

287

Notes to pages 184-189

den (1834), which provides a list of phrases, to be geleistet hat, wie in der kirchlichen Baukunst.” memorized in three hours, that will make one an art = Reichensperger, “Der Rathhausbau in Hamburg und

connoisseur. Reichensperger’s letters from Det- der Museumsbau in Coln,” Kdlner Domblatt, no. mold, dealing with art as well as politics, are pre- 116 (1854); reprinted in Reichensperger 1856, pp.

served in the Reichensperger Nachlass, LHK, 457-59.

700.138, 18. 42. “Der deutschen Stadt einen deutschen Bau 34. “Es hduft eben jetzt in Sachsen ein Professor zu geben.” Reichensperger, “Der Rathhausbau in N., der in jeder Hinsicht Semper’s schlimme Eigen- | Hamburg und der Museumsbau in Céln,” Kélner schaften, und zwar nur diese, tiberbietet, ausgenom- Domblatt, no. 116 (1854).

men, dass er ganz gewiss nicht auf eine Barrikade 43. “Der Hamburger Rathhausbau,” Notizblatt steigen wird.” Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, zur Allgemeinen Bauzeitung 3, no. 5 (November

October 9, 1854, Reichensperger 1866, p. 123. 1854): pp. 140ff. Also see Brandt, Hamburger 35. “Mit dem Rathhausbau verhalt sich folgen- Rathaus, pp. 49-50; Faulwasser, St. Nikolai-Kirche,

dermassen. Der Hamburgische Macen Senator p. 133. Jenisch ist Vorsitzende der Bau-Commission und 44. Besides Semper, Stier, Knoblauch, Meuron, hat nattirlich seine Schitzlinge, unter denen ein and Biilau, some of Germany’s most distinguished Schweizer Baumeister Meuron begiinstigt wird. [hm —_ architects were represented. A partial list includes

ist der Bau gedacht und er hat bereits eine Facade Ferdinand Stadler, Georg Demmler, Ludwig Lange, gezeichnet. Ihm zu liebe sollte der gothische Style Ludwig Bohnstedt, Martin Haller, and Maximilian ausgeschlossen werden, da er wohl die Concurrenz Nohl. Hamburg architects participating included Scotts fiirchtet. Damit ist der Senator aber nicht David Jolasse, and Georg Luis. Interestingly, Condurchgedrungen und bei der Concurrenz, zu welch- rad Wilhelm Hase, who later became one of er das Programm jetzt angefertigt wird, sollen alle Reichensperger’s Gothicist friends, entered the

Style zugelassen werden.” Letter, Merck to competition with a Rundbogenstil design. See Reichensperger, December 14, 1853, LHK 700.138, = Notizblatt zur Allgemeinen Bauzeitung 3, no. 5

173. (November 1854): pp. 140ff; Brandt, Hamburger

36. W. Melhop, Alt-Hamburgische Bauweise Rathaus, pp. 49-50; Faulwasser, St. Nikolai-Kirche, (Hamburg: Boysen & Maasch, 1908), pp. 198-200. p. 133. 37. Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, Febru- 45. “Der Plan des Herrn Scott erinnert in seiner ary 28, 1857. Reichensperger 1866, pp. 158-59. grossartigen Einfachheit und seinem stattlichen, die 38. “Ich hatte die Ehre, in Begleitung des ver- Wiirde der Stadt, welche er iiberragen soll, charakstorbenen héchst talentvollen Herrn Syndikus terisirenden Thiirme an das Rathhaus in Ypern, mit Sieveking oft mit Herrn Chateauneuf tiber das zu einem leisen Anklange an den Dogen-Palast von errichtende Rathhaus zu verkehren und ich trage Venedig; die Vorderseite ist weniger malerisch keine Bedenken, es hier zu bekennen, dass jene gruppirt, als die Rtickseite, und zwar, wie es Unterredungen einen bedeutenden Einfluss auf den scheint, aus sehr triftigen Grtinden, da die dort von mir gelieferten Entwurf gehabt haben.” Scott, vorherrschende Geradlinigkeit durch den Thurm zur

cited in Brandt, Hamburger Rathaus, p. 50. Geniige gebrochen scheint.” Reichensperger, 39. “Das Zeugniss der grésseren Zahl der alten “Besprechungen, Mittheilungen,” Organ fir Rathhduser ... von denen nur wenige nach dem Sys- —christliche Kunst 7, no. 7 (April 1, 1855): pp.

teme der malerischen Gruppiriung gebaut sind; in 79-80. der Regel ist bei ihnen in Deutschland, Italien, wie 46. “Unseres Bediinkens hatte man z. B. den in den Niederlanden die symmetrische Formgebung — ehrsamen Magistrat der Stadt Hannover in einem in Anwendung gebracht.” Letter, Scott to the Ham- Rathaus altherkOmmlichen Styles belassen sollen,

burg Rathaus Building Commission, reprinted in statt ihm einen Miniatur-Dogenpalast zu substiReichensperger, ‘““Den hamburger Rathhausbau be- tuiren. Hannover und Venedig liegen denn doch

treffend,’ Kdlner Domblatt, no. 132 (1856). etwas gar zu weit auseinander, als dass man Veran40. Brandt, Hamburger Rathaus, p. 49; Scott, lassung gehabt hatte, venetianische Masken in Recollections, p. 174; “New Town Hall at Ham- Ersteres einzufiihren.” Reichensperger, ‘“Bauliches,” burgh [sic],” Ecclesiologist, no. 107 (April 1855): Hannoversche Zeitung, no. 116 (May 17, 1851): pp.

pp. 116-19. 694-95.

41. “Das Rathhaus wiirzelt seinem Wesen und 47. “Das Wesen der Gothik besteht nicht in der seiner Bestimmung nach im Mittelalter; das s.g. Dekoration mit Fialen, Blumen, Blattern und classische Alterthum kennt solche Bauten nicht, allerhand Masswerk, sondern vor Allem in den liefert uns also keinerlei Muster, wahrend die Kunst — Verhdltnissen, in der Gruppirung der einzelnen Haupt-

des Mittelalters hier eben so Grosses und Schdnes bestandtheile des Baues, in dem Hervortreten der

288

Notes to pages 189-196

inneren Distribution nach aussen, in dem leben- Annales archéologiques, p. 113. For the way in vollen Wechsel der Hauptlinien, tiberhaupt in dem which Reichensperger’s early departure added to

Charakter des Ganzen.” Reichensperger, the controversy surrounding the competition, see ‘“‘Besprechungen, Mittheilungen,” p. 80. “The Lille Cathedral Competition,” Ecclesiologist 48. Letter, Scott to the Building Commission for 14 (1856), p. 291.

the Hamburg Town Hall, n.d., reproduced in 56. “Nous y avons reconnu un artiste expériReichensperger, “Den hamburger Rathhausbau be- menté, un esprit sagace, un homme de gout habitué

treffend,’ Kélner Domblatt, no. 132 (1856). a tout motives dans ses oeuvres et 4 trouver le beau 49. Reichensperger 1866, p. 158. Also see Mar- en poursuivent I’utile.” Didron,“Une Cathédrale au tin Haller, “Muttheilungen von Vereinen,” Deutsche concours,” Annales archéologiques, p. 118.

Bauzeitung 34, no. 18 (March 3, 1900): p. 119. 57. Reichensperger, Die Liebfrauenkirche zu 50. The selection of an architect for this project Trier und deren Restauration, p. 32.

had occasioned much debate, in which 58. Beresford-Hope, Some Impressions of a PriReichensperger took a great interest, in part because — vate Member, pp. 3-12.

of his friendship with Scott. When Beresford-Hope 59. “Gar verfriihete Hindeutungen auf den Styl sent him a copy of the 224-page transcript of the der Zukunft darin vor .. . Im Uebrigen bin ich durch hearings over Scott’s design, he dashed across the die Verhandlungen der architectural Society in Loncover, “You will agree what a triumph thisis forour don auch insofern ein wenig bedenklich geworden, principles.” Reichensperger read every page of the als daraus hervorzugehen scheint, dass man nach report, finding a suspenseful drama in the dialogue den verschiedenen Phasen der englischen Gothik between architects and parliamentarians, and “living bereits die neusten kontinentalen Stylgattungen des

personalities rather than cold abstractions.” Mittelalters durchprobirt hat und eben jetzt bei der Reichensperger, “Aus London,” Kélner Domblatt, italienischen Gothik angelangt ist.” Letter, Ungewitno. 166 (1856); also see Reichensperger, “Die ter to Reichensperger, July 2, 1860; reprinted in neuen Ministerialgebadude in London,” Organ fiir Reichensperger 1866, pp. 194-95.

christliche Kunst 8, no. 24 (December 15, 1858): 60. “Taglich kam Freund August an den Dom

pp. 284-86. und studirte denselben; sehr oft war er bei mir, sich 51. Adolphe Napoléon Didron, “Une Cathédrale — Rath in architektonischen Fragen zu erholen. So

au concours,” Annales archéologiques 16 (1856): kam die gotische, schéne, unvergessliche Zeit fiir alt pp. 111-29, 204-30. The competition was also und jung! Als ich spater [1854] Diocesanbaumeister reported closely in the Organ fiir christliche Kunst wurde, da entwickelte sich unsere Freundschaft erst

6, nos. 9 and 10 (1856). recht. Der Kirchenbau war nun Hauptsache gewor52. Reichensperger 1866, p. 133. den; fast taglich kamen Auftrage, und an 53. “Ich glaube zwar nicht, dass ich dazu kom- Reichensperger richtete alle Welt Anfragen und Bitmen werde, ein Projekt zu machen, am wenigsten, ten um Rathschlage. Er kam dann mit den Planen zu dass es zur Einsendung fertig wird, indess ist bei mir, und wir heilten gemeinsamen Kritik. Und so

dem Mangel jeder praktischen Thatigkeit das haben wir im Interesse der guten Sache Tausende Arbeiten an einem solchen Konkurrenz-Plane eine von Planen begutachtet.” Vincenz Statz, unpubArt von angenehmer I]lusion.” Letter, Ungewitter to lished memoir of August Reichensperger from Reichensperger, May 11, 1855; reprinted, ibid., p. 1895, excerpted in Pastor, vol. 1, p. 172.

134. 61. Vogts, Vincenz Statz, pp. 33-37.

54. “Er war damals von zarter, schwdchlich 62. Reichensperger wrote to Beresford-Hope in erscheinender Korperschaft, zog Milch den geisti- fall 1859, sending an account of recent building gen Getranken vor.” Reichensperger, “August von activity in Cologne and highlighting the history of

Essenwein,” Deutscher Hausschatz 19, no. 4 the Mauritiuskirche. The article was translated into (1893): pp. 180-83. Also see Pastor, vol. 2, pp. German and appeared in the Ecclesiologist in 320-21. Essenwein was more scholary than most of | December 1859 (no. 135, pp. 402-3). See letter, Reichensperger’s architect disciples. Although he Beresford-Hope to Reichensperger, November 23, later worked as an engineer for the Austrian rail- 1859, in Beresford-Hope, Some Impressions of a road, and served as Stadtbaurat for Graz, he gave Private Member, p. 7.

up his practice to become the first director of the 63. Pastor, vol. 1, p. 586. Germanisches Museum in Nuremberg in 1866. 64. The history of the church is discussed in Essenwein was later involved in designing the mon- Joseph Lingens, Die Marienvotivkirche in Aachen umental decorative scheme for the floor of Cologne (Aachen: Verlag des Kirchenbau-Vereins, 1870);

Cathedral. Lingens was a friend of Reichensperger who

55. Didron, “Une Cathédrale au concours,” reviewed this book enthusiastically in “Die Marien-

289

Notes to pages 196-216

votivkirche in Aachen,” Organ fiir christliche Kunst — gesetzmassigen Formen und Combinationen sehen.” 20, no. 14 (1870): pp. 162-64. Statz’s design is dis- Reichensperger, foreword to Statz and Ungewitter,

cussed in Vogts, Vincenz Statz, p. 32. Gothisches Musterbuch, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Weigel, 65. Beresford-Hope, Some Impressions of a Pri- 1856), p. 12.

vate Member, p. 7. The design of the new church 6. See Kokkelink, “Neugotik Conrad Wilhelm was reviewed in the Ecclesiologist, no. 135 (Decem- _ Hases,” pp. 45-48; 143-45. Also see Kokkelink,

ber 1859): pp. 403-5. “Die Architektur der Hannoverschen Schule,” in 66. Reichensperger, “Die innere Ausstattung der = Geschichte und Architektur der Bauhiitte Hannover

Minoritenkirche zu K6ln,” Kélner Domblatt, no. (Hanover: Bauhiitte zum Weissen Blatt, 1980), p.

228 (February 29, 1864). 97.

67. Ungewitter in Statz and Ungewitter, Goth- 7. Letter, Ungewitter to Reichensperger, July 2, isches Musterbuch, p. 280; cited in Schuchard, Carl 1860; reprinted in Reichensperger 1866, p. 194.

Schafer, p. 84. 8. “Dies Haus hab ich gemacht / ob ihr drob

68. Georg Gottlob Ungewitter, Land- und spottet oder lacht / Ein Jeder baut nach seiner Nase / Stadtkirchen, Eberhard Hillebrand, ed. (Glogau: C. Ich heisse Conrad Wilhelm Hase.” Cited in Peter Flemming, 1866). See also the discussion of Unge- Dellemann, “Aus der Geschichte der Bauhiitte,” in witter’s churches in Schuchard, Carl Schdfer, pp. Geschichte und Architektur der Bauhiitte Hannover,

46-49. p. 20.

69. Reichensperger 1866, p. 153; Ungewitter, 9. Biographies now exist for many of the key Land- und Stadtkirchen, plates 1-2; Schuchard, architects of the Hanover School. The most impor-

Carl Schdfer, p. 46. tant include Peter Eilitz, “Leben und Werk des 70. Ungewitter, Land- und Stadtkirchen, plates Konig]. Hannoverschen Baurats Edwin Oppler,”

9-11; Schuchard, Carl Schdfer, p. 47. Hannoversche Geschichtsbldtter 25 (1971) pp. 127-310; Doris Boker, Neugotik auf dem Lande:

Chapter 8 Das Werk des Kasseler Konsistorialbaumeisters

1. “Er hat mehr den germanischen als den Gustav Schonermark (1854-1910), no. 6 (Hanover: franzdsischen Typus, spricht weder brillant noch Schriften des Instituts fiir Bau- und Kunstgeschichte hinreissend, sondern durchweg ruhig aber sehr be- der Universitat Hannover, 1985); J6rm Bahns, stimmt.” Reichensperger, “Aus meinem Tagebuch,” Johannes Otzen (1839-— 19/1) (Munich: Prestel,

transcription of diary entry, June 29, 1860; LHK 1971); Hans Reuther, “Die Sakralbauten von

700.138, 54. Christoph Hehl,” Niederdeutsche Beitrdge zur 2. Letter, Beresford-Hope to Reichensperger, Kunstgeschichte 8 (1969), pp. 211-64; Karl-Heinz July 1863, in Beresford-Hope, Some Impressions of Barth, “Gotthilf Ludwig Méckel: Leben und Werk”

a Private Member, p. 15. (Ph.D. diss., Martin Luther Universitat, Halle-Wit3. “Vor Alters miissten sich . . . die Thiiren und tenberg, 1984).

Fenster in Zahl, Grdsse, Gestalt und Anordnung 10. The principal source for the Hanover School nach dem Innern, nach dem Bediirfnis des Bewohn- _is the collection of designs published as Die ers, nach der Form und dem Zweck der Zimmer und — Architektur der Hannoverschen Schule: Moderne

sonstigen Réumlichkeiten richten ... Durch sinn- Werke der Baukunst und des Kunstgewerbes in mitreich angeordntete, in geometrischen Formen con- telalterlichem Stil, Gustav Sch6nermark, ed.

struirte Vorkragungen traten die Erker an den (Hanover, 1888-95). Aussenwanden der Hauser hervor.” Reichensperger, 11. Unger, Hannover, pp. 116-21. “Ueber den Bau der heutigen Wohnungen” (1846); 12. An essential starting point for a review of reprinted in Romberg, ed., Zeitschrift fiir praktische the Hanover School is Unger, Hannover, pp.

Baukunst 12 (1852): pp. 197, 200. 107-62. Eberhard Hillebrand was the architect who 4. “Gar Manches beruht natiirlich auf Conjectur; | completed the publication of Ungewitter’s Landder Sachkenner wird aber leicht wahrnehmen, dass und Stadtkirchen in 1866. Names of other promidie tiefere, aus den allgemeinen Bildungsgesetzen nent Hanover architects who had worked with der Gothik sich ergebende Unterlage darum doch Ungewitter (and later in Edwin Oppler’s atelier) niemals fehlt.”” Reichensperger, introduction to Vin- included Rath and Bosser (see Unger, Hannover, pp. cenz Statz, Mittelalterliche Bauwerke nach Merian 148-50). Ungewitter’s furniture design was also

(Leipzig: Weigel, 1856-57), p. 17. important and was openly drawn upon by Oppler in 5. “Unsere Baubeflissenen moégen hier an den his journal Die Kunst im Gewerbe (Hanover: Waldern von Thiirmen und Monumenten aller Art, Architekten- und Ingenieurenverein zu Hannover, an dieser Ueberfiille der malerischten Baugruppen, 1872-78).

an diesen so phantastischen und doch immer so 13. “Gelungene Privatbauten von Oppeler

290

Notes to pages 216-226

[sic].” Reichensperger, diary entry, February 20, Hammer-Schenk, ed., Architektur, Kunsttheorie und

1871, transcription of missing volume, LHK Kunstgeschichte des 19. Jahrhunderts, vol. 2

700.138. (Stuttgart: Reclam, 1985), pp. 331-37. Oscar Moth14. “Die Winkel und Ecken der Hannoverschen es’s incorrigible revision of the text is indispensVilla, die Ausbildung von Giebeln und Erkern, von able; Mothes, Handbuch, pp. 318-20.

Tiirmen und offenen Hallen, die wohnlich 24. Mothes, Handbuch, p. 277. See also “Leins, unregelmassige Gestaltung der Raume, das Ineinan- — Christian,” in Ulrich Thieme and Felix Becker, Allderverschieben verschidenartiger Gelasse, die Aus- gemeines Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler (Leipzig: bildung des Daches zu einem wesentlichem Teil des § Engelmann, and Leipzig: E. A. Seaman, 1907-50).

Gebdudes, die Beweglichkeit in der ganzen Anord- 25. The three sculptors included the leading nung von Aufriss und Grundriss ist in Hannover sculptor of the Cologne Bauhiitte during the 1860s, zuerst zu voller Entwickelung gekommen.” Cor- Christian Mohr (1823-1888), as well as Peter Fuchs nelius Gurlitt, Die deutsche Kunst des neunzehnten and Edmund Renard. See Hans-Josef Boker, “Die Jahrhunderts: Ihre Ziele und Thaten (Berlin: G. Portalskulpturen der Christuskirche in Hannover,” Bondi, 1899), p. 456. Cited in Doris Boker, Neu- Niederdeutsche Beitrdige zur Kunstgeschichte 24

gotik auf dem Lande, p. 246. (1986): pp. 185-200. Reichensperger also put 15. Hase organized the Hanover Bavhiitte in Beresford-Hope in touch with Fuchs. See Beres1860, just as he was designing his own house and ford-Hope, Some Impressions of a Private Member, beginning construction of the Christuskirche there. p. 14.

Among the founding members were the Hanover 26. The Eisenach Regulativ is reprinted in Hamarchitects Franz Andreas Meyer (1837-1901), Wil- mer-Schenk, ed., Architecktur, pp. 331ff. Kokkelink

helm Hauers (1836-1905), and Wilhelm Liier has suggested that Reichensperger played an indi(1834-70). This lodge was reconstituted in 1880 as rect role in the drafting of it. Previously, the importhe Bauhiitte zum weissen Blatt, under which name tance of his ideas for the conference had been it 1s still active today. See Kokkelink, “Die Entste- consistently slighted in the literature. It now seems hung der Bauhiitte und ihre Ziele,” in Geschichte likely that this neglect began in the 1890s and that it und Architektur der Bauhiitte Hannover, pp. 9-17. was to some extent deliberate: when Karl E. O. 16. “Sein Fanatismus geht so weit, dass er mit Fritsch drafted his monumental Kirchenbauten des

gothischen Messern u. Gabeln essen méchte.” Protestantismus (Berlin: Toeche, 1893), he virtually Reichensperger diary entry, November 16, 1862, ignored any influence whatsoever by Reichenspergtranscription of missing volume, LHK 700.138. er on Protestant church building. Although a critical 17. See Heinrich Langwerth-Simmern, Aus der and indispensable work, the book was written while Mappe eines verstorbenen Freundes: Friedrich von its author was embroiled in a personal feud with Klinggrdaff (Berlin: Behr, 1891) and Reichensperg- Reichensperger. As such, Fritsch was an unfortunate er’s review of this book in the Beilage zur Allge- choice to bear witness to Reichensperger’s role. For meinen Zeitung (Munich), no. 15 January 19, Fritsch’s feud with Reichensperger see chapter nine,

1892). below.

18. See Holborn, History of Modern Germany, 27. “The best basic form . . . is the longitudinal

pp. 137-44; 485-88. rectangle with a projecting chancel to the east.” 19. Carl Koopmann, Der evangelische Cultus Reichensperger 1855, p. 29. “The basic form of und die evangelische Kunst (Darmstadt: Leske, church most appropriate to Protestant worship is a

1855). longitudinal rectangle. An eastern projection for the 20. Mothes, Handbuch des evangelisch- altar area and, in the eastern parts of the longer

christlichen Kirchenbaues (Leipzig: Tauchnitz, sides, for a northern and southern transept, gives a

1898), pp. 184-85. meaningful cruciform arrangement to the building.” 21. Christliches Kunstblatt (1861), p. 38. Also Eisenach Regulativ, no. 2, cited in Hammer-Schenk,

see Mothes, Handbuch, p. 188. p. 331.

22. Christliches Kunstblatt (1861), p. 38. Also 28. “The main entrance of the building belongs

see Mothes, p. 189. in the west front. ... According to the principles of 23. “Die Wiirde fordert Anschluss an einer der Christian architecural style, the towers should be an geschichtlich entwickelten christlichen Baustyle organically developed system of piers.” Reichenund empfiehlt in der Grundform des langlichen sperger 1855, pp. 29-30. “[The tower stands] in an Vierecks neben der altchristlichen Basilika und der organic union with the church .. . above the western sogenannten romanischen Bauart, vorzugsweise den main entrance,” Eisenach Regulativ, no. 6, cited in

sogenannten germanischen Baustyl.” “Ueber ein Hammer-Schenk, p. 334. Regulativ fiir evangelischen Kirchenbau,” in Harold 29. Friedrich August Stiiler, ed., Entwiirfe zu

291

Notes to pages 227-246

Kirchen, Pfarr- und Schulhdusern, Konigliche AQ. Ibid., p. 127.

Riegel, 1846). 28-41.

Preussische Oberbaudeputation (Berlin: Ferdinand 41. Planner-Steiner, Friedrich von Schmidt, pp.

30. See Fritsch, Kirchenbauten, p. 241; Muthe- 42. “Denn das muss ich mir gestehen, ein in rein

sius, Englische Vorbild, pp. 38-39. deutsch-gotischem Stile durchgefiihrter Entwurf ist 31. The chief points of Stiiler’s critique of the hier absolut unméglich durchzusetzen. Wie ich Eisenach Regulativ are summarized in Fritsch, Ihnen schon mittheilte, habe ich mich daher der

Kirchenbauten, pp. 241-42. lombardisch-florentinischen Richtung mit ruhiger 32. August Reichensperger diary entries, August | Fassadenbildung angeschlossen und nur in den 13, 1860, March 30, March 31, 1867, transcription Thiirmen und namentlich in der Ausstattung der

of missing volume, LHK 700.138. inneren Raéume, welche von der modernen Umge33. Letter, Reichensperger to Wiethase, Septem- —_— bung ganz abgeschlossen sind, méglichst der Kunst

ber 18, 1864, Wiethase Collection (mistakenly filed des XII Jahrhunderts mich angeschlossen.” Letter, under “‘A. Z.”’), Historisches Archiv der Stadt Koln, Schmidt to Reichensperger, July 1, 1869, reprinted

1108. in Reichensperger, “Zur Charakterisirung des 34. Reichensperger 1866, p. 158. Baumeisters von Schmidt,” p. 128.

35. Ulrike Planner-Steiner, Friedrich von 43. “Die Unterhaltung drehte sich fast nur um Schmidt (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978), pp. 15-18. Kunst und Politik. Scott pries begeistert die Kathe36. “Wie beispielweise in Hamburg, wo der drale von Lincoln als die schénste in ganz Engprachtvolle Rathhausbauplan von Gilbert Scott erst land.” Pastor, vol. 1, p. 590. gekront und dann—zu den Akten gelegt ward, oder 44. “Die kirchliche Kunst muss wieder in die gar wie in Berlin, wo der hochweise Stadtrath, Katakomben zurtick, um wieder zu kirchlichem anstatt des gleichfalls gekronten Rathhausbauplanes — Ernst zu gelangen.” Cited in Pastor, vol.1, p. 591. von Friedrich Schmidt. . . einen anderen zur Aus-

fiihrung liess.” Reichensperger 1865, pp. 18ff. Also Chapter 9 see Reichensperger, “Progress in Germany,” Eccle- 1. “Vergotterung des Erfolgs.”’ Reichensperger,

siologist 23, no. 140 (1862): p. 147. diary entry, September 18, 1866, transcript of lost 37. Planner-Steiner, Friedrich von Schmidt, pp. diary, LHK, n.n.

15-18. 2. “In Summa ein Ungliicksjahr, welches den 38. See Reichensperger, “Die Augsburger Wunsch nach stiller Zurlickgezogenheit immer Zeitung liber den Miinchener Rathausbau,” in mehr in mir gesteigert hat. Meine Zeit ist vortiber. Reichensperger 1867, pp. 86-91. For Hauberrisser, Vor acht Tagen sprach mich der Landrath v. Loe aus seeThieme and Becker, Al/gemeines Lexikon. Also Cleve darauf an, mich zum norddeutschen Parlasee letter, Reichensperger to Didron, March 1869, ment wdhlen zu lassen. Ohne alles Schwanken habe Annales archéologiques 16 (1869): pp. 132-33. ich abgelehnt. KGnnte ich nur auch der Juristerei 39. “Da bitte ich Sie nun, iiberzeugt zu sein, wie der Politik absagen! Nur die Kunst hat noch dass ich gerade das wunderbare Verhdltniss der Reiz fiir mich, aber verbittert durch den Gedanken Kirche und ihrer Dogmen zur Gesetzlichkeit in der an meine Amtspflicht, deren Erfiillung mir sauer Kunst als parallel ansehe. Ihnen dies ausdriicklich wird.” Pastor, vol.1, p. 586.

zu sagen, halte ich fiir nothwending, denn es will 3. “Der zweite Act des 1866 begonnen Schickmich bedtinken, als vermutheten Sie in meiner saldramas von ‘Blut und Eisen.’ Wie wird es enden? Thatigkeit ein leises Hinneigen zu anderen Prinzipi- | Gott schtitze Deutschland!” Reichensperger, diary en. Allerdings legt mir meine ganze hiesige Leben- entry, July 18, 1870, cited in Pastor, vol. 2, p. 603.

stellung ein anderes Verhalten auf, als ich am Rhein 4. Pastor, vol. 2, pp. 3-10.

an den Tag legen kOnnte.—Ich bitte noch zu 5. “In Hannover ein kurzer Halt gemacht. Diner bedenken, dass ich ausser Sr. Eminenz hier keinen bei Windthorst. Abends bei Frau Detmold. Gelunmachtigen Beschiitzer, in einem grossen Theil der gene Privatbauten von Oppeler [sic]. Den Baurath

Gesitlichkeit, gerade wegen meiner strengen Hase besucht, welcher sehr niedergeschlagen tiber Anschauungen tiber kirchliche Kunst, heftige Geg- den von der Berliner Oberbaudeputation komner habe, dass mir hier kein einziger literarischer menden Wind ist. Dieselbe duldet nur Kasernen-

Freund zu Seite steht.” Letter, Schmidt to stil.”” Reichensperger, diary entry, February 20, Reichensperger, January 24, 1868, reprinted in 1871, cited in Pastor, Tagebiicher, vol. 2, p. 14, but

Reichensperger, “Zur Charakterisirung des cf. original transcriptions, LHK, n.n. Baumeisters Friedrich Freiherrn von Schmidt,” 6. The principal history of the Reichstag buildZeitschrift fiir christliche Kunst, no. 4 (1891): pp. ing is the excellent and offbeat work by Michael S.

126-27. Cullen, Der Reichstag: Geschichte eines Monu-

292

Notes to pages 246-252

mentes (Miinsterschwarzach: Frohlich und Kauf- Miinchen, no. 91, 1979).

mann, 1983). 12. “Nur ein einziger Aesthetiker ... befinde 7. Borsch-Supan, Berliner Baukunst nach sich unter den Reichstagmdnnern: der durch seinen

Schinkel, pp. 138, 140, 802, 807-8. For the com- Fanatismus fiir die Gothik bekannte ultramontane plete program and site plan see the Zeitschrift fiir Herr A. Reichensperger.” Cited in Reichensperger, Bauwesen 8 (1858): pp. 518-22. A second competi- “Die Parlamentshaus-Concurrenz betreffend,” Kéltion was held in the late 1860s, in the course of the nische Volkszeitung (January 5, 1872). monthly student competitions at the Bauakademie. 13. Ibid. See also Deutsche Bauzeitung 4 Here the winner was Franz Schwechten, who later (1870), no. 25.

achieved prominence as the architect of the 14. Scott’s entry is reproduced, with a plan and Romanesque Gedachtniskirche, which in ruined perspective, and discussed in the Deutsche form long served as the principal urban monument Bauzeitung 6, no. 25 (June 20, 1872), p. 205; no. 26

of Cold War West Berlin. (June 27, 1872), pp. 212-14; no. 31 (August 1, 8. “Ich glaube versichern zu kOnnen, dass die 1872), p. 258. Kunstwelt mir beipflichten wird, dass namentlich 15. Cullen, Der Reichstag, pp. 92-95. auf dem Gebiet der Architektur ein Zustand der 16. Karl E. O. Fritsch, “Die Konkurrenz fiir Schwankung, der Gahrung, der stylistischen Entwiirfe zum Hause des Deutschen Reichstages,” Ungewissheit dermalen obwaltet und dass wir Deutsche Bauzeitung 6, no. 18 (May 2, 1872), pp. voraussichtlich noch manches Jahr nothig haben, 140ff. Fritsch’s ongoing review of the competition bevor diese Gahrung sich geklart haben wird... In was continued in the pages of the Bauzeitung Frankreich und England ist gewissermassen schon throughout the summer. The final number appeared

ein Styl zum Durchbruch gekommen und zwar on August 8, 1872. namentlich in England eben durch den Bau des dor- 17. “Ein Skandalosum ... wie es in der uns tigen Parlamentshauses ... Bei uns aber stehen sich __ gelaufigen Geschichte deutscher Konkurrenzen die asthetischen Parteien noch schroff und streitfer- bisher noch nicht dagewesen ist.” Ibid, no. 24 (June

tig einander gegentiber, und an einen Austrag ist 13, 1872), p. 200. wohl zunachst noch nicht zu denken, obgleich theo- 18. Fritsch kept on shooting even after his target retisch derjenige Style, der meines Erachtens allein was dead. In his 1878 obituary for Scott he was still

fiir ein Parlamentshaus eines deutschen Staates shaking his head over the awkward planning of the angemessen ware, der mittelalterliche namlich, Reichstag entry. Reichensperger was angered at this schon so ziemlich gesiegt hat.” Reichensperger final slap at Scott, and he kept in the portfolio of

1863, pp. 82-83. materials about his friend a copy of the obituary, in 9. Ibid., pp. 83-85. Also see Reichensperger, which he circled this reference in red and labeled it Ein Riickblick auf die letzten Sessionen des preussi- gemein, that is, “low,” or “vulgar.” LHK 700.138.

schen Abgeordnetenhauses, vol. 1 (Paderborn: 19. See Reichensperger, “Ein Parlamentshaus

Schoéningh, 1864), pp. 56-57. fiir das deutsche Reich,” Bayreuther Blatter 5 10. See Pastor, vol. 2, pp. 246-47. Pastor’s bib- (1882): pp. 57-58. liography of Reichensperger provides a partial list 20. “Warum, so werden Sie fragen, haben Sie of his newspaper articles about the Reichstag. denn das Reichstaggebdude nicht im romanischen Among them appeared the following: “Das Parla- Stil gebaut, wenn Ihnen derselbe so sehr gefallt! Ja, mentshaus der Zukunft betreffend,’ Germania (June —_ da haben Sie ganz recht. Aber diese Frage hangt

3, 1871); “Ueber das neue Parlamentshaus,” Kol- zusammen mit dem Entwicklungsgang eines nische Volkszeitung (December 18, 1871); “La Architekten der modernen Zeit. Ein junger Mensch physionomie de la nouvelle Chambre des députés kommt auf irgend eine der grossen modernen en Prusse,” Revue générale [Brussels] 1 (1871): pp. Lehranstalten und wird .. . zunachst das zu Eigen

27-32, 461-65; “Die Parlaments-Concurrenz machen, was auf dieser Schule geboten wird. Mit betreffend,” Kdlnische Volkszeitung (January 5, der auf diese Weise belangten ganz bestimmt abge1872); “Ueber den Parlamentsbau,” Germania (June — grenzten Formensprache betheiligte er sich dann

25, 1873); and “Das projektierte Parlamentshaus vielleicht erfolgreich an einem grossen Wettbe-

betreffend,” Germania (March 3, 1872). werb...’’ Letter, Wallot to Reichensperger, May 11. Cullen, in Der Reichstag, provides sketches 24, 1894, LHK 700.138, 16. The Berlin Reichstag,

of the jurors. Gottfried von Neureuther was the long pushed to the lifeless center of a divided architect of the Munich Polytechnikum. See Florian Berlin, has again become a sensitive beacon of GerHufnagl, Gottfried von Neureuther (1811-1887): man nationalism as well as a focus for the debate Leben und Werk (Ph.D. diss., University of Munich, — over the character and form of German nationhood

1976; Neue Schriftenreihe des Stadtarchivs in the future. Go and see it.

293

Notes to pages 252-265

21. “Kunstgerecht.” Pastor, vol. 2, p. 25. 35. Reichensperger, “Der Ursprung der Gothik 22. This important series of debates was first und deren Verhaltnis zum romanischen Stil betr.,” discovered and discussed by Harold Hammer- Zeitschrift fiir christliche Kunst 4, no. 8 (1891): pp. Schenk. See Hammer-Schenk, ed., Architektur, pp. 259-62. The Romanesque Revival of the late nine-

63-77. teenth century is discussed in Barbara Miller Lane, 23. Hase Nachlass, Hannover Stadtarchiv, no. “National Romanticism in Modern German Archi445: 67. tecture,” in Richard Etlin, ed., Nationalism in the 24. “Die Gothik ... ist, mit einem Wort, wenn Visual Arts (Washington, D.C., and Cambridge, griindlich verstanden und richtig gehandhabt, die Mass.: National Gallery of Art and MIT Press, Baukunst der Zweckmiassigkeit und des gesunden 1991), pp. 111-47.

Menschenverstandes.” Hammer-Schenk, ed., 36. “Dass also der gothische Stil als ein german-

Architektur, p. 69. ischer Stil bezeichnet werden kann, das unter25. “Da bauen wir also in Stadten, die einen schreibe ich... [aber] die Architektur... der

iliberwiegend gothischen Charakter haben, gothische —Antike steht den italienischen Siidlanden niaher, als

Gebdude.” Ibid., p. 76. unseren nordischen. Das Land, das Klima, der 26. Franz Schmidt, August Reichensperger, pp. Volkscharakter sind m&chtiger, hinsichtlich der 55-57. Also see Peter Reichensperger, Kulturkampf; | Kunstauffassung, als die Formen eines religiésen oder Friede im Staat und Kirche (Berlin: Springer, Cultus. [Trotz der] Wandlungen, welche das Chris-

1876). A valuable study in English of one of tenthum in diesen Landern hervorgebracht Reichensperger’s principal Zentrumspartei allies hat... der Volkscharakter ist geblieben. Welcher during the crisis is Margaret Lavinia Anderson, Unterschied zwischen einem Haus in Bagdad, Windthorst (1812-1891): A Political Biography Smyrna, Cordova, Catania, ja selbst Neapel, u. (Oxford, England: Clarenden Press, 1981). einem Haus im Norden!” Letter, Wallot to 27. “Man entliess mich als ob ich silberne LOf- Reichensperger, May 24, 1890, LHK 700.138, 16.

fel gestohlen hatte.” Pastor, vol. 2, p. 144-45. 37. “Insbesondere theilen Sie nicht meine

28. Pastor, vol. 2, pp. 181-90. Ansicht, dass das Grundwesen der Gothik, wenn 29. Pastor, vol. 2, p. 266. richtig verstanden und gehandhabt, den christlichen 30. The 1880 Kolner Domblatt contains the Volkern aller Lander und Zeiten sich bestens minutes of these awkward Vorstandsitzungen, faith- anpasst, besser als irgend ein anderer Stil.” Letter, fully reproducing the handwritten notes of these Reichensperger to Wallot, May 29, 1890, LHK meetings, in the Dombauverein archives (Acta; 700.138, 16. Reichensperger went on to cite Gothic

Registratur des Central-Dombauvereins). examples from virtually the whole of Europe and 31. “Die Vollendung des Domes . . . war der the Mediterranean, including Majorca, Cyprus,

Traum meiner Jugend; wie schmerzlich ich es Hungary, and Palestine. empfinde, dieselbe nicht mitfeiern zu k6nnen 38. “Die besondere Gabe unseres Jahrhunderts, brauch ich wohl nicht erst zu sagen.” Pastor, vol. 2, von sich abstrahiren und mit anderen sich identifi-

p. 267. ciren zu kdénnen, steht in einem engen Causalzusam32. “Ich verbrachte die Festlichkeitstage ganz menhange mit seiner Unfruchtbarkeit.” still bei der Familie Fievet in Gudenau. Clementine Reichensperger 1856, p. 524.

verliess das Haus nicht, dispensirte sich auch vom 39. Reichensperger, Zur Profan-Architektur: Mit Flaggen und Illuminieren, wie mit ihr viele glauben- = besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Erweiterung der streue Katholiken. Ich bin von Herzen froh, dass ich Stadt Kéln (Cologne: Bachem, 1886).

mich schlechthin von allem fernhalten konnte. Der AQ. Letter, Wallot to Reichensperger, February Rausch geht voriiber, der Dom bleibt.” Citedin Pas- 4, 1895, LHK 700.138, 16. tor, vol. 2, p. 268. 33. William Shakespeare, insbesondere sein Verhdltnis zum Mittelalter und zur Gegenwart, Zeitgemasse Broschiren, vol. 7, nos. 9-10 (Miinster: Russell, 1871); Die Bauhiitten des Mittelalters (Cologne: Bachem, 1879); Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin: Der Neubegriinder der christlichen Baukunst in England, Sammlung historischer Bildnisse, 3d ser. (Freiburg: Herder, 1877). 34. “Wunderbare Erzeugnisse unserer Gegenwart.” Reichensperger diary entry, April 1878, p. 163. LHK 700.138, 81.

BLANK PAGE

Bibliography

Allgemeinen Bauzeitung. Vienna, 1836-95. Borger, Hugo, ed. Der Kélner Dom im Jahrhundert

Annales archéologiques. Paris, 1844-81. seiner Vollendung. 3 vols. Cologne: Museen der Bahns, Johrn. Johannes Otzen (1539-1911). Stadt K6In, 1980.

Munich: Prestel, 1971. Borsch-Supan, Eva. Berliner Baukunst nach Barth, Karl-Heinz. “Gotthilf Ludwig Méckel: Schinkel, 184¢0—1870. Munich: Prestel, 1977. Leben und Werk.” Ph.D. diss., Martin-Luther Botticher, Carl. Die Holzarchitektur des Mittelal-

Universitat, Halle-Wittenberg, 1984. ters. Berlin: Schenck & Gerstécker, 1837-42. Beck, Friedrich. Andeutungen zu einer tieferen Brandt, Heinz-Jiirgen. Das Hamburger Rathaus.

Begriindung der Geschichte der religidsen Hamburg: Broschek, 1957. Kunst. Edited by the Gesellschaft fiir deutsche Bremen und seine Bauten. Edited by the Bremen

1834. Schiinemann, 1990.

Alterthumskunde zu Miinchen. Munich: Cotta, Architekten- und Ingenieurverein. Bremen: Carl

— Geschichte eines deutschen Steinmetzes. Brix, Michael. Niirnberg und Liibeck im 19.

Edited by the Gesellschaft fiir deutsche Jahrhundert. Munich: Prestel, 1981. Alterthumskunde zu Miinchen. Munich: Cotta, Brownlee, David B. The Law Courts: The Architec-

1834. ture of George Edmund Street. New York and

Bergstrasser, Ludwig, ed. Der politische Katholizis- Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1984. mus: Dokumente seiner Entwicklung. 2 vols. Buchheim, Karl. Geschichte der Kélnischen Munich: Drei Masken Verlag, 1921-23. Reprint Zeitung, ihrer Besitzer und Mitarbeiter. Vol. 2 (2 vols. in 1), Hildesheim and New York: Georg (1831-50). Cologne: Bachem, 1930.

Olms Verlag, 1976. ———.. Ultramontanismus und Demokratie: Der Berlin und seine Bauten. 2 vols. Edited by the Weg der deutschen Katholiken im 19. JahrhunArchitekten- und Ingenieurverein zu Berlin. dert. Munich: K6sel, 1963.

Berlin: W. Ernst und Sohn, 1896. Biilau, Theodor. Das Haus der patriotischen Boeck, Urs. “Karl Alexander Heideloff.” Mitteilun- Gesellschaft in Hamburg oder Einiges iiber gen des Vereins fiir Geschichte der Stadt Niirn- einen Neubau. Hamburg: Nobiling, 1849.

berg 48 (1958): pp. 314-90. Christliches Kunstblatt. Stuttgart, 1858ff. Boisseree, Sulpiz. Ansichten, Risse und einzelne Clemens, Paul. 1937. Der Dom zu Koln. Diisseldorf:

Thiele des Doms von Koln. Stuttgart: Cotta, Schwann, 1937. Photographic reprint, 1980.

1821. Cole, David. The Work of George Gilbert Scott.

———. Sulpiz Boisseree: Briefwechsel, London: Architectural Press, 1980. Tagebiicher. Stuttgart: Cotta, 1862. Conzemius, Viktor, ed. Die Briefe Aulikes an ———.. Tagebiicher. 4 vols. Edited by Hans-J. Dollinger. Rome, Freiburg, and Vienna: Herder,

Wietz. Darmstadt: Eduard Roether, 1978-85. 1968. Boker, Doris. Neugotik auf dem Lande: Das Werk Cullen, Michael. Der Reichstag: Geschichte eines

des Kasseler Konsistorialbaumeisters Gustav Monumentes. Miinsterschwarzach: Frohlich und Schonermark. Hanover: Schriften des Instituts Kaufmann, 1983. fiir Bau- und Kunstgeschichte der Universitat Deutsche Bauzeitung. Berlin, 1867ff.

Hannover, no. 6, 1985. Deutsches Kunstblatt. Leipzig, 1850-58. Boker, Hans-Joseph. “Die Portalskulpturen der Eggert, Klaus. “Friedrich von Gaertner.” Neue Christuskirche in Hannover.” Niederdeutsche Schriftreihe des Stadtarchivs. Vol. 15. Munich:

Beitrdge zur Kunstgeschichte 24 (1986): pp. Verlag des Stadtarchivs Miinchen, 1963.

185-200. Eilitz, Peter. “Leben und Werk des k6nig]. Han-

296

August Reichensperger

noverschen Baurats Edwin Oppler.” Hannover- bis zum Ende der franzosichen Zeit, 1688-1814. sche Geschichtsbldatter 25 (1971): pp. 127-310. Geschichte des Erzbistums KGln ser., vol. 4.

Essenwein, August Ottmar von. Norddeutschlands Cologne: Bachem, 1979. Backsteinbau im Mittelalter. Karlsruhe: Veith, Heideloff, Carl Alexander. Architektonische

1855. Entwiirfe und ausgefiihrte Bauten im byzantin-

Faulwasser, Julius. Der grosse Brand und der ischen und altdeutschen Styl von Carl Heideloff. Wiederaufbau von Hamburg. Hamburg: Otto Nuremberg: Vaterlandischer Bau- und Ge-

Meissner, 1892. werkverein, 1850-53.

———. Die St. Nikolai-Kirche in Hamburg. Ham- ——. Die Bauhiitten des Mittelalters in Deutsch-

burg: Boysen & Maasch, 1926. land. Nuremberg: Stein, 1844. Forssman, Erik. Karl Friedrich Schinkel: Bauwerke Heideloff, Carl Alexander, and Georg Neumann.

und Baugedanken. Munich and Zurich: Schnell Der christliche Altar archdologisch und artis-

und Steiner, 1981. tisch dargestellt. Nuremberg: Riegel und WiessFritsch, Karl E. O. Kirchenbauten des Protes- ner, 1838. tantismus. Berlin: Toeche, 1893. Heinrich Hiibsch 1795-1863. Exh. cat., Karlsruhe, Frolich, Marie, and Hans-Giinther Sperlich. Georg Prinz-Max-Palais. Wulf Schirmer, Hanno Moller: Baumeister der Romantik. Darmstadt: Brockhoff, and Werner Schnuchel, eds. Karls-

Eduard Roether, 1959. ruhe: C. F. Miiller, 1983.

Gall, Ernst. Niederrheinische und normdnnische Hoeltje, Georg. Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves.

Architektur im Zeitalter der Friihgotik. Berlin: Hanover: Steinbock, 1964.

Reimer, 1915. Hoffstadt, Friedrich. Gothisches A.B.C.-Buch.

Germann, Georg. The Gothic Revival: Sources, Frankfurt: Schmerber, 1840. Influences, and Ideas. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Holborn, Hajo. A History of Modern Germany. 4

Press, 1973. vols. New York: Knopf, 1959-69.

Gilchrist, Agnes Addison. Romanticism and the Hoémig, Herbert. Rheinische Katholiken und Lib-

Gothic Revival. New York: R. Smith, 1938. erale. Cologne: Wienand, 1971. Gorres, Joseph. Der Dom von Céln und das Miinster — Hiibsch, Heinrich. Bauwerke von Heinrich Hiibsch.

von Strasburg. Regensburg: Manz, 1842. Karlsruhe and Baden: D. R. Marx, 1838. ——. Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by the Gor- ——. In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? Karls-

res-Gesellschaft. Cologne: Bachem, 1926-36. ruhe: C. F. Miller, 1828. Greven, Helio A. “Leben und Werk des Hof- Jericke, Alfred, and Dieter Dolgner. Der Klassizisbaumeisters Christian Heinrich Tramm.” Han- mus in der Baugeschichte Weimars. Weimar: noversche Geschichtsblatter 23, no. 34 (1969): Bolau, 1975.

pp. 149-268. Johann Anton Ramboux: Maler und Konservator, Grueber, Berhard. Vergleichende Sammlung fiir 1790-1866. Exh. cat. Cologne: Walraf-Richartz

christliche Kunst. Augsburg: V. Zanna, Museum, 1967.

1839-41. Kassal-Mikula, Renata. Heinrich von Ferstel

Gurlitt, Cornelius. Die deutsche Kunst des neun- (1828-1883): Bauten und Projekte fiir Wien. zehnten Jahrhunderts: Ihre Ziele und Thaten. Exh. cat. Vienna: Historisches Museum der

Berlin: G. Bondi, 1899. Stadt Wien, 1983.

Hallmann, Anton. Kunstbestrebung der Gegenwart. Kimpel, Sabine. “Der Maler-Architekt Anton Hall-

Berlin: Buchhandlung des Berliner Lesecabi- mann (1812—1845).” Ph.D. diss., University of

nets, 1842. Munich, 1974.

Hammer-Schenck, Harold, ed. Architketur. Kunst- Kokkelink, Giinther. “Die Neugotik Conrad Wil-

1985. 1-211.

theorie und Kunstgeschichte des 19. Jahrhun- helm Hases: eine Spielform des Historismus.” derts in Deutschland, vol. 2. Stuttgart: Reclam, Hannoversche Geschichtsblatter 22 (1968): pp. Hammer-Schenk, Harold, and Giinther Kokkelink, Koopmann, Carl. Der evangelische Cultus und die eds. Vom Schloss zum Bahnhof: Bauen in Han- evangelische Kunst. Darmstadt: Leske, 1855. nover. Exh. cat., Hanover, Historisches Muse- Kopp, Ernst. Beitrag zur Darstellung eines reinen

um. Hanover: Institut fiir Bau- und einfachen Baustyles. 16 fascicles. Erfurt: J. G.

Kunstgeschichte, 1988. Kramer, 1837; Stuttgart: Weise und Stoppani, Hederer, Oswald. Friedrich von Gartner, 1839-40; Jena: Weise und Stoppani, 1845-50;

1792-1847. Munich: Prestel, 1976. Jena: J. G. Schreiber, 1851. Hegel, Eduard. Das Erzbistum Koln zwischen ——. Beitrag zur Konstruktion der altdeutschen Barock und Aufkldrung vom pfdlzischen Krieg Bauart. Erfurt: J. G. Kramer, 1831-34.

297

Bibliography

Kranz-Michaelis, Charlotte. Rathduser im ——. Leben des Freiherrn Max von Gagern deutschen Kaiserreich. Munich: Prestel, 1976. 18J0—1589. Kemple and Munich: Kosel, 1912. Kreuser, Johannes. Der christliche Kirchenbau. 2 ———. Ludwig Freiherr von Pastor 1854-1928:

vols. Bonn: Henry & Cohen, 1851. Tagebiicher—Briefe-Errinnerungen. Wilbelm Kugler, Franz, et al. Geschichte der Baukunst. 5 Wiihr, ed. Heidelberg: Kerle, 1950. vols. Stuttgart: Ebner & Seubert, 1856-73. Planner-Steiner, Ulrike. Friedrich von Schmidt. Lange, Giinther. Alexis de Chateauneuf. Hamburg: Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1978.

Weltarchiv Verlag, 1965. Popp, Justus, and Theodor Biilau. Die Architektur Lange, Ludwig. Werke der héheren Baukunst fiir die des Mittelalters in Regensburg. 9 vols. Nurem-

Ausfiihrung entworfen und dargestellt. 16 vols. berg: Sebald, 1834-39.

Darmstadt: Gustav Lange, 1846-61. Pugin, Augustus Welby Northmore. Contrasts; or, A Levita, Jules. De la réforme hypothécaire en France Parallel between the noble edifices of the four-

et en Prusse. Paris: Videcog fils 4iné, 1852. teenth and fifteenth centuries and similar build-

Liessem, Udo. “Bemerkungen zu August ings of the present day, shewing the present Reichensperger auf dem Gebiete der Kunst.” In decay of taste. St. Marie’s Grange, England:

Liessem et al., August Reichensperger Printed by the author, 1836. (1808-1895) und die Kunst des 19. Jahrhun- ——.. The True Principles of Pointed or Christian

derts. Companion vol. to Theuerkauf, ed. Architecture. London: Weale, 1841. Koblenz: Stadtarchiv/Stadtbibliothek, 1985, pp. Rave, Paul Ortwin and Margarete Ktihn, eds. Karl

55-114. Friedrich Schinkel Lebenswerk. 14 vols. AddiLill, Rudolf. Die Beilegung der Kolner Wirren, tional volumes forthcoming. Berlin: Deutscher

1840—1842. Diisseldorf: Schwann, 1962. Verlag, 1939ff. Lohr, Siegfried. ““Planungen und Bauten des Kassel- —- Reichensperger, August. Allerlei aus dem Kunstge-

er Baumeisters Julius Eugen Ruhl, 1796-1871.” biete. Brixen: A. Weger, 1867. In Kunst in Hessen und am Mittelrhein, no. 23. —_—. L’art gothique au XIX° siécle [Die

Darmstadt: Hessisches Landesmuseum, 1984. christlich-germanische Baukunst]. Translated by

Liibke, Wilhelm. Carl Schnaase: Eine biogra- Camille Nothomb. Brussels: Devaux, !867. phische Skizze. Stuttgart: Ebner & Seubert, ———. Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin: Der

1879. Neubegriinder der christlichen Baukunst in Eng-

——. Lebenserinnerungen. Berlin: F. Fontane, land. Sammlung historischer Bildnisse, 3d ser.,

1893. no. 10. Freiburg: Herder, 1877.

Madsen, Stephan Tschudi. The Works of Alexis de ———. Die Bauhiitten des Mittelalters. Cologne:

Chateauneuf in London and Oslo. Oslo: For- Bachem, 1879. tidsminnesmerkers Bevaring, 1965. ——. Beleuchtung der Schrift: Andeutungen iiber Mann, Albrecht. Die Neuromanik. Cologne: Greven, den Entwurf eines rheinischen Provincial-

1966. Gesetzbuches, von einem Rheinldnder. Koblenz:

Michler, Jiirgen. Die Elisabethkirche zu Marburg. Holscher, 1834.

Marburg: E. G. Elwert, 1984. ———.. Die christlich-germanische Baukunst und Moller, Georg. Denkmdler der deutschen Baukunst. thr Verhdltnis zur Gegenwart. Trier: Linz, 1845.

Darmstadt: Leske, 1815. Rey. eds., 1852, 1860.

———.. Facsimile der original Zeichnung des Doms | ————. Eine kurze Rede und eine lange Vorrede

zu Cdln. Darmstadt: Steyer und Leske, 1818. liber Kunst. Paderborn: Schoningh, 1863. Mothes, Oscar. Handbuch des evangelisch- [———-]. Einige Worte iiber den Dombau zu Coln, christlichen Kirchenbaues. Leipzig: Tauchnitz, von einem Rheinldnder an seine Landsleute

1898. gerichtet. Koblenz: Hélscher, 1834.

Muthesius, Stefan. Das englische Vorbild. Munich: ———. Ein Riickblick auf die letzten Sessionen des

Prestel, 1974. preussischen Abgeordnetenhauses. 2 vols.

Nipperdey, Thomas. Deutsche Geschichte Paderborn: Schéningh, 1864. 1800-1866. Munich: C. H. Beck, 1984. ———.. Fingerzeige auf dem Gebiete der kirchOppler, Edwin, ed. Die Kunst in Gewerbe. Hanover: lichen Kunst. Leipzig: Weigel, 1854. 2d ed.,

Architekten- und Ingenieurverein zu Hannover, 1855.

1872-78. ———. Georg Gottlob Ungewitter und sein Wirken

Organ fiir christliche Kunst. Cologne, 1851-73. als Baumeister. Leipzig: Weigel, 1866. Pastor, Ludwig. August Reichensperger 1808-1895: |§ ————. Die Kunst jedermanns Sache. Broschiiren-

Sein Leben und sein Wirken. 2 vols. Freiburg: verein, no. 7. Frankfurt: Hamacher, 1865. Rev.

Herder, 1899. ed., 1891.

298

August Reichensperger

——. Die Liebfrauenkirche zu Trier und deren Schonermark, Gustav, ed. Die Architektur der Han-

Restauration. Trier: Linz, 1865. noverschen Schule. Hanover, 1888-95. —. Parlamentarisches tiber Kunst und Kunst- Schuchard, Jutta. Carl Schafer, 1844-1908.

handwerk. Cologne: Bachem, 1880. Munich: Prestel, 1979. ——. Phrasen und Schlagwéorter fiir Schumacher, Fritz. “Die neuen Regungen des hamZeitungsleser. Paderborn: Schoningh, 1862. burger Backsteinbaus in der Mitte des 19.

Rev. ed., 1863. Jahrhunderts.” Zentralblatt der Bauverwaltung

——— . Ueber deutsche Kunst mit besonderer 43, no. 11-12, February 7, 1923, pp. 61-65; no. Beziehung auf Diirer und die Renaissance. 13-14, February 14, 1923, pp. 73-78; no.

Cologne: Bachem, 1876. 22-23, March 21, 1923, pp. 131-38. ——. Vermischte Schriften iiber christliche ——. Wie das Kunstwerk Hamburg nach dem

Kunst. Leipzig: Weigel, 1856. grossen Brande entstand. Berlin: Car] Kurtius, —_—. William Shakespeare, insbesondere sein 1920. Verhdltnis zum Mittelalter und zur Gegenwart. Schwering, Leo. August Reichensperger. Diilmen:

Zeitgemasse Broschiiren, vol. 7, nos. 9-10. Laumann, 1936.

Miinster: Russell, 1871. Schwieger, Frank. Johann Claudius von Lassaulx ——. Zur Charakterisirung des Baumeisters 1781— 1848. Neuss: Rheinischer Verein fiir Friedrich Freiherr von Schmidt. Diisseldorf: Denkmalpflege und Heimatschutz, 1968.

Schwann, 1891. Scott, George Gilbert. Personal and Professional ——. Zur neuern Geschichte des Dombaues in Recollections. London: Sampson Low, Marston,

Koln. Cologne: Bachem, 1881. Searle & Rivington, 1879. ———.. Zur Profan-Architektur: Mit besonderer Sperber, Jonathan. Popular Catholicism in NineBeriicksichtigung der Erweiterung der Stadt von teenth-Century Germany. Princeton: Princeton

Koln. Cologne: Bachem, 1886. University Press, 1984. Reichensperger, August and Peter. Deutschlands Statz, Vincenz. Bauwerke im gothischen Style. ndchste Aufgaben. Paderborn: Schéningh, 1860. Liege: Avanzol & Claesen, 1859.

—. Parlamentarische Reden der Gebriider ——. Gothische Einzelheiten. Introduction by Reichensperger als Material zu einer Charak- August Reichensperger. Liege: Claesen, 1868. teristik der grossdeutschen und katholischen ———.. Mittelalterliche Bauwerke nach Merian. Fraktion, 1848-1857. Regensburg: Manz, 1858. Introduction by August Reichensperger. Reichensperger, Peter. Erlebnisse eines alten Parla- Leipzig: Weigel, 1856-57. mentariers im Revolutionsjahre 1848. Berlin: Statz, Vincenz, and Georg Gottlob Ungewitter.

Springer, 1882. Gothisches Musterbuch. 2 vols. Leipzig: Weigel,

——. Kulturkampf; oder Friede im Staat und 1856. Kirche. Berlin: Springer, 1876. Steinle, A. M., ed. Edward v. Steinle und August Reuther, Hans. “Die Sakralbauten von Christoph Reichensperger in ihren gemeinsamen BestreHehl.” Niederdeutsche Beitrdge zur Kunst- bungen fiir die christliche Kunst aus ihren

geschichte 8 (1969): pp. 211-64. Briefen geschildert. Cologne: Bachem, 1890. Rode, Herbert. “Ernst Friedrich Zwirners [St6ter, Franz]. Andeutungen liber die Aufgabe der Planentwicklung fiir den Ausbau des K6lner evangelischen Kirchenbaukunst. Hamburg: Domes.” Kélner Domblatt 20 (1960-61): pp. Agentur des Rauhen Hauses, 1845.

45-98. —. Geschichte und Beschreibung des St. Niko-

Romberg, Johann Andreas, ed. Zeitschrift fiir prak- lai Kirchenbaues in Hamburg. Hamburg: C.

tische Baukunst. Leipzig, 1841-81. Boysen, 1883. Roritzer, Matthias. Das Biichlein von der Fialen Stiller, Friedrich August, ed. Entwiirfe zu Kirchen,

Gerechtigkeit. Facsimile edition, ed. August Pfarr- und Schulhdusern. Berlin: Ferdinand

Reichensperger. Trier: Linz, 1845. Riegel, 1846. Schmidt, Christian Wilhelm. Baudenkmale der Theuerkauf, Ulrich, ed. August Reichensperger und romischen Periode und des Mittelalters in Trier die Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts: Ausstellungsund seiner Umgebung. Trier: Linz, 1836-45. katalog zum 90. Todesjahr. Exh. cat. Koblenz:

Schmidt, Franz. August Reichensperger: Eine Stadtbibliothek/Stadtarchiv Koblenz, 1985. Sammlung von Zeit- und Lebensbilder. Thieme, Ulrich, and Felix Becker. Allgemeines Monchengladbach: Volksvereinsverlag, 1918. Lexikon der bildenden Kiinstler. 37 vols. Schmitz, Herrmann. Die Gotik im deutschen Kunst- Leipzig: Engelmann and Leipzig: E. A. Seeman,

und Geistesleben. Berlin: Verlag fiir Kunst- 1907-50.

wissenschaft, 1921. Treitschke, Heinrich Gotthard von. Deutsche

299

Bibliography

Geschichte im neunzehnten Jahrhundert. 5 vols. Thames and Hudson, 1987.

Leipzig: Hirzel, 1879-96. Wedel, Hasso von. Heinrich von Wittgenstein, Unger, Theodor. Hannover: Fiihrer durch die Stadt. 1797-1869. Cologne: Rheinisch-Westfalischer

Hanover: Klindworth, 1882. Wirtschaftsarchiv, 1981. Ungewitter, Georg Gottlob. Entwiirfe zu gothischen Wedgewood, Alexandra. Augustus Welby Northmore

Mobeln. Glogau: Flemming, 1851. Pugin and the Pugin Family. London: Victoria —.. Entwiirfe zu Stadt- und Landhdusern. Glo- and Albert Museum, 1985.

gau: Flemming, 1856-58. Wetter, Johannes. Geschichte und Beschreibung des ——.. Land- und Stadtkirchen. Glogau: Flem- Domes zu Mainz. Mainz: C. G. Kuenze, 1835.

ming, 1865-68. Weyres, Willy, and Eduard Trier, eds. Die Kunst des ——. Lehrbuch der gothischen Construction. 19. Jahrhunderts im Rheinlande. 5 vols. Diissel-

Leipzig: Weigel, 1859-64. dorf: Schwann, 1980-81.

—.. Vorlegeblitter fiir Holzarbeiten. Leipzig: Wibiral, Norbert, and Renata Mikula-Steiner. Hein-

Romberg, 1849. rich von Ferstel. Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1974.

——_—. Vorlegeblatter fiir Ziegel- und Steinarbeit. Wiegmann, Rudolf. Ueber den Ursprung des

Leipzig: Romberg, 1849. Spitzbogenstils. Diisseldorf: Buddeus, 1842. Verbeek, Albert. Kélner Kirchen. Cologne: Greven, Windell, George C. The Catholics and German

1969. Unity. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota

Vogts, Hans. Vincenz Statz (15]9- 1898). Modnchen- Press, 1954.

gladbach: B. Kiihlen, 1960. Zeitschrift fiir Bauwesen. Berlin, 1850ff. Waetzoldt, Stefan, ed. Bibliographie zur Architektur Zwirner, Ernst. Vergangenheit und Zukunft des kél-

im 19. Jahrhundert. 8 vols. Nendeln, Liechten- ner Dombaues. Cologne and Aachen: Ludwig

stein: KTO Press, 1977. Kohnen, 1842. Watkin, David, and Tilman Mellinghof. German Architecture and the Classical Ideal. London:

BLANK PAGE

Index

numbers. 257; 101

Figure numbers appear in italics following page Bismarck, Otto von, 146, 229-30, 244, 255-56, Blomer, Franz, 45, 46 Bohnstedt, Ludwig, 249, 287 n. 44

A Boisseree, Sulpiz, 31, 36, 39, 40, 43, 61-62, 81, 83, Society), 167 Botticher, Karl, 68 Acton, Lord, 21, 109, 162 Brentano, Clemens, 9 oe

A Few Words to Church Builders (Ecclesiological — 85, 104, 105, 110, 111, 150, 175, 183, 267

Ahlert, Friedrich, 33, 43, 56, 173 Biichlein von der Fialen Gerechtigkeit (Roritzer), All Saints Church, Margaret Street, London, 69, 71, 154; 23

193-94 Biilau, Theodor, 67, 69, 70, 71, 78, 79, 81, 102, 104,

Alton Towers, Staffordshire, 97; 29 119, 125-26, 188; 43, 44

Amiens Cathedral, 28, 30, 82-85; 26 Burges, William, 192, 193, 237-38

Andreae, Carl, 220 Biirklein, Friedrich, 124, 127, 152, 183 Ansichten vom Niederrhein (Forster), 30, 76 Burlison, John, 93, 166, 185 Apollonariskirche, Remagen, 49-52, 108, 113,115, Burnham, Daniel, 211

179: 18 Butterfield, William, 193-94

Athanasius (Gorres), 21, 22

Atkinson, Thomas, 101 C

August Reichensperger: ISOS— 1895 (Pastor), 2, 4

Aulike, Matthias, 27, 118 Cambridge Camden Society, 62-63

Austin, Henry, 211 Canterbury Cathedral, 91 Austrian Parliament, competition for, 233 Catel, Franz, 26

Averdieck, Eduard, 101 Caumont, Arcisse de, 66, 82, 191 Chateauneuf, Alexis de, 101, 119, 125, 185 Christuskirche, Hanover, 224—25; 83-85

B Coe, Henry Edward, 101 Bardeleben, Moritz, 260 Cologne, 21, 27-56

Barry, Charles, 93 Cathedral, 24, 25, 27-58, 62, 63, 77, 78, 81-85, Bauakademie, Berlin, 119, 154-55, 157, 160, 217, 94, 106, 111, 140, 152, 166, 173, 175, 179,

223, 228: 53 229, 255, 256-57, 271 n. 7, 277 n. 42. 5— 16,

Baudenkmale der rémischen Periode und des Mit- 19, 20, 52, 102-4

telalters .. . (Schmidt), 77-78 Court, 9/ —

Baudri, Friedrich, 136, 171-72, 175, 198 Mauritiuskirche, 170, 195-96; 64 Beitrag zur Darstellung eines reinen einfachen Minoritenkirche, 200; 68

Baustyles (Kopp), 112 St. Ursula s, 117 199, 205-6, 237 Coudray, Wenzelaus, 89

Beresford-Hope, A. J., 109, 130, 162, 172, 193, Cornelius, Peter, 42, 171

Berlin, 160, 147-52, 217, 220 Crystal Palace, London, 165-66, 172 Hedwigskirche, 20

Lutherkirche, //0, /1/ D Rathaus, 231-33; && (project), 89

Reichstag, 246-52, 95 Das englische Vorbild, 6 St. Hedwig’s Hospital, 118-22; 38, 39 Degers, Eduard, 26 Bethune, Johann, 198 Demmler, Georg, 252, 254, 287 n. 44

302

Index

Denckmdaler der deutschen Baukunst (Moller), 77 Geissel, Johann von, 27, 39, 40, 42, 175, 256; 12

Der Stil (Semper), 134 Gemmell, Hermann, 135

Detmold, Johann Hermann, 144, 184, 286 n. 33 Gentz, Heinrich, 154 Deutsche Kunst des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts Geometria Deutsch (Roritzer), 73

(Gurlitt), 217 geometry in architecture, 69-75 |

Didron, Adolphe Napoléon, 66, 82, 94, 101, 107, Gerlach, Master, 28, 32

124, 134, 145, 191 Germann, Georg, 6

Die Architektur des Mittelalters in Regensburg Geschichte und Beschreibung des Domes zu Mainz

(Popp, Biilau), 69 (Wetter), 68

(Hirt), 68 (Metzger ), 70

Die Baukunst nach den Grundsdtzen der Alten Gesetze der Pflanzen- und Mineralienbildung .. . Die christlich-germanische Baukunst und ihr Ver- Gilly, Friedrich, 56, 154 hdltnis zur Gegenwart (Reichensperger), 2, Goethe, J. W. von, 30, 32, 76 5,58, 62-67, 71, 75, 78, 81, 87, 89, 99, 106, Gorres, Joseph, 1, 9, 17-18, 20, 21-22, 24, 26, 27,

109, 111, 119, 122, 124, 126, 128, 132, 154, 30, 32, 38, 64, 65, 77, 139, 150-52, 162,

160, 167, 208, 217, 263 167, 256, 267-68 ; 6

Die Kunst jedermanns Sache (Reichensperger), 160 Gothic style, origins of, 76-85

Die Tektonik der Hellenen (Botticher), 68 Gothisches A.B.C.-Buch (Hoffstadt), 70-73 Dollinger, Johann Ignatius, 109, 150, 162 Gothisches Musterbuch (Statz, Ungewitter, Dombauverein, Cologne, 6, 34-40, 41-49, 51-53, Reichensperger), 136, 177

66, 106, 110, 260 Grange, Ramsgate, Kent, 27 Droste, Ludwig, 60 Greek architecture, influence of, 68 Droste-Vischering, Clemens August, 20, 21, 25, 27, Grueber, Bernhard, 81, 82

34 Grundziige der gothischen Baukunst (Schlegel), 30

Dugdale, William, 88

H E

Ebeling, Ernst, 60, 152 Haller, Martin, 287 n. 44 Ecclesiological Society, 63, 116-17, 130, 191, Hallman, Anton, 60-62, 101, 226; 22

193-94 Hamburg, 100, 125, 279, 286 n. 30

Ecclesiologist, 52 Haus der patriotischen Gesellschaft, 126; 44

Einige Worte iiber den Dombau zu Céln Nikolaikirche, 92, 99-108, 110, 177, 181, 183, (Reichensperger), 35-38, 76, 260, 261 220, 221, 226, 279 n. 33; 32 (project), 33, 34

Eisenach Regulativ, 220, 223, 226-29 Rathaus, 183-90, 63 (project) Eisenlohr, Friedrich, 169, 274 n. 2; 56 Hanover School, 214-19, 274 n. 6; 60 Elisabethkirche, Marburg, 29, 78, 196; 25 Hansen, Theophil, 233

Engelbrecht, M., 55 Hase, Conrad William, vii, 2, 5, 60, 152, 206, Entwiirfe zu Kirchen, Pfarr- und Schulhdusern 212-16, 219, 223-27, 244, 254, 265; 79, 83,

(Stiller), 227, 228: 86 64, 93, 100 210: 74 Hauberrisser, Georg, 233-34; 90

Entwiirfe zu Stadt- und Landhdusern (Ungewitter), Hase House, 212-14; 76-79 Essenwein, August von, 191-92, 193, 235, 288 n.54 Hauers, Wilhelm, 290 n. 15; 50

Esser, Ferdinand, /2 Hedwigskirche, Berlin, 20

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich, 13 Hehl, Christoph, 218, 251-52; 98

a 113, 152; 35

F Heideloff, Carl Alexander, 72, 97, 102, 111-12, Ferstel, Heinrich von, 178, 181, 182; 56 Herder, Johann Gottfried von, 159, 160 Fingerzeige auf dem Gebiete der kirchlichen Kunst Hess, Heinrich, 89

(Reichensperger), 4, 167-82, 208, 226 Hildesheim: post office, 253-54; /00

Forsmann, Franz, 101, 183 Hillebrand, Eberhard, 216, 289 n. 12

Forster, Georg, 30, 76 Hirt, Alois, 68

Friedrich Wilhelm Il (Prussia), 27 Hitzig, Friedrich, 248 Friedrich Wilhelm IV (Prussia), iv, 27, 34, 40, 43, Hochstaden, Konrad von, 28

«140, 143, 144; 12 Hoffstadt, Friedrich, 67, 70-71, 72, 73, 130

Fritsch, K. E. O., 249-50, 290 n. 26, 292 n. 18 Hollar, Wenzel, 88

Fuchs, Peter, 196, 225 Hiibsch, Heinrich, 56, 59, 60, 67, 68, 101, 192 Hunaeus, Hermann, 60

G Hundelshausen: church by Ungewitter, 201-3; 7/ Hunt, Richard Morris, 211, 238 Gaertner, Friedrich von, 56, 59, 89, 101

303

Index

}M

I Liier, Wilhelm, 290 n. 15 - Luis, Georg, 287 n. 44

In welchem Style sollen wir bauten? (Hiibsch), 59 Lutherkirche, Berlin, 1/0, LI

Jenisch, Martin Johann, 184

Jolasse, David, 101, 287 n. 44 Maack, Johann Hermann, 102, 183

Mallinckrodt, Hermann von, 243, 256; 93 Mariahilfkirche, Munich, 108, 134, 171

K Marienkapelle, Nippes, 115-16, 201; 37 Marienvotivkirche, Aachen, 196, 198; 65

Kamptz, K. C. A. H. von, 16 Martens, Gustav, 101, 125, 127, 153

Karlsruhe, 59 Martens & Ungewitter, 125, 127; 42

Kerkhoff House, Rostok, 40 Mauritiuskirche, Cologne, 170, 195-96; 64

Ketteler, Wilhelm von, 175 Merck, Carl Hermann, 184 Klees-Wiilbern, Johann, 125 Merian, Matthias, 208-9; 7 Klenze, Leo von, 59, 80, 101 Metzger, Johann, 70

Klinggraff, Friedrich von, 218-19 Meuron, August de, 101, 184, 190 Knoblauch, Eduard, 188, 246, 281 n. 13 Meyer, Franz Andreas, 290 n. 5

Koblenz, 6,11;7 Milan Cathedral, 63

Kokkelink, Giinther, vil, 5 Minoritenkirche, Cologne, 200; 68 Kolping, Adolph, 23, 54 Mittelalterliche Bauwerke nach Merian (Statz),

Koopmann, Carl, 221 209-10: 73

Kopp, Ernst, 112-13 Mockel, Gotthilf, 216

Kotzebue, August von, 32 Moller, Georg, 31, 36, 43, 63, 68, 77, 101, 104, 152,

Kranner, Joseph, 235 207 Kugler, Franz, 38, 39 Monasticon Anglicanum (Dugdale), 88

Kulturkampf, 243, 251, 255, 256, 257 Montalembert, Charles Forbes de, 157-58, 163, 205 Miller, Emil, 104

L Miiller, Johann Georg, 175 Miiller, Karl, 26

Landauer, M., 54 Munich, 59

44 Muthesius, Stefan, 6 Lasinsky, J. A., 8 N

Lange, Ludwig, 102, 168-69, 189, 226, 233, 287 n. Rathaus, 233-34; 90 Langhans, Karl, 154 Lasaulx, Ernst, 139, 150, 162

Lassaulx, Johann Claudius von, 9, 11-12, 51, 57,

60, 62, 67, 81-82, 104, 152, 169-70; 3 Nadler, Karl, 13 Lassus, Jean-Baptiste-Antoine, 51, 167, 192 Napoleonic Code, 13-17

Lauenburg, Heinrich, 246 Nazarenes, 26, 171 Laves, G. L. F, 59, 209 Neureuther, Gottfried von, 248 Leclére, Achille, 184 Neustadt: church by Ungewitter, 201; 70 Legeay, Jean Laurent, 20 Niessen, J. A., 97

Leins, Christian Friedrich, 223 Nikolaikirche, Hamburg, 92, 99-108, 110, 177, 181,

Levita, Jules, 163 183, 220, 221, 226, 279 n. 33; 32 (project), Liebfrauenkirche, Trier, 29, 58, 77-78, 196; 2/ «33, 34 Liebknecht, Karl, 95 Nipperdey, Thomas, 5

Liessem, Udo, 6 Nohl, Maximilian, 287 n. 44 | |

Lille Cathedral, 191-93 Norddeutschlands Backsteinbau im Mittelalter

Lindley, William, 101, 183 ___ (Essenwein), 191-92 Linz Cathedral, 198: 66 Nill, Eduard van der, 183 London, 95-96 All Saints Church, Margaret Street, 193-94

Crystal Palace, 165-66, 172 O Houses of Parliament, 93-94, 165; 28

Law Courts, 254 Ohlimiiller, Daniel, 72, 108, 134, 171 St. Paul’s Cathedral, 92 Oppler, Edwin, 216-17; 8/ Liibeck, 127-28 Ornamentik aus deutschen Gewdchsen (Metzger), Lucae, Richard, 248 Otzen, Johannes, 266; 1/0, [11

Rathaus, 45 70

Ludwig I (Bavaria), 166, 178 Overbeck, Franz, 26, 171

304 Index

P Roritzer, Matthias, 69, 154, 275 n. 23; 23, 24 Rundbogenstil, 59-62, 67, 80, 89, 99, 101, 125, Palm, G., 105 135, 152, 183, 194, 212, 266; 89 Parker, John Henry, 2770.6 Ruskin, John, 172, 189

Pastor, Ludwig, 1 Persius, Ludwig, 117, 119, 154, 183, 226, 228

Peterson, Frederick, 127 S

Popp, Justus, 69; 70, 71, 78, 81, 125 oan Proudhon, P. -J., 160 St. Arnulph s, Nickenich, 3 | | Pugin, A. W.N., 54, 63, 67, 69, 71, 74, 87, 90, 97, St. Elisabeth’s, Marburg. See Elisabethkirche, Mar-

109, 118, 130, 165, 166-67, 172, 193, 238, _ burg

261, 975 n. 12: 27-29 St. Giles, Cheadle, 90, 97, 193; 30, 3]

St. Hedwig’s Hospital, Berlin, 118-22; 38, 39 St. Michael’s Church, Long Stanton, Cam-

Q bridgeshire, 117

St. Paul’s Cathedral, London, 92

Quast, Ferdinand von, 174, 286 n. 20 St. Stephen’s Cathedral, Vienna, 231 St. Ursula’s, Cologne, 117

R Schadow, Wilhelm von, 26

Schinkel, Karl Friedrich, 12, 33-34, 56, 60, 62, 77,

Radowitz, Joseph von, 143-44 89, 94, 100, 101, 117, 119, 123, 154, 207-8,

Radziwill, Boguslaw, 118 216, 220, 223; 53

Ramboux, Johann Anton, 171; 52 Schlegel, Friedrich, 30, 32, 68 Rameée, Joseph-Jacques, 100-101 Schlésser, Johann, 101-2 Raumer, Karl Otto von, 148-49 Schmidt, Christian Wilhelm, 57, 77

Reichardt, Karl, 101 Schmidt, Friedrich von, 2, 177, 179-80, 181, 192, Reichensperger, August, J, 5, 12, 57, 72, 93, 109 206, 231-36, 238, 248, 249, 251, 265; 12,

Anglophilia of, 108-10 59, 87, 88

Berlin years, 147-52, 220 Schmitz, Bruno, 262; [06 biography by Pastor, 1-2 Schorbach, Ferdinand, 216

birthplace, 2 Schultz, Wilhelm, 50

Catholicism of, 18, 22—25, 27, 146-49, 160 Scott, George Gilbert, 1, 90, 92, 99, 101, 102-7,

on Christian architecture, 63-66, 77 109, 110, 122, 130, 165-66, 172, 181, 183, church-building theories of, 67-72, 220, 221, 184—85, 188-90, 220, 236, 237, 248,

226-29 249-50; 33, 34, 63, 96, 97

on church restoration, 172-74 Semper, Gottfried, 80, 102, 104-5, 125, 127, 131, and Cologne Cathedral, 27-56, 260-61 134, 184, 188, 248; 32

early years, 9-10 Shrewsbury, John Talbot, 16th earl of, 97, 98, 109

education, 13 Sicardsburg, August, 183

final years, 265-68 Sieveking, Karl, 104, 183, 184, 185, 280 n. 52 literary output of later years, 261 Simson, Martin Eduard von, 146

marries, 57 Soller, August, 228

on Napoleonic Code, 16-17 Stadler, Ferdinand, 287 n. 44 political career, 8, 15-17, 23-24, 140-58, 229, stained glass, 171-72

241, 242 Statz, Franz, 251

as proponent of Gothic Revival, 24-25, 62-66, Statz, Vincenz, 2, 54, 114-16, 118-22, 134, 135,

113, 122, 130, 134-37, 156-57, 159-62, 136, 153, 167, 168, 170, 174, 175, 177-80, 166-72, 182, 185, 187-90, 199, 200-203, 181, 192, 193, 195-99, 203, 207, 209-10, 208-11, 216-17, 221, 263-64, 267-68 230, 248, 249, 265; 36, 37, 59, 66, 67 and Reichstag competition, 246-52 Steinle, Eduard von, 42-43, 54, 114, 141, 175, 198,

and Roritzer’s treatise, 72, 74-75 220, 273 nn. 41, 42, 292 n. 18; 12

and Rundbogenstil, 62, 99, 157 Stephen, Heinrich von, 252, 255, 261, 263 St. Hedwig’s Hospital collaboration, 199, 122 Stier, Wilhelm, 179, 188

sketches by, 4 Stdter, Franz, 104, 105

Reichensperger, Elisabeth, 9 Strack, Heinrich, 60, 102, 103, 117, 154, 183, 246

Reichensperger, Franz Joseph, 9 Stralsund: Rathaus, 62

Reichensperger, Peter, 9, 10, 139, 140, 146, 149, Stramberg, Christian von, 18

151, 242-43, 256 Street, George Edmund, 101, 192, 193, 254

Reinhardtsbrunnen: church-palace project, 35 Stiiler, Friedrich Augustus, 60, 117, 123, 154, 183,

Reumont, Alfred, 91 223, 227-28, 246; 86 Romberg, Johann Andreas, 134-35, 157, 210 Sutton, John, 277 n. 6 Rome, 25-26

305

Index

T Wolff, Johann, 60, 134, 274 n. 5 Tangermiinde: Rathaus, 6/ The English Cathedral of the Nineteenth Century

Wyatt, Matthew Digby, 52

(Beresford-Hope), 198 Z

The Gothic Revival (Germann), 6 ——

The True Principles of Pointed or Christian Archi- Zeitschrift fir praktische Baukunst (Romberg), 210

tecture (Pugin), 63, 64, 67, 74, 75, 76 Zentrumspartei, 244, 247, 251; 93

Thierry, Carl Ludwig, 274 n. 2 Zuccamaghio, Anton, 13, 39 Thimus, Albert, 22, 34, 35, 54, 62, 67, 72, 90, 139, Zur Profan-Architektur (Reichensperger), 264-65

165, 166, 217, 229, 230, 94] Zwirner, Ernst, 33-34, 39, AO, 42, 45-46, 48, 49,

Topographien (Merian), 208-9 51-55, 57, 72, 83, 92, 105-6, 108, 109, 111,

Tramm, Heinrich, 60 113, 115, 123, 155; /2-14, 18 Treitschke, Heinrich von, 5, 269 n. 6 Trier, 57-58 Liebfrauenkirche, 29, 58, 77-79, 196; 2/

U Ueber den Ursprung des Spitzbogenstils (Wiegmann), 80-81 Ueber griechische Architektur (Hiibsch), 68 Ungewitter, Georg Gottlob, 2, 6, 101, 114, 119, 123-37, 152, 153, 154, 157, 170, 177-78, 181-82, 184, 190, 191, 194, 199-203, 206, 210-12, 216, 219, 230, 266, 289 n. 12; 4/, 46—48, 60, 69

V Vergleichende Sammlung fiir christliche Kunst (Grueber), 81 Vienna Rathaus, 236; 9/ St. Stephen’s Cathedral, 231 Votivkirche, 177-82, 201, 235; 58, 59 Viollet-le-Duc, Eugéne Emmanuel, 7, 69, 75, 167, 216 Voigtel, Richard, 52, 257, 260 Von deutscher Baukunst (Goethe), 30, 76 Vorlegeblatter fiir Ziegel- und Steinarbeit (Ungewitter), 123-24, 128, 210 Votivkirche, Vienna, 177—82, 201, 235; 58, 59

W Waesemann, Hermann, 231-33 Wallot, Paul, 1, 252, 262-65; 99, 107, 108 Walpole, Horace, 112 Weinbrenner, Friedrich, 32, 63 Wetter, Johannes, 67, 68, 69, 71, 78, 80, 81 Wiegmann, Rudolf, 80-81 Wiethase, Heinrich, 219, 266 Wilhelm I (Kaiser), 229 Wilhelm II (Kaiser), 226 Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 76 Windthorst, Ludwig, 256; 93 Wiseman, Nicholas, 96, 109 Wittelsbacher Palais, Munich, 89 Wittgenstein, Heinrich von, 39, 40, 55, 241, 272 n. 36; 12

BLANK PAGE

Credits

photographs. Berlin.

Credits and archival reference numbers for 35. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat36. Rheinisches Bildarchiv.

1. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 145/8952. 40. Courtesy of Thomas Helms, Schwerin.

Photograph L. Haase, Berlin. 42. Courtesy of Hermann Hipp. 2. Stadtbibliothek/Stadtarchiv Koblenz. 44. Courtesy of Hermann Hipp.

3. Courtesy of Udo Liessem. 45. Courtesy of Helmut Gobel. 4. Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz, 700.30-no. 217. 49. London Illustrated News, | April 1848, p. 214,

5. Courtesy of Udo Liessem. Vol. XII, no. 310.

6. Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz. 50. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz 1195. 7. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. L 1207/44. 51. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 630 195/1948.

8. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 56488. 52. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 95 659. 9. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 96 273. 53. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, St 33 a. 10. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 59 748. 54. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz. 11. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 97 476. Photograph 55. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

by J. F. Michiels. 56. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat

12. Cologne, Dombauarchiv. Berlin.

13. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 60 642. 57. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 96116.

14. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 96 181. 58. Stadtarchiv Wien. 15. Canadian Centre for Architecture, PH 1982:626. 60. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat

Photograph by Marville. Berlin.

16. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 134 832/157 699. 62. Courtesy of Seeman Verlag, Leipzig.

17. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 120 610. 63. Staatsarchiv Hamburg.

18. Denkmalamt Mainz. 64. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 5365. 19. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 34 439. 65. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 5424.

20. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 42 846. 66. Domarchiv, Linz

21. Denkmalamt Mainz. 67. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat 22. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin.

Berlin. 68. Foto Marburg, Z 35 714.

25. Foto Marburg, x 14514. 72. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz.

26. Canadian Centre for Architecture, PH 1981:444. 75. Historisches Museum Hannover.

Photograph by Adolphe Braun. 77. Historisches Museum Hannover. 27. Photograph © George E. Thomas. 80. Niedersdchsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover, 28. Canadian Centre for Architecture, PH 1981:447. = dep. 103, XXII, no. 159.

Photograph by Adolphe Braun. 81. Stadtarchiv Hannover. 29. Photograph © George E. Thomas. 82. Niedersdchsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover,

30. Photograph © George E. Thomas. dep. 103, XXII, no. 159. 31. Photograph © George E. Thomas. 83. Niedersdchsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Hannover,

32. Courtesy of Hermann Hipp. dep. 103, XXU, no. 128. 33. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz 98f. Photo- 86. Photographs by Paulmann-Jungeblut, Berlin.

graph by Strumper & Co. 87. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 43/5293.

308

Credits

88. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin. 89. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, St 29 b. 90. Foto Marburg, x 120 620. 91. Stadtarchiv Wien. 92. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 1322. 93. Historisches Archiv der Stadt Koln. 94. Historisches Museum Hannover. 95. Photograph by Paulmann-Jungeblut, Berlin. 96. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin. 97. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin. 98. Plansammlung der Technischen Universitat Berlin. 100. Stadtarchiv Hannover. 101. Kunstbibliothek Berlin. Photograph by Paulmann-Jungeblut, Berlin.

102. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 177 588. Photo-

graph by Theodor Creifelds. 103. Canadian Centre for Architecture, PH 1982:664.

104. Rheinisches Bildarchiv, no. 160174. Photograph by Johann Schénscheidt. 106. Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz, no. 700.138. 107. Bildarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, 987/35. 108. Landeshauptarchiv Koblenz, no. 700.138, 16. 109. Stadtbibliothek/Stadtarchiv Koblenz.

BLANK PAGE

BLANK PAGE