Belvedere 2/2005 
PETER STEPHAN - The Belvedere in Vienna and the Würzburg Residence 
129 
PETER STEPHAN 
The Belvedere in Vienna 
and the Würzburg Residence 
The Possibilietes and Limitations 
of a Classical Comparison 
For almost a hundred years the Upper Belvedere Palace in 
Vienna (1722-24; fig. 1), designed by Lukas von Hilde 
brandt, has been challenging art historians to a comparison 
with one example of architecture in particular: the Würzburg 
Residence (shell dating from 1720-1744; fig. 2). Hildebrandt 
was also significantly involved in the planning of the Resi 
dence, together with Maximilian von Welsch, Robert de 
Cotte, Germain Boffrand and Balthasar Neumann. 
In particular, what immediately comes to mind is a compari 
son of the central sections on the garden fronts (figs. 3, 4). 
Apart from the fact that each is built in the style of an in 
tegral pavilion, both structures have numerous features in 
common. Each has five axes, the two outmost axes being 
set at an angle. In front of the ground floor with its rustica- 
tion Stands a Doric avant corps; the high piano nobile fea 
tures a composite order with a corbel frieze; the low attic 
parapet is decorated with herm pilasters with lions' masks. 
The Windows in the ground floor have round arches, in the 
piano nobile they are surmounted by cambered gables and 
at attic level the sills and lintels curve downwards and up- 
wards in a concave line. Last but not least, the Windows of 
both pavilions have almost the same proportions on the in- 
side. The ground floor Windows lead into rooms that in 
each case act as a link between the garden and the palace: 
in the palace of Prince Eugene they lead into the vestibule, 
in the Residence of the Prince-Bishops of Franconia into a 
sala terrena. Behind the Windows of the two upper storeys 
lie the main rooms: in Vienna an imperial 'Marble Hall’, in 
Würzburg a marble ‘Imperial Hall’ (= 'Kaisersaal'; fig. 5). In 
both halls the attic Windows function as upper lights for the 
vaulting level. 
It would seem that Würzburg’s ‘Kaisersaal pavilion’ was in- 
fluenced in many respects by the Upper Belvedere. At first 
glance it differs from its Viennese counterpart only by the 
cambered gable. However, this motif too can be traced 
back to the palace of Prince Eugene where it surmounts the 
entrance on the courtyard side. 
But compared to the remainder of the facade (fig. 2), this 
cambered gable gives the Würzburg pavilion a weight that 
is lacking in the central part of the Upper Belvedere (fig. 1). 
The fact that in Würzburg the recessed wings do not have 
an attic level also contributes to this impression. To be sure, 
Hildebrandt also operated with different storey heights, but 
he reduced the height of the facade only on the outer sec 
tions. Unlike in Würzburg, the central pavilion in Vienna is 
thus integrated more into the whole facade. This impression 
is also strengthened by the fact that Hildebrandt maintained 
the storey heights throughout. Neumann, on the other 
hand, used noticeably smaller Windows for the recessed 
wings that he designed so that he could insert mezzanines 
above the ground floor and piano nobile. Whilst Hilde- 
brandt's central section of the garden front dominates only 
in conjunction with the adjoining pavilions, the Würzburg 
pavilion Stands like a great solitaire within the facade. 
It was precisely these common features and differences 
that met with great interest in the literature. In 1911 Wil 
helm Pinder perceived in the garden front of the Residence 
‘a virtual re-working of the Viennese building'. 1 Six years 
later Georg Eckert, in his research into Balthasar Neumann, 
once again turned his gaze from Würzburg to Vienna. Un 
like Pinder, however, he was concerned with a qualitative 
assessment and as a result the comparison was intended 
above all to prove the unique Status of the Franconian 
architecture of the Residence and thus also the sole author- 
ship of Neumann. Eckert even believed that he could make 
out 'certain deficiencies' on Hildebrandt’s garden front in 
Vienna. In particular he censured the arrangement of the 
pilasters on the central garden pavilion: ‘Hildebrandt has 
unusual proportions in that he uses paired pillars and pila 
sters in the middle and single ones on the outside; as a 
result his building appears to lose stability where it is most 
needed, on the edges.' On the Würzburg Kaisersaal pavilion 
Eckert saw that this fault had been corrected: ‘Neumann 
has restored the normal proportions by inserting double pil 
lars and pilasters on the outside and single ones on the 
inside. By being restrained in his disposition of the wings of 
the building and by enriching the central section with the 
gable, as well as by the magnificent way in which he links 
the individual sections of the building, he knows how to 
bring about an auspicious increase in the effect of the do 
minant and has thus achieved the perfection that remains 
denied to Hildebrandt's building.’ 2