Belvedere 2/2005 
PETER STEPHAN - The Belvedere in Vienna and the Würzburg Residence 
135 
sections of the pavillon but of angled compound pilasters 
which already fulfil in themselves the transition from the 
herm-shaped to the regulär shafts. 
Where the structure of the attic is finally concerned, it was 
in a certain sense consistent to place herm pilasters on the 
central part in the same way above the herm pilasters of the 
piano nobile, but without assigning these to a regulär order. 
In this way Hildebrandt circumvented the insoluble problem 
of structuring a storey which this time was too low and 
keeping the proportions correct. On the side sections he 
solved the problem of the proportions differently. Here the 
attic pilasters - like the regulär pilasters - have perpendicu- 
lar shafts. Their capitals follow a free modification of the 
composite order. In this sense they appear to be too short, 
but it seems to me that here too Hildebrandt applied a 
clever trick. Up to now the IXI-shaped struts above the cen- 
tres of the shafts have been interpreted as Old German 
strapwork. 35 However, one can also see in them the edge 
profile of shafts that have been butted up against one 
another and folded crossways over themselves, which would 
be a further example of how Hildebrandt interpreted archi- 
tectural forms as appliques. In any case the dimensions of 
the overlaid struts are such that if you were to unfold the 
pilaster along its length, it would have the ratio 1:10 and 
thus actually be of the correct length. 
The fact that the sequence of pilasters around all three pa- 
vilions is continuous and that the different shapes are only 
ways of playing within the same order was made clear by 
Hildebrandt particularly at the critical transition points (fig. 
3). At roof level the balustrade continues without a break; 
at attic level the corner pilaster belongs to the structure of 
the central pavilion, in the piano nobile to the structure of 
the side pavilion. On the ground floor the corner pilaster 
finally disappears into the wall. Once again this apparently 
arbitrary System reveals a higher logic. In all four zones 
Hildebrandt plays out the ambivalent relationship of the 
three pavilions to one another in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of differentiation and synthesisation: in the roof ba 
lustrade the pavilions look as if they all come from the same 
mould. At attic level and piano nobile, however, they are 
two structures which are linked firmly together by means 
of the two-way overlapping of the different forms of pila 
ster. In contract, on the ground floor they give the impres- 
sion of two blocks having been pushed up against one 
another, with the outer block partially covering the structure 
of the inner block. 
Hildebrandt's practice of deforming architectural compo- 
nents against all the rules of tectonics has been ascribed by 
researchers again and again to the influence of Italian mas 
ter builders of the Baroque period, in particular Borromini 
and Guarini. 36 But unlike the Baroque in Rome or Turin, 
Hildebrandt’s design elements do not appear elastic or 
flexible: instead they are brittle and stiff. The pilasters and 
lisenes remind one of nailed-on boards, the gable roofs and 
the volutes of the balustrades appear to be turned or carved. 
Unlike the work of Borromini and Guarini, the architecture 
is therefore not organic. Rather its non-tectonic character 
results from the fact that it is constructed as a custom- 
made application. 
The Kaisersaal Pavilion in Würzburg 
The Plans of 1730-33 
As demonstrated, Neumann’s designs from the early 1730s 
are an important prerequisite if one is to understand the 
architecture of the Kaisersaal pavilion. The Orders in draw- 
ings 4692 and 4694 (figs. 6, 7) are particularly revealing. 
Unlike Eckert, however, I do not wish to Start my analysis 
from the point of view of the structure on the ends of the 
front wall. I consider it to be more sensible to take a look 
first at the points of transition between the angled sides of 
the pavilion and the recessed wings, the structure of which 
has already proved to be extremely significant in the Upper 
Belvedere (fig. 4). 
At first one thinks one sees a bent pilaster at this point, but 
actually the edges of the shaft are too far apart for that to 
be the case. There must then be two different pilasters. In 
fact the fragment of the pilaster on the wing forms a coun- 
terpart to the half pilaster which is tangent to the corner 
pavilion at the opposite end. Both together subsume the 
eleven axes of the recessed wings into one enormous bay. 37 
The pilaster on the angled side of the pavilion, on the other 
hand, disappears by half into the wall where it seems to 
follow a virtual bend around the imaginary edge of the 
pavilion. 38 The fact that the fragment of the pilaster and the 
bent pilaster on the edge belong to two different sections 
of the facade becomes clear from the way in which Neu 
mann has treated the entablature. Above the two half pila 
sters in the enormous bay of the wing the entablature is 
not angled, but between the inner half pilaster and the 
pilaster on the imaginary edge it is. Between the angled 
sides and the recessed wings there is a continuous seam 
that gives the impression that the central pavilion was set 
into the garden front at a later date. 
Equally revealing of Neumann's thinking is the relationship 
between the external and the internal structure of the Kai 
sersaal. Unfortunately no interior views of the Kaisersaal 
pavilion survive from the two sets of plans of 1733. How 
ever, the longitudinal section through the corps de logis in 
drawing 4690 (fig. 9) which I mentioned earlier does provide 
this Information; Neumann had presented it three years