TEXTS & DOCUMENTS
A SERIES OF THE GETTY CENTER PUBLICATION PROGRAMS
The TEXTS & DOCUMENTS series offers to the student of art, architecture, and aesthetics
neglected, forgotten,or unavailable writings in English translation.
Edited accordingto modern standards of scholarship and framed by critical introductions
and commentaries, these volumes gradually mine the past centuries for studies that
retain their significancein our understanding of art and of the issues surrounding its production,
reception, and interpretation.
Eminent scholars guide the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities
in the selection and publication of TEXTS & DOCUMENTS.Each volume acquaints readers
with the broader cultural conditions at the genesis of the text and equips them with the
needed apparatus for its study. Over time the series will greatly expand our horizon and deepen
our understanding of critical thinking on art.
Julia Bloomfield, Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F. Reese, Editors
The Getty Center Publication Programs
This page intentionally left blank
IN WHAT
STYLE
SHOULD WE BUILD?
This page intentionally left blank
PUBLISHED BY THE GETTY CENTER
DISTRIBUTED BY THE UNIVERSITY OE CHICAGO PRESS
TEXTS & DOCUMENTSD
IN WHAT
STYLE
SHOULD WE BUILD?
THE GERMAN DEBATE ON ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
HEINRICH HUBSCH, 1828
RUDOLF WIEGMANN, 1829
CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL, 1844
JOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF, 1845
CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER, 1846
HEINRICH HUBSCH, 1847
INTRODUCTION TRANSLATION
BY WORLFGANG HERRMANN
THE GETTY CENTER PUBLICATION PROGRAMS
Julia Bloomfield, Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F. Reese, Editors
TEXTS & DOCUMENTS
Architecture
Harry F. Mallgrave,Editor
In What Style Should WeBuild?
The German Debate on Architectural Style
David Britt, Translation and Manuscript Editor
Margarete Kiihn, Editorial Consultant
Lynne Hockman, Copy Editor
Published by the Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities,
Santa Monica, CA 90401-1455
© 1992 by The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities
All rights reserved. Published 1992
Printed in the United States ofAmerica
98 97 96 95 94 93 92 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Publication data for the original German texts may be found in the source
notes followingeach translation.
Cover: Heinrich Hiibsch, Polytechnische Hochschule, Karlsruhe (1833-1835).
Drawing. Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is to be found on the last
printed page of this book.
xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
1 WOLFGANG HERRMANN INTRODUCTION
LfI»r*vJl HEINRICH HUBSCH IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
RUDOLF WIEGMANN REMARKS ON THE TREATISE IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
ilB CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD? A QUESTION ADDRESSED
TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ARCHITEKTENVEREIN
125 jOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF REMARKSON THE ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS BROACHED BY
PROFESSOR STIER AT THE MEETING OF ARCHITECTS AT BAMBERG
CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER THE PRINCIPLES OF THE HELLENIC AND
GERMANIC WAYS OF BUILDING WITH REGARD TO THEIR APPLICATION TO OUR PRESENT WAY OF
BUILDING
169 HEINRICH HUBSCH THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF ARCHITECTURAL STYLE IN RELATION TO
THE PRESENT TIME
178 BIBLIOGRAPHIES
193 BIOGRAPHIES
199 INDEX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
103
147
This page intentionally left blank
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The five German texts presented here in English translation introduce the reader to a debate
that preceded, and in scope surpassed, a similar English controversy. This debate was sparked
off by the appearance of a book by Heinrich Hubsch entitled In welchem Style sollen wir
bauen? (In What Style Should WeBuild?) in 1828. The title of Hiibsch's book wasalso used as
the title of a study by Klaus Dohmer (Munich, 1976) in which he explored the wide range of
contemporary journals on architecture and art for aspects concerning controversial stylistic
topics. Ashis subtitle indicated, Dohmer widened his search to cover the entire interval between
Klassizismus and Jugendstil, whereasI confine the inquiry to a debate lasting only two decades.
Dohmer's book has nevertheless been invaluable in assisting me to sift through the material
relating to this short period.
I am most grateful to Harry F.Mallgrave for the fruitful discussions wehad about
this project and especially for the great care he took in reading the first draft of the translation
and the many suggestions and corrections he made to improve it. The final text is to a considerable
extent due to the skill and experience with which David Britt undertook the comprehensive
task of editing. I am greatly indebted to him. I am also very grateful to Professor Margarete
Kiihn for her valuable advice on selecting and procuring illustrations of Karl Friedrich Schinkel's
buildings. Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to Kurt W. Forster, Thomas F.Reese, and the
Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities for entrusting me with the execution of
the project and especially to Julia Bloomfield for her help, encouragement, and friendship
while guiding the work through its many stages. -W.H.
This page intentionally left blank
INTRODUCTION
WOLFGANG HERRMANN
HEINRICH HUBSCH CHOSE A STRAIGHTFORWARD QUESTION ASTHE TITLE FOR THE
FIFTY-PAGE BOOK THAT HEPUBLISHED IN1828. Nevertheless, a complex of problems, conflicts,
and uncertainties underlay its seeminglysimple wording,occupyingthe minds
of those who, like Hubsch, were concerned about the unsatisfactory state of architecture.
Over the next few decades attempts were made to answer the question or at
least to consider seriously its implications. Arguments and counterarguments were
advanced in quick succession; traditional values were upheld against radical proposals,
and a materialistic approach was opposed by an idealistic point of view.
A lively debate, carried on in speeches and in print, arose amongthose whose professions
and predilections inclined them towardan interest in the controversy-architects
and, quite frequently, art critics and academics.
The main theme of the discussion-and the one on which this introductory
essay will focus-was the question of style. Naturally, many other factors were
pursued in the course of often quite elaborate argumentation, but it is those that
relate most closely to the concept of style-such as construction, material, customs,
or religious and aesthetic values-that are of particular interest.
Those men who were to take part in the style controversy were born
around the turn of the century. During their formative years the mainly literary current
of the Sturm und Drang period swelled into the full flood of Romanticism in
all the arts; and in this movement they found the fulfillment of everything they
longed for: escape from the confines of traditional rule and conventional order into
a world that responded to their emotions. This generation chiefly owed its serious
interest in medieval art and architecture to twomen: Sulpiz Boisseree and Friedrich
von Schlegel, the former through his collection of early German paintings, the latter
through a publication describing medieval art and the deep impression that the
cathedrals of Cologne and Strasbourg had made on him.1
The enthusiasm with which the younger generation responded to the
newly revealed beauty of Gothic churches led many to choose architecture as the
subject of their studies. Naturally, their teachers, who belonged to the preceding
generation, firmly believed in the universal validity of the architectural canon of
antiquity. Sooner or later, this was bound to lead to conflict. The way in which
Heinrich Hiibsch's professionallife developed is a goodexample.
Looking back to the day when, as a twenty-year-old, he had entere
Friedrich Weinbrenner's studio, Hiibsch recalled how deeply impressed he had been
by the "pointed-arch" style (Spitzbogenstil), "probably because the views of Goethe,
Schlegel, and others had a strong influence on me."2
It is therefore not surprising to
hear that even after two years of studying the classical canon under Weinbrenner,
he still held to his first conviction "that ancient architecture wasunsuitable for our
buildings, even when applied in the freest possible manner, and that it deprived them,
as works of art, of the organic correlation of their parts." He admitted, however, that
he was still too immature to be able to suggest something else to supersede whatever
had been done hitherto.3
He still preferred the "vivid splendor of Gothic architecture"
to the "lifeless planes...of facades built in the antique style"4
when he
decided two years later, as was then quite usual, to continue his architectural education
by studying the antiquities of Rome. Moreover,as the center of the Romantic
German Nazarenemovement, that city had an additional attraction for him.
2. HERRMANN
What interested him was not so much the ancient monuments as the
medieval Italian churches and the manner in which their architects had simplified
the Gothic forms. He adopted these simple forms in the first year of his stay in Rome,
when he worked on designing churches in the Gothic style. During his second year,
he traveled to Greece. His reaction to the important event of seeing Greek architecture
in its pure form, and not in the corrupted interpretation presented bysucceeding
generations, is most revealing. "On my return from Greece to Rome," he recounted
later, "I had completely changed my views. The prolonged contemplation of Greek
monuments strengthened me in my belief as to the inadequacy of Greek architecture
for our extensive needs...and at the same time convinced me...that in order
to establish a new style, alive to the demands made by the present, I had to proceed
more radically than I had done so far."5
Thus, by 1819 he already had a goal that from then on would guide all
his thoughts: to overcome what he called the "crisis of present-day architecture."6
Hubsch felt that progress toward the aim he had set himself-the establishment of a
new style-was impeded by the tenets of classical doctrine. One important task that
he intended to undertake was to demonstrate the falsity of the notion of imitation
that was so deeply ingrained in architectural thought. He developed its refutation
in a book entitled Uber griechische Architectur (On Greek Architecture), published
in 1822. Unremittingly, he attacked the teachings of Aloys Ludwig Hirt, the leading
theorist on classical antiquity. It wasnot the imitation of Greek art that wasthe object
of Hubsch's critique; this ideal had lost much of the appeal that it had in Johann
Winckelmann's day. The "imitation" to which he strongly objected related to the
genesis of Greek architecture. According to a widely held view that had its root in
Vitruvian tradition, Greek stone temples were modeled on earlier wooden buildings.
Hubsch demonstrated that structural laws and the properties of the building material
determined the construction as well as the form of the major parts. It was absurd,
therefore, to deduce the stone structure of the Greek temple from a strange-looking,
old wooden building. The idea that the trabeated system wasthe result of the imitation
of a wooden structure ran counter to basic architectural principles.7
These ideas matured until in 1828, Hubsch wasready to elaborate them
and to speak out against the idealistic approach to architecture. "After myfinal return
from Italy in 1824," he wrote later, "I had a clear picture in my mind of the new
style, the elements of which I then tried to develop as objectively as possible in the
book.. .In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? [In What Style Should We Build?]"8
To this end he reviewed the major architectural systems. These had also
been the subject of a book published a year before Hubsch's treatise by the wellknown
historian Christian LudwigStieglitz. Yetin their objectives and final conclu-
3. INTRODUCTION
sions the two authors differed greatly. Stieglitz gavea historical account ofthe manner
of building as it differed amongnations. Resignedly,he concluded that for the present,
"all that can be done, in view of the impossibility of creating new forms, is to imi-
tate."9
But Hubsch, pursuing an uncharted route, undertook an analyticalexamination
of the major styles and concluded with confidencethat the new style, as outlined
by him, would "freely evolve and respond to any fair demand without hesitation."10
Hubsch admitted four factors as the basic determinants of style: material,
technical experience, climate, and present needs.11
By limiting his analysisof
ancient styles to what might be called materialistic factors, he could have found support
in, and might indeed have been influenced by, a debate between Johann Karl
Schorn and Carl Friedrich von Rumohr over the nature of style that had taken place
in an exchange of letters published in Kunst-Blatt a few years earlier.12
Rumohr
(whom Hubsch knew well enough to send a drawing to from Greece)13
countered
Schorn's idealistic approach by stressing the clear distinction that had to be made
between, on the one hand, the rawmaterial to be subjected to artistic treatment and,
on the other, the ideas and their artistic representation in the final work of art. Only
the former, the material as treated by the artist, incorporated what Rumohr called
style. While he admitted that this concept of style meant that it evolved in an inferior
and merely technical sphere, he emphasized that it wasjust for this reason that
it had a separate existence and could be perceived separately in a work of art.
Hubsch may or may not have been aware of Rumohr's theoretical arguments,
but the extraordinary way in which he restricted his analysis of the major
architectural systemsto the technical sphere makes it evident that he too considered
the concept of style to be unrelated to aesthetic qualities. Aiming at a new style, he
consequently focused his attention on those four principal factors that had in the
past alone determined the major styles.
Hubsch first listed the essential parts of a building: walls, ceiling, roof,
supports, windows,and doors. These were the elements of style; their forms varied
according to the material used.14
The Greeks, using hard marble or ashlar as building
materials, developed a system in which all parts clearly conveyed the function
they were to fulfill: columns appeared only wherethey supported an architrave, piers
only where they strengthened the wall, and the architrave only where it was needed
to carry the ceiling. In this way, they developed an architecture that "excelled in
simplicity of composition."15
Next to material, it was what Hubsch called "technostatic
experience" that had an important influence on the creation of style.16
The
Romans, not comprehending the logic of the structural principle on whichthe Greek
style was based, changed it into a "mere sham and show architecture."17
However,
by using small-sized stones, they introduced the vault as a new structural element.
4. HERRMANN
While architecture declined with the end of the Roman Empire, technostatic experience
wasnever lost and even progressed.18
Over the centuries constructions became
bolder, while less material was needed to span spaces. A highly developed vaulting
technique and the introduction of the pointed arch (Spitzbogen), created a system
in which everything derived from the construction of the vault.19
The medievalsystem
of the vault was the opposite of the Greek post-and-lintel system. "Essentially,"
Hubsch concluded, "there are only two original styles: one with straight, horizontal
stone architraves;the other with curved vaults and arches."20
The last two sections of the treatise are taken up by a comparison of two
styles whose basic structural form wasthe arch: the rounded (i.e., the Rundbogenstil)
and the pointed. The existence of a transitional period, in which the pointed arch
was not acutely pointed and differed little from the Rundbogen, made it difficult
for Hubsch to opt for one or the other, but in the end he decided for the latter
because, he said, it conformed to the practical theory that he had developed in his
book.21
One rather suspects that it was his taste that turned the scale in favor of
the Rundbogenstil and not the "cold logic" by which-as he said later-a new style
should be judged.22
It is hardly surprising that Hiibsch's view of the genesis of style was not
accepted. Soon after his essay was published, the Kunst-Blatt carried a review written
by Rudolf Wiegmann, who-nine years junior to Hubsch-was still on a study
tour in Italy.23
Wiegmann criticized Hubsch for attaching a meaning to the term
"style" that related to material and construction. "The whole treatise," he exclaimed,
"seems to be pervaded by the notion that matter dominates mind."24
This reproach was unjustified. It was obviously based on a misconception
about the aim of Hiibsch's analysis. Hubsch believed that in order to attain a
style representing the present, it was necessary to probe into the factors that had
determined the styles of the past, and material and construction had been the most
important of these factors. He never denied that once this secure base had been established,
the task of creating beauty still remained. Yetthis task related to a faculty
different from that ofpure reflection, whichwashis only guide. Once,when explaining
o what extent the new style would differ from the Greek style, he stopped when he
ealized that the reader might expect him to speak about the aesthetic aspect of the
ew style. He admitted that at this point it would have been fitting to discuss archiectural
beauty but refrained since he "would have to speak too much offeelings, and
his treatise would take on too subjective... an aspect."25
Right at the beginning of the
reatise, he referred to "inessential elements" (as distinct from the basic forms): in a
ord, what wewould call the aesthetic superstructure, where the "artist's talent and
aste are mainly called upon" and where one should "let the artist's taste have free
5. INTRODUCTION
t
r
n
t
t
t
w
t
rein."26
Shortly after, he emphasized that his investigation wasconcerned only with
the form of the main architectural elements and that their combination was "the
artist's primary task and bears witness to his talent."27
Hubsch obviously conceived
of style as a quality separate from the rest of the work and no doubt agreed with
Rumohr's statement that "at times style...is the only merit of an otherwise poor
work,...while a well-executed work may lack any style."28
Soon another critical voice joined the debate. The young Franz Kugler,
editor of the newly founded journal Museum, wrote an article for his publication in
which he regretted the lack of a characteristic contemporary architectural style while
acknowledging that such a style could only arise when based on the nation's religious
sensitivity.29
He rejected the prevailing eclecticism as disgraceful and depressing and
therefore welcomed recent efforts to steer clear of this confusion. He noticed two
trends in particular: one represented by Leo von Klenze, the other by Hubsch.30
He
reproached Klenze for demanding the adoption of the Greek style, since this would
have the same effect that adoptions of known styles had always had-the obstruction
of progress and the loss of one's own creative faculty. He then turned to an examination
of the other trend. Drawing on a passage of Hiibsch's treatise (which he cited
verbatim), he concluded that Hubsch was a representative of this trend and, in contrast
to Klenze, rejected the known styles as incompatible with present needs and
wanted to workout a new systembased on the "technical elements of construction."31
While Kugler did not wish to question the sincerity with which Hubsch pursued his
objective and while he recognized that civil architecture would, in following these
principles, be freed from unsuitable decorative overloading,he nevertheless wasconvinced
that it was a great mistake to believe that "a work of art could ever evolve out
of the material and extraneous conditions."32
We know of one other early reference to Hiibsch's treatise. It came from
a youngarchitect, Carl Albert Rosenthal. In a book published in 1830, he noted with
satisfaction that the indiscriminate enthusiasm aroused bythe discoveryof true Greek
monuments had passed and with it the notion of a universal adoption of Greek forms.
Thus, the wayhad been freed for an unprejudiced appraisal of medievalarchitecture,
which had recently led to attempts at adapting it to present-day conditions, "with
which Hubsch...in his treatise In What Style Should WeBuild? has made a praiseworthy,
though inadequately prepared, beginning."33
An article that Rosenthalwrote
fourteen years later explains the reservationswith whichhe acknowledgedthe merits
of Hiibsch's treatise. There, Rosenthal rejected the Romanesque style as too constrained
and clumsy and called unreservedly for a reinterpretation of the Gothic or-as
he named it-the Germanic style.34
Gradually, the quest for style gained momentum. Eduard Metzgerwasthe
6. HERRMANN
first architect who,like Hubsch, tried to deduce from an analysis ofpast styles the effect
that certain positive factors had on the genesis of style. Metzger had studied under
Klenze and Friedrich von Gartner. In 1833, shortly after his return from Greece (whic.
he had visited together with his friend Gottfried Semper), he wasappointed professor
at the newly founded Polytechnikum in Munich. A few years later, he published an
article "Uber die Einwirkung naturlicher und'struktiver Gesetze auf Formgestaltung
des Bauwerkes" ("On the Influence ofNaturaland Structural Laws on the Configuration
[Gestaltung] of Buildings") in which he examined in some detail the Greek and
the Egyptian temple (surprisingly in this sequence) and the German cathedral.35
In his introduction Metzger set out the principles according to which
architecture had developed throughout history. He recognized three bases from which
these principles derived: national character, with worship as its focus; nature; and
building material. Whereas worship and nature affected architecture in a significant,
yet mainly general, way,it was specifically the way in which "the material is used
and ordered, or in other words the construction," to which the architect had to pay
the greatest attention. This, he reasoned, meant that a building wasthe result of "a
rationally conceived order, based on natural and structural laws" and that its ground
plan wasa reflection of"all utilitarian, climatic, and structural conditions."36
A detailed
analysis of the Greek temple, which took up many pages and was supported bymeasured
drawings, confirmed his belief that these factors were indeed "the basic means
that essentially influenced the configuration of these monuments."37
In Metzger's opinion, natural and rational laws also explained the form
and proportions of Egyptian monuments. The material, which wasstone throughout,
determined every essential form. "With these monuments," he declared, "Egypt paid
homage to the spirit ofthe material and thus to the clearly manifested construction."38
Turning to his third paradigm,the German cathedral, Metzger found evidence
of the influence of structure on form as early as the Byzantine churches of the
eleventh and twelfth centuries.39
The manner of constructing the vaults led most
naturally to the pointed arch and to high buildings. The finest buildings of this style
were formed according to a system of well-ordered tension, consisting of primary and
secondary ribs that were closely joined to support each other, thus forming a kind of
wickerwork on the surface of the vaults that needed only thin material, such as a
sheathing of bricks, to cover the compartments. Function also determined the forms
of the buttresses and flying buttresses, enabling the wallsofthe nave to withstand the
pressure of the vaults and to prevent the network of ribs from fracturing;40
had it not
been for the "fairy tales" according to which these allegedly ideal forms were modeled
on trees and branches, it would soon have been recognized that all these intricate
forms, down to the smallest detail, followed the well thought-out structural
7. INTRODUCTION
principle of load, tension, and relief and that everything "had evolved from normal
mathematical calculations."41
A year later, a new journal published another article by Metzger on the
same subject.42
This time he stressed-as did manyothers at the time-how important
it was for architecture to have a scientific foundation."Scientific knowledgealone
will lead to a thorough understanding of the essence of construction," he wrote.43
One consequence of the positive attitude toward science wasthis radical statement:
U
0nce a building has been declared constructionally correct, it isessentially perfect."
It was for the same reason, and contrary to Hubsch's view, that he thought the construction
of the pointed arch wasmore perfect than that of the rounded arch.44
Against these statements must be set Metzger's admissionthat just as the
framework of the human body needs to be covered by flesh and skin, so art must
breathe life into the organismof the building.45
Despite this idealistic note, Metzger's
otherwise materialistic approach was still felt to be so unusual at this time that the
editor thought it advisable to preface it with this caveat: "While [the author] credits
technical construction with directly influencing the configuration of a building, it
should not be overlooked that architecture as an art form is not just a simple reproduction
of the material world but is at the same time an art subjected to the loftier
influence of the freely creative genius."46
Within the next few years, the predominant influence of material and
construction was widely accepted. The first issue of another new architectural journal
included an article byits editor, Johann AndreasRomberg,whostrongly believed
that the promising development of a modern architecture depended on the adoption
of rational principles: "Form expresses construction," he declared.47
The study of
building material and of its properties wasnow needed more than ever, especially in
view of the great number of new industrial products; architecture, in its search for a
firm base, had lately begun to turn to architectural science and pay greater attention
to material and climate. With this, Romberg thought, an important step had been
made to "lead architecture away from utter decline" to regeneration. The link between
architecture and science ensured that "only those forms that are rooted in construction
are considered to be beautiful."48
Anton Hallmann, an architect of great promise and author of aremarkable
book, Kunstbestrebungen der Gegenwart (Contemporary Artistic Trends), was
even less compromising. His book was published in 1842, a few years before his
untimely death at the age of thirty-seven."Only when the construction fits the material
can wetalk of style," wrote Hallmann, "and style will lack character the moment
we abandon these solid supports without any reason."49
Many writers had by now adopted Hubsch's thesis that material deter-
8. HERRMANN
mined style. Yetnobody drew the seemingly obvious conclusion. Metzger came close
to it when, in reference to the mania of wanting to create something new, he wrote
that it was ridiculous to talk of new architectural styles "as long as there is no new
material to oust the existing style."50
Weshall return to Metzger: several years later,
he was the first to realize that a new material did indeed exist.
Although some architects may have had reservations about Metzger's
materialistic approach toward the problem of style, they certainly shared his opinion
that it was impossible to invent a new style. All architects were concerned about the
break in the sequence of styles that had become apparent at the turn of the century
and were eagerly seeking ways to reform architecture; but they nevertheless knew
that a quality as intangible as style could never be derived from such an extrinsic
process as invention. Schlegel already warned of the consequences that would follow
from attempts that aimed at "creating a new art, as it were, out of nothing."51
Later,
when the discussion about style revealed its complex nature, the idea ofovercoming
the difficulty by inventing a new style "at a stroke"52
or "par force '53
wasthought to
be "foolish"54
and "misguided,"55
an undertaking that far exceeded "an individual's
capacity"56
and was as unattainable as "the invention of a new language."57
When, in
1850, by order of King Maximilian of Bavaria, the Akademie der bildenden Kiinste
in Munich invited architects to take part in a competition "to invent a newstyle," the
laconic reaction of the DeutschesKunstblatt was:"Styles are not made; they develop."58
In view of these emphatic statements, it was plainly unfair of Klenze to
ridicule the efforts of "some misguided German scribblers and dilettantes who
believe...that they will be able to invent a new style through pamphlets, proclamations,
and articles."59
It wasunfair but also a sign that he wasnot as much concerned
about the state of architecture as were his younger contemporaries; they were painfully
aware of the ill-defined and insecure part it played within the social and cultural
framework of their day in comparison with the outstanding function it had fulfilled
during great periods in the past. The so-called "scribblers" were motivated by the
desire to reverse this decline. Whether they rejected or supported Klenze's adherence
to classical ideals, they had one common aim: to work toward the establishment
of an architectural style that would be a unique representation of all the material and
nonmaterial factors that formed the character of their owntime. Reviewingthe past,
they found that "every period and every nation had attained its characteristic style"60
and that in consequence "modern art must be a clear expression of the present."61
This, they said, wasnow universally demanded.62
To those who believed in the absolute value of Greek architecture, this
was a task that while requiring a high degree of aesthetic sensitivity, could nevertheless
be solved without transgressing the framework of classical doctrine. As Johann
9. INTRODUCTION
Heinrich Wolff, the foremost representative of this faction, phrased it, all that was
needed wasto use the elements that ancient architecture had provided in an intelligent
and reasonable way, while taking into account the admittedly changed conditions
of the present.63
Our task, he said when commenting on a lecture by Friedrich
Wilhelm LudwigStier, can only consist of "modifying and rearranging the architectural
elements that naturally evolved in antiquity."64
The situation was more difficult for those with opposing views, who were
convinced that a break with the overpoweringinfluence that classical doctrine had
exercised over the architectural production of the past few hundred years was a
precondition for a sound architectural future. This demand in no way affected their
admiration for Greek architecture, which they voiced in terms that equaled those of
the "classicists." Indeed, they believed, with Hubsch, that no other nation "lavished
such fine qualities on its monuments" as the Greeks did during the age of Pericles65
and, with Rosenthal, that no other nation had come "so close to the acme of perfec-
tion."66
Wiegmann argued that even if it could be demonstrated that no future style
could ever attain the supreme perfection of Greek architecture, this wasno reason for
holding on to the antique style.67
Indeed, any attempts at modifying this style to meet
modern conditions were bound to fail; it wasjust because of its perfection that the
alteration of even the smallest detail would only end in disfigurement. "We must
therefore accept that its time has passed."68
Greek architecture could therefore be of no help to architects in their
search for a style characteristic of their own time. Havingrejected the idea of inventing
a new style or imitating a past style, they faced a frightening situation in which-as
Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm Botticher put it-"we wouldfind ourselves alone in an immense
void, having lost all the historical ground that the past has provided for us and for the
future as the only basis on which further development is possible."69
Caught in this
dilemma, they reviewed the historical conditions under which postclassical styles
had evolved and discovered-or persuaded themselves-that occasionally the development
of a style had been interrupted for extraneous reasons. Hubsch used this
argument as ajustification for the application of forms in a known style.Acknowledging
that the new style he had described came close to the Rundbogenstil, he added,
"as it would have evolved, had it developed freely and spontaneously, unimpeded by
all harmful reminiscences of the ancient style."70
Wiegmann, reviewing Hubsch's treatise shortly after its publication, was
unconvinced and sawthe adoption ofthe Rundbogenstil as nothing more than a change
from ancient to new fetters.71
Yeta few years later, in 1839, he recognized that many
recent buildings pointed to the vitality of the Rundbogenstil. He still believed that it
could not be directly transplanted into the present but nowadmitted that it had been
10. HERRMANN
"interrupted by outside influences" and therefore could still be adapted to meet our
spiritual and material needs.72
Semper may have had this passage in mind when he
told his students in 1840 that "it wasrightly said of the style that wecall the Byzantine
that it had not been developed to the point of perfection that it could have attained.
Its development wasinterrupted through the influence of the pointed arch that became
common toward the thirteenth century."73
Writing in the following year, Wiegmann was more specific about the
reason why this style had never fully developed: it was, he explained, suddenly
interrupted in the thirteenth century by an outbreak of eccentric rapture, an indulgence
in emotion at the expense of reason, a relapse into religious mysticism. The
outcome wasthat its promising beginnings were abandoned, although it had not come
to the end of its life (ausgelebt)-, through further development it could blossom into
still greater perfection.74
It wasnot, he said, a natural development that had led to the
Gothic style but one that occurred as the result of a powerful revolution. "If wewish
to relate our art to a style of the past," he told Wolff, "then it can only be one that has
been neither fully exhausted nor completely developed."75
It was Semper once more who took up these arguments in support of the
Romanesque style that he had used in his design for the Nikolaikirche in Hamburg:
"This style," he wrote in 1845, "whose truly national development was interrupted
through the newly arrived element of the pointed arch, has not outlived its time as
the Gothic did; it is therefore capable of being further developed."76
Of course, those who did look to Gothic architecture as a starting point
from which to develop a style characteristic of their time had to arm themselves with
similar arguments against the charge of imitating an already existing style. They
declared that the "disturbance and enervation of people's lives in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries...had interrupted the then progressive rise of German art."77
Or, they believed that due to the domination of the priesthood, the spirit of Gothic
art, as well as that of the Reformation,had remained misunderstood and unfulfilled:
a conjecture that clearly marked its author as a member of Germany's Protestant
church.78
Yet there were those who, on the contrary, believed that the style of the
Gothic cathedrals had run its full course and, like the Greek style, had died a natural
death. "The revival of either style... is impossible."79
Those who upheld classical tradition and those who looked to one of the
medieval stylesfor guidance were all sincere in their belief that they had indeed avoided
the easy road of imitation. Yet the question, in what style to build, still remained
unanswered; it wasraised again and again and became the focus of a protracted and at
times acrimonious dispute between two architects, Johann Heinrich Wolff and Rudolf
Wiegmann, both academics, the first a professor at Kassel, the second at Dusseldorf.
ll. INTRODUCTION
The pagesofthe then-renownedjournal, the Allgemeine Bauzeitung,primarilyserved
as the medium for this dispute.
The controversywastriggered by a remark with which Wolff concluded a
short preamble to his reviewofKlenze's collected architectural designs.80
He contrasted
Klenze's well-founded views, with which he wholeheartedly agreed, with the "ignorance
of some architects who live under the delusion that existing architectural
forms,... evolved by a nation of the highest intellectual standards, are unsuitable
for our period. These architects, calling Greek and Roman architecture pagan and
un-Christian, maintain that different trends should be pursued and even deem themselves
destined to break new ground for our art."81
Wiegmann struck back at once.82
Although Wolff had not mentioned his
name, Wiegmann was convinced that the sarcastic remark about the "ignorance of
some architects" who hoped to break new ground was aimed at him, because he,
Wiegmann, had been the author of a treatise in which he attacked Klenze for his
unswerving belief in the universal validity of ancient art.83
In addition, he had once
before clearly alluded to Klenze in his review of Hiibsch's book, when, comparing the
ordinary artist's work with an imitator's rehash of magnificent buildings, he concluded
that the former might have broken new ground, while the latter wasas unimportant
as if he had never existed.84
He told Wolff that many shared the delusion from which he, Wiegmann,
was supposed to be suffering. He could well believe that their constantly growing
number could make adherents of ancient art fear that their absolute domination was
endangered. However, since the views that he and Wolff held were not peculiar to
them but represented those of two fairly large parties, it was sensible to hope that a
discussion might lead to an understanding. To this end, he put forward a series of
postulates. Those that were not challenged he would assume to be acceptable to his
adversary; those that were attacked, he would try to defend. Amongthe many general
statements (which, as Wolff in return commented, were, if not new, yet in the main
correct) there was one that was clearly aimed at Wolff's position. It said: "Greek
architecture...can serve us as a model, not for imitating their workswithout further
ado, but for creating true and original worksthat will be as appropriate to our needs,
our way of feeling and thinking, our religion and morality, and our material and climate
as those created by the Hellenes were appropriate to their conditions."85
This declaration and the statement that from the artistic point of viewa
building with vaults was incompatible with the trabeated system of the Greek style
and led, whenever attempted, to a "sham architecture," convinced Wolff thatWiegmann
belonged to the party of those who maintained that in order to gain one's own style
one must first cast off the fetters of ancient architecture and of those who not only
12. HERRMANN
wanted to limit what they called the "absolute domination of ancient art" but sought
to persuade architects to repudiate it altogether and thus-in Wolff's view-to forgo
the inheritance of the finest period of art.86
They expected such a radical step for the
simple reason that "we architects often find it necessary,in view of the wide rangeof
present needs and different purposes, to relinquish the fine simplicity of Greek
architecture...whose accomplished forms we cannot apply everywhere unless they
are further developed in the spirit of the Greeks."87
Wolff knew from earlier writings
that Wiegmann took the Romanesque arch to be the embryo of a new artistic blossoming;
but, as long as Wiegmannand the other members of the "opposition" could
not submit some successful examples of their efforts, Wolff would still share and
defend the opinion of those architects and experts who maintained that ancient architecture-both
Greek and Roman-presented the elements on whose intelligent application,
after proper consideration of climate and present needs, the success of modern
architecture rested.88
Wiegmann was delighted to have scored a point: Wolff had admitted that
the Greek style could not be applied unless it underwent further development.89
But
what did that mean, he asked. Did Wolff expect to bring the Greek style to a higher
level of perfection? Did he really believe that the people of the nineteenth century
would succeed, when the Hellenes themselves had failed to maintain the pinnacle
that Greek architecture had attained under Pericles, and their work had degenerated
under the Romans into mere inorganic decoration? What did "development in the
Greek spirit" mean?The spirit that influenced the present wasthe Christian, not the
Greek, spirit.90
The ancient style had proved inadequate for the churches and great
assembly halls of modern times and was even less suitable for industrial buildings,
where the use of iron had begun to evoke a characteristic style that would change the
physiognomy of architecture.91
Should his inability to name successful examples of the new trend be
taken by Wolff as proof that a true work of art could not possibly arise from any other
than the Greek spirit, then Wiegmannmust tell him that indisputable evidence refuting
this belief still existed in Speyer, Worms, and Cologne!92
If Wolff really believed
that an organic integration of the vault into the trabeated system of the Greeks was
possible, then he was sorry to say that Wolff had misunderstood the basic principles
of classical architecture. The difference between a trabeated and an arcuated system
was so great that an integration of the two was quite unthinkable. Over the course of
centuries, the architrave had been totally abandoned; the vault had become the basis
of a new style. In view of the construction of the majestic cathedrals between the
twelfth and fifteenth centuries, there were not many architects who would deny that
vaulted architecture produced original worksof art. "If anyone still doubted this, the
13. INTRODUCTION
existence of universal skepticism half a century before was a sure sign that these stragglers
would also soon disappear."93
He, Wiegmann, never claimed that any of the past
styles had reached the admirable perfection of Greek art and consequently wasof the
opinion that "even were it shown that no future style could ever reach that high degree
of perfection, this would still be no reason to persuade us to hold on to antiquity and
to refrain from striving after a style of our own."94
The second half of Wiegmann's article dealt with a recent book byAugust
Reichensperger, the indefatigable apostle of the revival of Gothic architecture.95
Wiegmann outlined the content of the book in great detail and then compared both
calls for revival. In the end, he rejected both Reichensperger's demand for a revival of
the German style of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries and Wolff's for the adoption
of the Hellenic style. In his opinion, both ignored the fact that "art asmanifested
at a certain time does not remain unchanged, in other wordsthat art too has a history."96
When Wolff called for further development of ancient architecture, he added that
this should be done in the spirit of the Greeks; but, Wiegmann queried, "how could
we, who are only poor bunglers compared to the Hellenes, develop architecture in
their spirit? Weare creatures of the nineteenth century and need great effort even to
approach a scanty understanding of a different spirit, so that any attempt at production
in this spirit would result in a masquerade, not a true and living art."97
With the rejection ofboth the classical and the Christian-Germanic style,
which route-Wiegmann asked-should wefollow? Although he was not able to givea
definite answer (the need for which became more pressing every day), he could at
least indicate the bounds that would have to be observed. Notwithstanding these cautionary
words, he then devoted the last two pages of his paper to a description of the
unique qualities of the Rundbogenstil and of the many advantages it offered, once its
forcibly interrupted development could be resumed.98
Wolff, surprised that his adversary had returned to the fray after an interval
of three years, decided that he ought to explain his own position yet again, in case
younger colleagues might be tempted by Wiegmann's fine-sounding phrases, such as
a "national" and "characteristic" style, a "new route," or the "elimination of paganism,"
under whose"fetters ancient architecture had languished." Apparently,no proper
attention had been paid to his own frequently reiterated remarks. Why was it, Wolff
asked himself, that in the aesthetic field one's views were in constant opposition to
the views of one's adversaries?99
A superficial study of architectural history had
strengthened his opponents' belief that there had been many different styles over the
centuries, each of which reflected the individual character of the respective nation,
and that for this reason our period too must manifest its national character in new
architectural forms.Wolff thought this argument misguided in principle. He believed
14. HERRMANN
that architecture attained full perfection only when its forms had been conditioned
by the nature of the material and the construction derived from it. There were,however,
only a few styles in which these factors had the all-important effect. The great
variety of styles to which his opponents referred were not "true styles" but only different
ways of building, aberrations and deviations from the classical products of true
styles.100
Wolff (as he made clear in the article that is translated in this volume)recognized
only three periods that had created true styles-the Egyptian, the Doric, and
the Ionic.101
It was true that the other manners of building were associated with a
people's distinguishing traits and had therefore gained a characteristic and, one might
say, national appearance that reflected the subjective image of a nation, but this
occurred only because the natural development of forms had been abandoned.Now,
however, given the general acceptance of the true basis of architecture, we should, by
following the correct process, arrive at forms that had previously existed, or at least
come close to them.102
His opponents, Wolff continued, unanimously rejected the ancient style
as too sensuous and pagan and therefore as inappropriate for our period; yet they
disagreed over how to achieve their own aims. Some favored the revival of the Gothic
style-either in its fully developed or in greatly simplified form. Others chose the
Byzantine style-the one that wasthe crudest and least developed-as the foundation
for "their new national style." Its advocates-with Wiegmann, of course, as the main
target of Wolff's sarcasm-explained their eccentric choice on the basis that this style
sprang from the Christian period; that small stones were used for its structures; and
lastly that it had solittle advanced beyond its crude beginnings that national identity,
present perceptions, and modern conditions could still be implanted while it was
developed-in short, it was recommended because of its obvious faults. What a basis,
Wolff exclaimed, on which to rest our future art!103
Although he laid no claim to
the gift of prophecy, it was clear that this "aesthetic development of forms" would
either lead back to Roman architecture or to the fantastic Gothic forms promoted by
Reichensperger: in other words to two styles that he knew Wiegmann detested-just
as he, Wolff, did not like those favored by either Wiegmann or Reichensperger.104
With the dispute thus ended, each contestant could claim to have successfully
upheld the fundamental principle on behalf of which he had taken up the
fight. This wasfairly easy for Wiegmann,who simply denied the possibility that Greek
architecture could in any way further the search for a new style; Wolff's position,
however, was more vulnerable. He found that his call for the retention of classical
ideals could only be sustained if the concept of the "Greek style" waswidened. While
he still subscribed in his early work to the conventional notion that Roman architecture
wasinferior to Greek,105
by the time he wasengaged in his dispute withWiegmann
15. INTRODUCTION
he had accepted that ancient architecture comprised Roman as well as Greek architecture,
which meant that theoretically the arch became a legitimate element of the
classical system. In addition, seeing that in accordance with Hubsch's theory, material
and construction played a great part in the general discussion over style, Wolff
stressed the importance of both factors-but only insofar as they had been active in
the genesis of the ancient styles (a fact that served as an additional justification for
their adoption) and not because they determined the development of a new style, as
had been central to Hubsch's perception. Lastly-near the end of the article that
brought the dispute to a close-Wolff once again admitted that "due to our morecomplicated
requirements we cannot always apply the forms created by the ancients in
the same wayas they did."106
It was strange that when Wolff challenged Wiegmann to name some
notable buildings in the newly acclaimed Rundbogenstil, Wiegmannshifted ground
and referred him to the Romanesquecathedrals ofthe twelfth century as evidence that
the Greek spirit wasnot essential for the creation of true works of art. Yetfor the last
fifteen years prominent buildings had been erected in this style. Foremost were three
buildings by Hubseh: the church of St. Cyriacus at Bulach (1834-1837), the Polytechnische
Hochschule in Karlsruhe (1833-1835), and the Trinkhalle (Pump Room)
in Baden-Baden (1837-1840); and three by Gartner in Munich: the Ludwigskirche
(1829-1844), the Staatsbibliothek (1831-1842), and Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat
(1835-1840).
Of all those whotook part in the discussion on style, Hubsch alone believed
that he had devised a new one. Others were confident that the style they had chosen
could be developed and would in the course of time lead to a new style, but Hubsch
was sure that through his studies of Byzantine, Italian, and Gothic architecture, he
had already reached that goal. In 1838, that is ten yearsafter publication ofIn welchem
Style sollen wir bauen?, he still thought that the principles he had then set out concerning
the main architectural forms were irrefutable.107
Hubsch practiced what he preached. The composition of the extremely
simple facade of the church of St. Cyriacus in Bulach expresses the structural organization
of the building, mainly through pilaster strips that indicate the spatial
divisions of the interior (fig. 1).In line with the first principle in art, which-Hubsch
declared-was truth,108
the walls, built from small blocks of sandstone, are not covered
with plaster; and, in accordance with Gothic practice, the moderately projected
cornice runs only along the inclined sides of the gable.109
The two towers flanking
the apse consist, like those in the Gothic style, of several high stories-here with
round-arched windows.110
Inside, a nave of comparatively great height is separated
from the aisles by arches resting on slender polygonalpillars whosecapitals and bases
16. HERRMANN
1. Heinrich Hiibsch, Church of St. Cyriacus, Bulach (1834-1837).
Lithograph from Heinrich Hiibsch, Bau-Werke, 2nd ser., 1(1852): 6.
Karlsruhe, Institut fiir Baugeschichte, Universitat Karlsruhe.
do not project beyond the contour of the pillar (fig. 2).m
In the same way,the transverse
arches that are part of this special form of vaulting do not project beyond the
capitals of the pilaster strips from which they rise. By leaving the brickwork partly
uncovered, the structural parts of the vaulting and the voussoirs of the arches are
strongly emphasized. The system of round-headed twin windows between the transverse
arches is continued round the choir, where it produces an effect of almost
Gothic lightness.
Hiibsch followed the tenets of his theory with great consistency in his
17. INTRODUCTION
2. Heinrich Hiibsch, Nave of the Church of St. Cyriacus, Bulach (1834-1837).
Karlsruhe, Landesbildstelle Baden.
18. HERRMANN
3. Heinrich Hiibsch, Polytechnische Hochschule, Karlsruhe (1833-1835).Drawing
Karlsruhe, Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe.
design for the Polytechnische Hochschule in Karlsruhe (fig.3). This was a large rectangular
block with a facade of "monumental repose"-to quote the architect's own
description of the building in his Bau-Werke.112
He achieved monumentality by
focusing his attention upon three aspects: the texture of the walls, faced with small
blocks of red granite; the proportional rhythm of the decreasing height of the three
stories; and the emphasis given to the central block, with its vertical sequence of
arched openings: three doorways,three twin windows,and a row of eight windowson
the top floor. He refrained from applying any architectural decoration other than the
19. INTRODUCTION
4. Heinrich Hiibsch, Trinkhalle, Baden-Baden (1837-1840).
Karlsruhe, Landesbildstelle Baden.
narrow band of dentils running under the edge of the roof, two similar bands indicating
the two upper stories, and rusticated lesenes at the corners of the building.
Whereas at St. Cyriacus he was satisfied to present a conventional type of Christian
church and therefore adopted many elements from the churches he had visited on
his journeys, the Polytechnische Hochschule was a modern administrative building
where he was not impeded by past traditions. The fact that he dispensed with any
representational decor is remarkable, even after allowanceis made for the restriction
imposed by a low budget.
20. HERRMANN
5. Friedrich Weinbrenner, Kurhaus, Baden-Baden (1821).
Karlsruhe, Landesbildstelle Baden.
Probably the best known of Hiibsch's buildings is the Trinkhalle in
Baden-Baden (fig. 4). At first glance, the overall composition seems to be less determined
by Hiibsch's tenets. Yeta comparison with Friedrich Weinbrenner's Kurhaus
of 1821 (fig. 5), only a few hundred yards away, reveals the unconventional aspect of
Hiibsch's design and the great aesthetic distance between the two buildings, one
Neoclassical, the other in the Rundbogenstil. The main feature of both is a colonnade.
Yetwhereas at the Kurhaus, eight tall columns form a typical portico that acts
as a grand prelude to the assembly rooms inside the main building, in Hiibsch's
21. INTRODUCTION
Trinkhalle the vaulted space behind the row of sixteen columns fulfills the sole function
for which it wasdesigned, namely, to provide shelter and relaxation to those who
had filled their glassesfrom the source located in a small square room at the back and
center of the colonnade. The construction of Hiibsch's colonnade also differs from
that of Weinbrenner's portico. "The architect," he declared in the note to the published
design, "has set out to achieve something that has hitherto always been evaded,
namely to create a colonnade as light as possible by using a vaulted instead of awooden
ceiling."113
By using segmental instead of half-round arches to span the intervals
between the slender columns, he greatly increased the impression of airy lightness.
With its open display ofthe variousmaterials used-light granite for the columns and
cornice, reddish brickwork for the vaulting, and terra-cotta tiles to face the wallsthe
polychromatic Trinkhalle was Hiibsch's most effective protest against the undiluted
whiteness of the Neoclassical buildings of the recent past. The same critical
reaction had led architects interested in archaeology to discover traces of color on
Greek marble temples.
"The Ludwigskirche and the Staatsbibliothek," wrote Kugler in 1835,
"were executed by Mr. Gartner in the Byzantine style, which, it seems, is considered
by this architect (as it is by Mr. Hiibsch in Karlsruhe) to be the style that best
conforms with the requirements of our time."114
Although the Ludwigskirche in
Munich wasdesigned and built by royal command (fig.6), and Hiibsch's St.Cyriacus
was the parish church of a small village near Karlsruhe, the churches are in many
ways similar. These similarities are mainly due to the fact that the two architects
drew on the same source. The simplified Gothic of Italian churches had made a deep
and lasting impression on Gartner as well as on Hiibsch when they had visited Italy
early in their respective careers. Yet in addition to these recollections and adoptions
of historical forms, which are especially noticeable in the interior of the Ludwigskirche,
its facade presents features that are characteristic of the new style as
conceived by Hiibsch. A skeleton of double lesenes clearly expresses the spatial organization
of the interior building, while any ornamental decor is totally excluded.
The central part of the facade is emphasized by the simple means of a rhythmic
sequence starting from the three axes of the entrance portico, up to the five niches
with their statues and to the circular frame of the large rose window in the center of
the gabled upper wall.
When the facade of the Ludwigskirche was completed, except for the
sculptural decor and upper story of the towers, a critic, reporting in the Kunst-Blatt
on recent art in Munich, thought that the church represented the beginning of a new
period "through a free adaptation of the so-called Byzantine or pre-Gothic manner,
whose essential nature was best signified by the name of Romanesque style... [and
22. HERRMANN
6. Friedrich von Gartner, Ludwigskirche, Munich (1829-1844). Lithograph.
Munich, Architekturmuseum, Technische Universitat Miinchen.
23. INTRODUCTION
7. Friedrich von Gartner, Staatsbibliothek, Munich (1831-1842).
Oswald Hederer, Friedrich von Gartner 1792-1847:Leben, Werk, Schiiler
(Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1976), 122, fig. 68. Photo: Courtesy Prestel Verlag.
24. HERRMANN
8. Leo von Klenze, Walhalla, near Regensburg (1830-1842).
Lithograph by Carl August Lebschee after a painting by Klenze.
Munich, Architekturmuseum,Technische Universitat Miinchen.
which] as a theory had already found many adherents...until it was first put into
practice in Munich."115
Next to the church, and built almost simultaneously, stands Gartner's
most important and best-known building, the Staatsbibliothek (fig.7). This presented
the Rundbogenstil in its purest form. Several circumstances came together to bring
this about. In the first place, the building wasto house a public library and also the
official archives. Since the state had to provide the funds, it wasimperative to cut the
cost as far as possible. From the start, therefore, Gartner rejected the idea that his
25. INTRODUCTION
9. Leo von Klenze, Beifreiungshalle, near Kelheim (1836-1844).
New York, Art Resource/Bildarchiv Foto Marburg.
design for a library should resemble a "luxury" building.116
Instead, he intended to
make its exterior "very simple and serious, sothat it could, as it were,be compared to
a book, the cover of which should not be more sumptuous than its content."117
In the
second place, it was-surprisingly-the king who insisted that the front of the building
should have "no projections, no columns, no portico-only round-arched windows."118
Gartner considered the royal demands unreasonable, yet may have accepted them as
a challenge to show that by relying only on basic constituents, he could master the
task and create a truly monumental building. In this he certainly succeeded.
26. HERRMANN
10. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Altes Museum, Berlin (1823-1833). Drawing.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
The most important element of the front wing,which faces ontoLudwigstrasse,
is the material. Different surfacetreatment emphasizesthe differencebetween
the stories: the highly polished surface of the bare brickwork of the two upper stories
contrasts sharply with the rustication of the ground floor. By recessing the windows
and chamferingthe jambs, the thickness ofthe walls,and thus their strength, becomes
visible. Differently profiled bands running along the window sills mark the three
horizontal blocks that make up the facade, which is crowned by a cornice resting on
a row of consoles. Not a single ornament, nor any decorative detail other than the
27. INTRODUCTION
11. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Nikolaikirche, Potsdam (1830-1849).
Berlin, Brandenburgisches Landesamt fiir Denkmalpflege.
28. HERRMANN
12. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Schlofl Charlottenhof,Potsdam (1826-1835).
Engraving from Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Sammlung architektonischer Entvriirfe
(Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1858), 2: pi. 112. Santa Monica, The Getty Center
for the History of Art and the Humanities.
archivolts over the windowsof the upper floors, distracts the eye. With great consistency,
Gartner succeeded in creating a grand public building that in its monumental
stillness had no equal at the time.
These examples may suffice to draw attention to a style that represented
a new trend in German architecture during the second quarter of the century.119
It
appealed to a great number of people because it seemed to take up the middle ground
between those buildings that were still modeled after the Greek style during these
few decades-such as Klenze's Walhalla (1830-1842) near Regensburg (fig. 8) and
29. INTRODUCTION
13. Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves, Royal Opera House, Hannover (1843-1852).
New York, Art Resource/Bildarchiv Foto Marburg.
30. HERRMANN
14. Karl Friedrich Schinkel, Friedrich Werdersche Kirche, Berlin (1824-1830). Drawing.
Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin.
Befreiungshalle (1836-1844) near Kelheim (fig. 9), Karl Friedrich Schinkel's Altes
Museum (1823-1833) in Berlin (fig. 10), and his Nikolaikirche (1830-1849) and Schlofi
Charlottenhof (1826-1835) in Potsdam (figs. 11,12), or GeorgLudwigFriedrich Laves's
Royal Opera House (1843-1852) in Hannover (fig.13)-and those that represented the
neo-Gothic style, of which only a few existed at that period in Germany-Schinkel's
Friedrich Werdersche Kirche (1824-1830) in Berlin (fig. 14) and Daniel Joseph
Ohlmiiller's Maria-Hilfskirche (1831-1839) in Munich (fig. 15) being the only outstanding
examples. Gartner may have had some notion of the kind of style that was
31. INTRODUCTION
15. Daniel Joseph Ohlmiiller, Maria-Hilfskirche, Munich (1831-1839).
Engraving from Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842): pi. 480.
Santa Monica, The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities.
32. HERRMANN
needed when in a letter to his friend Martinvon Wagner he expressed his belief "that
something must lie between these strict Greek...rules and the purely emotive and
romantic nature of the MiddleAges," something which,if it combined the two trends,
would be best for the design of Christian churches.120
This waswritten in January 1828,
three months before Hubsch's treatise setting out the new Rundbogenstil was published.
Thirteen yearslater, Wiegmann commended the Romanesque Rundbogenstil
as deserving "the most serious consideration [since] it lies between the two extremes
of the antique and the medieval trend."121
While he believed that the task of the next
era might well be the "conciliation of spirituality and sensuality,"122
he nevertheless
was convinced with regard to their architectonic realization that it was quite impossible
to "fuse organicallywhat was in fact incompatible."123
Three years later, the supposed incompatibility of the two architectural
styles was questioned. A major theoretical work, Die Tektonik der Hellenen (The
Tectonics of the Hellenes), had appeared. The author was Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm
Botticher, pupil and admirer of Schinkel and, from 1844, professorat the Bauakademie
at Berlin. Taking a fresh look at the two opposite systems, he came to the conclusion
that the deep gulf that seemed to divide Greek from Gothic architecture could and
should be bridged. His book, the first volume ofwhich waspublished in 1844, contained
a comprehensive theory of the structural system of Greek architecture and the functional
significance of its forms, a theory that despite Botticher's atrocious style and contorted
reasoning, remained valid for a considerable time.124
In the opinion of its first
reviewer, Ernst Curtius, "it contained the key to a new perception of ancient art."125
One excursus-the first of six inserted between the preface and the
introduction-is of particular interest in the present context. In its twenty-sixpages,
Botticher entered the discussion on styles.126
He started from what had by then been
generally recognized as the basic factor determining style-the material. The extent
to which the inertia ofthe material had been mastered was,he declared, one criterion
for judging the value of a building. In early times, only monoliths were used.127
A
steadily increased mastery over the material led step-by-step to the establishment ofa
fully integrated structural system, which was still based on monoliths. The covering,
which seemed to be suspended, rested on beams supported by walls and on rowsof
freestanding columns with architraves to span the intervals between them. The structure
of Greek monuments was confined to these elements. While this mastery of the
material had clearly brought many advantages,the system remained restricted to the
use of monoliths.
The utmost "subjugation" of the material wasachieved when small blocks
of stone, skillfully jointed, wereused in place of monoliths.128
This practice wasbased
on a structural principle that was the opposite to the one that had governed Greek
33. INTRODUCTION
architecture. Its most important achievement wasthe introduction of a new element,
the vault. Botticher retraced the stages that marked the progress in technical skill:
from the simple arch-far superior to the monolithic beam129
-to the vaulted ceiling
and the abutments that resisted the pressure and released the wallsfrom anyfunction
other than enclosure; to the skillful handling of counterbalancing forces;and, finally,
to the invention of the pointed arch, which reduced lateral pressure to a minimum
and, with the help of buttresses and flying buttresses, made it possible to span spaces
of great width and even greater height. This, Botticher declared, wasthe highest point
reached in the art of mastering the material. The structures thus created wouldhave
seemed to the Hellenes, still bound to the use of monoliths, to be supernatural
phenomena.130
After emphasizingthe high cost involved and the damage inflicted to
the delicate Gothic forms, and thereby somewhat qualifying his admiration for the
supreme skill with which the Gothic builder had mastered the material,131
Botticher
turned to the second criterion on which to judge the value of a style. This concerned
the "art-form" (Kunstform), as opposed to the "core-form" (Kernform).132
The criterion
of "core-form" had only taken the material or mechanical side into accountthe
degree of efficiency with which the part fulfilled its mechanical function. What
was also needed wasto judge the effectiveness with which the functions were visually
expressed. This wasthe task of the "art-form." The functions of the mechanical parts
could be symbolized only by those forms that conformed to the way in which nature
expresses the idea inherent in its creations; and only a style that adopted nature's
analogous process could develop a universally true and eternally valid languageof
forms. A style that deviated from the original source would have art-forms of only
temporary validity. "The art-forms of Hellenic antiquity belong to the former category;
to the latter those of the architecture of the medieval pointed arch."133
The
Middle Ages never found universally valid forms. With respect to the core-form, the
Greeks were artists who remained tied down to the mechanism of monolithic architecture,
whereas the Germans were mechanics who mastered the material through
technical contrivances. With respect to the art-form, the Germans were thoroughly
energetic but uncultured mechanics whowere alienated from the refining (bildenden)
influence of nature, whereas the Hellenes were highly civilized poets, drawinginspiration
from nature itself. With Botticher thus extolling the unique qualities of the
Hellenic art-formsin a poetic strain, it is obvious which side he favored.
All the more surprising and remarkable, then, are the remarks with which
he concluded his excursus.134
No longer, he declared, was it a question of whether to
adopt the Hellenic monolithic system or the style of the pointed arch. Study of the
monuments and a clear perception of the universally valid qualities inherent in both
systems were needed in order to bring about a completely new architectural system
34. HERRMANN
"based on a totally different material." Although Gothic architecture formed until
now the most severe contrast to the Hellenic style, this tension would not last forever.
It would be resolved by present and future artistic efforts. Just as Attic art had been
the synthesis of the contrasting Doric and Ionic styles, so would German art be the
synthesis of ancient and medieval architecture.
The notion of resolving the contrast between Greek and Gothic styles
through synthesis was first voiced by Schinkel in a memorandum published in 1811
concerning the rebuilding of the Petrikirche in Berlin, which had burnt down two
years earlier.135
Schinkel referred to the "two poles" of antique and Christian art and
"their fusion... into a synthesis of art," not only at this early period in his career but
again at a much later date when his advice wassought by KingMaximilianof Bavaria.136
Synthesis of the two principles of ancient and medieval art was therefore a concept
with which those close to Schinkel must have been familiar. Botticher's book, the
first in which synthesis was mentioned again after the publication of Schinkel's
memorandum, was an attempt to give Schinkel's vision a rational foundation from
which a new architecture would eventually arise.
What Botticher valued in Schinkel's workwelearn not from the Tektonik,
where the latter is hardly mentioned, but from Botticher's speech in celebration of
Schinkel's birthday in 1846. He admired him as the creator of "works in the severe
style," worksthat reflected "the hieratic manner of Hellenic architecture,"137
and as
the man through whom "Hellenic tradition found a new home" in Germany.138
He
conceded that Schinkel had also built in the Gothic style but considered this a phase
in his development after which he returned to "the source from which the Middle
Ages too had sprung."139
Earlier on in his speech, Botticher had referred to an inner
force through which "one aspect of architecture became prominent with the Greeks
and the opposite aspect with the MiddleAges" and had proclaimed that this "process
of development...must be continued by a future generation in a synthesis of both."140
At this point Botticher could have shown to what extent synthesis had already been
achieved had he referred to one of Schinkel's latest buildings, the Bauakademie
(Bauschule) in Berlin (fig. 16). His failure to do so underlines the difference between
Botticher, the theoretician, and Schinkel, the creative architect. For Schinkel the future
synthesis was not, as it was for Botticher, an interesting and fruitful concept but a
task to be pursued here and now.
The Bauakademie, begun in 1831,141
wascompleted within five years-a
compact square block of four identical facades. It was four stories high, all of which,
except the top mezzanine story, were vaulted. The structure consisted of a skeleton of
strong piers whosefunction wasto withstand the pressure of the vaults, thereby reducing
the weight that the walls had to carry, which in turn made the insertion of large
35. INTRODUCTION
16. Karl Priedrich Schinkel, Bauakademie, Berlin (1831-1836).
Berlin, Landesbildstelle Berlin.
windows possible.142
This structural system, obviously based on Gothic principles,
was clearly expressed on the exterior through the rows of lesenes that extended from
their buttresslike plinth right up to the main cornice. Horizontalbands that ran underneath
the windows between the lesenes created the impression of a well-balanced
framework superimposed upon the flamingred brick walls of the four identical facades.
The terra-cotta ornaments under and above the windowsintroduced a classical element.
It was Schinkel's great achievement to have fused these diverse structural, as
well as formal and decorative, elements into an organic whole of great character.
36. HERRMANN
However, the building defied easy classification and at times caused bewilderment.
It wasdisliked, certainly for this reason, by Ernst Kopp, a Dresden architect.
In his Beitrag zur Darstellung eines reinen einfachen Baustyls (Contribution to
the Representation of a Pure and Simple Style), published in 1837 (that is, one year
after the Bauakademiewascompleted), he declared that progressin architecture could
be achieved only "by the consistent development of a basic type,.. .not by devising a
bastard style as presented by the new Bauschule in Berlin."143
In contrast, the judgment
passed by Kugler in his Schinkel biography of 1842 was positive, although the
concluding words of a detailed description betray a certain amount of uneasiness
vis-a-vis this "new and surprising" building.144
A few years later he believed it was
"one of those rare creations that only a genius can achieve and that will exercise an
influence for a long time."145
The Bauakademie became the focus of a discussion about the merits of the
classical and the Gothic styles when, in the course of a parliamentary debate regarding
a proposed increase of the institute's yearly subsidy, a recently elected member,
August Reichensperger, seized the opportunity to vent his animosity against the classical
dogmaand in particular againstthe commandingposition it held in the Prussian
capital. The DeutschesKunstblatt published a verbatim report ofthe session, followed
by a detailed refutation of Reichensperger's arguments. These were mainly directed
against the alleged anti-Gothic bias of the school's teaching program but also against
the outwardappearance of the building itself, whichin Reichensperger's opinionwould
be more suitable on "the banks of the Ilissus than on those of the Spree." Since
Reichensperger admitted that he was not acquainted with architectural problems,
the editor of the journal felt free to enlighten him with the information that "the
Bauschule in Berlin...is in no way an Athenian or Roman but, on the contrary, an
independent and original building." Asto "its construction-if one has to compare-it
rather tends toward the Middle Ages, as evidenced by the vaults and the strong projection
of buttresses." It surely wasimpossible, he thought, "to look at this building...
and fail to realizethat no other modern building exists that summarizesthe resultsof
all preceding architectural periods in such an admirable way."146
In modern times, the Bauakademie has frequently been interpreted as
foreshadowing, in structure and form, principles that govern present-day buildings.
In this connection, it may be interesting to compare the assessments that twowriters,
almost a century and a half apart, gave of the significanceof Schinkel's building. One
author, writing in 1842, said: "The Bauschule is one of Schinkel's most important
and admirable buildings. By developing an architectural style that sprang from the
natural properties of brick, he not only made great progress but took a real leapforward.
It is all the more to be regretted that he had so little opportunity to pursue this
37. INTRODUCTION
path any further."147
Another author, writing in 1981, said: "Using his conventional
material, Schinkel has presented us with something that could really be produced
only much later with a different material. It isnot the actual technical progressthat is
the Bauakademie's decisive aspect, but the artistic vision of an architecture forwhose
realization a new technique had first to be invented."148
There had been two further attempts to overcome the rift that existed
between those who adhered to the classical forms and those who believed that only
the development of one of the medieval traditions wouldlead to a new style. The first
of these attempts was spelled out in an article by Friedrich Wilhelm LudwigStier.149
In his opinion it was vital to demonstrate the invalidity of the notion, voiced by the
opponents of the antique style, that the difference between Greek and Gothic style
was conditioned solelyby the different building materials, monoliths as against small
stones or bricks. This, he believed, even if not whollywrong,wasyet one-sided.150
He
argued that when the field of study was widened-as it should be-to include both
religious and secular buildings, it would become obviousthat a great varietyofbuilding
materials were used in antiquity as well as in medieval times. Greek temples had
wooden ceilings; Greek and Roman dwelling houses had architraves made from timber
as well as columns built of brick.151
As for vaulting, this method of coveringwide
spaces wasalreadygenerally used in the early period of imperial Romanarchitecture.152
While it was true that the church architecture of the Middle Ages was based on a
structural system of vaults and arches, the secular buildings, dwellings in particular,
were much freer in the choice of their structural elements. Instead of vaults, the low
rooms had flat ceilings supported by beams made of timber, a material out of which
whole houses were constructed. Since windows and other wallopenings werebridged by
lintels, horizontality prevailed, sothat it would be right to saythat in the Middle Ages
the architrave wasan element asfamiliarasthe arch had been in Romanarchitecture.153
From these observations, Stier drew conclusions for present-day architecture.
Since dwellings and, as related types, public buildings formed the preponderance
of all modern architectural activity and since structural as well as aesthetic
reasons led to a horizontal covering,154
he thought it sensible and natural not to follow
the principle ofthe arch but ofthe beam in the construction ofour buildings: in other
words to follow the principle of the Greek style.155
However,as he stressed in the next
paragraph, he wasnot opposed to archlike forms, whether used as vaults or in arcades:
"We cannot do without either the architrave or the arch...in many buildings, both
structural systems have to be used simultaneously."156
Stier's wide-rangingpersonal taste wasat the root ofthe tolerant attitude
that he adopted here and throughout the article. While he acknowledged that the form
of the arch stood out as an alien element within an overall horizontality, he neverthe-
38. HERRMANN
less agreed with the general view that too many horizontal lines tired the eyeand that
in the midst of all this monotony, the arch had a lively and exhilarating effect.157
Stier's attitude wasequally ambivalent when he dealt in the second part
of his article with the forms that mark the styles. As to details, Greek and Gothic
architecture used the same elements, except that they differed in the waythey were
arranged and in the emphasis given to them in each style. Greek forms were meant to
be seen at close range and were therefore appropriate for small-scale buildings; the
opposite was true of the Gothic forms.158
The Gothic system of constructing vaults wascertainly the most perfectof
all, Stier wrote,and wasto be recommended for monumental churches of great height.
For smaller rooms, however,the simpler forms of Romanand Italian vaultswere more
appropriate. An unbiased study of the forms of many parts of the Greek style, such as
cornice, frieze, and architrave, wouldconfirm that these were not determined bystructural,
but solely by aesthetic, considerations. Since the corresponding forms that we
see on Romanesque and Gothic buildings were also only loosely connected with the
construction, there wasno reason whywe should not take the Greek forms as models.
"This much is certain," he exclaimed, "whatever a nation deemed to be appropriate,
when it had reached a degree of general and artistic culture as high as the Greeks had
reached at the greatest period of their existence, wecan imitate today without hesitation
...even where wecannot instantly see the particular reason for it."159
Of course, Stier hastened to add that he did not suggest copying these
forms but developing them further by skillful adaptation. That the Greek style could
be developed further-despite frequently voiced opinion to the contrary-was shown
by successive artistic periods and in particular by the way in which forms that
derived from the trabeated Greek system had been organically joined with Roman
and Italian vaults.160
Turning to the Gothic details and observing the various forms of pillars
and columns, of bases, capitals, and friezes, and of wooden beams used on ceilings
or in dwellings generally, Stier was first tempted to believe that these Gothic forms
would also be suitable for present-day architecture. However,on second thought, he
decided against it and instead recommended taking the ancient architectural forms
as a model. He suggested this for a number of reasons, the main one being (among the
"many that keep running through myhead and myintuitive feeling") that an exterior
with Gothic details would be out of harmony with a modern interior furnished in the
English or French taste.161
In the last section, Stier dealt with the Rundbogenstil. Subjecting it to a
lengthy critical analysis,162
he showed the misjudgment of those who for the last fifteen
years had preferred this style as a model to Greek, Roman, and Italian art-who,
39. INTRODUCTION
in short, had chosen to imitate "the barbaric offspring of a world," that of antiquity,
whose splendid workshad for centuries been hidden by dark clouds and covered by
frost.163
The ancient world had been the climax of a long historical development, the
highest point that human civilization had ever reached. For that reason alone "the
architecture of antiquity must remain the base for our art."164
Hejustifiedthis demand
with the usual panegyric about the superior quality of Greek art and civilization.
It was typical of Stier that having made a statement in which he clearly
and unambiguously indicated the stand he took in the controversy about style, he
at once tried to soften the effect of his seeminglyuncompromisingattitude. He ended
the article by sayingthat if one looked at the matter less seriously,took into account
the monotonous appearance of our modern cities, and ignored the aim of establishing
basic laws for modern architecture, then he was quite happy to allow new buildings
in the Gothic and Romanesque style, since it was pleasing from time to time to
encounter buildings in modern cities that recalled the style of the distant past.165
If Stier's aim had been to bring an end to the clash between different doctrines by
showing that many dogmatically upheld principles did not conform to the facts, he
probably failed, since his tolerant attitude did not prevent him from repeatedly siding
with the Greek ideal.
We do not know how far Stier's deductions, based on a peculiar mixture
of conventional choice and personal taste, appealed to his professional colleagues.
They certainly infuriated Botticher, Stier's colleague at the Bauakademie,whowrote
a long and devastating critical review.166
His main attack wasdirected against Stier's
failure to establish the principles at the root of the construction of both styles, one
signified by the architrave and the other by the arch. Tothat end, it would have been
necessary to examine the extent to which the properties of the particular material
had been exploited, howfar the material determined the forms ofthe structural parts,
and how well these were interrelated in their function to form an integrated system.
Only when this had been done wasit possible to compare the twosystems and come to
a decision about their respective value. Stier, he found, did not deal at all with these
important criteria. Instead he referred to the horizontal covering, the horizontal architrave,
and the curved form of the arch and made the completely irrelevant observation
that these parts were frequently made of material other than stone, particularly
in secular buildings. What Botticher, the theoretician, found most reprehensible was
the fact that in a study that purported to examine architectural principles, Stier
throughout allowed his personal taste to be the final arbiter. Botticher wasexasperated.
"Now at last," he exclaimed, "Mr. Stier has achieved what he wanted, namely to
jumble everythingtogether, to mix the forms accordingto means and circumstances,
fancy and inclination, and to use them as well as one was able or according to one's
40. HERRMANN
taste. He set out to make a contribution to the establishment of the principle that
should govern present-day architecture...and in the end did not further the matter
a single bit."167
Stier, aware that he was no match for Botticher's intellect and sarcasm,
never replied.
Another attempt to ease the tension that existed among the manyfactions
was Wolffs paper with the telling title "Ein Prinzip und keine Parteien!"("A
Principle, NoParties!"), which he read in 1846 before the Architekten Versammlung.168
By studying the various trends, Wolff had found that although those who tried to
attain a style took diverse routes, they nevertheless did share an initial approach:
they all "sought to return to the original source and to follow the chief guides in our
art, which are the construction and the nature of the material." In short, they wished
to be truthful.169
Therefore, any material-blocks of stone, bricks, timber, and even
iron-might be used, as long as one bore in mind that the nature of the available
material wasthe principal basis for generatingform.170
Since it could be assumed that
all architects accepted that the important role assigned to the material represented
one ofthe foremost architectural principles, it became necessary to examine the qualities
and characteristic differences of the various materials in detail.171
Wolff presented the outlines of such an investigation in the second partof
the paper. First of all there wasthe natural stone or ashlar. Its most important quality
was heaviness, which expressed structural solidity, a quality that we at once perceive
through our inborn sense of gravity and equilibrium. This, however,wasnot the case
with structures composed of a different material, where we immediately look for the
means by which the parts are bound together. When wefind that mortar ensures and
also makes visible the solidity of brick walls and that the components of timber and
iron structures are firmly-and visibly-joined by bolts and nuts, only then does our
sense for structural equilibrium feel satisfied. This need to reveal the manner ofconstruction
furnishes us at the same time with an opportunity to provide exterior forms
and decorative motifs, for instance by emphasizing the joints between the bricks or by
applying bands and rose-shaped patterns on timber and iron structures. Wolff grouped
the qualities of the variousmaterials under certain aspects-whether they werenatural,
like stone and wood,or processed like brick and iron, whether they wereelastic or
brittle, long lasting or easily perishable-all of which, of course, were qualities that
clearly defined the forms that alone were appropriate to the particular material.172
While detailed research alongthese lines could certainly be of great value,
it is difficult to see how it would lead to "a harmonious resolution of the present
chaos,"the stated aim ofWolffs lecture.173
In fact, he himself ensured that his lecture
would not have this effect by constantly evaluatingthe qualitative worth of individual
materials. When he declared that "one glance is enough to know that the qualities of
41. INTRODUCTION
ashlar and the forms derived therefrom conform most easily and naturally to whatever
beauty demands";174
when, on the one hand, he recognized only in the trabeated
system the full development of a harmony akin to music and, on the other hand, he
invariably noted the shortcomings of all materials other than stone; and when, at the
end of the article, he added a table in which stone and all its positive qualities were
placed on one side and all other materials and their imperfect qualities on the other,
then it is obvious that his call for a shared pursuit of truth had no bearing on the
question of styles and could in no wayresolve the rift between the warring factions.
In the same year Eduard Metzger wrote an article that wasmore likely to
advance the quest for a style.175
The article is interesting in two respects. On the one
hand Metzger's belief in architectural progress considerably sharpened the contrast
that existed between the viewpointsof the two sides; on the other hand, this concept
of historical development led him to envisage a stage that wouldbring the prospectof
resolving the conflict much closer. As to the first point, the consequences of the two
diverging views are highlighted through a comparison of Metzger's article with a paper
by Wolff, published the previous year.176
Both authors, Wolff as well as Metzger, review the sequence of styles
throughout history.They both start with Egyptianarchitecture, followed by the Greek,
Roman, Byzantine (Romanesque), and finally Gothic styles. Wolff recognized steady
progress from Egyptian architecture to the Doric and from there to the Ionic style.At
that point the rising curve of progress stopped. The Ionic style, he declared, had been
the acme of perfection.177
Everything that followed-from Roman to Gothic architecture-already
contained the germ of decline. This was certainly the case with
the architecture of the Romans, who abandoned the simple post-and-lintel system,
replacing it by an unnatural support given by arches. This was also the case with the
many subsequent styles, their structural systems derived from the vault, a vague form
that produced an impression of restless immobility in sharp contrast with the classical
repose of the ancient style.178
Somewhat reluctantly, Wolff admitted that the medieval
builders achieved the counterbalancing of the curved line of the arch in a manner
so perfect that it had never been surpassed, but then he pointed to the boundless
willfulness that ultimately led that style also into decline. Asto the present, he noted
with regret that the unfortunate idea of inventing a new style was still insisted upon,
even though the possibility of attaining it had been precluded forever by the climax
that Greek architecture had once achieved.179
Metzger started his review of the major styles by arranging them into
three groups, allotting to each a different paradigm: the pyramid to WesternAsia and
Egypt, the column to Greece and Rome, and the vault to the medieval systems that
extended from the fourth century to the Gothic. The vault, Metzger declared, was
42. HERRMANN
"the third and last art form known to the world," a statement that in its assurance
equaled and almost echoed the conviction with which Wolff stated that the Ionic style
was "the third and last stage in the development and progress ofour art."180
Unaffected
by Wolff's pessimistic outlook for future development, Metzger's assessment of the
course of history waspositive: "The vault wasdestined...to change the physiognomy
of architecture completely.. .the battle between the column and the vault lasted for
more than a thousand years and ended only in the late Christian period with the
victory of vaulted architecture."181
This cursory review of the history of architecture
confirmed Metzger'sconviction that progresswasa permanent process, that technical
experiences always widened the field of the development of art forms, and that the
fittest form of the present stage would become the form of the next stage.182
This evolutionary proto-Darwinism, supported byhis belief that the properties
of the material determined style, helped Metzger to apprehend the significance
of a new material, without which-as he had declared eight years previously183
-it
would be ridiculous to talk of a new style. He now knew that the new material, from
which the style of the future would develop, existed. It was iron! "I can well believe
that iron construction is an abomination to the sculpturally minded architect," he
exclaimed. Yetin his opinion, it would be more honorable to do battle with this new
element-which was here to stay-than to resist it as long as possible and let future
generations triumph.184
Metzger's perception of the future style was vague and did not reach far
enough for him to visualize its development. Since history had taught him that a
new style always arose from the last perfect style and since the monumental architecture
of the fourteenth century had been the last great artistic development, the new
form would derive from the pointed arch. As to structural changes resulting from
the new material, he only referred in general terms to the powerful effect it would
have on means of covering space, as shown by many examples in England, Belgium,
and Russia of rooms spanned with iron.185
Only once was he more specific. Refuting
the idea that iron constructions would look dull, he declared that on the contrary,
he imagined such buildings to present "slim and graceful contours, striving upward,
strong or delicate according to circumstances, and invariably intersecting the horizontal
lines": a sentence that reads like a description of the first major German iron
and glass public building, completed a fewyears before-Gartner's Trinkhalle (1834-
1838) at Bad Kissingen (fig 17).186
Consideringthe close relationship between Gartner
and Metzger,187
it is quite possible that it wasthis building that made Metzger realize
the important function that would devolve upon this material. However, unable to
visualize the unique potentialities of the new material, all he could do was to reassure
the reader (and himself) that "what he had outlined so far was sufficient to
43. INTRODUCTION
17. Friedrich von Gartner, Trinkhalle, Bad Kissingen (1834-1838).
Engraving by Ainmiiller (1845) from Oswald Hederer, Friedrich von Gartner, 1792-1847:
Leben, Werk, Schiiler (Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1976), 190, fig. 130.
Photo: Courtesy Prestel Verlag.
reveal the rich domain of the architecture of the future to the expert."188
When in the followingyear, 1846, Botticher wasasked to deliver a speech
at the celebration of Schinkel's birthday, he chose as its theme the contrasting principles
governingGreek and Gothic architecture, a subject he had dealt with a fewyears
earlier in the first excursus of the Tektonik. He seized this opportunity to change his
previous analysis significantly.He had since been alerted to the fact that "the totally
different material," which he had formerly deduced on theoretical grounds as a precondition
for a "completely new architectural system,"189
already existed and was
44. HERRMANN
available for use as building material. In fact, a year earlier he had inserted in his long
critical reviewof Stier's article a paragraphthat contained a remarkable predictionof
the important role that, in his opinion, iron wasgoing to assume in the future development
of architecture. He blamed Stier for not mentioning "what will gradually
bring about a complete transformation of architecture, namely the use of a material...
that in regard to...our architectural principle...will lift usjust as far above the Greeks,
Romans, Byzantines, and Germans as arch and vault lifted the Romans above the
Greeks with their system of architraves made of stone. Iron is that material."190
In Die Tektonik der Hellenen Botticher had evaluated the two styles
according to two criteria, one being the thoroughness with which the material had
been mastered, the other the perfection with which the art-form symbolized "the
tectonic function of every part";191
he declared Gothic superior in the first respect
and Greek superior in the second. Now,in 1846, he desisted from any evaluation but
classified the styles according to the "structural force that emanates from the material";
only three forces could be used architecturally-relative, reactive, and absolute
strength.192
Since the relative strength of the material wasthe principle of the Greek
style and reactive strength that of the Gothic style, it was obvious that a new style
could evolve only after the introduction of a material in which the third and so far
unused force, namely absolute strength, was active. "Such a material is iron."193
Botticher knew, of course, that-as always happened when dealing with a
condition still in the process of developing-in this case, too, he could do no more
than give some hints about the look of the future iron style. Yetit seems that he had a
somewhat clearer vision of that style than Metzger.He predicted that the new material
would make it possible to construct roofs of "wider spans with less weightand greater
reliability" than was"possible when using stone," while a minimum of material cost
would produce walls of sufficient strength to make cumbersome buttresses superflu-
ous.194
However, he had not changed his views with regard to art-forms. He still
believed in the universal validity of the Hellenic forms and insisted that the forms
appropriate to the new system would haveto accord with the principles ofthe Hellenic
style. How this could be achieved, considering the particular character of the new
system, he did not say; but, like Metzger,he was quite confident that anythoughtful
person would not find it too difficult to work this out.195
As the production of iron increased even in backwardGermany,and as it
became feasible to replace stone with iron as the basic element in major projects,
some writers looked forward to such a radical change; others dreaded it. In 1842 Anton
Hallmann, who,during a stay in England, had seen many examples of fully developed
iron structures, went so far as to say that iron wasthe most important material of the
present century and that people had begun to grow quite accustomed to it.196
In the
45. INTRODUCTION
same year, the writer of a critical review of Klenze's newly completed Walhalla near
Regensburg referred to the use of iron as a means of reducing the heavy weight of
thick walls as a practice "known abroad for the last fifty years." In this connection he
hailed "the new inventions and new ideas as the preliminaries to a new era," believing
it to be the architect's "sacred duty to break the ground for modern art."197
The gulf that separated the two contesters, Wiegmann and Wolff, in their
dispute about style wasreflected in their attitude towardthe new material.Wiegmann
mentioned the evident fact that "within the last fewyears, through the frequent use
of cast and wroughtiron, the development of a particular style characteristic of those
materials had begun,"198
and he even claimed that the nineteenth century wasirresistibly
drawnto use metal, a material that, being subject to completely different principles,
had until nowhardly been taken into consideration.199
In reply,Wolff exclaimed in
exasperation: "What prospects for a new style that...arise from such a foundation!"200
In his opinion, the use of iron next to stone violated the aesthetic sense, a sentiment
that another writer, Otto Friedrich Gruppe, voiced in even stronger terms.Criticizing
Hallmann's design for the Berlin cathedral, Gruppe concluded that the difference in
character between an iron and a stone structure wasso pronounced that an architect
intent on creating a work ofart would find the resulting difficulties insurmountable.201
It wasironic that the architect whosebynowfamous question had initiated
the search for a contemporary style had the greatest misgivings about the state into
which architecture seemed to be drifting. Almosttwentyyearshad passed since Hiibsch
had published In welchem Style sollen wir bauen?ln 1847, in his second major theoretical
work, he once again reviewed the different styles of the past. When he came to
deal with the future state of architecture and his hope that there would be a smooth
transition to that state, he wasalarmed to notice the "headlong rapidity of change" with
its devastating consequences and warned that many symptoms "threaten the advent
of a new and totally different period," where"instead ofthe monumental church, the
sleek industrial hall built of cast iron will become the architectural prototype."202
The advent of the "iron age," confidently expected by Metzger and
Botticher and anxiously apprehended by Hiibsch, did not materialize, at least not for
many decades. One obvious reason for this delay was simply the lack of technical
knowledge: not until the Bessemer process established modern steel production late
in the century could architects make full use of iron's possibilities.
But there wasanother and perhaps more cogent reason whythe road that
promised to lead to a new era was not pursued and why history took another route.
Throughout the discussion on style, there had been a very effective barrier, an inhibition
by which the review of past periods wasconfined within well-circumscribedlimits.
It excluded from the order ofgenuine styles any artistic activities that followed on
46. HERRMANN
the Gothic style. All the participants in the dispute, of whatever faction, scorned the
Renaissance, which, as they understood the term, comprised the architecture of the
fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries.
In their historical reviews, the Renaissance was never seriously considered.
Renaissance was not what Wolff called a true style.203
Slavish imitation of the
corrupt Roman architecture wasthe great mistake that the Renaissance had committed.
The result was, according to Hubsch, that it developed into a "monstrous architec-
ture"204
that led to the "periwig style"; the same would happen if we were to follow
the example of the Renaissance and take Roman architecture as a model.205
Even the
name "Renaissance"-rebirth of an ancient ideal-was suspect. It falsely implied a
positive value and was therefore almost habitually given the prefix "so-called."206
Johann Andreas Romberg spoke of it as the "architectural carbuncle," as the "evil
that is there and cannot be argued away."207
When Wolff tried to resolve the rift between
the various factions, he declared that truth was the principle common to all styles
"with the exception of Renaissance architecture, which in a waywasthe antithesis of
all other trends, an architecture that tried to hide and, one could almost say, derided
all truth."208
It wasfalse, because it had abandoned all the hard-wonstructural experience
of previous centuries, and its buildings lacked structural unity.209
Ferdinand
Wilhelm Horn went so far as to call the Renaissance a "cancer" that had slowly
destroyed Germanic art ("the noble German oak") from within.210
Reichensperger
condemned this "relapse into antiquity" as an insensate wish to "exchange magnificent
Germanic robes for a harlequin's dress."211
Of course, since the two last-mentioned writers were ardent advocatesof
a Gothic revival and considered a movement that had succeeded the Gothic to be
their natural enemy, their testimony does not carry much weight.Allthe more significant,
then, are the remarks made by so distinguished a historian as Kugler in the
introduction to the last section of his Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte (Handbook of
the History of Art), where he discussed the effect of the Renaissance on the arts. It was,
he said, unfortunate that in contrast to medieval times the interchange between the
various branches of the arts was destroyed. From then on architecture was practiced
without relating it to the other arts. What made matters worse wasthe fact that the
study of antiquity led back to ancient architecture and ancient forms. "In this way,"
Kugler declared, architects "trailed the ancient forms alongfor many centuries, without
considering that these forms... could never lead to a truly living art." This, he
concluded, "is the reason whyin modern times architecture plays only a minor role."212
This may sound like an extraordinary statement to come from a writer who took a
considerable interest in the architecture of his owntime. However,for the purposesof
his Handbuch, Kugler defined "modern times" as the period ofthe Renaissance, that
47. INTRODUCTION
is from the fifteenth to the end of the eighteenth century, and his deprecating remarks
were directed only against that period and not against the present.
To learn how a critic who disliked the Renaissancestyle reacted to a major
architectural event-the completion in 1841 of Gottfried Semper's Dresden Opera
House (fig.18), with its supreme display of Renaissanceforms-we must turn to another
writer, Johann Andreas Romberg, whose article "Konstruktion und Form" ("Construction
and Form") has been previously mentioned. Rombergconcluded his observations
on this subject with a critical assessment of Semper's building as an illustration
of the faults that he believed the Renaissance architects had committed. He blamed
them for imitating any forms they considered beautiful without considering the reason
why the great masters of the past had used them-in short, for disregarding the
great principle that consisted in bringing form into harmony with construction. Instead
they reversed the relationship by first choosing any form they liked and only then
searching for a construction to fit the form as best it could. Aboveall, the architects of
the sixteenth century had committed the same mistake as the Romansdid when they
tried to merge their ownvaulted system with the Greek trabeated one-although with
the difference that the "modern" architects sought to imitate a style that alreadyconsisted
of a mixture of two styles.213
Confronted now with Semper's building, Romberg
was disturbed to note that the faults that he thought had been overcomewith the passing
of the previous century appeared yet again-empty forms that werenot determined
by the construction, the column treated as a decorative element, and, generally, the
obvious readiness with whichthe corrupted Roman style had been adopted. He could
not bring himself to approve the trend of which this building was an example.214
Romberg's criticism wasmotivated by his distaste for Renaissanceforms,
an aversion he shared with manywriters. However,asthe yearspassed, the comprehensive
radicalism that "annulled four hundred years of art history" (to quote Semper)215
was gradually lessened, and the architecture of the first century of the Renaissance
was at least now thought to be worth studying. Stier recommended taking the works
of Filippo Brunelleschi, Leon Battista Alberti, Donato Bramante, and Baldassare
Peruzzi as models (but excluded those by Michelangeloand Andrea Palladio), because
"there could be no better intermediate stage leading to antiquity than the Italian
civilization of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries."216
Later, J. D.W. E. Engelhardt
wrote an article "Uber die italienische Bauart zur Zeit der Wiedergeburt der Kunste
(Renaissance)" ("On the Italian Way of Building at the Time of the Rebirth of the
Arts [Renaissance]"), and againhis appreciation stopped short ofPalladio andVincenzo
Scamozzi.217
This was also the picture Ferdinand von Quasi presented in the speech
he gave in 1854 at the annual Schinkel celebration. It was, he said, a period of great
artistic vitality, followed by the ostentatious forms of a Michelangelo,the stiff regu-
48. HERRMANN
18. Gottried Semper, Dresden Opera House (1838-1841).
Zurich, Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule.
larity of a Palladio, and utter decline in the eighteenth century.218
These by nowmore
frequently expressed appreciations of post-medieval architecture, notwithstanding
the qualifications that accompanied them, were an indication that by the middleof
the nineteenth century the barrier impeding the artistic view had been lifted. Soon
all limitations disappeared, and during the second half of the century architects felt
free to choose from the wide field of architectural forms whatever seemed of use to
them. Total stylistic pluralism had arrived.
Of course, in the first half of the century, and especially in the three
49. INTRODUCTION
decades during which the discussion on style had taken place, all those interested in
present-day architecture were aware of havinga great number of stylesto choose from
but at the same time realized that this breadth of choice hindered architectural progress.
Metzger warned that to try to grasp the essential character of all styles created
great confusion and obviously harmed true art.219
The confusion of styles was like a
"second Babel"; anythingthat might result from this "architectural carnival" would
be a badly conceived and wronglyplanned building.220
Aconstant complaint wasthat
any style whatsoever was acceptable and that the arts of all nations and of all ages
were adopted and used indiscriminately.221
"Having no style of our own," argued
Gruppe, "webuild at one time in the Greek style, at another in the Gothic, then in the
Byzantine, perhaps even in the Anglo-Saxon, Moorish,Chinese,Egyptian,andJapanese
styles."222
From these and many similar statements one would assume that the ransacking
of a multitude of styles was the common practice during these decades.Yet
this was not the case. The real choice lay among three styles-the classical styleof
Greece and Rome, the Rundbogenstil, and the Gothic. Phrases like "all nations and
all times" turn out to be purely rhetorical. When L. Jatho, court architect at Kassel
and pupil of Wolff, declared that nowadays "the results of the architecturalactivities
of all times and all nations...are at the architects' disposal, who constantly make use
of them," one may be inclined to think that this sentence signals eclecticism at its
height. Yetfurther comments make it clear that by "adopting the traditional formsof
preceding styles," he too meant no more than "gaining an insight into the worldof
forms of antiquity as well as of the Christian Middle Ages."223
All this changed when the range of choice in the "world of forms" steadily
expanded to include the great styles of European architecture from the fifteenth
to the eighteenth centuries. Before this took place, it had been commonly held that
the architectural history that mattered had started two thousand years agoin Greece
and had come to a definite end in the fifteenth century with the Gothic. It seemed
sensible to hope that out of one of the three "legitimate" styles that made up the
whole architectural past, a new style would evolve that would meet the needs and
express the ideas of the present. For thirty years this had been more than a hope.
Notwithstanding the many doubts that were voiced, all who maintained the discussion
on style felt that one day the goal would be reached. The ground on which this
confidence rested was shaken when Hubsch's "carnival" became a reality and when
younger generations yielded to the temptation to exploit the rediscovered fertilityof
four hundred years of European architecture.224
The long and passionate debate on style thus ended not with the victory
of the views of one or the other of the protagonists but-more unexpectedly-simply
with the passing of time.
50. HERRMANN
Notes
Bracketed numbers following page numbers in the bibliographic citations below refer the
reader to the translation of the cited text that appears in the present volume.
1. Mathilda Boisseree, ed., Sulpiz Boisseree, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Gotta, 1862); E. FirmenichRichartz,
Die Briider Boisseree,vol. 1,Sulpizund Melchior Boissereeals Kunstsammler (Jena:
E. Diederichs, 1916). The Boisseree collection wasmoved in 1810 from Cologne to Heidelberg,
where Goethe visited it in 1814 and 1815. Four years later, it wasmoved to Stuttgart to make it
more accessible to the increasing numbers of people interested in medieval art. See W. D. RobsbnScott,
The Literary Background of the Gothic Revival in Germany (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965),
161, 190, 281.
Schlegel's work wasfirst published in Poetisches Taschenbuchfiir das Jahr 1806.Friedrich
von Schlegel, "Grundziige der gotischen Baukunst," in Sdmmtliche Werke (Vienna, 1823), 6:
2. For a modern critical edition, see Hans Eichner, ed., Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Ausgabe
(Munich, 1959), 4: 155-204.
2. Heinrich Hiibsch, Bau-Werke, 1st ser. (Karlsruhe: Marx, 1838), 1.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid., 2.
6. Ibid.
7. Uber griechische Architectur (Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1822), 17. For the dispute
between Hiibsch and Hirt, see Barry Bergdoll, "Archaeology vs. History: Heinrich Hiibsch's
Critique of Neoclassicism and the Beginnings of Historicism in German Architectural Theory,"
The Oxford Art Journal 5, no. 2 (1982): 2-12.
8. Hiibsch (see note 2), 2.
9. Christian LudwigStieglitz, Geschichte der Baukunst vomfriihesten Alterthume bis in
die neueren Zeiten (Nuremberg: F. Campe, 1827), 467.
10. Heinrich Hiibsch, In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? (Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Miiller
Hofbuchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckeren, 1828), 52 [99].
11. Ibid., 13 [71].
12. "Uber Styl und Motive in der bildenden Kunst," Kunst-Blatt 6 (1825), no. 1, 1-4;
no. 75, 297-300; no. 76, 301-4.
13. Carl Friedrich von Rumohr, Italienische Forschungen (Berlin, 1827-1831), part 3,
195: "Von Herrn Professor Hiibsch zu Frankfurth erhielt ich, kurz nach Beendigung seiner
fruchtbaren Reise durch Griechenland, die Seitenansicht einer Kirche in den Umgebungen
von Athen—"
14. Hiibsch (see note 10), 5, 7 [66, 67-68].
51. INTRODUCTION
15. Ibid., 18 [77].
16. Ibid., 9-10 [68-69].
17. Ibid., 21[79].
18. Ibid., 9, 31[69, 86].
19. Ibid., 42 [93].
20. Ibid., 8 [68].
21. Ibid., 51-52 [99-100].
22. Heinrich Hiibsch, Die Architektur und ihr Verhdltnifl zur heutigen Malerei und
Skulptur (Stuttgart and Tubingen: J. G. Gotta, 1847), 189-90 [172-73].
23. Rudolf Wiegmann, "Bemerkungen tiber die Schrift: In welchem Styl sollen wir bauen?
von H. Hiibsch," Kunst-Blatt 10(1829): no. 44,173-74; no. 45,177-79; no. 46,181-83 [103-12].
24. Ibid., 177 [105].
25. Hiibsch (see note 10), 28 [84].
26. Ibid., 3-4 [65].
27. Ibid., 6 [67].
28. Kunst-Blatt 6 (1825): 298.
29. Franz Kugler,"Uber den Kirchenbauund seine Bedeutungfur unsere Zeit," Museum:
Blatterfiir bildende Kunst 2 (1834): 1-8.
30. Ibid., 3-5.
31. Ibid., 4. Kugler cites the second paragraphon page 13of HiibscrTs treatise.
32. Ibid., 5.
33. Carl Albert Rosenthal, Uber die Entstehung und Bedeutung der architektonischen
Formen der Griechen (Berlin, 1830), 1.On Rosenthal,see Eva Borsch-Supan, Berliner Baukunst
nach Schinkel: 1840-1870 (Munich:Prestel Verlag, 1977), 27, nn. 109, 110.
34. Carl Albert Rosenthal, "In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? (Eine Frage fiir dieMitglieder
des deutschen Architektenvereins)," Zeitschrift fiirpraktische Baukunst 4 (1844): 23-27
[113-23].
35. Eduard Metzger, "Uber die Einwirkung natiirlicher und struktiver Gesetze auf Formgestaltung
des Bauwerkes," Allgemeine Bauzeitung 2, nos. 21-26 (1837): 169-215.
36. Ibid., 170-71.
37. Ibid., 189.
38. Ibid., 194.
39. Ibid., 195.
40. Ibid., 196.
41. Ibid., 201.
42. Eduard Metzger, "Untersuchungen im Gebiete der Architectur," Munchner Jahrbucher
fiir bildende Kunst 1(1838): 42-74; 2 (1839): 117-52.
43. Ibid., 44.
52. HERRMANN
44. Ibid.,51.
45. Ibid., 53.
46. Ibid., 42.
47. Johann Andreas Romberg, "Konstruktion und Form," Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst
I (1841): 154-75.
48. Ibid., 156, 157.
49. Anton Hallmann, Kunstbestrebungen der Gegenwart (Berlin: Buchhandlung des
Berliner Lesekabinets, 1842), 20. See Sabine Kimpel, "Der Maler-Architekt AntonHallmann
(1812-1845)" (Ph.D. diss., Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, Munich, 1974).
50. Metzger (see note 35), 189.
51. Friedrich von Schlegel, Deutsches Museum (Vienna, 1812), 1: 283. See Eichner (see
note 1), 1: 230.
52. Franz Kugler,Karl Friedrich Schinkel (Berlin:G. Gropius,1842), republished in idem,
Kleine Schriften und Studien zur Kunstgeschichte (Stuttgart: Ebner &Seubert, 1854), 3: 313-14.
53. L. Jatho, "Uber das Streben nach einem neuen nationalen Baustyle vom Standpunkte
des praktischen Architekten aus betrachtet,"Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst 1 (1847): 58.
54. Rudolf Wiegmann, "Polemisches," Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst 2 (1842): 499.
55. Johann Heinrich Wolff, "Einige Worte iiber die von Herrn Professor Stier bei der
Architektenversammlung zu Bambergzur Sprachegebrachten(und im Jahrgange 1843 dieser
Zeitschrift S. 301 mitgetheilten)architektonischenFragen," Allgemeine Bauzeitung (Literatur...
Beilage) 2 (1845): 269 [144].
56. Friedrich Eisenlohr, Rede iiber den Baustyl der neueren Zeit (Karlsruhe, 1833), 27.
57. J. D. W. E. Engelhardt, "Architektonische Zustande und Bestrebungen in Kurhessen,"
Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen 2 (1852): 219.
58. "Ein neuer Baustyl," Deutsches Kunstblatt 2 (1851): 145.
59. Leo von Klenze,Anweisung zur Architektur des christlichen Cultus (Munich: In der
liter, artist. Anstalt, 1833), 9.
60. Johann HeinrichWolff, "Polemisches: Berichtigung,"Allgemeine Bauzeitung 12 (1847)
(Literatur...Beilage) 3, no. 9: 180.
61. Hiibsch (see note 22), 190.
62. Ferdinand Wilhelm Horn, "Das Horn'sche System eines neugermanischen Baustyls,"
Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst 5 (1845): 244. This is a detailed resume of Horn's book,
published in Potsdam in 1845 under the same title. See Borsch-Supan (see note 33), 192-93.
63. Johann Heinrich Wolff, "Polemisches: Entgegnung," Allgemeine Bauzeitung (Literatur...Beilage)
(1843): 2.
64. Wolff (see note 55), 270 [144].
65. Hubsch (see note 10), 18[77].
66. Rosenthal (see note 34), 24 [116].
53. INTRODUCTION
67. Rudolf Wiegmann, "Gegensatze: Die Tendenz des Hrn. Prof. J. H. Wolff und 'Die
Christlich-germanische Baukunst und ihr Verhaltnifi zur Gegenwart von A. Reichensperger,
Trier, 1845,' nebst einer Schlussbetrachtung," Allgemeine Bauzeitung 11 (1846) (Literatur...
Beilage) 3, no. 1:4.
68. Rosenthal (see note 34), 24 [117].
69. Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm Botticher, "Das Prinzip der hellenischen und germanischen
Bauweise hinsichtlich der Ubertragung in die Bauweiseunserer Tage," Allgemeine Bauzeitung
11(1846): 113-14 [151].
70. Hiibsch (see note 10), 51[99].
71. Wiegmann (see note 23), 173[104].
72. Rudolf Wiegmann, Der Ritter Leo von Klenze und unsere Kunst (Diisseldorf: J. H. C.
Schreiner, 1839), 56.
73. Semper-Archiv, Zurich, MS.25 (1840), fol. 196.
74. Rudolf Wiegmann, "Gedanken iiber die Entwickelung eines zeitgemafien nazionalen
Baustyls," Allgemeine Bauzeitung 6 (1841): 213.
75. Wiegmann (see note 67), 18.
76. Gottfried Semper, Uber den Bau evangelischer Kirchen (Leipzig: In Commission bei
B. G. Teubner, 1845), 27.
77. "Uber den Bau christlicher Kirchen," Allgemeine Bauzeitung 12(1847): 283.
78. Rosenthal (see note 34), 27 [121-22]. As early as 1815 Schinkel had declared that the
Gothic style had been interrupted in its prime ("nachdem die Gotik in der Bliite durch einen
wunderbaren und wohltatigen Riickblick auf die Antike unterbrochen ward"; cited by G.F.
Koch, "Schinkels architektonische Entwiirfe im gotischen Stil 1810-1815," Zeitschrift fur
Kunstgeschichte 32 [1969]: 300). However, in contrast to the writers just quoted, Schinkel
believed that the interruption was caused by the "wonderful and beneficial event of looking
back to antiquity," and not by any adverse and unwelcome circumstances. See also BorschSupan
(see note 33), 185, 201.
79. Wiegmann (see note 72),51.
80. Johann Heinrich Wolff, Allgemeine Bauzeitung (Literatur... Beilage) (1842): 451-58.
Klenze's Sammlung architektonischer Entwiirfe was published in Munich in 1830; Wolff
reviewed the first three installments.
81. Ibid., 451.
82. Wiegmann (see note 54), 498-500.
83. Wiegmann (see note 72), Preface, 9-10,41ff., 69ff. In fact, this treatise wasWiegmann's
response to the-at times-critical remarks made byKlenze in his Aphoristische Bemerkungen
(Berlin, 1838) on Wiegmann's own study of ancient painting technique, Die Malerei derAlten
(Hannover: Hahn, 1836).
84. Wiegmann (see note 23), 182[110].
54. HERRMANN
85. Wiegmann (see note 54), 499.
86. Wolff (see note 63), 1,4.
87. Ibid., 1.
88. Ibid., 2.
89. Wiegmann(see note 67), 1-19.
90. Ibid., 2.
91. Ibid. (On the effect of introducing iron as a building material see pages 43-46.)
92. Ibid., 2.
93. Ibid., 3.
94. Ibid., 4.
95. AugustReichensperger,Die Christlich-germanische Baukunst und ihr Verhaltnifi zur
Gegenwart: Nebst einem Berichte SchinkeVs aus dem Jahre 1816, den CoinerDombau betreffend
(Trier: F. Lintz, 1845).
96. Wiegmann(see note 67), 14.
97. Ibid.
98. Ibid., 18-19.
99. Wolff (see note 60), 178.
100. Ibid., 180.
101. Wolff (see note 55), 261-62 [132-34].
102. Wolff (see note 60), 180.
103. Ibid., 181.
104. Ibid., 182.
105. Wolff (see note 55), 263 [135-36].
106. Wolff (see note 60), 185.
107. Hubsch(seenote2), 2.
108. Hiibsch (see note 10), 47 [96].
109. Ibid., 44 [94].
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid., 46 [96].
112. Hiibsch (see note 2), vol. 2, text to design of Polytechnische Hochschule.
113. Ibid., vol. 1,text to design of Trinkhalle.
114. Franz Kugler,Museum: Blatterfur bildende Kunst 3 (1835): 191.
115. Kunst-Blatt 13 (1832), 382.
116. Oswald Hederer, Friedrich von Gartner (Munich:Prestel Verlag, 1976), 114.
117. Klaus Eggert,Die Hauptwerke Friedrich v. Gartners (Munich:Stadtarchivs, 1963), 71.
118. The king was LudwigI (r. 1825-1848). Hederer (see note 116), 118.
119. For studies on the Rundbogenstil, see Albrecht Mann, Die Neuromanik (Cologne:
Greven, 1966); Michael Bringmann, "Studien zur neuromanischen Architektur in Deutsch-
55. INTRODUCTION
land" (Inaugural diss., Ruprecht-Karls-Universitat Heidelberg, 1968), 24ff.; and the chapter
"Rundbogenstil" in the comprehensive work by Kurt Milde, Neorenaissance in der deutschen
Architektur des 19.Jahrhunderts (Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1981), 116-27; also the recent
article by Kathleen Curran, "The German Rundbogenstil and Reflections on the American
Round-Arched Style," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians 47 (1988), 341-66.
120. Eggert (see note 117), 21-22.
121. Wiegmann (see note 74), 213.
122. Ibid., 214.
123. Rudolf Wiegmann, review of Schinkel's Werke der hoheren Baukunst, Allgemeine
Bauzeitung (Literatur... Beilage), installments 1-3 (1841): 407. Wiegmann refers here to the
incompability of Schinkel's classical style and the "spirit of the Christian Era."
124. Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm Botticher, Die Tektonik der Hellenen (Potsdam: Ferdinand
Riegel, 1844); on this see Borsch-Supan (see note 33), 20-21, 101-2.
125. Kunst-Blatt 26 (1845): nos. 11-15, 46.
126. Botticher (see note 124), 1-26.
127. Ibid., 1-8.
128. Ibid., 8-17.
129. Ibid., 11.
130. Ibid., 16.
131. Ibid., 18-21.
132. Ibid., 21-26.
133. Ibid., 23.
134. Ibid., 26.
135. On the notion of synthesis, see Norbert Knopp, "Schinkels Idee einer Stilsynthese,"
in Beitrage zum Problem des Stilpluralismus, ed. WernerHagen and Norbert Knopp(Munich:
Prestel Verlag, 1977), 245-54.
136. Ibid., 247,252; Curran (see note 119), 361; Borsch-Supan(see note 33), n. 116 and p. 188
137. Botticher (see note 69), 112[149].
138. Ibid., 121[1611.
139. Ibid., [1601.
140. Ibid., 117[156].
141. In 1831 the Bauakademie (founded in 1799) wasgiven the name AllgemeineBauschule,
by which it was known until 1849, when its name was changed back to the original one. See
Adolf Borbein, "Klassische Archaologie in Berlin vom 18.zum 20. Jahrhundert," in Deutsches
Archaologisches Institut, Berlin und die Antike: Aufsdtze (Berlin: Deutsches Archaologisches
Institut, Wasmuth, 1979), 110. In 1945 the interior of Schinkel's building was destroyed by
firebombs. Although the shell remained intact and work to restore it began in 1960, a subsequent
decision to pull it down was carried out despite strong protests. Only the main porch,
56. HERRMANN
with its decorative framework, remains; it now serves as the entrance to a restaurant.
142. Regarding its structure, see also the technical report bythe supervisor Emil Flaminius,
Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1(1836): Iff.
143. Ernst Kopp, Beitragzur Darstellungeines reinen einfachen Baustyls (Dresden, 1837),
1: 1.
144. Kugler, 1842 (see note 52), 326-27.
145. Franz Kugler, Kunst-Blatt 27 (1846):61.
146. The debate wasreported and discussed in the following journals: Deutsches Kunstblatt
2 (1852): full report of the debate on 10, 17,and 24 April with editor's comment on 24 April
(quoted passage on p. 142), on 24 Maya letter by Reichensperger replying to editor's comment
and a further reply by editor (quoted passage on p. 177). Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen 2 (1852):
233-37, report ofthe debate and editorial critical comment.Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst
12 (1852): under the heading "In welchem Style sollen wir bauen?" 192-304, prints Reichensperger's
speech and the editorial comment from Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen verbatim, together
with another reply by Reichensperger published in Organfur christliche Kunst.
147. Otto Friedrich Gruppe, Carl Friedrich Schinkel und der neue Berliner Dom (Berlin,
1843), 52.
148. Erik Forssman,Karl FriedrichSchinkel: Bauwerke und Baugedanken (Zurich:Schnell
& Steiner, 1981), 207.
149. Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Stier, "Beitrage zur Feststellung des Principes der Baukunst
fur das vaterlandische Bauwesender Gegenwart: Architravund Bogen," Allgemeine Bauzeitung
8 (1843): 309-39. OnStier (1799-1856), seeThieme-Becker,Allgemeines Kiinstlerlexikon (1938),
13:44; see also Borsch-Supan (see note 33), 19-20, 683-89.
150. Stier (see note 149), 310-11.
151. Ibid., 311-13.
152. Ibid., 317.
153. Ibid., 318.
154. Ibid., 313.
155. Ibid., 319.
156. Ibid., 319-20.
157. Ibid., 321.
158. Ibid., 325-26.
159. Ibid., 327-29.
160. Ibid., 330-31.
161. Ibid., 331-34.
162. Ibid., 334-38.
163. Ibid., 336.
164. Ibid., 338.
57. INTRODUCTION
165. Ibid., 339.
166. Carl Gottlieb WilhelmBotticher, "Polemisch-Kritisches," Allgemeine Bauzeitung
(Literatur...Beilage) (1845): 281-320.
167. Ibid., 297.
168. Wolff, "Ein Prinzip und keine Parteien!" Allgemeine Bauzeitung 11 (1846): 358-67.
On this paper see Milde (see note 119), 184.
169. Wolff (see note 168), 359.
170. Ibid., 361.
171. Ibid., 362.
172. Ibid., 362-64.
173. Ibid., 361.
174. Ibid., 365-66.
175. EduardMetzger, "Beitrag zur Zeitfrage: In welchem Stil man bauen soil?"Allgemeine
Bauzeitung 10(1845): 169-79.
176. Wolff (see note 55), 255-70 [125-45].
177. Ibid., 261-62 [132-34].
178. Ibid., 263-64 [134-37].
179. Ibid., 268-69 [142-44].
180. Metzger (see note 175), 172; Wolff (see note 55), 262 [134].
181. Metzger (see note 175), 172.
182. Ibid., 175.
183. Metzger (see note 35), 189.
184. Metzger (see note 175), 176.
185. Ibid., 177.
186. Hederer (see note 116), 189ff.; Metzger (see note 175), 178.
187. Hederer (see note 116), 244-45.
188. Metzger (see note 175), 177.
189. Botticher (see note 124), 26.
190. Botticher (see note 166), 293.
191. Botticher (see note 124), 17-18, 23.
192. Botticher (see note 69), 116 [154].
193. Ibid., 119[158].
194. Ibid.
195. Ibid., 120 [159].
196. Hallmann(see note 49),71.
197. J. Fuss, Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842): 531, 533.
198. Wiegmann (see note 67), 16.
199. Ibid., 2.
58. HERRMANN
200. Wolff (see note 60), 187.
201. Gruppe (see note 147), 119.
202. Hiibsch (see note 22), 190-91,195 [172-73,175].
203. See page 15and note 101.
204. Hiibsch (see note 22), 175. Hiibsch used this and many other equally derogatory terms
when he devoted chapter thirteen of Die Architektur (see note 22, 168-85) to a highly critical
examination of Renaissance architecture: "sham architecture" (p. 169), "dishonest and untrue"
(p. 178), "slavish imitation of Roman architecture" (p. 169), "accumulation of thick blocksof
stone and heavy barrel vaultings" (p. 172).
205. Rosenthal (see note 34), 25 [118].
206. Wiegmann (see note 23), 173[104]: "...a so-called style...arbitrarily...pieced together
from the fifteenth century onward"; idem (see note 67), 18: "artistic jargon called Renaissance";
Botticher (see note 69), 115[153]; Wolff (see note 55), 269 [143].
207. Johann Andreas Romberg, "Fragen an die deutsche Architekten- und IngenieurVersammlung
zu Halberstadt," Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst 5 (1845): 8.
208. Wolff (see note 168), 360.
209. Hiibsch (see note 22), 171, 178.
210. Horn (see note 62), 245.
211. Reichensperger (see note 95), 26 and 61, where he speaks of the Renaissance as the
"pseudo-heathen growth that like ivy crept up on the mighty medieval building, entangling
all forms."
212. Franz Kugler, Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte (Stuttgart: Ebner & Seubert, 1842),
624. The phrase about "trailing [or dragging]along the ancient forms" wastaken up by Metzger
in 1845 (see note 175), 176. On Kugler's treatment of Renaissance architecture see Eva BorschSupan,
"Der Renaissancebegriff der Berliner Schule im Vergleich zu Semper," in Gottfried
Semper und die Mitte des 19.Jahrhunderts (Basel: Birkhauser, 1976), 162.
213. Romberg (see note 47), 159-60.
214. Ibid., 165ff.
215. Semper-Archiv,Zurich, MS. 178, fol. 61.
216. Stier (see note 149), 337-38.
217. J. D. W.E. Engelhardt, "Uber die italienische Bauart zur Zeit der Wiedergeburt der
Kiinste (Renaissance)," Journal fur die Baukunst (1850): 209-51.
218. Cited by Borsch-Supan (see note 33), 73.
219. Metzger (see note 42), 52.
220. Wolff (see note 168), 358; Hiibsch (see note 22), 186 [170].
221. Wiegmann (see note 74), 208; Wolff (see note 60), 179.
222. Gruppe (see note 147), 75.
223. Jatho (see note 53), 54-55.
59. INTRODUCTION
224. Michael Bringmann concluded his excellent study of neo-Romanesque architecture
with the observation that a clear distinction must be made between the architecture ofthe first
and the second fifty years of the nineteenth century, because the early decades-apart from a
comparatively moderate application of historical styles-had little in common with the strong
impact of stylistic pluralism after the middle ofthe century: Bringmann (see note 119), 330-31.
Borsch-Supan (see note 212), 163, also comments on the change in the art-historical conception
of the Renaissance that took place around 1850.
60. HERRMANN
STYLE
IN WHAT
SHOULD WE BUILD?
THE GERMAN DEBATE ON ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
Johann Anton Ramboux, Portrait of the Architect Heinrich Hubsch, ca. 1820.
Drawing. Darmstadt, Hessisches Landesmuseum, no. HZ 4288.
IN WHAT
STYLE
SHOULD WE BUILD?
HEINRICH HOBSCH
1.
PAINTING AND SCULPTURE HAVE LONG SINCE ABANDONED THE LIFELESS
IMITATION OF ANTIQUITY. Architecture alone has yet to come of age and continues
to imitate the antique style. Although nearly everybody recognizes the inadequacy
of that style in meeting today's needs and is dissatisfied with the buildings recently
erected in it, almost all architects still adhere to it. Most of them really believe that
the beauty of architectural forms issomething absolute, which can remain unchanged
for all times and under all circumstances, and that the antique style alone presents
these forms in ideal perfection. Many architects who fully recognize the inadequacy
of using the antique style nevertheless dishonestly insist on it out ofvanity,since they
happen to have erected several buildings in this style. Like false prophets, they claim
the privilege of an inspiration—that of beauty—for which they claim to need no
justification. Other architects, it is true, admit that it must first be proven that the
architecture of the ancients, as universal architecture, can be as appropriate and
beautiful to us as it once was to the Greeks. To this end they go to enormous and
self-deceiving lengths to construct a system of specious arguments. In this way only
a very limited field is allotted to sound reason and, then, only in matters of detail;
as soon as reason tends to come too close to essentials, it is quickly rebutted by an
authority. A few architects recognize the pointlessness of all this sophistry, but not
knowing anything better to put in its place, they lose heart and despair of ever
establishing firm and adequate principles ofbeauty. Hence, they think it impossible
to create a suitable architectural style through reflection and—in sheer desperation,
as it were—continue to build in the ancient style, where at least they have the sanction
of an obsolete authority.
Whoever looks at architecture primarily from its decorative aspect and
perhaps asks himself why he likes one form ofleafwork on a capital better than another
will easily despair of the possibility of establishing reliable principles. Yet whoever
starts his investigation from the point of view of practical necessity will find a secure
base. Now, since the size and arrangement of every building is conditioned by its
purpose, which isthe main reason for its existence, and since its continued existence
depends on the physical properties ofthe material and on the resulting arrangement
and formation of the individual parts, it is obvious that two criteria of functionality
\Z<
weckmdfigkeif\— namely, fitness for purpose (commodity) and lasting existence
(solidity)—determine the size and basic form of the essential parts of every building.
These formativefactors, derived from function, are surely asobjective and asclear as
they could possibly be. Yet they do not determine the size and basic form of the
essential parts with any exactness. They present a path that is firm yet not too narrow:
though clearly indicating the main direction, it still allows some latitude. For
instance, ifwe know the number of people that a hall isto hold, this does not exactly
determine the proportion of its length to its width, let alone to its height. Or, ifwe
know the load that a pillar made of a certain material and prescribed height has to
carry, this does not give us its exact diameter in inches and lines.
An open-minded person must admit, furthermore, that the factors controlling
the shape ofthe less essential parts are by no means immutable and that they
become less objective the more detailed they become. Thus, for instance, the reason
why a column shaft of uniform diameter is preferred to one whose upper part is
formed differently from its lower part will not be asself-evident asthe principle that
64. HUBSCH
the shaft of a column must first of all stand vertically. Should one then ask oneself
which oftwo shafts ismore beautiful, one with twenty flutings or another with twentyfour
flutings, it would be hard to give a reason for one's choice.
In this waysome uncertainty and arbitrariness ariseseven with regard to
the principal forms and appears from a narrow theoretical point of view to degrade
the art. This isthe reason for the frequent efforts ofaestheticiansto construct systems
to account for the specific detail of architectural forms—efforts that must unfailingly
result in empty sophisms.
If we take a more practical view, our courage revives. Though it is true
that this uncertainty and arbitrariness make art into a plant that easily runs to seed,
there are limits; and the danger is really not so great as may appear at first glance.
The beauty of a building, like the beauty of a landscape or a symphony, is composed
of many elements, all of which are not of equal importance in relation to the whole.
Just as in a landscape a tree here or there might be dispensed with or replaced by
another tree or in a symphony a few passages might be changed without affecting the
overall impression, sotwo quite differently decorated capitalscan be equally beautiful
on the same column; and even its size, though more significant, is not as important
as,say,the distancebetween columns, while the latter in itsturn isnot as important
as the basic form \Grundgestali\ of the building as a whole. This does not mean, however,
that the choice of less essential elements can be left to blind chance but rather
that here the artist's talent and taste are mainly called upon.
Whoever viewsthe monuments of different nations impartially will find
that much has been formed, asit were, unconsciously, in accordance with the artist's
individual taste, and that this in itself isthe cause of a lively diversity that ceaseswhen
we try to place those forms for whose development no objective laws exist under the
tutelage of conventional rules.
Therefore, weshould not demand what has never existed and neverwill.
We should be content that the formation of the main parts proceeds from objective
principles and, for the rest, let the artist's taste have free rein.
Unbiased reflection that starts from this point ofview and always verifies
its own conclusions historically, by reference to the principles that truly emerge from
the monuments of earlier times and nations, isbound to lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
Even someone who still despairs ofever reaching such a conclusion must at least
concede that a sound beginning has been deduced from obvious needs; he may then
stop halfway, if he believes that the investigation is no longer sufficiently objective.
65. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
2.
We shallfirst define the concept ofstyle. In its familiar usage—for instance, all Greek
monuments are said to be built in the Greek style, all Moorish monuments in the
Moorish style—style means something general, applicable to all buildings of anation,
whether intended for divine worship, for public administration,for education, etc.
The most general requirement for all kinds of buildings is the enclosure of aspecific
space in such a way that it is accessible and well lit; and just as its interior provides
shelter, its exterior, if it is to last, must itself be protected against the weather.
Hence, we arrive at the following essential parts of a building. The
enclosure requires a ceiling and its supports, which also serve either as enclosing
walls or solely as supports for the ceiling. The last condition occurs when either the
space that needs to be covered is too wide for a ceiling to span it unsupported from
wall to wall or when simply a ceiling and no lateral enclosure—or at least not one on
every side—is required (that is, an open portico). Piers or columns spanned by
connecting members are then set up—in the first case between the enclosingwalls
and in the second case at intervals along the open sides. The spanning members
stretching from pier to pier provide the ceiling with continuous support, like awall.
Their height varies according to circumstances, but their width usually corresponds
to the thickness of the piers. If the ceiling is in the form of a groin vault, its ribs serve
as the spanning members.
The door and window openings that are set into the walls to provide
access and light are spanned in the same way as the piers; above them, the walls
continue up asfar asmay be required. For exterior protection, the ceiling is covered
by a roof (which at times is one and the same);the projection of the roof constitutes
the main cornice—at least, in most cases the cornice is a continuation of the surface
of the roof.
These are the essential parts of a building. They relate to the most basic
task of architecture and must therefore be regarded as the elements of style. When
examined historically,these architectural elements are indeed of a general character,
retaining the same form in different cases. For that reason, the difference between
the monuments of one nation and one period lies in the number and manifold combinations
of walls, ceilings, piers or columns, doors, windows, roofs, and cornices,
according to their various purposes. All vary in size and in degree of decoration: all
are more or less enriched according to the importance of their purpose. Aside from
these variations, however, the same type reappears again and again, even in its decorative
detail. Finally, it is evident that specific needs also affect the style in that those
66. HUBSCH
of one nation, despite local variations, display a common character when compared
to the total needs of another country.
The present investigation is,therefore, concerned only with the general
form of architectural elements and their combination, not with their specific form
and combination in relation to the functions of particular buildings, which is the
artist's primary task and bears witness to his talent. This investigation aims at giving
the artist an explanationof the essence of his subject and at providing a secure base for
criticism, since in this sphere we differ so much that we do not even agree on the ABC'S.
3.
Having now established what is meant by style, we must examine its manifestations
in the various original forms of architecture.
The principal formative factors, as can be deduced a priori as well as
confirmed historically, are climate and building material. In the first place the climate,
as already mentioned, gives a uniformcharacter to the needs of one country as
compared with another. Thus, a mild southern climatemakes lessexacting demands
than the rough climate of the north; all eastern buildings appear to be somewhat
open in contrast to the anxiouslyclosed-in buildings of the north.
Secondly, the exterior will be given greater or lesser protection, depending
on the rigor or mildness of the climate; this becomes apparent in the form of the
roof and of other elements. Egypt, with no rainfall at all, has buildings without any
roof; the medieval buildings of the north have tall roofs, and all their projecting parts
are formed in such a way that the water can easily run off.
The materialsthat chiefly affect the form of the architectural elements
are wood and stone. Even in countries where stone is scarce, the more important
buildings use stone not only for wallsand piers but alsofor the members that connect
the piers or span the openings, wherever these are exposed to weathering. Often,
even large interior ceilings are made of stone so as to last.
The basic form of walls and piers is not much affected by the nature of
the material, since they have to stand vertically, whether made ofwood or stone, and
have the same thickness from top to bottom. The material has a greater effect on the
ratio of thickness to height; this is determined by the resistance of the material to
compression and buckling (reactivestrength). Therefore, height, load, and all other
circumstances being equal, a pier of hard marble is made thinner than one madeof
soft tuff. The material has its greatest effect on the main form and on the proportions
67. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
of spans and ceilings. Wood grows straight to a considerable length and offers strong
resistance to fracture. Therefore, it is in the nature of a wooden ceiling always to be
rectilinear and to have a low ratio of thickness or height to unsupported span. Stone
usually breaks into cube-shaped or slablike pieces and is rarely—in many places
never—found in long beamlike pieces. Stone also has little resistance to breaking
(relative strength), to which must be added its considerable specific weight. It, therefore,
cannot sustain its own weight over a wide horizontal span and must be thicker
than a wooden beam of equal length. Yet there are great differences among the different
kinds of stone. In Greek monuments, mostly built of marble (the stone with
the highest elasticity and relative strength), all column lintels (architraves) and soffits
consisted of stone beams and plates, so that there were continuous horizontal
spans in stone like those in timber, sometimes ofvery light proportions. It should be
noted that the architectural proportions so far dealt with should more correctly be
called technostatic proportions, asdistinct from the main proportions that derive from
the purpose of the building. These latter proportions include the ratio of length to
height, both in the building as a whole and in its individualrooms and sections: for
instance, the relation of the width (depth) of a portico to its height.
In countries where the availablevarieties of stone are brittle and not
found in great lengths, attempts were soon made to span the opening with more than
one piece of stone. The crowning result of these attempts wasthe vault. With vaulting,
aided by mortar, the widest openings could be spanned with pieces of almost
any size, however small. The vault not only greatly influenced the form of covering,
since its construction naturally followed a curve rather than the straight line of a
single lintel, but also changed the form of the piers and walls on which, by resting
on them, it exerted a lateral pressure. Thus almost every architectural element
changed—in other words the whole style—so that it may be said that essentiallythere
are only two originalstyles: one with straight, horizontal stone architraves;the other
with curved vaults and arches.
4.
Building, being a skilled craft, is of course bound to improve with time. With the
advance of civilization, the needs and demands for comfort expand, asdo the tasksof
architecture; and so people try to carry them out more efficiently and with less
mechanical work. Apart from making improvements in the treatment of the material
as such, they seek in the first place to obtain the necessary solidity through
68. HUBSCH
ingenious construction rather than through a mere accumulation of heavy masses.
In the second place, even with unchanged methods of construction, they seek to
reduce the mass of material, which with the growing need for comfort becomes more
and more of an impediment: successive new buildings become lighter while remaining
safe. In other words, lighter technostatic proportions are applied than in those older
buildings that by their continued existence have proved to be of sufficient strength.
This empirical progress in technostatics—or, if I may thus express it, in technostatic
judgment by eye—must happen all the more regularly because a nation's previous
experience isnever lost but isconstantly available to succeeding generations through
the buildings that survive.
That this progress regularly occurs isshown by the monuments of nations
known to us. It is even transmitted through a succession of nations in contact with
each other. Of course the pace of progress, impeded in any case by the need for stability
and by the force of custom, differs considerably among nations. It depends, in
general, on how flexible and unimpeded their evolution has been and on the effect of
political events. In Egypt where the priests had many workmen at their disposal,
progress was very slow: all buildings were massive, and no real difference is apparent
even over many centuries. The freer Greeks advanced more quickly; thus, the monuments
built one to two hundred years after Pericles used considerably less material
than those built before Pericles. With the Romans—who took over the architecture
of the Greeks and who, having far more diverse needs, were necessarily more concerned
with spaciousness and economy of material—lightness steadily increased to
reach its peak in the medieval style.
Although reduction of mass and bolder construction (that is, lighter
technostatic proportions) apply equally to lintels, ceilings, walls, and piers, this is
less obvious in ceilings and walls, whose thickness can hardly be seen, than it is in
freestanding piers with longer unsupported spans that lead to wider and bolder spacing.
This is, of course, especially apparent in porticoes, where the distance between
piers is least conditioned by the particular purpose of the structure.
To summarize this section: while it istrue that the technostatic proportions
of the architectural elements mainly derive from the material, they constantly
evolve with advancing architectural experience and, in fact, are subject to permanent
change. The basic forms of the architectural elements were set out in Section 3,
above. In what follows we shall explain how the progress of architecture as a fine art
affects the specific shape of these elements.
69. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
5.
Architecture should not be called a sister of the other arts but rather their mother;
this is the art that leads the way and educates the others. It begins by satisfying the
most pressing needs; only later, when it produces buildings intended for a higher
purpose, does it gradually rise to the level of a fine art. These buildings soon come to
be planned on a grander scale with greater richness and elaboration of workmanship
than is considered appropriate for utilitarian buildings. Once necessity is satisfied,
there ispleasure in free creation: ornaments are added in the belief that these unnecessary
adjuncts, the offspring of idleness, will in some way enhance the value of the
building. A more refined treatment of architectural elements also gradually arises
through the greater delicacy of form, which together with the technostatic progress
already mentioned tends to do away with all mass that is unnecessary for strength
and that detracts from convenience. Yet this is done as a kind of spontaneous play, so
that solidity and convenience act more as indirect than as direct regulating factors.
With every human activity, the force that leads to perfection already
contains the germ of decline; and so it is with architecture. On the one hand, all its
parts evolve in accord with the regular progress of technostatics, of ornament, and of
formal delicacy; on the other hand, it loses that truly moving simplicity and unpretentiousness
of the early buildings, which never represent more than what they are.
Embellishment extends beyond its true sphere, which is that of adorning (not overloading)
the essential forms or elements. Yet more pernicious than this decorative
overloading isthe fact that the architectural elements themselves, whose origin and
use are rooted solely in their true purpose, and which are meaningful only insofar as
they fulfill this purpose, acquire an immediate appeal simply asskillful workmanship
[Machwerk]. In time (as it happens sooften that one forgets the goal while on theway)
the architectural elements are treated more and more as embellishments or, rather,
as means to make the building seem more important than its true purpose can ever
make it. First, the elements are applied to placeswhere true purpose does not call for
them and where they serve a sham purpose only; then, even this fictitious purpose is
dispensed with, and the architect rests content, as it were, with the sham of a sham:
with completely dead forms such asblind windows, doors, etc. In order to allay misgivings,
a wholly conventional aesthetic forum ispostulated, which suppliesthe argument
that this or that essential form arises, at least initially, from some real purpose.
The decline ofart ishastened in no small measure by the fact that quite independently,
technostatic experience is constantly growing, and daring combinations of forms,
driven to extremes by the craze for variation,become progressively easier to execute.
70. HUBSCH
In reality, the sequence does not, ofcourse, proceed with such regularity.
Some steps are brought about very quickly by political events, while at times there is
even a step backward to something better. Yeteveryone who surveys the monuments
of past peoples must recognize the process just described. Unfortunately, the last
stage isalwaysthe most fully completed, whereas the earlier and better stage is rarely
found to have developed undisturbed, since few nations have enjoyed a harmonious
development from childhood to manhood without the intrusion offoreign influence.
Most nations, in fact, are like cuttings transplanted in alien soil. Consequently,
architectural embellishment isusuallytraditional and, because of its arbitrary nature,
could hardly be otherwise. It is part of human nature to hold on to the familiar, not
only in matters of arbitrary choice but also in necessary matters; and so, when the
forms of the elements become more refined, much is accepted—or rather retained—
that might, by its nature, have been given a characteristic form in line with current
circumstances. Such anomaloussurvivalsare not easilyfound in the Greek style, but
they frequently appear in the earlier phase of the medieval style, aswe shall see.
6.
Apart from the natural formative factors discussed in the preceding three sections,
no others are essential. Where other, conventional factors are active, everyone will
regard this activity as hostile to the consistent and harmonious development of
style as soon as it goes beyond the decorative sphere. At one time, it was a common
deduction in support ofu
xylomania" that style was indeed a result of the namedfactors—not
in the way these act at present but asthey did in primeval times when the
first hut wasbuilt, the event whereby original sin wasfully brought into architecture.1
Surely, all this no longer needs to be refuted. For this, I refer the reader to my book
on Greek architecture.
If we wish, therefore, to attain a style that has the same qualities as the
buildings of other nations that are accepted asbeautiful and are much praised by us,
then this cannot arise from the past but only from the present state of natural formative
factors—that is:first, from our usual building material; second, from the present
level of technostatic experience; third, from the kind of protection that buildings
need in our climate in order to last; and fourth, from the more general nature of our
needs based on climate and perhaps in part on culture.
Our material—to refer for the present to Germany alone and to deal with
stone buildings only—is sandstone or other types ofstone, which, with regard to their
7\. IN WHAT STYLE SHO ULD WE BUILD ?
relative strength, are far inferior to marble. An unsupported beam, even with nothing
but its own weight to carry, can with rare exceptions span at most a distanceof
twelve feet, and there is always the fear that it might break at the onset of a severe
frost. If a stone has to carry a load in addition to its own weight, then it must be
almost as high asits unsupported length. Even ashlar blocks resting on each other in
a massive wall are scarcely made longer than three times their height; if their beds
are weighted more toward the edges than at the center, then the edges will chip.
How different it is with marble in this respect! On Greek monuments, in order to
reduce the work of dressing, only a narrow strip along the edge of each stone was
finished to a close fit, while the middle part was somewhat hollowed out and left
rough, sothat the load rested entirely on the edges. Porticoes with ceilings constructed
entirely of marble can be found to have had unsupported beams of up to twenty feet
with their height barely one-seventh of their length. The unsupported beams over
the portico ofthe Temple of Theseus in Athens, which are still in place, have awidth
that is only one-eleventh of their length of twelve and a half feet. We, however, must
construct a relieving arch above a window lintelwith only three feet of unsupported
length to free it of all dead weight.
Regarding the level of our technostatic experience, we have the bold
constructions of medievalbuildingsbefore us. In this respect we far surpassthe Greeks.
Any expert today would without hesitation (provided the circumstances are not unfavorable)
set up a pier or a column with a diameter of only one-eleventh its height,
whereas with even the slimmer Greek columns the diameter is rarely less than oneeighth
its height. Furthermore, he would support a ceiling by constructing arcades
(fig. I) with one-third fewer piers or columns than would be needed in a Greek
colonnade of the same length —even one that does not have the narrowest intercolumniation
(fig. II). Thus, by using vaults to support the ceiling, we require far
less than half the mass of material that was used in Greek architecture without having
to fear a collapse, which with our brittle stones is a constant threat in horizontal
spans. Moreover, since an arch needs only small blocks of stone, whereas the stone
beam of an architrave must be made from one block, and since transport and setting
up is comparatively very expensive, a colonnade of normal dimensions costs about
four times as much as an arcade with equally rich decoration. No expert will deny
that this disparity greatly increaseswith larger dimensions.
72. HOBSCH
Heinrich Hiibsch. Engraving from Heinrich Hiibsch, In welchem Style sollen wir bauen?
(Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Miiller Hofbuchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckeren, 1828),
table 1. London, Victoria and Albert Museum.
73. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
Heinrich Hiibsch. Engraving from Heinrich Hiibsch, In welchem Style sollen wir bauen?
(Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Miiller Hofbuchhandlung und Hofbuchdruckeren, 1828),
table 2. London, Victoria and Albert Museum.
74. HOBSCH
7.
In our northern climate, more care must be taken to protect buildings against rain or
snow than in the south. The pitch ofthe roof, normallycovered with slateor perhaps
even with tiles, must be steeper than on Greek monuments. Furthermore, the projecting
upper surface of cornices or other similar parts must have a distinct slope for
the water to run off,unless for some reason something quite different is required, as
is the case with exterior flights of stairs or any projections on which something is
intended to stand.
If the surface, AB (fig. Ill), of a projecting cornice is not sufficiently
sloped, this surface itself will suffer from weathering. Decay will soon set in, mainly
because rain falling onAB will splash back toward the mortar coating BC, willremain
on AB after the rain has stopped, and will rise up the mortar coating BC. Furthermore,
the water will run along the underside of the cornice toward the wall D and
will cause damage here too, unless a groove is hollowed out on the underside of the
cornice, forcing the water to drip down at E.
For today's needs we require buildings of a size that the Greeks did not
remotely approach in their buildings. How small would even a fairly large Greek
temple look next to the parish church ofa modern town! The widest span constructed
in stone was the ceiling of the Propylaea at Athens (cited by Pausanias as a rarity),
and that came to twenty feet. How insignificant this iscompared to our interior spaces,
which, moreover, require both the slenderest pillars and the widest possible spans!
If, for instance, a church were divided by two rows of columns into a nave and two
aisles and the columns were arranged even according to the widest Greek intercolumniation
(see fig. II), people in the aisles would be unable to see the altar or the
pulpit from the third column on—even in churches where the nave is quite wide.
The aisles would be of no use, unless the columns were at least as slender and as
widely spaced as in fig. I.
The carriage entrances of even our ordinary houses, let alone of city
gates and other public buildings, must have a width that is never found on Greek
monuments with the sole exception of the central intercolumniation of the Propylaea
at Athens.
A portico should provide either a dry carriageway or a shelter from the
weather for pedestrians. In the first case, the piers or columns must be placed well
away from the wall, so that the carriages can pass through, and the portico should
not be higher than itswidth or depth to prevent the wind from driving the rain onto
the wall. Even the widest Greek intercolumniation would not have the desired
75. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
effect. In the second case, a portico can offer reasonable protection from draft only
when no more than one side is open and the other three are enclosed by walls: not
when three of its sides are open, aswasusualwith ancient porticoes. Altogether, porticoes
rarely suit us, because they take away light from the interior where it is most
needed. For the Greeks, on the other hand, a public building without richly decorated
porticoes wasscarcely thinkable, and windows were rare. Furthermore, almost
all our buildings consist of several stories, whereas all Greek monuments known to
us had only one story.
Therefore, the formative factors that condition today's architecture are
completely different—indeed almost diametricallyopposed to those that affected the
Greek style. There can hardly be a greater contrast. To reiterate the main pointsof
the preceding two sections: the Greeks had good stone ofgreat relativestrength that
made a continuous horizontal span possible, whereas we have brittle stones that permit
only the shortest horizontal spans, a shortcoming that is, however, amply compensated
by the vault. The Greeks had few needs and made comparatively modest
spatial demands, whereas we have many needs, one of which is the greatest possible
spaciousness. Greek buildings had splendid colonnades and no windows and were
only one story high, whereas ours rarely have porticoes, have manywindows, and are
several stories high.
8.
And yet we build in the Greek style, especially of late. How is this possible, ifwhat
I have said up to now istrue? The riddle will be solved by inquiring into what kindof
Greek style we build and how far this satisfies our needs.
The discussion of the first point will best proceed from a short reviewof
the main qualities of the Greek style and its later development under the Romans.
Up to the time of Pericles, Greek monuments consist of the following
forms. In the beginning the columns A (fig. IV) are less slender and more closely
spaced than later; the tapering toward the top ismore pronounced to produce greater
structural stability. The capital B, especially in the Doric order, projects considerably
to reduce the unsupported length ofthe architrave. The architrave Cconsistsofbeams
that reach from the center ofone column to that ofthe next. Above the architraveisa
frieze D, of equal height, consisting of smaller pieces; its surface is decorated. Above
the frieze there projects a cornice E. At about the height ofthe cornice isthe soffit or
ceiling F, of about the same thickness as the cornice. This ceiling is constructed by
76. HUBSCH
laying beams at regular intervalsacross the narrowest span to be covered. The spaces
between the beams are spanned with stone plates, again across the narrowest span.
All parts that belong to the covering, such asthe architrave, frieze, cornice, and even
ceiling, are classified under the term entablature. Since the wall is thinner than the
architrave laid on top of it, it is strengthened (as at G) to create a pilaster (anta). This
pilaster is as wide as the architrave only on those sides where the architrave rests on
the wall, whereas it isvery narrow on side /, where this width is not required.
Greek architecture excelled in simplicity of composition, in the consistently
even development of all its forms, and in wise moderation in the use of decoration.
The first quality arose from the simplicity ofthe plan. This cannot be imitated
once the plan becomes more complicated. But the rest could and should be achieved
under all circumstances. A sure instinct that was not tempted by the many means
available to cover every empty surface with decoration or to make unlimited openings
everywhere; an instinct that did not seek to impress merely by massiveness and by
dimensions beyond the purpose ofthe building but one that rather wished to impress
by a precision and neatness of execution such aswe can hardly imagine today—such
an instinct ought to inspire the art of all ages! Anyone who has seen the buildings
of Pericles' time must acknowledge that no other people ever lavished such fine
qualities on its monuments. Everything was built in a white, mirrorlike, polished
marble. The blocks that made up the columns were finished so carefully that even
now in many places the joints are not detectable. The walls were built of dressed
stones; their various joints alternate with a delightful regularity that forms the most
appropriate decoration. These monuments are like fair, ever-blossoming flowers.
When Plutarch saw the Temple of Minerva [Parthenon] and the Propylaea on the
Acropolis of Athens five centuries after they had been built, he said, "They seem to
have a soul untouched by age." The same can be said now, two thousand years later,
because any destruction these works have suffered was caused not by the might of
time but by barbarian hands.
9.
This was the stage that architecture had reached at the time of Pericles. Yet those
who believe that the architecture of later times remained unchanged or even place
the Roman imitationsin the same category asthose works are lacking in discrimination.
The principle of early Greek art was truth in the fullest meaning of the word.
Every architectural element was formed and used in a way consistent with its true
77. IN WHAT STYLE SHO ULD WE BUILD ?
purpose: columns appeared only where they actually supported an entablature,
pilasters only where the wall had to be strengthened to receive the wider architrave.
The form of the pilasterswas also different from that of freestanding columns, in line
with their different characters. The architrave appeared where it was really needed
to carry the ceiling and ended where it met a wall, because from that point on the
ceiling could rest on the continuouswall. An architravethat rested in its entire length
on a wall was pointless, because its height and form were governed only by the need
to make it strong enough to span between columns. The cymatium M(see fig. IV)
of the cornice, which projected slightly beyond the edge of the roof, bordered the
inclined sides of the pediment only to prevent water from dripping down at the
front; it stopped at the corner TV, so that the water could drain off freely along the
sides of the building.
I could cite many examples to prove that no architectural element was
used superfluously. Each wasformed to fit its specialpurpose and wasnever remodeled
in order to be (asone saystoday) in better harmony with some other form or to create
a kind of blind symmetry. Once the elements had been consistently arranged, the
decoration was spread over them, not in order to conceal one or another of the elements
but to adorn them.
The monuments of Alexander's time and those up to the conquest of
Greece by the Romans make it evident that a decisive shift had taken place away
from the natural instinct that I mentioned before. Unaffected simplicity, or the sight
of a plain wall,was no longer to be endured. Accordingly, in placeswhere a solid wall
was required and a portico was inadmissible, we often find outlined on the wall a
surrogate colonnade whose columns and architraves project by only half their thickness.
These engaged columns appeared soon after Pericles. They represent the first
great conventional lie in architecture, one that subsequently became the preferred
practice because it allowed architects to indulge in very large dimensions, now that
the architrave carried nothing and could therefore be made up of any number of
small pieces. Furthermore, pilasters were no longer applied only where the architrave
rested on the wall but were repeated along the entire length of the wall, each
opposite a freestanding column. Above them ran an entablaturein low relief, to form
a kind of symmetry with the real colonnade placed before it.
However, the genius of Greek beauty was not to give way so easily. We
can still enjoy the unity of even very late Greek monuments—where at least the horizontal
covering was maintained—and also their tasteful, though too profuse, decoration,
especially when we compare them to the distortion that Greek architecture
endured at the hands ofthe Romans. Even before the conquest of Greece, the Romans
had employed the arches that proved so advantageous to the construction of their
78. HOBSCH
extensive aqueducts and roads. Here the piers could be placed wider apart, andsmaller
stones could be used than with the horizontal covering. Although the Greeks were
slavishly imitated in everything, including their architecture, the horizontal covering
was bound to be unsatisfactory, especially because, for the multitude of Roman
needs, the types of stone available were unsuited to this form of construction (at that
time the Romans did not yet use marble for building).Vaulting wastooadvantageou.
to part with, despite all the Grecomania, and that iswhy the whole of Roman architecture
is nothing else but a conflict between these two heterogeneous modes of
construction: the arch and the Greek column.
At the beginning, when Greek models were still fresh in people's memories,
the colonnade appeared on the outside of the temple still in its pure form,
untouched by vaulting.The vault wasallowed in the interior, where it was indispens
able if a continuous stone cover was wanted. Yet soon the vault also intruded on the
exterior, directly between the columns, thereby taking over their essentialstructural
function. This caused the colonnade to degenerate into mere sham and show architecture,
as for instance on the Theater of Marcellus and the Colosseum in Rome
(fig. V). Here the entablature is carried only by the arches, not by the engaged columns.
Those engaged columns are so shallow that they hardly differ from painted
ones and cannot pass for real architectural elements. Looked upon as decoration,
they in no way represent wealth but only the utmost poverty of imagination. The
work of the stonemason—a pier, an architrave, etc.—when used simply as decoration
is the most wretched thing of all and isinferior to the most monotonous leafwork, not
to mention the higher forms of painting and sculpture. Is not the plain lateralwall K
of a Greek temple (see fig. IV) with its frieze of figures in bas-relief a more precious
work than a wall on which the money needed for a bas-relief has been squandered on
a row of pilasters? Figures IV and VI show clearly that the Greek colonnade and the
arcade serve the same purpose and that the use of both in the same place (as in fig.V)
must therefore be considered the most unfortunate pleonasm possible.
10.
From the descriptions given in the two preceding sections, it is easy to see how we
must build today if we intend to imitate the Greek style. Will our architecture then
have an advantage over Roman architecture? On the contrary, it must be inferior,
because the Romans at least had the same climate, had similar though more extensive
needs, and in later years mostly built in marble. Since the Greek monuments
79. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
have become better known, people nowadays assume that we are far superior to the
Romans. However, our recent architectural improvements, which are thought to be
so important, concern only matters of detail. What does it matter ifwe exchange the
shallow profiles of the Roman cornice for the stronger Greek profiles, or choose a
Greek Corinthian capital instead of a Roman Corinthian capital, or generally copy
individual parts of the colonnade not from Roman but from Greek monuments?
This isto catch the small fry and let the big fish swim away. Could we, like the logical
Greeks, manage with the horizontal covering and dispense with vaulting? Architects
try hard and do not shrink from roundabout waysofconstructing the outsideof
the building, at least, without vaults—lest the crass inconsistency become too obvious.
At the sight of an arcade together with a colonnade, the latter less than half as
spacious but requiring two or three times the quantity of material, any child would
ask, "Why not use an arcade here too, instead of a colonnade, since after all we do
know how to build vaults?" But even if we manage to build a facade without vaulting,
the contradiction is not disposed of but only deferred. For how amazed will the
spectator be when, having squeezed through the narrow colonnades outside, he is
confronted inside with spacious vaults!
Also, is a single story sufficient for our buildings asit was for the Greeks?
What a Scylla and Charybdis we encounter with a building of several stories! If we
simply place several rows of columns one above the other, we do not achieve a whole
but a pile of as many buildings as there are stories, because the main cornice that
unites everything below into awhole islacking. The cornice ofthe uppermost rowof
columns cannot be taken for a main cornice, since in depth and projection it is no
different from those ofthe lower rows ofcolumns. The alternativeapproach, whereby
a building of several stories is given only one row of columns extending up to the
roof, is equally wrong. It gives the impression that the columns originally existed
on their own and that little stories were later built between them. In Italy ancient
monuments have actually been used in thisway.
Everything must yield to the column. Of all parts the column alone is
thought to embody beauty, and it isused in such profusion that the grand impression
of free space is completely lost. Besides, architects try to make the columns as big as
possible in the belief that this will enhance the impression, whereas it usually has the
opposite effect. True colonnades can rarely be used on the exterior of our buildings,
since there is hardly ever a reason for open porticoes. That iswhy architects usually
resort to an architecture of bas-relief, that is, to engaged columns and pilasters.
80. HOBSCH
11.
If an unbiased person is amazed at how such a makeshift and mendacious style can
possibly be called Greek and thought to be beautiful, then his amazement will reach
its highest pitch when he realizes to what extent convenience, solidity, and economy
have been sacrificed for the sake of all this patched and borrowed finery.
Whereas the architect, in periods when a natural style prevailed, was
well acquainted with the needs of his time, which he regarded as the prime mover
of his creations, today he considers our many needs as so many enemies and as an
impediment to his designs. A perfectly ordinary carriage entrance, as required in
any sizable dwelling, embarrasses him when designing one for a grand palace. For
how can he combine such spaciousness with his Greek portico? Although one entrance
is in fact already too much for him, either he talks himself into believing that two are
needed, which he shifts to the wings (provided these can be spared from having porticoes),
or he places a single entrance on the lateral facade. This then hasthe result that
the important facade isthere for the minor people arriving on foot, while important
people arriving by carriage must make do with a minor facade. Ifthe building can be
placed on a high podium, then some place for the gateway may be found at the foot of
the colonnade.2
Yetshould a portico be demanded in which carriages can turn, then
the architect must simply despair of solving the problem with stone architraves.
In a church built in the antique style, even with slender and widely spaced
columns, people in the aisles from the third column back cannot see the altar or
pulpit, asalready mentioned. Furthermore, does a Greek portico provide the slightest
protection in our climate? Since a portico based on Greek proportions is not very
deep in relation to its height, the slightest wind will drive the rain and snow between
the columns to the back wall.
How can it be said that architecture has enjoyed a great resurgence in
the last decades? The revived imitation of ancient architecture in Italy in the fifteenth
century was confined in the beginning only to minor details. When whole
rows of columns and pilasters were eventually imitated, the purpose of the building
primarily determined its principal forms, to which fragmentsof ancient architecture
were superficially attached. That iswhy church interiors by Brunelleschi3
and most
of those built in the following century are just as satisfactory in use as the older
churches built in the medieval style, because they still consist of a vaulted nave and
side aisles supported by very slender and widely spaced columns. Their only defect is
that the principal forms are not configured and decorated to gowith the interior but
that an architecture derived from an alien way of construction has been tacked onto
81. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
them asbest it can be. Brunelleschi and the architects who followed him could never
have passed all at once from almost unlimited medievalspaciousnessto the constraint
that went with ancient colonnades—much though they extolled the beauty ofancient
architecture. After all, the unprejudiced majority ismainly concerned with the practicality
of the building. When it becomes obvious that what passes for architecture,
far from being the creator and friend of function (as it ought to be and as all architects
proclaim), actually regards function as its worst enemy, then such an architecture
must seem to ordinary people assomething they can do without.
The arbitrary application of antique architecture simply as decoration
soon caused facades to become nonsensical,especiallywhen the abstract lineofbeauty
became the dominant principle. The models had hitherto been Roman monuments,
which themselves frequentlydisplay similarabsurdities. Eventually,the discoveryof
the best Greek monuments opened people's eyes to the abominationsthat had been
committed. Architects recognized the senselessness of applying isolated fragments
and tried to imitate the integrated whole; but then, ashas previously been explained,
they forgot the present in their concern for the past. Is the new point of view preferable
to the earlier one? A building with a sham facade but with an interior that
conforms exactly to its use may sooner find admirers than a building with aso-called
pure facade for the sake ofwhich the whole interior iseither too high or too low and
whose function is everywhere impaired by Greek proportions.
12.
As to the expense entailed by building in the ancient style, it quite often happens that
the main building costs less than the porticoes. It has already been said, in Section 6,
that a portico in the Greek style, completely uselessto us, costs at least four timesas
much as a useful and just as richly decorated hall formed with arches. This stands
in strong contradiction to our architects' usual complaints today over the financial
restrictions they experience when executing their designs. Architects have never had
unlimited resources at their disposal. Yetwhen huge sums are spent on cumbersome
columns and heavy cornices running around the entire building (becausethe architect
has the vague feeling that this would look well), then of course nothing is left
over to construct vaultsin buildingsthat ought to be fireproof or to use ashlar quoins
to protect the corners from damage.
The outlook for durability isnot much better. Unsupported stone beams
easily fracture during our cold winter months. They willwear badly, since agemakes
82. HUBSCH
the stone crumble. Buildings in the antique style are so badly protected from the
weather that it would be a good thing to cover such offspring of a southern clime
with a special structure during the rough season, in the same way that one preserves
exotic plants. Without sinning too much against the antique form of moldings, one
cannot give the projecting cornices either a slope above or a drip molding beneath to
shed the water from the wall (as was shown to be necessary in Section 7). Consequently,
the rendering above and below the cornice will soon perish, and water will
easily penetrate into the joints and drive the stones apart.
The very gentle slope of ancient gables is not possible for our slated or
even tile-hung roofs. For that reason, architects are often forced to resort to a metal
roofing that easily costs ten to twenty times as much. Otherwise, the considerable
depth and comparatively modest height of our buildings (that is, if they are built in
the ancient style) make the roofs too conspicuous, which of course is incompatible
with the essence of this style. Therefore, architects often have recourse to flat roofs,
which, even when covered with copper plates, are in constant need of repair. Otherwise,
the timber construction underneath is quickly ruined.
Many similar shortcomings could be cited. Yetour best witnesses are the
recent buildings themselves, which without exception and in just a few decades have
reached such a state that they will hardly survive the beginning oftheir second century.
13.
Having explained in detail that present needs and the northern climate make it impossible
for architects to fulfill their task in the Greek style and that sofar all attempts to
imitate this style correctly or to fulfill these needs satisfactorily have failed, we now
return with all the more confidence to the conclusions that according to Section 6
follow from the present state ofthe formative factors. According to these conclusions,
the main quality by which the new style differs from the Greek style isthis: insteadof
the horizontal stone lintel, we have a vault; or rather, instead of a colonnade with a
horizontal entablature we have an arcade. The second definition better illustrates
what is meant by the statement without detracting from its general validity, because
the several forms of the support and its covering are visually the most conspicuous
and constructively the most important ones that lend every style its distinctive character.
Consequently, as soon as arches are used, the horizontal stone covering plays
only a subordinate part. It is used only to bridge a short opening of no more than
three or four feet; or, ifwider, it isrelieved of its great load by an arch placed above it.
83. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
Some people who no longer doubt the fitness for purpose of such a style
may yet demand to be convinced, at their leisure, that it will also be beautiful. It is
true that this would be the right place to explain what does and does not constitute
architectural beauty. However, in that case I would have to speak too much of feelings,
and this treatise would take on too subjective, and thus too vulnerable, an aspect.
The field of artistic feeling is a chaotic domain ruled by a great deal of outworn and
feebleminded stubbornness and little sincerity, since it isone in which one can never
be caught in a lie. Besides, there isno end to the human capacity for self-deception in
matters of feeling. Although time can easily change cool reflection into warm emotion,
this cannot be forced to happen all at once. Thus the wisest course for the time
being will be to avoid a direct discussion of where to find beauty, a subject on which
opinions are much divided, and to present the argument indirectly, as follows.
Although not everything that is fit for its purpose [zweckmaftig] is beautiful,
anything that isunfit cannot possibly be considered beautiful, unless one wants
to turn architecture into a kind of crocodile paradox in which the impossibility of a
satisfactory solution isinherent in the premise.4
Therefore, those who cannot contradict
the conclusions reached so far must decide to bid farewell to the antique style
and accept at least the basis of the new style, unless they can show that the line of the
arch isabsolutely ugly or less beautiful than the straight horizontal line. This cannot
possibly be proven, even by those who adhere fanatically to the theory ofthe abstract
line of beauty; for, asiswell known, according to this theory the serpentine or wavelike
line isthe most beautiful, and this line iscertainly closer to the line ofthe arch than to
the straight line.5
Once the basis ofthe new style has been accepted, the rest may be reconciled
with the most diverse views on beauty. Anyone who seeks beauty only in decoration
and regards it as a process of formal creation quite independent of function
(with the main forms or architectural elements only providing a kind offramework)
will be able to overornament an arcade as readily as a colonnade. True, he will have
to choose objects that really are decorative and not be obsessed with pilasters and
entablatures in relief, which even in his own view cannot be beautiful. For if the
main forms (which certainly include elements such asentablatures and piers) cannot
be beautiful, then fictive versions of those same forms cannot be beautiful either,
unless beauty were to be defined as the very opposite of function.
Those who seek beauty mainly in symmetry, rhythm, and proportion
can find these qualities in an arcade just as well as in a colonnade.
Those who see architectural beauty more in function—that is, in the
characteristic manifestation and generous fulfillment of purpose, rather than in
individual forms—will of course get along best.
84. HUBSCH
For an authoritative justification of the new style, we refer to the fact
that within the last few decades medieval art has generally become much appreciated,
and hardly anyonestill dares to revileit. Now, a form ofarchitecture that already
shares a basis—namely, the dominant method of construction, which is vaulting—
with the medieval style will therefore never turn out to be very different; nor will it
readily be considered ugly.
Finally, it may be an eye-opener for some to learn how inconsistent they
are in their feelings about beauty. Even the most single-minded adherents of the
antique in architecture can be heard to speak highly of the characteristic forms of
rural buildings that have developed quite naturally from their actual purpose and
traditional construction. Yet when it is a question of urban buildings, the same people
will hear nothing of a natural influence of the present but seek to achieve beauty
through a slavish imitation of a completely alien past!
14.
Having established the basisofthe new style in every respect, it remainsto define more
precisely the form ofthe architectural elements. For this we turn once againto history
in order to observe the gradually changing forms of vaulting and how they influenced
every element. We shall trace this development up to the time when all reminiscences
of ancient architecture disappeared and the form ofeach element wasderived
in an organic way from the vault, a stage finally reached in medieval architecture.
We left Roman architecture in Section 9 as a sort of hybrid in which two
mutually exclusive methods ofconstruction—the Greek colonnade and the arcadeappear
at one and the same place (see fig. V). Later on, as the rules deduced from
earlier monuments became more and more obsolete and the influence ofthe present
became more dominant, the entablature was reduced to such a degree that only a
short piece of it, a sample as it were, projected from the wall above each column,
with the vault resting directly on it, as in the Baths of Diocletian and the so-called
Temple of Peace.6
In the end this piece also disappeared, and the arch rested directly
on the capital of the column. As far asI know, this construction first appeared on the
Palace of Diocletian at Spalato but was soon applied in all the earliest Christian
churches in Italy, especially in Rome.
In keeping with the new form ofworship, these churches had to accommodate
the whole community, and they were therefore extraordinarily large by comparison
with the cellae ofthe pagan temples. They were usuallyoblong in form with a
85. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
ceiling supported by two or four rows of piers, thus creating two or four side aisles.
At the front were one or more entrances and frequently a spacious vestibule. At the
opposite end, the naveterminated in a great semicircular recess that formed the choir,
in front ofwhich stood the altar and the presbytery with pulpits. The navewaswider
and higher than the aisles. The difference in height made it possible to havewindows
in the wallsabove the arcades. The first churches were based on the Roman lawcourts,
which had a similar form and were known as basilicas;this name was transferred to
the newly built Christian churches.
At the time when these were built, the aesthetic rules that governed
antique architecture had become extinct along with the political reign ofpaganism,
so that architects, quite unbiased, resolved the main function of the building in the
most direct way, using the technology of the time. Notwithstanding the decline of
antique architecture, technostatic experience had not been lost: architects dared to
build high and heavy walls on a row of slim supports. Nevertheless, this style incorporated
many heterogeneous details reused from antique monuments. In particular,
there was a plentiful supply of columns made of excellent stone, and these were used
as supports. For the sake of space, these columns were placed as far apart aswas considered
safe and were joined by arches made from brick, then the commonly used
building material. Rarely, such architraves as came to hand were used instead of
arches. This row of slender arches carried the wall on which the ceiling of the nave
rested. The wall contained arched window openings that were usually filled in, not
with glass but with thin marble plates pierced with small holes, probably covered
with a transparent material. The naves of some basilicas had a double row of columns
one above the other, with the upper row forming a gallery. The ceiling wasa
very simple timber construction; it was identical with the roof (which even today in
Italy isvery carefully preserved within a double layer of tiles), so that the whole timber
framework of the roof wasvisible.
Among the churches known to me that were built in the basilicanstyle,
the church ofSanta Balbina on the Aventine in Rome isthe only onewhere no antique
fragments were used and where the vaulting style appears in its purest and simplest
form.7
This moderately sized church originally had a nave and two side aisles. The
piers as well as the arches and walls are built of brick. They are square and rather
thick and are set wider apart than are the ancient columns in the other churches.
The walls that rise above the piers, wherever an intermediate tie or principal rafter
rests on them, are strengthened by piers or pilasters projecting from the outside face
of the wall. The windows are almost aswide asthe span of the arches. The cornice of
the nave is embellished by a course of small corbels; that of the choir is formed, asis
usual in this style, with several courses of brick laid in different directions.
86. HUBSCH
The type of Christian church that evolved in the eastern Roman Empire
was different from the one just described. There, better political conditions made a
greater expenditure possible. Not content with a wooden ceiling, the whole interior
was vaulted. The cupola waschosen because it had the advantage of needing neither
the use of centering during construction nor sustaining wallsasthick asthose neces.
sary for barrel vaults of the same span. The central part of the church wasthen laid
out on a circular plan with four short wings, sothat the whole did not form a rectanglelike
the basilicas but a Greek cross, yet with arcades in the four arms like those in
the basilicas.The first and at the same time the largest ofthese buildings in the early
Byzantine style was Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. It served as a model for many
other churches and waseven imitated by the Muslims,for whom the dome stillranks
as a main feature of their architecture.
For all the Tightness ofthe arrangement and design ofthe earlyByzantine
style, the initial use of many ancient fragments and, later, the mechanical copyingof
their forms led the style into a great muddle. This had less effect on the plainer
basilican style of the western empire with its great simplicity and economy of ornament.
The wealth of the eastern empire was childishly misused by pasting embellishments
over the main forms like a pattern card. For the same reason, ancient
monuments were robbed of columns made of precious material, ofwhich there were
many. These could not be used assupports for the large domes and vaultsin the same
way as for the light wooden ceilings of the basilicas. Instead, they were often used to
form completely superfluousarches placed between the heavy piers and vaults. If the
shafts of the columns were not tall enough, then several columns were set on top of
each other (whichincidentallymight have been the reason for the later ringlike ornament);
or a piece of entablature was added to increase the height; or the brick arch
was stilted to stretch it as high as possible. Often two to four columns were coupled,
or four smalleroneswere placed on top of a larger one, asin the church ofSan Marco
in Venice. In order to overcome the plainness of the large wall surfaces, which had
only small windows, the facades of many churches were crammed with colonnettes
joined by arches to form small galleries. In most cases, however, these were sonarrow
that a person could barely squeeze into them, and there wasin any case frequently no
access. There exist buildings, the facades ofwhich are composed ofsuch galleries one
above the other. These small columns are quite different in their proportions from
those of normal size. In particular, the capital and base are very large in relation to
the shaft; otherwise the decorative details would have become indistinct. Also, the
capitals project rather far to receive the comparatively heavy impost ofthe arch. The
fact that column shafts originally consisted ofvery strong material may be the reason
for this particular proportion.
87. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
However, there are alsovery simple buildingsin Greece and Italywhose
architectural elementswere little affected by the disturbing influence of ancientarchitecture.
For instance, there is a cistern in Constantinople, probably built in a later
century and called by the Turks the Cistern ofthe Thousand Columns, that hasslender
columns with hardly any taper and with the cushion capitalsthat later become
common in the West. The cushion form, like the Greek Doric capital,is a transition
from the round to the square capital.
15.
Although buildings in the Byzantine style differ from those in the basilican style in
overall plan and form, the elements of both styles are practicallythe same.Just as no
rigid division can be observed between countries during the early period, sowe find
a mixture of both kinds of planning in the Western churches that from the tenth
century on were built in the style known as neo-Greek, pre-Gothic, or roundedarch
style (Rundbogenstil}. They have domes, but instead of a Greek cross, with four
equally long arms, they form a Latin cross, with one arm considerably extended,
creating a long building like a basilica. Two rows of piers divide it into a nave and
two side aisles. In the beginning it often has a timber ceiling and later a groin vault.
In the former case the piers stand closer together than they do in the basilicas; they
support the walls of the nave, which is always higher than the aisles, and are either
square or circular, like columns.
In the second case, the piers stand farther apart but are much thicker
because they have to withstand the full lateralpressure ofthe groin vault. The coreof
the pier isusuallysquare and aswide asthe wall of the main nave. On the back of the
pier, a half-columnprojects, on which the ribs ofthe groin vault of the aislesmeet, as
they do on a console at the opposite side ofthe aisle. The moldings ofthe base plateof
the capital and often all the decorative parts of the capital continue around all four
sides of the pier. The groin vaults of the nave are generally twice as wide as those of
the aisles, sothat the ribs meet only on every second pier; here another half-column
projects, and this continues past the capital or impost, up the wall ofthe nave, to the
point where the ribs of the main vault meet. These projecting half-columns,which
support the ribs of the groin vaults, must under no circumstances be placed in the
same category asthe engaged columns or pilasters of ancient architecture, which did
not carry anything.
At those points in the interior where the ribs ofthe groin vaults abut and
88. HUBSCH
where all lateral pressure is concentrated, there are buttresses on the outside, which
extend in uniform width and depth up to the main cornice. In the intervals between
the buttresses this cornice rests on a row of small arches, which form a straight line
under the edge of the roof and have the same projection from the face of the wallas
the buttresses. Originally,these arches arose out ofthe construction, aswe can seeon
old castles, where they acted as supports for the battlements and were built ofsmall
blocks, mainlyof brick. This had the advantagethat only a few large blocks of stone
were needed for the whole length: these formed the corbels on which the arches
rested. Later, these arches were retained even where they were smaller and everything
was built in ashlar.
There are also other formsthat are highly decorated in parts. Under the
main cornice of the nave, apse, dome, and towers, there is often an arcade or gallery
supported by smallcolumns, for which there are abundant examples among the buildings
in the early Byzantinestyle. This gallery is, of course, alwaysinterrupted by the
buttresses extending up to the main cornice and fills the empty space between the
vertical outer wall and the vaulted ceilinginside.
The windows are generally arched and in most cases are very high in
relation to their width, although round windows, or roses, and even half-roses are
not at all unusual. To admit the greatest possible amount of light, the jambs of the
windows are splayed on both sides of the pane and are either left quite plain or, if
decorated, do not project beyond the face of the wall. The jambs of those window
openings that are not glazed are less necessary for lighting the interior and are therefore
not splayed. In most cases two window openings are coupled, sothat their arches
rest on a common pier or, more frequently, on a column (if the wall is thick enough,
on two columns, onebehind the other). Up to three window openings maybe grouped
in this way,with a larger arch constructed above them to relieve the small columns of
the weight of the wall.
The richly decorated jambs of the entrances, in particular those of the
main doorway, are very wide and, starting from the deeply recessed door, are
chamfered at a greater angle than the window jambs, as if to invite people to enter.
The outermost jambs often project beyond the face of the wall; they then receive a
small canopy. Because it is easier to construct a square wooden door that can easily
swing back against the jambs, the part with the shortest distance between the jambs
(in other words the actual door frame) is spanned with a straight piece. In order
to divert the load from this piece, an arch is built above, the line of which isfollowed
by each concentric member ofthe frame within. The empty semicircular area
above the door either serves as a window or is closed by a stone plate carrying some
sculptural decoration.
89. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
The towers that were built after bells came into use are generally not
very high in relation to the nave and dome, though they are very numerous. They
have small paired window openings of the type just described, consist of many short
stories (reckoned by the number of window rows and stringcourses), are round or
square, and generally have a pointed but not very high stone roof. The roof of the
nave and the transepts is usually sloped at an angle of forty-five degrees.
The secular buildings erected in this style also often have open galleries
with colonnettes and vaultsthroughout and mostly very small windows.
16.
All monuments ofthe Rundbogenstil in Western Europe share the qualitiesenumerated
here but differ greatly in the particular formation of their architectural elements.
As a rule, we find these elements progressively closer in form to the accompanying
technique of vault construction; the transference of details from the Byzantine or,
rather, the ancient style became increasingly rare. The construction became bolder
and the vaults wider, employing less material and supported by slimmer piers or
columns. Yetolder monuments are often superior in this respect to later ones, which
were the work ofderivative architects who went on unthinkingly regurgitating— and
misapplying—the principles of their teachers.
With regard to the more objective aspect of architecture—namely, the
design and development of its elements—monuments vary widely in artistic value,
depending on whether they are the work of good or bad architects (of whom the
latter have at all times been in the majority); and this is even more the case with
regard to the overall plan and the arrangement of particular parts and decorative
forms. Many buildings display a truly mindless randomness: windows, galleries, and
cornices are thrown together unrelated to each other, sothat one would think it the
work of several architects, each working in ignorance of the others. On the other
hand, there are many buildings so simply arranged that they are among the most
successful works of art and can rival the monuments of the Greeks.
Altogether, the Rundbogenstil'was in many respects governed by the same
spirit that gave life to the Greek style: both have many plain walls, which, notwithstanding
the ample scope that they offer, are not overloaded with superfluous little
cornices, stringcourses, and the like; rather, they impress us by the beauty and precision
of their ashlar construction. The decoration in most cases still adorns and does
not mask the essential parts. The decorative elements are very small compared to
90. HOBSCH
the parts they adorn and thus create the character of delicate yet sober grandeur.
Toward the end of the twelfth century, the church of the Benedictine
abbey of Maria Laach near Koblenz was built in the fully developed Rundbogenstil.^
Here the piers of the naves and aisles are as slim and widely spaced as in the later
churches of the SpitzbogenstiL This very large church, with five towers, a dome, and a
forecourt, looks as if it had been built at one stroke in a most careful ashlar construction
according to a single plan. The decorations, which in monuments of this style
are often incredibly clumsy and rather disfigure than embellish the fabric, are conceived
and executed here in excellent taste. I must declare this church to be the most
beautiful I have ever seen. Although not everyone may agree with this assertion, they
will admit, at least, that this church isthe crowning achievement ofthe Rundbogenstil,
as the monuments of the Periclean age were of the Greek style. The church is unfortunately
in a very poor state at present; and it will collapse within a few years unless
the roof is repaired and iron ties are added, which could be done at very little cost.
I shall count myself fortunate if these lines were to induce His Majesty the Kingof
Prussia, who has done so much for the preservation of medieval works of art, to save
this church too from impending ruin.9
17.
In the thirteenth century appeared the so-called Gothic or Old-German style, in
which the arches and vaults no longer formed a semicircle or Rundbogen but two segments
of a circle, the so-called pointed arch or Spitzbogen (hence the most fitting
name, Spitzbogenstil], and in which all parts give an impression of lightness and extend
to a remarkable height. These two qualities(the origin of which we can leave undecided)
clearly set the new style apart from the old, asdid the characteristic natureof
its decoration, which consisted mainly of lacy fretwork and sharp points. Yet the
difference was not asfundamental asmay appear at first glance, since in the construction
and composition of the elements, the same principle was maintained. Furthermore,
in the transitionalperiod when both styleswere often merged and used together
on the same building, the pointed arch wasnot sopointed and differed little from the
Rundbogen\ nor were the lightness, the delicate tracery, and the upward impulse of
the Spitzbogensti/ as dominant at the beginning as they became in the later stages.
With few exceptions, all Gothic churches have groin vaults to ensure
that the lateral pressure is concentrated at a few points. The sharply projecting ribs
of the vault, springing from the piers or columns like branches from a stem, are found
91. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
here in greater number than in the Rundbogemtil. These ribs intersect one another in
various ways, dividing the surface of the vault into small cells, each with its own
shallowly curved and extremely thin vault held up by the ribs. The basic form of the
pier varies: sometimes it is a square, sometimes an octagon or polygon, sometimes a
circle. The piers of larger churches are square, though placed diagonally;their four
sides are surrounded by asmany columns asthere are ribs that spring from the top of
the columns toward the vault. They thus resemble a bundle of extremely slender
columns that are not really freestanding but are connected at the back to the shaft of
the pier. When the aisles are lower than the nave, as isusuallythe case, the majority
of these columns stop at the point where they support the ribs of the aisle vaultsas
well as the imposts of the arches on which the walls of the nave rest. Here these columns
have capitals, whereas those that support the ribs of the higher navevault continue
up the wallsto the point where these ribs begin.
Because the walls are very thin, the supporting buttresses project from
the face ofthe wall more than they do in the Rundbogenstil. They terminate invarious
ways: either they are joined to the main cornice, as in the Rundbogenstil'(a feature
chiefly seen on Italian churches); or they stop below the main cornice and have a cap
of their own; or they extend beyond the parapet of the roof and end in decorative
pinnacles. From the buttresses ofthe walls of the aisles, arches usuallyspring toward
the higher walls ofthe nave, which are supported by the interior piers ofthe church;
thereby, the lateral pressure of the nave vault is concentrated on the buttresses. The
main cornice, basically a large concave molding and frequently ornamented with
leaves, runs round each buttress. The roof isslightly set back, thus producing a narrow
passage between the roof and the parapet of the cornice. The water streaming
down from the roof runs along this passage in hewn channels and is thrown off at
various points by gargoyles.
The very tall towers are generally square at the bottom and change
into octagons at the top; their roofs form sharply pointed octagonal pyramids, which
on more important churches are built of stone. All other roofs and gables are also
high and steep.
The windows of many churches are so wide that they take up all the
space between the buttresses. Notwithstanding the great number of large window
openings, the stained glass and the intersecting and variously arranged tracery of the
windows admit only a very subdued light to the interior ofthese churches. The heads
of these long windows extend to great heights and are all pointed, although there are
also circular windows, or roses, and some with heads formed by segmental arches.
The narrower windows of domestic buildings usually have straight lintels and are
often combined in groups of two or three. The jambs are splayed like those of the
92. HOBSCH
Rundbogenstil and are often decorated with many ornaments that do not project
from the face of the wall. The main entrances have the same form as those of the
Rundbogenstil, except that the heads are not round but pointed. Smaller doors often
have straight lintels with no arch above, but in most cases the length of the free
span is reduced by two corbels projecting into the width of the opening, directly
below the lintel.
Admittedly, a great number of buildings with small cornices and other
randomly attached forms are the work ofmere artisanbuilders and consequently even
more deficient in order than the most confused buildings of the Rundbogenstil. Yet
everyone must rank the better buildings, and above allthe Cologne cathedral, among
the most beautiful works of art, comparable to a finely constructed poem in which
not a single syllablestrikes a discordant note.10
Nevertheless, the unbiased observer
will confess that there is usually much overloading, produced by an endless arrayof
decorative shapes that hide the essentialforms ofthe building. The tracery has been
greatly overdone; even the roofs of towers are perforated, so that proper roofs have
had to be constructed beneath them. Some forms have been used purely conventionally,
such as sham gargoyles and gables and blind windows. The Rundbogenstil
relates to these buildings as a pre-Raphael painting relates to a post-Raphael one.
In the former, the incorrect way of drawing is disturbing; but in the latter, where
nothing is left wanting in this respect, we nevertheless look in vain for the moving
simplicity of the former.
However, let us learn from the one undisputed merit ofthe Spitzbogenstik
the way in which its forms, down to the smallest detail, derive in a consistent and
organic manner from the construction of the vault, completely eliminating those
reminiscences of the antique that here and there still disturb us in the Rundbogenstil.
First the tapering ofthe shaft of the column disappeared, ashad already
often happened in the Rundbogenstil. The conical form of the shaft, although it adds
strength, belongs to an earlier stage oftechnostatic experience, which the bold vaulting
style had left far behind. Thisform wasunsuited to the spaciousness now required;
for, if one takes the greater diameter at the bottom ofthe shaft asthe necessary dimension,
the diminution at the top pointlessly increases the distance that the vault hasto
span. Yet in most cases there was no need to worry about adequate resistance to the
comparatively strong lateral pressure ofthe vault, in the waythe Greek architect had
to pay attention to the resistance of the column to earthquakes or other possible lateral
pressures. Now that several arches, in different directions, rested on the shaft,
their lateral pressures canceled each other out, and the column needed only to have
reactive strength, for which a wider diameter below is the last thing needed.
Furthermore, the arches were profiled in such a way that at the point
93. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
where they rested on the pier, they nowhere projected over its basic form to any
significant extent. Because a spontaneous tendency toward lightness, independentof
tradition, causes the corners of a square pier (fig. VII) to be chamfered and thus
changed into an octagonal or round one, the same chamfer, or at least a similar contour,
must continue along the arch that rests on that pier (see fig. VI). This ensures
that the impost of the arch does not project too far beyond the pier when seen from
an angle, as shown in fig. VIII. Otherwise, the heavy load may indeed cause a fracture.
Apart from a few exceptions, the Rundbogenstil did not observe this practice.
Here, the manner of the early Byzantineor basilican style wasretained, where plain
angular arches built of brick were supported by ancient round columns. People had
become used to this combination of forms and did not feel the lack ofharmony.
Thereafter, the base plates ofthe capitals, aswell asthe bases ofthe piers,
were made polygonal instead of square, since square corners, projecting too far over
the round form, obstructed the free space. Because the capital no longer served a
structural purpose, asit had done in ancient architecture, and in fact did not support
anything, its projection was reduced. It was really nothing more than a decoration,
and therefore the capital or impost block wasoften omitted.
In ancient architecture the gable or pediment wasbounded by the main
cornice, not only along the inclined sides but also along its horizontal base (seeE on
fig. IV). The reason for the latter arrangement was that on Greek monuments the
figures in the tympanum rested on this base. Yet the moment it ceased to have this
purpose, aswasusuallythe case in Roman architecture, the placing oftwo projecting
main cornices so close together became a reprehensible pleonasm. Although in the
Byzantine, Basilican, and Rundbogen styles the projection of the cornices is less pronounced
and the fault therefore less obvious, it ismet there quite frequently; but it is
consistently avoided in the Spitzbogenstt'L Here the cornice runs along the inclined
sides of the gable but not at the bottom; or if it does, then the inclined sides are
treated in a different way. Besides, as already mentioned, the cornices project to a
much lesser extent than in the Greek style, where the strong projection isprobably a
reminiscence of the timber construction. In the Rundbogenstil the moldings of the
cornices still resemble those of the flat Roman cornices; on the monuments of the
northern Spitzbogenstil, greater attention is paid to throwing off the water; and this,
by hollowing out the moldings more deeply, also improves the visual effect.
Finally, one more improvement should be mentioned here. The Spttzbogenstil\\&&
a better understanding of the essential character of church towers, and
these were built not by piling up many low stories but by forming a framework of a
few, though much higher, stories and windows.
94. HOBSCH
18.
The description of the successive vaulting styles contained in the four preceding
sections has traced so distinctly the principles according to which the architectural
elements of the new style must be formed that we cannot easily go astray.
Nowadays, as mentioned in Section 6, there can be no question ofspanning
the distance between pillars with a single stone, like an antique entablature.
The span must always be vaulted and follow the line of an arch, because the piers or
columns employed as supports for the ceiling, both inside and outside at the open
side of a portico, are naturallyspaced asfar apart aspossible, that is, more than six feet
even in the most confined space. Should one choose a pointed arch instead of asemicircular
arch, this would produce an organic style equally well; yet, practice would
soon convince everybody that the exceedingly steep proportions ofthe Spitzbogemtil
are incompatible with our needs, which normally point to the opposite, the useof
the segmental or semicircular arch. In some cases, however, the Spitzbogen may be
preferable. The catenary curve has an advantage only when applied to ceilings, and
specifically to those that are of the same thickness throughout and receive no extra
support at the points where the circular arch would be its weakest and would tend to
collapse outward. In the case of a wooden ceiling, one pier need carry only two arches
(see fig. I), whose intrados must be profiled in accordance with the basic form of the
pier or column, asexplained in the previous section. With single-story buildings, the
spandrels between one arch and the next need to be bricked in only up to a height
that allows the ceiling and exterior cornice to find horizontal support. With multistory
buildings, one should either place a second row of arches atop the lower one
(with the ceiling of the first serving as the floor of the second) or build a wall above
the row of arches. This wall, like one resting on the ground, must of course be of a
thickness commensurate with its height and unsupported span, and the arcade must
be ofthe same thickness. The wider the span ofthe arch, the flatter its curve, and the
heavier its load, the greater must be its thickness (which should not be confused with
the depth or intrados, determined by the thickness of the wall); and, as a result, the
greater will be the lateral pressure that it exerts on the abutments.
A wooden ceiling, because of the nature of its material, must have a
straight and not a curved surface. How absurd it is to waste effort and material on
forming wooden ceilings into arches, while seeking to avoid the arch in stone construction
by using straight architraves! Those whose taste is uncorrupted will not
be disturbed by the contrast between a flat ceiling constructed in timber and stone
arches spanning the piers. They will prefer the vaulted ceiling not because its form
95. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
resembles the arches but because of its greater solidity and lavish appearance. With
a stone ceiling, one can use any kind of vaulting, with or without ribs or bands (a
description of which would be too elaborate), depending on which type is considered
the most appropriate for a particular room or is preferred for other reasons.
The basic form ofthe pier that supports either the arches under wooden
ceilings, or the ribs ofvaulted ceilings, or the groins of plain vaults isgoverned by the
contour that is outlined by these parts on the pier. As explained in the preceding
section, the basic form ofthese parts must not project beyond the pier. It follows that
the piers can have very different forms: they can be round, square, octagonal, and
even polygonal, or a combination of all these shapes, with concave as well as convex
corners. However, this should not be carried to extremes, asisdone in the Spitzbogenstil
where the outline of the pier is hollowed out to such an extent that it resembles a
bundle of stalklike columns barely attached to the core, so that they seem to be
freestanding. It is true, however, that in the Gothic style this type of pier is in full
harmony with other parts whose lightness and openness verge on the miraculous.
That the shaft of the pier or column must have no swelling at all was shown in the
preceding section. The foot or base of the pier must not obstruct the space and must
therefore not have corners that project too far, unless required by special circumstances.
On the other hand, there isno need to make the base meticulously follow the
concave corners of the pier: it should rather simplify the complicated basic form, as
was done sowell in the Gothic style. As explained in the preceding section, the capital
or impost block must not project as much as ancient capitals and can perhaps be
omitted altogether. The abacus of the capital should also not protrude too far and
thereby conceal the place where the arches or ribs rest on the capital.
The proportion ofthe thickness ofthe pier to its height isnot asrestricted
as it was on Greek monuments, which only had one story, and where the columns
had to carry a comparativelybalanced load. Piers that have to withstand lateralpressure
must be proportionally thicker in relation to the increase in pressure, although,
of course, less so as the specific weight of the material increases and the pier is
constructed with fewer pieces. With the lateral pressure of the arches and ribs coming
from opposite directions and thus being canceled out (asisusuallythe case), the
thickness of the pier (with length unchanged) does not increase in proportion to its
load and to the distance between the piers. This is because only reactive strength is
involved here, which, however, varies greatly with different types of stone.
Because the first principle in art must be truth, we must not overlay
bare yet functional walls with feigned constructions. We must adopt the point ofview
of those who in both the ancient Greek style and the Rundbogenstil aimed for beauty
and opulence in wallsnot through frequent projections but through long-lastingand
96. HUBSCH
careful construction, fine surface treatment, and (especiallyin Italy) interior mural
paintings. If a wall has not been strengthened for some other reason (as may often be
the case) to withstandthe lateral pressure ofthe vaults(with the ribs resting on imposts
as shown on A, see fig. VI), then walls with vaults that direct their pressure toward
certain points must naturally be strengthened at these points by abutments. These
form projections on either the inner or the outer face of the walls or on both at the
same time. Inside, they are placed opposite the freestanding piers aswall piers; they
carry about half the number of ribs of those that rest on the freestanding piers and,
accordingly, are shaped like a halved freestanding pier. These wall piers, which have
a real load to carry, must not be confused with the engaged columns and pilasters of
ancient architecture, which carried nothing at all. On the outside the reinforcement
projecting from the face of the wall consists of buttresses that either extend up and
join with the main cornice (a simple form that isgenerallyfound in the Rundbogenstil
and frequently also in the Spitzbogenstil] or stop below the main cornice and must
then be given their own termination. Buttresses extending above the main cornice
and terminating in a decorated pinnacle, a type seen on larger churches in the Gothic
style, will be in harmony with the whole only if all other parts take on spiked and
pointed forms. To allay the fears of those who foresee the new style as consistingof
exceedingly long plain walls, it should be said that even if the ceiling is not vaulted
and therefore no lateral pressure bears on particular points of the wall, it nevertheless
would definitely be better in most cases to place pilasters here and there at the
corners and along the walls, because the walls could then be made much thinner.
The main socle ofthe building, whose considerable height enhances the appearance
of the whole, can, like the base of a pier, simplify the outline by omitting the returns
created by minor projections of the wall.
The slope ofthe roof depends on the materialused. If covered with tiles,
it cannot be inclined much less than forty-five degrees; if with slate, it can be less
than thirty degrees; ifwith metal, it can be very flat. The extremely steep gables and
roofs of the Spitzbogemtil, though often covered with metal, were more a consequence
of the upward striving that affected every part and certainly did not come about
because of the northern climate, asisproved by the less-steeproofs ofthe Rundbogenstil,
which are well preserved despite their great age.
If the cornice is made of stone, it cannot project as if made of wood.
It has to be hollowed out in such a way that the water is forced to run off the outer
edge of its contour, which, as the main profile, can be enriched by adding various
minor moldings (see fig. III). The projecting supports between the buttresses form
part of the cornice. In the medieval style these usually consisted of a row of small
arches, aspreviously described, though other richly decorated forms have also been
97. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
used and new ones could easilybe devised. Even the plain corbels seen on old churches
are appropriate. A wooden cornice, formed by the projecting heads of the rafters
and beams, has (apart from the greater overhang) a different look, mainlybecauseof
the variously carved heads of the rafters and beams. As explained in the preceding
section, the same main cornice must not run along both the inclined sides of the
gable and horizontally under the gable.
The openings for doors, above which the wall continues, must bevaulted
like the spans between the piers, with the possible exception of smaller openings.
Since, however, it is easier to construct and to open a square door, it is generally
better, especially at the main entrance, to separate the space circumscribed by the
arch from the actual door opening. This space will then either be made into awindow
or be completely closed to provide a suitable place for inscriptions, architectural
decorations, and (provided the actual door issufficiently recessed from the face
of the wall) the display of sculptures or paintingsthat no one entering can overlook.
The jamb of the door must be chamfered to allow people coming from the side to
enter comfortably, and this chamfer can be plain or stepped.
Larger window openings must also be vaulted. Straight lintels might be
used for smaller openings up to a width of four feet, if they havewooden frames and
are made to be opened. This was the usual form for dwelling houses in the Gothic
style, and this subordinate use of the horizontal stone covering was not regarded asa
disturbing inconsistency.The jambs ofthe windows must be splayed both inside and
outside to admit more light. They are very suitable places for ornamental decor,
although its use in dwelling houses should be carefully considered, since the jambs
on the outside will be covered by the shutters when open. Unless objects are to be
placed on the outer window sills, these must be shaped (like all projecting parts,
such as cornices, bands, socles, etc.) in such a way that the water can run off, and
they must be given a drip molding that will prevent the rainwater from running
down the face ofthe wall and soiling it with the dust from the frames and sillsthat the
rain carries with it.
It takes little effort to achieve a great effect with deeply cut and finely
curved moldings, as we can learn from the Greek and Gothic styles, which are in
amazing agreement on this point. Sculptural decoration, when not excessive, isalmost
exclusively an adornment ofthe essential parts and in every style ischiefly applied to
those parts that are particularly conspicuous. Thus, in the Greek style, the door frames
behind the columns had very simple decorations; whereas the portal in the medieval
style, unless hidden by a porch, was the most elaborately decorated part of the
building—and this is also the case with present-day buildings.
98. HUBSCH
We have now reached the goal that we tried to attain and have established a strictly
objective skeleton for the new style, sufficiently articulated, I believe, for the artist to
enliven with his ownindividuality.
Everyone will realize at once that the new style must come closest to the
Rundbogenstil—t\\ai. it is, in fact, essentially the Rundbogenstil'as it would have evolved
had it developed freely and spontaneously,unimpeded by all harmful reminiscences
of the ancient style. This resemblance arises from the nature of things and was not
brought about by authoritarian influence or individualpreference. All the qualities
of the new style described in this last section have either been substantiated by what
has been said in the earlier sections or are based on structural lawsthat for the sakeof
brevity have been assumed to be known. Where the same task allowed several solutions,
all have been accepted. The influence of reality in all its complexity hasconsistently
been upheld. No rule that had proved correct in only a few cases or that in
itself could not possibly be generally valid has been heedlessly proclaimed as afarreaching
principle applicable to all cases. The theory of art developed here is not,
therefore, like those scholarly theories that relate to reality in only a few issuesand in
which rules abstracted from such theories are unhesitatinglymade into general laws.
This theory isthoroughly practical.
The new style will thus afford the most direct solution for the most diverse
problems. Probably the least likely of all the faults for which the new style may be
blamed by its opponents isthat of being a motley assortment of forms. The style will
freely evolve and respond to any fair demand without hesitation. The architect will
not feel ashelplesswith this style aswith the limited meansof Greek architecture; he
will not feel like a painter who has to depict the wide-ranging subjects of Christian
art with a restricted number of ancient physiognomies. The buildings of the new
style will no longer have a historical and conventional character, so that emotional
response isimpossible without prior instruction in archaeology: they will have a truly
natural character, and the laymanwill feel what the educated artist feels.
The decoration of buildings will depend on the imagination ofthe individual
artists and will therefore be manifold. However, this will not endanger the
new style, aswas pointed out in the first section. Even in countries where a uniform
and consistent taste has prevailed, there is a great variety in decoration. This will be
even more sowith us, who know all things past and present and are sofond of novelty
and diversity. The crowd ofimitatorswill anyhow soon lend authority to these prod-
99. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD ?
ucts of a happy imagination. In every case buildingslogically designed in their basic
elements will rank much higher asworks of art, even with the most infelicitousdecorations,
than the most exact imitationsof ancient architecture.
Source Note\ Heinrich Hiibsch, In welchem Style sol/en <wir bauen?( Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Miiller Hofbuchhandlung
und Hofbuchdruckeren, 1828).
Translator's Notes
1. Xylomania: from Greek £uAov = timber. This term refers to the obsession, once common
among archaeologists, with tracing all the elements of the Greek stone temple to an imaginary primordial
wooden hut: an idea first propounded by Vitruvius and reiterated in modern times, especially
in the mid-eighteenth century by Marc-Antoine Laugier. Since this theory presupposed a
translation from a structural system derived from one kind of material to another system based on a
different material—in other words, a process of imitation—it wasstrongly opposed by Hiibsch, who
developed his arguments in a book entitled Uber griechischeArchitectur (Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr,
1822). His critique wasmainlydirected against the teachings of Aloys Ludwig Hirt. The resultwas
an angry dispute between \\vft(VerteidigungdergriechischenArchitekturgegen H. Hiibsch} and Hiibsch
(VerteidigungdergriechischenArchitekturgegenA. Htrt], published asan appendix to the second edition
of UbergriechischeArchitecture 1824.
2. This might refer to Karl Friedrich Schinkel's Schauspielhaus (1818-1821) in Berlin, a particular
featureof which wasthe covered carriage passage under the flight of outdoor steps. In 1821 Schinkel
published the building in his Sammlungarchitektonischer Entwurfe, vol. 2, which was then reviewed
byjohann Heinrich Wolff in GdttingischegelehrteAnzeigen 1(1827): 441-62. Wolff praised the practical
advantage that this arrangement had insofar as persons using the side entrances were not inconvenienced
by the carriages setting down others at the main carriage entrance but criticized it for the
bad effect it had on certain exterior aspects (the exceedingly steep rise of the flight of outdoor steps
and the unusuallylarge distance between the columns and the main wall of the building).
3. Filippo Brunelleschi (1377-1446), Florentine architect and engineer.
4. The "crocodile paradox" isthe name given to a sophism devised by ancient logicians: A crocodile
has seized a child; it will hand it back provided the mother guesses correctly whether the
crocodile does or does not intend to return the child. This creates adilemma for the mother: her two
possible guesses are contradictory yet they may lead to the same conclusion.
5. The theory to which Hiibsch referred—in this place and also afew pages earlier—was William
Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty (London, 1753). Of all the various straight and curved lines, there is,
according to Hogarth, only one, the waving line, that is the line ofbeauty, and only one, the serpentine
line, that is the line of grace (pp. 28, X). During the eighteenth century this theory became, in
100. HOBSCH
Hubsch's opinion, "the dominantprinciple."
6. The Temple of Peace near the Arch of Titus is described by Antoine Desgodets, Les edifices
antiques deRome (Paris: C.-A. Jombert, 1779), 45.
7. Santa Balbina, situated near the Baths of Caracalla, is a simple early Christian hall church of
the fifth century.
8. The Benedictine abbey of Maria Laach near Koblenz was built from 1093 to 1230. It is the
most perfect example of Romanesque architecture in Germany. The church was pillaged in 1802,
and by 1815the first steps were taken to restore it.
9. King Friedrich Wilhelm III (r. 1797-1840).
10. When Hubsch wrote these lines, the Cologne cathedral consisted of a choir (begun in 1248
and completed in 1322) and part of one tower, still in the unfinished state in which it had been in
1560 when work on it had been abandoned. Hubsch could also havehad a vivid picture of the cathedral
as it would be when completed, from the original designsas reproduced in the superb illustrations
of SulpizBoisseree's great work Ansichten:Risseundeinzelne Theiledes Doms von Ko'ln, which was
published in Stuttgart in 1823. It was due to Boisseree and these illustrations that the decision was
made to proceed with the completion ofthe cathedral. For the next twenty years, however, workwas
confined to the repair ofthe existing building. The actual completion took fortyyears—from 1841to
1880. See: Arnold Wolff, "Die Baugeschichte des Kolner Domes im 19. Jahrhundert," in DerKolner
Dom im Jahrhundert seiner Vollendung, ed. Hugo Berger (Cologne: Historische Museen der Stadt,
1980), 2: 24-34; and W. D. Robson-Scott, TheLiterary Background of the Gothic Revival in Germany
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 287-301.
101. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
This page intentionally left blank
REMARKS ON THE TREATISE
IN WHAT STYLE
SHOULD WE BUILD?
RUDOLF WIEGMANN
IF AN UNBIASED PERSON CASTS A GLANCE AT THE ARCHITECTURE OF
THE PRESENT TIME, HE IS BOUND TO SAY THAT IT IS IN A WORSE STATE THAN ANY
OF THEOTHER ARTS. In its degeneration—on crutches and in the rags of every nation
and period—it makes itself conspicuous in a manner at times ridiculous, at other
times obnoxious. Architecture claims a right to an enhanced position, the more so
since the other arts—which, unlike architecture, do not even affect our material
needs—are daily attracting an increasingly enthusiasticpublic. Therefore, to say afew
words about a treatise that aims to heal those shortcomings needs no justification.
Closer acquaintance with Greek masterpieces has clearly brought to
architecture a confusion that nobody could have foreseen. Far from opening the artists'
eyes to their slavish imitation of a so-called style that had arbitrarily been pieced
together from the fifteenth century onward, far from inducingthem to follow arational
principle commensurate with the means available and with their own age (as the
Greeks had done in theirs), the spirited, autonomous, and consistent art of Greece
has been degraded to the status of a dead model for desultory imitation by unimaginative
architects. But the contradiction between this imitation and the needs of our
time is too glaring not to have aroused general doubts as to the suitability of ancient
art for our time and for our needs. The consequence of this was a tendency to vacillate
and to snatch at the possessions of almost every nation and period. This heterogeneous
assortment was then thoroughly jumbled to ensure that it was called an
original creation. Greek, Roman, Byzantine, Old-German, and Egyptian styles were
used not only side by side but even within the same building; and then it came asa
surprise that the work was not regarded as that of a genius! Art became a senseless
rehash ofhistorical fragments, nothing but efforts without principle or aim. Nobody
could deny that these anachronistic products were monsters—ridiculous parodies
and caricatures that aroused only disgust when compared with the ancient originals,
their noble and beautiful language, and the general tenor of their time. Even something
that is beautiful in itself can make a ridiculous and foolish impression simply
because it is anachronistic and manifestly contradictory, just as a great tragic line
would certainly evoke laughter in a comedy.
Since painting and sculpture, the sisters of architecture, have long since
put their vagariesbehind them and are presently treated in awaycommensurate with
their character, it iscertainly time to free architecture from constraint but also from
arbitrariness. An art of our time and for our people will then arise from true principles:
aspirited and independent art that does not steal from history for history's sake.
Greek art, sculpture as well as architecture, is for us the most perfect
model. Yet it is not a model for blind imitation but for the consistent development of
an art that should be ascharacteristic of our time, our climate, our material, and our
needs as the Greek works were of their own period. Whoever maintains that the
Greek style is the right one for us is saying that it was not the right style for its time.
This leads to a reproach to which the author [Heinrich Hubsch]leaves
himself open. He wants to banish the Greek style and instead recommends the
Byzantine arch style—although only as it would have been if its development had
been carried through. Yet would our present art gain anything by exchanging one
set of fetters for another? Is it possible to imagine any art that is valid for all times?
Beauty is beyond time and place—unlike art, which is a human endeavor. Art is like
104. WlEGMANN
a livingbook in which nationsfaithfully record—as they must—their lives, their feelings,
and the trends ofthe time. I am sure that art has an organic life, ashas mankind
itself, that it has stages and periods that are closely and inseparablybound to thoseof
mankind, and that it cannot possibly be severed from these without the most disastrous
conflict between art and truth. To prescribe what kind of art a period should
have is therefore no different from prescribing to a child what life it should lead;
every movement has an undisputed right to its own life and art.
It would not have been a departure from the aim that the author sets
himself, if he had spoken of, or even touched upon, the essential quality that makes
an architect and perhaps art in general—what it sets out to do and what it can do.
He would then have assumed a better vantage point from which to recognize the
new danger that threatens his eager and laudable endeavor to free architecture of its
degrading fetters. Many things that now seem to belong to the material aspect of
architecture would thus have acquired a higher and more spiritual significance. Many
of his statements would have been qualified and would not have been uttered so
categorically. The whole treatise seems to be pervaded by the notion that matter
dominates mind, whereas almost the reverse is true. As soon as mind relinquishes its
control over matter, it also loses control over form and collapses into itself. It istrue
that matter, in the fine arts, sets up insuperable limitations that affect the creationof
form. Yetthese are soremote and socontingent that they cannot possibly be reduced
to a few unalterable proportions.
Before entering into details, we wish to make a few remarks about the
term "style," which are absolutely necessary in order to arrive at an understanding
with H. H. Throughout, he attaches to the term "style" a meaning that relates to
material and construction, whereasin everyday language it isused in a spiritualsense
only. Style is not a definite and unalterable system of construction and decoration;
even less does it exclusively signify two different approaches to spanning—the arch
and the straight architrave. In aesthetics, style has only two possible meanings: first,
the signal character of a nation and an epoch, which is always reflected in any work
of art (one speaks, for instance, of the Greek style, the Old-German style, or the
Raphaelite style); second, a distinctive mode of expression or specific quality (in this
sense, one speaks of a light, a sublime, or a grave style). In the latter meaning, it has
nothing at all to do with construction, since the light, the sublime, and the grave
style can appear in an arch just aswell as in a straight architrave.
Consequently, a period cannot strive for a single style. In the first sense
of the word, each period will automatically have a style of its own; in the second
sense, it will include them all. The art of the Middle Ages, of the age of Pericles, and
even that ofthe periwig age left an unmistakable impression ofthe time and its point
105. REMARKS ON/w WHAT STYLE... ?
of view—that is, of what we call style—although at those periods no conscious effort
was made to strive for a particular style. Instead, style crystallized organically out of
the time and the circumstances. Yetin every style in the first sense, there are various
specific qualitiesthat signify style in the second sense.
This being granted, the author cannot have meant anything by the new
style that he wishes to establish but a matter of material and construction. Precepts
of this kind nip artistic creation in the bud, clip the wings ofgenius, and lead it down
a false and narrow path when, left to itself, it would create works that would be
admired. Only what is already known can be prescribed; an original work is born
unassisted. If the works of the most inspired masters of any art had been obliged to
follow a pattern devised by others, what would they then have been like? The artist
must create as a free man; he must obey only the spirit of his time and be the master
of his material. He should master it but not tyrannize it. He should be obedient to the
spirit of the time; but this spirit also lives in him. These are the conditions that will
always bring forth true works of art. If the construction, which isa rational matter, is
prescribed, the resulting works will of course be rational. But will that make them
beautiful? With beautiful works, on the other hand, rationality may be taken for
granted. The history of art shows that construction isnot the cause but the result of the
formal idea. If the ancient Greeks had wanted to create a building according to the
idea of a medieval cathedral, they would have been just asunable to manage it with
their system of construction asthe Old-German masterswould have been ifthey had
planned a work according to the idea ofthe Parthenon. In both periods the construction
was attuned to the total character of the architecture; and although both manners
of construction were rational,they were poles apart. If a system of construction
were to be laid down dogmatically, this would act asa barrier against ideas and ideals.
Therefore, construction follows the idea. This is a universallyvalid law. If a person
believes that one particular system of construction is adequate for the present time,
this isonly his personal belief, and he should therefore allowothers the sameright that
he has arrogated to himself. There may be only one path to an ideal, but whowants
to subscribe to one particular ideal and not acknowledge another equallysublime?
However, with the buildingswerequire and the materialswehave, arched
construction will in most cases conform best with the idea and execution, and for this
H. H. advances many arguments. Yetbecause such a construction will be the best in
many cases, should that lead us to insist on it in every case?
I maintain that it is impossible to express a light and spontaneous grace
with arched construction. The reason may be the following: in arched construction,
solidity and structural equilibrium arise from the balance of different forces acting
in different directions and canceling each other out. The slightest cause that upsets
106. WlEGMANN
this balance—for instance, a buttress or a voussoir giving way—releases forces with
the power to destroy the whole. Balanceismaintainedaslong asthe constantly active
forces destroy only each other, but it isjust this conflict of forces that the onlooker
senses. It may be that this will finally bring about solidity but never a light, virginal
naivete. Instinctively and unconsciously,we calculate the thrust and counterthrust:
in short, we engage asit were in a dialogue with the material. When we find in many
Greek works those charmingqualitiesthat arched construction lacks, then it isobvious
that the horizontal covering, which ensures solidity through the structural repose
of all parts, must be more appropriate. In Greek works, the idea appears free of all
material; in the Rundbogenstil, the material is clearly dominant. Furthermore, since
the buttresses, indispensablein arched construction, are not hidden, they easily impart
to the whole a feeling of heaviness that hardly accords with the lightness intended
elsewhere. The Greek architect had nothing to hide. Where there is something to
hide, something is wrong. No doubt, there will always be architectural tasks of this
kind, and—one may ask—should one then reject a type of construction that has once
already been proved right for the task?
For a character of imposing grandeur, such as a church should convey,
there isnothing better than arched construction, because here the masses must never
be so delicate as not to withstand the thrust of the vaults or not to give complete
assurance of structural balance at first glance. In many other cases, this type of construction
offers practical advantagesthat justify its application, even where the straight
covering would be equally beautiful. However, one can think of many cases where
practicality and function (not to mention the aesthetic aspect previously mentioned)
in themselves provide a reason to reject arched construction and prefer the straight
covering. That we need porticoes, for instance, on many buildings, more than the
Greeks and Romans did, is due to our climate. Obviously, the delicate character of
such porticoes is not achieved with the heavy piers that would be necessary to withstand
the pressure of a vault. What then should we do in such a case? The columns
would have to be tied together and fixed to the wall with iron rods to prevent them
being overturned by the vaults. Those who advocate this method can take it a long
way and end by suspending a house in midair. H. H. rejects porticoes with a straight
entablature because they cannot be deep enough. But, in the kind ofweather against
which these do not give enough protection, porticoes are surely little frequented.
Besides, deep porticoes deprive windows of light and impart a dark and oppressive
character to the whole building.
Both methods of construction can certainly be combined, and if this
seems to be impossible, it is not because of the nature of things but because of a too
narrowly conceived idea of harmony. Why blindly follow a rule—however apparently
107. RE MARKS ON/W WHAT STYLE... ?
sacrosanct—which lays down that if one opening is arched, all must be so, even if
expediency, construction, and beauty of expression cry out against it? When the arch
is warranted by nothing but an arbitrary conception of consistency and harmony,
in the face of contradictions and absurdities affecting construction and function,
then that same feeling for consistency and harmony would—close to semicircular
arches1
—also demand entablatures and other lines that could hardly be more objectionable
than the use of monolithic stone arches to span small openings. Why should
someone who has jumped over a wide ditch take the same running jump when he
encounters a wagon rut? Harmony, however, is an earthwork erected to protect
prejudices and fixed ideas of beauty from any attack.
Thus, where the purpose of the building imperatively demands it, an
arch isunquestionably to be used; but why do so always, when one need not and—as
with the portico mentioned above—cannot doso?
We are convinced that both methods of spanning an opening arejustified
in their respective places and permit a perfect harmony that is not exclusively
dependent on construction and the material nature of art. Of course, an arbitrary
combination of heterogeneous forms is just as indicative of a lack of feeling for
harmony and beauty.
The author is partly of the same opinion when he proposes a straight
lintel for the heads of ordinary windows. If such a lintel can carry a thick wall, even
more can an architrave carry the entablature. If the straight termination is inharmonious
in the latter case, then it is no less so in the former.
When H. H. says that the new style will be the Byzantinearch style, he
is certainly right in adding: asit would have been had it fully evolved. Because in the
form that it finally achieved, it retained too much that could only have arisen in that
childish period (for us merely of historical interest)for us to adopt itunconditionally
in its present form. When we look at its masses and proportions, we find too little
harmony; when we compare one form with another, we find a harmony that is too
narrowly circumscribed. Everyone will admit that the subordinate forms and their
details are rarely in harmony with the main masses and are often even fussy and in
bad taste. If the great architect ofthe Speyer cathedral—that first and most admirable
masterwork of Byzantine art—had endowed the exterior with the same simple grandeur
that impresses us in the interior, then wewould have been totally relieved of the
sight of these old inherited defects, and that period would have bequeathed to us a
monument that would match in every respect the greatest works of any nation—
whereas we can now make this claim only for the interior.2
Those who seek to revive the Byzantinestyle on the grounds that it was a
native style should bear in mind that it originated in foreign lands and flourished
108. WlEGMANN
there as much as it did with us. But above all, they ought to consider whether this
style is congenial to our own time. If it was beautiful and characteristic for its time,
how could it possiblybe so now, in an age that has little or nothing in common with
that time? Our art must represent our time, just aspast art represented its time. Has
this not been so in the art of every period and nation, without consciouseffort? The
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are characterized by periwigs, and it is therefore
not by chancethat the arts reflect the very samespirit,because a period impresses
its mark on every sphere of activitywithout distinction. From costume to poetry, we
find great uniformity. This inevitable concurrence of all that is contemporaneousis
perhaps the reason why our own time, the age ofthe cravat, has produced nothingof
architectural importance by comparison with other periods. Everything that an age
brings forth belongs to it; but, of course, the child resembles the mother. History
demonstrates that great epochs were followed by periods of relaxation and repose:
times in which to recuperate and digest, asit were. Hence alsothe mindlessimitation
of the great masters: the masters sought an ideal after their own heart, but their followers
looked up to them aslawgivers and did nothing but imitate them. Presently,
our age seems to live by the enjoyment and elaboration ofthe past, yet it ought never
to lose sight of the great objective that once was paramount—namely, to make one's
own time into a great one.
This forbids a helpless clinging to the past. Just aswe cannot make time
stand still, so we cannot detain its spirit, which is inseparable from it. Both are gone
forever, because in the worlds of nature and the spirit, where all is in eternal flux,
there is no lasting rest. To demand the resurrection ofthe Byzantine or any art of the
past is to seek to disrupt by force the organic process of evolution. We must create
something new that fits our time, just as in the preceding centuries something new
was created that fitted their time. If the Germans ofthe twelfth century had thought
as people generally think today, they would have retained the arched style that had
been introduced by their eastern empress and would never have developed the wonderful
German style.3
The paintingsof Cimabue and of Fiesole4
are admirable and
beautiful for their time, but the Italians of the sixteenth century wanted their age to
be portrayed for posterity by a Raphael and a Michelangelo. Struggle as we may
with the Raphaelsofthe thirteenth century, they will never be right for the sixteenth
century; and they will be equallywrong for the twentieth.
The main reason why the Byzantinestyle has found so many adherents
in recent times isthat its buildingsare highly picturesque. Whether the picturesque
is a necessary requirement in architecture is not difficult to decide. Were thisquality
a sole condition ofvalue, then the generally esteemed Florentine palaceswould have
very little value and the works of the Greeks none at all. By contrast, the Byzantine
109. REMARKS ON IN WHAT STYLE...?
style holds first place in this respect, even surpassing the Old-German style, because
it presents a greater massto light and shadow without disrupting both with too many
details. Yet, using this as a criterion, we would also have to assign architecturalvalue
to a miserable cottage, such as we see every day, and deny it to a Parthenon. Architecture
is an autonomous art that presents beauty in its own way and therefore has
no need to consult another, and totally different, art. If a sculptor were to make his
works picturesque, he would sin against the essential principle of his art, and he
would have every right to demand sculptural paintings from a painter. It istrue that
picturesque beauty can exist alongside architectural beauty, but it is not a constituent
element of the latter.
The picturesque aspect of the Byzantine style should not, therefore,
induce us to take it up again. Nor can its purely architectonic aspect do so, aswehave
explained already. These considerations apart, would it not be a very poor art that
was not permitted to go beyond a few forms and types of construction? The only
field left to the artist in which to show his originality would be a little arrangement
and decoration—something very subordinate to the true idea of art. If, however, art
means the creation ofworks whose beauty (in close relation to their purpose) appeals
to the emotions and conveys to the onlooker the artist's idea (to which the worksowe
their existence), then it must create from a base dependent only on the time, the
means, and the artist's individuality.It isfor the artist to reconcile need and necessity
with his ideal. Even ifby thus relying on his own resources he creates something that
is not perfect, more isgained by this work than by an imitator's rehash of magnificent
works that do not arise from his mind or from his time. The former artist, with his
imperfect work, may have broken the ground from which great things will arise,
whereas the latter might aswell not have existed; he has, asit were, lived outside time.
It would be foolish to insist that an original work must not at all resemble
an already existing one. Many buildings, because they serve the same or similar
purposes (as do churches), have so much in common that they can differ only in
proportions, subordinate forms, and decorations. Walls, piers, or columns—three
age-old means—serve as supports. To cover the building, there is the roof, which is
thousands of years old and so conditioned by its purpose that its form is also given.
Windows are needed to light the rooms. To comply with physical laws, the main
lines of the building must be either horizontal or vertical. Not much of this can be
changed, because it is all a matter of necessity. Even the forms of specific parts are
determined by some cause—as, for instance, the gable isthe simplest way to construct
the roof. A portico is often indispensable in front of entrances, etc. It must have a
gable, sothat the water does not run down in front ofthe entrance. Those who build
in this way do not imitate the Greeks, since they only submit to circumstances and
110. WlEGMANN
needs. Even if no one in antiquityhad built in this way,some clever man would have
thought of it when confronted with such a task. An art that is as rationally developed
as Greek art and that contains nothing arbitrary, accidental, or conventional,
is bound to be later touched upon, simply because it is a rational art. The demand
to avoid the rational, solely because the Greeks or other nations have previously
adopted it, is nonsense.
Although many of the points raised here are not contested by H. H. in
his essay, and although he no doubt largely shares our point ofview, nevertheless this
seems to be the right place to make some suggestions that might serve to prevent the
revival of past artisticsystems(which is spreading more and more) and clear the way
for true art. All systems are based on the records and facts of past ages. For that reason,
a living art has no system assuch. We should thus striveto attain a living art that
faithfully reflects and is nourished by the character of our own time. Admittedly,
architecture is also better fitted than any other art to express the character of the
present time, which might be described as lacking in independence. To attain this
independence and to transform and shape the age is now the supreme duty of an
artist, nay of a man. Success depends on circumstances, and it would be futile to
imagine that a few individuals could bring about a salutary reform. Not until the
artist encounters true artistic sense, pure taste among the people, and a warm and
encouraging response to what he has to offer can a single person—however right and
however sincere he might be—achieve anything of importance. Nevertheless, while
the time of fulfillment has not arrived, he ought to give his loyal support to preparatory
work. He must, however, look upon history as history and not as a source for
precepts! The idea thus embodied may find some fortuitous historical counterpart;
but it still belongs to its own time, whose freeborn child it is. It makes no difference
whether columns, arches, or architraves carry the load. Every means of spanning
space can, in its proper place, be the best and the most beautiful. When art is no
longer directed solely by arbitrary human laws, when its principles and its essence
are in harmony with the artist's spirit and with that of his age, then art will have
found not only a solid basis but also a freedom that ensures its fullest blossoming.
ill. REMARKS ONIN WHAT STYLE... ?
SourceNote: Rudolf Wiegmann, "Bemerkungen iiber die Schrift: In welchem Stylsollen <wirbauen? von
H. Hiibsch," Kunst-Elatt 10 (1829): no. 44, 173-74; no. 45, 177-79; no. 46, 181-83.
Translator's Notes
1. The words "nach Kreisbogen"make no sense. After vain attempts to arrive at a sensibletranslation
by applying one of the many meanings that nach has in German (directional, temporal, consequential,
etc.), I came to the conclusion that "nach" is a misprint for "nah" or "nahe" (next to, near
to, close by), a reading that makes Wiegmann's argumentation meaningful.
2. The Speyer cathedral wasbuilt between 1030 and 1100. In 1689 it wasseverely damaged during
the War of Succession; the central section of the nave was completely destroyed. From 1772 to
1775 the buildingwasrestored according to planssubmitted by Franz Ignaz Michael Neumann (son
of Balthasar Neumann, the great architect of the German Baroque). He rebuilt the interior of the
nave by closely followingthe forms ofthe undamaged section but gave the western front a new facade,
which, in the words of the authors of the monograph on the Speyer cathedral, was like an effective
and "imaginative theater decoration." This wasthe state ofthe cathedral at the time whenWiegmann
praised the interior asa genuine Romanesque work, while his criticism of the exterior suggests that
he wasnot aware of the damage it had suffered through war and Baroque additions. In 1854 Hiibsch
was charged with the restoration ofthe western facade. He destroyed Neumann's work and replaced
it with a front that accorded well with his ideas of the Rundbogenstil'(see H. E. Kubach and W. Haas,
Der DomzuSpeyer [Berlin, 1972], 827-28). Wiegmann reviewed Hiibsch's facade in Deutsches Kunstblatt(\%55}:
324ff.; he praised it as a "perfect organism" but had reservations about the use of differently
colored stones.
3. Berta von Sulzbach, sister-in-law ofthe German Emperor Konrad III, became Empress Irene
through her marriage to the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I.
4. Fra Angelico da Fiesole (1387-1455), Florentine painter.
112. WIEGMANN
IN WHAT
STYLE
SHOULD WE BUILD?*
A QUESTION ADDRESSED TO THE MEMBERS OF THE DEUTSCHE ARCHITEKTENVEREIN
CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL
THE QUESTION THAT I HEREWITH SUBMIT FORSERIOUS CONSIDERATION
TO ALL ARCHITECTS, AND ESPECIALLY TO GERMAN ARCHITECTS, IS IN NO WAY
A NEWONE. It is neverthelessa question that isvital to our art and important enough
to be raised time and time again. For many architects, ofcourse, it has become superfluous.
But so long as we do not all strive together toward the same goal—so long as
* Weunderstand by style neither the artist s manner nor the character of the building with regard to itspurpose
ut the aspect common to all buildings of the same nation, the same country, and the sameperiod. —C.A.R.b
one architect applies one style, a second another, a third different stylessimultaneously,
and a fourth builds without any style or even submits several designs for
the same buildingin different styles—so long as this is so, it is the architect's urgent
duty to address this question with ever more serious application and not to desist
until it has been settled. It is perhaps most necessary, and also most rewarding, to
raise the question just now, when architecture has made such encouraging strides,
while diverging—in spite of isolated efforts to the contrary—in all directions. I am
certain that there has never been a more competent judge to decide the question
than the Deutsche Architektenverein [Association of German Architects], for whose
members this article is intended.
Strange, is it not? If someone, on being asked this question, were simply
to reply, "In every style or in none," architects would declare such an answer to be a
joke or even utter nonsense; and yet, we calmly sit back and watch how architecture
itself every day gives that very answer by what is actually built. It is therefore necessary
to ask first another seemingly superfluousquestion, namely,"Is it reallynecessary
or desirable to limit ourselves to one style, in the sense suggested above?"
It could perhaps be argued that just aswe have not hesitated to use the
scientific inventions ofthe nations that have preceded us, weare alsoentitled to appropriate
their artistic creations. But have we adopted and accepted astrue everything
that the ancients thought to be true, or rather only what is still true? We may adopt
from earlier art only the beauty that is still beautiful for us. But here art differs from
science, and architecture from the other arts. In science there are some truths that
are absolute—they are valid for all times and all nations; in the other arts, too, individual
details can under certain conditions be as beautiful now as they were in high
antiquity. Not sowith architecture. We learn from history that the only nations that
have achieved something truly excellent have been those that, apart from fulfilling the
general lawsof beauty, have infused their creations with their own spirit. This necessarily
follows from the very nature of architecture. Its tasks derive directly from the
manners and customs, from the life and inner essence, ofthe nation; and climate and
the material available must also be considered. Architectural works will therefore
express the character ofthe nation, ofthe period, and ofthe country more clearlythan
do the works of other arts, which often depict subjects foreign to that character. It is
true that every artist isaffected by the national spirit; hisworks, apart from the character
demanded by the subject, alsounconsciously express the same spirit. This must
be particularly so in architecture where all subjects are national,and character isonly
a subcategory of style. Without a well-defined national style, the architect can neither
accurately capture the character of his building nor clearly convey its purpose,
and it therefore lacks an essential element ofbeauty: appropriate expression, or Truth.
114. ROSENTHAL
Matters have changed greatly. Ancient peoples were left more to themselves
and only gradually outgrew their childhood. Their religion in particular, the
main support of art, arose from and developed with the national character. Christianity
with its elevated viewpoint was not so much influencedby national character
as influential upon national character, which it often greatly changed. A gradualintel
lectual development emanatingfrom a naturalbalance of emotional forces, one that
automatically ensures the homogeneous progress of intellectual activities and cultural
changes, is no longer possible. Communication between nations has increasingly
blurred national differences. It follows, on the one hand, that it will become
more difficult than previously to find the right style and, on the other hand, that the
styles ofthe modern Christian nationswill be closely related—or rather that asin the
Middle Ages, there might be only one style for the whole of Christendom, one with
slight regional and national variationsbut with more marked distinctions between
religious and secular buildings. What does not follow is that any style, no matter
what, would be right for us or that we could use different styles at the same time.
On the contrary, an even stricter distinction between the Christian style and the style
of non-Christian nations, those of antiquity in particular, is bound to impose itself.
Certainly, only one style can be appropriate for us. In fact, seen from a more elevated
viewpoint, there can be only one style that leads directly to architectural beauty,just
as there can be only one kind of culture that leads unerringly to infinite perfection.
Would it not be preferable, however, for architecture itself to find the
right style through practice? This would certainly be the best way,if it were possible
to forget past stylesand begin anew and if modern nationswere not solacking in that
youthful freshnessof feeling without which there can be no favorableoutcome. The
further elaboration of the style itself, which isthe most essential task, must of course
take place in the realm of practice; but it would be useful first to engage in some
research in order to find the right path.
Whether it will become necessary to invent a completely new style or
whether one of the past styles—with whatever modifications—might be used, is a
question that need not concern us here. As things are at present, we must first consider
the second alternative. Since a revival of the styles of the earliest peoples is out
of the question, we shall confine ourselves to a short survey of the Greek, Roman,
Romanesque, Arabic, and Germanic styles. It is obvious that modern styles cannot
be considered, because we have declared them to be styleless or debased versionsof
the stylesjust mentioned. The only significant one would be the Renaissance style,
which may be discussed together with the Roman style.
115. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
1. THE GREEK STYLE
This isthe style that outshines all others in its inner perfection. Why, therefore, look
any further? How can we do better than imitate the Greeks, who by general agreement
achieved more in art than any other nation and who came so close to the acme
of perfection? Very well—but what is meant by "imitate the Greeks"? Does it mean
that their style is to be introduced without more ado, or does it not in fact mean to
build with the same fitness for purpose and the same beauty in relation to our own
conditions as the Greeks did in relation to their conditions? Does it not mean to
develop in this way a characteristic style, asthey did, and adhere to it asthey did? Or
do we really have the same needs and climate, do we lead the same life, and aboveall,
do we have the same religion asthe Greeks? Finally, did Greek art reallyfall so short
of perfection that we could make the essential changes that are evidently necessary
without causing its total ruin? Asto the last question, present buildingssupply ample
proof that to alter even the smallest detail isto distort the masterworks ofthe Periclean
age; and asto the first question, its assumptionsare somuch contradicted by the facts
that in order to use the Greek style, we would literally have to tear it apart.
No, no!We cannot possibly build in a Greek style but only in a modern
style with Greek details, and even these would lose their original significance in our
hands. But perhaps wecould go back to the elements ofthe Greek style and from them
develop a style appropriate for us—a style such asthe Greeks might have developed
under present-day circumstances?Disregarding for the moment the obviouscontradiction
that the Greeks in our circumstances would no longer be Greeks, let us look
for the basic principle of the Greek style. The Greeks, as has been said many times
before, were happy and cheerful children ofnature;joy wasin their lifeblood, beauty
wastheir dominant, if not their only, aim, and for this reason their beauty waspurely
sensuous. Higher spiritual beauty wasforeign to them, and they could have no notion
of infinite truth and infinite goodness. In apprehending beauty, they loved fulfillment
not excitement. From thence evolved "serenity" as the basic trait of their character
and "perfect equilibrium" asthe basic principle oftheir building style.1
This principle
ismost simply and tangibly expressed in the way a horizontal load isheld up byvertical
supports (entablature and column) with no hint of upward striving. Could the
sensuous beauty ofthe Greeks ever satisfy the Christian—hisvision raised toward the
infinite? Could the equilibrium and the resulting simplicity,even uniformity, of the
Greek style ever satisfy the aspiring modern spirit? No, no!Not even the basic principle
of the Greek style is right for us!What is more, sensuousbeauty, like all things
sensuous, is attainable; and the Greeks attained it. Any further step must necessarily
116. ROSENTHAL
lead to decline; and sincethis declineisintrinsicto the basic principle from the beginning,
we need hardly regret in the present situation that Greek art has passed away.
For all that, the Greek style has one quality that, superficially taken,
seems to ensure its adaptabilityforever. This is the subtle yet precise expressionof
the structural significance of forms—in other words, its strict architectonic character.
The form as a whole, as well as the smallest detail, conveys the purpose of the
construction at once, more distinctly and clearly than any rational analysis of the
construction itself could do. Yet it is the business of all architecture to express its
construction, and this must be done in every style. If this isespecially the case in the
Greek style, the reason lies in the great simplicity of Greek constructions, dictated
by the basic principle, and is also due to the fact that the higher spiritual beauty
expressed in upward striving forms is lacking. In short, the Greek style is perfect as
far as it goes, that is, within its sensuous limitation. This limitation makes it totally
incapable of becoming the artisticaim of Christian nations.All elementsof beauty are
embodied to perfectionin Greek art, except one—infinity. We must thereforeaccept
that its time has passed and that its revivalwill benefit neither us nor Greek art.
2. THE ROMAN STYLE
The Roman style corresponds to our needs far more closely than the Greek style but
mainly because it lacks inner consistency and a characteristic development. In the
beginning the Romans adopted the very ancient Etruscan manner of building and
might well have developed it into a stylewith broad, angular masses, daring spans of
arches and domes, and lively grouping of the parts, which would have expressed
their warlike spirit perfectly. Although the Romans were a skillful and industrious
people, who greatly advanced the science of building and later erected splendid and
exceedingly magnificent buildings, they lacked a true feeling for art. Having later
adopted the Greek columnar style, they did not hesitate to combine it with elements
of their own arcuated style and thus provoked a battle between the two styles
that ended with the decline of the Greek columnar style, of which almost nothing
remained except the column as an inappropriate support for the arch. This spontaneous
onslaught on Greek art and culture seems to have constituted the historical
mission of the Romans, in preparation for the advent of Christian culture. The
Rundbogenstil with clearly indicated imposts is, of all arch forms, the one that best
conveys the character of repose and alsoone whereby the harmful consequences of its
introduction into the columnar style could escape notice, especiallywith a people so
117. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
artistically insensitive as the Romans. However, in contrast to the columnar style,
the Rundbogenstildisplays a decidedly upward-aspiringtendency, sothat the two styles
are virtually incompatible and demand a very different development.
If, notwithstanding its imperfection, we wished to adopt the Roman style,
we would have to decide from the start which of its two inherent trends to adopt for
the further development that undoubtedly would become necessary. One trend points
to the Greek style, to which we must not return; the development of the arcuated
style would lead us forward to the Romanesque, and then it would be easier to start
with this style right away. If we want to see what becomes of the Roman style under
the influence of Christian ideas, while avoiding the Romanesque style, we have only
to look at the Renaissance. It led to the periwig style and would do soagain. The two
conflicting tendencies, arch and column —and even more the conflict between the
spirit of antiquity and that of Christianity—cannot possibly be combined without
producing utter nonsense. This isall that need be said about the Renaissance,which
in any case was only possible so long as purely Greek models were unknown.
3. THE ROMANESQUE STYLE
The Romanesque style, or rather the different Romanesque styles (including the
Byzantine), tried in varying degrees to give architectural expression to the new spirit
aroused by Christianity. Yetthese attempts failed because it long remained necessary
to make do with the miserable remnants of the last period of the Roman manner of
building. Several centuries had to pass before a lifeless art recovered, and many more
before it assumed a character of its own. True, antique forms were increasingly suppressed:
cornices became less dominant and were profiled differently; the characteristic
frieze of delicate arches made its appearance; pilasters became lesenes; sharp
edges were rounded off;columns were first given cushion capitals and later became
compound piers; round arches began to change into pointed arches; and a lively
sculptural and ornamental decoration appeared.
Through all ofthis, however, the new forms retained unmistakable signs
of their antique origins; it is clear that these were not free developments but only
modifications. Although in the end the whole had taken on a more varied and lively
aspect and wasdifferent in character, it lacked consistent development and —as usual
in such cases—also lacked a strict architectonic character. Masses already tended to
strive upward, but forms still looked heavy. Details were either clumsy or too delicate,
decorations were arbitrary, and forms were without anystructural significance. Fur-
118. ROSENTHAL
thermore, there wasconstantvacillation; progress slowed down at times, speeded up
at other times. There wassome Arabic influence and finally a marked rapprochement
with antiquity. While it is true that the early medieval response to Christianitywas
warm and sincere, it wasyet too somber, one-sided, and uninspired. Christianitywas
too priest-ridden to be able to express itself freely in artistic matters. Late Romanesque
buildings givethe impressionthat a new, and perhaps Christian,spiritwasnow prevalent;
but it was not yet a free spirit, and architecture, emerging from the remnants of
antiquity, was even less able to express itself freely. It becomes apparent that the task
was not accomplished and could not be accomplished without a total change of
form. Once again, we are shown the way forward toward the Germanic style. If the
Romanesque style was too severe and somber for the thirteenth century, too constrained
and clumsy, too arbitrary, and architectonically lacking in meaning, it must
be even more so for our time.
4. THE ARABIC STYLE
The Arabic style is more appropriate for us than one would imagine: perhaps more
than any other style, at least insofar asthe lively,varied, and ceaselessly striving spirit
of our time finds its analogous expression in the fanciful formations of the Arabs.Yet
apart from its lack of the Christian element, the style has one fault that prevents it
from being recommended for general approval: an almost total disregard for the symbolic
expression of structural forces; that is,the lack of architectonic character. When
the free sons of the desert, aroused to fanatical zeal by Mohammed, surged forward
to conquer and convert the world, they had no architectural style oftheir own. From
the scientific point of view, they had to turn to the existing manner of building.
It wasdifferent with the art to which they were attracted by the innate poetry oftheir
character. They covered the simple Byzantine buildings, which were the first they
happened to come across, with such an abundance of new and ingenious (even if
arbitrary) decoration that it seems that the wonders oftheir own fairy tales have come
alive. Yet no systematic development of a specific style could be expected in thisway.
The Arabian style isconfined to pure decoration, which looks allthe more strange as
their religion prohibits figurativework. The style ischarming, although never more
than a lively play of fancy. When the Crusades brought the Eastern and Western,
Christian and Moslem civilizationscloser together, the historical mission of Arabic
architecture and culture consisted in stimulatingthe slower and more serious Christian
culture and art to rise to a higher spiritual level.
119. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
5. THE GERMANIC STYLE
In contrast to the heavy, unwieldy masses of the ancient Egyptian and the equilibrium
of the Greek style, the basic principle of the Germanic style is the upward
striving and the dominance of form over mass, which symbolizes the dominance of
spirit over matter and of spirituality over sensuousness. Once again we stop and ask,
"Why look any further?" Can we do better than adopt a style whose basic principle
fits us so well? No one who has ever been lost in devotion in the lofty and somber
spaces of a simple medieval cathedral, filled with humility and joyful hope, can deny
that these spaces are pervaded with the spirit of pure Christianity. No one who has
admired the rich formations, the curiously entwined rosettes and tracery, the rising
piers and turrets, can behold it all without being spirituallyinspired; all these forms
are truly architectural with no imitation of Nature and yet create so wonderful an
organic whole that the stone seems to have turned into a plant. No one who contemplates
the vigorous striving of arches and vaults, of buttresses and flying buttresses,
governed by equilibrium and resolving themselves into a harmonious, mighty upsurge
of masses and forms, can fail to realize not only that here the powerfully striving
spirit of our time isclearly revealed but alsothat here he can learn for himself how to
pursue the highest and most exalted goal.
We have seen that the intervening styles (wherever we may choose to
begin) lead us back either to the Greek style or forward to the Germanic; and we
must therefore choose one or the other. The Greek style has been shown to beunsuitable,
but the contrary is true with the Germanic style in every respect. This style
is closer to us in time, national character, and religion. Our needs, if not the same,
are very similar; we create buildings for the same climate and use the same materials.
We need not fear breaking up a style that is complete in itself, because the
Germanic style wasnot systematicallydeveloped during the Middle Ages but interrupted
midway. Therefore, it will be quite safe for us to make the few changes that
will be necessary without impairing its unique character or beauty. Also, the forms
of the Germanic style do not lack structural significance, although the dominant
spiritual qualities of the style make it less noticeable than in the Greek. Structural
equilibrium, asan expression ofspiritual equilibrium, wasachieved here also, although
not in the very simple way dictated by the Greek style. Most important of all: here
we are not constantly confronted—as we are by the Greek style—with the prospect
of future decline. The spiritual beauty that is the aim of the Germanic style isunattainable;
an infinite striving for perfection is thus possible, and there is no inherent
cause of decline.
120. ROSENTHAL
It istrue that the Germanic style too wasabandoned and forgotten, but
only through external circumstances. Perhaps its temporary suppression wasnecessary
to allow it to escape the incipient process of degeneration, so that under more
favorable circumstancesit could flourish againwith greater beauty and purity. Ifthis
can be proven, any doubts about the expediency of its revival will disappear. It may
even be that this style was almost invented for us and for those who follow us. This
would also explain why medieval buildings are still so much alive and why many
things in medieval architecture strike a familiar chord with us.
We have seen that throughout the entire period of Romanesque architecture
the dominant aim had been to express the idea of Christianity, especially in
churches, and that this aim could not be achieved with Roman forms or their derivations
or under the oppressive influence of the hierarchy. After spiritual progress
had long prepared the ground, a new spirit awakened with the Crusades and their
aftermath, particularly in the encounter with the more advanced, flourishing Arab
culture. This new spirit stirred the whole of Europe to intense spiritual activity,
to a struggle against hierarchical fetters that started hesitantly but, gaining force,
led to ultimate victory and the birth of a pure and spiritual conception ofthe teachings
of Jesus.
The same spirit undoubtedly gave birth to the Germanic style. It appeared
completely formed for the first time in Germany (although a few forms
appeared at an earlier date in France, followingthat country's early participation in
the Crusades).2
From the beginning, Christianity had taken deepest and strongest
root in Germany; here, too, the long conflicts between emperor and pope had prepared
the ground; and here, ultimately, the Reformation wasborn. That the effect
of the new ideas was felt in art earlier than in life is not surprising; emotional reactions
are quick and spontaneous, and there they did not cause anyconflict or encounter
any resistance. On the contrary, the clergy waseager to heighten the splendorof
the outer form of divine worship with the help ofthe elaborate new style, disregarding
completely the many obvious hints of the stonemasons' figures mocking them.
This failure of understanding, coupled with excessive enrichment, endangered the
Germanic style at the outset. Without sufficient time for the steady and consistent
development, which would have allowed the Germanic style to free itself of all reminiscences
ofthe older Romanesque style, its essential character became obscured, so
that only its spiritual integrity saved it from total collapse. This spirit shines forth
victoriously in all the jumbled forms oflater buildings and puts us at our ease with a
sense of familiarity.
Such an understanding wasnot to be expected in the first excitement of
the battle between the fiercely contending parties, and it wasquite natural that when
121. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
after many unsuccessful attempts, the Reformation arrived four hundred years later,
the Germanic style, forced off its right track and almost corrupted by opulence,
received no recognition—despite its close relationship to the Reformation. It wassoon
condemned and abandoned as a product of Catholicism; especially as the Reformation
came under the sway of a cold rationalism with unfortunate results for all true
art and for imaginative Germanic art in particular. The Reformation, whose final
aim cannot possibly be to split the Church, isstill not completed; neither isthe Germanic
style. Both have still to be reinterpreted and carried onward to fruition; and
this is the task of the present and the immediate future. May art, reconciling and
mediating as always, be successful in finding and showing the right way!
Therefore, we will make the Germanic style our own, not asit developed
historically but asit would have developed and would still be developing under more
favorable circumstances, that is,without the distorting influence ofthe former harsh
Catholicism and hand in hand with the Reformation—if only this too had not gone
over to a false extreme.
We need not look far to find the starting point or the direction that we
must take. This knowledge has been bequeathed to us by our ancestors, especially
where church building is concerned. From this starting point and with the basic
principles alwaysin view, spurred on by the feelingthat we walk on native soil, touched
by the holy breath of ancient times but also fully aware of the new, eagerly striving
order ofthe world and its nations, we shall advance step-by-step toward the infinitely
distant but also infinitely sublime goal!
SourceNote: Carl Albert Rosenthal,"In welchemStylesollen wir bauen? (EineFrage fiir die Mitglieder
des deutschen Architektenvereins)," Zeitschrift furpraktische Baukunst 4 (1844): 23-27.
Translator's Notes
1. Although the German words "heitre Ruhe" and "vol/kommenes Gleichgewicht" sound as if they
were quotationsfrom Winckelmann,this does not seem to be the case. Nor do they occur in Gedanken
uberdieSchbnheit (Zurich: Orell, Gefiner, Fiifilin, 1774)by Raphael Mengs, whom Rosenthalquoted
on another occasion.
2. The admission that a few Gothic forms appeared in France at a date prior to the creation of
this style in Germany reflects the reluctance with which the work of Franz Mertens on the French
origin of the Gothic style was accepted and the commonly held belief in the German origin abandoned.
Wiegmann strongly rejected the notion of an early French influence in his book Uherden
Ursprungdes Spitzbogenstils (Diisseldorf: J. Buddeus, 1842), 45-57. Merten's first reports were pub-
122. ROSENTHAL
lished in the Allgemeine Bauzeitung in 1843. See Eva Borsch-Supan, Berliner Baukunst nach Schinkel:
1840-1870(Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1977), 168-72; and Georg Germann, Gothic Revival(London:
Lund Humphries with The Architectural Association, 1972), 151-52.
123. IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
This page intentionally left blank
REMARKS ON THE
ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
BROACHED BYPROFESSOR STIER
AT THE
MEETING OF ARCHITECTS AT BAMBERG'
JOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF
FULLY CONVINCED THAT IT is OF GREAT IMPORTANCE TO BRING UNITY
TO THE EFFORTS THAT ARE BEING MADE CONCERNINGTHE ART AND THE SCIENCE OF
ARCHITECTURE, I HAVE TRIED THROUGH MANY YEARS OF LITERARY WORK TO CONTRIBUTE
TO THE VERIFICATION AND ESTABLISHMENT OF OBJECTIVE RULES THAT THE
ART OFARCHITECTURE SHOULD OBSERVE. For this reason I was delighted to hear of
the annual meetings of German architects. This, I hope, will mean that a great
step has been taken to direct the scattered activities that prevail in no other branch
of human knowledge and skill so much as, unfortunately, they do in architecture.
I sincerely hope that these gatherings will be fruitful.
The greatest benefit that meetingsofthis kind could render, in myopinion,
would be to lead to the formationof a German school of art and to a theoretical
consensus on certain basic truths and a practical consensuson certain basic rules for
the practice of art. Founded on the unalterablelaws of optics and on the invariable
demands ofthe normal aesthetic sense, these basic truths and rules would not restrict
artistic freedom but would set a limit to arbitrariness;and they ought to become the
criteria by which to distinguishbetween creationsthat are thoroughly sound and the
productions of mere caprice.
These preliminary remarks have been prompted by the questions submitted
by Professor Stier of Berlin to the meeting of architects at Bamberg, because
they signal the beginning of the kind of discussion I desire. My only regret is that
those present did not at once set about answeringthem. It would have been a good
occasion for the associationto show that its competence extended to artistic matters,
and it would have been of interest to hear the exchange of differing views among
professional colleagues and the principles that would have emerged from it. These
questions are now, for the majority of our risingyoung architects, likelyto remain a
puzzle for at least a year or longer. This wassurely not what Professor Stier intended
in giving his lecture, since I am sure he feels as strongly as I do that there isalready
too much that puzzles most architects. For my part, I particularly regret that this
appeal for public debate was not taken up, because the lecturer was not given the
opportunity to present his own views on the subject—views that, I am convinced,
were the fruit of mature reflection,since all that he does deserves credit for alaudable
effort to achieve thoroughness.
In order to show my own readinessto involve myself whenever there isa
prospect of a real and well-directed advance in our art, I have chosen the platform
of this periodical to initiate a debate that I expect will bear fruit in many ways.
I propose to take up the three questions raised by Professor Stier and hope for some
response to my examination of these questions at one of the future meetings or on
some other occasion.
Let us take the first of the three points put forward by Professor Stier.
It concerns "the basic principle, the idea of architecture in general."
Our old textbooks tell us that the basic principle of architecture is to
create long-lasting, comfortable, and inexpensive dwellings; beauty is mentioned
only in passing. This isan interpretation that cannot be pursued here; our concern is
with the "artistic nature" of architecture. The textbooks deal only with theartisanal
aspect, not primarily with art and not at allwith the idea of architecture. Therefore,
the question isthis: What is its aesthetic purpose? What is its function in developing
126. WOLFF
and perfecting the human race, and what importance, in this respect, has its future
evolution for us?
To apprehend the spirit inherent in nature, in other words to apprehend
perfection, is one of the duties imposed on man. By obeying it, man shows himself
worthy of his unique privilege as the only creature endowed with a Godlike spirit.
The more deeply we reflect and explore, the more clearly we recognize the inner
spiritual coherence of all things. To represent and convey this coherence isthe sacred
impulse ofthe nobler and more gifted members ofthe human race, not only for their
own satisfaction but in the hope that their enthusiasm will bring others closer to an
understanding of eternal truths.
A large share in these efforts has fallen to the talented artist. He must
grasp and give artistic form to the infinite harmony and meaning inherent in the
visible, physical forms of nature. The artist's supreme task istherefore to probe into
the profoundest inner truths, the eternal lawsofform, that nature has always followed
and still follows. These lawsand truths (closely joined to the supreme spiritualexpression
that must be immanent in the concept of the work) must be madeconvincingly
visible and intelligible. Among the fine arts, it is architecture that, by virtue of its
particular quality (in relating material directly to form, aswe shall seelater),displays
in the simplest and clearest manner the fundamental rules to which all arts must have
recourse. It forms the basic harmony, asit were, the thoroughbass of all the fine arts,
and it acts as their choragus. The ancients have named it the principal art, the
apxiieKTOviKn xexvn. No independent work of fine art—indeed, no work of art—can
do without the architectonic in its higher sense. This has been recognized not only
by the great painters and sculptors but also by musicians and poets in relation to their
creations in word or sound. When a work of art lacks the architectonic quality, it
collapses or is nothing but a fragment. It will never form an organic whole; whatever
other merits it may have, it will arouse only a passing pleasure and then only in the
masses and in those who are biased. It will never stand up before the judgment of
professional criticism.
This, then, isthe high standing of architecture: it should not only serve
the material needs of life but alsouplift the spirit, arouse and strengthen the sense for
measure and law in general, and thus form the foundation for everything that art
produces. In order that present-day architecture may fulfill this aim in a better way
than hitherto and in this respect, as in others, once more approach ancient art, we
must above all cease to let caprice have the upper hand. For how is architecture to
prescribe lawsto the other arts, if it islawless itself? To search for and establish such
objective rules (which at the beginning of this article I declared to be a principal
purpose of professional meetings) was already my intention in 1831 in a brochure
127. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
entitled Eeitrdge zur Aesthetikder Baukunst {Contributions to the Aesthetics of Architecture},
published in 1834. Later, in a series of reviews, I took the opportunity ofapplying
the rules that I had proposed with the appropriate modifications andexplanations.
In this way they were once more confirmed, since their effect was exemplified by
buildings that were generally approved. I hope that the zeal with which I pursued
this preliminary work will not prove to have been wasted when the time comes to
deliberate on the establishment and general acceptance of a basic architectural
theory. I like to believe that one or the other ofthe principles elaborated therein may
form the basis on which, after a general discussion and with modifications, a magnificent
monument to concord will be erected that will transcend all the conflicting
opinions and vacillations that abound within our profession. Should our art attain
this goal, then it may be hoped that this will mark the dawn of a new agewhen architecture
will powerfully influence the activities of the sister arts and will once more
worthily fulfill its supreme task—the ennoblement of the human spirit through the
medium of the senses.
The first question was general in nature; the second question that was
submitted for discussion referred to certain basic architectural principles on which
those present were asked to express their opinion: namely, asProfessor Stier phrased
it, "on the usual definition and application of symmetry and on the traditional definition
of the beauty of proportions."
To take the former aspect first, that of the correctness of the usual definition
and application of symmetry (whereby, it seems, only bilateral symmetry is
meant): it may seem strange to find that these rules, which derive from the most
basic architectural concepts, are now called into question, sothat in a sense one must
go back to first principles; but it must be admitted that the question is an entirely
apposite one in view of the practice ofsome young architects, who indeed hold some
very confused ideas on this matter. Those who consider symmetry to be irrelevant
and even harmful would not be inconsistent if they blamed the Creator for not making
the human figure, as well as those of all the more highly evolved creatures,
asymmetrical, so as to conform to the interior of the body (where, as is known, the
parts do not exactly correspond on both sides). With regard to architecture, they
even argue in the following way: since a ruin, for instance, can have great picturesque
beauty, an unequal composition of dissimilarmajor parts and detailsin a building
might also be equally satisfying. In fact, they say,we are tired ofsomuch symmetry
and should try to produce new forms that offer more variety, etc. The grotesque
buildings near Braunschweig by Ottmer and others are due to this crazy notion.2
With unseemly frivolity, they have taken the multiple and confused overall compositions
that are occasionally to be seen in medieval castles built on high rocks (where
128. WOLFF
the inequalities in the parts of the building stem from the uneven terrain and often
also from piecemeal construction) and have repeated them on flat land, so that they
cannot even be called picturesque but defy all reason and sense.
Buildings of this type demean themselves in serving as mere accessories
to the landscape,whereason the contrary the landscapeshould only be anaccompaniment
to the work ofart. Such buildingsdeny the senseoforder in man, who strivesto
make his work into a serious, dignified, well-considered whole that echoes the harmonic
order and the symmetrical arrangement of his models, the organic creations
of a higher order. These disparate parts seem to havebeen thrown together by chance.
They continue the comparativelyweak impression made by the landscape, insteadof
contrasting the landscape with a more highly organized work so that the one will
heighten the attraction of the other.
How far bilateralsymmetry isbasicallyarchitectonic, because it particularly
satisfies our innate sense of equilibrium, I have explained at great length in
Eeitrdge zur Aesthetik der Baukunst, where I presented it as one of the principal laws
governing the creation of beautiful works of architecture. In the same work—to
pass to the second part of the question cited previously—I also discussed a number
of lawsthat determine those proportions that are considered to be pleasing or beautiful
and dealt with their application to architecture. That brochure also contains
some results of my research on the subject touched upon in question two; I shall
return to this later, but first I will examinehow the question isto be understood and
how it can be defined.
When Professor Stier talks about the traditional concept of the beauty
of proportions, this can only refer to the rules that one finds in the old architectural
textbooks. In my young days, these were presented to us as the key to the secret of
beauty in architecture. In the belief that beauty could be captured through complicated
ratios, writers had either abstracted these rules from a comparativeexamination
of the Roman monuments or had adopted the laws of music, which had been
reduced to a theory of seven basic ratios, in the correct assumption that conformity
existed between the two noble senses, that of the eye and ofthe ear.* Yetin both arts
no one really knew what to do with these presumed ratios, which were supposed to
be valuable but which proved unproductive. They could not be used, as had been
hoped, asguides to structures of sound and form without coming into conflict with
man's inborn sense of Tightness: so that, instead of clarifying matters, they obscured
them. In theory, these ratios long continued to prevail in both arts, because no one
*Quite recently, Wolfram stated this in his treatise on architecture, published in 1838. [Ludivig Friedrich
Wolfram, Vollstandiges Lehrbuch der gesammten Baukunst (Stuttgart, 1833-1845).]
129. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
knew what to put in their place. In practice, however, artistswere alwayscompelled
to deviate and to be guided by their own senses. This was less disadvantageous in
music than in our art, because the ear ismore sensitive than the eye, which is blunted
by constantly looking at imperfect objects. For this reason, good care wastaken not
to hurt the ear by exposing it to jarring sounds as frequently as the eye is presented
with architectural and structural deformities.
If—as I must assume—Professor Stier intended in posing his question to
find whether these traditionalconcepts ofthe beauty of proportions are "indeed correct,"
then I am grateful to him for provoking the formulation and publication ofa
better system, which had been my wish for a long time. I was keenly aware of the
inadequacy ofthe information given in the old textbooks on this subject. This moved
me to examinethe true capacity of the eye and ascertain which proportions iteasily
discerns and therefore recognizes asthe basic proportions and which for this reason
are the only onesthat will give complete satisfaction. Examiningthe work done in this
field, I soon found out to my surprise that in the attempt to establishgeneral rules,
authors had made the mistake of overlooking what was simple and obvious. They
began by looking at the specific detail that pleases the eye while disregarding the
context in which it appears (and which alone causes the pleasant impression), instead
of examining the true reasons for this pleasure and the true capabilities of the eye.
The result wasthat they became involved in thousandsupon thousands ofcontradictions.
I myself took an interest in this subject asfar back asthe 1820s.My own studies
convinced me that we can perceive only that height equals width—or, at most, and
under certain conditions, that one dimension is twice the other. Therefore all statements
made with regard to more complicated ratios, such as2:3, 3:5, etc. —and probably
also 1:6and 1:8, which are supposed to give particular pleasure—are completely
invalid and derive, as mentioned before, from a merely deductive process.*
In which waythese ratios, which I assumeto be basic harmonies, can be
* When in 18321mentioned to my learnedfriend Moriz Hauptmann that according to my studies aboutpropor
tions, complicated ratios are inadmissable, it turned out that Hauptmann, who at present isprincipal of the
famous Schule St. Thomasat Leipzig and a worthy successor to Sebastian Each, discovered at about thesame
time thatfor basic musicalproportions, on which the whole tonestructure rests, the only right and applicable
ratios—in musictoo—are those thatarereduced to 1:1and 1:2. It emerged that the triad can only beanalyzed into
these ratios, so that, remarkably, the concordance of the basic rules of both arts, always assumed though only
dimly felt, was confirmed for both of us. [Wolff continues thefootnote with a reproduction of a long letter by
Hauptmann in which heexposes thefallacy of an arithmeticaldetermination of concordant sounds. On Hauptmann
(1792-1868), see The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians (London: Macmillan Press Ltd.;
Washington, D.C.: Groves Dictionaries of Music, Inc., 1980), 8:307.]
130. WOLFF
applied to architecture; how everything else depends on these; and how diversityhas
been introduced into this unity, all this I have, as I said, discussed in greater detail in
1834, in my Beitrage zur Aesthetikder Baukunst and later in articles published in this
journal. May the suggestions put forward by Professor Stier prompt a few of my
fellow artiststo examinewhat I wrote and either to accept or to refute it, to correct or
to complete it! Whether one or the other, this would be a sign of progress.
The third question, set out here in three parts, will certainly be well
received and carefully considered today, especiallyby architects, because it relates to
a subject that architects constantly have in mind, like a haunting tune that one hums
and hums again—the question of originality! I have to admit that I am glad to have
the opportunity to set out my own viewsonce more in a more connected way,because
it isonly by a thorough discussion ofthese issues that the efforts that architects nowadays
make to be original at any price can be shown in the right light—efforts that
have brought so much confusion into architecture.
The parts of the question as phrased by Professor Stier are:
a. "What are the preconditions for an original style?"
b. "How far, during the great artistic periods, was originality
considered to be a progressive quality,and how did it
manifest itself?"
c. "How isthis element (originality)manifested in presentday
architecture, and what isthe proper manner in which it
can be so manifested?"
For a better understanding of these somewhat succinct formulations, I have tried to
elaborate them as follows:
a. What set of conditions, what combination of circumstances—material,
artistic, or spiritual—is needed to produce
an original style? (Professor Stier's words might also
mean: "What are the featuresthat define an original style?"
But I believe that by rephrasing it I have kept closer to the
sense of the whole.)
b. To what extent, in the great architectural epochs (the only
ones that concern us here) wasit thought to be essential and
even necessary to be original, that is, to deviate from all
preceding styles (even from those whose excellence was
acknowledged) and to invent a new style, characteristic
for the period; and how far and with what effect was this
achieved in the various periods?
c. To what extent has originality been sought and achieved
131. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
in our times? To what style are we drawn by virtue of character,
historical circumstances, vocation, and today's technical
resources? What kind of originality can we expect to
find in present-day architecture?
It is evident that we now enter the wide field of architectural history;
only history can provide the answers to these questions. All that I can do, therefore,
is to single out the factors that are most relevant, though I regret being somewhat
hampered in this work by the restricted space that I can expect this journal, considering
its main tendency, to allow for such an investigation.
Let us first turn to Egypt, the cradle ofour art. I shall completely disregard
the learned controversy between those scholars who claim priority for the buildings
of India and those who (undoubtedly with better reason) favor the monuments
of Egypt. I pass this over, because I am not concerned with archaeological research
but with the first development of architecture; and this begins only where, for the
first time, separate elements are assembled into a building. The Indian practice was
to hollow buildings out of rocks, a practice that belongs to sculpture and can therefore
be of no use to us.
This may also explain why, in suggestions I made earlier (in my brochure,
UberPlan undMethode beidem Studium derArchitektur [OnPlanningandMethod
in the Study of Architecture] [Darmstadt: Leske, 1831]), I began with a review of the
Egyptian style in the belief that I could ignore the buildings of the other nationsof
antiquity, not only those of the Indians, but also of the Babylonians, Phoenicians,
Persians, Jews, etc. It istrue that in Babylon aswell asin Egypt there are indications
of an early development of architecture (whereas, for the buildings of the other people
named, it must be assumed from the buildings still standing or recorded by history
that they adopted the forms of an already existing style). Yet the Babylonians
depended on an inferior material (bricks) that did not encourage the invention of
artistic motifs to be applied to the main forms (see our review of brick buildings by
Schinkel, Literatur...Eeilage of the Allgemeine Bauzeitung, 1843). For this reason I
refrain from reviewing their monuments, which are known to us in any case only
through records and a few remnants—at least until such time as new excavations
furnish firm indications of their characteristic features and historical context.
The dawn ofarchitecture therefore starts more than three thousand years
ago in Egypt. Here, man first learned to handle the material on which all nationsat
all times have depended to satisfy their innate urge to erect (forreligious or political
purposes, in particular) buildings that will last as long as possible: a material whose
nature and composition constitute the only correct basisfor an art that in the selection
of its forms must not fall victim to arbitrariness but be guided by natural analogies.
132. WOLFF
In Egypt where, as mentioned, we find the beginnings of the joiningof
single blocks of stone, we can observe how, step-by-step, the material itself taught
man the form. The specific weight ofthe materialresulted in the perpendicularityof
the piers and of the space-enclosingwalls—to which, however, as contributingfactors,
must be added human instinct and the human form. Other qualities, such asits
brittleness, led, where large rooms had to be covered, to the use offreestanding piers
as supports for horizontal architravesmade of stone. The chamferingofthe pierswas
partly the result of expediency and partly again the result of the brittleness of the
material. Here was the first approach toward organic form—round, upright, and
tapering—as observed in the vegetable realm, a form that in its development became
more refined without, however, encroaching upon the true nature ofthe material.
I hope that these few suggestions (set out at greater length in the abovementioned
article on brick buildings) may suffice to show that allowance has to be
made for the great influence that the material exerts on the creation of form. Of
course, it goes without sayingthat I do not deny in any waythe great influence of the
specific conditions of a country, nation, and religion as the source of many symbolic
forms. I feel, however, that there isno need for me to list them, because this isdone—
more or less satisfactorily—in every history of art.*
Accepting the rise of architecture in Egypt asthe first period of our art,
we must turn to Greece to look for an advance on these beginnings. There is, however,
no need to assume that the Greeks were familiar with Egyptian architecture
and that they only modified and adjusted it to their needs. This may have been so;
but it is equally possible that Greek forms developed quite independently out of the
material—which wasthe same in both countries—and other relevant conditions. In
either case, we cannot deny that in Greece the Egyptian beginnings underwent a
basic modification as a result of the climate, which demanded a sloping roof. This
brought about a more complicated system (the entablature consisting of three parts),
which—unimpeded by the symbolic influences that prevailed in Egypt—evolved to
a high degree of perfection in the early Doric style,"f* This was therefore the first
advance, the first expansion and development of the original forms, that arose in a
natural way.With it there began a new chapter—if you will, the second period of the
development of architecture.
It reached its climaxwith the lonians, whose exquisite artistic sense had
*An essential fault in recent books on art history seems to me that their authors—who, it is true, are rarely
architects—wish to explain the various styles by reflecting onphilosophical notions and subtle psychological
observations, while often overlooking the most obvious material reasons that led to the creationof form.
-\See Beitrage zur Aesthetik der Baukunst, 55ff.
133. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
been formed through a concurrence of most fortunatecircumstances and conditions.*
It was here that the proportion of the height to the width of the column—until then
considered asno more than a structural support, the main form ofwhich approaches
a plantlike character—was all at once doubled (from about four-and-a-half to nine
diameters). This proportion wasthought to recall that ofthe human figure, which is
the only individualform the proportions of which, the same all over the world, are
stereotypically, asit were, fixed within us. The type ofthe column wasthereby established
forever; in turn, it brought to perfection the Doric shaft, the height of which
was increased to about six diameters in order to conform to male strength and force,
just asfemalegrace and charm, together with a resistant strength, were expressed in
the Ionic order. | Thus the column, which had hitherto figured within the formal
system only as a vertical line, acquired an analogical relationship that lent it a new
importance within the main proportions. A more complete harmony was found for
the colonnade (greater variety within unity) through the division of the square into
three intervals.3
Again I can only refer to the detailed explanation in my brochure
Beitrage zur Aesthetik der Baukunst. There I also dealt extensively with the artistic
development ofthe Greek style in all its details, both in the later Doric and the Ionic
order, a development that had some bearing on the changed shape of the column
(and finally I alsodiscussed the invention ofthe Corinthian order asan enhancement
and further refinement of the Ionic style). All I wish to say ofthis golden age of Greek
art isthis: the Greeks of this period with their pure sense of form made full use of the
obvious formal resources offered by the nature of the material and all the other
unchanging conditions; they clearly and fully recognized the creative properties of
the material,which the Egyptians had already dimly sensed; and they allowed us, as
it were, to look into the workshop of the spirit, whence all forms emerge asthey are
and no other way.This period represents the third and laststage in the development
and progress of our art.J
The series of those magnificent artistic inventionsthat made a true contribution
to the aesthetic part ofarchitecture and its truly originalprinciple had thus
come to an end. What followed brought some amplification,it is true; but in its
remoteness from simple and obvious themes it already contained the germ of decline.
Various attempts to develop the new additions and blend them with the integral sys*
Karl Ottfried Muller in ^/> Handbuch der Archaologie der Kunst, Znded., 17, gives a very good descrip
tion of the character of a nation that wouldgreatly favor artistic development.
f Theso-called Tuscan and Roman Ionic orders used later by the Romans wereadapted both inproportion and in
detailfrom the Doric and Ionic orders respectively and represented, infact, a mixture of both. The columns are
really hybrids that represent neither male strength norfemale grace; they are evidence only of a coarse taste.
134. WOLFF
tern of the Greek world of forms soon led to the dissolution of the spiritualharmony
that pervaded it.
To justify this assertion, let us now look briefly at the history of Roman
architecture.
The Romans acquired their knowledge of the arch through afortunate
chain of circumstances, either by inventing it themselves or, as many believe, by
adopting it from the Etruscans or from another, even older, nation. Whether the
discovery came to them by chance or by their own calculation(to which the practice
of using small blocks of building material may also have led), it was admirably suited
to their purposes. At the beginning, this invention wasprimarily used to satisfy material
needs in the construction of sewers and other underground works; but it soon
entered the aesthetic field and was used to span wide spaces, not only to widen the
passages through which the crowd reached the great public events that frequently
took place in Rome—the focus of Roman grandeur and power—but also for the construction
of the wide halls needed for the same purpose. The interiorsof these were
free of the columns and pillarsrequired by the trabeated system, and their coverings
were as durable as any that the Greeks and Egyptians could contrive by using stone
beams. But the Romans used the vault to satisfy not only their real needs but also
their inclinationtoward colossal dimensions and everything that appealed to avulgar
taste. This explainswhy they made their temples larger without having any need
for it. Another reason why they wished to introduce this characteristic element into
their style may have been, as I once expressed it, that they saw in the all-embracing
roundness of the arch an image of their own grandeur and status in the world.
Yet the introduction ofthis spheric covering—the construction of which
was possible only through complicated calculations that remained hidden—shifted
\1findstrong support for this view in Eotticher's recently published, masterly book on Greek architecture, in
'which, after an appreciation of its greatachievements, he writes: "Thepoet and theartist, the thoughtful and the
imaginative man love the Hellenesso muchfor their orderly spirit of invention, because it made them sense the
miracle of nature screationsand listen to the lawgoverning their existence with which they soinfused their own
works thata new and spiritually more enlightenedgeneration could only ariseout of their world, and even out of
its ruins—a world to which every future generation must turn again to learn sophrosyne, the idea and form,
the order and measurefor poetry andart." [Die Tektonik der Hellenen (Potsdam: Ferdinand Riegel, 1844),
1st excursus,p. 25.]Professor Stieralso—in an articlepublished in thisjournal in 1843—repeatedly emphasizes
the necessity of a return toancient architecture. lamglad tofind that other writers arealso comingto recognize
and appreciate the spirit and the merits of ancient architecture, on which I have long sought to shed light.
It is to behoped that these views, on which the salvation of present-day architecturedepends, will in time find
general acceptance.
135. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
the form away from the realm of calm and orderly contemplation that wasthe basic
character of classical art into the realm of Romanticism. Restrictions were indeed
lifted, and limits expanded; but, with these salutary barriers, art disappeared too.
When the earlier practice with its clear expression of the simple nature of the material
was abandoned, and the simple method of joining stones vertically or in horizontal
layers to support the horizontal parts was replaced by an unnatural support
through arches and purely mental calculations, then man's intuitive sense, on which
all artistic impressions depend, could no longer follow.
The Greek and Roman stylesthus differ greatly in their basic ideas, and
the difference in form isjust as noticeable. With the Greeks, the architecturalskeleton,
ifwe may use the expression, isstrictly stereometric, mineral, and inorganic in its
main lineaments; it consists of squares formed by horizontal and vertical lines. With
the Romans, it is shifted toward the organic aspect, or rather, the lower (vegetable)
forms of organic life pervade the whole, although mainly through the linear contours.
The first consequence of the adoption of the rounded arch wasthat the
piers or supports, one of the most essential parts of Greek architecture, came to be
subordinated to the covering. Sofar they had been freely developed and had, through
analogies and in an appropriate and sensible manner, been given a beautiful shape,
manifesting the supreme artistic spirit of the Greeks. Now, they were thrust from
the stage of evolution at which they had gained, as it were, the status of a higher
organism back to an inorganic and crystallinestate, at least with regard to their mass.
For the arch does not only require avertical support for structural reasons, its formal
outline must also be in direct connection with a vertical line: structurally, because it
exerts pressure; formally, because half a circle is an incomplete form, which, whenever
it cannot be completed by adding the other half (ashad been done in the case of
the Byzantinerose windows),must be directly joined with a linefrom which it seems
to evolve in a plantlike manner. The self-contained form of the column could not
meet this demand; a perpendicular axis runs through the center of its mass but does
not appear asa line—as it would have to do in order to merge with the contour of the
arch. In the arcuated style, the support or pier reverted to an inorganic shape and
was reallynothing but a piece ofwall; but its profiles assumed, one might say,aplantlike
character through being merged with the organic profile of the arch (acharacter
clearly expressed later in the Germanic style). Aspreviously mentioned, this has
the result that the semiorganic character communicated itself to the whole arch
form, even though the most flexible part—the freestanding support—was, at least
conceptually, changed back into a dead and rigid mass.
Yet, even with the contour ofthe arch continued by a perpendicular line,
the arcaded form still gives the displeasing impression of something that is incom-
136. WOLFF
plete: an impression that is dispelled only after the semicircle has been framed by
complementary forms. The Romans felt this, and this (along with the wish to make
their buildings look opulent) led them to frame their openings with horizontal and
vertical lines, which, being tangential to the contour ofthe arch, reconciled the semicircle
with the main directions [horizontal and vertical] and thus resolved dissonance
and restored architectural harmony. They were right to borrow these framingforms
from the Greek style. For where else could they have found verticality and horizontality
sobeautifullyrepresented or embodied asin Greek columns and cornices?
Indeed, they contrived with great ingenuity to fit these parts as a whole into their
arcuated system. Although they had no clear conception ofthe original source, they
had a sense for what was attractive, sound, and truthful. (In the decoration of their
temples they also retained Greek models—at least in their own estimation, although
we see these only as faint shadows of the originals.)
From what has been said, it isevident that the vaulted covering isindeed
an amplification ofthe preceding system but that aesthetically it does not represent a
gain. It does not lead to the creation of new sculptural forms but only to a play of
more vivid lines, which are similar to those surfacedecorations that tend toward the
pictorial.* We shall see later that all succeeding arcuated styles were really onlyvariations
on the same theme: that is to say, they were attempts to free the arch—that
segment of a circle—from its stern aspect and indeed from its dissonant appearance.
This iswhat gives any arcuated style, in contrast to the classicalrepose ofrectilinear
structures, the character ofrestlessimmobilitythat I have alreadydefined as Romantic.
With the decline of Roman power and greatness, a situation developed
that wasnot favorableto architecture. The Romans with their comparatively sound
artistic sense realized that the new element of the arch could not exist by itself but
that to satisfy, it had to be wedded to something that was original, namely to architectonic-sculptural'
quality,f Yet the nations of the increasingly turbulent period that
followed were unable to uphold this insight in its originalvigor. It became more and
more obscured, and the early stirrings of architectural creativity, stimulated by the
first attempts to merge the new with the existing elements, were pushed into the
* While the Greeks, with their system of straight lines, everywhere attainedformal perfection, in the detailsas
well as in the building as a whole, the Romans achieved it only in those rare cases where buildings could be
covered with domes.
•\It shouldperhaps beexplained that I understand "the architectonic-sculptural"^** ArchitektonischPlastische]
to bethe result of arranging theforms in such a way that thefunctions of all structuralparts, like
the membersof the human body, are clearly revealed, while at the same time the structural arrangement does
justice to theparticular nature of the material.
137. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
background. Increasingly, people were content to borrow from existing works only
the barest essentials.This, ofcourse, meant that the arch form, afeature conspicuous
even to the crudest sense, was given preference, especially because its construction
required only small stones and consequently no great technical skill—a quality that
was in short supply because of political upheavals, fragmentation of forces, and scarcity
of means. Since traditional forms were apprehended with little mental effort and
even less material expense, the sense of Tightness became increasingly dulled.
As a result, the limitations that previous generations had wisely accepted
(in the belief that the architectonic-pictorial {mm of the arch wasscarcely akin to true
architectural principles) were abandoned; instead, builderstried through chamfering
to give the arch form a more sculptural appearance and to give the arch more than a
purely linear function in the process of formal creation by providing columns for its
support in place of square piers. It was no longer clear to them why the Romansof
the best period had given up using them for this purpose, even though trabeated
architecture had shown that columns were functionally adequate assupports. Their
artistic sense being dulled, they thought to gain by using columns asasupport for the
arches, not only because space was saved with round columns but also because, for
instance, they became easier to walk around.* Yetthis entailed a change in the shape
of the column by which it was divested of its particular charm. Gradually, the taper
was lost, sothat the column in its cylindrical shape at least had a perpendicular contour
and thus fitted the arch better; the capital also acquired a square and massive
form, which provided a tolerable continuation ofthe spring ofthe arch—carved, asit
were, out of the wall—but made a poor match for the round shaft of the column.
Thus the head was, soto speak, severed from the trunk, and the integrated, organic
form of the column was torn open in order to make shift to join it with the new
element, the hemispherical covering. Despite the crude ideasthat the practical builders
(who, at that time, were hardly more than artisans) entertained on these matters,
they did not fail to realize that something more had to be done to make the form of
the arch more pleasing, an objective that the Romans had tried to achieve by framing
it with straight lines.
The Romans, as we have seen, had adopted the Greek forms for this
purpose, using them only aslines that were to frame the arches asclosely as possible.
But this arrangement was now considered a luxury; the builder thought he had
done enough by showing the arcades in a far vaguer relationship with the principal
[horizontal and vertical] lines. This was achieved either through simple projections
*''Recently, someyounger architects <who are under the same illusion have recommended thefurther development
of this style.
138. WOLFF
(lesenes), usually placed at the corners of the major parts of the building only, or
through relieflikewall panels that framed the round shape of the arch, though at a
greater distance,with vertical and horizontal lines.Or a relationto horizontality wa.
achieved by the regular recurrence of arches of equal height, while at the same time
the symmetrical divergence of the rising archivolts suggested perpendicularity; so
that it was only the ends of this type of arcade that failed to resolve the dissonance.
Although this principle gave only partial satisfaction, it was applied in many varia
tions, especially in the construction of gables, which, because of the poor qualityof
the material used for roofing, became increasinglysteep. In order to mitigate the
disturbing impression of these unpleasantly steep slopes, a row of arches with or
without piers wasadded, running below the cornice. Its contours were intended to
counterbalance the sloping outline ofthe roof to which it wasattached. Another way
to soften the unpleasanteffect of a steep gable and to bring its slope into better harmony
with the basic [horizontal and vertical]lineswas to raise it in steps, a method
that later became quite common, although it entailed other irregularities.
For all that, steep roofs, especially at the gable ends, remained a great
defect and were therefore toned down or kept out of sight as much as possible until,
with the invention of bells, the introduction of church towers led to the unrestricted
use of these misshapen and intractable monsters with which architects fight a constant
battle. It wasnow possible to make the gables, flanked by towers, ashigh asone
desired, without having to fear the disrupting effect of the high roof, at least not at
the facade. In this respect, the sides of the building were totally neglected.
Just asthe steep gables were the result ofthe poor quality ofthe material
used for covering, so the unnecessarygreat strength of the thick wallswas the result
of insufficient technical effort. When not using the spoils gathered from Roman
monuments (as is well known, many columns as well as marble tiles, etc., found in
ruined buildings were used again),builders resorted to the first materialsthat came
to hand, however poor. On the one hand, the great thickness of the walls seemed to
obviate the need for local reinforcement, as used by the Romans to great aesthetic
advantage through engaged piers, columns, and other vertical projections; on the
other hand, it became desirableto chamfer the corners and to splaythe windowsand
doors, or rather to increase their outer width, mainly to improve lighting. Since
this kind of refinement, through chamfering, lacked any structural motivation, it
encouraged atendency toward carved form in architecture, which, once introduced,
quickly spread and opened the wayto the Gothic style. The beginningsof this style
can best be observed in the Byzantinestyle, where doorways, stepped back in plan,
are decorated with colonnettes, whose roundness continues past the capitals and
converges in the arched portion of the doorway. Here already we meet the plant-
139. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
like growth of the column, which is the basic principle of the medieval style.
The need to establish a connection between the arched line and the vertical
contour, for the sake ofwhich the Romanshad replaced columnswith rectangular
piers, had been largely lost on the Byzantines;* and the Moors in Spain—who had
received their influencespartly from a few Roman remains but largely secondhand,
from the remains(in a Byzantinestyle) left by their predecessors, the Goths—showed
an even stronger tendency to treat the arched superstructure separately from the
vertical support. Endowed with vivid imagination and love of adornment—qualities
that in general are typical ofthe character ofthe Oriental and southern peoples—the
Arabs or Moors were not satisfied with the forms their predecessors had given to the
architectural elements. They were evidently far advanced in technical skill, and the
squat heavinessof existing arches and columns seemed to them assuperfluous asit was
incompatible with their predilection for opulence and daintiness. Even so, it took
them some time to free themselves from these defects, so that only their later works
have the slender proportions and boldly constructed vaultsthat typify their style.
The first change they undertook concerned the form of the arch: they
elongated the semicircle (a change that conformed better to the relation ofits height
to the narrowed distance between their slender columns)and brought its shanksround
toward each other, sothat it formed a three-quarter circle. This isofgreat interest for
our present study because here we meet in the way the ends of the arch are brought
closer together—so typical of the Moorish style—another attempt to complete the
form of the arch and to provide the semicircle, which by itself leaves much to be
desired, with a complementary form and so connect it in a more satisfactory way
with the risingtangentiallines.With the changed contour ofthe arch, totallyunrelated
to the perpendicular line of the support, any attempts to connect these two parts
came to an end. Indeed their separation became even more complete with the insertion
of a stone console on top of the Corinthian capital (still in use at the beginning)
to ensure that the arch wasprovided with a better and widened baseplate, a practice
that later became general.f How this arrangement and its details, especially the
capital with its intermediate piece, evolved into different forms and how the arch
* The term ''Byzantine style "is usually taken to refer to the architectureof all those nations that succeeded the
Romans, although not only the Byzantines but also the Ostrogoths and Visigoths, the Langobards, and indeed
the Romancepeoples, all drewfrom the samesource and consequently all built in this style -with minor variations;
as is known, it was also applied to the German buildings of the time.
j- Thisparticular baseplate appears here and there in the Byzantine style, although at a very early date when
builders still wished to useancientcolumnsandhadnotyet thought of meeting the needtoprovide thearch witha
stronger, square,and widely projecting support by altering theform of the capital.
140. WOLFF
assumed variousshapes (with pointed forms already among them), I shall pass over.
The Moors were guided by responses similar to those of the Byzantinesbut were
also stirred by their own highly charged imaginations.I will only add that while the
Moors committed the same mistake as the Byzantines and Goths and—unlike the
Romans—separated support and arch, they nevertheless showed a refined taste in
following the Romans' example of framing almost every arch with horizontal and
perpendicular tangentiallines.
I now pass straightawayto the medieval style. All intermediate attempts,
including the Saracen style in Sicily with its generally pointed arches, will be sufficiently
explained by a discussionof the medieval style in which the rising contourof
the pier is completely merged with the curve of the arch. All of a sudden, a totally
new idea—that of a plantlike ascent, the first sign of which we met in the outlining of
the arches in Roman art—became the basis of architecture. At the same time, the
true basis of the art, namely the nature of the material asthe source of all forms,was
completely overlooked. Handed down over many centuries, these once natural elements
came to be used without aesthetic sensitivity, and their all-pervading spirit
was*completely lost. Eventually, a new artistic age, brought about by changed circumstances,
freed itself of the slovenly habit of lifeless imitation, gave completely
new forms to the elements generally used, and cast off all the fetters of the past.
An art formerly based on simple, natural, and easily understood motifs—as Greek
and even Roman art had been—was now replaced by an arbitrary system that conformed
to the emergent demands of[national]character. The same devout and almost
fanatical spirit that stirred people to exert such enormous efforts in the conduct of
the Crusades and instilled unity of purpose into the usually divided nations of the
West, the same enthusiasm also inspired the practical artistic brains among the
architects and led them to try to unify the various styles that had arisen out of the
degenerate architecture of the Romans.
Clearheaded as they were, they selected from the monuments of other
nations with whom they frequently came into contact in those turbulent times whatever
they found consistent with their ideas. With exquisite artistic sense for picturesque
form and for the beauty of linear perfection, they rearranged what they had
appropriated and added something of their own. As a sign of how much they drew
from what already existed, it is interesting to note that a trend toward slender and
daring forms is already evident in the Byzantine and Arabic styles, not only in the
naves of churches and mosques and in the towers with their pointed roofs flanking
the facades but also in the proportion of the colonnettes, those decorative elements
used inside and out, which had been considerably lengthened with the steadily growing
height and now only needed a slight increaseto bring about the ascending impres-
141. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
sion that is the hallmark of the Germanic style. The strengthening wall piers or
pilasters of the Romans, not used in the intervening styles, were the source of the
buttresses that now created an overall diminution of masstoward the top, an insetting,
freeing, and pointing ofthe upper parts, and an increase in the number ofascending
forms and lines. Furthermore, it was quite natural for the Gothic builders to adopt
the elongated Arabic arch in the form of the pointed arch, which allowed them to
place the piers closer together than was possible with a semicircular arch and also
conformed better to the increased spaces between them. They alsoadopted the Roman
groin vault, a form they considered highly appropriate to their whole architectural
system.* They had the rich decoration that covers the walls of all Arabic buildings
constantly before them; and for the plantlike forms, ascending from the columns,
their models were the Byzantinedoorways, before mentioned. In short, they brought
all the efforts of their predecessors to fruition and readied themselves to surpass all
that had been done before. We admire the energetic effort that led them to such
artistic perfection and harmonic order, although the mineralogical and structural
basis upon which architecture had originally arisen vanished altogether. Their only
purpose wasto set up a powerful symbol of their religious aspiration.
Although the Germanic style reproduced much that had existed before,
it nevertheless is of great interest to us in our examination of the many attempts in
different styles that were made to counterbalance the curved line ofthe arch. Through
a completely new approach, the Germanic style succeeded in achieving this effect
with a perfection that will never be surpassed. For whereas the need to relate the
semicircular arch to horizontal and vertical lines was obvious and for that reason a
strong need arose to frame it with such linesor to indicatea relation to them in another
way—a need that, as we have seen, was satisfied in various ways—the high pointed
arch could only be surrounded by slanting and ascending linesthat, astangents, came
together in one point (the pointed gable). Since these, however, were not in harmony
with the principal directions ofthe building, the dissonance had to be resolved in some
other way, which in the main consisted of flanking it with perpendicular parts, an
arrangement derived from the Byzantine church facadeswith their high towers and
steeply gabled roofs and later to be found again in buildings of the Germanic style.
The same vivid artistic sense that gave rise to this new way of counterbalancing
the arch led to the brilliant invention of helm or pointed roofs (further
mediated by foliated ornament), with which the ascending lines were satisfactorily
terminated. The steep slopes of the roofs blended with the now-dominant perpen*Because
this vaultpresented them with linesand edges, which they could strengthen and adorn by applying
ribs in conformity with the rest, whereas all othertypes of vaulting wereformed by surfaces.
142. WOLFF
dicular lines in the same way as the contour of the Greek roof deviated as little as
possible from the horizontal forms and lines that were then the dominant feature.
Unfortunately, as I have often said before,* it was in the nature of things that the
former was not so easy to achieve as the latter, so that sculptural perfection in the
Germanic style could apply only to the minor parts of a building. Yet in fact both
inventions are what is essentially new in the Germanic style.
However, this style, like others, could not stay for long at the level of
perfection that (in one respect alone) it had reached. Lacking natural and structural
motifs, it opened the floodgatesto arbitrariness. The impulse to outdo each newformation
as it appeared soon led to decline. Developing the style further, architects
adopted the intricate, intertwiningarch form (the so-called styleflamboyant],ofwhich
the Miinster in Ulm isthe most prominent example. The Venetiansalsotook up this
style, though as a rule they kept more to the Byzantine and Arabic style (the curvilinear
forms being less confusing here, because the plain walls made it possible to
frame them with straight lines). These attempts, though attractive, were bound to
lead to decadence and need not be pursued any further.
When, in the fifteenth century the discovery and study of antique works
belonging to the sister arts aroused painters and sculptors to renewed activity,architects
too were stimulated to follow them in their quest for a reborn art after the profound
decline and the aberrations of preceding periods. Whereas other artists found
among the ancient remains models that were superb and in most cases genuinely
Greek, architects had only a few Roman remainsto turn to, which had received the
Greek spirit secondhand and gave only aweak reflection ofit. Nevertheless, the surge
of energy that the arts in general experienced at the time also affected our fellow
architects and led them to attempt a revivalof ancient architecture; although it must
be admitted that they did no more than touch the surface. They had only a vague
sense of the inner truth of those monuments and of its intimate links with material
and construction in particular, and they consequently often strayed into the pictorial.
Only Bramante, Sangallo, and Peruzzi followed,4
as far as it was possible under
these circumstances, a sound course from which, however, their successors soon
diverged. Lacking a true understanding, they added a profusion of parts of the most
arbitrary kind that conflicted with the original meaning ofthe forms; this led in the
sixteenth century to the so-called Renaissancestyle.
What can I say now about our latest period? We are the heirs to all the
acquisitions and accomplishments, to all the attempts and efforts on which I have
* On Schinkel's Friedrich Werdersche Kirche in Berlin, seeAllgemeine Bauzeitung (Literatur... Beilage),
no. 1 (1842): 507;and on Ohlmuller's church in Munich, ibid., no. 2,213.
143. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
cast a fleeting light. Yet instead of profiting from these experiences and adopting
only what is true and everlasting, we take pleasure in admitting into our art all the
mistakes committed by our predecessors; and, moreover, we still cling to the misguided
idea that we can succeed in inventing a new style that has never existed before.
It isjust this confusion of ideas that has prompted me to make this historical review.
I have sought to show that real benefit cannot be expected to accrue from further
attempts to create new styles but rather from the recognition that the great periods
of architecture, those that brought real advances and added new architectural elements,
ended with the climax ofGreek (Ionic and late Doric) architecture. Furthermore,
I have sought to show that the addition ofthe arch by the Romans represented
a significant gain, though more of a material nature: an element that in appropriate
places and in an appropriate manner we may have to introduce into our architecture.
Since we have become acquainted with the original buildings, a privilege not
granted to our medieval predecessors, and can make use ofthe advancesachieved in
aesthetics and the history of art—and, indeed, of all the groundwork done by somany
experts and scholars—we would be unworthy of so many treasures if we were not to
return to what alone is true and what fulfills all our requirements.
After what has been said, Professor Stier's question "What kind of originality
can we expect to find in present day architecture?" finds its own answer. We
are called upon to be new only in the sense of modifying and rearranging the architectural
elements that naturally evolved in antiquity. This leaves for invention an
admittedly finite but still extremely wide field, a terrain whose fertility will never be
exhausted. Invention is restricted to demonstrating that the eternal laws and forms
discovered by the ancientscan be applied in many new ways that conform to the idea
of each particular building, to the material conditions, and therefore alsoto the particular
requirements of our age and our nation. In this, our guide can again be the
careful observation and contemplation of the ancient models with their fine senseof
what is appropriate.* However, we lack the vocation and the ability to create new
forms and therefore must forgo the fame of having a national and truly original style.
The character and—I am convinced—the merit of our period resides in the fact that
art has relinquished the claim to be particular and national in order to become uni*In
my reviews, I havefrequently declared this to betheaim ofpresent-day architecture. Therefore, I willnever
acknowledge—as somearchitectsdo, who generallypursue a morecorrect course—that it ispleasant and interesting
here and there to encounter a little buildingrecently erected in the Byzantine or Moorish style. All these
various mannersof building should nowadays appear only in historicalpaintings, vignettes, stage sets, etc.,
where theirpresence is historicallyjustified asa kind of costume that helps us to imagine ourselves transported to
the timesto which these buildings belong.
144. WOLFF
versally valid. Even on this higher level, those differences between nationsand countries
that are rooted in nature will assert themselves, albeit in a subordinate way and
only if they are not consciously sought. If every artist strives after what is true and
right, then his work will in itself carry the imprint of his mind.
I will conclude by expressing the hope that no preconceived opinion
will stand in the way of a general acceptance and propagation of this basic truth,
upon which alone, in my opinion, our art can thrive. Of course, I can foresee that
many dissenting opinions will first be raised: one might quote in this connection
what Goethe once remarked in a letter to Schiller, "Many who resist truth do so
simply because they would perish if they were to acknowledge it."5
All who share
this belief (however few in number) must therefore close ranks and with unwavering
courage wrest the ground from the adversary,inch by inch. Art is of a rank equal to
religion and philosophy; joined to these, it must extend and establish the realm of
the spirit, as far as it is humanly possible. Let us start to sow the seeds from which
will rise mighty trees that will afford no room for rampant weeds and spread their
magnificent branches wide to choke the thistles and thorns. Then we shall fulfill the
vocation that the age has imposed upon us as recognized at first by a few but later
unfailingly by all.
Source Note: Johann Heinrich Wolff, "Einige Worte iiber die von Herrn Professor Stier bei der
Architektenversammlung zu Bamberg zur Sprache gebrachten (und im Jahrgange 1843 dieser
Zeitschrift S. 301mitgetheilten) architektonischen Fragen," A//gememeEauzeitung 10(1845) (Literatur...Bet/age)
2, no. 17: 255-70.
Translator's Notes
1. Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Stier's paper, published in the Allgemeine Bauzeitung 8 (1843):
296-302, wasentitled "Ubersicht bemerkenswerther Bestrebungen und Fragen fur die Auffassung
der Baukunst in der Gegenwart und jiingsten Vergangenheit." Stier set out three questions on page
301of his paper; Wolff quotes them verbatim in the body of his text.
2. Karl Theodor Ottmer (1800-1843). The building that Wolff had in mind when criticizing
picturesque castles wasOttmer's Schloss Neu-Richmond near Braunschweig (1833-1838).
3. To understand the meaning of "dieEintheilungdes Quadrats indreiIntervalle, "one has indeed to
turn to Wolff's brochure, where he develops his aesthetictheory in greater detail. Equality, heexplains,
is the only proportion that satisfies absolutely.The "law of equality" is therefore best expressed in
the square (p. 16). The square (i.e., the ratio 1:1) underlies the composition of any work ofart, not by
an accumulation of square parts but by arrangingforms in such a way that their correlation is per-
145. REMARKS ON ARCHITECTURAL QUESTIONS
ceived as a square. Thus, "the proportion of the single column does not contain (a square)...but
must, in order to achieve the satisfying impression of equality, be brought into relation with other
commensurate parts" (p. 41). In a colonnade of Doric columns, "the first three columns with two
intervening distances [Zwischenweiten]... form a kind of square" (p. 81). This is different "with the
arrangement of the slimmer Ionic column where—because the distance from the first to the third
column could not equal the height—the fourth column was added to in order to form this kind of
square where four columns with three intervening distances equal the height" (p. 82). In the article
of 1844, possibly with the musicalanalogy in mind, he changed the term Zwischeniverten into Interva/Ie.
4. Donate Bramante (1444-1514), Antonio da Sangallo the Younger (1483-1546), and Baldassare
Peruzzi (1481-1536), Renaissance architects.
5. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832), German poet and dramatist. Johann Christoph
Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805), German poet, critic, and dramatist and aclose friend of Goethe.
146. WOLFF
THE PRINCIPLES OF THE
HELLENIC AND GERMANIC
WAYS OF BUILDING
WITH REGARD TO THEIR APPLICATION TO OUR
PRESENT WAY OF BUILDING
CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER
IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO THE FESTIVE CELEBRATION OF THISDAY,
DIGNIFIED BYTHE PRESENCEOF SO MANY HIGHLY GIFTED AND ENLIGHTENED MEN OF
ART AND SCIENCE, IF WE DIRECT OUR ATTENTIONTO ONE OF THE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS
OF THE WORK OF THE MAN IN WHOSE MEMORY WE ARE GATHERED HERE. When WC f|
consider the relation of our time to the tradition of Hellenic architecture, we find
that Schinkel alone revealed Hellenic forms to us through practical work and that pf
his influence in turn stimulated architectural scholarship and established as its first *|
priority a thorough examination of the essence of the Hellenic style. As the fruits of 1
earlier artistic research testify, it was only after Schinkel's creations became known
that it became possible to penetrate the essence of this art and turn its study into a
science. An architect of genius today thus fulfills his appointed mission in two ways.
On the one hand, by satisfying present needs through his work, he spurs others to
emulate him. On the other hand, by clothing this work in a historical style and thus
by seeking to elevate it to an object of history, he forces the science of art to investigate
the style that, by adopting, he has clearly designated asfit for its purpose. There
is no need here to preface these remarks by noting that by the science of ancient
architecture we do not mean the mere knowledge of the works and art-forms that
have come down to us—this we take for granted —but the knowledge of the essence
and the original conception that is artistically embodied in those forms.
Yet, as we survey the benefits bestowed upon us by Schinkel's creative
activity, it goes without saying that every time we remember his works we must also
recollect in praise those noble individuals whose spirits nurtured his own, shaped it,
and brought it to maturity. Among them we may recall with particular gratitude the
name ofthe noble statesman and scholar who, in a time ofdire need, became Schinkel's
patron,1
who saved him for us and for his destiny, freed him from material worries,
and with great kindness eased the path he wasto pursue, thus enabling his genius to
unfold in undisturbed purity and freedom. To such men, since departed, Wilhelm
von Humboldt, Hirt, Niebuhr, and others,2
we still owe a debt of gratitude today.
Considering these circumstances and the standing of a man who personifies
a moment in the history of art, we must deny ourselves too exclusive a predilection
for this great artist, lest we later appear to have been partisan or shortsighted,
lest it be said that because the judgment of his contemporaries wasbiased, the generation
that followed was forced to restore the integrity of a corrupted history of art in
order to form an unbiased and fair appreciation of the man. Therefore, in justice
to historical truth we must first of all allude to a name whose bearer still today distributes
the blessings of art among the people for the good of the fatherland, as he
once, through Schinkel's hand, bestowed it on those works in which a princely mind
impressed the seal of beauty on a rude and barren nature and transformed a desert
into a Hesperidean garden. Schinkel himself spoke of the originator of these works
in memorable words, declaring that he "would have to acknowledge Him asthe foremost
living architect, if such a thing could have been imagined." We too would be
obliged to name Him, did not a profound respect impose a discreet silence.3
Yet
these very works, through the thoughts that they inspired, induced the austere artof
Schinkel to change its rhythm and descend, as it were, from the cothurnus and turn
to the idyll, taking up the shepherd's crook and panpipes, where, close to the Hippodrome
and Piscina, beneath a leafy, Dionysian shade and beside a rippling fountain,
148. BOTTICHER
a tranquil resting place beckons the astonished wanderer, in whom it raises the desire
that—like Homer's happy Lotus-Eaters—he may forget the longing to return to his
dear homeland and pass the days in an eternal dolce far niente. Schinkel's works in
the severe style gave us an idea of the hieratic manner of Hellenic architecture; by
contrast, these works that breathe the spirit ofVirgil's Georgicswere the first to let us
see in reality the wondrous world of Roman urban and rustic dwellings, which had
hitherto lived, like myths, only in the writings of the past.
To what heights have these works raised our knowledge of ancient life
and art in the short span of three decades! Indeed, what higher task has art than to
touch the pulse of life and to arouse in a whole generation a longing for nobility and
beauty! Only then does the artist's work become an ethical force. If the needs of a
generation reveal its state of moral and cultural development, then the work itself
that meets these needs will serve posterity astestimony to the culture ofthe architect
and to the spirit of its founder. If a man deserves our praise because his work has
satisfied the needs of the time, then we must above all praise one who rose higher,
whose thoughts were ahead of his time, and who, by setting a nobler example, raised
his generation to his own level. For this is the poet's and the artist's mission: not to
serve a commonplace reality and remain within its confines but to follow a higher
calling by which, heedless of the applause or censure of the undiscerning crowd,
they must accomplish the task the Deity has inscribed in their hearts. As there isan
occasion for every great work of art and as that occasion springs from the will of the
person who determines it, works of art are truly monuments to the fame, and lasting
testimonies to the spirit, ofthe patron, the great man, the prince, who in his wisdom
has chosen these noble means to elevate the spirit of his people and to lead it away
from the base necessities of life toward the great and the sublime.
Those who, in our day, turn their attention to former ages and profess
the study ofthe life and work of past generations are often asked by those on the other
side, that is, by men who live only for the present and for their own interests: What is
the purpose of such activity?What, they say, can be the use of turning back to an art
of the past, of adhering to its traditions, and projecting oneself into its spirit? Could
the greatest discovery that might be made in this sphere or the most important artistic
revelation outweigh the benefit that will result from the completion of the most
insignificant present-day project? These objections are especially directed against
scholarly research undertaken in connection with architecture, the mother of the
fine arts, and in particular against the architectural style we call the Hellenic, which,
however, was only the ripened fruit and refined result of all the styles that evolved in
pre-Christian nations (if we exclude the Roman beginnings of the arcuated system).
To return to origins is dismissed as a one-sided or antiquarian fancy; to steep oneself
149. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
in ancient traditions is seen as a retrograde step, a sign of inabilityto create anything
that is new, modern, and progressive in conception.
Since the time when opinions concerning the antique and medievalstyles
began to be so diametrically opposed, the question of whether any benefit will be
gleaned from the study of these two styles has been answered in widely differing
ways. Yetthese viewshave never touched upon the basic causesfrom which anyjudgment
or comparison should start. All opinions for or against a particular style have
referred only to the outer shell, that is, to the scheme of the building's art-forms,
which were considered to be identical with the principle of a style. The true essentials
have never been seriously considered; the discussion has never actually turned
to the source of the art-forms and of the diversity of styles, namely, the structural
principle and material conditions on which each is based.4
And yet these two factors
are crucial for any criticism. It iswell known how unproductive and how far removed
from what isreally essential, the views expressed have been. The view that the schema
of the antique style is the ideal or acme of all tectonic activity, which no style could
ever surpass, has deprived the medieval style, and especially the style characterized
by the pointed arch, of its due. Those who dismissit as Germanic and barbaric overlook
the enormous step forward represented by the medievalsystem ofwidely spanned
spaces, with its escape from the structural limitationsof material, in comparison with
the limitations of the Hellenic post-and-lintel system, which was tied to a certain
massiveness, short spans, and restricted forms of plan. According to those who hold
the opposite view, the Hellenic isan alien importation, does not conform to our architectural
conditions, and has so little impact on our emotions that we cannot possibly
comprehend its forms. They go even further, cross themselves, and ask: How can we
who are no longer pagans commit the sacrilege of profaningour sanctuaries by using
such forms? Only the Middle Ages have given us forms that represent the Christian
mind; these have entered our minds, and they are the only ones weunderstand; besides,
they are native to our soil and represent the custom of our forefathers. As if the artforms
that express a truth valid for all times and all generations could ever be solely
pagan or Christian, Hellenic or Germanic!
By presenting one style as uniquely true and valid while negating the
other, each side has abolished one-half of the history of art, thus clearly revealing a
failure to understand either the style that wasfavored or the style that was dismissed.
What was overlooked was that these two styles, even though we see them as opposites,
are not opposites in the sense ofbeing conceived or created in order to cancel or
destroy each other, but opposites that are complementary and, within the vast framework
of the history of art, are therefore alwaysconceived together. They signify two
stages of development that have had to run their prescribed course before a third
150. BOTTICHER
style can seethe light ofday,one that will reject neither ofthe two preceding ones but
will base itself on the achievements of both in order to occupy a third stage in the
development, a higher stage than either: a third stylethat isdestined to be produced
as a matter of historical inevitability, by the age that will follow us, and for which w
have alreadybegun to prepare the ground.
Regarding the two viewsmentioned above, it isevident that neither can
help us to decide which ofthe two is right and valid for the pursuit of our aim. Closer
examination leads to the following conclusion. If one gives credence to the latter
view, then the antique style ought to be totally removed from our artistic sphere as
something extinct that does not need discussing.If—with asmuch right—one accepts
the former view, then the Germanic style too ought to be excluded as completely
invalid. As a result, nothing would be left to us; we would find ourselves alone in an
immense void, having lost all the historical ground that the past has provided for us
and for the future as the only basis on which further development is possible. This
leads us to two conclusions. First, we must for the time being hold on to what has
been directly handed down to us, lest we lose the positive assetsthat we now possess.
Indeed, to reject or negate tradition isasimpossible asto reject history itself; for even
the ephemeral configurations(lately presented to us by a few so-called original artists
as manifestations of their deliverance from all tradition) seem to us—in the few
places where they stillcontain some traces oftruth—to be nothing more than misunderstood
and misapplied traditional forms. By contrast, we see before us grandly
conceived monuments that will forever have a place in history because they uphold
tradition and at the same time fulfill present needs. Second, it follows that we must
not make use of tradition for its own sake; through scholarly research we must penetrate
its spiritual and material qualities in order to arrive at an apprehension of the
essential nature of tradition and an understandingof its forms. Only then will we be
able to decide what part oftradition merely belongs to the past, wasvalid only then,
and therefore must be rejected and what part contains eternal truth, is valid for all
future generations, and therefore must be accepted and retained by us. This would
be true eclecticism, the eclecticism of the spirit that reigns throughout history and
through which, in a gradually accelerating development, nature conducts the essence
of each thing toward its supreme and ultimategoal.
Apart from these two views, we encounter a third that counsels a reconciliation
and unificationof the two extremes. Those who have put forward this view
would have been right had they not again merely touched the surface and based their
view on a negation—namely, the negation of those things in both styles that are their
inviolable qualities. Their intention was nothing less than this: to clothe the structural
skeleton of the Germanic style with the forms of the Hellenic style and in this
151. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
way to give the arcuated system a kind ofaesthetic education. They really thought to
take the perfect product ofa time-honored art, which embodies and revealsthe artistic
awareness and practical ability of a great nation, and use it like a model to be
dressed at will. This was a most wretched and foolhardy idea; it was eclecticism at
its lowest, which every time it has appeared in history has signified the relapse of a
generation from a higher plane oftradition into ignorance and license. While shamefully
disfiguring one style by robbing it of the inborn essence of its character, they
violated the opposite style by forcingit into monstrousdress and cruelly degrading it
into a buffoon of modern art. One may ask how the retention of an old style in a new
dress could ever turn it into a new one that would embody the essence ofboth? Might
this bring to light an original innovation or a new structural system, or would it only
produce a hybrid form that would shamefully belie its paternal and maternal origins?
Of course, something new would be produced but also something monstrous:
something possible as a form but lifeless and stillborn. If the forms of Hellenic art
had been right for the Germanic style, how did it happen—we may ask—that the
arcuated system, although starting with the forms of the Hellenic style and first
appearing in its dress, nevertheless sought to free itself from these formsin the course
of developing its essential character and in the end, apart from a fewreminiscences,
cast them completely aside at the very moment it reached the highest degree ofindependence
and manifesteditself as their perfect antithesis?
When two styles have reached a stage in their development where their
essential characters are fully expressed and are shown to be diametrically opposed,as
in the case of the Hellenic and Germanic styles, then any eclectic transferenceof
forms from one style to the other, because it stems from a deficient sense of the essential
character of both styles, will in turn produce only senseless forms that by their
contradictions destroy each other. History itself has marked such an attempt as a
destruction ofeverything that makes architecture into an art. Wherever it has made
its appearance in architecture, it has signaled the death of the idea ofform. Asimilar
process has taken place three times, and three times it has had the same result. Each
time a generation has chosen this expedient, it has been hurled from the height that
it had attained with the help of tradition down to the lowest level ofform making: to
the stage where chance reigns instead of necessity, arbitrariness in place oflaw.
The first example of this process was the way in which caves were hollowed
out in India, which started after Hellenic art had reached its culmination.
This practice cannot be called architecture, because, notwithstandingthe enormous
expense of energy that wasinvolved, so impoverished wasthe creative inventionof its
makers that they were incapable of producing a free-articulated structure; in their
indolence, they blindly surrendered to the fortuitous shape of their raw material.
152. BOTTICHER
When we look at these vast and depressing caves, their monolithic surfaces covered
with lifeless, bizarre, and distorted schemata of the structural components and artforms
of the Hellenic style, we realize that history has displayed these works to show
how far a nation's artistic understanding can sink below the level of a consciousness
that it has either never possessed or else corrupted and permanently lost. Yet some
people have seen in this Indian manner the origin of all styles, from which the conscious
art of the Hellenic style might also have arisen.
The second example of such a process of architectural transformationis
the Arabic style. Being incapable of grasping the essence of the antique style, the
Arabs incorporated into their phantasmagoric art only the spaciousness that gratified
their pursuit of enjoyment. Yetthey destroyed its art-formsby covering the structural
skeleton, carpetlike, with the geometrical patterns of their own floral world,
thus overlaying their buildings with an opulent but meaningless coating.
The third occasion was during the fading years of Germanic art, at the
time of the so-called Renaissance,when misunderstood antique forms were adopted
to clothe buildings in the Germanic style. No lengthy critique ofsuch ameaningless
welter of forms iscalled for: the senselessand bizarre formations that were produced
are too well known and too displeasing.This purely luxuriousart, which stood in the
service of princely profligacy, and which therefore frequently disposed of abundant
resources, regrettably expresses little but an enervated lust for shallow pleasure that
has outlasted mental capacity.
Therefore, this third school of thought, which counseled compromise as
the source of a new style, also remained tied to the surface of things. No one realized
that the origin of all specific styles rests on the effect of a new structural principle
derived from the material and that this alone makes the formationof a new systemof
covering space possible and thereby brings forth a new world of art-forms.This third
view does, however, show rather clearly that architects at least still acknowledged
the need for tradition, although only in the superficial arrangement of its schemata.
The outcome of all this arbitrary selection and rejection was, in fact, to refer us back
to tradition. We were forced to accept and to take cognizance of tradition. Obviously,
one has first to comprehend the particular structural principle of an architectural
system, aswell asthe significance of each of its individualforms, before one can
use it as a means to express one's own ideas, let alone lay down an absolute law for the
use of its art-forms.
The situation would be different if we were to accept the validity of the
two aforementionedviewswhile disallowingany mutual negation, sothat both styles
and their forms could exist with their well-deserved historical rights untouched.
This would entail continuing with tradition and making use of it wherever it could
153. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
be of help in resolving modern issues, until in the course of time a new and more
satisfactory style would arise that could then take the place of the traditional one.
This, as can be clearly demonstrated, would be the course that would promote the
evolution of art.
How does a new style arise, and how does it define itself in terms of
principle?
The essence of any particular style is indicated by the system according
to which the covering of a space is articulated into parts or structural units. For the
possible form of an enclosed space iscontingent on the possible form of the covering,
and both the overall plan and its particular layout depend on the organization ofthat
covering. With all styles the covering is the factor that determines the placing and
configuration of the structural supports, aswell asthe arrangement and articulation
of the walls by which space is enclosed, and finally the art-forms of all these parts
related to it. Therefore, the covering revealsthe structural principle ofevery style and
constitutes the criterion by which to judge it. What comes first with any style is the
development of a structural force that emanates from the material and, as an active
principle, permeates the system of the covering. Only three structural forces can be
used architecturally: they are inherent in the material, and in technical parlance they
are known as absolute, relative, and reactive strength, or as the forces resisting tension,
fracture, and compression. The secret of the structural dynamics of amaterial
lies in its texture, that is to say, in the law of atomic order. The degree of coherence
that makes the material suitable for building purposes depends on this law. In the
unformed state ofthe material, these forces are dead or latent. The material is aroused
and compelled to demonstrate its structural strength once it has been given a form
that isappropriate to it and at the same time fits it to perform a space-creatingarchitectural
function: in other words, once it has been formed into architectural members.
These represent the forces on which the system of covering—that is, the architectural
system as a whole—is based. Yet the three forces are not equally strong in every
kind of material. Therefore, when using a material,the inherent force and its strength
must be investigated. From this knowledge automatically follows the law that lays
down how the material should be formed to fulfill its specified function. In thisway
the structural form of the architectural part is determined, and the nature of the
material is mastered and made useful. It was through such a process that relative
strength became the active principle ofthe Hellenic system of covering, and reactive
strength that of the vaulting system.
This structural subjugation of the material is at the root of all architecture.
That iswhy this art has an advantage over sculpture and painting and is invested
with a higher degree of practical independence than the two other arts. While archi-
154. BOTTICHER
tecture must first be victorious in its struggle with the material and, without a model
as a guide, must establish a spatial system before it can enlist sculpture and painting
to embellish it with art-forms, these two arts proceed straightaway to the representation
of ideas by using familiar analogies taken from the outside world. Winckelmann
and Schelling have shown that it is quite possible to comprehend the law and innermost
essence of sculpture and painting without being a practicing artist; but the
author of Die Baukunst nach den Grundsdtzen der Alien {Architecture According to the
Principles of the Ancients] and, following him, many authors of similar books have
shown that nobody is able to enter into the material principle of this art and clarify
the cause and meaning of its forms without having passed through a practical training
in architecture and having become fully conversant with the subject.5
Every creative generation that has given birth to a new style has had to
start from the beginning with this process of mastering the material. Any generation
that has failed to do so, resting content with a traditional, ready-made style, has had
no chance of inventing a new style. The need to start the process of formal creation
from the beginning is an eternal law imposed on any generation destined to create a
new style, a law from which it cannot escape. Although this law is first felt only as an
unconscious urge, it will be clearly comprehended once it becomes a fact: that is to
say, once it has passed from a mere idea into reality. Every generation that has such a
destiny must therefore return to the beginning and start anew the process of developing
the structural properties of its chosen building. However, this does not mean
developing the same force that has been previously developed but another that lies
still undeveloped within the material. Otherwise, man would, like Sisyphus, be
condemned to a life of endlessly and fruitlessly repeated labor without ever reaching
his goal. This is why history and tradition have, for man's benefit, preserved monuments
that enshrine the principle of each style—the result of the processes that have
gone before—so that on careful examination we may know what has already been
developed and garner what will be fruitful. This is also the reason why beneficent
nature has destroyed whole styles, except for those things that contained the germ of
something new and superior, covering with an almost impenetrable veil all else that
was valid only for the past. In this way, nature has contrived to force the following
generation to become more independent and to seek in the still visible traces of the
past for its true essence, not by groping around blindly but by consciously identifying
and subordinating to its own style all that remains hidden.
Such are the blessings of tradition. For if history had found fulfillment
in Hellenism, the Middle Ages would not have come about; and had the latter terminated
the evolution, mankind would have come to an end. Should we find ourselves
suddenly deprived of all the creative energy so lavishly accorded to earlier genera-
155. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
tions, we would be overcome with melancholy, if history had not clearly shown that
there is an inner force that constantly produces something new and that the process
of development by which one aspect of architecture became prominent with the
Greeks and the opposite aspect with the Middle Ages must be continued by a future
generation in a synthesis ofboth. Yetthe joy ofvictory and the bliss of creating something
new can be experienced only by a generation that is strong enough to endure
the toil of masteringthe materialand the effort ofexploration. If, however, itindolently
shuns such toil, indulges the senses, and lazily rests on the soft bed of tradition, then
there remains for such a generation only the shadow of the creative bliss that the
previous energetic generation enjoyed in full—only the dross, soto speak, from which
the precious metal has long been smelted away. Can one call one's own what isonly
the theft, the indolent appropriation, of someone else's mental property? How can
anyone who takes a thing that isfinished and complete in itself and merely peels away
the husk of form speak of creative inventiveness? It makes no difference whether on.
makes eclectic use of the schemata of the art-forms or of the structural systems and
spatial forms: neither will serve to conceal a lack of ideas.
The opposite to these eclectic pseudostyles was the work done by the
energetic generation that wasdestined to contrast the Hellenic with a new style and
to wrest from the material a new structural principle with which to create a spacecovering
system far superior to that ofthe Greeks. This wasthe generation that introduced
into Roman architecture the arch and the vault that later evolved into the
Germanic style. This generation went back to the beginning and started the process
of developing the material anew; it bore the toil of masteringthe material and fought
its way to victory. Unable to find an art-form compatible with the new structural
principle that was then still in its budding stage, the Romans used the traditional
Hellenic forms and maintained them within their arcuated system. Yet these forms
could not fulfill their new function; with the exception of those forms unrelated to
the spanning of spaces, they had become an anomaly. In a system of covering that
uses monolithic beams, relative strength is the sole active force; and in the Hellenic
style this was clearly symbolized by the art-forms that adorned the architrave and
upper parts ofthe entablature. These forms, characterized by relative strength, were
therefore in conflict with an arch composed of many blocks, because with the arch
reactive strength isthe force that alone conditions the forms through which it can be
adequately symbolized. The Hellenic schema wasthus continued in a traditionalyet
completely illogical way.
The Hellenic art-forms gradually disappeared; they were finally eliminated
from the system when structural explicitness came to be the aim. Only faint
traces of the Hellenic element remained in certain parts of the Germanic style. Yet
156. BOTTICHER
whether this style with its emancipation from the material—leading to a withdrawal
from nature and the sensory world—replaced the Hellenic art-forms with others of
equal value is a question to which we can only respond with a definite u
no." With
regard to our perception of style, the Middle Ages differ from antiquity. The works
of the Christian style are still before us; they still serve the same purpose aswhen they
were built. Their ethical and functional significance hold no mystery for us, and the
structural system in all its evolutionary stages is clearly displayed: all it needs for a full
perception isour willingness to see. It isquite different with antiquity. Not only have
very few of its buildings survived —and these only in scarcely recognizable remains—
but the arrangement and particular function of the interior is still hidden from us
behind an impenetrable veil. We have neither the ability nor the desire to return to
Hellenic art, because this would mean regressing by more than two thousand years
at least. But it would be equally impossible to breathe new life into Germanic art.
To seek to continue with either style would mean trying to perfect perfection. Both
styles have had their existence and will never exist again. And yet another art will
emerge from the womb of time and will take on a life of its own: an art in which a
different structural principle will sound a more ringing keynote than the other two.
Another style will be born but only after the other two have made their contributions.
Because this style will have its origin and its basis in the principles of the two
other styles, it cannot exclude either of them; but it will embrace both and allow
them to serve itjointly.
Is it possible for yet another new style to be developed in addition to
these two traditional styles, one specific to our generation, in which a structural
force different from that of the other two styles acts as the principle of its system
of covering? And what force would be its active principle? In view of what has just
been said, it is possible without needing the gift of clairvoyance to answer this question.
As always with things that are still coming into existence, no more than hints
can be given, although there are clear indications that the beginning has already
become a reality.
Aside from the fact that a single person cannot promulgate a style and
that only a whole nation can cause its inception and a whole epoch suffice for its
development, the truth of the matter can only be as follows.
Our contention that the manner of covering determines every style and
its ultimate development isconfirmed by the monuments of all styles. Equally evident
is the truth that from the earliest and roughest attempts to cover spaces by using
stone, to the culmination represented by the Spttzbogen vault, and down to the present
time, all the ways in which stone could possibly be used to span a space have been
exploited, and they have completely exhausted the possible structural applications
157. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
of this material. No longer can stone alone form a new structural system of a higher
stage of development. The reactive, as well as relative, strength of stone has been
completely exhausted. A new and so far unknown system of covering (which willof
course bring in its train a new world of art-forms) can appear only with the adoption
of an unknown material, or rather a material that so far has not been used as a guiding
principle. It will have to be a material with physical properties that will permit
wider spans, with less weight and greater reliability, than are possible when using
stone alone. With regard to spatial design and construction, it must be such as will
meet any conceivable spatial or planningneed. A minimalquantity ofmaterial should
be needed for the walls, thus rendering the bulky and ponderous buttresses of the
Spitzbogenstilcompletely superfluous. The whole weight ofthe covering systemwould
be confined to vertical pressure, that is,to the reactive strength ofwallsand supports.
Of course, this does not mean that the indirect use of stone vaulting, especially the
system of ribbed and stellar vaulting, will be excluded; on the contrary, the latter
will be widelyused. But it does mean that, for those parts on which the wholesystem
rests, another material will be used, one that makes it possible to transfer their structural
function to other parts in which a different principle operates. It makes no
difference whether the members to be replaced are buttresses or members that support
the ceiling, such as ribs, bands, etc.
Such a material is iron, which has already been used for this purpose
in our century. Further testing and greater knowledge of its structural properties
will ensure that iron will become the basis for the covering system of the future and
that structurally it will in times to come be assuperior to the Hellenic and medieval
systems as the arcuated medieval system was to the monolithic trabeated system of
antiquity. Disregarding the fragile wooden ceiling (which in any case cannot serve
as a comparison) and using mathematical terms, one can say that iron is indeed the
material whose principle, yet unutilized, will introduce into architecture the lastof
the three forces, namely, absolute strength. In particular it will be active in those
anchor bands that will replace buttresses and flying buttresses. In this way, absolute
force will be established as the guiding principle of the system of covering. Therefore,
if relative strength isthe principle of the classicaltrabeated system and reactive
strength that of the arcuated system, then the system of a vaulted stone covering
with iron ribs can adopt from the arcuated system only its relative strength, to
which—as its defining feature—it must add the absolute strength ofthe anchor bands.
The relative strength of iron beams, replacing those made of stone in the trabeated
system, can play only an indirect and minor role; to replace the Hellenic trabeated
stone system with a trabeated iron system would represent only a change of material,
not a change of principle. It would lead to one-sided and very limited progress
158. BOTTICHER
and would prove as inadequate as stone beams for spanning wide spaces.
The structural principle isthus to be adopted from the arcuated system
and transformed into a new and hitherto unknown system; for the art-forms of the
new system, on the other hand, the formative principle of the Hellenic style must
be adopted in order to give artistic expression to the structural forces within the
parts, their correlation, and the spatialconcept. This alone will create the true mediation,
the right synthesis of the two preceding styles. In what manner and by what
art-forms the structural and spatial character might be expressed within this newly
formed system is a question that the thoughtful person will not find too difficult to
answer. Nor is it necessary to say that it is technically possible to protect the forms
of the iron parts against rusting with a tin or copper-plating process or that this
coating should be sufficiently thick to outline the forms clearly in a way appropriate
to each part of the vault.
To return to our theme: we have said that the acceptance and continuance
oftradition, not its negation, ishistorically the only correct course for art. There
is indeed a spirit alive within our generation that urges it in this direction in spiteof
all subjective and speculative ideas and holds it to this traditional course, leading it
toward the destined emergence from tradition to a newborn, original, and unique
style. In answer to the objection raised earlier as to why we still cling to tradition
instead of striving for an original and completely independent style, we need only
refer to the present state of the arts to prove that those who have challenged such
fidelity to tradition or who have done no more than counsel a superficial accommodation
are the last persons who could ever invalidate tradition and become the pioneers
of a new era. If we contemplate developments in art, we find tradition and
nothing but tradition, be it the tradition ofthe ancient world or that ofthe so-called
Christian world. Nowhere can we see anything that transcends tradition, neither
with regard to the original art-forms nor to structural systems, unless the first beginnings
of a covering system in iron are taken into consideration. All our art-forms and
ideas are rooted in the tradition that we have accepted and in which we move, although
often unawareof it. Well may those to whom the positive values of the past seem like
shackles desire to shake them off and to destroy tradition; but it still has not been
established what we can put in its place. On the contrary, despite recent attempts on
the part of some people, ignorant of the essence of art, to repudiate tradition, it has
emerged in all its grandeur and splendor.
Spiritual progress can come about only through a clear perception of
what already exists. As each generation presses forward, it must look back to what
has been already created in order to become aware of a new truth, to accept what
exists, and to develop it further. For this reason, when Raphael Sanzio painted the
159. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
Christian Virtues, he depicted Truth with two faces—one in the full bloom of youth,
seeking to recognize itself and the present world in the reflection of reality, and the
other an aged face that looks back to its origins and to the past, the source of all that
exists, and shows a foreboding of a future state.
Having accepted tradition in architecture and recognized it asan undeniable
fact, we should not, of course, stop there and adopt only the schematic plan,
since this would mean that we would maintain the outer shell and not pursue, aswe
ought to do, the livingspirit and essence of tradition. To reach the essence oftradition,
we should not stop even when we come to what seems to be the last element but
must go back to the one that preceded it and gradually ascend to the very first element
and sopenetrate to the source from which traditional ideas have sprung. If it is
true that the style of the Middle Ages and the arcuated system in general already
constitute the second stage of all architectural evolution—one that could appearonly
after the styles of antiquity had gone before—and if the origin of the medieval structural
system isto be found in the Roman world, whilethe Roman art-formsare rooted
in the Hellenic style, then we cannot remainwith the traditionalforms ofthe Middle
Ages but must turn first to the Roman style to look for the origin of the arcuated
structural system and then go back to the Hellenic style. If it is impossible to understand
the Roman style without understanding the Hellenic style, then one cannot
apprehend the essence of the Middle Ages without first apprehending the essence of
the Hellenic style. This alonewill revealto uswherein the Germanic styleissuperior
or inferior to the Hellenic style.
We have reached a point in our deliberations where the man whose name
marks today's celebration brings his great authority to bear on our main theme.
Schinkel's creations were destined by providence to guide his generation toward the
right path of artistic development. In fact, the most important part of his appointed
mission was to carry us beyond the tradition of the Middle Ages and lead us to the
original source. He alone was capable of guiding us toward knowledge, because he
himself sought only knowledge and did not lose himself in mere sensuous impressions.
Moved by the grand monuments of the Romantic period, he too built in the
Romantic style. He relived the Middle Ages in the warmth of his imagination, but
he also penetrated it with his intellect. His designs of that period demonstrate this.
Yet he could not stop there; hisintuitive spirit urged him to probe deeper toward the
original source. In time, after he had passed through this phase, his sensibilityled
him to seethat the consecration of all art can derive only from the source from which
the Middle Ages too had sprung.
Although the accounts of writers such as Stuart, Mazois,6
and others
had contributed before Schinkel to the knowledge of Hellenic monuments, it was
160. BOTTICHER
Schinkel's work alone, as an instrument of history, that led to the true perception of
the Hellenic style by revealing to us its spatial and structural qualities in those of his
buildings that followed the Hellenic scheme. These are the two qualities by which
architecture differs from the other two arts. Whereas the painter finds fulfillment in
a graphic representation on a flat surface and the sculptor in a form that can be enjoyed
from the outside only, architecture employs both of these means to create enclosed
space. Sincethe essence ofarchitecture resides in itsunique capacity to present the idea
and set forth its theme through this structural-spatialcombination, it follows that a
work of architecture can be fully comprehended only iflooked at and enjoyed spatially.
This impression, however, cannot be fully gained either in a graphic representation
or in a model but only through the presentation of the work on its true scale.
It is therefore evident that it wasthrough Schinkel's work that the Hellenic
tradition found a new home in our country. While Schinkel reached the immediate
aim that he had set for himself, at the same time both he and his buildings had
an invigorating and instructive influence on the historical study of art. He impelled
us to consider in detail the style that he presented and to subject its principles and its
ultimate origin to critical examination.But in truth this reproductive presentation
still left us dissatisfied, because neither the structural principle of the style nor the
idea underlying its forms was thereby revealed. These matters remained as obscure
as they had been before. The thoughtful architect could not rest content with the
fact that an artist as great as Schinkel had recognized this style to be the right style;
he had to look for the reasons that had induced Schinkel to present it to us as the
correct and valid one. Schinkel's works do not help us here. We cannot even judge
whether Schinkel, when he allowed himself to deviate from the antique system, did
so in conformity with ancient laws or not. He never wrote or spoke about it but
simply displayed the antique forms. All we have from him in the way of instruction
are the Vorbilderfur Fabrikanten und Hand<werker [Designs for Artisans], which do not
even touch on this important problem.7
According to Schinkel himself, the aim of
this publication was to illustratefor the building tradesman the various parts of the
Hellenic architectural system; yet even here he did not offer the explanationsthat at
that time were already to be found in archaeological books. Thus, we still lack an
explanation. Yetwe cannot and must not leave it at that but must turn from Schinkel
to the original source from which he drew, so that we can arrive at a full understanding.
This is an indisputable necessity. Although Schinkel's works have helped us to
rise above the fraud of eclecticism in general, they still have not helped us to get past
eclecticism in particular, asapplied to Hellenic art itself. Recent buildings show that
eclecticism has become markedly more prevalent and that the beautiful proportions
and exquisite taste that are the characteristic features of all of Schinkel's works have
161. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
already lost much oftheir influence.When, in addition, persons who professto teach
architecture invoke the principle that out of respect for antiquity we may freely use
and imitate ancient forms even ifwe do not understand them, then the trend in recent
art and art theory can clearly be seen.8
Yet where will this purely manual dexterity lead when nothing is left to
"eclecticize," when the forms of Schinkel's works and those of ancient monuments
have been used up like so many transfer pictures? Perhaps to a reiterated Renaissance!
Let it not be said: "Why trouble with research? The elect will find the answer
given to them in their sleep!" Certainly, but "to everyone that hath shall be given,"
and another saying is "Who does not prepare the lamp, will never see the bridegroom."
Knowledge alone leads to conception; only imaginative inquiry inspires
thought and invention.
A direct examination of tradition thus being necessary, we must make
a critical analysis ofthe monuments with regard to tectonics, construction, and artistic
appearance, and we must seek out and make use of the aid that ancient literature
can provide. Since architecture in all its different manners and forms emanates from
the artistic consciousness of the generation that created it and is like every fine art
only a mute manifestation of that consciousness, the relevant facts of the literary
record must confirm the results of our examinationof the monuments. We need the
testimony of the ancient authors that the significance we ascribe to these forms was
really the one that the ancients themselves originally attached to them. In order
to test our findings, we must bring together and compare what both sources—literature
and monuments—have transmitted and make up from one what is missing in
the other.
Apart from the manner of how to enclose space, the first matter that has
to be dealt with in our examinationisthe concept that lies behind the spatialorganization
of the building. It isself-evident that only the history ofthe religious and moral
life of the Hellenes can provide some information on this. The understanding of
ancient monuments starts with historical sources. Indeed, how can we explain the
spatial form and arrangement of the temple, if we do not know the ritual of the cult
for whose performance it was intended or the sacred objects for whose safekeeping
the room was designed? All explanations given so far are nothing but oft-repeated
conjecture. The reason for the interior and exterior arrangement of the hieron has
remained hidden behind a dense veil. Again, how can one possibly know the purpose
of the living rooms of a house without first finding out about the domestic life
and habits of its occupants? Our lack of progress in this matter is shown by the fact
that we are not even sure ofthe relation ofthe atrium to the cavaedmm,9
which after all
affects the main room of the house.
162. BOTTICHER
Here the experience of the practicing architect is useful in the elucidation
of the technical factors. The aim is to grasp the principle of the statics and construction
and the law and form ofeach part ofthe structural system that characterizes
the style in question. Once this isunderstood, then the key is found to the riddle of
the art-forms that have been applied to these parts as a kind of explanatory layer.
Since these parts have been made for the sole purpose of creating a spatialstructure,
any forms applied to them that do not serve this materialpurpose can only have been
intended to symbolize this function and to make visible the concept ofstructure and
space that in its purely structural state cannot be perceived. Therefore, the structural
member and its art-form are initially conceived asa singlewhole. The architectural
system in its purely structuralform is a technical product; these perfected forms
give it the artistic stamp. The structure itself is an invented form without a model in
the outside world; the art-forms, though they too are mental creations, are taken
from what exists in the outside world.
In this respect (in the creation of art-forms), architecture has common
roots with the two arts of sculpture and painting and follows the same principle,
although it joins the rank of representational arts only after it has fulfilled the material
nature of its task, related to structure, and has invented a system of enclosing
space. The only way in which the two fine arts can express ideas is by applying the
metaphorical method of pictorial language, in which pictorial signs or artisticsymbols
take the place of the idea. Pictorial art cannot represent an idea as such, but
must represent it through a symbol and thus embody it. Architecture follows the
same method. It takes its symbols and art-formsonly from those natural objects that
embody an idea analogous to the one inherent in the members of the architectural
system. Therefore, an idea for which no analogue existsin the external world cannot
be represented by pictorial art nor for that matter by architecture. The essence of
pictorial art and its relation to nature rests in this interaction between concept and
object, between invention and imitation.
With regard to art-forms in general, their meaning can be explained by
the general law of formal creation, the law that governs the evolution of all natural
forms and by analogy also the forms of buildings. Yet neither the former proof of
their essential nature, by reference to nature herself, nor the latter, by reference to
art, can be universallyvalid, because there can be ideas that in themselves are true
but that nevertheless have no relevance to the particular matter to which they are
applied. If, however, it emerges from the written record that both agree and that the
significance of the forms as deduced from the monuments is confirmed by ancient
literature, ifallthe evidence ofthe art-forms—including their latest, almost unthinking
uses—points to this meaning, then the inference has been documented ashistori-
163. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
cally correct and becomes an irrefutabletruth. The searcher hasthe great satisfaction
of knowing that he has made no incorrect inference.Even the greatest authority will
be unable to dispute the result. Since the research has been freed of all subjectivity
and firmly based on science, only science can either prove it to be invalid or, when
corrected or rather corroborated, recognize it asthe simpletruth. A summaryrejection
is no longer possible.
It is true that there are people who are not fond of science. They are of
the opinion that they can easily succeed without its help and suppose themselves to
have conquered the domain of art theory merely through their technical knowledge
or, at best, through the adoption of some schematic view. Not only do they seek to
exclude science as much as possible as a means to knowledge: they wish to reject it
outright. Science, the tutelary spirit that guards all things positive, is for them not
only a great nuisancebut also a dangerous enemy, because it constantlycontradicts
their assumptions (which, of course, never go beyond mere hypotheses) and always
seeks to hold the fanciful flights of their artistic imagination down to the levelof
mere fact. The adherents of this movement, who see things only by halves, are like
those one-eyed Arimaspians of the ancient myth,10
who did constant battle with
Apollo's griffins for the possession of the god's golden treasure but who never vanquished
them or took possession of the hidden hoard.
That weshallreach our goal through research issupported by irrefutable
evidence. Any doubts that might remain will vanishif we glance at the period prior
to Schinkel's works, a period when the greatness of an architect wasmeasured by his
ability to achieve effects by putting together the superficially attractive motifs that
were used ad nauseam by the Italian and French architects on their facades. It wasa
sign ofSchinkel's upright character that he always despised such a practice asameans
to win the sympathy of the crowd and never used what is called the picturesque element
in architecture to embellish his buildings, although he well knew how to do
so and made full use of it in his designs for architecturaldioramasand theater decorations.
Remembering the ethical demand to be sparingin means(whatthe Hellenes
called sophrosyne), he felt that awork ofart in which the pure idea had passed unblemished
into form had already attained fulfillment and that any additionalform would,
like an empty phrase, only harm it. We reject the idea that Schinkel's genius would
have received an equal stimulus without the scientific revelations that preceded it.
Must we not admit that it wasthrough the research ofWinckelmannthat weexperienced
ancient sculpture reborn? Schinkel himself often confessed how much he
treasured the work of Hirt on the history of art.11
Truth can only be attainedwhen
the full knowledge of the architect's practical work unites with that derived from
methodical research. The goal cannot be reached through one of these activities
164. BOTTICHER
alone. On the one hand, research is the only path to the understanding of the spirit
that permeates the types ofthe extant works of antiquity; on the other hand, only full
knowledge of practical work can provide the key to the causes that gave rise to the
architectural system of the Hellenes.
While penetrating in thiswaythe essence oftradition, wesimultaneously
recapture an awarenessof the principle, the law, and the idea inherent in traditional
forms; destroy lifeless eclecticism; and once again tap the source ofartistic invention.
Unthinking veneration of those ideal art-forms, veneration that rests solely on the
sensuous conception of their beauty, will be replaced by the clear perception of the
causes of that beauty. It may be that those afflicted with the superficial mentalityof
today will dissent; but the time is not far distant when they will have to concede and
accept what is right. The literary work bequeathed to us by the ancients is the holy
scripture of their art. That iswhy practical work must always go hand in hand with
scholarship, so that the latter provides the practicing architect with informationhe
cannot obtain otherwise. As a great philosopher has said: only when practice and
learning are joined can a learned practice arise; and that alone is art. Schinkel's genius
and work vouches for that. I can only repeat what I once said to my friends of
theArchitekten-Verein:
Ancient art is like a beautiful musical instrument, created
by a great nation of poets in order that its harmonious sounds
might arouse the dormant forces of nature and join them in
a new and higher order. It isan instrument bywhose sounds,
according to the legend, the temples and wallsof Thebesof
the Seven Gates formed themselves, stone by stone, in the
right rhythm and right form. Yet it is an instrument that
has been silent for hundreds of years; since the passing of
that race, its touch has been forgotten. But ifages later, men
of kindred mind discover the way in which the instrument
was used and resolutely strike the chords, then once again
the raw stones will form themselves into new and magnificent
creations never seen before. AsMemnon's statue issaid
to have greeted the return of his mother Eos with clear
sounds, so did Schinkel's hymn in the name of the German
nation greet the returning dawn ofthat original art asit arose
in a new manifestation.
We should therefore keep to Schinkel's intentions and firmly pursue the
course that he wasthe first to take, especially those of us who by virtue of their great
intellectual gifts and good fortune have attained the splendid, yet arduous positionof
165. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
leaders of our artistic activity. They will be a model worthy of emulation, as he was;
and, by their example and works, they will enlighten ayounger generation more than
the most selfless devotion to art theory and art education could ever achieve. Then—
just asthe Hellenes said that the nightingalesnowhere better loved to build their nests
and nowhere sang more sweetly than at the spot where Hesiod's urn wasplaced—the
Germans may one day say that nowhere in the world does one build with greater
distinction and nobility than in the city that houses the honored tomb of Schinkel.
Source Note: Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm Botticher, "Das Prinzip der hellenischen und germanischen
Bauweise hinsichtlich der Ubertragung in die Bauweiseunserer Tage,"' AllgemeineEauzeitung 11 (1846):
111-25. (This is the text of a commemorative address given on the occasion of the birthday of Karl
Friedrich Schinkel [1781-1841].)
Translator's Notes
1. The "noble statesman and scholar" was probably Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767-1835), the
Prussian envoy in Rome, Vienna,and London and an eminent philologist whose works were influential
in developing comparative philology. Humboldt was Prussian resident minister at the time of
Schinkel's first stay in Rome in 1803. When Schinkel returned penniless from an expensive tour of
Sicily, Humboldt "saved" Schinkel by helping him obtain funds from Berlin. It wasin fact the minister
Graf von Haugwitz who responded to Schinkel's urgent entreaty bysending him money immediately.
See Maria Zadow, Karl Friedrich Schinkel (Berlin: Rembrandt Verlag, 1980), 14.
2. Aloys Ludwig Hirt (1759-1837) was an archaeologist and from 1796 a teacher at the Bauakademie,
where two years later Schinkel became his pupil. Hirt wasan outstanding representative
of dogmatic classicism.Berthold Georg Niebuhr (1776-1831) wasa diplomat and historian. His main
works deal with Roman law and history.
3. Botticher was referring to the king of Prussia, Friedrich Wilhelm iv (1795-1861), whom he
thought it not proper to mention by name. For that reason he capitalized the pronoun, a spelling
that, unless it refers to the deity, isasunusualin German asit is in English. In the same way,the word
Grunder (used by Botticher a few lines further down) is in this connection a strange expression in
German. Therefore it is translated literally by using the word founder, which is equally strange in
this context.
Friedrich Wilhelm (who only succeeded to the throne in 1840) not only took great interest in
architectural matters but had an almost professional understanding of the problems involved in the
various building projects that he wished Schinkel to execute. Schinkel fully acknowledged how much
he owed to the Crown Prince's stimulating suggestions (A. von Wolzogen, Aus Schinkel's Nachlass
[1861], 3: 377-78). On Friedrich Wilhelm's work as architect, see Ludwig Dehio, Friedrich Wilhelm
166. BOTTICHER
von Preussen: Ein Baukunstler derRomantik (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1961); and Eva BorschSupan,
Berliner BaukumtnachSchinkel: 1840-1870(Munich: Prestel Verlag, 1977), 14,89-90.
4. Considering the importance that Hiibsch and other writers ascribed to structure and material
as the determinants of style, Botticher's remark was certainly unjustified. He, nonetheless,
repeated it again, see p. 153.
5. JohannJoachim Winckelmann (1717-1768) wasa German archaeologistand art critic. Friedrich
Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling (1775-1854) wasa prominent German philosopher. The author
of Die Baukunst nach denGrundsdtzen derAlten wasAloys Ludwig Hirt (see note 2). Although Botticher
maintained toward the end of his speech that Schinkel himself "treasured the work of Hirt on the
history ofart," this isnot confirmed by the notes Schinkelmade when readingHirt's book. Schinkel
opposed Hirt's basic attitude; he criticized his failure to understand the new principle governing
medieval architecture, and he even denied that Hirt had a true perception ofthe Greek spirit, "since
he demeans himself to vulgar imitation." Goerd Peschken, Das Architektonische Lehrbuch(Berlin:
Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1979), 28-29.
6. James Stuart and N. Revett, TheAntiquities of Athens (London: J. Haberkorn, 1762); a German
translation appeared in 1829. Francois Mazois, Le Palaisde Scaurus, ou description d^une maison
romaine(Paris: F. Didot, 1819); German translation, DerPalastdesScaurus(1820). The book contains
a description of a Roman house written by Merovic, the founder of the Merovingian dynasty, who
visited it in the fifth century A.D.
7. The editor of this book wasChristian Peter Wilhelm Beuth (1781-1853). He asked Schinkel
to be in charge of the first two parts; the first complete edition appeared in 1830, the second in 1837.
(See the comprehensive article by Barbara Mundt on the beneficial effect this publication had on
the applied arts in: Berlin unddie Antike [Aufsafze] [Berlin: Deutsches Archaologisches Institut,
1979], 455-72.)
8. This refers to Wilhelm Stier's paper "Architrav und Bogen" in Allgemeine Bauzeitung(V&M>}
and his declaration "that wecan imitate without hesitation... even when wecannot instantly see the
reason for it" (p. 329).Botticher severely criticized Stier's article in the samejournal two years later.
9. The atrium was the main room of the Roman villa around which the other rooms were
arranged. From early on it became the custom to open the roof of the atrium; whence the name
cavaedium (cavis aedium —hollow or vaulted room) as another name for atrium. See H. Blumer, Die
romischen Privataltertumer (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Oskar Beck, 1911), 30-31.
10. According to Herodotus, the Arimaspi were a race of one-eyed men who lived among the
Scyths in the north of Europe where there was more gold than in any other region. They were
constantly at war with the gold-guarding griffins.
11. See note 5.
167. HELLENIC AND GERMANIC BUILDING
This page intentionally left blank
THE DIFFERING VIEWS OF
ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
IN RELATION TO THE
PRESENT TIME
HEINRICH HOBSCH
FINALLY, WE APPROACH OUR TRUE GOAL—THE LIVING ART FOR WHICH
THE COMPARATIVE DESCRIPTION OF VARIOUS EARLIER WAYS OF BUILDING HAS PREPARED
us. I trust that in the foregoing discourse I have not, with a novice's enthusiasm,
overrated some aspects nor with a doctrinaire perfectionism disregarded the
less perfect. My aim has been to appreciate in an unbiased and objective way all
aspects of every manner of building and to distinguish their different qualities. From
this it emerges that apart from those qualities that are exclusively its own, almost
every form of architecture contains a number of other qualities taken over from ear-
Her ones. Of course, this is not meant to imply that an organic architecture can be
put together from any eclectic mixture but is addressed to those who measure the
artistic efforts of the present time by a super-purist standard and are quick to accuse
it of eclecticism. They must be made aware that by adopting this attitude—out of
naivete or for other reasons—they set an impossible task for modern art, one that
has never before been accomplished. It isindeed strange that the art critic who produces
no art himself, and who is perhaps too enthusiastic in praising the past, at
times looks down upon the productive artist from an icy, negative sphere far above
the realm of living warmth.
For modern architects the task has been made even more difficult by
the many erroneous and contradictory demandsto which architectural style has been
exposed. These must be refuted in order to arrive at a sound basis. They can be
reduced to the following.
First, it is denied —in line with a commonly held aesthetic cosmopolitanism—that
architecture's connection with religion and moralsisso close asto restrict
the architect to only one style. The indispensable main forms ofa building are taken
simply asa mechanical framework over which architecture proper in its role asa fine
art should spread its veil of exquisite form; and it is argued that in our equitable
times, which freely accept the beauty of every age, the simultaneoususe of every
beautiful style is permitted. Yet such a motley fashion of building has never existed
since the creation of the world. Of course, it is possible—perforza—to foist any style
whatsoever onto any building but only by doing one oftwo things. Either the styleis
modified to fit the present, just as in the theater an antiquated dress is adjusted to
fit the fashion of the day: this is called a free treatment of style. Or by here and there
stretching and compressing the essential structural and spatial forms ofthe building
on a Procrustean bed: this operation when carried out without too severelymutilating
the functions in question iscalled architectural skill. Thus, with a lack ofcharacter
that makes the age of periwigs—which at least kept to one style—look like an
epoch of high achievement, the Gothic style ischosen today for a church, the Greek
style tomorrow for a theater, the Byzantine style for a palace, or possibly the other
way around, so that we might just aswell have drawn lots.
It may well be possible to use many different styles on those temporary
sham buildings that are knocked together with boards for a festive occasion, but
real—that is, monumental—buildings last far too long for any such playful improvisation.
However opulent and ornate they may be and however hard the architect
may have tried to play his part consistently, they tend to reveal much that is rough
and contradictory to the discerning eye.1
Of necessity, such an architectural carnival
can produce only buildings that are not thoroughly thought out, are false in concep-
170. HOBSCH
tion, or are carelessly planned. For, just asa man can converse in several languages but
can think and feel in only one, so the imaginative artist has only one language, only
one style in which he really believes. Anyone who claims that he can feel in several
styles has no genuine feeling in any of them: his feeling is at best purely archaeological
and conventional. His sense of beauty is as far beneath the true sense of beauty as
the polygamous love of the Turk is beneath the love of the Christian. How numbed
and confused must the visual sense become when the formal extremes of two thousand
years—the Gothic and Greek styles—are presented in close proximity! With
artistic sensibility already weakened by our hurried and fragmented times, can the
observer by some sleight of hand derive equal pleasure from the thin, spiky, and restless
forms he sees on his right and from the solid, horizontal, and tranquil forms he
sees on his left? Can his structural sense respond to lightness and slender proportions
today and to heavinessand massiveproportions tomorrow—that isto say,to proportions
as different as those of Gothic and Greek architecture? It is of course understood
that this criticism refers only to new buildings, not to restorations of older
monuments. The splendid project for the completion of the Cologne cathedral is
certainly praiseworthy: first as a protest against modern materialismand second asa
patriotic enterprise.2
Let us hope that it will endure; and where mistakes are made,
may they be corrected!
Second, in contrast to the first-mentioned, characterless point of view,
many Germanomaniacs demand an exclusively German style.3
This demand stems
from a failure to distinguish the style from the actual building. It istrue that buildings
in Germany, designed according to specific or local circumstances, differ from
those in England, France, and Italy just as customs and climate do. Customs and
climate in these countries are not, however, so different as to alter significantly the
structural forms of monumental stone buildings. Nor for that reason can they bring
about a significant variation in style, which, as is known, embraces only the structural
forms related to the general spatialcharacter and those formal articulations and
architectural ornaments that do not express any function. Therefore, since the time
of Charlemagne, only one style has prevailed in all these countries at any one time,
and its decorative variationshave usually been caused by factors other than climate
and national character. The characterization of Gothic architecture as a national
German style—often lightly made—can at best be substantiated only by the fact that
in its leafwork (which compared to its many geometrical patterns was not very conspicuous)
the southern acanthus leaf, so much favored in earlier times, was replaced
by other leavesindigenousto the north, such asoak, clover, etc. The difference between
the German and Italian styles being so small, a slight touch of the German can be
given with little effort to any architectural style whatsoever.
171. DIFFERING VIEWS OF STYLE
There might in fact be better reasons to draw a distinction between a
north German and a south German style, because the latter uses more ashlar asabuilding
material,the former more brick. Furthermore, Protestant north Germany agrees
in religion and customs almost more with Scandinavia than with the Catholic south
Third, the recognition of a characteristic trend in architecture encounters
a great deal of emotional arrogance and indolence. In our time of glorified subjectivism
and widespread sentimentalimpertinence, a good many insignificant persons
parade as aesthetic authorities, flaunting their recently acquired —or even their
anticipated—sense of beauty. With great self-assurance(being sure that they cannot
be caught lying), they present these feelings as supreme inspirationsto which the
new style will have to conform. It isindeed difficult to sayanything to these aesthetic
Tartuffes except that they should keep quiet until their feelings have undergone at
least some training. Other persons, being indolent, expect that they will respond at
once to the new style and will love it asif it had always existed. They would like to be
transported in cozy comfort to a new sense of beauty without having to judge or to
think: two activitiesthat people are often inclined to take asantagonisticto true feeling.
They forget that today we no longer enjoy the youthful prerogative that belonged
to those past ages when feeling came before thought. Unfortunately, an instinctive
feeling for beauty has become as rare with us as instinctiveinnocence, and our supposed
inspirations are often sick and fickle. Those who possess some capacity for
self-criticism and who know their own minds and hearts will admit that their feelings
for beauty in early life were a chaotic mixture of conventional and novel ideas
that shifted, chameleonlike, often but imperceptibly; that sober reflection, when it
proved right, turned gradually (though not overnight) into warm feelings; and that
it wasthose feelings that remained closest to their hearts.
Fourth, many imagine the hoped-for new style as something like a happily
chosen catchword that must immediately bring about an irresistible passion for
art even among the most prosaic persons. They confuse style with the production of
a work of art. Yet, as we have seen before, it is the poetic conception and organic
presentation of the actual object and its artistic decoration that causesenthusiasm
and delight, rather than the style, which concerns only the more general qualities of
the work of art and in fact has to do with cold logic.
Fifth, and finally, many people understand the maxim (in itself certainly
true) that "modern art must be a clear expression of the present" to mean that a
contemporary architectural style, and indeed anycontemporary art, must reflect the
present as it is today with all of its whimsical qualities and must for that reason be
completely new. Above all, they want our time to be seen as an absolutely new and
extraordinary birth, radically different from all previous times. True, the present
172. HUBSCH
(and I do not want to underestimate its good qualities)is indeed new and unique in
one respect: it has an unprecedented illness—that isto say,the speed with which the
so-called modern part of mankind again and againchanges its appearance, sothat in
this respect it no longer has a "being" (however brief) but —in Hegelian terms—only
a "becoming." Even in the age of periwigs (although restless fashion was already then
very active),the Baroque taste in dress and posture lasted for at least a whole generation,
long enough for people to get somewhat accustomed to it and —according to the
proverb consuetudo estaltera natura [custom is a second nature]—for human appearance
to retain some kind of naturalness. Today, however, fashion —and with it the
form, posture, and immediate environs of the person—changes every ten or fifteen
years; in which time one can master only its rudiments, even with relentless drilling.
Hardly has the eye become half-used to the new fashions when they give way yet
again to the latest cut, the latest gait, the latest coyglance, and people at once discard
as outmoded their youthful airs and graces imposed by custom and by training in
order to run with apish nimblenessfor the latest fashionable ideals. Such headlong
rapidity of change has produced on the one hand an excessivevanity that has distorted
natural beauty and, on the other hand, a rather coarse and superficialvisual
sense. For there is never sufficient time to accustom the eye to the subtle detail of a
form but only to notice and to appreciate crudely exaggerated forms that might just
as well be sensed by touch.
This frenetic pace of change in our dress and our surroundingsisnot the
result of the speed of intellectual development, which was equally swift in some
earlier periods. The cause, rather, is the massive and autocratic power of industry.
Encouraged, unfortunately,by the customers' vain aspirations, industry has become
rich by filling our rooms with a host of luxuries. By promoting rapid changes of
fashion, it gives our whole appearance an unnatural look and barbarizes our visual
sense. This picture of our society will not be thought at all exaggerated by those who
have had the opportunity to compare us with the nations of the south, who are less
affected by modern luxury and who, moreover, belong to more beautiful races.
With regard to naturalnesswe are thus divided, asnever before, into two
factions representative of essentially different points of view. With the modern faction,
a description ofwhich hasjust been given, outer appearance and custom change
faster than inner life; and since the outer person is no longer shaped by his inner self,
all expression is affected and only half-true. Yet there is, thank goodness, a second,
old-fashioned faction,whose outer appearance and custom have not markedly changed
over many generations and whose expression isstill true and natural. Unfortunately,
this second faction is actively represented only by the rural population, although it
also has some passivemembers in the more idealisticallyorientated, educated class of
173. DIFFERING VIEWS OF STYLE
society. Although in appearance these educated people do not completely dissociate
themselves from modern influences—partly out ofindolence and partly in deference
to the prevailing climate of modernism—they nevertheless recognize the damaging
effect of the modern faction and deplore it as an aesthetic and even a moral calamity
Must, or can, art depict the physiognomy of the modern faction of
mankind —that is to say,the fast-moving foam carried along by the river of time—as
recommended in the many daily papers that propagate the spirit of the age? Obviously,
this blurred and fast-changing face of the present cannot be the subject for
monumental art. These forms of today and yesterday, these latest affected airs and
gestures of the beau monde, hardly maintain themselves as signs of youthful grace
long enough for a great painting or statue to be finished. Even less can the most
monumental art of all,that of architecture, pander to the fashions in forms and colors
found on mirror frames and wallpapers that are introduced by industry and are,
unfortunately, aswidely accepted asthey are quickly abandoned. Before agreat building
can possibly be completed, the vulgar taste rushes toward another fancy. This
would require every decade to have a new styleof architecture, at leastwith regard to
form. Today's commercial culture, whose gift to art and science isflexibility, seeks to
make its poetic effects by coming out with foreignfashions and customs—Arabic and
Chinese, for the present. This new routine often colors architecture on every level,
from interior decoration to the dwelling and from there to every public building.
Considering the pedantic and irresolute attitude of the middle classes,
true art exists only for the better-educated elite and, as far as religious content is
concerned, for those who form the healthy core ofthe population and still havenatural
feelings. Art would be destroyed if artists were to embrace the prosaic spirit and
the coarse vision ofthe fickle and childishlyvainworld of modern materialism, which
staggers from one extreme of bad taste to the other.
Therefore, high art can and must represent only the more constant and
the more noble face—that is, the better aspect—of the present. But what is today's
better aspect? Is it completely new and different from every earlier period? Toanswer
this question, we shall relate and compare our own time with the main periods of the
past, which can be characterized in the following way.
Since Christianity gave mankind a new meaning, there have been, apart
from the distant Oriental nations, only three main, distinctively different trends in
moral development and aesthetic production. The first wasthe classical early Christian
period. Its spiritual religion and morality led people to despise the pagan religion
as inadequate, although they did not reject the classical intellect and formal
education but rather assimilated these into the higher ideal. The result wasthe substantial
literature of the early Fathers, the august musicof the early Church, and the
174. HOBSCH
early Christian art that lasted for almost five hundred years. Without prejudice to its
magnificent ethical character, this art, asshown earlier, adopted with the same consistency
the formal aspect of classical art (because otherwise one suddenly would have
had to procure quite different eyes). It retained the clarity of classical art but unfortunately
lost much of itsrefinement.
This period was followed by the second, the Romanesque Christian
period, which, beginning and ending with the Middle Ages, wascharacterized almost
exclusively by religious spirit, sincere piety, and self-denying asceticism. Yet with
regard to the forms ofdaily life, these times, especially among the Germanic nations,
lacked formal refinement even more than the first period. Classical details were
retained in art but only as a second or thirdhand tradition. More and more, the
orderly classical clarity of presentation was lost, and during the second half of the
Middle Ages artists indulged in boundless exuberance. Yetthe characteristic aspect
of this art revealed a world of deep emotion and great monumentaldignity.
Whereas this trend wascentered in northwest Europe, the third period
developed in Italy. It should be called the classical neo-Christian because there, at
the end of the fourteenth century, the classicalculture (never entirely extinguished
in Italy)wasstrongly revived and formed a new bond with Christianity. The spiritof
the times changed from a visionary and pious view of life and religion to a more
reflective and contemplative attitude, and intellectual concerns now included secular
as well as religious ones.
It isobvious that the better aspect ofthe present still belongs within this
third period. Christianity is still its faith, and even for the convinced atheist, it is
Christian morality that is the measure by which character and all profane matters
are judged. In the same way, our intellect and formal education are still mainlyclassical,
and thisfinds an echo to some extent even among the people. Admittedly, there
are symptoms—namely a brand-new religion and morality,tolerant in matters of faith
and conscience, under the patronage of a rough-and-ready culture—that threaten
the advent of a new and totally different period, the fourth. Should half-educated
and wholly arrogant persons really take control over spiritual and aesthetic matters,
then indeed there can no longer be any talk of true poetry and art. Instead of the
monumental church, the sleek industrialhall built of cast iron will become the architectural
prototype—painted in shiny, fashionable colors and appointed with the
pseudomonumental, dazzling shine of mirrors and gold-fringed velvet curtains to
attract the hautevolee.
However, the core of the population is not yet infected; there still exists,
though small in numbers, an intellectual aristocracy that withstands the anti-idealistic
onslaught of shallow, rational utilitarianismand materialistic Epicureanism. Edu-
175. DIFFERING VIEWS OF STYLE
cated people are now devoting themselves—far more than in the last,freethinking
century—to a contemplative Christian way of life. It is to be hoped that they will
abandon not only the modern maniafor change but in time alsothe vanityand affectation
that distorts outer appearance. With this hope we continue to pursue our aim
in art and emphasize againthat the rapidly changing appearanceofmodern man has
become an affectation and a half-truth;it has become a mask that does not conform
to his inner self, and taste staggers from one extreme to the other. Yet alongside this
scarcely natural world of fashion, this craving for change and constant flux, there
still exists another, more natural world of being that embraces the better spiritual
qualities of the present and does not differ in essence from the third period, which
we called the classical neo-Christian period. Today's fine art can and must envisage
and represent this true face alone (although it should also take into account certain
valuable recent nuances). That other, ephemeral, ever-changing face is best left to
the lower art of genre painting, which characteristically diverges today more than
ever from truly poetic art. Whenever the latter seriouslytries to perpetuate the latest
modern face, those who have good taste and fine vision are horrified by the affected
physiognomy that grimaces out at them. This does not seem to disturb those who
preach with specious logic that living art must above all represent life in its latest
form, meaning modern man. Unmodern man they consider to be already antiquated.4
Source Note: Heinrich Hiibsch, "Die verschiedenen Ansichten iiber Baustil gegeniiber der heutigen
Tjtit^DteArchttekturundthrVerha/tntfizurheuttgenMa/ereiundSku/ptur^tuttg^rtdind Tubingen:}.
G. Gotta, 1847),chap. 14, 184-97.
Translator's Notes
1. A few years later in Z>r&/7(Frankfurt-am-Main: Bruckmann, 1860-1863), 1:229-30, Semper
also referred to these "improvised structures," which at festive occasions were covered with carpets
and decorated with garlands, festoons,and bands. In contrast to Hiibsch, yet in line with his theory
of dressing, Semper perceived them asthe roots from which monumental architecture had evolved.
2. The decision to complete the cathedral was made in 1842 and was enthusiasticallyreceived
throughout Germany as a great patriotic act and symbol of German unity. Rebuilding progressed
slowly, so that by 1847 the church wasstill in the same unfinished state asit had been sincework on it
had stopped in the sixteenth century. See W. D. Robson-Scott, TheLiterary Background of the Gothic
Revival in Germany (Oxford: Clarendon, 1965), 292ff.
3. Hiibsch might have been thinking of the following publications: Rudolf Wiegmann, "Gedanken
iiber die Entwickelung eines zeitgemafien nazionalenBaustyls," A//geme?ne Bauzeitungb (1841):
176. HOBSCH
207ff; Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig Stier, Das Centralmoment bei der historischen Entwicklung des
germanischen Bausti\es,"A//gememeBauzetfung(\844): 301ff; August Reichensperger, Die Christlichgermanische
Baukunst und ihr Verhaltnifi zur Gegenwart: Nebst einem Berichte Schinkel's aus dem Jahre
1816, den Coiner Dombau betreffend (Trier: F. Lintz, 1845); Ferdinand Wilhelm Horn, System eines
neugermanischen Baustyls( Potsdam, 1845), and also an article in the Zeitschrift fur praktische Baukunst
(1845),243ff.
4. The last six lines of the chapter refer to rhetoric and music; they have been omitted from
the translation.
177. DIFFERING VIEWS OF STYLE
CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1821 Vorbilder fur Fabrikanten und Handwerker: Auf Befehl des Ministers fur Handel
Gewerbe und Bauwesen herausgegebenvon der TechnischenDeputationfur Gewerbe.
Pis. 2-25. Berlin: Schellenberg, 1821.
1830 Lexicon Taciteum;sive,De stilo C.Cornelii Taciti,praemissis de Taciti vita, scriptis ac
scribendi genere prolegomenis, scripsit Guil. Botticher. Berolini: Sumptibus C. G.
Nauckii, 1830.
1834 Zeichnungen nach Darstellungen auf Kirchenteppichen des Mittelalters. Berlin:
n.p., 1834.
Ornamenten-Buch: Zum practischen Gebrauchefur Architecten, Decorations- und
Stubenmaler, Tapeten-Fabrikanten, Seiden-, Woll- und Damastweber u.s.w. 5 vols.
Berlin: Ernst &Korn, 1834-1844. Reprint. 1vol. 1834-1856.
1836 Die Holzarchitectur des Mittelalters: Mil Anschluft der schonsten in dieser Epoche
entwickelten Produkte dergewerblichen Industrie:In Reisestudiengesammelt und auf
Steingezeichnet. Berlin: Privatelypublished, commissionedby Schenk &Gerstacker,
1836 (vols. 1& 2); Berlin: Schenk &Gerstacker, 1836-1842 (vols. 3 & 4).
1838 Ornamenten-Schule: Ein Studien-Cursusfur die Zeichnung und Erfmdung des Ornamentes,
nach dem von der antiken Kunst gegeben Karakterisirungsprinzipe architectonischer
Formen:Als Lehrbuchfur Kunst- und Gewerbe-Schulen wie auchfur das
Selbststudium bearbeitet und dem Herrn Konigl. Ober-Bau-DirectorHerrn Schinkel
zugeeignet. Vol.1.Berlin: n.p., 1838.
1839 Dessinateur-Schule:Ein Lehrkursus der Dessinationdergewebten Stoffe; ah Handbuch
fur den Lehrer, so wie als Leitfadenfiir den Selbstunterricht. Berlin: Eigentum des
Verfassers, 1839.
1844 Die Tektonik der Hellenen. 2 vols. Potsdam: Ferdinand Riegel, 1844-1852 (atlas
published in 1862). 2nd ed. 2 vols. and atlas. Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1869-1881.
1846 Andeutungen tiber das Heilige und Profane in der Baukunst der Hellenen: Eine
Geddchtnifichrift zur Geburtstagsfeier Schinkels. Berlin: J. Petsch, 1846.
1847 Der Hypdthraltempel, aufGrund des Vitruvischen Zeugnisses gegen Prof. Dr.L. Ross
erwiesen. Potsdam: Ferdinand Riegel, 1847; Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1847.
Architektonische Formenschule in Ornament-Erfindungen, als Vorbilder zum Unterrichtefur
technische Institute, Kunst- und Bauschulen, Architecten, Bauhandwerker.
Potsdam: n.p., 1847.
178. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
1850 Ornament-Zeichnen: Cursusfur kiinftige Baufuhrer 1849/50. Berlin: Bauakademie,
1850.
Ornamenten-Werk, als Vorbilder zum Unterrichte. Potsdam: n.p., 1850.
1851 Der Poliastempel als Wohnhaus des Konigs Erechtheus nach der Annahme von Fr.
Thiersch. Beleuchtet und seinen Freunden in der archdologischen Gesellschaft,
zugeeignet. Berlin: J. Petsch, 1851. Reprint. Berlin: Gebauer, 1854.
1854 Kopisch, August. Die koniglichen Schlosser und Garten zu Potsdam: Von der Zeit
ihrer Griindung bis zum Jahre MDCCLH: Auf Allerhochsten Befehl Sr. Majestat des
Konigs. Edited and with a preface by Carl Botticher. Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1854.
1856 Der Baumkultus der Hellenen nach den gottesdienstlichen Gebrduchen und den
iiberlieferten Bildwerken dargestellet. Berlin: Weidmann, 1856.
Gesammelte Werke von August Kopisch. Edited by Carl Botticher. 5 vols. Berlin:
Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1856.
1857 Karl Friedrich Schinkel und sein baukiinstlerisches Vermachtnis: Eine Mahnung
an seine Nachfolge in der Zeit in drei Reden und drei Toasten an den Tagen der
Geburtstagsfeier des Verewigten gesprochen. Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1857. 2nd ed.
Edited by Clarissa Botticher, introduction by W. P. Tuckermann, with an addendum,
"Aesthetische Sentenzen und kleinere Gedichte." Deutsche Bucherei 61. Berlin:
Neelmeyer, 1906.
1858 Das Grab des Dionysus: An der Marmorbasis zu Dresden: Nebst Nachschrift des
Herausgebers und einer Abbildung. Berlin: W. Hertz, 1858.
Ornament-Vorbilder. Berlin: n.p., 1858-1860.
1859 Der Omphalos des Zeus zu Delphi: Nebst Nachschrift des Herausgebers und einer
Steintafel. Berlin: W.Hertz, 1859.
1862 Nachtrag zu dem Friedrich'schen Kataloge. N.p., 1862.
1863 Bericht uber die Untersuchungen aufder Akropolis von Athen im Fruhjahre 1862.
Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1863.
1864 Dirke als Quelle und Heroine: Nebst einer Bildtafel. Berlin: Besser, 1864.
1865 Athenischer Festkalender in Bildern: Bildtafel aus Philologus Ed. XXII, nebst Ubersicht
des daselbst erklarten Inhaltes der Darstellungen. Gottingen: Dieterich, 1865.
1870 Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Sculpturen und Gypsabgufie des koniglichen
Museums. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1870.
1871 Konigliche Museen:Erklarendes Verzeichnifl derAbgufie antiker Werke. Berlin: Ernst
Kiihn, 1871.
Zwei Hermenbildnifie der Sappho. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1871.
1872 Vondem Berliner Museum: Eine Berichtigung an A. Conze in Wien. Berlin: Ernst &
Korn, 1872.
1875 Der Zophorus am Parthenon hinsichtlich der Streitfrage uber seinen Inhalt und
179. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
dessen Beziehung auf dieses Gebaude. Berlin: Ernst & Korn, 1875.
1880 Die Thymele der Athena-Nike auf der Akropolis von Athen, in ihrem heutigen
Zustande: Nach der tektonischen Untersuchung im Fruhlinge 1878. Berlin: Ernst
& Korn, 1880.
1883 Evangelisch! Zum vierhundertsten Geburtstage Luthers. Berlin: n.p., 1883.
1888 Zur Thronbesteigung Kaiser Wilhelms II. Berlin: n.p., 1888.
1894 Eros und Erkenntnis bei Plato in ihrer gegenseitigen Forderung und Ergdnzung.
Wissenschaftliche Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Luisenstadtischen Gymnasiums zu
Berlin 64. Berlin: R. Gaertners Verlagsbuchhandlung Hermann Heyfelder, 1894.
1895 Das Wesen des religiosen Glaubens im Neuen Testament. Wissenschaftliche Beilage
zum Programm des Luisenstadtischen Gymnasiums zu Berlin 64. Berlin: R.Gaertners
Verlagsbuchhandlung Hermann Heyfelder, 1895.
ARTICLES, ADDRESSES, AND PAMPHLETS
1833 "Allegorien in altchristlichen Ornamenten." December 1833 [address delivered at the
Architekten-Verein].
1834 "Erklarung der interessantesten Allegorien der christlichen Kunst des Mittelalters,
die sich in Kunstprodukten bis auf unsere Zeiten erhalteii haben." Museum 2 (1834):
57-61.
1835 "Ausbildung der Details beim Ausbau altdeutscher Gebaude." July 1835 [address
delivered at the Architekten-Verein].
1836 "Technisches der Webkunst." May 1836 [address delivered at the Architekten-Verein].
1840 "Entwickelung der Formen der hellenischen Tektonik." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 5
(1840): 316-40.
1844 "Tektonik der Hellenen." Winter 1844-1845 [lectures delivered at the Architekten-
Verein].
1845 "Polemisch-Kritisches." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 10 (1845) (Literatur... Beilage) 2,
no. 18:281-320.
"Neugriechische Kostiime nach Stackelberg." April 1845 [address delivered at the
Architekten-Verein].
1846 "Das Prinzip der hellenischen und germanischen Bauweise hinsichtlich der Ubertragung
in die Bauweise unserer Tage." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 11(1846): 111-25
[address delivered at the Schinkelfest].
"Hypaethraltempel." June 1846 [address delivered at the Architekten-Verein].
1848 "Rede am Schinkelfest zu Berlin am 13.Ma'rz 1848 vor einer Versammlung von Architekten
und anderen Kiinstlern und Verehrerndes Gefeierten." ^//geraeme Bauzeitung
180. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
13 (1848): 143-48 [address delivered at the Schinkelfest].
1852 "Uber den Parthenon zu Athen und den Zeus-Tempel zu Olympia,je nach Zweck und
Benutzung." Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen 2, no. 6-7 (1June 1852): 194-210; no. 11-12 (1
December 1852): 498-520; 3, no. 1-2 (1January 1853): 35-44; no. 3-4 (1 March 1853):
127-42; no. 5-6 (1May 1853): 269-92.
1855 "Schwatlo uber die Auffassung der dorischen und ionischen Architektur nach
Botticher." April 1855 [address delivered at the Architekten-Verein].
1859 "Uber die letzte bauliche Untersuchung des Erechtheion auf der Akropolis vonAthen."
Zeitschrift fur Bauwesen 9 (1859): 203-16, 317-36.
1861 "Uber agonaleFesttempel und Thesauren, deren Bilder und Ausstattung." Philologus
17 (1861): 385-408, 577-605; 18(1862): 1-54, 385-417, 577-603; 19 (1863): 1-74.
1863 "Meine Untersuchungenauf der Akropolisvon Athen im Fruhjahre 1862." Zeitschrift
fiir Bauwesen 13(1863), no. 4-6: 195-224; no. 7-10: 405-70; no. 11-12: 557-608.
1864 "Erganzungen zu den letzten Untersuchungen auf der Akropolis in Athen." Philologus
21(1864): 41-72; 22 (1865): 69-98, 221-84, 385-436, 576-77,755-57; 24 (1867): 227-42;
25 (1868): 13-42, 193-211; 3rd supplement, no. 3 (1878): 285-448.
1871 "Mittheilungen aus der Sammlung der Sculpturen und Gypsabgusse des koniglichen
Museums." Archaologische Zeitung, n.s. 3 (1871): 59-64.
1872 "Zwei Hermenbildnisse der Sappho." Archaologische Zeitung, n.s. 4 (1872): 83-86.
1880 "Tektonische Untersuchungenauf der Akropolisvon Athen im Fruhjahre 1878, betreffend
die Thymele des Niketempels und die Sudhalle der Propylaen." Zeitschrift fiir
Bauwesen 30 (1880): 71-88, 209-28.
SELECTED SECONDARY SOURCES
Blankenstein, Hermann. "Karl Botticher, sein Leben und Wirken." Centralblatt der Bauverwaltung
9 (1889): 315-17, 326-29.
Borsch-Supan, Eva. Berliner Baukunst nach Schinkel: 1840-1870, pp. 71-72, 556-58. Munich
Prestel Verlag, 1977.
Curtius, Ernst. Der Tektonik der Hellenen by Karl Botticher. Kunst-Blatt, no. 11 (6 February
1845): 41-43; no. 12(11 February 1845): 45-46; no. 13(13 February 1845): 49-51; no. 14(18
February 1845); 56-57.
Goethert, Friedrich. "'Botticher." In Neue Deutsche Biographie, compiled by Historische
Kommission bei der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 2, 412-13. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1971.
Gurlitt, Cornelius. "Karl Botticher." Deutsche Bauzeitung 24, no. 64 (9 August 1890): 384-87;
no. 66 (16 August 1890): 393-95.
181. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Lohde, Ludwig. Die Architektonik der Hellenen nach C. Botticher's Tektonik der Hellenen.
Nachtrdge zurfunften Auflage von Mauch's architektonischen Ordnungen der Griechen
und Romer und der neueren Meister Berlin: n.p., 1862.
Lohde-Botticher, Clarissa. Aus dem Leben Karl Bottichers. Gotha: n.p., 1890.
Michaelis, A."Karl Botticher." In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, compiled by Die historische
Commission bei der koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 47, 144-53. Leipzig:
Duncker & Humblot, 1903.
Nagler, G. K. "Karl Botticher." In Neues Allgemeines Kunstler-Lexicon, vol. 2, 2. Munich:
E. A. Fleischmann, 1835.
Streiter, Richard. Karl Bottichers Tektonik der Hellenen als dsthetische und kunstgeschichtliche
Theorie. Fine Kritik. Beitrage zur Aesthetik 3. Hamburg and Leipzig:Leopold Voss, 1896.
182. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
HEINRICH HUBSCHBIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
18222 Ubergriechische Architects. Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1822.
1823 Heger, Franz, and Heinrich Hiibsch. Malerische Ansichten von Athen. Darmstadt:
n.p., 1823.
Architektonische Verzierungen fur Kunstler und Handwerker. Vol. 1. Frankfurt am
Main: n.p., 1823.
1824 Uber griechische Architectur: Mit einer Vertheidigung gegen Herrn A. Hirt. 2nd ed.
Heidelberg: J. C. B. Mohr, 1824.
1825 Entwurf zu einem Theater mil eiserner Dachriistung. Frankfurt am Main: W. L.
Wesche, 1825.
1828 In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? Karlsruhe: Chr. Fr. Miiller Hofbuchhandlung
und Hofbuchdruckeren, 1828. Reprint. Afterword by Wulf Schirmer. Karlsruhe: C.F.
Miiller, 1984.
1838 Bau-Werke. 1stseries. Vols. 1and 2. Karlsruhe and Baden: Marx, 1838.
1847 Die Architektur und ihr Verhaltnifi zur heutigen Malerei und Skulptur. Stuttgart
and Tubingen: J. G. Gotta, 1847. Reprint. Berlin: Beeken, 1985.
1852 Bau-Werke. 2nd series. Vols. 1and 2. Karlsruhe: J. Veith, 1852.
1859 Bau-Werke. 2nd series. Vol.3. Karlsruhe: J. Veith, 1859.
1862 Die altchristlichen Kirchen nach den Baudenkmalen und alteren Beschreibungen
und der Einflufi des altchristlichen Baustyles auf den Kirchenbau aller spdteren
Perioden. 2 vols. Karlsruhe: W.Hasper, 1862-1863.
TRANSLATIONS
1866 Monuments de rarchitecture chretienne depuis Constantin jusqu'a Charlemagne et
de leur influence sur le style des constructions religieuses aux epoques posterieures.
Translated by M.Tabbe V Guerber. Paris: A. Morel, 1866.
ARTICLES, ADDRESSES, AND PAMPHLETS
1836 [Heinrich Hiibsch?]. "Bemerkungen iiber die verschiedenen Baukonstrukzionen der
183. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
neueren Griechen." Allgemeine Bauzeitungl, no. 21(1836): 163-66.
1837 "Die ideelle Formenbildung in der Architektur." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 2, no. 29
(1837): 239-41.
1853 Uber christliche Baukunst. Karlsruhe: 12September 1853 [pamphlet].
1854 "Das bedeutendste Denkmal altchristlicher Kunst zu Mailand." Deutsches Kunstblatt
5, no. 47 (23 November 1854): 415-19.
1855 "Das bedeutendste Denkmal altchristlicher Kunst zu Mailand." Deutsches Kunstblatt
6, no. 20 (17May 1855): 177-79; no. 21(24 May 1855): 184-86.
"Sollen wir heute unsere Kirchen im gothischen oder im altchristlichen Style bauen?"
Beilage der Augsburger Postzeitung, no. 26 (6 February 1855).
"Rezension von Salzenbergs Altchristlichen Baudenkmalen in Constantinopel."
Wiener Kathol Lit. Zeitung, no. 13(1855).
1857 "Uber die aesthetischen Principien der monumentalen Architektur." Deutsches Kunstblatt
8, no. 26 (25 June 1857): 221-24; no. 27 (2 July 1857): 229-31; no. 28 (9 July
1857): 239-43.
1860 "Einige Bemerkungen zur Recension der 'altchristlichen Kirchen von Hiibsch,'welche
im XJahrgang, Heft I u. ff. der Zeitschriftfur Bauwesen enthalten ist." Zeitschriftfiir
Bauwesen 10(1860): 625-28.
SELECTED SECONDARY SOURCES
Bergdoll, Barry. "Archaeology vs. History: Heinrich Hiibsch's Critique of Neoclassicism and
the Beginnings of Historicism in German ArchitecturalTheory." The Oxford Art Journal 5,
no. 2 (1982): 3-12.
Driicke, Eberhard. "Heinrich Hiibsch." In The Macmillan Encyclopedia of Architects., edited
by Adolf Placzek, vol. 2, 435. New York: The Free Press, 1982.
Goricke, Joachim. Die Kirchenbauten desArchitekten Heinrich Hiibsch. Studien zur Bauforschung
8. Stuttgart: Der Koldewey-Gesellschaft, 1974.
Hirsch, Fritz. "Heinrich Hiibsch." In Allgemeines Lexicon der bildenden Kunstler von
der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, edited by Hans Vollmer, vol. 18, 50-52. Leipzig: E. A.
Seemann, 1925.
Klein, Bernhard. "Heinrich Hiibsch und die evangelische Ludwigskirche,Anmerkungen zur
Rekonstruktion der Zisterzienser-Klosterkirche Tennenbach in Freiburg im Breisgau."
Zeitschrift des Breisgau-Geschichtsvereins 101 (1982): 275-98.
Merz, Fr. H. Review of "Die Architektur und ihr Verhdltnifi zur heutigen Malerei und Skulptur
by Heinrich Hiibsch." Kunst-Blatt, no. 50 (12October 1848): 197-200; no. 52 (24 October
1848): 205-8.
184. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
Schirmer, Wulf. Heinrich Hiibsch 1795-1863: Der Grofle Badische Baumeister der Romantik.
Exh. cat. Karlsruhe: C. F. Miiller, 1983.
Valdenaire, Arthur. "Heinrich Hiibsch: Eine Studie zur Baukunst der Romantik." Zeitschrift
fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins 39 (1926): 421-44, 527-56; 40 (1927): 181-206.
Vilmar, Gernot. "Heinrich Hiibsch." In Neue Deutsche Biographie, compiled by Historische
Kommission bei der bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 9, 723-24. Berlin:
Duncker & Humblot, 1972.
Waskonig, Dagmar."Konstruktionen eines zeitgemaGen Stils zu Beginn der Industrialisierung
in Deutschland: Historisches Denken in Heinrich Hiibschs Theorie des Rundbogenstils."
In "Geschichte allein ist zeitgemdfi": Historismus in Deutschland, edited by Michael Brix
and MonikaSteinhauser, 93-105. Lahn-Giefien: Anabas, 1978.
185. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
CARL ALBERT ROSENTHALBIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1830 Uber die Entstehung und Bedeutung der architektonischen Formen der Griechen.
Berlin: n.p., 1830.
1837 Clemens,J. R, Mellin, Friedrich Albert Immanuel,and Rosenthal,Carl Albert,eds.
Der Dom zu Magdeburg. Magdeburg: Creutz, 1837-1852.
1841 Vollstandige Ubersicht der Geschichteder Baukunst von ihrem Ursprunge an bis auf
die neueste Zeit im organischen Zusammenhange in sich und mil der allgemeinen
Culturgeschichte fur Geschichtsforscher, Baumeister und uberhaupt fur denkende
undgebildete Leser. 2 vols. Berlin:G. Reimer, 1841-1842.
ARTICLES, ADDRESSES, AND PAMPHLETS
1830 "Uber die Entstehung und Bedeutung der architectonischen Formen der Griechen."
Journal fur die Baukunst 3 (1830), no. 2: 232-42; no. 3: 276-326.
1839 Ubersicht der Geschichte der Baukunst,mit Riicksicht auf die allgemeine Culturgeschichte."
Journalfur die Baukunst 13 (1839), no. 1:52-81; no. 2: 188-206; no. 3:
255-81; 14(1840), no. 1:1-39; no. 2: 183-98; no. 3:199-255; 15(1841), no. 1:1-49; no. 2:
160-79; no. 3: 231-69; no. 4: 310-57; 16(1842), no. 3: 197-246; 17(1842),no. 1:46-84;
no. 2: 97-123; no. 3: 236-59; 18(1843), no. 2: 129-72; 20 (1844), no. 1:32-68; 22 (1845),
no. 2: 97-132; 25 (1847), no. 1: 1-32; no. 3: 216-51; no. 4: 323-68; 26 (1848), no. 1:
48-96; no. 4: 351-78; 27 (1849), no. 1:62-92; no. 4: 244-74; 28 (1850), no. 1: 57-90;
no. 2: 126-46; no. 3: 177-98, 345-62.
1842 "Kurzer Uberblick des Entwickelungsganges der Baukunst." Zeitschriftfurpraktische
Baukunst 2 (1842): 282-90.
1844 "In welchem Style sollen wir bauen? (Eine Frage fur die Mitglieder des deutschen
Architektenvereins)." Zeitschrift furpraktische Baukunst 4 (1844): 23-27.
"Was will die Baukunsteigentlich?" Allgemeine Bauzeitung 9 (1844): 268-74.
"Gefangnisgebaude." Zeitschriftfurpraktische Baukunst 4 (1844): 275.
1845 "Das neue Rathhaus zu Neustadtbei Magdeburg." Zeitschriftfurpraktische Baukunst
5 (1845): 286-87.
1856 "Der Dom zu Magdeburg." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 21(1856): 281-93.
186. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
SELECTED SECONDARY SOURCES
Borsch-Supan, Eva.Berliner Baukunst nach Schinkel: 1840-1870, p. 27, no. 109. Munich:Prestel
Verlag, 1977.
187. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
RUDOLF WIEGMANNBIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1836 Die Malerei der Alien in ihrer Anwendung und Technik insbesondere als Dekorationsmalerei.
Foreword by Hofrathe K. 0. Miiller. Hannover: Hahn, 1836.
1839 Der Ritter Leo von Klenze und unsere Kunst. Diisseldorf: J. H. C. Schreiner, 1839.
Uber die Konstruction von Kettenbrucken nach dem Dreiecksystem. Diisseldorf:
n.p., 1839.
1842 Uber den Ursprung des Spitzbogenstils: Mit einem Anhange betreffend die Bildung
eines Vereins fur die Geschichte der mittelalterlichen Baukunst. Diisseldorf: J.
Buddeus, 1842.
1846 Grundzuge der Lehre von der Perspektive fur Maler und Zeichenlehrer. Diisseldorf:
J. Buddeus, 1846. 2nd ed. 1876.
1847 Die Malweise des Tizian: Nach Ergebnissen der von dem Maler J. Drdger angestellten
Untersuchungen und Versuche mitgetheilt. Diisseldorf: J. Buddeus, 1847.
1856 Die konigliche Kunst-Akademie zu Diisseldorf: Ihre Geschichte, Einrichtung und
Wirksamkeit und die Diisseldorfer Kunstler. Diisseldorf: J. Buddeus, 1856.
ARTICLES, ADDRESSES, AND PAMPHLETS
1829 "Bemerkungen iiber die Schrift: In welchem Styl sollen wir bauen? von H. Hiibsch."
Kunst-Blatt 10(1829), no. 44: 173-74; no. 45: 177-79; no. 46: 181-83.
1841 "Gedanken iiber die Entwickelung eines zeitgemafien nazionalen Baustyls." Allgemeine
Bauzeitung 6 (1841): 207-14.
"Werke der hoheren Baukunst: Fiir die Ausfiihrung erfunden und dargestellt von
Dr. J. F. Schinkel." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 6, no. 43 (August 1841) (Literatur...
Beilage): 403-10.
1842 "Uber den Ursprung des Spitzbogenstils." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842): 37-61.
Uber eine Konstrukzion sich freitragender Briicken aus Holz und Eisen ohne Widerlager."
Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842): 267-69.
"Polemisches." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842) (Literatur... Beilage): 498-500.
1846 "Gegensatze: Die Tendenz des Hrn. Prof. J. H. Wolff und 'Die Christlich-germanische
Baukunst und ihr VerhaltniB zur Gegenwartvon A.Reichensperger, Trier 1845,' nebst
einer Schlufibetrachtung." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 11(1846) (Literatur... Beilage)
3, no. 1: 1-19.
188. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
1855 "Die Wiederherstellung des Domes zu Speyer nach dem Plane des Grofih. Badischen
Baudirektors H. Hiibsch." Deutsches Kunstblatt 6, no. 37 (13September 1855): 324-26.
SELECTED SECONDARY SOURCES
Daelen, Eduard. "Rudolf Wiegmann." In Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic, compiled by Die
historische Commission bei der koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, vol. 42, 390-91.
Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1897.
Nagler, G. K. "Rudolf Wiegmann." In Neues allgemeines Kunstler-Lexicon, vol. 21, 391-92.
Munich: E. A. Fleischmann, 1851.
Pfeffer, Klaus, "Spatklassizismus in Diisseldorf." Dusseldorfer Jahrbuch 51(1963): 133-43.
Trier, Eduard, and Willy Weyres, eds. Kunst des 19.Jahrhunderts im Rheinland. Diisseldorf:
Schwann, 1980.
189. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
JOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1831 Uber Plan und Methode bei dem Studium der Architectur. Leipzig and Darmstadt:
Carl Wilhelm Leske, 1831.
1834 Beitrdge zur Aesthetik der Baukunst oder die Grundgesetze der plastischen Form,
nachgewiesen an den Haupttheilen dergriechischen Architektur. LeipzigandDarmstadt:
Carl Wilhelm Leske, 1834.
1854 Die wesentlichste Grundlage der monumentalen Baukunst: Historisch dargelegt an
den Meisterwerken der alien Architectur. Eine Abtheilunggeschichtlicher Vortrdge.
Gottingen: George H. Wigand, 1854. 2nd ed. 1857.
Lutherische Antwort aufdie Denkschrift der theologischen Facultdt zu Gottingen.
Stade: n.p., 1854.
1856 Handbuch der hoheren Kunst-Industrie fur Gewerbetreibende und Kunstler, sowie
fur Lehranstalten Kassel: n.p., 1856?
1862 Zum Kirchenfrieden. Stade: n.p., 1862.
ARTICLES, ADDRESSES, AND PAMPHLETS
1827 Review of "Georg Moller, Entwiirfe ausgefiihrter und zur Ausfuhrung bestimmter
Gebdude. Heft 1.Das grofiherzogliche Hoftheater zu Darmstadt." Kunst-Blatt 8, no.
83 (15 October 1827): 331-32; no. 84 (18 October 1827): 334-36; no. 85 (22 October
1827): 337-38.
Review of "Heinrich Hubsch, Entwurfzu einem Theater mit eiserner Dachriistung."
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen 3 (1827), no. 199: 1977-84; no. 200: 1985-99.
"Sammlung architektonischer Entwiirfe von Schinkel, enthaltend theils Werke welche
ausgefiihrt sind, theils Gegenstande deren Ausfuhrung beabsichtigt wurde:Erstes Heft."
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen, no. 6-7 (11 January 1827): 49-64; no. 8 (13 Januar
1827): 65-79.
"Sammlung architektonischer Entwiirfe von Schinkel, enthaltend theils Werkewelche
ausgefiihrt sind, theils Gegenstande deren Ausfuhrungbeabsichtigt wurde: II Heft."
Gottingische gelehrte Anzeigen,no. 45 (19March 1827): 441-48; no. 46-47 (22 March
1827): 449-62.
1828 "Sammlung architektonischer Entwiirfe von Schinkel, enthaltend theils Werke welche
190. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
ausgefuhrt sind, theils Gegenstande deren Ausfiihrung beabsichtigt wurde: Drittes
Heft." Gottingischegelehrte Anzeigen (14June 1828), no. 95: 937-44; no. 96: 945-56.
1842 "Einige Bemerkungen iiber das von Schinkel erbaute neue Wachthaus zu Dresden."
Zeitschriftfurpraktische Baukunst 2 (1842): 241-45.
"Sammlung architektonischer Entwurfe, welche ausgefuhrt oderfur die Ausfiihrung
entworfen wurden von L. v. Klenze." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842) (Literatur...
Beilage), no. 47 (January): 451-58.
"Sarmnlung architektonischer Entwurfe, enthaltend theils Werke, welche ausgefuhrt
sind, theils Gegenstande, deren Ausfiihrung beabsichtigt wurde; bearbeitet und
herausgegeben von Schinkel: Sechstes Heft." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842) (Literatur...Beilage],
no. 49 (March-April): 469-75.
"Sammlung architektonischer Entwurfe von Schinkel enthaltend, theils Werke,welche
ausgefuhrt sind, theils Gegenstande, deren Ausfiihrung beabsichtigte wurde, u.s.w.
Dreizehntes Heft." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 1 (1842) (Literatur...Beilage), no. 52
(September): 507-17.
1843 "Polemisches." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 8 (1843) (Literatur... Beilage) 2, no. 1: 1-5.
"Entwurfe ausgefuhrter und zur Ausfiihrung bestimmter Gebaude: Herausgegeben
von Dr. Georg Moller." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 8 (1843) (Literatur... Beilage) 2,
no. 1: 5-11.
"Sammlung architektonischer Entwurfe von Schinkel, enthaltend theils Werke,
welche ausgefuhrt sind, theils Gegenstande, deren Ausfiihrungbeabsichtigt wurde u."
Allgemeine Bauzeitung 8 (1843) (Literatur... Beilage) 2, no. 7: 103-10.
1845 "Einige Worte iiber die von Herrn Professor Stier bei der Architektenversammlung
zu Bamberg zur Sprache gebrachten (und im Jahrgange 1843 dieser Zeitschrift
S. 301 mitgetheilten) architektonischen Fragen." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 10 (1845)
(Literatur...Beilage) 2, no. 17: 255-70.
"Die Mariahilfkirche in der Vorstadt Au zu Miinchen: Von Ohlmiiller." Allgemeine
Bauzeitung 10(1845) (Literatur... Beilage) 2, no. 16: 243-50.
1846 "Bin Prinzip und keine Parteien!" Allgemeine Bauzeitung 11 (1846): 358-67.
1847 "Polemisches."Allgemeine Bauzeitung 12(1847) (Literatur... Beilage) 3, no. 9:178-87.
1852 "Einige Worte iiber die Nothwendigkeit naturgemafier Motive in alien Gestaltungen
der Architektur wie der Technik," Allgemeine Bauzeitung 17(1852): 237-40.
1858 "Noch ein Wort iiber die Grundfragen der Baukunst." Allgemeine Bauzeitung 23 (1858)
(Notizblatt) 4, no. 16(December): 235-39.
1863 "Welches ist die zweckmafiigste innere Anordnung der protestantischen Kirchen?"
Allgemeine Bauzeitung 28 (1863) (Notizblatt) 5, no. 15:261-64.
191. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
SELECTED SECONDARY SOURCES
Dehio, Georg. Handbuch der deutschen Kunstdenkmdler, vol. 3, pt. 1, 9. Berlin: Deutscher
Kunstverlag, 1935.
Vollmer, Hans, ed. Allgemeines Lexicon der bildenden Kunstler von der Antike bis zur
Gegenwart, vol. 36, 209-10. Leipzig: E. A. Seeman, 1925.
192. BIBLIOGRAPHIES
CARL GOTTLIEB WILHELM BOTTICHER
Botticher wasborn at Nordhausen, near Erfurt, in 1806. In 1827 he entered the Bauakademie
in Berlin. Influenced by Christian Peter Wilhelm Beuth's radical reorganization of teaching
methods in the industrial arts, Botticher concentrated his studies on ornamentation and particularly
on textiles. During the next fifteen years he was engaged in teaching these subjects
at several of Beuth's new technical schools, and from 1839 he taught at the Bauakademie
where, having passed his final architect's examination in 1844, he was appointed professor
of architecture.
On Karl Friedrich Schinkel's advice, Botticher turned to the study of the ornamental
and structural forms of the Greek temple. These studies resulted in the conception of
the "core-form" and the "art-form," two different but interrelated forms that he felt to be the
basic elements of any architectural work. This concept formed the main thesis of Botticher's
Die Tektonik der Hellenen (The Tectonics of the Hellenes), a book that influenced the architectural
thought of many succeeding generations.
After the complete Tektonik had appeared in 1852, the author's outstanding contribution
to scholarship was recognized by two academic distinctions: an honorary doctorate
from the Universitat Greifswaldand an exceptional appointment as a lecturer (Privatdozent)
in archaeologyat the Konigliche Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Berlin. In 1868 he wasappointed
director of the department of sculpture at the Neue Museumat Berlin. Eight yearslater, following
criticism of the principles that he had established concerning the display of the museum's
large collection of casts molded from antique sculptures, he resigned from this post and from
all of his teaching positions. He died in 1899.
193. BIOGRAPHIES
HEINRICH HOBSCH
Hiibsch was born in 1795 in Weinheim, near Mannheim. In 1813 he entered the RuprechtKarls-Universitat
Heidelberg as a student of philosophy and mathematics but moved to Karlsruhe
two years later to study architecture at Friedrich Weinbrenner's private school. Weinbrenner
was a leading architect of the Neoclassicalmovement, and undoubtedly, Hiibsch owed his thorough
architectural training to the outstanding experience of this teacher. Yeteven as a student,
Hiibsch's predilection for medieval architecture made him doubt that the classical style could
be of benefit to the development of contemporary architecture.
In 1817, as a continuation of his training, Hiibsch traveled to Rome where he
stayed for the next four years. From Rome he visited Greece and Constantinople. In 1821 he
returned to Germany to take his final examination, and he soon after finished his first book
Uber griechische Architektur (On Greek Architecture), which contained a critique of a major
tenet of the classical doctrine: imitation. His arguments were angrilyrebutted bythe renowned
archaeologist Aloys Ludwig Hirt.
In 1824 Hiibsch wasappointed teacher at the Stadelsches Kunstinstitut at Frankfurt.
His first major building, a church in Wuppertal-Barmen, was designed and subsequently
executed during the three years he worked at the Kunstinstitut. Following Weinbrenner's
death in 1826, he wascalled to Karlsruhe to assume the post of principal government architect.
In 1832 he was appointed director of the architectural department of the newly formed Polytechnische
Hochschule. His architectural practice wasextensive. His most important buildings
in Karlsruhe were the Finanzministerium (1829-1833), the Polytechnische Hochschule (1833-
1835), the Kunsthalle (1836-1845), and the Hoftheater (1851-1853); and in Baden-Baden, the
Trinkhalle (1837-1840). He was commissioned to design many churches of which St. Cyriacus
in Bulach (1834-1837) and the Ludwigskirche in Ludwigshafen (1858-1862) are the most well
known. Through these buildings, as well as through his writings,Hiibsch became the foremost
exponent of the Rundbogenstil. Despite his extensive professional work, he traveled widely,
mainly to Italy, but also to Paris, Berlin, and Munich. In 1850 he converted to the Catholic
faith, and he died in Karlsruhe in 1863.
194. BIOGRAPHIES
CARL ALBERT ROSENTHAL
Rosenthal wasborn in 1801 in Sudenburg, near Magdeburg. In 1819 he enrolled as a student at
the Bauakademie in Berlin. Having passed the final examination in 1823, he entered government
service where he remained until his retirement fifty years later; by that time he had
reached the rank of privy government councillor. Nothing is known about Rosenthal's architectural
career except that from 1824 on he worked with other architects on the restoration of
the Magdeburg cathedral (completed in 1852). His contributions to the discussion on style
extend from 1830 to the middle of the century. They reflect a development in his architectural
thought away from the classical canon, which was instilled in him during his years of study at
the Bauakademie, toward the recognition of the supreme spiritual-and artistic-superiority
of Gothic architecture.
195. BIOGRAPHIES
RUDOLF WIEGMANN
Wiegmann was born in 1804 at Anderson, near Hannover. After completing his education at a
gymnasium in the latter city, he moved to Darmstadt to study architecture under GeorgMoller.
He completed his studies in Italy, where he lived from 1828 to 1832. On his return, he settled in
Diisseldorf and began to work as an architect. He received commissions to build several private
houses, among them one completed in 1838 for Wilhelm von Schadow, the director of the
Konigliche Kunstakademie. It was probably on Schadow's recommendation that Wiegmann
was asked to submit plans for the rebuilding of the Apollinariskirche at Remagen. Although
he was not successful (the church was built according to the design of his competitor Ernst
Friedrich Zerner), Wiegmannwasappointed professor at the Kunstakademie in 1838 and given
responsibility for teaching architecture and perspective.
Wiegmann became known mainly through his literary work. His articles on theoretical
matters concerning contemporary architecture formed an important part of the discussion
on style. Although he had been highly critical of Hiibsch's In welchem Style sollen wir
bauen? (In What Style Should WeBuild?) when he reviewed it in 1829, he later came to favor
adoption of the Rundbogenstil, recognizing its latent possibilities.
A gifted painter himself, he was also interested in the painting techniques of
both modern and ancient times, a subject on which he wrote several books. The conclusion he
drew in Die Malerei derAlten (The Paintings of the Ancients) wascriticized by Leo von Klenze.
In response Wiegmann wrote a book in which he not only rebutted Klenze's arguments concerning
this particular matter but attacked Klenze's general attitude toward art and architecture.
Wiegmann taught at the Kunstakademie for almost thirty years. He died in 1865.
196. BIOGRAPHIES
JOHANN HEINRICH WOLFF
Wolff was born in 1792, probably in Kassel. At an early age he was given some architectural
instruction when he assisted Leo von Klenze, who from 1808 to 1810 executed Grandjean de
Montigny's design for changingthe main staircase of the MuseumFridericianum in Kassel into
a parliament or Stdndehaus. In 1814 Wolff went to Paris to study architecture under Charles
Percier at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts.He lived in Rome from 1816 through 1818.
After his return to Kassel, Wolff worked as an assistant to the court architect,
Johann Konrad Bromeis. He began teaching at the Akademie der Kiinste in 1821 and was
appointed professorof architecture in 1832. Asa teacher, art critic, and theoretician, his influence
on contemporary architectural thought wasconsiderable. With great consistency he stressed
the importance of upholding classical tradition. Wolff died in 1869.
197. BIOGRAPHIES
This page intentionally left blank
INDEX
Akademie der bildenden Ktinste. See Munich: Akademie der bildenden Kiinste
Albert!, Leon Battista, 48
Alexander the Great, 78
Altes Museum. See Berlin: Altes Museum
Athens: Parthenon, 77, 106, 110; Propylaea, 75, 77; Temple of Theseus, 72
Baden-Baden: Kurhaus, 21;Trinkhalle, 16, 21-22
Bad Kissingen: Trinkhalle, 43
Bauakademie. See Berlin: Bauakademie
Befreiungshalle. See Kelheim: Befreiungshalle
Benedictine abbey of Maria Laach. See Koblenz: Benedictine abbey of Maria Laach
Berlin: Altes Museum, 31; Bauakademie, 33, 35-38, 40, 56 n. 141; cathedral, 46; Friedrich
Werdersche Kirche, 31;Petrikirche, 35; Schauspielhaus, 100 n. 2
Boisseree, Sulpiz, 2, 51n. 1, 101n. 10
Botticher, Carl Gottlieb Wilhelm, 10,33-35, 40-41, 44-45, 46
Bramante, Donato, 48
Brunelleschi, Filippo, 48, 81-82
Bulach: St. Cyriacus, 16-17, 20
Cimabue, 109
Cistern of the Thousand Columns. See Constantinople: Cistern of the Thousand Columns
Cologne: Cathedral, 2, 93
Colosseum. See Rome: Colosseum
Constantinople: Cistern of the Thousand Columns, 88; Hagia Sophia, 87
Curtius, Ernst, 33
Dresden: Dresden Opera House, 48
Engelhardt, J. D. W. E., 48
Fiesole, Fra Angelico da, 109
Friedrich Werdersche Kirche. See Berlin: Friedrich Werdersche Kirche
Gartner, Friedrich von, 7, 16, 22-29, 31-33
Goethe, Johann Wolfgang von, 2, 51n. 1
Gruppe, Otto Friedrich, 46, 50
Hagia Sophia. See Constantinople: Hagia Sophia
Hallmann, Anton, 8, 45
Hamburg: Nikolaikirche, 11
Hannover: Royal Opera House, 31
199. INDEX
Hirt, Aloys Ludwig,3, 100n. 1
Hogarth, William, 100n. 5
Horn, Ferdinand Wilhelm, 47
Irene, Empress, 112 n. 3
Jatho, L., 50
Karlsruhe: Polytechnische Hochschule, 16,20
Kelheim: Befreiungshalle,31
Klenze, Leo von, 6, 7,9,12, 29, 46, 54 n. 83
Koblenz: Benedictine abbey of Maria Laach, 91
Konrad III,Emperor, 112n. 3
Kopp, Ernst, 37
Kugler, Franz, 6, 22, 37, 47-48
Kurhaus. See Baden-Baden: Kurhaus
Laugier, Marc-Antoine,100n. 1
Laves, Georg LudwigFriedrich, 31
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat. See Munich: Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat
Ludwigskirche. See Munich:Ludwigskirche
Manuel I, Emperor, 112n. 3
Maria-Hilfskirche. See Munich: Maria-Hilfskirche
Maximilian of Bavaria,King, 9, 35
Metzger, Eduard, 6-8, 9, 42-44, 45, 46, 50
Michelangelo, 48,109
Munich: Akademie der bildenden Kiinste, 9; Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat, 16; Ludwigskirche,
22-25; Maria-Hilfskirche, 31;Polytechnikum, 7; Staatsbibliothek, 16, 22, 25-29
Neumann, Balthasar, 112n. 2
Neumann, Franz Ignaz Michael, 112n. 2
Nikolaikirche. See Hamburg: Nikolaikirche and Potsdam: Nikolaikirche
Ohlmuller, Daniel Joseph, 31
Palace of Diocletian. See Spalato: Palace of Diocletian
Palladio, Andrea, 48
Parthenon. See Athens: Parthenon
Pausanias, 75
Pericles, 69, 76, 77, 78, 105
Peruzzi, Baldassare, 48
Petrikirche. See Berlin: Petrikirche
Plutarch, 77
Polytechnikum. See Munich: Polytechnikum
Polytechnische Hochschule. See Karlsruhe: Polytechnische Hochschule
200. INDEX
Potsdam: Nikolaikirche, 31;Schlofi Charlottenhof, 31
Propylaea. See Athens: Propylaea
Quast, Ferdinand von,48-49
Raphael, 109
Regensburg: Walhalla, 29, 46
Reichensperger, August, 14, 15, 37, 47
Romberg, Johann Andreas, 8, 47, 48
Rome: Church of Santa Balbina, 86; Colosseum, 79; Temple of Peace, 85; Theater ofMarcellus,79
Rosenthal, Carl Albert, 6, 10
Royal Opera House. See Hannover: Royal Opera House
Rumohr, Carl Friedrich von, 4, 6
St. Cyriacus.See Bulach: St.Cyriacus
San Marco,Church of. See Venice: Church of San Marco
Santa Balbina, Church of. See Rome: Church of Santa Balbina
Scamozzi, Vincenzo, 48
Schauspielhaus. See Berlin: Schauspielhaus
Schinkel, Karl Friedrich, 31,33, 35-38, 48, 54 n. 78, 100n. 2
Schlegel, Friedrich von,2, 9
Schlofi Charlottenhof. See Potsdam: Schlofi Charlottenhof
Schorn, Johann Karl, 4
Semper, Gottfried, 7, 11, 48
Spalato: Palace of Diocletian, 85
Speyer: Cathedral, 108
Staatsbibliothek. See Munich: Staatsbibliothek
Stieglitz, Christian Ludwig, 3-4
Stier, Friedrich Wilhelm Ludwig, 10,38-41, 45
Strasbourg: Cathedral, 2
Sulzbach, Berta von, 112 n. 3
Temple of Peace. See Rome: Temple of Peace
Temple of Theseus. See Athens: Temple of Theseus
Theater of Marcellus.See Rome: Theater of Marcellus
Trinkhalle. See Baden-Baden: Trinkhalle and Bad Kissengen: Trinkhalle
Venice: Church of San Marco, 87
Vitruvius, 100n. 1
Wagner, Martin von,33
Walhalla. See Regensburg: Walhalla
Weinbrenner, Friedrich, 2,21-22
Wiegmann, Rudolf, 5, 10-16, 33, 46, 54 n. 83
201. INDEX
Winckelmann, Johann, 3
Wolff, Johann Heinrich, 10,11-16, 41-43, 46, 47, 50,100 n. 2
202. INDEX
IN WHAT STYLE SHOULD WE BUILD?
THE GERMAN DEBATE ON ARCHITECTURALSTYLE
Introduction and Translation
by Wolfgang Herrmann
Wolfgang Herrmann has lived an extraordinary life. Born in Berlin on 17 August 1899, he
studied philosophy at the Albert-Ludwigs-Universitat Freiburg and art history at the Konigliche
Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitat Berlin (Adolf Goldschmidt), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat
Munich (Heinrich Wolfflin), and the Universitat Leipzig (Wilhelm Pindar) where he received
his Ph.D. in 1924. Soon after, he became active in the contemporary architectural scene, working
in both the Berlin Kunstgewerbemuseum and Staatliche Kunstbibliothek. In 1933, however,
he was dismissed for being politically "unreliable," that is, for being of Jewish descent.
After emigrating to England, Herrmann entered into private business for nearly thirty years
before "retiring" and again devoting himself to the history of architecture. His books on MarcAntoine
Laugier (Laugier and Eighteenth Century French Theory, 1962) and Claude Perrault
(The Theory of Claude Perrault, 1973) established new standards for historical studies; his
more recent works devoted to Gottfried Semper (Gottfried Semper im Exil, 1978; Gottfried
Semper theoretischer Nachlass, 1980; Gottfried Semper in Search of Architecture, 1984) have
virtually single-handedly resurrected the most important German theorist of the nineteenth
century. Herrmann's very first book, Deutsche Baukunst des XIX und XX Jahrhunderts, written
in 1932-1933, was published for the first time in its entirety in 1977. Wolfgang Herrmann
and his lovely wife, Anni, live in Hampstead, London. -Harry F. Mallgrave
Designed by Laurie HaycockMakela
Composed by Archetype, Toronto,
in Bodoni type (introduction), Caslon 74 type (translation),
Caslon 540 type (essay titles), and Stymie type (heads and running heads).
Printed by The Castle Press, Pasadena,
on Mohawk Superfine 801b, white and off-white.
Bound by Roswell Book Bindery, Phoenix.
TEXTS & DOCUMENTS
Series designed by Laurie Haycock Makela and Lorraine Wild
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA
In what style should webuild? : the German debate on architectural
style / Heinrich Hiibsch...[et al.]: introduction and translation
by Wolfgang Herrmann.
p. cm.-(Texts & documents)
Includes bibliographical references (p. 178) and index.
ISBN 0-89236-199-9: S29.95.-ISBN 0-89236-198-0 (pbk.): $19.95.
1. Architecture. 2. Architecture-Composition, proportion, etc.
3. Architectural design. I. Hiibsch, Heinrich, 1795-1863.
II. Herrmann, Wolfgang, 1899- . III. Series.
NA2500.I5 1992
720M-dc20 91-22702
CIP
END//:44