The Vienna Hofburg between 1835 and 1918- A Residence in the Conflicting Fields of Art, Politics, and Representation1
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
The Vienna Hofburg between 1835 and 1918—
A Residence in the Conflicting Fields of Art, Politics,
and Representation1
WERNER TELESKO, RICHARD KURDIOVSKY, AND DAGMAR SACHSENHOFER
Introduction
I
N T H E N I N E T E E N T H C E N T U R Y , the imperial palace in Vienna had become the epicenter of
political decision making in the Danube monarchy. The fact that the Hofburg served as the
emperor’s family home and at the same time as the unchallenged centerpiece of politics and
administration lent its function a duality that was mirrored in the title of the town where the
palace was located. Officially, Vienna was the Haupt- und Residenzstadt, that is, the empire’s
capital and the monarch’s official residence. In this former role, Vienna was second to none.
Vienna was the seat of offices and ministries, the meeting place of parliamentary deputies in
the Reichsrat, and the place where the governors who represented the sovereign in the
respective Crownlands had their headquarters in the Statthalterei. It was not until Budapest
became the capital of the Kingdom of Hungary in the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of
1867 that Vienna had to share its rank with another city. In their role as the monarch’s
official residence, both Vienna’s and the Hofburg’s traditions went back to the Middle Ages.
There had been no interruptions even when in the Baroque period the monarchs had built
other residences elsewhere in what today is Vienna, among them the Favorita palace on the
Wieden (today’s Theresianum), the Favorita palace in the Augarten park, and Schönbrunn
palace. At all times the Hofburg had been the place where the Habsburg family and the
sovereign lived during the winter half-year, and furthermore, it remained the setting of the
most eminent ceremonies that formed the rituals of the Habsburg sovereign (Corpus Christi
procession, Anniversarium militare ceremonies in commemoration of the dead, and others).
No other Habsburg palace would ever challenge the Hofburg’s priority in terms of rank.
While the functions of the Hofburg remained the same, its architecture changed. Of high
impact in the history of the Habsburg residence was a series of structural alterations and
extensions that were made during the long reign of Emperor Francis Joseph I (1848–1916).
1
The scientific studies regarding the Vienna Hofburg between 1835 and 1918 were financed by the “Austrian
Science Fund” (www.fwf.ac.at) in the course of two projects (P17815; project period: March 2005 until February
2008; P20810, project period: August 2008 until July 2011). The joint authorship of this project involved the
following division of labor: The introductory and second sections were written by Werner Telesko, the first section
by Richard Kurdiovsky, and the third section by Dagmar Sachsenhofer.
Austrian History Yearbook 44 (2013): 37–61 © Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota 2013
doi:10.1017/S0067237813000064
3738 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
These shaped, and still are shaping, the outer appearance of the Hofburg and at the same time
that of Vienna’s topography in a very substantial way.2
A comparison with other seats of monarchical power shows that the Hofburg never
developed the kind of architectonic uniformity for which the palace at Versailles is famous,
nor was its complex of buildings staged as effectively in its urban surrounding as was the
royal palace in Paris. The function of the latter as a seat of power is highlighted almost
automatically by the axis of the Avenue des Champs-Élysées. Nonetheless, art-historical
research reveals that the role of the palace in the political history of the House of Habsburg,
as well as in the histories of Austria and the City of Vienna, is one of central importance,
great ambivalence, and complexity.
The goal of this article is to examine the histories of political representation and material
culture with regard to the Hofburg in a linked fashion. In the wake of Carl E. Schorske’s
landmark studies, scholarly literature on Vienna has concentrated, above all, on topics
connected to the Ringstraße and architectural modernism while paying little regard to the
iconology of the Habsburg seats of power. Using different methodological approaches within
different genres of the fine arts, this article tries to shed light on how the Hofburg’s
architecture, interiors, and decoration were used to represent the dynasty. Organized in three
sections, we focus our findings on one general theme: the complex mechanisms of dynastic
representation in both the interiors and exteriors of the Hofburg, with particular reference to
the second half of the nineteenth century. As a whole, this article seeks to show the (art-)
historical significance of the Hofburg in nineteenth-century Vienna by investigating three
exemplary problem areas in the conflicting fields of art, politics, and representation:
“permeability,” monuments, and interiors. We start with the problem of the Hofburg’s claim
of exclusivity during a period of its growing “permeability” in Vienna’s changing urban
landscape. Then, we explore the encoded messages conveyed by architecture and artworks in
the inner and outer Hofburg squares with reference to its monuments. Of particular
importance here, both topographically and iconologically, is the Heldenplatz or Hero’s
Square. Located in front of the palace, the square gained two monuments raised there, one in
1860 and one in 1865. Dedicated to Archduke Carl and Prince Eugene of Savoy, they must
be viewed not only as political products of the neoabsolutist period (1850–1861), but also
with an eye to the Habsburgs’ general discomfort with dynastic memorials. The article’s third
section deals with decorative tapestries in the interiors of the palace and asks what role this
traditional medium was to play in the context of imperial representation. Here, the required
approach is exactly the opposite of the one followed in the case of the Heldenplatz
monuments. We focus on an old and traditional medium: tapestries of early modern origin
from Habsburg collections, how they were reused in a nineteenth-century context, and the
changes this use underwent in the course of this century. Our general aim is to show how
2
A project carried out by the Austrian Academy of Sciences over the last few years subjected this giant building
complex to comprehensive study for the first time in its history. This project examined the Hofburg’s history from
the perspectives of architectural developments, exterior and interior design, sculptural decoration, gardens, the
function of the monuments in the Hofburg area, ephemeral decorations, and the history of the Hofburg’s
reception. Particular attention was paid to defining and classifying more than 10,000 architectural drawings and
plans relevant to the project period and to making them accessible in a special database: For the first time,
researchers were able to analyze written and visual sources at one and the same time and to evaluate their
informational content, which frequently complemented each other. These studies into the art history of the
Hofburg will culminate in the publication of a five-volume series. The volume on the nineteenth century has
already been published: Werner Telesko ed., Die Wiener Hofburg 1835–1918. Der Ausbau der Residenz vom
Vormärz bis zum Ende des “Kaiserforums” (Vienna, 2012).A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 39
different mechanisms of representation interacted with each other. On the one hand, our
examples seem well suited to provide insight into the complex structure of the Hofburg as a
point where residential architecture and the organization of the court intersected. On the
other hand, these examples illustrate the main fields of our general research interest.
Astonishing as it may seem, the sources tell us little, either about imperial traditions or about
their perception by the public of earlier centuries. The sources also offer little insight into the
mechanisms of Habsburg self-representation. The fact that many key questions about
Habsburg self-representation remain unanswered implies that during the “long nineteenth
century,” matters of symbolic representation were of secondary importance to the power
center of a huge multiethnic empire. They simply do not feature in the respective archives.
In matters where works of art in the Hofburg are concerned, the sources contain hardly any
information about why, and how, a particular subject was chosen and only little evidence of
discussions pertaining to the personal “styles” of those artists commissioned with decoration
and furnishing.
When studying nineteenth-century projects for the artistic decoration of what was then the
Habsburgs’ most important residence, and bearing in mind European developments of the
period, one might expect to find highly sophisticated dynastic programs, geared toward
representing an empire that had only recently come into existence in 1804, when Emperor
Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire had assumed the title of “Austrian Emperor” as
Francis I. Considering this, it is surprising how much reticence the Habsburgs showed—and
characteristically had shown since the early modern period—toward the use of elaborate and,
in particular, programmatic decoration of the residence.
A comparison between artistic activities in the Hofburg, which aimed primarily at conserving
and repairing its existing structures in the Vormärz era, with those that were carried out in King
Ludwig I’s splendid apartments in the Königsbau (lit. King’s tract) of the Munich residence
(1835) shows the Habsburgs’ exceptionalism. Clearly, what we see in nineteenth-century
Vienna is a continuation of the trends that had characterized the eighteenth-century
Hofburg, one directed primarily toward conserving the original artifacts.3 Habsburg
decorative programs that aimed at making an impression on the outside world only emerged
in the second half of the nineteenth century, as the themes for the sculptural decorations and
painting of the new court museums and the Neue Burg were subject to a more intense
debate from the late 1860s onwards.4 To a certain extent, these later developments made up
for the surprising lack of a representative Habsburg program in sculpture and painting that
had been evident since the early nineteenth century.
The problem touched upon here, namely the iconology of a residence, also relates to the
public dimension of the nineteenth-century Vienna Hofburg: Which parts of the palace was
the general public allowed to visit, and at which groups of observers were the particular
decorative programs aimed? The Vienna residence was located in a highly accessible area of
the city center and was also open to the general public, at least as far as the ceremonial
apartments and imperial collections were concerned. Hence, in addition to monuments and
3
Hellmut Lorenz, “[…] im alten Style glücklich wiederhergestellt […] Zur repräsentativen Rolle der Tradition in der
Barockarchitektur Mitteleuropas,” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege 51 (1997): 475–83.
4
Werner Telesko, “Kunst und Geschichtsforschung. Zum Anteil der Historiker an den malerischen und plastischen
Ausstattungsprogrammen der Wiener Hofburg in der zweiten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” in Die Wiener Hofburg
und der europäische Residenzbau in Mitteleuropa im 19. Jahrhundert. Monarchische Repräsentation zwischen Ideal
und Wirklichkeit, ed. Werner Telesko, Richard Kurdiovsky, and Andreas Nierhaus, 143–65 (Vienna/Cologne/
Weimar, 2010).40 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
the sculptural and painting programs, public ceremonial acts were the most visible expression of
imperial sovereignty and court order during the nineteenth century. After the upheaval of 1848,
however, the integration of squares that were open to the public, of monuments, and of interiors
into court ceremonies gradually increased in importance. Even though firm archival evidence of
direct links between ceremony, the court, particular architecture, and decoration is not always
easy to find, and one has to rely heavily on the intentions expressed by the particular ruler and
his court, one issue of great interest for the history of nineteenth-century Vienna is the varying
degrees to which this integration of squares, monuments, and interiors was public in character
and how it was received in the media.5 Last, but not least, the Hofburg was used to host
audiences at which not only ambassadors but also the citizens of the empire came into direct
contact with the emperor. This was a form of “public relations,” which—since the reign of
Emperor Joseph II onward—had been emphatically propagated in the media.
“Permeability” of the Palace and the Enlargement
of the Inner Hofburg Gate (1853)
On 18 May 1853, the Burghauptmannschaft (Steward’s Office) sent an estimate of costs to the
Obersthofmeisteramt (Office of the Grand Master of the Household),6 the highest court office,
which oversaw the management, supervision, and control of the entire court including building
matters.7 Various restorations and building operations were to be carried out on the Hofburg
for the remarkably high sum of 22,908 guldens and 20 kreuzers. For our purposes, the most
significant of these alterations was the “building of three gates in the Leopoldine Wing next
to the main military guardhouse.”8 The inner Hofburg gate, which dated back to the
Widmertor (a gate of the medieval city fortifications that was most probably named after an
old wood market nearby) and which formed a simple, single thoroughfare, was to be widened
into a complex gateway with three passages (see Figure 1). Construction work began on 11
July 1853, and was completed in mid-October 1853, when the final payments were made to
the foreman and masons. Now three gates instead of the previous one linked the inner
Hofburg court with the outer Hofburg square, today’s Heldenplatz (lit. Heroes’ Square).
From a formal and stylistic standpoint, this building project was relatively unimportant in
terms of the palace’s historical development and architectural history. Yet, despite the
project’s modest pretensions, a closer look reveals that it was in fact highly significant: In
particular, the surviving sources offer a number of clues that enable us to discern a complex,
multilayered object behind the seemingly small-scale renovation of a palace gate. Indeed,
they help us to make visible the ways in which the entire Vienna Hofburg functioned as a
5
Daniel Unowsky, “Staging Habsburg Patriotism: Dynastic Loyalty and the 1898 Imperial Jubilee,” in Constructing
Nationalities in East Central Europe, ed. Pieter M. Judson and Marsha L. Rozenblit, 141–56 (New York/Oxford, 2005).
6
Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (ÖStA), Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA), Obersthofmeisteramt (OMeA) r.
(Rubrik, i.e., column) 21/B/4, 2979 ex 1853 (cost estimate dated 18 May 1853). The abbreviations shall
subsequently be used for all quotations from archive sources. Also briefly mentioned in Alphons Lhotsky, Die
Baugeschichte der Museen und der Neuen Burg, part one (Vienna, 1941), 29, note 203.
7
On the administrative structure of the Viennese court, see: Karin Schneider, “Hofgesellschaft und Hofstaat” in Die
Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, Band 9: Soziale Strukturen, 2. Teilband: Von der Stände- zur Klassengesellschaft, ed.
Helmut Rumpler and Peter Urbanitsch, 1327–48 (Vienna, 2010), esp. 1334–38; for a special focus on the steward’s
office, see: Ludwig Mann, “Die Geschichte der Burghauptmannschaft Wien” (PhD diss., University of Vienna, 1950).
8
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 2979 ex 1853 (cost estimate dated 18 May 1853): “Herstellung von 3 Toren im Leopoldinischen
Trakt neben der Militärhauptwache.”A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 41
FIGURE 1: Facade of the Leopoldine Wing toward the inner Hofburg courtyard, 1853, two versions of the ground
floor (left: actual state and right: draft). HHStA, PAB, C-II-2, No. 800/1 + 2.
social and administrative structure integrated into its urban surroundings. In other words, this
small building project is a good example of the diverse questions that the Vienna Hofburg raises
as a subject for art historical research, concerning transport, social interaction, and—with
reference to the notion of “decorum”—distinction among different social classes. This latter
point is linked to issues of public accessibility and exclusion, as well as to the question of
how spheres of influence were expressed in administrative roles and responsibilities.
To facilitate the orientation, it may be useful to give a short description of the site (see
Figure 2). The Hofburg is located on the border of Vienna’s inner district. Seen from the
city, its main facade looks at St. Michael’s Square (Michaelerplatz). Having crossed the wing
of the imperial chancellery or Reichskanzleitrakt, one finds oneself in the inner courtyard
(Innerer Burghof), facing the three facades of, firstly, the Schweizerhof, the oldest of the
palace buildings and of medieval origin; secondly, the Leopoldine Wing, lying in a line with
the once existing ramparts from the early modern period and housing the ceremonial
apartments; and, finally, the Amalienburg Wing. From the Schweizerhof, one proceeds to the
court library and the no longer existing Augustinergang, while the Leopoldine Wing opens
through the inner Hofburg gate onto the outer Hofburg square. Originally planned as an
open square, it is now enclosed by two park areas on the narrow sides—Burggarten (lit.
castle garden) and Volksgarten (lit. people’s garden)—and by the outer Hofburg gate
(Äußeres Burgtor), which extends alongside the Ringstraße. Across this boulevard are the two
court museums that form the outer parts of what then was called the Kaiserforum. Planned
in 1869/1871 as a large-scale extension of the Hofburg,9 this project was never completed,
since—apart from the museum buildings—only one more building was built. This was the
Neue Burg, which today separates the Heldenplatz from the Burggarten.
The decision to enlarge the Hofburg’s inner gate aimed, above all, at improving the
transportation of goods and people. At the same time, it was a matter that affected the
imperial household and the emperor as a person. Since the Middle Ages, Vienna’s old “castle
gate” had been of key importance as it linked the city to the suburbs in the west. The
medieval castle was located next to the city gate, though, and the main flow of traffic actually
9
Richard Kurdiovsky, “Der lange Weg zum Kaiserforum. Gottfried Sempers und Carl Hasenauers Idealplanungen
zum Ausbau der Wiener Hofburg von 1867 bis 1871,” in Die Wiener Hofburg und der Residenzbau in Mitteleuropa im
19. Jahrhundert. Monarchische Repräsentation zwischen Ideal und Wirklichkeit, ed. Werner Telesko, Richard
Kurdiovsky, and Andreas Nierhaus, 87–113 (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar, 2010).42 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
FIGURE 2: Detail of a map of Vienna’s “Innere Stadt” with the area around the Hofburg, from 1880 ca. (before the
start of construction work for the Neue Burg Wing in 1881). Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (HHStA), Planarchiv
Burghauptmannschaft (PAB), D-13, No. 3412. The scratches around Michaelerplatz (St. Michael’s square)
indicate the future completion of this Hofburg-facade (1889–1893).
ran past it—as is also the case in Paris, for example, where the Rue de Rivoli passes along the
Louvre.10 In Vienna, however, over time different court buildings were built in front of the
castle, and they gradually turned what had been an outside square into the inner courtyard
of an expansive residence. When finally in 1660, the old Hofburg gate had become an
integral part of the new Leopoldine wing, one of Vienna’s main transport routes ran right
through the heart of the Hofburg—a situation reminiscent of Whitehall Palace in London.11
While in London, however, the royal court abandoned London’s busy urban center for the
park grounds around Buckingham Palace, the Austrian Habsburgs stayed in the city center
and continued to use the Hofburg’s Leopoldine Wing for representative and administrative
purposes. Because both imperial apartments and court offices such as the emperor’s military
10
The integration of the Louvre complex into the Parisian traffic system was clearly much less in the nineteenth
century since the Avenue du Général Lemonnier was only opened up as an additional connection from north to
south during the Third Republic; cf. Christiane Alaunier, Histoire du Palais et du Musée du Louvre (Paris, 1947–
1971); Jacques Boulenger, Les Tuileries sous le Second Empire (Paris, 1932), 60.
11
H. J. M. Green and Simon J. Thurley, “Excavations on the West Side of Whitehall 1960–1962, Part 1: From the
Building of the Tudor Palace to the Construction of the Modern Offices of State,” Transactions of the London and
Middlesex Archaeological Society 38 (1987): 59–130; Simon J. Thurley, Whitehall Palace: An Architectural History
of the Royal Apartments 1240–1690 (New Haven-London, 1999).A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 43
chancellery were located right above the inner Hofburg gate, they were permanently exposed to
the noise of the traffic passing through. The sound of the rattling carts and wagons was
described as being “extremely annoying” (äußerst lästig) and the new plan called for a
special, low-noise pavement, especially since the traffic would now be moving through three
passages instead of one, as had previously been the case.12 Even though the court used every
opportunity to emphasize its social and political primacy over the City of Vienna, it
remained a part of the town, and as such, it remained involved in the discussion about the
steps the city would take.
That the transport route through the inner Hofburg gate was a matter of public interest is
indicated by the mere fact that the planning and building office of the City of Vienna not
only carried out, and paid for, the pavement of the three new passages with polygonal
wooden blocks, but also attended to the pavement of the sections immediately in front of the
entrances. The request that this be done was, in the eyes of the court, in the natural order of
things, as it was the municipality that had the overall responsibility for the maintenance of
this public thoroughfare.13 Already, in August 1850, an agreement had been reached for the
outer Hofburg square, holding the court responsible only for the maintenance of lawns,
espaliers, and avenues, whereas the municipality would see to the pavement of the road
between the inner and outer gates.14 The municipality even considered it a duty to provide
for the lighting of the entire outer Hofburg square15—not for reasons of pure altruism,
however, but because by doing so the city gained some authority over the Hofburg area, an
authority it had been denied in the planning work for the Ringstraße, which was being
carried out under the exclusive control of the imperial court and the state ministries.16
Another area where court interests coincided with those of the city authority was
Michaelerplatz, which faced the palace facade designed by Josef Emanuel Fischer von Erlach
(but left uncompleted). In a personal audience with Carl Hasenauer, Gottfried Semper’s
associate in the planning of the Kaiserforum, Francis Joseph expressed his great satisfaction
with the intended completion of the St. Michael’s facade of the Hofburg. The records also
say that the city authority had already acquired many buildings on this site in order to “tidy
up” the square by removing various structures that blocked the way.17
As far as the transport route through the Hofburg was concerned, the court had no objections
to the existing solution per se. After all, the court had taken the initiative to improve the
acoustic situation for the benefit of the imperial household. That the old Hofburg gate was
also dark and the space very cramped can be read in even earlier, eighteenth-century,
descriptions.18 The new, widened thoroughfare was supposed to facilitate “communication
12
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 3414 ex 1853 (letter dated 8 June 1853).
13
I am extremely grateful to Günther Buchinger for the indication that the City had been responsible for the ground
floor areas of the already mentioned Widmertor, one of the city gates, since the Middle Ages, while the upper floors fell
under sovereign jurisdiction. Johann Ignaz Schlager, Wiener Skizzen aus dem Mittelalter, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1835), 166.
14
OMeA r. 21/5, 234 ex 1855 (Directorate of Fortress Engineering in Vienna to OMeA dated 9 January 1855).
15
HHStA, Burghauptmannschaft (BH), Allgemeine Reihe, 53 ex 1852 (document dated 27 January 1852); 73 ex
1852 (document dated 7 February 1852); and OMeA r. 21/13 ex 1852 (document dated 9 February 1852).
16
Renate Wagner-Rieger, ed., Die Wiener Ringstraße. Bild einer Epoche. Die Erweiterung der Inneren Stadt Wien
unter Kaiser Franz Joseph, vol. II; Elisabeth Springer, Geschichte und Kulturleben der Wiener Ringstraße
(Wiesbaden, 1979), 148–156, 167–169.
17
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich (ETH), Institute for the History and Theory of Architecture (gta),
Semper-Archiv, 20-K-1869-07-02 (Hasenauer to Semper, dated 2 July 1869).
18
Werner Michael Schwarz, “Bewegungsspuren. Zur Kritik an der Stadtbefestigung im 18. Jahrhundert”
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege 64, no. 1/2 (2010): 128–133.44 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
between the inner and outer Hofburg squares”19 and therefore to serve the convenience of the
public.20 A one-way traffic regulation was introduced to prevent congestion resulting from “the
exceptionally high frequency of carts and riders.”21 According to an anonymous architectural
drawing,22 the southern passage was intended “for outbound transport” ( für die
Hinausfahrt) because since 185223 left hand traffic was again customary in Vienna, the
central passage “for inbound transport” ( für die Hereinfahrt), and the northern passage “for
pedestrians” ( für die Fußgänger). At the same time the urgency of this building project was
underlined by an administrative note stating that the emperor himself and the archdukes
often rode on horseback through this passage.24 Whether this was actually true—other
entrances allowed more direct access to the imperial apartments—or whether this remark
was only intended to add maximum emphasis is open to question. In any case, the
Obersthofmeisteramt also referred to the high social status of users when it stipulated that the
work should be completed as quickly as possible “in order to cause the least possible
obstruction to the passage, both in the interests of their lordships and of the general public.”25
Given that it perforated the Leopoldine Wing, the inner castle gate represented an area of
“permeability” within the Hofburg, which we are accustomed to regard primarily as an
imperial space. The Hofburg represented a distinct space that stood out against the mainly
bourgeois city surrounding it, by virtue of certain distinguishing features: its particular
location in the city; the extensive buildings; the numerous symbols, such as emblems and
crowns, inserted onto the facades; and also its sublime use of majestic forms of architecture,
such as columns and large windows (suggesting high interiors). Fundamental to the Hofburg
was the notion of “decorum,” the outward display of the dignity and prestige of the House of
Habsburg. Decorum manifested itself in terms of both structures and their methods of
construction. It could easily involve questions about the choice of materials, appropriate
forms, and interior design, as well as exterior construction. As we have seen, the desire to
ensure proper “decorum” had been a prime cause for widening the inner castle gate.26 In
terms of the overall Vienna residence, consideration of imperial “decorum” meant that the
building should stand out recognizably from its urban surroundings, but with a minimum of
fuss or ostentation. Consequently, the enlarged inner Hofburg gate was understated in its
appearance. In fact, the builders followed another approach to “decorum,” by demonstrably
maintaining the venerable character of the buildings. After all, there were only slight
differences between the look of the old and new passages through the gates.
Yet, decorum was also evident in social interaction—meaning the codes of conduct and
standards of behavior used by members of the imperial family and their subordinates,
regardless of whether they were members of the hoffähige nobility (who could be present at
19
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 3414 ex 1853 (document dated 8 June 1853): “[…] Kommunikazion [sic] zwischen dem inneren
u[nd] äußeren Burgplatze […].”
20
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 2979 ex 1853 (document dated 18 May 1853).
21
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 5826 ex 1853 (document dated 6 October 1853): “[…] der ungemein starken Frequenz der Wagen
u. Reiter […].” From 1808 onwards, a one-way traffic system had already been introduced at the Kärntnertor (literally
Carinthian Gate).
22
HHStA, Planarchiv der Burghauptmannschaft (PAB), C-II-1, no. 781: undated and unsigned ground floor plan
for the widening of the inner Hofburg gate.
23
HHStA, Verwaltung der Gebäude vor dem äußern Burgtor, box 1, envelope 1852 (Kundmachung der k.k.
niederösterreichischen Statthalterei, dated 12 July 1852).
24
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 5826 ex 1853 (document dated 6 October 1853).
25
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 2979 ex 1853 (Intimat dated 20 May 1853): “[…] um die Passage, sowohl für die höchsten
Herrschaften, als für das Publikum so wenig als möglich zu behindern.”
26
OMeA r. 21/B/4, 2979 ex 1853 (document dated 18 May 1853).A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 45
court) or the court servants. Exclusivity helped to preserve this “decorum” and was altogether
characteristic of Viennese court society, with its emphasis on social distinctions. At certain
occasions like the exclusive court balls (Hofball) and even more elitist balls at court (Ball bei
Hof), certain rooms like the big halls (i.e., Zeremoniensaal or Redoutensaal) and adjoining
apartments were reserved for exclusive court circles, while on other occasions like public
concerts of the Musikverein (i.e., society of friends of music), other “musikalische
Akademien”27 (musical concerts), or balls the same rooms were open to general access.
At the same time, however, although some parts of the Hofburg may not have been accessible
to everyone, others certainly were open to broad swathes of the general public, thus lending the
Hofburg the character of an institution of public education. In particular, the imperial
collections of art and natural science, which are kept today in the Kunsthistorisches Museum
and the Naturhistorisches Museum, respectively, constituted areas that were open to public
view, subject to various rules and regulations. During the summer months, as part of what
was known as the allerhöchster séjour, the emperor, his family, and his court went to stay at
one of the summer palaces, usually at Schönbrunn, leaving the Hofburg deserted.
Consequently, the general public was, for example, able to visit the treasury located in the
Schweizerhof, the oldest part and very heart of the Hofburg, on two days a week by prior
appointment around the middle of the century28 and on three days a week by 1870.29
Similar regulations applied to the Mineralienkabinett (minerals cabinet), the Münz- und
Antikenkabinett (cabinet of coins and antiquities) in the Augustinian passage,30 and the
Zoologisches Kabinett in a wing of the court library.31 The latter was even opened up to the
general public for visits and study purposes on each working day of the week.32 In general,
the imperial collections appear to have been regarded primarily as scientific institutions,
especially since they were open more frequently for research purposes, i.e., for “experts” and
for “scholars,” rather than for the merely curious public and tourists.
Particularly remarkable in this context is the fact that, as early as 1846, “the apartments or
inner chambers […] can be viewed in the absence of their majesties and highnesses.”33 After
submitting the necessary application, visitors were able to view the imperial state rooms
during the summer sojourn, as well as the ceremonial apartments, where the most illustrious
audiences and most important court festivities took place. The 1870 edition of Baedeker’s
guide to Vienna specifically mentions the “Ceremonial Hall and the former parlors of Maria
Theresa and Joseph II.”34 In doing so, it hinted that these rooms could and should be visited
above all for historic reasons—clearly in order to refer to the glorious past of Habsburg rule
in the eighteenth century, which was reflected in stylistic choices for the interior furnishings
and decorations, such as the distinctive neo-rococo “Blondel style.” Right up to the end of
27
OMeA r. 89/7, 792 ex 1858 (reply of Kanzleidirektor Philipp Draexler of the OMeA to the Minister of the Interior
Alexander Bach dated 22 January 1858).
28
Realis (actually Gerhard Dützele von Coeckelberghe), Die kaiserliche Burg in Wien. Ein Wegweiser für Fremde und
Einheimische (Vienna, 1846), 162.
29
Bruno Bucher and Carl Weiss, Wanderungen durch Wien und Umgebung (Vienna, 1870), 73.
30
The art gallery had been accommodated in the Upper Belvedere since the late 1770s (Debora E. Meijers, Kunst als
Natur. Die Habsburger Gemäldegalerie in Wien um 1780 (Vienna, 1995), esp. 29–50).
31
Realis, Die kaiserliche Burg, 109, 111–12; Bucher and Weiss, Wanderungen, 74.
32
Realis, Die kaiserliche Burg, 46; Bucher and Weiss, Wanderungen, 75.
33
Realis, Die kaiserliche Burg, 85: “[…] die Appartements oder inneren Gemächer […] während der Abwesenheit der
Allerhöchsten und Höchsten Herrschaften besehen werden können […].”
34
Bucher and Weiss, Wanderungen, 75: “Ceremoniensaal und die einstigen Wohnzimmer Maria Theresia’s und
Josephs II.”46 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
the monarchy, such tours included not only the ceremonial apartments that faced the inner
Hofburg square, but also the major guest apartments that overlooked the outer Hofburg
square, reserved for the most important guests of state and which had also served as the
apartment of the imperial couple until 1857.35 Private apartments, such as those of Francis
Joseph I in the Reichskanzleitrakt and of Elisabeth in the Amalienburg were strictly off-limits;
they were only opened up to the public in 1919.36
The Hofburg was located neither in the ideational and spiritual center of the city as was
St. Stephen’s cathedral, nor in the economic and social heart, such as the Graben or the
Kohlmarkt, with their luxurious shops and glamorous coffeehouses. Instead, the Hofburg was
situated on the periphery, embedded—or rather wedged—between the heavily built-up old
city center on the one hand and the relatively extensive green spaces and fortifications of the
city walls on the other hand. Apart from the two coffeehouses owned by Peter Corti, one in
the Volksgarten and one on top of the Löwel curtain wall, which formed social meeting
points into the evening and night, the outer Hofburg square had its zones of evening
quietude, seclusion, and even darkness (today’s Burggarten was closed to the general public,
since it was a private imperial garden at the time). In other words, although it was located
on an important transport route, the outer Hofburg square eluded the attention of society at
certain times of the day. In fact, this particular area offered discretion and secrecy for people
wishing to pursue acts that transgressed the generally accepted bounds of social respectability.
Despite its immediate proximity to the “highest apartments,” the outer Hofburg square was
not exclusively a place of upright conduct, as numerous documented cases of immorality testify.
To take one example, in February 1854, the Vienna police department issued an instruction for
more patrols “in the evening hours around the imperial and royal Volksgarten at the slope
towards the Hofburg bastion” to put an end to the misdeeds of the “licentious females”
whom the Obersthofmeisteramt simply called “licentious harlots.”37 Indeed, ten women and
one man were arrested and charged with “gross indecency” (wegen grober Unsittlichkeit).
The outer Hofburg square, clearly all but deserted during dark winter nights, appears to have
offered an almost ideal venue for prostitution. Once again, the fact that such incidents were
able to occur at all so close to the quarters of the head of state was due to the permeability
of the Hofburg, especially with regard to public traffic. After all, the passage through the
Hofburg could be used at all times of the day and night. When the passage had to be closed
because of building work on the inner Hofburg gate, the Viennese police announced that
pedestrians could use the passage under the ceremonial hall on Sundays and public holidays,
and in the evenings and at night, when work at the building site had ceased.38 In other
words, there does not ever appear to have been a time or day when the Hofburg was
hermetically sealed off.
This situation has remained unchanged up to the present day, with the exception of the
traffic measures imposed in the twentieth century (cycling or honking for instance were
already forbidden in the last decades of the monarchy).39 In this sense, the Hofburg was
35
Reinhard E. Petermann, Historische Spaziergänge in Wien. Die Wiener Burg (Vienna, 1925), 141 (point A.), 148.
36
Petermann, Historische Spaziergänge, 140.
37
OMeA r. 21/D/1, 726 ex 1854 (document dated 3 February 1854 and response of the OMeA dated 9 February
1854): “[…] in den Abendstunden nächst dem k. k. Volksgarten bei dem Aufgang gegen die Burgbastei […] jener
liederlichen Weibspersonen […]” and “[…] liederliche Dirnen […].”
38
OMeA r. 21/B/4, o. Zl. ex 1853 (police announcement on the closing of the inner Hofburg gate dated 8 July 1853).
39
Interdiction of riding, pushing, and even carrying a bike across the Hofburg complex: OMeA r. 21/9, 3789, 5257
and 5645 ex 1901 (documents dated 24 April and 5 and 19 June 1901). Interdiction of honking: OMeA r. 21/11 ex 1910
and ex 1911. I am extremely grateful to Andreas Nierhaus for kindly providing this information.A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 47
permeable as any city-gate (which could be closed if needed) or any main urban traffic route.
Rules were introduced to ensure decent behavior—the imperial “decorum,” which, as already
mentioned, concerned not simply the architectural appearance of the buildings, but also the
social conduct of people in its shadow. The characteristic exclusiveness of the Habsburg
court remained untouched by its permeability, since this exclusiveness was determined
mainly by social and not by topographical or three-dimensional elements.40
Monuments and the Coded Definition of Hofburg’s Public Space
More than ever, the question of the Hofburg’s topographical “permeability” gained immediacy
when projects were worked out for the construction of new theater buildings on the square
outside the palace in the late 1850s.41 Of relevance to the planning process was not only the
issue of how to “complete” the Hofburg in architectural terms—an issue that finally led to
plans for the famous Kaiserforum—but also of the unsolved question of what encoded
messages the Heldenplatz square was to convey. The original plan to install two memorials
on this outer Hofburg square dates back to before the middle of the nineteenth century. One
was meant to commemorate Maria Theresa, whereas the other one was to be dedicated to
the Emperor Francis II (I). Their spatial juxtaposition would mirror the personal relationship
between the mother of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty and her grandson or, in other words,
the man who secured her heritage.42
It became evident with this project, which was eventually shelved, that there would be
considerable obstacles to the plan if monuments were installed without regard to the
architectural and urban re-launching of the site. From this viewpoint, it is remarkable that,
as records show, the inauguration of the monument to commemorate Archduke Carl (1771–
1847) in the outer Hofburg square produced an intensified discussion of the look of the
square as a whole and its remodeling. To give an example, the Obersthofmeisteramt
remarked that the outer Hofburg square bore the character of a provisional solution
(Provisorium).43 When it came to the final decision of how the square should look after its
restructuring, the visibility of the memorial was a criterion in the emperor’s argument. The
emperor insisted—for the time being—that the free space between the monument and the
area of the palace garden had to remain unspoiled.44
The author of a letter, sent from the state ministry to the Obersthofmeisteramt and dated 10
January 1864 took a similar position. Commenting on the rejection of Theophil Hansen’s
proposal for the renovation and artistic embellishment of the outer Hofburg gate (Entwurf
zur Restaurierung und künstlerischen Ergänzung des äußeren Burgthores),45 he simply
remarked that basically the gate was to stay as it is.46
40
Schneider, Hofgesellschaft und Hofstaat, 1327–29.
41
OMeA r. 89/17 ex 1858.
42
The design (about 1838?) goes back to Peter Nobile; see Richard Bösel and Selma Krasa, exhibition catalogue,
Monumente. Wiener Denkmäler vom Klassizismus zur Secession (Vienna, 1994), 38–43, numbers 14–15.
43
OMeA r. 89/2, 720 ex 1860 (protocol of a meeting dated 30 January 1860).
44
OMeA r. 89/2, 811 ex 1860 (most humble account given by Carl von Liechtenstein Grand Master of the
Household, on 9 February 1860, with the emperor’s commentary of 10 February 1860).
45
OMeA r. 89/3, 5513 ex 1864 (copy of Hansen’s application letter to the emperor, dated 10 October 1863); see
Telesko, Kunst und Geschichtsforschung, 148–50. It is significant that in his proposal Hansen points to Munich and
Berlin as the centers of reception of ancient art.
46
OMeA r. 89/3, 207 ex 1864.48 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
The peripheral position of the Hofburg in Vienna has always been linked to the question of
how to position monuments in relation to the palace. This issue was all the more problematic
because—from the late eighteenth century onward—the erection of monuments became a
central element of courtly and hence also civic self-expression. The Habsburgs, however,
were extremely reticent in this regard. Amazing as it may seem, even the famous imperial
letter of 20 December 1857, which gave directives for the expansion of Vienna, contained no
reference to the corresponding issue of decorating the gardens and squares.47 “Apostolic”
Emperor Francis Joseph I’s claim to the succession of the universally Christian and
supranational office of monarch, as expressed tentatively in the comprehensive plans for the
redesign of the Hofburg (from 1869),48 can be regarded as an essential element of
contemporary panegyrics,49 but hardly as a consistent characteristic in the representation of
the Austrian emperor—and especially not with regard to the program of monuments and
facade sculptures for the expanding Hofburg. Far more important in this particular context
were the dominant political realities when the monuments emerged. For example, the
documentary evidence shows that Archduke Carl was regarded above all as the legitimate
“heir” of the dynasty’s founding father, Rudolf of Habsburg, when a monument dedicated to
Carl was unveiled on Vienna’s Heldenplatz in 1860. On the basis of his glorious deeds in the
Napoleonic “Wars of Liberation,” the Archduke was used to legitimize Austria’s current
foreign political role that stylized the monarchy as the advocate and leader of the German
Confederation.50
The monument shows Archduke Carl,51 brother of Emperor Francis II (I) and great uncle of
Emperor Francis Joseph I, mounted on horseback and raising a flag high into the air. Unveiled
in 1860, it was the first new monumental equestrian statue that Vienna had seen for more than
fifty years. After sculptor Franz Anton Zauner’s death in 1822—he had created the monument
of Emperor Joseph II for Joseph’s square (Josephsplatz) in 1806—not a single foundry remained
in Vienna with the expertise to cast artworks of this size. This remained the case for decades.
The sculptor Anton Dominik Fernkorn came to Vienna via Munich where Ludwig
Schwanthaler and Johann Baptist Stiglmayer, among others, had taught him the craft of
casting. Various explicitly Habsburg-patriotic works (e.g., the Aspern Lion monument of
1858) recommended him—from the political point of view—for the job of designing the
Archduke Carl monument.
Poems and songs had mythologized Archduke Carl’s victory at the Battle of Aspern, painters
had visualized the topic, and schoolbooks spread supposedly true details about the course of the
battle across the monarchy. Its dramatic climax and most commemorable moment had come
when, at a critical stage of the battle, chief commander Archduke Carl on horseback grabbed
47
Eitelberger von Edelberg, “Die Plastik Wiens in diesem Jahrhundert,” in idem, Kunst und Künstler Wiens der
neueren Zeit (Gesammelte kunsthistorische Schriften vol. I) (Vienna, 1879), 104–57, here 116, still regretted the
absence of monuments commemorating the battles of Wagram and Aspern (1809), adding: “es schien fast, als ob
sich Oesterreich vor seiner eigenen Geschichte fürchtete.”
48
Cf. Peter Stachel, Mythos Heldenplatz (Vienna, 2002), 75–77.
49
For Francis Joseph as the heir of Augustus, Charlemagne, and Charles V, see: Joseph Calasanz Arneth, “Vortrag
über Augustus, Karl den Großen, Karl V. und ihre Monumente in Österreich,” Almanach der kaiserlichen Akademie
der Wissenschaften 4 (1854): 173–87.
50
See Brigitte Mazohl and Karin Schneider, “Translatio imperii? Reichsidee und Kaisermythos in der
Habsburgermonarchie,” in Was vom Alten Reiche blieb. Deutungen, Institutionen und Bilder des frühneuzeitlichen
Heiligen Römischen Reiches Deutscher Nation im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert, ed. Matthias Asche, Thomas Nicklas,
and Matthias Stickler, 101–28 (Munich, 2011).
51
In summary: Werner Telesko, Kulturraum Österreich. Die Identität der Regionen in der bildenden Kunst des 19.
Jahrhunderts (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar, 2008), 127–142.A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 49
FIGURE 3: Unveiling of the Monument of Prinz-Eugen on the outer Hofburg square 1865. Print in Leipziger
Illustrirte Zeitung, No. 1166, 4 November 1865, p. 320.
the standard of the 15th Army Corps and led the Habsburg troops in the decisive attack against
the enemy. His alleged shouted words Für’s Vaterland mutig vorwärts (For the fatherland with
courage ahead!) were without doubt inventions of a later time. Apart from following
descriptions in literary sources, Fernkorn’s statue followed the example of engravings that
depicted the same scene, among them that of Johann Peter Krafft’s painting Erzherzog Carl
in der Schlacht von Aspern from 1812 (today in Vienna’s Military History Museum).52 Ten
years later, for example, in 1871, artist Carl von Blaas chose the same moment of the
grabbing of the flag as the central theme when frescoing a lunette in the Hall of Fame of
Vienna’s Arsenal building.53 This shows the longevity of the image of Archduke Carl with
the flag in his hand and rushing ahead in the patriotic pictorial memory.
With Archduke Carl and the 1809 Battle of Aspern, the focused lieu de mémoire is a recent
one, unlike that of the second monument on the Heldenplatz where the issue of commemorative
content must be understood in a different way. Up until now, only members of the Habsburg
dynasty had been deemed worthy of having a monument built in their honor. Yet the same
outer Hofburg square was deliberately chosen to erect a statue (see Figure 3) of Prince
Eugene of Savoy (1663–1736).54 Unlike other important historical figures, Prince Eugene
52
Marianne Frodl-Schnemann, Johann Peter Krafft 1780–1856. Monographie und Verzeichnis der Gemälde (Vienna/
Munich, 1984), 30, 35, Nr. 46.
53
Werner Telesko, Geschichtsraum Österreich. Die Habsburger und ihre Geschichte in der bildenden Kunst des 19.
Jahrhunderts (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar, 2006), 410.
54
In summary: Bösel and Krasa, Monumente, 103–7, nos. 63–65; Telesko, Kulturraum, 148–49. Sources: ÖStA,
Kriegsarchiv (KA), Militärkanzlei Seiner Majestät (MKSM), Sonderreihe (SR; i.e., special series), Karton (K; i.e.,50 WERNER TELESKO ET AL.
barely featured in the fine arts of the nineteenth century. This despite the fact that because the
prince was not identified with any one particular nationality in the monarchy, he could
therefore be expected to have been accepted by a broad public. In this case, the
contemporary political goals of the House of Habsburg were projected onto the monument
to Prince Eugene in the Heldenplatz; they allude to the Conqueror of the Turks as the
embodiment of Austria’s “heroic age” and to his role as defender of western Christendom.55
It would be instructive to examine the genesis of this second monument on the outer
Hofburg square in the context of the new period of constitutional experiment, as exemplified
in the “October Diploma” of 1860 and the “February Patent” of 1861.
On 19 October 1860, following personal instructions he had received from the emperor’s
adjutant general, Count Karl Grünne, former head of Francis Joseph’s military chancellery,56
set out the emperor’s decision that the Prince Eugene monument would be based on a
design by Anton Dominik Fernkorn. The completed monument displays a clear correction
toward a gentler (more baroque-oriented) dressage movement of the horse on which the
prince is mounted. This slight raising of the horse’s front legs, a movement known as the
levade, created a dynamic tension between the relative stillness of the monument to Eugene
and the sense of movement in the heroic pose of the Archduke Carl monument in the
foreground.57 The costs of the monument came to 310,953 gulden and were borne by
the imperial adjutant general’s office,58 which underscores the monument’s direct links to the
monarch. The inscriptions on the plinth59 characterize Prince Eugene inter alia as a “wise
councilor to three Emperors” and allude to the Prince’s well-known remark—disputed by
some historians, however—that Leopold I was a father to him, Joseph I a brother, and
Charles VI a lord.60 Joseph Weilen’s song of the Noble Knight (Edler Ritter) contains the
lines: Oest’reich war ihm Weib und Kind (Austria was a wife and child to him, 2nd verse)
and Treue hast Du stets geübet, / Oesterreich so sehr’ geliebet, / ‘Oestrreich hoch!’ für
immerdar. (Loyalty you always practiced / Austria you always loved / ‘Long live Austria!’ for
evermore,” 5th verse) is also cited.61 The monument itself refers to the glorious deeds of the
box.) 50 (for the years 1860–1865). A summary of the planning history and statement of costs is provided in a history
compiled by Josef von Heidt around 1873: “Verwaltungsgeschichte der kaiserlichen Hof-Lust- und Garten-Gebäude
im XVII., XVIII., & XIX. Jahrhundert” (OMeA, SR 150, 273–75).
55
Stachel, Heldenplatz, 89–92; Elisabeth Grossegger, “Dramen als immaterielle Denkmäler im öffentlichen
[Theater]raum,” in Die Besetzung des öffentlichen Raumes. Politische Plätze, Denkmäler und Straßennamen im
europäischen Vergleich, ed. Rudolf Jaworski and Peter Stachel, 293–309 (Berlin, 2007), at 299.
56
KA, MKSM, SR, K. 50, no. 7, which describes the monument to Prince Eugene (to be executed “nach der von dem
Bildhauer Anton Fernkorn entworfenen Modellskizze”) as a “Pendant” to the statue of Archduke Carl, cf. Hans
Aurenhammer, Anton Dominik Fernkorn (publication of the Austrian Gallery in Vienna) (Vienna, 1959), 58.
57
A contract was subsequently concluded with the sculptor (on 13 November 1860), and the life-sized plaster model
was completed on 12 June 1861. See in general: KA, MKSM, SR, K. 50, nos. 31–54. Under point 1, Fernkorn undertook
to create the equestrian statue “mit Zugrundelegung der von Seiner Majestät bereits approbirten [sic!] Modellskizze in
derselben kolossalen Dimension” (as the statue of Archduke Carl [W.T.]).
58
Heidt, ca. 1873 (OMeA, SR 150), 253–62; according to a document of the military chancellery dated 19 October
1860 (KA, MKSM, SR, K. 50, nos. 7–30), the “A.H. Familienfonds” paid for the costs.
59
KA, MKSM, SR, K. 50, nos. 60–67: Arneth was instructed to make suitable proposals on 10 November 1860. These
were delivered on 15 November 1860.
60
Cf. Markus Kristan, “Denkmäler der Gründerzeit in Wien,” in Steinernes Bewußtsein I. Die öffentliche
Repräsentation staatlicher und nationaler Identität Österreichs in seinen Denkmälern, ed. Stefan Riesenfellner, 77–
165 (Vienna-Cologne-Weimar, 1998), at 86.
61
Joseph Weilen’s song Prinz Eugen, der edle Ritter is mentioned among the proposals for songs commemorating
Prince Eugene on the occasion of the unveiling ceremony that took place on 18 October 1865, cf. KA, MKSM, SR, K.
50, nos. 213–214.A RESIDENCE IN THE CONFLICTING FIELDS OF ART, POLITICS, AND REPRESENTATION 51
celebrated prince with a second inscription, “To the glorious conqueror of Austria’s enemies,” as
well as mentioning Prince Eugene’s victories on the battlefield, rendered in cartouches;62
likewise, the presentation of the military commander riding over a horse’s tail and other
Turkish trophies underscores his victories.
At the time when the two monuments commemorating Archduke Carl and Prince Eugene
were designed and planned, the demolition of the fortifications was about to start, which
meant a complete change in the urban profile of a town that was both capital and seat of the
court. The Grundplan (general plan) for the Ringstraße, the city’s enlargement project, shows
that the area around the imperial palace had been spared at first, with the intention of saving
this area for an imperial building project that later emerged as the Kaiserforum. This project
was intended to communicate both the Hofburg’s urban and symbolic function and to
accentuate its political importance.
Archduke Carl and Prince Eugene were to assume the function of “gatekeepers”63 of the
outer Hofburg Square by flanking access to the inner courtyard in a corresponding manner.
At the same time, they vividly referred to two founding myths of Austrian history, the
repulsion of the French and of the Turks.64 An example of the popularity of these themes is
Quirin Leitner’s “Historical Notes regarding the Artistic Depiction of ‘Austria’ for the
Vestibule of the Museum of Arms with Special Consideration of the Given Space”
(Historische Notizen über die künstlerische Darstellung der ‘Austria’ für das Vestibül des
Waffenmuseums mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des gegebenen Raumes, 4 November 1864).
According to Leitner, the “main character” of Austria resided in the “resolution of two major
tasks”: “first, in protecting western civilization against the barbarians of the east, and second,
in shielding the honor of the German Reich from the west.”65 The monument to the princes
can also be understood as a response, visibly expressed in public space, to the political claims
of the nationalists in the monarchy and to those of the Hungarians in particular. The
Habsburgs had liberated large parts of the Kingdom of Hungary from Turkish rule and had
integrated them into the Habsburg Empire thanks to Eugene’s military successes. In fact, to
remind the Magyars of everything that the Habsburgs had done for them, a monument to
Prince Eugene, executed by Jószef Róna, was also erected in front of the royal palace in
Budapest as late as 1900 and paid for out of the emperor’s purse, at a time when nationalist
conflict was at its most heated.
Where the monument to Prince Eugene gave specific content to the Hofburg, by contrast,
Caspar von Zumbusch’s 1888 monument to Maria Theresa (see Figure 4) across the
Ringstraße from the Hofburg’s Heroes Square did not simply focus on a specific historical
figure, but also offered a panopticum of an entire age.66 This statue marks the innovative
attempt to use important historical figures as a means of transposing the goals of Austria’s
62
The cost estimate dated 29 January 1862 (KA, MKSM, SR, K. 50, no. 91) contains various names of the prince’s
victories on the field of battle and the definitive inscriptions in addition to a sketch completed by van der Nüll.
63
According to Carl Meisl the monuments to Joseph II and Francis II (I) also embody the functions of the
“Guardians of Zion” in regard to the Hofburg complex: “Es ruh’t von Ihrer geist’gen Huth umschlossen, / und treu
bewacht das Erbe Ihrer Sprossen.” Carl Meisl, Das Monument weiland Seiner Majestät des höchstseligen Kaisers
Franz des Ersten. Festgedicht. Nach der feierlichen Enthüllung desselben, on 16 June 1846 (Vienna, 1846), 6.
64
A characteristic report in the Wiener Zeitung of 21 June 1862, no. 141, 933, describes the unearthing of “mehrere
[n] türkische[n] Gefäße[n]” (scil. dating back to the second Turkish siege of Vienna) during the excavation work for
the monument to Prince Eugene.
65
KA, MKSM, SR, K. 47 (unnumbered).
66
“[…] das Ganze löst sich in eine Reihe von Porträtfiguren auf, […]. Alle diese Porträtfiguren vereinigen sich zu
einem Gesammtbilde [sic!] der Zeit Maria Theresia’s.” Eitelberger, “Die Plastik Wiens,” 149.You can also read
