3. - Schlösser-Magazin

Nomination
for Inscription on the
UNESCO
World Heritage List
Nomination Form
Schwetzingen
A Prince Elector’s Summer Residence

Nomination
for Inscription on the
UNESCO
World Heritage List
Nomination Form
Schwetzingen
A Prince Elector’s Summer Residence

Contents
Nomination Form
1. Identification of the Property 7
2. Description 11
3. Justification for Inscription 33
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property 117
5. Protection and Management of the Property 125
6. Monitoring 149
7. Documentation 157
8. Contact Information 161
9. Signatures on Behalf of the State Party 165
Statements on the Nomination
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse 167
II. Report on the Historical Importance of the Garden: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós 185
III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen:
Dr. Klaus von Krosigk 194
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann 200
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker 209
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier 233
About the Experts 265
Imprint, Photo Credits 268

ARION FOUNTAIN
Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
„ “
… nowhere in the world is it possible to experience the confrontation of the two attitudes
towards Nature as directly and immediately as at Schwetzingen. The Trianon at Versailles
may offer a similar situation, but the Baroque gardens of Louis XIV and Marie
Antoinette’s landscape park are not immediately adjacent to each other, and artistically
less in tune with each other than the Baroque garden created by Petri and Pigage and the
landscape garden added by Sckell – for which Pigage continued to create buildings.

1. Identification of the Property
1.a)
Country
Federal Republic of Germany
1.b)
State, Province or Region
State of Baden-Württemberg, Karlsruhe
Administrative Region, European
Metropolitan Region Rhine-Neckar
Federal Republic of Germany
Schwetzingen
Baden-
Württemberg
Topographical location of
Schwetzingen.
1.
7

1. 1.c)
8
1. Identification of the Property
Name of Property
Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s Summer
Residence
1.d)
Geographical Coordinates to the
Nearest Second
Approx. centre of property (centre of Arion
fountain in palace gardens):
North: 49°23’01’’
East: 8°34’05’’
1.e)
Maps and Plans Showing the
Boundaries of the Nominated
Property and Buffer Zone
Map 1 shows the precise delineation of the
boundaries of the property nominated for
inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage
List, along with the boundaries of the
surrounding buffer zone.
The delineation of the property reflects the
integral chararacter of the palace buildings,
palace grounds, and Baroque town centre with
its historic lines of sight. The property begins
in the east with the original Baroque axis,
taking in the road and the nineteenth-century
buildings lining it, which give way to Baroque
buildings on each side. Following this comes
the Schlossplatz (palace square) aligned
along the same axis, including the Baroque
buildings along the square. The palace
and gardens are delimited by boundaries
unchanged for over two hundred years, and
the property continues along these bounds,
with the exception of an arm extending out
to the north along the road marking the
transverse axis.
The buffer zone encompasses the historic foci
of settlement which flank the main axis in the
east. It surrounds the nominated property so
as to preserve the historic views of and from
the palace gardens; this applies particularly to
the view out over the open countryside to the
west of the gardens. In the south the buffer
zone includes the historic hunting park with
its star-shaped arrangement of avenues, part
of the Baroque cultural landscape created
in Elector Carl Theodor’s time. Monument
protection legislation rules out any alterations
which would adversely affect the gardens,
both inside and outside the buffer zone.
1.f)
Area of Nominated Property (ha.)
and Proposed Buffer Zone (ha.)
Area of property: 78,23 ha
Area of buffer zone: 471,54 ha

1. Identification of the Property
1.
Map 1, Boundaries of the
nominated property (red) and
the buffer zone (green).
9

1.
10
1. Identification of the Property
TEMPLE OF APOLLO
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
„… among the most original architectural creations at Schwetzingen is the Apollo precinct with
the temple (from 1765/66) which belongs to two different spheres. From the terraced basement
facing the canal in the west the visitor must accomplish a quasi-ritualistic ascent through dark
tunnels lined with rough stone – as it were, through the sphere of the narrow, obscure, unfinished –
towards the sunlit upper platform with its ideal, Classical monopteros sheltering the god of order,
clarity and reason. At the same time and viewed from the other side, that is to say from the green
theatre, the temple surmounts the stage. Here Apollo is the god of the arts, leader of the muses
on Mount Helicon, where the hoof of Pegasus had called forth the well of Hippocrene. Its sacred
waters are represented at Schwetzingen by a small waterfall offered to humanity by two naiads.

2. Description
2.a)
Description of the Property
Geographical Position
Schwetzingen is located in the north west of
the state of Baden-Württemberg, on the lower
terrace of the Rhine plain, approx. 18km
southeast of Mannheim and 12km west of
Heidelberg. To the north of Schwetzingen
is the alluvial fan of the Neckar, which
flows from Heidelberg to join the Rhine
by Mannheim; to the west is the Rhine
flood plain, and there are extensive areas
of forest to the south. The historic lines of
communication of the Rhine itself and the
Bergstrasse, an old German trade route, along
with the contemporary Karlsruhe-Frankfurt
Neustadt
Kalmit
railway and the A5 and A6 motorways bear
testament to the importance of the Rhine
valley as a connection between north and
south.
Schwetzingen`s ease of access made it an
obvious focus of industrialisation in the
nineteenth and twentieth-centuries, a
process which brought with it an increase in
population density, and this is clearly visible
in the dense network of roads and the densely
built-up areas around the town, which extend
to the surrounding towns and villages of
Oftersheim, Plankstadt, Hirschacker, Brühl
and Ketsch.
Mannheim
Schwetzingen
Heidelberg
2.
Topographic map of the
Rhine Valley with the cities of
‘Neustadt an der Weinstraße’
(far left), Mannheim and
Heidelberg (far right). Shown
here is the axis, approx. 50km
in length, cutting through
the town, the palace and the
gardens and linking the hills of
Königstuhl and Kalmit (mapped
1994).
Top = north.
Königstuhl
11

92
12
88
87
89
90
91
16
8
86
52
15
14
50
51
61
60
64 68
67
55 23
32 31 31 32 33
57 56 57
30
32 31 31 32 33
22 24
29
28
11
12 9 13
4
80
2
85
79
40
49
53
58
59
65 66
38 38
57 56 57
44 43 37 39 37
48
47
36
42
41 38 35 38
36
45
46
33
33
34
10
3
1
80
29 29
29
6
5
54
34
17 20
7
84
18
19
81
63
62
21
83
25
69
70
73
26
82
71 72
74
78
77
N
76
75
27

Captions (italics denote a
selection of sculptures and
fountains):
A THE TOWN
1 Central Axis ‘Basis Palatina’
(Carl-Theodor-Straße)
2 Stables
3 Palace square
4 Former barracks of the
mounted guard
5 Rabaliatti House
6 Palais Hirsch
7 St. Pankratius
8 Ysenburg Palais
B THE PALACE AND
OUTBUILDINGS
9 Court of honour
10 Guardhouses
11 Palace (central block)
12 Kitchens
13 Upper Waterworks and
ice cellar
14 South quarter-circle
pavilion
15 Seahorse garden
16 Service yard and
Greenhouses
17 North quarter-circle
pavilion
18 Palace restaurant
19 Palace theatre
20 Ambassadors’ House
21 Coachman’s house
22 Court gardener’s house
23 New Orangery
24 Building materials
storehouse
25 Disabled soldiers’ barracks
26 Orangery
26 Dreibrückentor
27 Lower Waterworks
C CIRCULAR PARTERRE
28 Ages of the World urns
29 Parterres à l’angloise
30 Arion fountain
31 Parterres de broderie
32 Obelisks
33 Allées en arcades
34 Arbour walks (berceaux
en treillage)
35 Stag fountain
D ANGLOISES, BOSQUETS
AND ORANGERY GARDEN
36 Allées en terrasse
37 Lime walks (galeries de
verdure)
38 Four elements
39 Former mirror basin
40 Avenue of balls
41 Southern angloise
42 Temple of Minerva
43 Avenue of urns
44 Lycian Apollo
45 Northern angloise
46 Galatea basin
47 Birdbath
48 Pan
49 Southern bosquet
50 Boulingrin
51 Monument in honour of
gardening
52 Monument commemorating
archaeological finds
53 Northern bosquet
54 Former Quincunx
55 Orangery square
56 Green arcades
57 Four seasons
E BATHHOUSE GARDEN
58 Natural theatre
59 Sphinxes
60 Cascade
61 Temple of Apollo
62 Apollo canal
63 View from the temple of
Apollo
2. Description
64 Wild boar fountain
65 Water bell
66 Porcelain cabinet
67 Bathhouse kitchen
68 Bathhouse
69 Water-spouting birds
70 Pheasant yard
71 Pavilion and grotto
72 Diorama
73 Arboretum
F ARBORIUM
THEODORICUM/
MEADOW VALE
74 Meadow vale
75 Roman water tower
76 Obelisk
77 Temple of Botany
78 Basin, “Schwarzes Meerle”
(“Little Black Sea”)
G GREAT POND
79 Great Pond
80 Rhine and Danube
81 Chinese bridge
82 Tree nursery
83 Belt Walk
84 View to the village Brühl
85 Central Axis ‘Basis
Palatina’
86 View to the „Feldherrenwiese“
H TEMPLE OF MERCURY
AND MOSQUE
87 Temple of Mercury
88 View from the Temple of
Mercury
89 Mosque pond
90 Mosque with Turkish
Garden
91 Orchard
92 Zähringen canal
2.
13

2. An
14
View across the town, square,
palace and palace garden
looking west.
2. Description
Aerial Perspective
Schwetzingen’s appearance today, however,
is still largely determined by the landscaping
and building work carried out in the
eighteenth-centuries. This is particularly
impressive when viewed from above: an
axis of approx. 50km in length leads from the
Königstuhl hill above Heidelberg in the east
through the whole of the Rhine plain to the
Kalmit hill in the west-southwest (above the
town of Neustadt an der Weinstraße). The
town, the palace and the palace gardens are
aligned along this axis.
A road which originally led uninterrupted
from Heidelberg to Schwetzingen but which
is now only partially usable (extant sections:
Kurfürstenstrasse and Carl-Theodor-Strasse)
lends structure to the town centre and runs
through the Schlossplatz (Palace Square)
directly to the palace. The present pattern
of roads still bears testimony to how this
axis was originally made to run between
two irregular settlements in what is now the
town centre. Rectangular blocks of buildings
along the axis now connect the two original
settlements.
The axis broadens out into an elongated
square, the Schlossplatz, in front of the palace,
which is transected by the Leimbach stream
and the Karlsruher Straße and Schlossstraße
roads running alongside it (B36). At the west
of the square is the cour d’honneur of the
palace; the sides of the square leading into the
town are flanked with an almost unbroken
frontage of buildings.
The palace marks the end of the road
originally running from Heidelberg, but the
axis continues to the west in the form of paths
and lines of sight running through the entire
palace gardens. The palace stands at the
periphery of a large circular garden made up
of beds grouped around paths and avenues.
This great circular parterre is technically the
centre of the gardens, and is framed by two
quarter-circle pavilions and two similarly
shaped pergolas. The great east-west axis is
transected in the centre of the parterre by
an transverse axis which leads to the outer
limits of the gardens in the south and extends
into the town in the form of an avenue to the
north.
The gardens extend to the north and south
asymetrically. To the west, the great circular
parterre is bordered by geometrically arranged
bosquets, and it is surrounded on all sides by
a belt of landscape gardens. Bordering the
palace and the town to the east, the outer edge
of the gardens leads into the open countryside
in the west. The Leimbach stream, whose
course largely determines the boundary
between the palace gardens and the town, is
fed into channels running the whole length
of the boundary; in the west the watercourses
flow into an asymmetrical lake which
interrupts the central axis leading from the
palace. From here the axis continues along
a path leading beyond the gardens to the A6
motorway. The path is bordered by Ketsch
Forest to the south and by farmland to the
north.
Detailed Description of Property
Carl-Theodor-Straße
From the east one enters the property via the
Carl-Theodor-Straße road, which forms part of
the principal east-west axis. The road is lined
by espalier-trained lime trees (re-planted in
2004). Apart from a few nineteenth-century
buildings situated east of the Marstallstraße
junction, Carl-Theodor-Straße is flanked
by buildings originating in the latter half

of the eighteenth-centuries. Most of these
are two-storey side-gabled houses of simple
design. Alongside these, the electoral stables
stands out as particularly worthy of note, a
U-shaped two-storey construction of 96 metres
in length, with a three-storey pavilion at each
corner and a richly ornamented archway
in the centre (built 1750-1752; designed by
Artillery Major L’Angé). The building is
now put to commercial and residential use.
Further to the west, Carl-Theodor-Straße
widens into the Schlossplatz, or Palace Square.
Schlossplatz
The square is rectangular; it measures approx.
80 m x 120 m, with the shorter sides running
parallel to the street. Each side is lined with
two rows of chestnut trees. The southern end
is characterised by two-storey, side-gabled
buildings forming a continuous frontage.
Built as a barracks in 1752-56 for the mounted
guards (design: L’Angé), the original building
was divided into five residential houses in
1833. The slightly protruding corner building,
which now houses the Erbprinz Hotel, was
originally also part of the barracks.
The north side of the square is less densely
built up. In the north-eastern corner is
the Palais Rabaliatti, a two-storey mansion
with an arched doorway and balcony
(built in 1755; designed by Franz Wilhelm
Rabaliatti, Electoral Architect). Next to it is
the Kaffeehaus, a neo-Baroque addition from
1896, set back slightly from the square. Of
particular note is the neighbouring Palais
Hirsch (built in 1749; former ‚Palais Seedorf‘,
probably designed by Alessandro Galli da
Bibiena), a two-storey building standing apart
from the Kaffeehaus in the centre of the
north side of the square. Its door is framed
by pilasters on each side and an ornamental
panel above, and the corners of the house are
adorned with rusticated pilaster strips. In the
west corner stands the two-storey, front-gabled
Ritter inn (construction started 1789, hall
added in 1825), which leads into Schlossstraße
to the north.
2. Description
Cour d’honneur and Palace
The visitor enters the cour d’honneur, which
is almost as wide as the palace square, via
a bridge over the Leimbach stream. The
entrance is framed by two one-storey
guardhouses curving out towards the square.
The courtyard is dominated by the four-storey
main wing of the palace with its towers at
each side. The right-angled north and south
wings (built 1711-1712) resemble, with their
mansard roofs, the style of the buildings
in the palace square, but are set apart by
a central projecture with pointed gable in
the centre of each wing and four doorways
framed with aediculae.
The north wing now houses Schwetzingen’s
Tax Office, and the south wing the School of
Court Registrars.
2.
View from the palace roof over
the court of honour, palace
square and town.
The Carl-Theodor-Straße west
towards the palace square.
15

2. The
16
Cour d’honneur of the palace.
View from the palace roof west
towards the parterre.
2. Description
main wing originates in the fourteenthcenturies;
repeatedly altered since then and
extended to the west, its current form dates
from 1716. It displays a clear contrast to the
two side wings, with rusticated stonework
extending up to the first floor in the centre
and to the eaves on the two symmetrical
towers, which are adorned with cambered
turrets. The building is set back in the centre,
creating a courtyard enclosed on three sides.
Here we find the east facade of the main
wing, positioned at a slight angle to the other
facades in the cour d’honneur. The ground
floor houses the palace administration and
the Building and Maintenance Department
(Schwetzingen branch) of the State Agency for
Property Assets and Construction. The upper
floors are accessed via two straight flights of
stairs. They form the palace museum and are
furnished in the style of the latter half of the
eighteenth-centuries. The main wing retains
stucco ceilings from the reign of Carl Philipp
(1716-1742) and furnishings from the reign of
Carl Theodor (1742-1799). The second floor
has retained rare panorama wallpaper in situ,
put up by the Zuber company from Rixheim
at the beginning of the nineteenth-centuries
(1804).
The main wing’s east-facing facade has an
archway in the centre, through which one
enters the gardens.
Circular Parterre
Since the palace gardens are not visible
from the cour d’honneur, the archway
to the gardens resembles a threshold to
another world: after the enclosed space of
the courtyard, the gardens fan out in a wide
open space beyond the slightly raised terrace.
Immediately visible are the gravel paths,
lawns, flower beds, ornamental box hedges
and geometrically clipped lime trees of the
great circular parterre. At the centre is a
fountain with jets attaining almost 14m in
height. The parterre has a diameter of approx.
322m and is framed by two quarter-circle
pavilions, by arcades of clipped lime, and by
quarter-circle trellised walks (“bercaux en
treillage”) facing the pavilions.
The quarter-circle pavilions (north pavilion
built 1748-50, designed by Alessandro da
Bibiena; south pavilion built 1752-54, designed
by Franz Wilhelm Rabaliatti) are one-storey
constructions with large, arched French doors
along their whole length and each have five
projecting sections. These sections have
hipped mansard roofs, contrasting with the
plain gabled roofs of the sections joining
them. While the south pavilion’s two halls
(the Hunt Hall and the Mozart Hall) boast
richly ornamented stucco ceilings, those in the
north pavilion are plain in style. The north
pavilion leads to the palace theatre (Nicolas de
Pigage, 1752-1753), which has no facade of its
own. The auditorium is made of wood and is
shaped in the form of a horseshoe, with two

projecting galleries, and stalls gently sloping
towards the stage. The curved balcony rails
are covered in fabric, and the entire interior
of the theatre is decorated in shades of grey
and ochre, with neoclassical elements such as
lions‘ heads moulded in papier-mâché. The
proscenium arch is defined by Corinthian
pilasters in blue-green marbling. Resplendent
above the stage is the coat of arms of Prince
Elector Carl Theodor.
The circular parterre itself is transected by
a central path (allée principale) and two
parallel paths (allées secondaires), which are
crossed in the centre by three identical paths
running at right angles to them. There are
also paths running diagonally through the
circle and along its cirumference in front of
the quarter-circle pavilions; these paths define
eight sections in the form of sunken lawns
(boulingrins).
From the slightly raised terrace in the east, a
broad strip stretches to a fountain with two
water-spouting stags in the west (known as the
stag fountain, Peter Anton von Verschaffelt,
1766-1769). While the lateral paths take the
form of tree-lined avenues, the centre path
is free of trees. The east-west extension is
emphasised within the circular parterre by
two lawn parterres lined with flower beds
(parterres a l’angloise), the central, circular
pool (the Arion Fountain: approx. diameter
30m, attributed to Barthélemy Guibal, first
half of the 18th-centuries, probably from the
gardens of Lunéville Palace), four parterres
de broderie surrounding the fountain, and
a symmetrical pattern of lawn parterres
stretching to the west. The transversal paths
are all flanked with trees, including the path
in the centre. The elongated lawns between
the paths are also lined with a row of trees
on each side, so that altogether there are ten
parallel rows of trees along the transverse
(north-south) axis. Oval lawns mark the ends
of the lateral paths at the edge of the circular
parterre; only the central avenue continues
beyond the parterre to the north and south
boundaries of the gardens.
2. Description
The circular parterre is rich in statuary. The
four oval pools in the centre of the lawn
parterre are adorned with cherubs sitting
on swans and herons, from whose beaks
revolving water jets spout forth (attributed
to Barthélemy Guibal, first half of the
18th-centuries, probably from the gardens
of Lunéville Palace). Further decorative
elements are found in the form of the four
urns on the terrace symbolising the four Ages
of the World (Peter Anton von Verschaffelt,
2.
Obelisk in the transverse axis.
South quarter-circle pavilion,
exterior facing the circular
parterre.
17

2. 1762-1766),
18
Southern angloise, Temple
of Minerva.
Northern angloise, Rock of Pan.
2. Description
and four obelisks with teardrop
rustication on the lawns of the transverse axis
(Peter Anton von Verschaffelt, 1766-1769).
By the time the visitor reaches the Arion
fountain, he is forced to abandon the idea
that the gardens are as straightforward as
a first impression from the terrace would
suggest. At this point it becomes clear that he
has entered another world, entirely separate
from the town. The many and varied views
and glimpses (the transverse avenue, the
spires in the town, the Temple of Minerva,
the orangery, the cupolas and minarets of
the mosque, etc.) tempt the visitor to explore
further, while other paths, new focal points
and unexpected finds are hinted at but still
remain largely hidden. It is this hidden world
beyond the circular parterre that constitutes
the unique appeal of the palace gardens.
Principal Axis up to the Lake
The principal axis provides the initially
most obvious route to take. The central
path ends at the stag fountain, closing the
circle of the great parterre. The ground to
the west is approximately one metre lower;
but the transition is gentle, and although the
wide strip leading from the palace becomes
narrower at this point, it continues along the
same axis, extending the line of sight beyond
the circular parterre towards the west. The
lateral paths of the circular parterre extend
a little beyond its boundaries, but soon end
in low-set arcades of clipped limes (berceaux
naturels en arcades), forming a U-shaped
terrace with a rectangular lawn, from which
steps lead down to the lower-lying area. Up
to the beginning of the nineteenth-centuries,
an area of water fed by the stag fountain and
known as the mirror pool was to be found
here. The terrace is adorned with cone-shaped
yews and a total of eight lead vases (Peter
Anton von Verschaffelt, before 1773), and
framed by four seated figures, personifications
of the four elements (Peter Anton von
Verschaffelt, 1766-69). Ramps from the lawns
of the circular parterre lead to two parallel
paths forming an avenue which continues
to the lake located at the western edge of the
gardens.
The avenue is flanked externally by hedges,
and between the two paths lies a lawn with
eight herm pedestals, which are topped by
golden spheres rather than busts (Konrad
Linck, c. 1760?). Two paths cross the avenue at
right angles, enticing the visitor to explore the
bosquets to the north and south.
Angloises
Next to the circular parterre to the west are
small landscape areas known as angloises
on account of the meandering paths which
were originally to be found here. The centre

pavilion of the southern arbour walk frames
the view of the Temple of Minerva (Nicolas
de Pigage, 1767-1773, in collaboration with
the sculptor Konrad Linck), a prostylos with
Corinthian columns. It stands in a grove of
irregularly planted trees and has a pool in
front of it. A further feature of the southern
angloise is the “avenue of urns”, an area lined
by tall hedges to form a salle de verdure,
whose focal point is a marble sculpture of the
Lycian Apollo (Paul Egell, c.1746). The avenue
is adorned with eight lead urns (Konrad Linck,
before 1769) und pillar-shaped thujas.
In the northern angloise, the Galathea
fountain (Gabriel de Grupello, 1716, brought
to Schwetzingen from Düsseldorf in 1767
at the behest of Carl Theodor), stands in the
location occupied by the Temple of Minerva
in the south. The counterpart of the southern
avenue of urns is the birdbath or “zig-zag
pool”, a long hedged area in which shallow
watercourses meander from each end towards
a central pool, which sports two cherubs
riding sea monsters (attributed to Barthélemy
Guibal, first half of the 18th-centuries). There
are eight lead vases (Anton von Verschaffelt,
c. 1770) and four benches placed in the oval
hedged area around the pool. The whole area
is dominated by an oversized marble statue of
Bacchus (Andrea Vacca, prob. first quarter of
the 18th-centuries, brought to Schwetzingen
around 1766). A path leads off at right
angles to the birdbath and ends at a tufa rock
discharging water into a semi-circular pool,
atop which sits a statue of Pan (Peter Simon
Lamine, 1774).
Bosquets
The bosquets in the west of the angloises
are crisscrossed by a symmetrical pattern of
paths, all of which are lined with hornbeam
hedges. There are stone benches at the ends
of the paths, and various types of topiary.
At the centre of the southern bosquet is an
oval sunken lawn (“boulingrin”) with two
monuments standing nearby (Peter Anton von
Verschaffelt, 1771). The monument at the
south end marks archaeological finds, and the
2. Description
north monument celebrates Carl Theodor as
the creator of the garden (“Look and admire,
wanderer! She who did not beget this also
marvels, the great mother of all things, Nature.
Carl Theodor created this place as a refuge
from his labours for himself and his own. He
erected this monument in 1771.”)
At the centre of the northern bosquet is an
open square space originally featuring a
quincunx pattern of sculpted trees.
The bosquets are bordered to the north,
west and south by a raised avenue flanked
by chestnut trees (an allée en terrasse). Two
longer north-south paths run through the
bosquets to two large independent gardens:
the open-air theatre with the Temple of
Apollo and adjacent bathhouse in the north,
and in the south the Turkish garden with the
mosque.
Open-Air Theatre and Apollo Temple
The open-air theatre (Nicolas de Pigage,
1762) has a low-lying auditorium watched
over by six sphinx figures (Peter Anton von
Verschaffelt, before 1773) and a moderately
elevated stage framed by rows of hedges
forming the wings. Behind the stage, the
Temple of Apollo (Nicolas de Pigage, 1762)
rises above a wide artificial waterfall.
2.
The natural theatre and Temple
of Apollo, east to west.
19

2.
View of the bathhouse from the
wild boar basin.
20
Bathhouse, bathroom.
2. Description
Flights of steps lead up on both sides of the
waterfall, but the temple can only be reached
via a complex network of irregular steps or
via the grotto-like passageways built into
the artificial rock on which it stands. From
the theatre side, then, the temple appears to
stand upon a large rock; but on the east side
the base is revealed as a multi-level platform,
with the temple on the top level. The temple,
with its twelve Corinthian columns and
coffered ceiling, is named after the marble
statue of Apollo which it houses (Peter Anton
von Verschaffelt, before 1773). The elaborate
lattice designs adorning the platform take up
the theme of the sun god, with golden reliefs
depicting a face surrounded by rays.
Bathhouse
To the north of the Temple of Apollo is the
bathhouse complex, with a grotto containing
the sculpture of a wild boar (sculpture
attributed to Barthélemy Guibal, first half
of the 18th-centuries, probably from the
gardens of Lunéville Palace), the bathhouse
itself, an oval pool with water-spouting
birds, and a pavilion housing a diorama, a
trompe-l’oeil feature creating the illusion of
a vista through an artificial grotto out into
the open countryside. The various elements
of the complex, which are all aligned along
a longitudinal axis, come together to create
an overall work of art, with architecture,
sculpture, landscape gardening and painting
complementing each other to perfection.
The ingenious layout of the bathhouse and
its elaborate décor obscure the boundaries
between exterior and interior: the semicircular
anterooms connecting each side of the
building with the central oval reception
room reduce the time taken to walk through
the bathhouse to the briefest of sojourns
along the length of the otherwise open-air
complex; and the oval painting entitled
‘Aurora banishes the night’ which covers the
ceiling (artist: Nicolas Guibal, between 1768
and 1775) creates the illusion of a space open
to the sky. Only by deviating from the linear
layout of the complex does one gain access to

the other rooms in the bathhouse, which all
retain the original décor. Carl Theodor’s study
is lined with mirrors and landscape murals
(Ferdinand Kobell, c. 1775) which serve to
soften the limits imposed by the walls. The
tea room is decorated with ornate Chinese
wallpaper. A resting room and a bathroom
with a large walk-in bath complete the picture
as far as the number of rooms is concerned;
but it is impossible to do justice in such a
description to the wealth of detail afforded by
the bathhouse décor and furnishings. Suffice
to say that all the elements contributing to the
overall impression, from the bronze griffons
supporting the console tables in the oval room
through the neoclassical furnishings of the
side rooms to the snake’s-head taps in the
bathroom, bear testament to artistic skills of
the highest degree.
The sculptors Peter Anton Verschaffelt (1710-
1793) and Konrad Linck (1730-1793), painters
Ferdinand Kobell (1740-1799) and Nicolas
Guibal (1725-1784), stucco craftsman Joseph
Anton Pozzi (1732-1811), and the cabinet
makers Franz Zeller and Jacob Kieser were all
involved in the creation of the bathhouse; but
their works gain immeasurably from being
integrated into a whole, and for this the credit
must go to the designer Nicolas de Pigage
(1723-1796). Pigage’s creation is characterised
by the skilful integration of genuine and
artificial elements, such as real marble
and marble-effect stucco, tear-drop reliefs
and trompe l’oeil paintings of such reliefs,
bronze and bronzed stucco, which constantly
challenge the visitor’s judgment while
ensuring that the “fake” elements hold their
own alongside the “genuine”. This interplay
continues outside the bathhouse.
2. Description
Fountain with water-spouting birds, diorama
Leaving the bathhouse by the north entrance,
one finds oneself at a remarkable fountain
known as that of the water-spouting birds. A
semicircular arbour with elaborate latticework
frames an oval pool; in the centre of this pool
is an eagle-owl with prey, which is bombarded
from above with water spouting from the
beaks of birds perched on the top of the
latticework. Around the pool are two small
pavilions with ornately decorated seating
areas, and four aviaries. The song of the real
birds kept in the aviaries rounds off the effect
of the scene. Paths lined in latticework lead
from this space to small balconies affording
views of the surrounding parts of the gardens.
A courtyard leads from the water-spouting
birds to a long arbour walk (berceau en
treillage). At its end is a pavilion with an
artificial grotto decorated with shells and
semi-precious stones, aligned as an extension
of the walkway. The far wall of the grotto has
a semi-circular opening, and beyond this is a
slightly concave free-standing wall on which a
fresco of a landscape is painted. In reality, the
visitor’s view ends at this wall; but the effect
Bathhouse complex, waterspouting
birds.
2.
21

2.
22
Mosque and cloister
looking west.
Temple of Mercury.
2. Description
is of a vista out over a distant paradisiacal
landscape.
Mosque
To the south of the bosquets is the Turkish
garden with its mosque. The mosque
complex consists of a cloister-like latticework
colonnade on the east side (Nicolas de Pigage,
1779-1784) and a main building (Nicolas de
Pigage, 1782-1786) flanked by two minarets
(Nicolas de Pigage, c. 1786-1795) in the west.
The minarets project slightly from the west
facade of the main building, to which they
are connected by inward-curving walls. They
resemble oversized columns whose smooth
shaft is interrupted only by a single ring
and whose leaf-adorned capitals support an
additional structure. It is this additional
structure that establishes the columns as
minarets: they are crowned with two onionshaped
forms above a turret surrounded by a
fenced balcony.
The facade proper consists of a cube-shaped
single storey with parapet. Entry is gained
through a portico, and any severity in the
overall effect is obviated by windows with
round and pointed arches, and panels with
Arabic inscriptions. Behind the entrance
towers a round tambour capped with a slatecovered
dome. The interior of the mosque
consists of a circular central room with eight
columns and four niches. A door facing the
entrance leads off to the cloister to the east,
and two further openings at the sides lead
to adjoining rooms. The interior is richly
ornamented, with particularly salient Arabic
inscriptions (which here too are translated
into German) and unusual oriental-style
motifs such as crescent moons, rosettes and
five-pointed stars surrounded by rays.
Over the adjoining rooms are galleries
connected to the central room by a window.
A passage leads from the main building
to the rectangular cloister, which is clad
in trelliswork screens and is open on both
sides. In contrast to the berceaux en treillage,
however, the cloister is covered with an
intricately designed slate roof supported

y wooden columns. The trellises, too, are
elaborate in design and are adorned with
various decorative elements. At the corners of
the cloister stand octagonal pavilions capped
with oval tambours and domes. The interior
walls of the pavilions have mock supports in
the shape of palm trees, and the ceilings of
the domes feature a night sky with moon and
stars. The cloister ceilings, too, are decorated
with a pattern of stars.
Pavilions are integrated into the centre of
each long side of the cloister, at the point of
entry from the main building in the west,
and to mark access from the garden in the
east. They are decorated with aphorisms in
Arabic and German. Six more pavilions are
located beyond the cloister, connected to it at
right angles by covered passages. The most
remarkable attribute of the pavilions is the
“priests’ closets” they contain, small rooms
decorated so as to create the illusion of costly
stone materials, with stained-glass domes
set in the centre of the ceiling. Perhaps the
most eye-catching feature of the mosque is
the intricate roof, with its interplay of various
roof types all covered in slate, four gold-leaf
crowns on the domes of the corner pavilions,
and countless gold-leaf crescents dotted across
the whole structure. Seen from the east, the
roofscape gains in grandeur, set as it is against
a background of the central dome flanked by
minarets.
The cloister is embedded in an oriental-style
garden with meandering paths sloping gently
upwards as one leaves the mosque.
Landscape Gardens and Landscape Areas
Outside Gardens
The formal gardens have a geometrical layout
and are surrounded by a belt of landscape
gardens. To the west of the mosque is
a pond, and behind this a hill on which
the Temple of Mercury (Nicolas de Pigage,
1787-1792) is located. The south side of the
hill is fashioned in the form of a cliff, with a
narrow passage leading into a vaulted area
under the temple. The temple itself is an
artificial ruin in the form of a three-storey
2. Description
2.
View from the Roman water
tower into the ‘Wiesentälchen’.
Temple of Botany.
23

2.
24
Lower waterworks.
Upper waterworks.
2. Description
belvedere with a triangular form allowing
the visitor to look out over both the mosque
and the surrounding landscape. A belt walk
meanders along the boundary of the gardens
to the section of the lake which bulges out
to the west, and beyond this through an
assortment of clumps to what is known
as the Wiesentälchen, or Meadows. At its
western end are the Temple of Botany, the
Roman water-fort and the obelisk. Embedded
in a landscape including canals, bridges
and artificial rocks, the overall effect of this
group of buildings is very picturesque. The
Temple of Botany (Nicolas de Pigage, 1778) is
a cylindrical building whose exterior surface
resembles the trunk of an oak tree. Two
sphinx figures (Konrad Linck, c. 1778) flank
the steps leading up to the entrance. Inside
there are two decorative vases (Konrad Linck?)
and a marble statue of Ceres (Francesco
Carabelli, c. 1775). The walls are decorated
with stuccoed-relief portraits of the botanists
Theophrastus, Pliny the Elder, Linnaeus and
Tournefort; between these and the coffered
ceiling are representations of the twelve signs
of the zodiac.
Nearby are the artificial ruins of a Roman
water-fort set (Nicolas de Pigage, 1779) within
arches reminiscent of an ancient aqueduct. A
waterfall emanates from the centre of the far
wall into the canal flowing in front of the fort.
Steps lead to a vantage point from which the
whole complex is visible: one sees a second
aqueduct connecting the water-fort with the
lower waterworks located beyond the gardens.
To the west one sees the Arborium
Theodoricum, also known as the
Wiesentälchen or Meadows, a narrow strip of
land bordered by a canal on both sides and
resembling a forest clearing with a variety of
clumps; two paths lead along the Meadows,
ending at the Dreibrückentor, the point at
the northern end of the gardens where the
transverse axis crosses over into the town.

Areas Bordering the Gardens, and
Buildings Directly Adjacent to the Gardens:
Waterworks, Envoys’ Lodgings, Palais
Ysenburg
The palace gardens are enclosed on all sides
in the original fashion, with moats, fences and
ha-has; these devices protect the gardens from
trespass while often blurring the boundaries
between outside and inside the grounds.
The upper and lower waterworks immediately
adjacent to the gardens continue to fulfil
their original function, powered by the
Leimbach stream. The lower waterworks
(built after 1774 by Nicolas de Pigage), which
is connected to the Roman water-fort via an
aqueduct, retains a large part of the original
pump machinery and a bone mill (dated 1779).
The upper waterworks (built by Nicolas de
Pigage around 1760-1771) is immediately
adjacent to the north cour d’honneur wing of
the palace. The ground floor today houses the
customer service centre of the Tax Office. As
in the lower waterworks, the original pump
technology has been preserved; additionally,
the upper waterworks also retains a two-storey
icehouse originating in the period when the
waterworks was built.
Schwetzingen’s status as home to the court is
underlined by the presence of mansions such
as the envoys‘ lodgings (built around 1723)
and the Palais Ysenburg (around 1769).
2. Description
2.
25

2. 2.b)
26
2. Description
History and Development
Early History
Schwetzingen’s history can be traced back
to the Neolithic period (c. 5000 BC). Finds
from the Celtic (300 BC), the Suebi Nicrenses
(100 AD) and the Merovingioan (500-700 AD)
periods attest to the fact that its favourable
location in the alluvial cone of the Neckar
continued to be exploited by later settlers.
It was first mentioned as “Suezzingen”
(“belonging to Suezzo’s homestead”) in
the Lorsch codex for the year 766, and
in the records of 805 and 807 there was
an upper and a lower village. These two
foci of settlement can still be discerned in
Schwetzingen’s street layout.
From 1350 there is evidence of a castle in
Schwetzingen belonging to the aristocratic
Von Erlickheim family; in 1427 it passed
into the possession of the Counts Palatine
and started to be regularly used as a base for
hunting in the surrounding forests.
The village and the castle were razed to the
ground in 1635, during the Thirty Years War.
The castle was rebuilt from 1656 by Prince
Elector Carl Ludwig, but destroyed again
in 1689 during the War of the Palatinian
Succession.
Eighteenth-Century:
Conversion to Summer Residence
Prince Elector Johann Wilhelm (1658-1716;
Prince Elector from 1690) commissioned
the rebuilding of the site from 1698 to 1717
and had it extended as a Baroque palace: on
the east side the wings overlooking the cour
d’honneur were added, on the west the main
wing doubled in size. These additions to the
original complex were designed to stand in
strict alignment with the axis formed by a
line drawn across the Rhine plain between
the Königstuhl and Kalmit hills. When
Carl Philipp (1661-1742) became Prince
Elector in 1716, the main electoral residence
moved from Heidelberg to Mannheim,
and Schwetzingen was used as a hunting
lodge and summer residence. In 1718, Carl
Philipp’s architect Alessandro Galli da Bibiena
constructed an orangery to the west of the
palace (demolished around 1754) and created
a pleasure garden between the orangery and
the palace.
1742-1799: The Era of Carl Theodor, the
“Golden Age of the Electoral Palatinate”
The accession to power of Carl Theodor (1724-
1799) in 1742 marked the beginning of a new
era in Schwetzingen’s history. For several
months every summer between 1743 and
1778, Schwetzingen was home to the electoral
household along with the court orchestra, thus
functioning as the focal point of the Electoral
Palatinate. Work was carried out throughout
these thirty-five years to transform the palace
and gardens into an ideal summer residence,
one in which pleasure (recreation, enjoyment
and amusement) and necessity (the business
of ruling) could be perfectly combined.
From the 1750s onwards, the main residence
of Carl Theodor in Mannheim and his
summer residence in Schwetzingen evolved
into a centre of scientific and artistic
excellence of Europe-wide significance.
Schwetzingen’s function as a “court of
muses”, a space in which the arts and sciences
were patronised and given free reign to
flourish, played an important part in this
process. Schwetzingen offered a scope for
experimentation which would have been
unthinkable at Mannheim, bound as the main
court was to strict protocol; Schwetzingen
provided a space for the implementation
of ideas that in Mannheim were fostered
through the establishment of academies
(1763: Academy of Sciences; 1757: Sculptors‘
Academy; 1770: Drawing Academy; 1775:
German Society). This is attested not only
by the rich artistry found at the summer
residence, but also by projects such as the
surveying of the Electoral Palatinate, which
used as its base the axis running from
Heidelberg to Schwetzingen (Christian Mayer,
1763: publication of the manuscript Basis

Palatina; 1773: publication of the survey map
Map of Palatine at a Scale of 1:75000) In 1761
Schwetzingen was one of approximately 120
places across the world in which the Transit of
Venus (the passage of Venus across the face of
the sun) was observed and measured.
The advancement of theatre and music also
contributed to Schwetzingen’s European
standing: nowhere in Europe was the
programme of a theatre more varied. It
was in Schwetzingen that the first opera
was written and staged in German (Ignaz
Holzbauer, 1776: Günther von Schwarzburg),
and Schwetzingen’s theatre and opera
repertoire was generally critical of the
established hierarchy, presenting the public
with Enlightenment ideals. Visitors such
as Voltaire (1753), whose tragedy Olimpie
premiered in the palace theatre in 1762,
Leopold Mozart with his children Wolfgang
und Nannerl (1763), and Casanova (1767)
all bear witness to the appeal Schwetzingen
exerted during this period.
Prince Elector Carl Theodor was the focal
point of Electoral Palatinate society. Born
at Drogenbos Palace near Brussels in 1724,
Carl Theodor spent his childhood in Belgium.
After his father’s death in 1733 he succeeded
to the status of heir to the Electoral Palatinate,
and from 1734 onwards he was educated
in Mannheim by tutors including the Jesuit
Francois de Fegely, known as “Father Seedorf”
(1691-1758), who retained considerable
influence over Carl Theodor right up until
his death in 1758. Another figure who
enjoyed a position of influence at the court
was Carl Theodor’s wife, Elisabeth Auguste, a
cousin and grandchild of Prince Elector Carl
Philipp who had grown up in Mannheim and
Schwetzingen.
2. Description
Creation of Carl Theodor’s
“Garden Residence”
Finding in Mannheim an already functioning
courtly residence with what was at the time
one of the largest castles in existence, Carl
Theodor chose Schwetzingen as the place
to exercise his architectural whims, and
commissioned the building of an entirely
new kind of residence, one that incorporated
already existing structures but which focused
on the gardens.
The expansion of Schwetzingen that started in
1748 was planned so as to extend features of
the cour d’honneur eastwards into the town;
this is visible in the height of the buildings
and the roof types chosen. Square blocks
of houses were built along the main axis to
connect the two original mediaeval settlement
foci. With the annual use of Schwetzingen as
the Prince Elector’s summer residence came
the construction of small mansions at the
boundary of palace and town: Palais Hirsch
(1749; built for Carl Theodor’s confessor, the
Jesuit priest Franz Joseph Seedorf), Palais
Rabaliatti (1755; built for the court architect
Franz Wilhelm Rabaliatti); the Forestry
Office (1760; originally home to the electoral
gamekeeper), Palais Ysenburg (construction
started 1769; built for the electoral chief
gardener Van Wynder).
2.
Portrait of Prince Elector Carl
Theodor by Johann Georg
Ziesenis, 1758.
27

2. The
28
Plan for the circular parterre.
Johann Ludwig Petri, 1753.
2. Description
expansion of the palace which also began
in 1748 focused entirely on the gardens: the
existing orangery was sacrificed to make way
for the north quarter-circle pavilion (1748-
1750). After several rounds of planning,
the south quarter-circle pavilion including
ballrooms was added to mirror the north
pavilion (1750-1752). By this time Nicolas
de Pigage (1723-1796) was an established
figure at Schwetzingen, having first been
commissioned in 1749. Pigage, a Paris-trained
architect originally from Lunéville (Lorraine),
was involved in various construction projects
before eventually being appointed as director
of garden construction in 1761. The palace
theatre was constructed in the course of one
year (1752-1753); and Schwetzingen was
made a market town in 1759, an indication of
the growth in status the town had experienced
since becoming Carl Theodor’s summer
residence.
Between 1761 und 1764 the palace was
extended again, this time through the addition
of the “kitchen wing“.
In 1768, in conscious deviation from what
was accepted practice at existing courtly
residences, Pigage commenced construction
of a small maison de plaisance known as
Carl Theodor’s bathhouse. The bathhouse
was built in its own walled-off garden, and
with its reception rooms, study, bedroom
and bathroom, along with the freestanding
“bathhouse kitchen“ located nearby, it
provided a self-contained retreat for the
prince, still within the gardens but shielded
from the hustle and bustle of the palace.
While elaborately appointed, the bathhouse
testifies to a certain modesty on Carl
Theodor’s part, demonstrating as it does a
renunciation of absolutist self-aggrandisement
and confirming Carl Theodor as a man of the
Enlightenment.
Extension of the Gardens
In 1753, Johann Ludwig Petri (1714-1794), a
landscape gardener who initially worked at
Zweibrücken, delivered a plan for a circular
parterre which was to be positioned so as
to be framed by the quarter-circle pavilions.
This plan was largely implemented, and the
circular parterre now forms the centre of the
palace gardens.
The parterre was conceived as a richly
decorated feature from the beginning, as is
demonstrated by a string of contracts drawn
up with the sculptor Peter Anton Verschaffelt.
1761 saw the construction of a new orangery,
and work was started in the following year on
the Temple of Apollo and the open-air theatre.
Water supply to the eastern half of the
gardens, along with the level of water pressure
necessary for the water-spouting birds to

function, was guaranteed by the construction
in 1771 of the Upper Waterworks in the
immediate vicinity of the palace, a hydropowered
pumping station with elevated
water tank. By 1774 the Lower Waterworks
had been added at the north-west edge of the
gardens.
In 1776 Nicolas de Pigage travelled to
England, where he met Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell (1750-1823), a young man who
had grown up in Schwetzingen and who
had spent several years studying English
landscape gardening at Carl Theodor’s behest.
The following year, Pigage and Sckell started
work together on the Arborium Theodoricum
(known locally as the Wiesentälchen, or
Meadows), a narrow strip of land that was
fashioned so as to be reminiscent of natural
landscapes: the resulting masterpiece was the
first landscape garden in Southern Germany.
In 1778, Carl Theodor moved to Munich.
Although the prince took a number of artists
with him, Nicolas de Pigage and Friedrich
Ludwig von Sckell stayed at Schwetzingen in
order to complete their work on the gardens,
Pigage remaining there until his death in
1796, while Sckell eventually left in 1804.
That the gardens at Schwetzingen were
considered outstanding even during
their creation is borne out by the detailed
disquisition dedicated to them in the fifth
volume of Christian Cay Lorenz Hirschfeld’s
Theorie der Gartenkunst (Theory of Garden
Design), published in Leipzig in 1779-1785.
The years between 1779 and 1795 saw the
construction of the garden mosque, which is
now the last extant example of its kind.
The 1783 as-is plan by Friedrich Ludwig von
Sckell gives a precise outline of the largely
completed gardens (Munich, Bavarian Dept.
for State Castles, Gardens and Lakes).
The Temple of Mercury, which stands on an
artificial hill across a lake from the mosque,
was built between 1784 and 1792.
Work on the gardens was eventually
completed around 1795. A comprehensive
inspection lasting several weeks was carried
2. Description
out during this year, and the report, the
protocollum commissionale, has been
preserved. It lists the entire inventory of
buildings, gardens and features, and stipulates
how the gardens are to be used and preserved.
2.
As-is plan of the palace gardens
by Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell,
1783.
29

2. The
Title of the first guide to the
gardens, compiled in 1809 by
Johann Michael Zeyher (Photo:
Palace Library Schwetzingen).
30
2. Description
19th-Century: a Period of Dormancy
Napoleon Bonaparte’s rearrangement of southwestern
Germany in 1803 meant that the
Electoral Palatinate east of the Rhine – which
included Schwetzingen – fell to the House of
Baden. Johann Michael Zeyher (1770-1843)
was now responsible for the gardens in
Schwetzingen, and one or two final alterations
were carried out under his direction: in
1804 he created an arboretum to the rear of
the orangery, and in 1823-1824 he had the
large rectangular basin at the west end of
the gardens converted into a lake of natural
appearance.
The gardens had been opened to the public
since around 1787 (this being the date of the
first set of regulations for visitors to the site),
and public interest in Schwetzingen remained
high throughout the whole of the nineteenthcenturies.
It is hardly surprising, then, to read in
Zeyher’s first garden guide, published in
1809: “No distinguished visitor has travelled
through the area without tarrying in
Schwetzingen; almost all princes, all the great
and the famous have flocked to this German
Versailles, this St. Cloud, this Aranjuez, for
want of a better term for such a remarkable
place.“ Friedrich Schiller, Joseph von
Eichendorff and Ivan Turgeniev, to name just
three renowned visitors, all thematised the
palace gardens in their works.
The huge interest enjoyed by Schwetzingen
as a tourist destination throughout the
nineteenth-century is further documented
by the numerous engravings and countless
guides to the gardens dating from this period.
While the palace and gardens retained their
eighteenth-century character, the town of
Schwetzingen expanded as a result of latenineteenth-century
industrialisation (in 1870
Schwetzingen was linked to the Karlsruhe-
Mannheim railway line); nevertheless,
the Baroque features of the principal axis
remained unaltered.
Conservation and Maintenance in the
20th-Century
Interest in Schwetzingen remained high
throughout the twentieth-century. Numerous
articles published at the turn of the century
in the journals Gartenkunst (Garden Design)
and Gartenwelt (World of Gardens) bear
witness to “the great significance of the
gardens at Schwetzingen”, praising it as
“the best-preserved gardens of post-Classical
times“. Early interest in the heritage
value of the gardens is borne out by the
publication in 1933 of Kurt Martin’s seminal
500-page work Die Kunstdenkmäler des
Amtsbezirks Mannheim – Stadt Schwetzingen

(Monuments in the Administrative District
of Mannheim: The Town of Schwetzingen).
Major work was carried out on the palace
theatre during this period, and it resumed
business in the 1930s.
Schwetzingen was spared major damage
during the Second World War, with only
a few individual buildings (including the
railway station) bombed. The latter half of the
twentieth-century saw the implementation of
comprehensive measures designed to ensure
preservation of the property. Buildings were
meticulously restored; the statuary in the
gardens was replaced with reproductions
(the originals being moved to a permanent
exhibition in the orangery); the palace was
renovated (structural repairs to the main wing
1975-1982; restoration of interior 1984-1991).
The compilation of a management plan for
the gardens was followed by a judicious
programme of regeneration starting in 1970,
whose aim it is to conserve the character
intended by the original designers.
The annual, two-month Schwetzingen
Festival organised since 1952 by the regional
broadcasting corporation Südwestrundfunk
takes up the musical tradition of
Schwetzingen’s summer-residence heyday,
commissioning and staging contemporary
opera in addition ot the established Baroque
repertoire and thus continuing the tradition
of patronage cultivated by Carl Theodor.
With over 700 radio broadcasts every year,
Schwetzingen Festival is the largest radio
festival for classical music in the world.
2. Description
2.
31

2.
BATHHOUSE
32
Dr. Bärbel Pelker
2. Description
„ “
… it is a place of mental and spiritual regeneration, one in which the ideas of the Enlightenment
and of Freemasonry play an important part. Carl Theodor derived great pleasure
from spending the afternoon hours in the bathhouse philosophising with scholars of both
noble and common birth; contemporary sources attest principally to discussions on musical
theory and musical aesthetics. It was in the room at the centre of the bathhouse that Carl
Theodor himself tried his hand as a musician, playing the flute together with selected court
musicians or travelling virtuosos with complete disregard for established social boundaries.

3. Justification for Inscription
3 a)
Criteria under which Inscription
is Proposed (and Justification for
Inscription under these Criteria)
The title proposed in the tentative list, “Palace
and Gardens at Schwetzingen”, has been
altered and redefined in the course of the
preparations for nomination of the property.
The new title, “Schwetzingen: A Prince
Elector’s Summer Residence”, takes account
of Schwetzingen’s outstanding status as an
example of an eighteenth-century summer
residence on the one hand; on the other it still
acknowledges the unique status of the garden,
created within a clearly defined, specific time
period and in close connection with this
“summer residence” function and preserved
in this identity as a monument. Moreover,
the spatial layout of the garden embodies
exceptional aspects of a past cultural tradition.
Criterion (iii). Schwetzingen bears an exceptional
testimony to a cultural tradition which
has disappeared.
Under the rule of Elector Carl Theodor of the
Palatinate, Schwetzingen represents a classic
example of the cultural phenomenon of a
summer residence of the Enlightenment era
and inspired by its ideas – ideas expressed
by the iconography of the garden as much
as by the Elector’s fostering of the sciences.
The founding of the Palatinate Academy of
the Sciences, the opening of the library to
the public, the systematic investigation and
documentation of archaeological history
that was in its day unique in Germany,
the founding of scientific institutions like
the “Physics Cabinet”, the astronomical
observatory or a meteorological measuring
station, and the remarkably precise survey
of the Palatinate conducted in Carl Theodor’s
reign are all outstanding accomplishments in
the spirit of an Enlightenment considered to
place obligations on the ruler, too.
With the focus increasingly on learned
institutions, the nature and appearance of
courtly display changed. The number of
holidays and lavish festivities was reduced.
On the numerous occasions when aristocratic
visitors came to stay at the summer residence,
formerly taken as welcome excuses for courtly
pomp and circumstance, “the celebrations
are now no longer ostentatious but tasteful
and well chosen” (Schubart). It was in
the field of courtly music in particular, a
personal hobby of the Elector, that this new
cultural seriousness found its expression:
in the opportunity offered to all children
of the Palatinate domains to attend a music
school, the “Tonschule”; in its trailblazing
for what was to become the culture of the
modern orchestra; in the cultivation of opera
at Schwetzingen, where up to four different
operas per season were performed, each of
them more than once.
In this way the cultural traditions of the
summer residence found their expression
in music, in an extraordinary manner that
was unique throughout Europe. There are
a number of traits that are singular to the
summer residence, with its court orchestra
invariably present for six months every year:
1. A unique circumstance within the culture of
18th-century courtly music is the programmatic
distinction, within the opera repertory, between
the main and the summer residences. The
Schwetzingen season was reserved for comic
opera, performances in German, and subjects
pertaining to the Enlightenment.
In contrast to the formally celebrated
Mannheim operas, magnificently performed
on the name days of the Electoral couple
with much courtly display, the summer stays
at Schwetzingen were characterized not
only by a programmatic difference in the
music that was being played. There was also
a typological variety unique by European
standards (Opera buffa, Opéra comique and
German “Singspiel”), an extraordinary number
of new pieces, a progressive attitude towards
music and the private atmosphere of many
performances – as well as the chief venue
3.
33

3. itself,
34
3. Justification for Inscription
today the world’s oldest surviving
balcony theatre.
The musical culture of the Palatinate was
characterized by the sheer quality of the court
music in Carl Theodor’s time, the so-called
Mannheim School, in effect the beginning of a
modern orchestra, the specific traits of which
would be shaping European music. A number
of accomplishments that emerged from the
musical culture of Schwetzingen, itself part of
the “Palatinate School”, that have found their
way into music history: The composition and
quality of playing of the so-called Classical
orchestra; the progressive musical training
(a systematic instruction in playing and
composing) that came to be regarded, together
with that of the Palatinate “Tonschule”
founded in 1776, as a prototype to be followed
and imitated by later conservatories and
music academies; the development of the
Classical-Romantic orchestral technique; and
important contributions to the genre of the
concert symphony.
The cultivation of the comic opera that
remained a Schwetzingen specialty, and the
development of German reform opera, both
have an eminent place in musical history.
The decisive turn within the repertory of
courtly opera was accomplished in 1775, with
the performance of the German-language
opera “Alceste” by Anton Schweitzer at
Schwetzingen. With the premiere of Ignaz
Holzbauer’s opera “Günther von Schwarzburg”
on 5th January 1777, enthusiastically
celebrated by the contemporary audience
as the first German “national opera”, the
Palatinate court finally (albeit briefly)
established itself as the site and pioneering
institution of German reform opera.
As a summer residence, Schwetzingen
permitted the discussion of very modern
topics such as reflections on the corporate
order. Seemingly Arcadian social utopias on
the one hand, the notion of individual selfperfection
through knowledge and insight on
the other – the full range of Enlightened ideas
found its audience in this “musical Athens of
the German people”, as Schubart called it.
With Carl Theodor’s removal to Munich
this unique era inspired by the spirit of
Enlightenment, and this heyday of courtly
musical culture, both came to an abrupt end.
2. Schwetzingen’s musical culture is in
direct correspondence with the shaping and
furnishing of the garden, which in this way
becomes witness and memorial of a vanished
cultural tradition, and represents it in all its
depth and variety.
The specific character of courtly life at the
summer residence of Schwetzingen becomes
impressively evident in the large number of
venues for musical and theatrical performance
to be found in such a small space. The
variety of venues in the palace and gardens is
representative of that of the musical repertory
too. In 1774 Schubart reports in his “German
Chronicle” (Deutsche Chronik) that eminent
visitors were treated to musical performances
“every evening, at the bathhouse, or concert
room, or opera – Italian, French, and German
too”. The venues he is referring to are the
balcony theatre in the northern quartercircle
pavilion, the authentically preserved
stuccoed „Salle de jeu“ (today’s “Mozartsaal”)
in the southern quarter-circle pavilion,
and of course the bathhouse; the musical
genres corresponding to them were opera,
the “musical academies”, and the private
performing of chamber music. The “Natural
Theatre” with the “Apollo temple” as backdrop
prospect and its secluded auditorium guarded
by stone sphinxes was reserved for special
events such as the premiere of “L’Arcadia
conservata “on the occasion of the Elector’s
recovery from an illness.
The development of the garden was
coordinated with that of the court’s orchestra.
When the bathhouse was built Carl Theodor
created the post of a Cabinet Director of Music
whose duties would include the composing of
music suitable for this intimate new setting.
Conversely the garden itself became a
prospect for the theatre. The Arcadian setting
of many operas, the idealized vision of a
carefree rural life – they had become reality,

as it were, in the palace garden, the utopia had
found a place there, and it was only natural
that concrete elements of the Schwetzingen
palace garden should find their way into
painted scenes. The stage painter Giuseppe
Quaglio immortalized views of the garden’s
architectural features as scenery pieces in
a series of small watercolours (Apollo and
Minerva temples, Temple of Botany, Water
Tower, Mosque and Mercury temple). Operas
performed at Schwetzingen used the Apollo
temple as a prospect more than once (e.g. for
“Alceste”).
Criterion (iv). Schwetzingen as a princely
summer residence is an outstanding example
of an architectural ensemble which illustrates
a significant stage in human history.
The property, envisioned by Elector Palatine
Carl Theodor, planned by his congenial
architect Nicolas de Pigage and created
by eminent artists of the age, is a unique
synthesis of the intellectual and artistic
developments in the Europe of the second half
of the 18th-century. The turmoil of a society
in the period of transition from Absolutism
to Enlightenment is reflected by Elector
Carl Theodor’s retreat from his Mannheim
residence – one of the largest Baroque palaces
in Europe – into the intimate privacy of the
bathhouse in the Schwetzingen gardens, a
tiny pleasure palace modelled on Italian villas.
Schwetzingen demonstrates, in an exemplary
manner and on the highest artistic level, the
upheaval of European society towards the
end of the 18th-century. The transition in
art from Rococo to Classicism is reflected in
the personal artistic development of Nicolas
de Pigage, who started out by laying out a
formal Baroque garden and later, instead of
redesigning it once the landscape style gained
acceptance, as many others did, enlarged it
with the assistance of young Friedrich Ludwig
Sckell by congenially adding landscaped areas
and follies.
In the culturally and historically relevant
development of the princely summer
3. Justification for Inscription
residence, Schwetzingen marks both a high
point and a turning point.
1. The summer residence of Schwetzingen
represents the „most perfect synthesis of the
two gardening styles“ of the 18th-century.
Created for one and the same patron, the
palace garden, itself part of an ensemble
that is unique in the world, documents the
development of the philosophy of creating
Art out of Nature more vividly than any other
place.
The garden of Elector Carl Theodor provides
an excellent illustration of an epochal change
within European society as regards its
understanding of Nature and Art. The art
of the formal garden, which had reached its
magnificent zenith with French Baroque, was
replaced by a natural-looking style inspired
by picturesque arrangements. These two
gardening concepts with their opposing
characteristics have been connected at
Schwetzingen by way of paths and visual
axes, brought into tune with each other and
merged into a harmonious whole full of lively
contrasts. Sckell’s English landscape garden
surrounds the formal areas like a belt, creating
a new synthesis out of two domains.
A unique feature is the lavish and completely
preserved furnishing with a large number
of sculptures (the originals have been
mostly replaced with copies to protect
them from the weather, but are exhibited
in the “Lapidarium”) and architectural
elements, the “fabriques”. Every item of
the furnishing, whether in the Baroque or
the landscape garden, can be experienced
in its original context and thus create the
intended impression. While there are a
wealth of Baroque sculptures and important
fabriques in other gardens too, no other
18th-century garden presents the two stylistic
eras as closely interlinked and as lavishly
demonstrated as Schwetzingen.
Both garden styles are moreover distinguished
individually by remarkable artistic
achievements. The circular parterre by
Johann Ludwig Petri represents a unique
3.
35

3. layout
36
3. Justification for Inscription
of a monumental Baroque garden
room; the bosquets contain within their
classically laid out wooded areas unusual
elements (“Quincunx” and “Evergreen Copse”),
a sophisticated variation on a theme created
by Nicolas de Pigage; and the landscaped areas
were developed from the very first garden
created by Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell, which
was to prove style-forming for his work.
The contemporaneous expert public was
originally taken mostly with the garden
as a whole, blending as it does into a
harmoniously varied whole, a perfect work
of art (Leger, 1829), without stressing the
synthesis of the two great gardening styles
as particularly unusual, although what was
noted was the close succession of stylistic
peculiarities. To see the two styles that had
succeeded each other in the 18th-century
side by side could cause some irritation; it
was a unique occurrence in Germany, and
could be interpreted as an irresolute wavering
between the French and the English taste
(Count Platen-Hallermund 1815). At the
beginning of the 20th-century, however, the
focus was firmly on the element of opposites.
Schoch (1900) gives explicit praise to Sckell’s
achievement of “having connected the two
opposite areas by narrow strips deriving their
charm solely from the planting”, without
mixing styles. Sillib (1907) considers both
areas to be “characteristic monuments to
their style”; to him, the Schwetzingen palace
garden combines “wholly contrary styles
in a way barely to be found elsewhere; it
shows the changes in courtly art and culture
in the eighteenth-century in their abrupt
turn.” Finally, F. Hallbaum describes the
Schwetzingen palace garden in 1928 as the
“most perfect synthesis of the two gardening
styles“ in Germany. The appreciation awarded
both styles, and Sckell’s achievement in
particular, could not be taken for granted in
those years – the Landscape garden had fallen
out of favour with the expert public while
the formal garden was being rediscovered
in the general context of a historicist search
for national identity. As the very fact of the
preserved synthesis of gardening styles would
suggest, Schwetzingen again constitutes a
remarkable exception from the rule.
So it is that the palace garden, for the very
reason of its unusual and harmonious
combination of opposing, richly furnished
styles, always had a presence all its own.
The most eminent garden author of the
19th-century, the Englishman John Claudius
Loudon, writes about the Schwetzingen
gardens in his “Encyclopedia of Gardening”
that they ”are considered to be the most
delightful in Germany“. And Jean Charles
Krafft, the author of the highly respected
“Plans des plus beaux jardins pittoresques
de France d’Angleterre et de l’Allemagne“,
describes Schwetzingen as ”an ancient
residence of the Electors Palatine with a
garden considered the most splendid in
Germany, and not exceeded by many in
Europe”.
2. The palace garden contains outstanding and
highly individual artistic creations from every
one of its developmental stages.
- The “Circular parterre” constitutes a unique
accomplishment arising from a challenge
unusual in 18th-century European gardening:
to create a Baroque parterre, with its distinct
pull towards the distance, from the typically
serene, inward-looking circular shape. The
quarter-circle pavilions”, too, are unique
within late Baroque typology, with their single
storey, roof shape and the fact that they are
built on the same level as the garden – traits
that anticipate the development of the
orangery palace.
- The “Arborium theodoricum” is the first
work of Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell, who
not only created one of the earliest south
German landscape gardens at Schwetzingen
but also introduced what was to be the most
distinctive element in a long gardening career,
the meadow vale. Inspired by English models
(Lancelot “Capability” Brown’s “Grecian Valley”
at Stowe) he developed his own scenic diction,
with a stronger modelling of the surface to
justify the curving walks. The Schwetzingen

“Arboretum” is at the very beginning of a fullscale
fashion for arboreta that was to spread
throughout Europe in the following decades.
- The “Court theatre”, built as an annexe of the
northern quarter-circle pavilion, is the world’s
earliest surviving balcony theatre and the
ideal type of an acoustic space. It was one of
the first, and today is the last surviving, court
theatre built according to the demands raised
by progressive architectural theoreticians of
the time.
- The bathhouse is one of the last remaining
Baroque bathing facilities, and can still be
experienced in its own sophisticated, carefully
orchestrated microcosm. “The shape of the
building, too, is unique: a complex, historicalcritical
variation of Palladian villa architecture.
(...) Pigage’s avant-garde attitude towards
architecture shows in the details: with the
semicircular entrance conch partitioned off
with a pair of columns in place of the usual
temple portico, Pigage was the first to use a
motif found in Classical thermae architecture
for the exterior of a building, a solution that
was to become a leitmotif of early Classicism”
(Hesse, 2006). With its well-documented
furnishing and its dimensions the bathhouse
represents a turning point in the culture of
the summer residence. Its explicit, exclusively
private use in a very modern sense is an
entirely new feature of courtly garden use.
- The design for the Schwetzingen “Mosque”
uses inspirations taken from its predecessor
at Kew Gardens and from the work of Fischer
von Erlach to create a new and independent
synthesis. The Schwetzingen structure far
surpasses all garden mosques of its time in
its monumental dimensions, lavish décor
and high-minded programme. It represents
a serious attempt at understanding other
religions and philosophies and finding
common intellectual ground in a spirit of
Enlightenment-era tolerance. The Mosque’s
cultural and historical significance is not
merely in the fact that it is the largest garden
mosque ever built but in that it is today the
last surviving 18th-century specimen of
its type of architectural feature in European
3. Justification for Inscription
landscape gardens. It is hardly surprising
that Jean-Charles Krafft wrote about the
Schwetzingen Mosque: „The magnificence of
this monument is such that Europe cannot
offer the like”.
3. The summer residence of Schwetzingen
is completely preserved both typologically
(i.e. with regard to its function) and
topographically – a phenomenon unique in all
of Europe.
The ruler’s privilege of spending the
summers in an ancillary residence fitted out
specifically for the purpose reached its heyday
in 18th-century German-speaking Europe,
and took on a characteristic, ceremonially
underpinned appearance too. During the
reign of Elector Carl Theodor, a period lasting
several decades, the entire electoral household
would move from the main residence in
the city of Mannheim every year to spend
several months in the rural setting of the
summer residence at Schwetzingen. At
Mannheim courtly life was characterized by
pomp and ceremony; Schwetzingen offered
an opportunity for enjoyment and relaxation.
This period in Schwetzingen’s history, during
which it took on the role of summer capital
of the Electoral Palatinate, has determined its
layout up to the present day. The property
consists of a town aligned with the palace and
formally subordinate to it, the palace, large in
relation to the town and itself comparatively
plain in style, and the gardens – vast by
comparison and easily holding their own
with their numerous buildings and features.
The particular “summer residence” character
of court life at Schwetzingen is also evident
in the number of venues for theatrical and
musical performance within the property.
The concentration of features of cultural and
historical interest left by an era lasting almost
fifty years provides an unparalleled view into
the second half of the 18th-century. In the
town numerous buildings necessary for the
day-to-day working of the summer residence
have survived, among them the electoral
stables, the disabled soldiers’ barracks, the
3.
37

3. ambassadors’
38
3. Justification for Inscription
house and the wine cellars.
Where town and palace meet there are a
number of mansions such as the “Palais
Ysenburg”, “Palais Rabaliatti” and the “Palais
Hirsch” (formerly “Palais Seedorf”) as well as
historic inns.
On a smaller scale, the property has retained
a wealth of heritage technology in features
such as the Upper and Lower Waterworks,
the ice house, the bone mill, and the original
lightning conductors. The 1770s pumping
stations in the Upper and Lower Waterworks
are among the oldest preserved water-supply
systems of the modern era.
The obligation to preserve, reiterated several
times and maintained even under the aegis
of the Grand Duchy of Baden, resulted in
the summer residence becoming a “bois
dormant” shortly after its completion and
remaining largely unchanged to the present
day. It is for the very reason that the summer
residence lost its function that this function
can today be experienced in a fully preserved
monument. There was neither any redesign
to accommodate changing demands, nor
any significant modernising. Elector Carl
Theodor’s removal to Munich, and later
the Palatinate’s partial affiliation to the
Grand Duchy of Baden, indirectly led to the
ensemble’s enduring preservation, with all its
buildings, as a “Palatinate Monument” exactly
as intended by Carl Theodor, and from today’s
viewpoint as that of a vanished culture too –
namely that of the summer residence.
4. The summer residence constitutes a unique
synthesis of the arts interpreted as early as
the 18th-century as a memorial to a specific
territory (the Electoral Palatinate), a concept
unique in the Europe of that time and resulting
in preservation strategies that anticipate those
of modern monument protection.
The iconography of the palace garden was
supported from the very first by individual
monuments to authentic history. The most
obvious instance was the retaining of the oldfashioned
palace, not particularly suited for
its function as a Baroque summer residence
but serving as an archaeological entity, a
monument to dynastic remembrance. Carl
Theodor obliged his architects to treat the
centuries-old structure with respect – the
palace had been badly damaged more than
once in former centuries (Thirty Years’ War,
Palatinate War of Succession), but it had never
been pulled down. The prospect which the
corps de logis presents to the town weaves
diverse threads, drawn from Schwetzingen
palace history under the Electors, into a
graphic statement. From the keep of the
Count Palatine to the Medici crest of Johann
Wilhelm’s lady consort, the palace offered
a wealth of associations for interpreting the
Elector’s genealogical roots.
Even the Renaissance colouring of the exterior
facades was retained, despite the fact that the
colours contrasted strongly with those of the
quarter-circle pavilions and despite the new
Baroque square laid out in front – a further
underlining of the palace’s identity as a
monument to history.
Each act of architectural self-confirmation
implicitly enlarged the frame of reference,
from the “belvedere” interpretation of
the tower under Elector Ludwig V to the
visual extending of the residence into the
surrounding countryside; the axial alignment
created in Elector Johann Wilhelm’s time and
the passage cutting through the central wing
to create a visual connection to the garden,
terminated by the orangery as a symbol of
the Golden Age; finally under Carl Theodor
the identification of the territory with an
Arcadia created within the garden itself, with
the palace providing the symbolic link with
Palatinate history.
During Carl Theodor’s reign the recourse
to history was more marked, and more
systematic, than at any time before.
Archaeological excavations in the garden,
the discoveries interpreted as dating from
Classical times, were documented in situ with
monuments and served as authentic proof of
the validity of the iconographic programme
taking shape in the park’s buildings.

However, archaeological activity was not
limited to the summer residence. In 1749
Carl Theodor decreed that all “antiquities and
other monumenta” discovered in his territory
were to be handed in to the authorities,
in exchange for a financial compensation.
The decree marks the beginning of state
archaeology in the Palatinate, and set
a precedent in the history of German
monument protection. In order to document
topographic and historic features as well
as antiquities, the Palatinate “Academy of
Sciences” drew up a questionnaire that was
sent out to all municipalities in 1771. This
compilation of an inventory could well be
called the precursor of the surveys undertaken
by today’s State Offices for Monument
Preservation, and with it the Palatinate court
had assumed a pioneering position in the
history of European monument preservation
(Hensen 2009).
The redefinition of the old-fashioned
as a valued tradition carrying historical
significance, the emphasis on continuity,
was also applied to the garden itself – it
shows in the deliberate, conceptually
justified preservation of the formal areas as a
legitimate layer in time.
In 1778 Carl Theodor moved his residence to
Munich. Despite the loss of its function as a
summer residence the garden was not merely
maintained; it was completed, magnificently
and larger even than originally planned. The
iconographic bias shifted somewhat. The
mosque, the largest of the park’s architectural
features, and the Mercury temple were built in
those years; they represent a newly syncretic,
coded idiom. It is almost as if the Electoral
Palatinate, on the point of becoming history
itself, was to stand as an enduring monument
to the past, surrounded by a near-mythic glow.
From this interpretation, backwards-looking
now, of a Golden Age of the Palatinate, arose
a strategy of protecting and preserving that
now encompassed the entire property, not
individual relics of history. It anticipated
modern attitudes to monument preservation
by aiming to keep the whole of the garden as
3. Justification for Inscription
a ”Churpfälz[isch]es Monument“ for posterity,
as Nicolas de Pigage had postulated in his
”Protocollum commissionale“ of 1795. This
early version of a management plan goes
well beyond expressing general respect in its
very concrete suggestions for maintenance
and preservation. The idea of preserving the
garden completed in Carl Theodor’s time as a
“beautiful memorial” (Sckell 1804) was carried
on by the authorities in charge; as a report
by the “Grand Ducal Garden Administration”
states in 1882, almost a hundred years after
the ”Protocollum Commissionale“: “If we
but look closely, we will see the laudable
endeavour to preserve this creation of an
earlier century, so rare in Germany, as best the
disposable means allow. The gardener’s task,
to preserve that which is there, is being solved
to the best of the existing possibilities.”
This interpretation of the Schwetzingen
garden as a monument, which started very
early, in fact shortly after the garden’s
completion, and the lasting preservation
strategy that arose from it, are unique among
European gardens.
3.
39

3. 3.b)
40
3. Justification for Inscription
Proposed Statement of
Outstanding Universal Value
The town, palace and gardens of Schwetzingen
together constitute the most authentically
preserved example of an eighteenth-century
stately summer residence in existence today.
All the relevant buildings and features are
preserved, which comparison with other
properties shows to be exceedingly rare.
Courtly life found a unique manifestation at
Schwetzingen in the domain of music. The
programmatic connection between the opera
repertory performed there and the spirit of
the Enlightenment that was cultivated at the
summer residence was found nowhere else in
Europe. Courtly musical culture as practiced
at Schwetzingen served as a trailblazer for
German reform opera and is represented by the
numerous performing sites in the palace and
garden.
The multifaceted interplay of garden art,
architecture and sculpture renders the
Schwetzingen palace garden one of the most
outstanding garden creations in Europe,
and the very small amount of redesigning
resulted in a perfect synthesis of the two great
gardening styles of the 18th-century.
Schwetzingen is unique in that the entire
inventory of buildings and sculptures from
the second half of the 18th-century has been
preserved. It includes unique properties such as
the earliest surviving balcony theatre, the last
18th-century garden mosque still in existence,
and the exquisite bathhouse compound. With
the circular parterre and the meadow vale,
outstanding artistic creations of the Baroque
and the landscape garden eras have been
preserved. The world of the 18th-century comes
to life in the technical monuments of the two
waterworks and the relics of everyday life
preserved in the palace garden.
Besides this uncommon concentration of
original elements the visitor to Schwetzingen
will experience the ongoing efforts to preserve
and continue to preserve the garden in its
historic dimension by expert maintenance,
and in this way to provide insights into the
gardening of the 18th-century. The foundations
were laid by the patron himself, who
declared his palace and garden a “Palatinate
monument” and initiated preservation
strategies that anticipate modern approaches
towards monument protection, and who had,
even earlier than that, set another precedent
for German monument protection in his
systematic cataloguing and study of smaller
monuments.

3.c)
Comparative Analysis
Introduction
The property nominated for inscription,
”Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s Summer
Residence“ meets several of the criteria
set down by the World Heritage program,
namely: It is a ”group of buildings“ that
falls into the category of a ”clearly defined
landscape designed and created intentionally
by man“, and it bears a “unique testimony
to a cultural tradition”. The property’s value
results from the sum of its preserved features.
The focus of this comparison is therefore
on the material features that correspond to
criterion iv in particular. The structure of this
comparison conforms to the structuring of
the points in the justification. Every object of
comparison is introduced individually, and its
introduction is laid out according to the same
system.
The selection of objects was made with a view
to the two decisive main characteristics – that
of the electoral summer residence (or similar
function, such as a country residence), and
that of the outstanding synthesis of the two
great 18th-century gardening styles, the
Baroque and the Landscape style. Besides
the World Heritage sites featuring these
characteristics, other palace and garden
properties of comparable size, status or
quality were selected. No single feature was
used as an exclusion criterion; properties were
included on the basis of their comparability in
one relevant point, not in many or all.
The objects are described with a summary
of their history and brief outline of their
characteristics and then considered with
regard to the traits listed by the state party
as contributing to the outstanding universal
value of Schwetzingen. These traits are the
following:
3. Justification for Inscription
18th-century summer residence:
- Completeness of the features, furnishings
and buildings essential for a functioning
summer residence, and their degree of
preservation
- Urban and topographic cohesion (ensemble)
- Validity for the 18th-century, degree of
(functional) redesign in later years
Synthesis of the two 18th-century gardening
styles:
- Laying out of the landscape garden with no
redesign and/or structural transformation of
the formal areas, outside of the earlier garden
- Current degree of distinctiveness of the
respective styles
- Proximity in time of the two stylistic phases
- Degree to which an overall concept was in
place (uniting the two styles into a whole)
Furnishing (sculptural and architectural):
- Degree of preservation, each style considered
separately
- Concentration and variety of furnishings
Technical monuments:
- Type and year of construction
- Degree of preservation and operability
Authenticity:
- Degree of authenticity of the entire property,
not individual elements
- Authenticity with regard to the property’s
historicity
Following this comparison that regards the
ensemble as a whole, a number of individual,
outstanding artistic accomplishments
and unique elements or features of the
Schwetzingen palace garden will be examined
and compared within a European context: the
circular parterre, the “Arborium Theodoricum”
(Meadow Vale), the Baroque balcony theatre,
the bathhouse and the mosque.
3.
41

3. Comparison
42
3. Justification for Inscription
of Palace and Garden Properties
The Palace and Park of Favorite
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Baden-
Württemberg, city of Rastatt
Historical outline: From 1700 Margrave
Ludwig Wilhelm of Baden-Baden
commissioned the building of a residential
palace in Rastatt, with a planned city to
match, to replace a hunting lodge already
under construction. 1698 laying out of a
large game park; 1710-1725 construction
of the summer palace and hunting lodge of
“Favorite”, commissioned by the Margrave’s
widow, Sibylla Augusta of Baden-Baden;
next to the palace courtiers’ pavilions (1717),
two orangeries (1717/25) and a hermitage
in the “Fasanenwäldchen” or pheasant wood
(1718) are built from plans by Ludwig
Michael Rohrer; 1720-25 laying out of the
Baroque garden with artistic input by the
painter Franz Pfleger; 1771 after the death of
Margrave August Georg the margravate falls
to the house of Baden-Durlach; 1780 working
orangeries discontinued; 1788-1805 Margrave
Carl Friedrich of Baden-Durlach commissions
the conversion of the park into a garden
“in the English taste” by Johann Michael
Schweyckert; in the 2nd half of the 19thcentury
an arboretum-like plant collection is
added; 1964-1982 the palace is thoroughly
overhauled and restored; from the mid-1970s
the garden is restored on the basis of a park
management plan.
Characteristics: The palace and garden of
Favorite constitute an intimate, quite lovely
estate furnished in a very personal style. The
park is a classical landscape garden (without
follies) retaining Baroque elements and
also integrating more recent additions and
exotic trees. Even today a visit conjures up
the palace’s original purpose – to serve as a
place of aristocratic entertainment, hunts and
masquerades but also of quiet contemplation
and the enjoyment of the arts.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: central area with the
palace surviving intact; major parts of the
functional “fringe” (coach houses, stables,
servants’ quarters, nesting houses in the
pheasant run) are lost; no spatial connection
with a town established; the topographic
alignment towards the palace of Ettlingen and
location on the axis between Rastatt (main
residence) and Ebersteinburg still partially
visible in the countryside.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Landscape
garden integrating elements of the Baroque
layout; concepts and elements from a number
of stylistic phases clearly visible, but rather
than present a synthesis of two styles the
garden integrates individual elements.
Furnishing: Buildings (hermitage) survive; of
the statuary, only the column of a fountain
and the statues on the palace exterior remain;
the park never contained any follies.
Technical monuments: none.
Authenticity: Favorite is the oldest surviving
porcelain palace in Europe, and very
expensively furnished. The garden has been
carefully restored on the basis of research and
conclusive findings, in the appearance passed
down by history, with the landscape garden
largely intact. Lost elements have not been
reconstructed.
Summary
The character of Favorite is that of an
intimate summer palace, furnished in an

uncommonly personal and individual
taste (hermitage, porcelain collection) – an
impression only reinforced by the fact that
functional buildings and elements have
disappeared. Its comparatively small size and
massed furnishing are due to the status of a
Margravate. The garden has been redesigned
completely to become a landscape garden.
Bibliography
Rudolf Sillib: Schloß Favorite und die Eremitagen der
Markgräfin Franziska Sibylla Augusta von Baden-Baden.
Heidelberg 1914.
Richard Melling: Der Schlosspark von Favorite und seine
schönen Bäume. In: Badische Heimat, 30. Karlsruhe 1950.
Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hoffmann: Der architektonische
Garten, Renaissance und Barock. Hamburg 1965.
Walter Schwenecke: Parkpflegewerk für den Park des
Schlosses Favorite bei Rastatt. Karlsruhe 1979.
Hubert W. Wertz: Schlosspark Favorite bei Rastatt: In:
Garten + Landschaft, 5/1988, p. 28-32.
Ulrike Grimm, Wolfgang Wiese: Was bleibt.
Markgrafenschätze aus vier Jahrhunderten für die
badischen Schlösser bewahrt. Stuttgart 1996.
Manuel Bechtold, Sandra Eberle, Ulrike Grimm, Sigrid
Gensichen: Schloss Favorite Rastatt mit Garten und
Eremitage. München 2007.
Palace of Solitude
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Baden-
Württemberg, city of Stuttgart
Historical outline: Begun in 1763 under Duke
Carl Eugen, developed into a grand pleasure
palace by 1772; garden first laid out in Rococo
style by Friedrich Christoph Hemmerling,
from 1767 enlarged by Reinhard Ferdinand
Heinrich Fischer and furnished with many
buildings; from 1775 gradual descent into
obscurity and deterioration due to the ascent
of Hohenheim; translocation of several
buildings (church, stables).
Characteristics: According to Hennebo the
palace is representative of the somewhat
contradictory wishes for both a quiet place
of refuge and an opportunity for courtly
display. Notable for its time is the very
modern interest in the cultivation of crop
plants. Today the summer palace sits by itself,
like a solitaire gemstone, in the surrounding
countryside.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: ”Cavalierbau“ (courtiers’
house) with chapel, ”Officenbau“ (officials’
house) with theatre, ”Hall of Laurels“ with
Apollo temple, hedge theatre and stables all
denote functions of a summer residence.
Impressively linked (from 1764) to the main
residence by way of a perfectly straight
avenue; after a brief heyday the estate
suffered a rapid decline in the chaotic wake of
the Napoleonic wars.
Synthesis of gardening styles: lavishly
furnished Rococo garden on the brink of
3.
43

3. classicism;
44
3. Justification for Inscription
no redesign or additions in other
styles.
Furnishing: Nothing remains of the original,
uncommonly lavish furnishing (91 pieces
of garden sculpture alone, aviaries, “Chinese
House”) or the exterior decoration of the
palace.
Technical monuments: none.
Authenticity: The estate’s decline began during
Duke Carl Eugen’s lifetime; today only the
palace itself with the “Kavaliersbau” and
“Officenbau” and a few surviving foundation
walls (a pavilion, the so-called “Schlösschen
am Bärensee”) recall the size and splendour of
the garden.
Summary
The brief heyday, the small number of
surviving features, especially the loss of the
garden, and the lack of a direct connection
with a residential city constitute the main
differences between “Schloss Solitude” and
Schwetzingen.
Bibliography
Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hoffmann: Der architektonische
Garten, Renaissance und Barock. Hamburg 1965.
Die Gärten der Herzöge von Württemberg im 18.
Jahrhundert: Katalog zur Ausstellung in Schloss
Ludwigsburg vom 4.7. bis 1.11.1981 (ed. by Andrea Berger-
Fix und Klaus Merten). Worms 1981.
Michael Wenger: Schloss Solitude. München 1999.
Michael Wenger: Schloss Solitude: Der Garten als
Labyrinth. In: SSG Baden-Württemberg (ed.): Fürstliche
Gartenlust. Stuttgart 2002, p. 32-35.
The Palace and Palace Garden of
Ludwigsburg
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Baden-
Württemberg, city of Ludwigsburg
Historical outline: Built from 1704 by Johann
Friedrich Nette as a hunting lodge for Duke
Eberhard Ludwig, gradually extended and
completed, with a new ”Corps de logis”
(1724-27) by Donato Giuseppe Frisoni.
1717-24 construction of the hunting lodge
of “Favorite”; from 1709 construction of the
planned city of Ludwigsburg. South and north
gardens planned, laid out and altered several
times from designs by Nette (1709), Frisoni
(1715) and Johann Adam Classen (1729/33);
1749/50 under Duke Carl Eugen new design
for the south garden and both private gardens
(ascribed to August Wilhelm Sievert); in the
1750s laying out of the gardens in front of the
new “Corps de logis”; 1760-1765 building of
“dismantlable” orangery; 1764/65 construction
of the opera house east of the palace; from
the 1760s onwards the pleasure palaces
(“Monrepos”, “Solitude”), gardens and hunting
grounds are gradually connected by a system
of avenues; 1797-1804 simplified redesign
of the south garden under Duke Friedrich
II (from 1806 King Friedrich), installation
of four colossal urns by Antonio Isopi,
construction of lawn terraces in the north
garden, laying out of an English landscape
garden with a notable historic playground

east of the palace; 1803/04 construction in
the landscape garden of the “Emichsburg”
from plans by Thouret; west private garden
and front garden joined into one garden
(“Friedrichsgarten”); 1952-54 fanciful
“Baroque” redesign of the south garden for
the anniversary show (“Blühendes Barock”)
by Albert Schöchle, new paths laid out in the
east garden; many alterations in the 1970s and
1990s; from 1987 restoration of parts of the
garden modeled on the style of c.1800.
Characteristics: A largely preserved Baroque
palace compound of remarkable size; basic
original layout of the gardens survives with
some reductions in size, their Classicist
appearance overlaid by the alterations of the
permanent horticultural show, “Blühendes
Barock”.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: 1718-1733 and 1764-1775
main residence of the Dukes of Württemberg;
from 1797 used as a summer residence; from
the mid-18th-century massive alterations
to the layout of the town by its conversion
into a garrison town and the onset of
industrialisation; the spatial cohesion is
impaired by large newer structures, the
network of pleasure palaces, gardens and
hunting grounds is still recognizable in the
surrounding countryside.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Several starts
were made on the garden; never completed
in its Baroque shape, it was later redesigned
in the Classicist style and enlarged by the
addition of the eastern gardens.
Furnishing: rudimentary remains of
Baroque statuary, usually translocated or
replaced by copies; some railings and gates
survive; Classicist statuary incomplete,
architectural elements complete (preserved or
reconstructed).
Technical monuments: palace theatre stage
machinery largely preserved.
Authenticity: palace preserved as a Baroque
building, interior redesigned in Classicist
style, some of it restored to a Baroque
appearance. The garden was redesigned
3. Justification for Inscription
several times and altered thoroughly in the
1950s in the spirit of “creative preservation”;
some parts have been reconstructed based on
their appearance c.1800.
Summary
Other aspects (main residence, garrison town,
industrialisation) have obliterated most of
the characteristics of a summer residence,
only fragments of which remain visible. It
was only during the 19th-century that this
aspect of courtly culture was continued, albeit
in a different spirit. As a garden monument
Ludwigsburg is representative only of its
Classicist phase, and only in much altered
form.
Bibliography
Klaus Merten: Möglichkeiten zur Rekonstruktion des
Schlossgartens Ludwigsburg. In: DGGL (ed.): Sanierung
und Rekonstruktion historischer Gärten. Ludwigsburg 1978,
p. 102-108.
Dieter Hennebo: Stellungnahme zu einer Rahmenplanung
für die künftige Behandlung der Gärten des Ludwigsburger
Schlosses. Hannover 1983.
Elisabeth Szymczyk-Eggert: Der Ludwigsburger
Schlossgarten. Dissertation. Stuttgart 1989.
Eberhard Fritz: Schloss Ludwigsburg als Sommerresidenz
von König Friedrich. Höfische Repräsentation im frühen
19. Jahrhundert. In: Ludwigsburger Geschichtsblätter 58.
Ludwigsburg 2004.
Michael Wenger: Ludwigsburg, die Gesamtanlage.
München 2004.
Urte Gärtner, Rosemarie Münzenmeyer: Im Spannungsfeld
zwischen Gartendenkmal und Schaugarten. Die
Ludwigsburger Schlossgärten. In: Stadt + Grün, 3/2005, p.
42-47.
Helmut Wiegel: Landschaftsarchitektur –
Gartendenkmalpflege: Schlossgärten Ludwigsburg,
Parkpflegewerk. Bamberg 2008.
3.
45

3. Palaces
46
3. Justification for Inscription
of Augustusburg and Falkenlust
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Nordrhein-
Westfalen, city of Brühl
Historical outline: Augustusburg: from 1200
seat and hunting park of the Prince-Electors
of Cologne; from 1263 their preferred
residence; 1689 destroyed in the Palatine
War of Succession; from 1725 rebuilding of
the palace under Elector Clemens August
of Cologne from plans by Johann Conrad
Schlaun, 1728 garden laid out by Dominique
Girard; 1732 water canals constructed; from
1740 plans for the staircase by Balthasar
Neumann; 1768 building of the guardhouses
to complete Augustusburg; from 1788 parts
of the animal park were converted into a
landscape garden, construction of the Cottage;
from 1794 French property; 1815–1918
Prussian property; 1842 plans by Peter
Josef Lenné for conversion into a landscape
garden; put into practice from 1843 by Court
Gardener Hermann Claussen, park is opened
to the public; 1886-88 parts of the northern
garden are built over with a church; 1930-35
reconstruction of the garden parterre from
the Girard plan by Georg Potente; from 1948
up to 1990 used for receptions by the Federal
Government; 1964-65 simplified replanting
of the remains of the northern garden based
on the Girard plan; 1973-75 separate gardens
laid out in a quasi-Baroque style in the
former vegetable garden; 1983 new plans
for the parterre drawn up by the Office for
Monument Preservation.
Falkenlust: built from 1729 from plans by
François Cuvilliés as a hunting lodge for
hunting with falcons; 1734 inhabited for the
first time, by Elector Clemens August; 1741
final completion; from 1794 French property;
from 1807 private property; 1960 sold to the
state of Nordrhein-Westfalen; 1984 inscription
on the UNESCO World Heritage list; from
2000 large-scale restoration and preservation
work in progress.
Characteristics: The Baroque garden is a
late work by the artist-gardener Girard, and
profited from his experiences working on the
palace gardens of Nymphenburg, Schleißheim
and the Upper Belvedere in Vienna. Today
its central parts have been restored to their
original appearance. Lenné’s plans for the
redesign of the garden belong to his later
style, and integrated not only existing
Baroque structures and elements but also, as a
technological marvel, the railway tracks of the
Cologne-Bonn line that had been opened in
1844: an ornate iron bridge was to carry them
right across an area of ponds and islands.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Until 1794 Augustusburg
was the favourite summer palace and hunting
lodge of the Electors of Cologne, whose main
residence was their palace in Bonn; a Baroque
axis connecting Falkenlust and Augustusburg
survives; no connections established to the
city of Brühl; countryside developed by a
star-shaped pattern of avenues.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Baroque gardens
by Girard; 1788 parts of the animal park
landscaped; in the 19th-century conversion
into a landscape garden retaining and
integrating the basic Baroque structures; 1930-
35 first reconstruction of a Baroque garden
parterre in Germany, traces of Lenné’s garden
remain visible, but the emphasis is squarely
on the Baroque elements.
Furnishing: The statuary is lost, as is a ”Rural
Cottage“ from the late 18th-century landscape
garden, the Snail-Shell House and the Indian
House from the time of Elector Clemens
August.
Technical monuments: none documented.

Authenticity: The palace was only slightly
damaged during WWII; the very valuable
non-movable furnishings are preserved in
place, but a large part of the movable furniture
is missing; the Baroque garden parterre has
been reconstructed from the original plans
despite the loss of the statuary and the follies,
Augustusburg is an outstanding example of a
faithful reconstruction.
Summary
In contrast to Schwetzingen the estate’s
buildings are typical of the ”hunting lodge“
designation. Of the garden’s two styles, the
Baroque is dominant; furnishings from both
periods have been lost. The approach used in
the reconstruction of the parterre beds is quite
comparable to Schwetzingen.
Bibliography
Walter Kordt: Die Gärten von Brühl. Untersuchungen über
die Entstehung und Durchführung des Brühler Parkplanes
und die Mitwirkung Dominique Girards. Köln 1965.
Wolfgang Braunfels: François Cuvilliés. Der Baumeister der
galanten Architektur des Rokoko. München 1986.
Monika Hartung: Die Maison de Plaisance in Theorie
und Ausführung: Zur Herkunft eines Bautyps und seiner
Rezeption im Rheinland. Aachen 1988.
Dietrich von Frank: Die „maison de plaisance“. Ihre
Entwicklung und Rezeption in Deutschland. Dargestellt an
ausgewählten Beispielen. München 1989.
Ausstellungskatalog: Der Riss im Himmel. Clemens August
und seine Epoche. Köln 2000.
Wilfried Hansmann: Schloss Augustusburg in Brühl. Worms
2002.
Wilfried Hansmann: Schloss Falkenlust in Brühl. Worms
2002.
Nymphenburg Palace
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Bavaria, city of
Munich
Historical outline: From 1664 construction of
the first palace building by Agostino Barelli,
commissioned by Elector Ferdinand Maria
and his wife Henriette Adelaide and called
„borgo delle ninfe“ (Village of Nymphs); 1671
laying out of a small Mannerist garden; 1701-
1704 under Elector Max Emanuel extension of
the palace by Henrico Zuccalli, of the garden
by Charles Carbonet, construction of the
canal; 1714-1726 further extension of palace
and laying out of Baroque garden by Joseph
Effner and Dominique Girard, several follies
built (1725-1728 “St. Magdalen’s Hermitage”,
1716-1719 “Pagodenburg” by Francois
Cuvillies the Elder, 1718-1721 “Badenburg”,
1734-1739 “Amalienburg”); 1765-1792 12
statues and 2 giant urns installed in the
parterre; 1804-1823 garden converted into a
classic landscape garden by Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell; 1807-1820 construction of three
greenhouses from plans by Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell to house the large plant collections
of King Max I Joseph; 1865 construction of
“Monopteros” by Leo von Klenze.
Characteristics: Nymphenburg could rightly
be considered one of the most imposing
palace estates in Germany; the park still
presents itself in the shape given to it by
Sckell in the early years of the 19th-century;
parterre preserved in a simplified 19thcentury
appearance; remarkably high quality
3.
47

3. of
48
3. Justification for Inscription
the smaller buildings within the park,
particularly the Rococo “Amalienburg” palace.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: preferred summer
residence of the (Wittelsbach) Electors
of Bavaria, Kings of Bavaria from 1806;
Nymphenburg canal towards the city
centre preserved as a Baroque water axis,
its appearance in places altered by more
recent building; triple visual axes somewhat
impaired by railway lines and high-rise
buildings; working quarters (stables &c.)
largely preserved.
Synthesis of gardening styles: original Baroque
layout by Sckell largely redesigned in a
landscaped style with the exception of the
parterre, although the three radiating avenues
(patte d’oie) were retained (conversion of the
two flanking axes into landscaped meadow
valleys while the central axis with the canal
and cascade was not touched).
Furnishing: structures in the park, the so-called
”Parkburgen“ (“Pagodenburg”, “Amalienburg”,
“Badenburg”, the artificial ruin of “St.
Magdalen’s Hermitage”), group of sculptures
of Pan with a goat, and the parterre statues
and urns largely preserved.
Technical monuments: cast-iron pumping
stations in the ”Green Wellhouse“ (1803) and
“Johannisbrunnhaus” (1808) by Joseph von
Baader preserved and still in operation – they
constitute one of the most important technical
monuments in Bavaria.
Authenticity: palace with Baroque furnishing
largely preserved, in parts Classicist redesign,
minor war damage; Badenburg restored
1944 after heavy war damage (fresco in
vault reconstructed); park after extensive
planting of shrubs in the late 19th-century
(“Strauchgürtel”) and a longish phase of
neglect in the early 20th-century gradually
restored, from the 1960s onwards, to the
appearance of the Sckell layout; responsible:
Christian Bauer, who also drew up a
park management plan; from the 1990s
reconstruction of original paths from Sckell’s
plans.
Summary
Sckell redesigned the Baroque park of
Nymphenburg while respectfully retaining
the basic structure, the radiating triple
avenues – the central axis was kept largely
unchanged and was integrated into the new
design, the flanking axes remained as major
basic structures but were converted into the
meadowed vales characteristic of Sckell’s style.
Insofar as this constitutes a partial conversion
of an existing layout, Schwetzingen and
Nymphenburg are comparable, if only within
certain limits.
Bibliography
Carl August Sckell: Das königliche Lustschloß
Nymphenburg und seine Gartenanlagen. München,
n.d.(1837).
Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hofmann: Geschichte der deutschen
Gartenkunst, vl. 2. Hamburg 1965, p. 219-229.
Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell: Beiträge zur Bildenden
Gartenkunst. München 1823. Reprint Worms 1982.
Uta Schedler: Die Statuenzyklen in den Schlossgärten von
Schönbrunn und Nymphenburg: Antikenrezeption nach
Stichvorlagen. Hildesheim 1985.
Gesche von Deessen: Die Badenburg im Park von
Nymphenburg. München 1986.
Ulrika Kiby: Die Exotismen des Kurfürsten Max Emanuel
in Nymphenburg. Eine kunst- und kulturhistorische
Studie zum Phänomen von Chinoiserie und Orientalismus
im Bayern und Europa des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts.
Hildesheim 1990.
Gerhard Hojer, Elmar D. Schmid: Nymphenburg: Schloß,
Park und Burgen. Amtlicher Führer der Bayerischen
Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen.
München 1991.
Rainer Herzog: Die Behandlung von Alleen des
18. Jahrhunderts in Nymphenburg, Ansbach und
Veitshöchheim. In: Florian Fiedler (ed.): Die Gartenkunst
des Barock (Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees/
International Council on Monuments and Sites/Deutsches
Nationalkomitee, 28). München 1998, p. 7-14.
Uta Hasekamp: „Allein diese alte symmetrische
Gartenkunst (…) hat doch auch ihre Vorzüge“. Der formale
Garten im Werk von Friedrich Ludwig Sckell am Beispiel

der Gärten Nymphenburg und Schwetzingen. In: Die
Gartenkunst, 14/2002, vol 2, p. 244-252.
Rainer Herzog: Die räumlich-visuelle Struktur des
Schlossparks Nymphenburg. In: Die Gartenkunst, 14/2002,
issue 2, p. 289-305.
Rainer Herzog: Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell und
Nymphenburg: zur Geschichte, Gestaltung und Pflege des
Schlossparks Nymphenburg. München 2003.
Schönbusch
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Bavaria, city of
Aschaffenburg
Historical outline: 1775 redesign and
extension of the “Nilkheimer Wäldchen“,
an old wooded hunting ground, under the
Prince-Bishop of Mainz, Friedrich Karl Joseph
von Erthal (1719-1802) into a landscaped
„anglo-Chinese“ garden by Emanuel Joseph
von Herigoyen supervised by the minister
in charge, Wilhelm Friedrich von Sickingen;
construction of ”Red Bridge“ and Cascade,
electoral pavilion built by Emanuel Joseph von
Herigoyen; from 1783 further landscaping
redesigns and completion of the park by
the Schwetzingen court gardener, Friedrich
Ludwig von Sckell; 1814 princedom of
Aschaffenburg affiliated by kingdom of
Bavaria, estate becomes Bavarian “court
garden” until the end of the monarchy in
1918; in the 20th-century neglected at first;
thorough garden-historical examination and
restoration work from the 1990s.
Characteristics: Schönbusch mostly retains
the appearance created by Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell in an attempt to improve the
3.
49

3. somewhat
50
3. Justification for Inscription
amateurish landscape garden laid
out by von Herigoyen, who had no experience
with the style.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: served as something
similar to a summer residence for
Aschaffenburg, itself an ancillary residence of
the Electors and Archbishops of Mainz; from
1814 summer residence of the Bavarian Kings,
used in connection with the ”Pompejanum“
near Aschaffenburg; connected to the
“Johannisburg” across the Main river by way
of a visual axis; original working quarters still
in place.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The estate
emerged from a star-shaped Baroque hunting
park, which was, however, completely
redesigned during the landscaping of the
garden – even the parts adjacent to the
electoral pavilion are deliberately without
a formal layout. Only next to the kitchen
building there is a small formal garden,
not visible from outside, with a basin and
decorative planting.
Furnishing: park buildings (Shepherds’
Cottages, Hamlet, “Temple of Friendship”,
“Philosopher’s House”, Lookout Tower) largely
preserved in their original condition.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: Electoral pavilion (i.e. palace)
preserved with the original 18th-century
furnishings; park’s appearance impaired by a
nearby power station; mounting hydrological
concerns – maintaining the authentic
appearance of the park (in particular, refilling
the lakes) increasingly difficult or impossible.
Summary
The estate is not directly comparable to
Schwetzingen; there was a Baroque phase,
albeit as a hunting park, not a garden, and
the park was completely transformed by
landscaping. Schönbusch nevertheless does
provide valuable material for comparison
as Sckell here endeavoured to continue
and develop, on a larger scale, what he
had introduced at Schwetzingen with the
“Arborium Theodoricum” and the other
landscaped parts of the garden.
Bibliography
Werner Helmberger: Schloss und Park Schönbusch,
Aschaffenburg. Amtlicher Führer der Bayerischen
Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. Mit
einem Beitrag von Heinrich Kreisel. München 1991.
Werner Helmberger: Neues zum Park Schönbusch bei
Aschaffenburg: die Baudaten der Jahre 1783-1793. In:
Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten
und Seen (ed.): Bayerische Schlösser, bewahren und
erforschen (Forschungen zur Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte,
5). München 1996, p. 207-238.
Jost Albert, Werner Helmberger: Der Landschaftsgarten
Schönbusch bei Aschaffenburg (Beiträge zur
Gartengeschichte und Gartendenkmalpflege). Worms 1999.
Jost Albert: Wiesentäler und Hügel bei Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell. Grundsätze, Arbeitstechnik. Künstlerische
Qualität. In: Die Gartenkunst, 14/2007, issue 2, p. 274-288.

Court Garden of Ansbach
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Bavaria, city of
Ansbach
Historical outline: from 1534 laying out of a
court garden under Margrave Georg; 1596
under Margrave Georg Friedrich the Elder (r.
1596-1603) construction of a ball and opera
house, probably by Gideon Bacher, laying
out of a ”Palm square“ and “Theatre square”,
construction of a pheasant and a falcon house;
1631-1635 decline due to the Thirty-Years’
War; from 1678 the garden became a centre of
courtly life under Margrave Johann Friedrich
(r. 1672-1686); from 1691 redesign of the court
garden by Johann Lorenz Loelius, construction
of an orangery; 1723-1731 rebuilding of palace
under Margravine Christiane Charlotte by
Carl Friedrich von Zocha; from 1724 redesign
of the court garden, probably also by von
Zocha; from 1726 construction of a large
orangery from plans by von Zocha to provide
a focal architecture for the garden (which is
situated to one side of the palace), completed
1744 by Leopoldo Retti; 1753 construction
of a greenhouse; 1755 dismantling of the
obstructive ballhouse between the garden and
the palace; 1771 laying out of a promenade
with a “Mailbahn” (Mail being a game
somewhat similar to croquet) in the garden;
1791 Margravate of Ansbach is taken over by
Prussia, and courtly life expires; 1794 redesign
of court garden as a landscape garden by
Johann Peter Kern; 1945 heavy war damage
to the orangery and garden; 1950s Baroqueinspired
redesign of the court garden from
plans by Kurt Hentzen.
3. Justification for Inscription
Characteristics: In its heyday during the first
half of the 18th-century a high-ranking French
Baroque garden, today dominated by the
quasi-Baroque redesign from the second half
of the 20th-century; the planting of the beds
approximates Baroque planting patterns.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Not a summer residence
but the court gardens of the nearby residence
of Ansbach, the separate location having
been dictated by lack of space; the orangery
takes the place of a palace and was used
for festivities during the summer months;
topographic connection with the city largely
preserved despite urban sprawl and roadbuilding.
Synthesis of gardening styles: redesign as a
landscape garden from the late 18th-century,
largely overlaid by the new quasi-Baroque
layout created in the 20th-century.
Furnishing: no statuary in the parterre,
there probably never was; off to one side
a monument to Johann Peter Uz by Carl
Alexander von Heideloff.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: orangery heavily damaged
in 1945, interior modernized during the
restorations of the 1950s-70s; garden area in
front of the orangery also mostly destroyed
in the war and restored in a creative neo-
Baroque style; the former kitchen garden laid
out as a rose garden post-1945, from 2001
redesignated as a medicinal herb garden, the
“Leonhart-Fuchs-Garten”, with a modern citrus
house added.
Summary
Comparability with Schwetzingen is limited.
The late 18th-century landscaping largely
eradicated the Baroque garden, retaining only
the transverse axis in the shape of a high
hedge of lime trees. After heavy war damages
it was decided in 1945 to redesign the estate
once again, in a formal, quasi-Baroque style
that does not, however, hark back to the
original Baroque. There never was coexistence,
let alone intertwining of styles at Ansbach.
3.
51

52
3. Justification for Inscription
3. Bibliography
Altmann, [...]: Ein alter herrschaftlicher Garten. Der
königliche Hofgarten in Ansbach/vom kgl. Oberhofgärtner
Altmann. Separate print in: Die Gartenwelt, 7/1903, Nr. 17,
p. 193-199.
Erich Bachmann: Sieben Pläne zur Geschichte des
Ansbacher Hofgartens von 1723-1726. In: Jahrbuch für
fränkische Landesforschung, 23/1963, n.p.
Ulrike Ankele: Der Ansbacher Hofgarten im 18. Jahrhundert
(Mag.-Arb., Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-
Nürnberg, 1987). Erlangen 1987.
Graf Christoph Pfeil: Residenz Ansbach mit Hofgarten und
Orangerie (Mittelfränkische Studien). München 2005.
Bernd Ringholz: Die neue Orangerie im Ansbacher
Hofgarten In: Simone Balsam, John Ziesemer: Orangerien
in Europa. Vom fürstlichem Vermögen und gärtnerischer
Kunst (Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees/ICOMOS,
Internationaler Rat für Denkmäler und Schutzgebiete, 43).
München 2007, p. 24-27.
Hermitage Bayreuth
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Bavaria, city of
Bayreuth
Historical outline: from 1715 building of a
summer palace (”Altes Schloss“) by Johann
David Räntz for Margrave Georg Wilhelm,
conversion of the hunting park into a
hermitage and laying out of a garden with a
simple parterre, a cascade and wooded areas
with hermits’ huts; 1735 property signed over
to Margravine Wilhelmine, followed by an
extension of the old palace and a reshaping
and enlarging of the garden towards the west;
1737-1745 construction of “Lower Grotto”
with birdhouse (“Nymphäum”); 1749-1753
New Palace built with the central “Sun
Temple” and the “Upper Grotto”, laying out
of a hedge garden, mainly by Joseph Saint-
Pierre; from 1758 after the Margravine’s death
gradual decline of the garden; from 1789
simplification and partial landscaping of the
bosquet areas under Margrave Alexander;
from 1789 large-scale dismantling of berceaux
and arbour walks; from 1806 taken over, along
with the Margravate of Bayreuth-Kulmbach,
by Bavaria; early 19th-century digging of a
canal with a lock in the bosquet area; 1819
construction of a bark cottage for Duke Pius;
some degree of neglect in the late 19th and
20th-centuries; 1945 heavy war damage,
New Palace partly destroyed; from the 1980s
reconstruction of the upper hedge garden and
canal; 1983 excavation and reconstruction of
the cascade next to the Old Palace.

Characteristics: Today the Bayreuth
Hermitage is largely restored to its mid-18thcentury
appearance; there are rudimentary
remains of the landscape garden, but they are
barely discernible; the estate as it looks today
is the result of the rebuildings and partial
reconstructions of the later 20th-century.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: for the Margraves of
Bayreuth; from 1806 for the Bavarian Kings;
topographical significance of the main
axis is visible and unimpaired; most of the
outbuildings have survived.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Conversion into
a landscape garden took place rather timidly
and somewhat incompetently, and today
very little of it is left or visible; there is no
synthesis of gardening styles.
Furnishing: the numerous original Hermits’
Cottages built in the 18th-century have not
survived; the Parnassus giving access to the
Old Palace has been preserved, but its statuary
is lost; Ruined Theatre and Antique Tomb
preserved, Japanese “Salettl” (summerhouse)
only partly preserved; bark cottages.
Technical monuments: Water Tower I of 1718
using the natural gradient and a system of
interconnected pipes, Water Tower II of 1750
has a ”Druck- und Stangenwerk“ based on the
system of the Marly machine; the tower with
reservoirs is preserved, the machinery is not;
technical contraptions overhauled in the 19th
and 20th-centuries.
Authenticity: New Palace partially
reconstructed after heavy war damage,
Old Palace largely intact; numerous park
structures lost; from 1983 upper hedge
garden reconstructed; Chinese Pavilion
and “Schneckenberg” reconstructed c.2000;
original grottoes preserved.
Summary
There is a limited amount of comparability
between Schwetzingen and the Bayreuth
Hermitage. The time of their creation is
similar, but the pre-existing conditions, the
topography and the individual characteristics
3. Justification for Inscription
are quite different. A synthesis of gardening
styles barely came about at the Hermitage,
and those rather timid attempts at
landscaping that did materialize are almost
unrecognizable today. Of the original, very
rich and varied garden architecture only a part
survives.
Bibliography
Georg Hübsch: Der fürstliche Lustsitz Eremitage bei
Bayreuth in den Tagen seiner Vergangenheit. Kunst- und
kulturhistorische Skizzen aus den Quellen bearbeitet.
Bayreuth 1924.
Sylvia Habermann: Bayreuther Gartenkunst. Die Gärten
der Markgrafen von Brandenburg-Culmbach im 17. und
18. Jahrhundert (Grüne Reihe, vl. 6; also: Dissertation.,
Technische Universität München, 1980). Worms 1982.
Stefanie Gansera-Söffing: Das Alte Schloß der
Eremitage zu Bayreuth in der ersten Bauphase unter
Markgraf Georg Wilhelm (ca. 1715-1722). Ein Beitrag
zu Typus und Funktion der höfischen Eremitage im
frühen 18. Jahrhundert. In: Archiv für Geschichte von
Oberfranken, 70/1990, p. 435 – 449.
Erich Bachmann, Lorenz Seelig: Eremitage zu Bayreuth.
Amtlicher Führer der Bayerischen Verwaltung der
Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. München 1997, p.
99-106.
Ingo Toussaint (ed.): Lustgärten um Bayreuth. Eremitage,
Sanspareil und Fantasie in Beschreibungen aus dem 18.
und 19. Jahrhundert. Hildesheim 1998.
Helmut Haas: Das Alte Schloss der Bayreuther Eremitage
als Programm. In: Archiv für Geschichte von Oberfranken,
80/2000, p. 253-264.
Wilhelm Ruckdeschel: Die Wasserkünste der Eremitage bei
Bayreuth. In: Wasserhistorische Forschungen: Schwerpunkt
Montanbereich; in memoriam Dr.-Ing. Martin Schmidt
(Schriften der Deutschen Wasserhistorischen Gesellschaft,
3). Siegburg 2003, p. 175-195.
3.
53

3. Court
54
3. Justification for Inscription
Garden and Palace of Veitshöchheim
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Bavaria, city of
Veitshöchheim
Historical outline: 1680-1682 construction
of a hunting lodge for Prince-Bishop von
Dernbach; from 1702 extension into a palace
and laying out of a pleasure garden under
Prince-Bishop Johann Philipp von Greiffenclau
(r. 1699-1719); 1749-53 further extension
by Balthasar Neumann; from 1755 under
Prince-Bishop Adam Friedrich von Seinsheim
(1755-1779) redesign of the pleasure garden
by Court Gardeners Georg Joseph Oth (until
1777) and Johann Anton Oth (from 1777) as
a Rococo garden, mostly finished by 1779;
from 1779 reduction of the maintenance by
Prince-Bishop Franz Ludwig von Erthal (r.
1779-1795); from 1803 increasing neglect
of the garden; 1806-1814 summer seat of
Ferdinand III of Tuscany, Elector and Grand
Duke of Würzburg; from 1814 property of
the Bavarian Kings; 19th-century: planting
of beeches (next to the parterre), plane trees
and weeping willows, although the court
rarely used the estate; mid-/late 20th-century
restoration of the garden’s appearance in the
1770s; from 2004 restoration of the palace and
partial reconstruction of the parterre based on
its layout in the late 18th-century.
Characteristics: The Veitshöchheim court
garden is considered the most eminent
Rococo garden in German-speaking Europe; it
was never turned into a landscape garden, and
after the restoration work done during the
19th and 20th-centuries the estate presents
itself in a condition approaching that of the
18th-century.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: for the Prince-Bishops
of Würzburg from 1680, originally built
as a hunting lodge; in the course of the
18th-century the garden gradually gains
importance in itself; the immediate vicinity
is impaired by railway-related building
carried out both in the 1840s and the 1990s
(ICE bridge); land originally occupied by
working quarters was sold and built over with
residential areas in the second half of the
20th-century.
Synthesis of gardening styles: hardly any, as
the 19th-century contented itself with some
planting of trees and a limited amount of
redesigning in the immediate vicinity of the
palace.
Furnishing: around 300 original pieces of
garden statuary created by the Würzburg and
Bamberg court sculptors, Johann Wolfgang
van der Auvera (1708-1756), Ferdinand Tietz
(1708-1777), and Johann Peter Wagner (1730-
1809) have been preserved; Indian Pavilions,
”Theatre de verdure“, Parnassus (1766),
Chinese Pavilion (1768), the Grotto or “Snail
Pavilion” (1772/73), and arbour pavilions have
all been preserved; the Cascade (1772/73),
destroyed in 1945, has not been rebuilt.
Technical monuments: Old Water Tower and
waterworks providing water for the garden’s
fountains still in operation; the historical
drainage system installed in the 18th-century
is being restored from 2008.
Authenticity: After having been used as living
quarters from the end of the 19th-century the
palace was furnished for use as a museum
in 1932; the furnishings are from the 18th
and 19th-centuries; the parterre next to the
palace has been restored; otherwise the
estate is largely preserved in its 18th-century
appearance, or has been restored to something
approaching it.
Summary
The Veitshöchheim court garden is
comparable to Schwetzingen with regard to its
lavish original statuary and numerous 18thcentury
garden buildings. The main difference

is in the merely rudimentary landscaping
done at Veitshöchheim that was even further
reduced by the reconstruction of the parterre
in recent times.
Bibliography
Adam Hessler: Geschichte und Beschreibung des
Königlichen Hofgartens zu Veitshöchheim. Mit einem
schematischen Plane des Gartens. Würzburg 1908.
Leo Gundermann, Heinrich Kreisel: Der Rokokogarten zu
Veitshöchheim. München 1953.
Ferdinand Dietz, Hans Konrad Röthel: Der Figurenschmuck
des Parks in Veitshöchheim (Werkmonographien zur
Bildenden Kunst in Reclams Universal-Bibliothek, 28).
Stuttgart 1958.
Alfred Hoffmann: Gärten des Rokoko. In: Colloquium
der Arbeitsstelle 18. Jahrhundert, Gesamthochschule
Wuppertal, Würzburg und Veitshöchheim, 26. - 29.
September 1976 (ed.): Park und Garten im 18. Jahrhundert
(Beiträge zur Geschichte der Literatur und Kunst des 18.
Jahrhunderts, 2). Heidelberg 1978, p. 36-47.
Burkard von Roda, Walter Tunk: Veitshöchheim. Schloss
und Garten. Amtlicher Führer der Bayerischen Verwaltung
der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. München 4. ed.
1982.
Rainer Herzog: Die Behandlung von Alleen des
18. Jahrhunderts in Nymphenburg, Ansbach und
Veitshöchheim. In: Florian Fiedler, Michael Petzet
(ed.): Die Gartenkunst des Barock (Hefte des Deutschen
Nationalkomitees/ICOMOS, Internationaler Rat für
Denkmäler und Schutzgebiete, 28). München 1998, p. 7-14.
Ferdinand Werner: Der Hofgarten in Veitshöchheim.
Worms 1998.
Arno Störkel: Die steinernen Wächter von Veitshöchheim.
Barocke Gartenplastik als Zeugnis untergegangener
höfischer Pracht. In: Mainfränkisches Jahrbuch für
Geschichte und Kunst, 53/2001, p. 91-102.
Jost Albert, Gabriele Ehberger: „Es kommen immer Leit
aus Würzburg und Fremde hierher...“. Zur Geschichte des
Rokokogartens Veitshöchheim (Begleitheft zur Ausstellung
der Bayerischen Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser,
Gärten und Seen). München 2006.
Jost Albert: Der Hofgarten Veitshöchheim - Instandhalten,
Konservieren, Reparieren, Sanieren, Rekonstruieren,
Ergänzen. In: Vereinigung der Landesdenkmalpfleger in
der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Regierungspräsidium
Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege (ed.): Noch „... eine
neue Heidelberger Debatte anfangen“? Rekonstruktion und
3. Justification for Inscription
Gartendenkmalpflege (Berichte zu Forschung und Praxis
der Denkmalpflege in Deutschland, 15). Petersberg 2008,
p. 49-62.
3.
55

3. The
56
3. Justification for Inscription
Palace and Park of Wilhelmshöhe
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Hessen, city of
Kassel
Historical outline: 1527 dissolution of
the monastery of Weißenstein, estate
afterwards used as a hunting lodge; 1606
replacement of the monastery building with
a Renaissance summer palace and garden by
Landgrave Moritz; 1701-1714 construction
of the “Octogon” and cascade on the wooded
Habichtsberg hill from plans, based on Italian
Renaissance models, by Giovanni Francesco
Guerniero, whom Landgrave Karl (1670-1730)
had met while traveling in Italy; only about
a third of the planned layout was actually
built; 1717 Hercules statue installed on the
“Octogon”; 1763-1785 under Landgrave
Friedrich II. (r. 1760-1785) construction of
the palace and redesign of the garden by
Court Gardener August Daniel Schwarzkopf
in an “anglo-Chinese“ style including many
architectural elements (“Mulang“ village
1782-1785 by Simon Louis de Ry, Pyramid,
Sibyl’s Grotto, Temple of Mercury, Socrates’
Hermitage); 1789-1795 Island of Roses;
from 1793 construction of the Löwenburg,
a neo-Gothic miniature castle; 1798 estate
named “Wilhelmshöhe“; from 1803 further
landscaping under Landgrave Wilhelm IX (r.
1785-1821), installation of two water displays
from plans by Heinrich Christoph Jussow,
de Ry and Karl Friedrich Steinhofer; 1826
construction of New Waterfall by Steinhofer;
1822 construction of the large greenhouse by
Johann Conrad Bromeis, one of the earliest
glass and iron structures in Germany; 1822-
1864 enlargement of the park in the area
surrounding the New Waterfall by Wilhelm
Hentze.
Characteristics: Wilhelmshöhe is considered
outstanding not least because of the numerous
and varied water displays made possible
by the estate’s location on the slopes of the
Habichtsberg hill. Inspired by Italian models
already a century old when the gardens were
first laid out, the monumental “water stair”
in particular, albeit only realised in part,
provided the estate with a distinctive identity.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe was
the summer residence of the Landgraves of
Hessen-Kassel from 1527 (although at first
used as a hunting lodge), after the annexation
by Prussia it was that of the Prussian Kings
(1866-1918) and from 1871 of the German
Emperors; the connection with the city by
way of an axis that extends well into the city
centre is still visible today, although the heavy
damage suffered by the city and palace during
WWII has changed the overall appearance.
Synthesis of gardening styles: It is remarkable
that for all the landscaping and extensions
in the late 18th and the 19th-centuries the
Baroque cascade was never in any danger – it
was always respected as an essential part of
the garden.
Furnishing: The early 18th-century water
stair and the numerous late 18th-century
water displays, the Waterfall, “Devil’s Bridge”
and Aqueduct have survived largely intact; a
large part of the more ephemeral decorative
buildings from the earlier landscape gardens

has been lost. The original statue of Hercules
is still in place, plans for more statuary on the
“Octogon” were never put into practice.
Technical monuments: The waterworks
and catchment area have survived intact,
functional and in operation, although
hardware items have been renewed – in some
cases, more than once. The New Waterfall is
no longer functional.
Authenticity: palace rebuilt after being heavily
damaged in the war, with only the outer walls
still standing; the park largely preserved
despite the loss of numerous follies and the
late 19th-century redesigns; Löwenburg also
damaged in the war and only partially rebuilt.
Summary
The Bergpark in Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe is
not a summer residence in the traditional
sense due to its close proximity to the city, its
characteristic peculiarities and topographic
situation. The estate was repeatedly altered
and partly redesigned, but the Baroque
cascade was never considered dispensable.
The park of Wilhelmshöhe is comparable
to Schwetzingen only insofar as it, too, has
been shaped both by the Baroque and the
landscaped style and the Baroque garden was
retained in its basic structures.
Bibliography
Paul Heidelbach: Die Geschichte der Wilhelmshöhe. Leipzig
1909.
Helmut Sander: Das Herkules-Bauwerk in Kassel-
Wilhelmshöhe. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der
Denkmalpflege und zum Wandel ihrer Methoden und Ziele.
Kassel 1981.
Hans-Christoph Dittscheid: Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe und
die Krise des Schloßbaues am Ende des Ancien Régime.
Charles De Wailly, Simon Louis Du Ry und Heinrich
Christoph Jussow als Architekten von Schloß und
Löwenburg in Wilhelmshöhe (1785-1800). Worms 1987.
Christiane Lukatis, Hans Ottomeyer: Herkules. Tugendheld
und Herrscherideal. Das Herkules-Monument in Kassel-
Wilhelmshöhe. Eurasburg 1997.
Albrecht Hoffmann, Helmuth Schneider (ed.): Technik
und Zauber historischer Wasserkünste in Kassel. Von den
3. Justification for Inscription
Kaskaden Guernieros zu den Wasserfällen Steinhöfers.
Kassel 2000.
Rolf Bidlingmaier: Die Bauten von Johann Conrad Bromeis
im Schlosspark Wilhelmshöhe. Regensburg 2003.
Thomas Ludwig: Der Herkules in Kassel. Herkules, Oktogon
und Kaskaden im Schlosspark Wilhelmshöhe. Regensburg
2004.
Horst Becker: Das Gesamtkunstwerk „Wilhelmshöhe“ in
Kassel. In: Die Gartenkunst, 17/2005, issue 2, p. 247-310.
Anja Dötsch: Die Löwenburg im Schlosspark Kassel-
Wilhelmshöhe: eine künstliche Ruine des späten 18.
Jahrhunderts. Regensburg 2006.
Horst Becker, Michael Karkosch (ed.): Park Wilhelmshöhe
Kassel: historische Analyse, Dokumentation,
denkmalpflegerische Zielsetzung. Regensburg 2007.
3.
57

3. Great
58
3. Justification for Inscription
Garden of Herrenhausen
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Niedersachsen,
city of Hannover
Historical outline: Raised to the status of a
summer residence in1666 by Duke Johann
Friedrich; earliest gardens by Michael Grosse;
c.1675 enlarged, with framing bosquets
added, by Henri Perronnet; 1676-80 extension
of the palace by Hieronymo Sartorio; from
1690 enlargement and redesign of the garden
commissioned by Duke (from 1692 Elector)
Ernst August and his wife Sophie, carried out
by Martin Charbonnier; from 1714 personal
union with England; until 1755 the Kings
spend every other summer at Herrenhausen;
1814 constitution of the kingdom of
Hanover; 1819-21 Classicist redesign of the
palace by Georg Ludwig Friedrich Laves;
1851-62 a summer residence again; 1862 the
permanent residence of King Georg V; 1866
annexed by Prussia; 1936-37 property of the
city of Hanover; restored, with alterations
in an imaginatively Baroque style, under
the direction of Hermann Wernicke; 1943
destruction of the palace; 1956/66 restoration
by Karl Heinrich Meyer; from 1999 redesign
of the former flower garden and restoration of
the parterres; 2008 restoration of the garden
theatre.
Characteristics: With its strong Dutch
influence the garden represents an
intermediate stage in history (Hennebo) and
conforms to the ideals of the French “Régence
style (Hansmann). Today it is characterized
by the creative reconstructions of the 1930s
based on surviving original features, and by a
large number of additions.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Herrenhausen served as a
summer residence, and occasionally a main
residence, for long periods of time. With the
exception of the palace itself all functional
features and premises survive; so do the axes
connecting the estate with the main seat of
power and the manors on the banks of the
Leine.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The large
garden was never redesigned to conform to
the landscaped style as Herrenhausen was
not used as a residence during that style’s
German heyday in the late 18th and early
19th-centuries. Later regarded as a monument
in the history of the Welfish dynasty, the
structure was preserved and individual
elements (buildings, sculptures) were restored.
Many water features were modernized.
Furnishing: Lavish 18th-century statuary
almost completely preserved, the originals
are displayed in the garden; in the 1930s
sculptures and urns from Salzdahlum were
installed in the newly laid out additional
gardens; no follies.
Technical monuments: none surviving from
the 18th-century; the water wheels and pumps
of the water features rebuilt in 1860 are
preserved and functional.
Authenticity: basic structure, major defining
elements and large parts of the Baroque
garden’s furnishing are preserved; in 1936
some characteristic “useful” features (the
orchards set into the triangles of the southern
bosquet area) and 19th-century buildings
(pavilion, “Kronprinzenwache” and numerous
greenhouses) were lost to redesign; today’s
appearance is largely due to the creative
reconstructions (parterre) and additions of the
20th-century.

Summary
Herrenhausen performed the functions of
a summer residence over three centuries,
and consequently represents that particular
culture in a way that is far less characteristic
of a specific time period than Schwetzingen.
The basic character of the garden is purely
Baroque; while the garden does not represent
a synthesis of consecutive styles it is
nevertheless the product of two eras – the
basic Baroque structure and the creative, i.e.
rather free, restoration based on it.
Bibliography
Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hoffmann: Der architektonische
Garten, Renaissance und Barock. Hamburg 1965.
Udo von Alvensleben, Hans Reuther: Herrenhausen. Die
Sommerresidenz der Welfen. Hannover 1966.
Winfried Hansmann: Gartenkunst der Renaissance und des
Barock. Köln 1983.
Hubert K. Rettich: Der große Garten zu Hannover-
Herrenhausen. Die Sommerresidenz der Welfen im Wandel
ihrer Nutzungen. In: Die Gartenkunst, 2/1992, p. 243-266.
Dieter Hennebo: Der große Garten zu Herrenhausen bei
Hannover. In: Monique Mosser, Georges Teyssot: Die
Gartenkunst des Abendlandes. Stuttgart 1993, p. 188-190.
Heimatbund Niedersachsen, Niedersächsische Gesellschaft
zur Erhaltung historischer Gärten (ed.): Historische
Gärten in Niedersachsen. Katalog zur Landesausstellung.
Hannover 2002.
Peter Königfeld: Die barocken Bleifiguren des
Heckentheaters im Großen Garten zu Hannover-
Herrenhausen – Anmerkungen zu Geschichte, Bestand und
Restaurierung. In: Michael Rohde, Rainer Schomann (ed.):
Historische Gärten heute. Leipzig 2004, p. 166-171.
Heike Palm: Neugestaltung des Blumengartens im Großen
Garten in Hannover-Herrenhausen. In: Erik A. de Jong (ed.):
Der Garten – ein Ort des Wandels. Zürich 2006, p. 171-182.
Zentrum für Gartenkunst und Landschaftsarchitektur,
Herrenhäuser Gärten der Stadt Hannover (ed.): „Prächtiger
und reizvoller denn jemals“, 70 Jahre Erneuerung des
Großen Gartens. Ausstellungskatalog. Hannover 2007.
Palace and Park of Ludwigslust
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, city of Ludwigslust
Historical outline: 1724-1735 construction
of a hunting lodge for Duke Christian
Ludwig II. by Johann Friedrich Künnecke;
earliest gardens laid out; 1741 redesign and
enlargement by Peter Gallas; from 1760
(1766 plan by Legeay probably not realised)
establishment of the large axes (canal, “Grand
cascade”, “Johannisdamm”); 1764 raised to
the status of a residence by Duke Friedrich;
1770 plan for a Baroque ensemble of a palace,
park and town by Johann Joachim Busch;
systematic restructuring of the town in the
early 19th-century; 1772-76 construction of a
palace in a late Baroque/early Classicist style;
from 1785 redesign and extension of the
gardens modeled on the English style, with
architectural features (church, “Swiss House”,
grotto) and monuments; 1837 re-transfer
of the residence to Schwerin, Ludwigslust
remains the summer residence; 1860 redesign
based on a beautification plan by Peter Joseph
Lenné, only partially realised; from 1997
restoration and partial reconstruction of the
water features and fountains, architecture and
statuary.
Characteristics: Formally the ”residence“
aspect is featured chiefly in the spatial
connections established between the palace
and town. The landscaped park is shaped by
a number of creative concepts superimposed
one over the other, each one only partially
realised.
3.
59

3. Topical
60
3. Justification for Inscription
Comparison
Summer residence: The ”residence“ function
(a formal and showy presence towards the
town and a comparatively minor emphasis
on the pleasure garden) overshadows the
characteristics of the summer palace and
hunting lodge. Even today the town is
impressive in the homogeneity of its layout,
its building style and the near-exclusive use
as building material of the plain brick dating
from the time of the residence’s foundation.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The design of
the 19th-century landscape park retained
major Baroque and early Classicist basic
features (axes, lawn parterres). The garden
is characterized by concepts and designs
superimposed over each other; no thorough
redesign was ever attempted.
Furnishing: No Baroque statuary surviving;
lamp-bearing sculptures, the 1788 monument
of Duke Friedrich (exact location much
altered in some cases – the ”island“ location
has been eliminated) and sculptures of the
“Grand Cascade” preserved, all from the
second half of the 18th-century; architectural
features preserved although the mausoleums
were altered during the late 19th-century;
two bronze sculptures dating from the early
20th-century.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: architecture and furnishings
largely preserved, overhauled and restored.
The park is preserved and maintained in its
present character, largely defined by the 19thcentury
landscaping and enhanced by more
recent additions.
Summary
The 18th-century layout, orientated towards
the town and quite imposing, is due to
the estate’s function of a main residence.
The changed identity as a summer
residence occurred towards the middle of
the 19th-century and resulted merely in a
beautification of the park in the taste of the
time, not in major refurbishments to adapt to
a new function. The park is a typical example
of various influences and styles superimposed
one over the other, with neither the Baroque
garden nor the 18th-century landscape garden
very distinct.
Bibliography
Gerhard Hinz: Ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der
mecklenburgischen Parkanlagen. Unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der schöpferischen Tätigkeit des Peter
Joseph Lenné. In: Die Gartenkunst, 1941.
Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hoffmann: Der architektonische
Garten, Renaissance und Barock. Hamburg 1965.
Josef Adamiak: Schlösser und Gärten in Mecklenburg.
Leipzig 1975.
Andreas Webersinke: Schlosspark Ludwigslust.
Fortschreibung der denkmalpflegerischen Zielstellung.
Unveröffentlichtes Manuskript. Rostock 2000.
Joachim Skerl, Thomas Grundner: Schlösser und Gärten in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Rostock 2003.
Birgid Holz: Barocke Orangerie- und Küchengartenkultur
in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. In: Landtag Mecklenburg
Vorpommern (ed.): Orangerien und Glashäuser in
Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. Schwerin 2009, p. 22-65.

Palace of Sanssouci
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Brandenburg, city
of Potsdam
Historical outline: 1744 laying out of six
vineyard terraces; 1745-47 construction
of Sanssouci Palace by order of Frederick
the Great of Prussia from plans by Georg
Wenzelslaus von Knobelsdorff; 1745
construction of a greenhouse and laying
out of a pleasure garden at the foot of the
vineyard; 1746 construction of an orangery;
1748 construction of Ruinenberg reservoir
by Knobelsdorff; 1751-57 construction of
Neptune Grotto; 1751-63 marble colonnade
built; 1752 construction of gardeners’ houses;
1754-56 Chinese Teahouse built by Johann
Gottfried Büring from a sketch by Frederick
the Great; mansion for Lordmarschall Keuth
built facing the palace; 1755 dismantling of
greenhouse, new gallery building constructed
by Büring; 1763-69 construction of New
Palace (Neues Palais) by Büring and Carl von
Gontard; 1768-69 construction of Temple of
Antiques by Gontard, to house the antiques
collection; 1769-70 Temple of Friendship
built; 1771-72 construction of Belvedere on
Klausberg hill (modeled on the Marcellum
magnum) by Georg Christian Unger, and
construction of Dragon House as a vintner’s
house; 1771-74 conversion of orangery into
guest quarters (Neue Kammern); 1773 glazing
of vineyard terraces; 1826 conversion of
Charlottenhof into a summer residence for
the Crown Prince by Karl Friedrich Schinkel
and laying out of a garden by Peter Joseph
Lenné; 1829 work starts on the Roman
Baths by Schinkel from plans by the Crown
3. Justification for Inscription
Prince; 1836-44 construction of the “real”
Roman Baths by Ludwig Persius, modeled
on a Roman house; 1841-42 Hippodrome
laid out by Lenné in the western part of the
park; 1841-43 steam engine hall by Persius;
1842 construction of a pheasant house;
1846 construction of Medieval Watchtower
on Ruinenberg hill by Ferdinand von
Arnim; 1847-52 construction of Belvedere
on Pfingstberg hill; 1851-62 new orangery
built; 1855-58 Lindtstedt Palace built; 1858-
60 gardens of Lindstedt Palace laid out by
Peter Joseph Lenné; 1889-94 construction
of a terrace on the garden side of the New
Palace; 1904 restoration of Dragon House;
1913 terrace laid out at the foot of the
orangery to celebrate the 25th anniversary
of Emperor Wilhelm’s reign; 1934-36
restoration of colonnade and the stone steps
of Sanssouci Palace; 1979-83 reconstruction
of the Sanssouci terraces; 1990 inscription
on the UNESCO World Heritage List; 1997
reconstruction of the Charlottenhof rose
garden.
Characteristics: Today the appearance of
Sanssouci is largely the work of Peter Joseph
Lenné, although those Baroque structures
based on sketches by Frederick the Great were
always preserved and Lenné’s large-scale plan
of 1816 was never put into practice.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: summer residence
of Frederick the Great, although lacking
extensive working quarters and intended for
a small number of selected companions only.
Used as a summer residence until 1918; no
connection with the town as the garden used
to be walled off; the dominant main axis is
actually a transverse avenue and again does
not relate to the town at all.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The French
Baroque garden was laid out based on
sketches by Frederick the Great himself
and was preserved largely intact over time.
The parterre at the foot of the vineyard was
redesigned in a Baroque style as early as
1840, in Friedrich Wilhelm’s time; 1763 when
3.
61

3. the
62
3. Justification for Inscription
New Palace was built large parts of the
Rehgarten area were landscaped; from 1786
clumps of trees and shrubs were planted
on the lawn parterre by Johann August
Eyserbeck; from 1822 the area was redesigned
by Lenné as a “pleasureground”; after 1891
neo-Baroque planting took place that was
reversed again in 1931; today the 19th-century
landscape gardens surround Frederick the
Great’s pleasure garden.
Furnishing: All buildings in the park have
been preserved with the exception of the
colonnade, as have most of the sculptures and
urns.
Technical monuments: steam engine hall with
pumping station built 1841-43.
Authenticity: All buildings survive with their
original furnishings; the Baroque pleasure
garden was never altered; the 19th-century
landscape gardens preserved too; the vineyard
terraces have been partly dismantled.
Summary
Sanssouci is comparable to Schwetzingen only
to a limited extent as the whole of the estate
was created solely for the King himself, not
for his court. A synthesis of gardening styles
took place no earlier than the 19th-century,
but as at Schwetzingen the landscaped
areas surround a core consisting of a largely
preserved, formal Baroque garden.
Bibliography
Christian Förster: Das Neue Palais in Potsdam. Berlin 1923.
Ausstellungskatalog: Schinkel in Potsdam. Ausstellung zum
200. Geburtstag, 1781-1841 (ed. by the Generaldirektion
der Staatlichen Schlösser und Gärten Potsdam-Sanssouci).
Potsdam-Sanssouci 1981.
Hans-Joachim Giersberg: Potsdamer Schlösser in
Geschichte und Kunst. Leipzig 1984.
Peter Joseph Lenné: Gärten, Parke, Landschaften. Berlin
1985.
Adelheid Schendel: Die Neuen Kammern im Park von
Sanssouci. Potsdam 1987.
Generaldirektion der Staatlichen Schlösser und Gärten
Potsdam-Sanssouci (ed.): Bauten und Plastiken im Park
von Sanssouci (ed. by Hans Hoffmann u. Saskia Hüneke).
Potsdam-Sanssouci 1991.
Hans Joachim Giersberg: Preußische Königsschlösser in
Berlin und Potsdam. Leipzig 1992.
Ausstellungskatalog: Potsdamer Schlösser und Gärten. Bauund
Gartenkunst vom 17. bis 20. Jahrhundert. Potsdam
1993.
Gert Bartoschek: Preußen. Kunst und Architektur. Köln
1999.

Garden Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Sachsen-Anhalt,
city of Wörlitz
Historical outline: 1698 building of a hunting
lodge; from 1764 an English garden is planned
and laid out by Duke Leopold III. Friedrich
Franz of Anhalt and his architect, Friedrich
Wilhelm von Erdmannsdorff, to surround
the future palace; 1767-68 construction of
Nymphaeum with ice cellar and vineyard;
1767-73 palace built; 1772 construction of
the White Bridge; 1773 building starts on the
Gothic House; 1774 construction of another
bridge (Hornzackenbrücke); 1775-76 stables
built; 1780 work starts on the Georgengarten
area; 1781 construction of “Bridge of Chains”;
1782 Rousseau Island laid out; 1783-84
construction of the Eisenhart with Library and
South Seas Pavilions; 1785 building of an inn
in the shape of a neo-gothic city gate; 1788-94
construction of the ”Stone“ island with Villa
Hamilton and “Vesuvius”; 1789-90 building
of the Synagogue and the Grey House for the
Princess; 1791 construction of Iron Bridge;
1793 construction of Amaliengrotte; 1794
Temple of Venus on the Luisenklippe finished;
1795-97 building of Pantheon; 1796 building
of the Probstei (“Provost’s House”); 1797-98
building of Flora temple as a music pavilion;
1797-99 building of palm house;1801-04
construction of the Monument, the last
structure to be added to the Wörlitz estate;
1805-09 village church redesigned in a Gothic
Revival style to serve as a point de vue; since
1983 large-scale restoration work is being
3. Justification for Inscription
done in the garden; from 1997 restoration
of the Stone Island; 2000 inscription on the
UNESCO World Heritage List; 2005 Stone
island reopened, Vesuvius functional again;
from 2007 restoration of the palace.
Characteristics: The Wörlitz estate, created
from 1764, is one of the earliest surviving
examples of a landscaped garden on the
European continent. It was created according
to the principles of enlightenment and
tolerance; the gardens, open to the public
from the beginning, were to provide both
pleasure and education. The palace is the
first building of what was to become German
Classicism.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: The Wörlitz estate is
not a typical summer residence; from the
very first the educational character took
precedence, and even the palace itself, until
1926 the residence of the princely family,
could be visited by anyone. Both the town
and the surrounding cultivated countryside
were included in the layout; the resulting
connections, however, are quite different
from the characteristic axial connection of the
Baroque summer residence.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The
uncommonly large-scale design for the
landscape garden was not conceived as a
garden for the old hunting lodge; it was
realized on previously uncultivated areas of
land surrounding a palace yet to be built.
There is thus no synthesis with a Baroque
garden. Despite an amount of 19th-century
modernising redesign all the basic structures
of the landscape garden have survived.
Furnishing: The achitectural structures and
statuary of the lavishly furnished landscape
garden have survived intact, as have the
collections and furniture of the palace.
Technical monuments: wooden “ship’s ladder”
leading to the Palmensaal; steam engine inside
the Vesuvius (pump re-installed in 2005);
Iron Bridge (the first cast-iron bridge on the
European continent).
3.
63

3. Authenticity:
64
3. Justification for Inscription
Few 19th-century alterations, no
war damage – after an interlude of neglect
and the start of restoration work in 1983
Wörlitz is stunning in its authenticity.
Summary
Comparison with the Schwetzingen summer
residence is possible only within limits as
the entire estate is laid out in the landscaped
style, and as a part of this overall concept
the summer residence itself takes a different
architectural form. The garden is larger by
far than the Schwetzingen palace garden,
and furnished with a larger number of
architectural features.
Bibliography
Exhibition catalog: Franz von Anhalt-Dessau. Fürst der
Aufklärung 1740-1817. Belehren und nützlich seyn. Wörlitz
1990.
Gerd Biegel: Wörlitz, ein Garten der Aufklärung.
Braunschweig 1992.
Exhibition catalog: Das Gartenreich an Elbe und Mulde (ed.
by. Thomas Weiß). Murnau 1994.
Das Schloss und seine Ausstattung als denkmalpflegerische
Aufgabe: eine Tagung des Deutschen Nationalkomitees
von ICOMOS und des Facharbeitskreises Schlösser und
Gärten in Deutschland Wörlitz, 5.-8. Oktober 1994 (Hefte
des Deutschen Nationalkomitees/ICOMOS XVI). München
1995.
Exhibition catalog: Weltbild Wörlitz: Entwurf einer
Kulturlandschaft (ed. by Frank-Andreas Bechtholdt).
Ostfildern-Ruit 1996.
Exhibition catalog: Unendlich schön. Das Gartenreich
Dessau-Wörlitz (ed. by Kulturstiftung Dessau-Wörlitz).
Berlin 2005.
Kulturstiftung Dessau Wörlitz (ed.): Der Vulkan im
Wörlitzer Park. Berlin 2005.
Michael Rüffer: Das Schloss in Wörlitz: ein fürstliches
Landhaus im Spannungsfeld zwischen Absolutismus und
Aufklärung (Forschungen zum Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz,
2). München 2005.
Exhibition catalog: Louise Fürstin von Anhalt-Dessau
(1750-1811) (Kataloge und Schriften der Kulturstiftung
Dessau-Wörlitz, 28). München 2008.
Palace and Palace Garden of Pillnitz
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Saxony, city of
Dresden
Historical outline: A manor first mentioned
1403; c.1600 Renaissance palace with a
modest pleasure garden; 1694 purchased
by Elector Augustus the Strong; from 1706
the property of his mistress, Countess Anna
von Cosel, who had the “Charmillen” (hedge
rooms) laid out in 1712-1713; 1718 Elector
Augustus retrieves the property, large-scale
building planned but only realised in parts;
1720 construction of the “Wasserpalais”
(Water Palace) by Johann Daniel Pöppelmann,
1722-1723 construction of “Bergpalais” (Hill
Palace), with a Baroque parterre separating
the two palaces; 1723-1725 laying out of the
great palace garden and planting of a chestnut
avenue to mark the main axis, from 1765 a
paille-maille course; laying out of a garden
for games; 1774 conversion of the Carousel
House into an orangery; estate is designated
the summer residence of the Wettin dynasty
by Elector Friedrich August III (1750-1827);
from 1778 laying out of the “English Garden”
in an anglo-chinese style with a collection
of North American trees; 1781 construction
of “English Pavilion”; from 1781 laying out
of the “Friedrichsgrund” (outside the park)
as a sentimental landscape garden; 1785
laying out of the “Dutch Garden”; laying out
of “Chinese Garden” with a Chinese Pavilion
(1804); 1818 the old Renaissance palace burns
down, and afterwards the New Palace is
built; 1866 planting of the “Lilac Court” (with
Chinese lilac); large-scale botanical collecting

under King Johann of Saxony (1801-1873);
1869 construction of palm house; 1863 Peter
Joseph Lenné is called in to help redesign the
pleasure garden (between the two palaces)
and “English Garden”, work carried out by
Gustav Friedrich Krause; 1874 laying out
of the conifer wood in place of the former
“games garden”. UNESCO World Heritage site
as part of the Dresden Elbe valley since 2004,
revoked 2009.
Characteristics: A major early 18th-century
garden with an uncommonly individual touch,
for example regarding the hedged-off areas
used as game gardens in place of conventional
bosquets; the somewhat “Chinese” character
was deliberately retained in the 19th-century
additions completing the palace; today the
gardens retain mostly their 19th-century
appearance.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: from 1706 for the Countess
Cosel, from 1718 occasionally used by
Augustus the Strong as one of his numerous
summer residences, 1768 designated the
official summer residence by Elector Friedrich
August III; topographic connections including
the situation right on the banks of the Elbe
intact; all ancillary buildings preserved (some
restored); landscaping of Friedrichsgrund
garden and views towards it barely discernible
today.
Synthesis of gardening styles: No
comprehensive landscaping of the pleasure
garden and hedge rooms was attempted;
landscaped garden parts were laid out in areas
off to the sides, like the “English Garden”,
or even outside the estate proper, like the
“Friedrichsgrund”, although near the borders
of the pleasure garden a number of freestanding
trees were planted.
Furnishing: Statuary and other 18th-century
furnishings originally belonging to the hedge
rooms (outsize swings &c.) have been lost;
the orangery, “English Pavilion” and “Chinese
Pavilion” are preserved, complete with their
interior furnishings.
3. Justification for Inscription
Technical monuments: Palm house of 1869
survives.
Authenticity: palace largely preserved in its
18th/19th-century shape; some damage was
sustained during the Elbe floods of 2002;
interior layout of the former „Charmillen“
(hedge rooms) largely redesigned during the
1950s and 1960s; some of Lenné’s decorative
beds and fountains in the pleasure garden
altered in the 1950s and 1960s; surface of
the working yard partly altered in the 20thcentury.
Summary
There are several aspects inviting comparison
between Pillnitz and Schwetzingen. Both are
18th-century electoral summer residences;
both feature early landscape gardens created
in close connection with the Baroque layout.
However, the gardens of Pillnitz were largely
altered or redesigned in the late 19th and in
the course of the 20th-centuries; moreover,
Pillnitz continued its unbroken courtly
tradition throughout the 19th-century, a
tradition expressed by the fact that building
undertaken to complete the palace still
adapted to the principles established in the
18th-century.
Bibliography
Igor A. Jenzen: Schloß und Park Pillnitz. München 1998.
Beatrice Hanstein: Schloß und Park Pillnitz (Der historische
Ort, 67). Berlin 1999.
Roland Puppe: Orangen und Orangerien am Sächsischen
Hof. In: Vorstand der Kulturstiftung Dessau-Wörlitz (ed.):
Oranien - Orangen - Oranienbaum (Kataloge und Schriften
der Kulturstiftung Dessau-Wörlitz, 9). München 1999, p.
111-120.
Dirk Welich: Der Chinesische Pavillon und Garten im
Schloßpark Pillnitz. Dresden 22003.
Kurt Gliemeroth, Roland Puppe: Schlosspark Pillnitz.
Gehölzführer (Sachsens schönste Schlösser, Burgen und
Gärten, 6). Leipzig 22004.
Stefanie Melzer: Früh 6 Uhr begaben sich Se. Churfürstliche
Durchlaucht nach der Eremitage... Zur Ausgestaltung des
Pillnitzer Friedrichsgrundes im Stil des sentimentalen
Landschaftsgartens. In: Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Schlösser,
Burgen und Gärten Sachsen 2006, Bd. 14, p. 173-184.
3.
65

3. Roland
66
3. Justification for Inscription
Puppe: Preußische Gärten in Sachsen? – Preußischsächsische
Beziehungen streiflichtartig betrachtet.
In: Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin-
Brandenburg (ed.): Preußische Gärten in Europa. Leipzig
2007, p. 30-33.
Stefanie Melzer: Hortus Regius Pillnitziensis. Frederick
Augustus the Just and the royal botanical garden in
Pillnitz. In: Studies in the history of gardens & designed
landscapes: an international quarterly, vl. 28. London 2008,
p. 351-365.
Anita Possienke, Mandy Waschkau: Pillnitz - vom
Rittergut zum Lustschloss. Kontinuität und Wandel in der
Entwicklung der Schlossanlage (Studienreihe Denkmal und
Entwurf, 2/2008). Dresden 2008.
Dirk Welich: Pillnitz. Ein chinoises Gesamtkunstwerk. In:
Im Banne Ostasiens. Chinoiserie in Dresden (Dresdner
Hefte des Dresdner Geschichtsvereins, 26,4 = 96). Dresden
2008, p. 30-39.
Palace and Park of Versailles
Basic Facts
Location: France, region Île-de-France,
département Yvelines, city of Versailles
Historical outline: Originally built 1623/24
by Philibert Le Roy as a hunting lodge for
Louis XIII; enlarged 1662 under Louis XIV
by Louis Le Vau, with new working quarters
and the three avenues of the “Patte d’oie”;
gardens laid out by André Le Nôtre; 1662
construction of the menagerie; 1663 first
orangery; 1664 construction of the “Thetis”
grotto; from 1665 statues are installed;
1667 Grand Canal breakthrough; from 1668
second building phase with “enveloping” of
the older palace within a building by Charles
Le Vau; 1670 construction of the “Trianon
de porcelaine” and installation of the “Allée
d’eau” fountains; 1671 Apollo basin, Latona
basin sculpture and Grand Canal enlargement
complete; 1672 Four Seasons basins installed;
1674 construction of “Petit Venise”; 1675
planting of “Grove of Fame”; 1676 work
on the Neptune basin starts, installation of
Encelados statue; 1677 conversion of “Grove
of Fame” into “Grove of Domes”; from 1678
third building phase under Jules Hardouin-
Mansart; 1679 embellishing of the Queen’s
Stair, construction of the two stables, “Jardin
de Potager” laid out by Jean de la Quintenie;
1680 “Tapis vert” laid out; 1682 Versailles
becomes the official seat of the government;
1684 construction of colonnade and orangery
by Mansart, dismantling of Thetis grotto; 1685
construction of north wing begun; 1687 work
on “Grand Trianon” begun; from 1699 fourth
building phase under Mansart, construction

of palace chapel; 1715 death of Louis XIV,
the court leaves Versailles, not to return until
1722; 1736 redesign of Neptune fountain;
1748 French pavilion built by Ange-Jacques
Gabriel; 1760-1764 construction of “Petit
Trianon”; 1770 court theatre completed in
time for the wedding of the future Louis
XVI to Marie Antoinette; 1771 work on the
“Grand Plan” starts (of which only the Gabriel
pavilion was completed); 1774 planting
of trees, English Garden next to the “Petit
Trianon” laid out by Richard Mique; 1776
redesign of the Apollo baths from plans by
Hubert Robert; 1777 “Temple of Love” by
Mique; 1779 construction of the small theatre
for Marie Antoinette; 1783 construction of
Hamlet begun; 1789 removal of the royal
family to Paris; 1793 sale of the furniture;
1814 Louis XVIII orders the restoring of the
palace interior; 1817 filling-in of the “Island
of Love”, which is converted into a bosquet
of rare trees (“King’s Garden”); 1820 Dufour
pavilion completed (to match the Gabriel
pavilion); 1837 Museum of French History
inaugurated by King Louis-Philippe; 1953
legislation for the preservation of the palace
passed; 1962 Debré decree ordering the
refurnishing of the palace; 1965 restoration of
the “Grand Trianon”; 1979 inscription on the
UNESCO World Heritage list; 1986 restoration
of the ground floor rooms complete; 1997
reconstruction of the trellis work in the
Encelados bosquet; 1998 replanting of the
“Tapis Vert” hedges; 2004 reconstruction of
the Three Fountains and France Triumphant
bosquets; work planned until 2017: visitors’
centre and reconstruction of the labyrinth.
Characteristics: Best-preserved palace and
garden compound in Europe, manifestation
of absolutist power and focal point of the arts;
supreme example of the French formal garden
and the model for all later gardens well into
the 18th-century. The layout is without a
direct model itself, and conceived on a vast
scale not known before; the lengthwise
orchestration, the axial arrangement of
the avenues, the distant views and the
subordination of nature were all on an
3. Justification for Inscription
unprecedented scale. Versailles represents the
ultimate synthesis of the arts in the Baroque
spirit.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Originally built as a
hunting lodge and the preferred abode of the
young Louis XIV, the palace was at first used
by a very select courtly set for hunting, garden
retreats and festivities. From 1661 gradual
extension and redesign, first of the gardens,
after 1678 of the palace; from 1682 main
residence and government seat; Versailles was
a “summer residence” only at first and only
in certain respects; interlocking of the palace,
garden and town by means of the triple
avenues, laying-out of a Baroque city with
squares and churches.
Sythesis of gardening styles: The basic layout
of a Baroque garden was retained, elements
of the English landscape garden introduced
only slowly and mostly as a result of new
planting carried out post-1774. Only in the
areas surrounding the “Petit Trianon” was
the landscape garden fully established and
replaced the formal garden; unlike the French
gardens it did not produce original ideas.
There are no 19th-century redesigns.
Furnishing: The original 17th- and 18thcentury
garden statuary survives almost
intact; few sculptures had to be replaced
with copies due to age and weather damage,
among them (1889) those of the dragon basin;
preserved: “Petit Trianon”, “Grand Trianon”,
“Pavillon français”, Queen’s theatre, Apollo
baths, Hamlet, Temple of Love; lost: Labyrinth,
Island of Love, “Trianon de porcelain”,
Menagerie, “Salon frais”, several Hamlet
buildings and a few ephemeral “Petit Trianon”
structures.
Technical monuments: The stage machineries
of the opera (1770) and Queen’s theatre (1779)
are preserved but non-functional; the 1673
water reservoirs underneath the “Parterre
d’Eau” survive too.
Authenticity: Palace and interior dating
from the 17th and 18th-centuries largely
intact; wings converted into a museum in
3.
67

3. the
68
3. Justification for Inscription
19th-century; due to new planting from
1774 onwards many original bosquets by Le
Nôtre were lost; few 19th-century alterations;
many new trees planted after a storm on
26th December 1991; bosquets destroyed by
alterations and neglect to be restored to their
appearance in the time of Louis XIV.
Summary
Versailles is not a summer residence, a
concept that was largely unknown in France
and mainly a German phenomenon. The
gardens of Versailles have been preserved
virtually unchanged since the French
Revolution of 1789, and recently works are
underway to restore them to their original
appearance dating from the time of Louis
XIV. The “French” part of the Schwetzingen
gardens remains true to the topos established
by Versailles but is in fact closer to the
Régence style.
Bibliography
Jean-Marie Pérousse de Montclos, Robert Polidori:
Versailles. Paris 1991.
Simone Hoog, Daniel Meyer: Versailles. Paris 1995.
Katharina Krause: Die Maison de plaisance. Landhäuser in
der Île-de-France (1660-1730). München 1996.
Nicolas D’Archimbaud: Versailles. München 2001.
Pierre Lemoine: Versailles and Trianon. Guide to the
Museum and National Domain of Versailles and Trianon.
Paris 2002.
Michael Hesse: Klassische Architektur in Frankreich.
Kirchen, Schlösser, Gärten und Städte 1600-1800.
Darmstadt 2004.
Peter Burke: Ludwig XIV. Die Inszenierung des
Sonnenkönigs. Berlin 2005.
Pierre-André Lablaude: Les jardins de Versailles. Paris
2005.
Palace and Gardens of Schönbrunn
Basic Facts
Location: Austria, state of Vienna, city of
Vienna
Historical outline: A 16th-century hunting
lodge, the ”Katterburg“; 1688-1690 under
Emperor Leopold I plans for a huge palace
by Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach; early
1690s revision of the project; 1696 building
starts on the palace; from 1695 garden layout
by Jean Trehet; 1743 Empress Maria Theresia
designates the unfinished palace to be her
summer residence; her husband, Emperor
Franz I [Ferdinand] (r. 1740-1765), commissions
a team of experts from his native Lorraine
to further develop the gardens, among them
Jean Nicolas Jadot, Louis Gervais, and Jean
Brequin de Demange, also Dutchman Adrian
van Stekhoven; 1751/52 circular menagerie;
1755 completion of a huge orangery; 1775
construction of the Gloriette by Johann
Ferdinand Hetzendorf von Hohenberg;
redesigning of the parterre and installation of
32 sculptures by Wilhelm Beyer from 1773;
1777 raising of Obelisk in the east bosquet;
1778 “Roman Ruin”; 1780 Neptune Fountain
at the foot of the Gloriette terraces; 1828-1850
landscaping of the Dutch Garden and Botanic
Garden; 1880-1882 construction of palm house
(modeled on the one at Kew) and refashioning
of the former Dutch Garden into a historicising
sunken parterre surrounding it, by Adolf Vetter
and Anton Umlauft; 1869-1886 restoration
of the Baroque garden, and the hedges and
avenues in particular, by Adolf Vetter; 1896
redesign of the parterre by Anton Umlauft in
the neo-Baroque style it retains today. UNESCO

World Heritage site since 1996.
Characteristics: Today Schönbrunn presents
itself in a Baroque and Classicist appearance
as regards the basic structures but as a
neo-Baroque, historicising creation in many
significant individual elements (parterre, palm
house garden). A thorough redesign of the
basic Baroque layout did not come to pass.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: from 1743 (Empress Maria
Theresia) the primary summer residence of
the Habsburgs, used according to a regular
schedule; annexes and working quarters
(stables &c.) largely preserved; situation with
regard to town planning and topography
basically intact if somewhat changed due to the
development of the city in the 19th-century.
Synthesis of gardening styles: no general
redesign into a landscape garden; landscaped
parts of the garden were re-converted to a
Baroque appearance in the late 19th-century.
Furnishing: parterre statuary by Wilhelm Beyer
complete and intact; follies (Gloriette, Obelisk,
Roman Ruin) preserved.
Technical monuments: palm house overhauled
in the mid-1990s, original technical equipment
mostly dismantled.
Authenticity: palace largely preserved in its
original Baroque condition, despite some
war damage; one storey added to the original
building; interior furnishings altered several
times in the course of the 19th-century; parterre
newly laid out in 1896; hedges flanking the
parterre replaced 2005.
Summary
As an imperial summer residence, Schönbrunn
is comparable to Schwetzingen only within
limits. Both, however, share a preserving
mentality that was directly responsible
for the fact that to the present day the
appearance of both estates is largely that of
the 18th-century. In contrast to Schwetzingen,
Schönbrunn retained its function up to the
end of the monarchy. A certain inclination
towards the conservative made sure that at
Schönbrunn only a few garden areas were ever
3. Justification for Inscription
landscaped, and the landscaping revoked later;
consequently no synthesis of gardening styles
is discernible.
Bibliography
Ernst Moritz Kronfeld: Park und Garten von Schönbrunn
(Amalthea-Bücherei, 35). Zürich 1923.
Thomas Baumgartner: Verschwundene und bestehende
Gewächshäuser in Schönbrunn. In: Schönbrunner
Gärten (also in: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Denkmalpflege, 57/2003, issue 3/4, p. 465-497).
Rupert Doblhammer: Gartendenkmalpflegerische und
gartentechnische Überlegungen zum Austausch der
Heckenwände im Grossen Parterre von Schönbrunn. In:
Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege,
57/2003, issue 3/4, p. 399-418.
Beatrix Hajós: Die gartengestalterische Entwicklung
des Holländisch-Botanischen Gartens in Schönbrunn in
Erinnerung an Herrn Ing. Franz Weber. In: Österreichische
Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege, 57/2003, issue
3/4, p. 436-464.
Beatrix Hajós: Neue kunsthistorische Forschungen zum
Barockgarten Schönbrunn. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift
für Kunst und Denkmalpflege, 57/2003, issue 3/4, p.
365-398.
Beatrix Hajós: Schönbrunner Statuen, 1773-1780. Ein
neues Rom in Wien (Eine Publikationsreihe der Museen des
Mobiliendepots, 19). Wien 2004.
Géza Hajós: Garden preservation principles and
experiences in the UNESCO World Heritage Monument
Schönbrunn. In: Studies in the history of gardens &
designed landscapes, 24/2004, issue 4, p. 255-271.
Elisabeth Hassmann: Von Katterburg zu Schönbrunn: die
Geschichte Schönbrunns bis Kaiser Leopold I. Wien 2004.
Richard Kurdiovsky (ed.): Die Gärten von Schönbrunn. Ein
Spaziergang durch einen der bedeutendsten Barockgärten
Europas. St. Pölten 2005.
Maria Pötzl-Malikova: Überlegungen zum ursprünglichen
Programm der Statuen im Parterre des Schönbrunner
Gartens. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Denkmalpflege, 61/2007, issue 4, p. 488-508 u. p. 624.
Beatrix Hajós: Schönbrunn. The garden designer Jean
Trehet around 1700 and the modernization of the gardens
by the „colonie Lorraine“ around 1750. In: Austrian
Society for Historic Gardens (ed.): Habsburg. The house of
Habsburg and garden art. Worms 2008, p. 41-48 (also in:
Die Gartenkunst, 20/2008, issue 2, insert).
3.
69

3. Peterhof
70
3. Justification for Inscription
Palace
Basic Facts
Location: Russia, federal district of
Northwestern Russia, Rajon Petrodworez, city
of Peterhof (part of St. Petersburg)
Historical outline: originally a farm where
Tsar Peter the Great spent the night while
traveling from St. Petersburg to the fortress of
Kronstadt; 1705 purchase of the estate; 1714
building work on the Sea Channel, the grotto
and the Grand Cascade in progress, work
started on Monplaisir by Andreas Schlüter;
1716 construction of a wooden palace by
the architect Johann Braunstein from plans
by Jean Baptiste Le Blond; 1720 Marly built
on the western border of the Lower Garden;
1721 extension of the palace by Niccolo
Michetti; 1721-25 building of Hermitage;
1725 building of orangery; 1734 conversion
of the Upper Garden from a vegetable garden
into a Baroque parterre; 1736 installation of
“water pranks”; 1738 construction of Roman
Fountains; 1739 Dragon Hill completed; 1745
enlargement of the palace under Tsarina
Elizabeth by Francesco Rastrelli; from 1747
construction of a new palace; 1769 decree
”On the Prevention of the Pruning of Trees in
the Upper and Lower Gardens of Peterhof”;
1779 laying out of an English garden with
an English palace by Giacomo Quarenghi,
situated next to the Upper Garden; 1784
extension of “water pranks”; 1799 installation
of the 17th-century statue of Neptune
in the Upper Garden, all lead sculptures
replaced by bronze copies until 1806; 1802
further extension of “water pranks”; 1803
construction of Woronichin Colonnade; 1825
work started by Adam Menelaws on the 290-
acre Alexandra Park containing an English
Cottage, situated next to the palace of Marly
in the east; 1830-34 construction of a Gothic
chapel in the Alexandra Park from plans by
Karl Friedrich Schinkel; 1854-57 construction
of Lions’ Cascade; 1895 construction of a
summer house for Tsarina Alexandra in the
Alexandra Park; from 1917 used as a museum;
1941-44 heavily damaged; 1947 reconstruction
of the Cascade; 1951 restoration work starts
on the great palace; 1966 reconstruction of
the Woronichin Colonnade. UNESCO World
Heritage site since 1990.
Characteristics: The estate’s location on the
Baltic Sea becomes a dominant motif of the
Lower Garden, laid out in 1714; the Cascade,
the Sea Channel and the palace of Monplaisir
directly on the shore all emphasize this.
Architects from several European countries
were commissioned to work on the generous
garden extensions and new buildings. Apart
from those destroyed during WWII all garden
areas commissioned by the Tsars have been
preserved in their original appearance.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Summer residence of
the Tsars of Russia until 1914, although the
imperial family used only the last building
to be completed, the summer house. There
has been no attempt to connect the summer
residence with a city.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The Baroque
garden was to be converted into an English
landscape garden after 1769, but only a part
of this redesign was put into practice around
1779, and after the death of Tsarina Katharina
in 1796 the work was discontinued. Further
landscape gardens were added to the east of
the Baroque garden; the Baroque parterres
were retained and enlivened by new water
features.
Furnishing: All buildings were destroyed in
the course of WWII, only the outer walls
remaining. Bronze sculptures were buried
during the war and re-installed later; all
buildings have been reconstructed. Today
more than 150 fountains are functional.

Technical monuments: The 1725 ”Wishingtable“
in the Hermitage and a number of
”water pranks“ installed 1736-1802.
Authenticity: All palaces were rebuilt after
having been heavily damaged during the war;
original works of art and bronze statuary
preserved; the gardens were not redesigned
to become landscape gardens, so Baroque
structures survive throughout.
Summary
Peterhof is a traditional imperial summer
residence usually approached by water, which
led to the construction of the Sea Channel.
The estate was in use until 1914 and remained
unaltered in the course of 19th-century;
extensions in the taste of the time were added
in the east without impairing the existing
gardens. The garden’s sheer size alone
(over 2500 acres) makes comparisons with
Schwetzingen impractical; moreover the areas
in the “English” style were all added during
the 19th-century.
Bibliography
A. E. Gessen: Über die Restaurierung des Schlosses Peters I.
„Monplaisir“ in Peterhof. Berlin 1964.
Abram Raskin: Petrodvorets (Peterhof). Palace and
Pavilions. Leningrad 1978.
Exhibition catalog: Katharina die Große (ed. by Staatliche
Museen Kassel). Kassel 1997.
Nina Wernowa: Kaiserliche Vorortresidenzen von Sankt
Petersburg. St. Petersburg 2003.
Vadim Znamenov: Peterhof. St. Petersburg 2003.
2003.
Aranjuez
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Spain, autonomous community and
province of Madrid
Historical outline: Royal property since the
16th-century (Philipp II) and a favourite
retreat, partly due to its location on the banks
of the Tagus; laying out of small giardini
segreti in the Mudejar style (Islamic work
of the post-Reconquista era) in front of the
south, north and east facades; at the end of
the 16th-century the Ontigola (a tributary of
the Tagus) was dammed to create a small lake,
both to provide water for the water displays
and to serve as an arena for miniature naval
battles; also at the end of the 16th-century
layout out of the large ”Jardín de la Isla“ on
an island north of the palace and separated
from it by a canal (original appearance of the
garden not documented); from 1630 at the
latest laid out as a large “hunting star”; in the
18th-century redesign of the island garden
into its modern incarnation, with orthogonally
arranged compartments subdivided into
complex layouts and furnished with basins,
fountains, “water pranks” and statuary;
1789-1808 laying out of the ”Jardín del
Príncipe“ for Charles IV, Prince of Asturia, as a
picturesque landscape garden that integrated
earlier layouts including an area fashioned
as an „ornamented farm“; in the late 1990s
restoration of the 16th-century garden on
the south side of the palace. UNESCO World
Heritage site since 2001.
Characteristics: Today the palace presents
itself largely in its 18th-century appearance
but still retains part of its 16th- and 17th-
3.
71

3. century
72
3. Justification for Inscription
architecture; a remarkable feature is
the giardino segreto on the palace’s southern
side with its (partly original) pebble flooring,
niched walls and fountains; another unusual
element, not only for its location, is the island
garden some distance from the palace.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Aranjuez is considered
the most important summer residence of the
Spanish kings; the topographic connections
are in part still discernible; the numerous
utility buildings have mostly been preserved.
Synthesis of gardening styles: There was no
overall landscaping of the 17th- and 18thcentury
gardens in the vicinity of the palace;
only in the late 18th/early 19th-century a
landscape garden was created by redesigning
the “hunting star”; the resulting „Jardín del
Príncipe“ largely retained the formal axes of
its predecessor.
Furnishing: The 17th-century Hercules and
Apollo fountains survive; 18th-century
statuary furnishing the island garden
preserved, fountains with 18th-century
sculptured décor in the parterre next to the
palace.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: Palace with interior furnishings
largely preserved in its 18th-century
incarnation, as is the island garden, Jardin del
Principe with early 19th-century additions
largely preserved; parterre next to the palace
restored in the late 20th-century.
Summary
The comparability of Aranjuez and
Schwetzingen is limited to certain aspects; in
contrast to Schwetzingen (a modest palace
with a lavish garden) Aranjuez is a royal
summer residence with a magnificent, largely
18th-century palace and a comparatively
modest garden parterre. The large garden
areas outside the parterre – the island garden
and the Jardin del Principe – retain, despite
additional structures and partial 18th- and
19th-century redesigns, the structures and
basic layout of the 16th and 17th-centuries.
Bibliography
Consuelo M. Correcher: Jardínes de Aranjuez (I). Jardín de
La Isla. In: Reales sitios 19/1982, 72, p. 29-44.
Consuelo M. Correcher: Jardínes de Aranjuez (II). Jardín del
Príncipe. In: Reales sitios, 19/1982, 73, p. 21-38.
Adoracion Gonzalez: El Palacio Real de Aranjuez. Una
nueva estructura entre 1626 y 1750. In: Reales sitios,
23/1986, 89, p. 57-64.
Margarita Mielgo de Castro, Ricardo de la Torre Campo:
La restauración de jardines históricos. El jardín del
Príncipe de Aranjuez. In: Reales sitios, 31/1994, 120, p.
56-62.
Carmen Añón, José Luis Sancho (ed.): Jardín y naturaleza
en el reinado de Felipe II (exhibition catalog). Madrid
1998.
Coro Millares Escobio (ed.): Felipe II, el rey íntimo -
jardín y naturaleza en el siglo XVI. Palacio del Real
Sitio de Aranjuez, 23 de septiembre - 23 de noviembre
1998 (Sociedad Estatal para la Conmemoración de los
Centenarios de Felipe II y Carlos V). Aranjuez 1998.
Virginia Tovar Martín: Esteban Marchand y Leandro
Bachelieu, ingenieros franceses en las obras del Real Sitio
de Aranjuez. In: Anales de historia del arte, 8/1998, p.
291-308.
Catherine Wilkinson-Zerner: European convergences. Philip
II and the landscape of Aranjuez. In: Centre d‘Études
Supérieures de la Renaissance (ed.): Architecture, jardin,
paysage. L‘environnement du château et de la villa aux
XVe et XVIe siècles. Études réunies par Jean Guillaume (De
architectura, 8). Paris 1999, p. 243-258.
José Luis Sancho: Las vistas de los sitios reales por
Brambilla. Madrid 2002.
José Luis Sancho: Aranjuez. Un palacio para las jornadas
de Felipe II. In: Reales sitios, 41/2004, 159, p. 14-25.
Ana Luengo Añón: El paisaje como imagen del universo.
El real sitio de Aranjuez durante el siglo XVI. In: Gianni
Venturi, Francesco Ceccarelli (ed.): Delizie in villa. Il
giardino rinascimentale e i suoi committenti. Firenze 2008.
Ana Luengo Añón, Coro Millares: Aranjeuz utopia y
realidad. La construcción de un paisaje. Madrid 2008.

Palace Garden of Palazzo Reale, Caserta
Basic Facts
Location: Italy, region of Campania, city of
Caserta
Historical outline: 16th-century redesign of a
villa and wooded park by Count Acquaviva
d’Aragona; 1734 the property of Charles
of Bourbon, great-grandson of Louis XIV
and King of Naples and Sicily; 1752-1774
construction of a palace by Luigi Vanvitelli
and after his death by Carlo Vanvitelli; 1762
-1779 extension of the palace gardens from
plans by Luigi Vanvitelli (unfinished): 1762
construction of large basin, 1769 water works
complete, construction of the great Basin of
Dolphins, 1777-1787 construction of cascade
garden; only basic features of a planned town
redesign completed; after 1780 construction
of an ideal village on the outskirts of the
park; 1790-1793 under Ferdinand IV laying
out of an English garden next to the cascade
garden from plans by Carlo Vanvitelli, with
guidance by John Andrew Graefer and Sir
William Hamilton; work on this part of the
garden continues into the 19th-century; 1860
property of the King of Italy; from 1921
government property; 1997 inscription on the
UNESCO World Heritage list.
Characteristics: Modeled, both in aspiration
and in size, on Versailles, the last great royal
palace of European absolutism; a huge
palace arranged around four courtyards
and its garden are strung out on an axis 3
km in length. Rather than a view out over
the countryside this park incorporates
the slope of a nearby hill. A central and
characteristically Italian feature is the cascade
3. Justification for Inscription
with its numerous fountains and waterfalls,
leaving the parterre and bosquets secondary
in importance.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: During the 18th-century
the palace, despite its intended residence
function, was used more for occasional stays
in spring and autumn. Its original purpose is
reflected in the many courtiers’ apartments
and administrative buildings, as well as the
library, university and theatre. The basic
character of the town layout is still visible,
both in the dominant axis directed towards
Naples and the encompassing of the square –
and town – by the estate.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The landscape
garden was laid out to the north-east of the
Baroque garden; no original elements were
redesigned. It is surrounded by a wall; access
is from the Baroque garden via a dark cave,
making for a clear separation of the two
gardening styles. The Baroque garden is
unfinished and has been altered; the parterre
retains the basic structure in a simplified
form.
Furnishing: Built parts of the water displays
mostly preserved; miniature fortress in the
”Bosco Vecchio“ (1769), converted into a
garden pavilion in the 19th-century, water
basins, canal, cascades and numerous
fountains with elaborate sculptures; landscape
garden follies, including an artificial ruin, a
Gothic chapel and a ruined temple, survive
too.
Technical monuments: technically
sophisticated aqueduct to provide Caserta
with spring water, 41 km in length; at the
time, the bridge built for it across a valley
was the largest built since Roman times. The
aqueduct has been preserved.
Authenticity: The garden, like the palace, still
shows the respective tastes and styles of its
creators’ times. With the ”Bosco Vecchio“ and
the network of paths west of the parterre,
parts of the garden originally belonging to
the villa preceding the palace have become
part of the Baroque park. Of the finished
3.
73

3. parts
74
3. Justification for Inscription
of the Baroque garden, the basic
structure and the cascade garden with its
design elements survive, as do the defining
features of the landscape garden including the
dendrologically valuable trees and shrubs.
Summary
The intended function as a residence
determines the large number of courtiers’
apartments and administrative buildings.
The large palace is clearly separated from
the town. The Baroque execution of the
monumental original design was simplified
and remained incomplete. The two gardening
styles are clearly separated.
Bibliography
Marie Luise Gothein: Geschichte der Gartenkunst, vl. 2.
Jena 1926.
Derek Clifford: Geschichte der Gartenkunst. München 1966.
Manfred Wundram (ed.): Reclams Kunstführer Italien, vl. 6.
Stuttgart 1971.
Cesare de Seta: Der Garten des Palazzo Reale in Caserta.
In: Monique Mosser, Georges Teyssot: Die Gartenkunst des
Abendlandes. Stuttgart 1993.
Christian Hlavac: Gärten und Parks unter dem Schutz der
UNESCO-Welterbekonvention. In: Die Gartenkunst, 2/1999,
p. 390-393.
Drottningholm Palace
Basic Facts
Location: Sweden, city of Stockholm
Historical outline: 1580 Under Johann III
of Sweden a palace is built by Willem Boy
on the island of Lovön in Mälar Lake; 1653
construction of a new palace on the shore,
garden planned by Jean de la Vallée; 1661-
1681 after the destruction of the palace a new
one is built under Queen Hedwig Eleonora
of Schleswig-Holstein-Gottorf, by Nicodemus
Tessin the elder; 1681-1700 laying out of a
Baroque garden by Nicodemus Tessin the
younger; 1750s addition of a small theatre; c.
1753 construction of a small “Chinese Palace”
outside the Baroque garden, commissioned by
King Adolf Frederik and built by Carl Fredrik
Adelcrantz, and laying out of a garden with
aviaries and pheasant houses, construction
of a menagerie; 1760 replacement of the
“Chinese Palace” with a stone building,
bosquets with aviaries and a latticework
pavilion are laid out nearby, further work
done in Rococo style, outside the garden the
“Kanton” houses are built for the manufacture
of silk; 1762-66 construction of a new theatre;
from 1777 a romantic landscape garden is laid
out in the southern part of the palace gardens
for King Gustav III by Fredrik Magnus Piper;
in the course of the 19th-century the garden
becomes neglected and overgrown; in the
1950s reconstruction of the Baroque garden
from the 1723 plans; from 1960 restoration
under Gustav VI; from 1982 residence of the
Swedish royal family; 1991 inscription on the
UNESCO World Heritage list.

Characteristics: The estate incorporates
several gardening styles – the restored
Baroque garden on the axis of the palace,
the Rococo garden with its exotic structures,
and an early romantic landscape garden that
proved style-forming in Sweden.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: The estate on the “Queen’s
island“ is a summer palace created chiefly
by the Swedish Queens. There is a tight
interlocking of the palace and garden and a
furnishing similar to that of Schwetzingen,
but due to the estate’s island location there is
no direct connection with any city or town.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The landscape
garden laid out from 1777 retains (mostly) the
basic structure of its predecessor: the Baroque
pattern of paths and the structures added for
the Rococo garden, e.g. the “Chinese Pavilion”.
However, the design for the landscape garden
is homogeneous and comprehensive; the
bosquets in particular have been altered
completely.
Furnishing: Most of the garden statuary
was brought to Sweden as spoils of war;
the bronze statues by Adrien de Vries have
been preserved. The theatre, the “Chinese
Pavilion”, aviaries and several of the “Kanton”
houses (somewhat altered) survive. Only one
folly – the “Gothic Tower” – was built in the
landscape garden, but a number of copies of
classical statues from the collection of Gustav
III were installed.
Technical monuments: The theatre’s stage
machinery is preserved in its entirety.
Authenticity: The 18th-century palace is
largely preserved in its original form; so is
one of the best-preserved Baroque theatres
in Europe, complete with 18th-century stage
sets and a 200-year-old stage machinery; the
Baroque garden behind the palace and the
Rococo garden surrounding the “Chinese
Pavilion” have been reconstructed, the
parterre according to the plans of 1723, with
little regard for existing features or spatial
connections; the landscape garden survives an
its layout.
3. Justification for Inscription
Summary
The character of a summer palace tightly
interlocked with its garden, and some specifics
of the furnishing such as the “Chinese
Pavilion” and theatre, are quite comparable
to Schwetzingen if somewhat inferior in
concentration and variety. The differences
are in the lack of a direct connection to a
city and the major alterations to the gardens
along with the complete reconstruction of the
formal garden.
Bibliography
Marie Luise Gothein: Geschichte der Gartenkunst, vl. 2.
Jena 1926.
Geoffrey Jellicoe, Susan Jellicoe: Die Geschichte der
Landschaft. Frankfurt am Main 1988.
Adrian von Buttlar: Der Landschaftsgarten. Gartenkunst
des Klassizismus und der Romantik. Köln 1989.
Friederike Wappenschmidt: Der Traum von Arkadien.
Leben, Liebe, Lust und Farbe in Europas Lustschlössern.
München 1990.
Klaus Stritzke: Barockgärten in Schweden im
Spannungsfeld zwischen Nutzung und Erhaltung. In: Die
Gartenkunst, 4/1992, p. 219-231.
Gabriele Uerscheln: Meisterwerke der Gartenkunst.
Stuttgart 2006.
Götz Pochat: Die Geschichte der Gartenkunst in Schweden
bis zum Durchbruch des Le-Nôtre-Stils. In: Die Gartenkunst,
2/2007, p. 253-274.
3.
75

3. Palace
76
3. Justification for Inscription
and Garden of Het Loo
Basic Facts
Location: Netherlands, province of Gueldre,
city of Apeldoorn
Historical outline: In 1684 Wilhelm III
purchases the medieval castle of “Het Oude
Loo”; 1685-1692 construction of a new
hunting lodge by Jacob Roman; from 1688
laying out of the garden by Daniel Marot;
1688 the residence is transferred to “Hampton
Court” in England; after the death of the
King in 1702 the palace is used as a hunting
lodge and summer residence; in the second
half of the 18th-century Willem V has the
“Upper Garden” redesigned as a landscape
garden by Philip W. Schonck; 1795 pillage
and afterwards decline of the garden; 1806-
1810 King Louis Napoleon’s summer palace,
landscaping of the garden, remains of the
formal layout are replaced with a design by
Alexandre Dufour; from 1815 under Wilhelm
I until 1975 used as a summer residence
again; King Willem III has an arboretum
added; from 1984 thorough restoration of
the palace and establishment of a museum;
1979-1984 reconstruction of the garden based
on that of 1684.
Characteristics: Palace and garden form a
unified whole; the high ground-water level
and numerous natural springs favour the
installation of fountains, canals and water
displays. A characteristic feature are the
raised walks surrounding the “Lower Garden”,
creating an impression of enclosed space
and contributing to the personal, intimate
character.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: As at Schwetzingen
the comparatively large garden points to
a primary use as a summer residence. The
estate is aligned on an axis cutting through
the centre of the palace and garden, but is not
connected by it to the neighbouring town of
Apeldoorn.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Around 1795 the
„Upper Garden” was landscaped; the octagonal
basin was integrated into the design. At
the beginning of the 19th-century the
terraces were leveled, architectural remains
of the older garden were dismantled, the
“Lower Garden” filled in and the entire area
redesigned as a large open lawn bordered by
clumps of various trees.
Furnishing: Originally lavish but poorly
documented regarding the statuary;
outstanding water displays, with the “King’s
Well” fountain rising 13m into the air, at
the time the highest in Europe; current
furnishing of the reconstructed garden patchy,
consisting of original pieces, statues from
other estates, copies and elements made with
artificial stone; in the surrounding landscape
garden a wooden tea pavilion of 1856 and the
bathhouse (1876) survive.
Technical monuments: During reconstruction
work done in the palace and garden original
pieces of machinery were found, among them
fragments of water conduits; they cannot,
however, be used.
Authenticity: The formal garden enclosed by
walls had disppareared completely and has
been reconstructed from historical sources,
etchings, a contemporaneous description and
archaeological findings. Outside the “Upper”
and “Lower Gardens” the landscape garden
with 19th-century alterations survives; part of
its original statuary has been preserved.

Summary
Even after the main residence had been
transferred to England the garden received
much attention. The lack of a direct
connection to a city, the enclosed character
of the garden and most of all the complete
destruction of the fomal garden during
the 19th-century, as well as the equally
complete reversal of this historical decision
embodied by the recent reconstruction, add
up to a situation very different from that of
Schwetzingen.
Bibliography
Marie Luise Gothein: Geschichte der Gartenkunst, vl. 2.
Jena 1926.
Wilfried Hansmann: Gartenkunst der Renaissance und des
Barock. Köln 1983.
Rob de Jong: Der niederländische Barockgarten in
Geschichte und Gegenwart. In: Die Gartenkunst, 2/1992, p.
199-218.
Jan van Asbeck: Der architektonische Garten Het Loo. In:
Monique Mosser, Georges Teyssot: Die Gartenkunst des
Abendlandes. Stuttgart 1993.
Stichting T Konings Loo (ed.): Het Loo. Palais und Gärten.
Hooiberg 2000.
Stichting Paleis Het Loo Nationaal Mueseum: Het Loo
Palace. Emmerich 2002.
Lednice
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Czech Republic, region of South
Moravia, district of Břeclav, Lednice
Historical outline: from the mid-13th-century
property of Liechtenstein family; Gothic
fortress converted into a Renaissance palace
in the 16th-century and laying out of a
pleasure garden between the palace and the
Thaya river; until 1618 redesign of the garden
under Charles I of Liechtenstein; from 1632
construction of an early Baroque terraced
palace garden under Prince Charles Eusebius
(1611-1684) with fountains, water displays,
pavilion and pheasant house from plans by
Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla, also a loggia,
ballroom, cascade and grotto; 1688-1689
construction of a three-wing stables by Johann
Bernhard Fischer von Erlach; 1692 laying
out of the ”Eisgrub Star“; 1715 construction
of the orangery housing a huge array of
orangery plants; 1715-1717 laying out of an
avenue between Lednice and Valtice; from
1790 partial redesign of the “hunting star”
area into a landscape park by Ignaz Holle,
planting of eight black poplar avenues to
provide visual axes towards a number of
features (Gothic House, Ruin, stables &c.);
numerous additional buildings by Josef
Hardtmuth; 1805-1811 Prince Johann Josef I
(1760-1836) commissions the conversion of
his gardens by Bernhard Petri into a classic
landscape garden comprising the entirety
of the Lednice-Valtice (Eisgrub-Feldsberg)
domain, laying out of a large artificial lake;
more follies by Hardtmuth; 1815 redesign of
the palace by Josef Kornhäusel; 1812-1827 yet
3.
77

3. more
78
3. Justification for Inscription
follies built in the vicinity of Lednice
by Kornhäusel, Franz Engel and J. Poppelack;
1846-1858 redesign of the palace in a Tudor
style by Georg Wingelmüller and Johann
Heinrich; in the late 19th-century laying out
of formal gardens in the immediate vicinity of
the palace. UNESCO World Heritage site since
1996.
Characteristics: Lednice is considered one of
the foremost landscape parks of the European
continent. Its reputation is due not only to
its sheer size but also to the quality of its
numerous park buildings and the way it
radiates into the surrounding countryside
and establishes a connection with Valtice;
today the park presents itself largely in the
appearance of the late 18th and first half of
the 19th-centuries while the palace and the
areas immediately adjacent to it retain that of
the mid to late 19th-century.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: In the course of the
19th-century Lednice developed into the most
important residence of the princely family
of Liechtenstein due to their large estates
in Moravia; the estate’s integration into the
landscape, and its role in the endeavour to
beautify the countryside, are still clearly
visible; the working quarters have been
mostly preserved.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The landscaped
parts were created by a thorough and
complete redesign and extension of the
Baroque gardens; it was not until the end of
the 19th-century that new formal gardens
were laid out in the immediate vicinity of the
palace.
Furnishing: park buildings partly lost, e.g.
the baths (built 1794, dismantled 1804),
“Sun Temple” (built 1794, dismantled
1838), and “Chinese Pavilion” (built 1795,
dismantled 1891); numerous others surviving:
Minaret (1797-1804), Obelisk (1798); “Dutch
Fisherman’s Cottage” (1799); Aqueduct (1805),
“Hansenburg” ruin (1807-1810); “Temple
of Diana”, Lake Pavilion, “Apollo Temple”,
“Temple of the Graces”, Border Pavilion (all
1812-1827).
Technical monuments: new winter garden,
among the earliest curvilinear glass and iron
structures on the Continent, built 1843-1845
by an Englishman, Devien, and restored
c.2000.
Authenticity: Palace complete with interior
furnishing, park with park buildings and
greenhouse largely preserved in their
authentic conditions.
Summary
There is a limited comparability between
Lednice and Schwetzingen. Lednice’s Baroque
garden has been completely transformed into
a landscape garden, and both the palace and
the park continued to be developed during
the 19th-century, at considerable expense.
However, the number and the thematic and
stylistic variety of the buildings in the park,
among them a minaret, lend themselves to
comparison with Schwetzingen.
Bibliography
Karel Hieke: Moravské zámecké parky a jejich dreviny.
Praha 1985.
Julia Hintringer: Schloßpark Eisgrub (Diplomarbeit,
TU München-Weihenstephan, Lehrstuhl für
Landschaftsarchitektur und Entwerfen). Freising 1994.
Zdeněk Novák: Die Gewächshäuser von Eisgrub-Lednice- in
Mähren. In: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und
Denkmalpflege, 48/1994, issue 1/2, p. 59-63.
Zdeněk Novák: Eisgrub-Feldsberg in Mähren - Ein
bedeutendes Dokument der Landschaftsgestaltung in
Mitteleuropa. In: Die Gartenkunst 1994, issue 1, p. 89-104.
Zdeněk Novák: Einflüsse William Chambers‘ auf den
Garten von Lednice (Eisgrub) und andere Gartenanlagen in
Südmähren. In: Thomas Weiss (ed.): Sir William Chambers
und der Englisch-chinesische Garten in Europa (Kataloge
und Schriften der Staatlichen Schlösser und Gärten Wörlitz,
Oranienbaum, Luisium, 2). Stuttgart 1997, p. 131-135.
Bohdana Fabinánova (ed.): Lednice na Moravě - zámecký
palmový skleník [Lednice chateau palm house]. Sborník
příspěvk u přednesených na mezinárodním semináři,
pořádaném ve dnech 17. - 19. června 2002 při příležitosti
dokončení jeho památkové obnovy. Brno 2002.

Géza Galavics: Egy elfeledett angolkert - Rovnye Trencsén
megyében. In: Tanulmányok Szabolcsi Hedvig 80.
Születésnapjára (Ars Hungarica 34/2006,1/2). Budapest
2006, p. 119-166.
Ramona Simone Dornbusch: Vom abschlagbaren
Pomeranzenhaus zum Palmenhaus. Der Wandel der
Orangeriekultur in Lednice/Eisgrub. In: Simone Balsam,
John Ziesemer (ed.): Orangerien in Europa. Vom fürstlichem
Vermögen und gärtnerischer Kunst (Hefte des Deutschen
Nationalkomitees/ICOMOS, Internationaler Rat für
Denkmäler und Schutzgebiete, 43). München 2007, p. 59-66.
Inka Truxova: Il complesso di Lednice-Valtice. Un ambiente
lacustre patrimonio dell‘umanità. In: Renata Lodari (ed.):
Il giardino e il lago. Specchi d‘acqua fra illusione e realtà
(Natura & artificio, 1). Rom 2007, p. 164-166.
Castle Howard
3. Justification for Inscription
Basic Facts
Location: Great Britain, England, county of
North Yorkshire, city of York
Historical outline: from 1699 construction of
the palace from plans by Sir John Vanbrugh
with input by Nicholas Hawksmoor for
Charles Howard, 3rd Earl of Carlisle; at
the time of Vanbrugh’s death in 1723 still
unfinished; numerous follies by Vanbrugh
in the park; 1699 plans by George London
for the laying out of a garden involving the
clearing away of a copse of old beeches called
Ray Wood (not realised); garden design put
into practice from 1705 (artist unknown) into
the 1720s, retaining the trees and laying out
meandering paths and waterfalls, installation
of statuary and summer houses; 1714 raising
of Vanbrugh’s Obelisk in the drive; 1719
monumental Entrance Arch; 1724-1728
“Temple of the Four Winds” (both also by
Vanbrugh); 1728 Pyramid, 1729 Mausoleum
(both by Hawksmoor); 1853 laying out of
a parterre with Atlas Fountain by William
Nesfield.
Characteristics: The park of Castle Howard
marks the threshold between the Baroque
and the landscape styles and is considered an
early precursor of the latter; the surrounding
countryside far beyond the reach of the actual
axes becomes an integral part of the estate;
the largely purposeless follies are placed
picturesquely, the course of the paths and the
3.
79

3. creative
80
3. Justification for Inscription
use of copses and clumps of trees
have little in common with the way features
such as these were used in later landscape
gardens.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Country house of
the Howard family, Earls of Carlisle; the
traditional type of the summer residence,
including a court and topographically aligned
with the main residence, is not found in
Britain; Castle Howard is a country seat
closely integrated into the surrounding
countryside, with the connections easily
discernible even today – the most striking
example being perhaps the axial arrangement
of the road towards the obelisk, visible from a
long distance away.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Castle Howard
did not have a formal, Baroque phase; with
the exception of the separate walled gardens, a
formal layout was only created in the mid-
19th-century, in the shape of the “Baroque
revival” parterre by Nesbit.
Furnishing: Numerous sculptures and all the
abovementioned follies created in the 18thcentury
have survived.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: Palace complete with interior
furnishing and collections preserved in
its 18th- and in some cases 19th-century
appearance; the garden with the exception of
the parterre mostly retains that of the time of
its creation, the early 18th-century.
Summary
There is little that lends itself to comparison
in the cases of Schwetzingen and Castle
Howard; the latter represents a special variety
of a garden in the transition phase between
Baroque and landscape that only occurred in
England. The fact that at Castle Howard there
was no feudal estate to provide the origin
and centre of the garden makes for a massive
difference; today’s formal parterre was almost
an afterthought created around the middle of
the 19th-century.
Bibliography
George Howard: Castle Howard. In: Marcus Binney, John
Harris, Roy Strong (ed.): The Destruction of the country
house. 1875-1975. London 1974, p. 167-169.
Wolfgang Kaiser: Castle Howard. Ein englischer Landsitz
des frühen 18. Jahrhunderts. Studien zu Architektur und
Landschaftspark (also: Dissertation., Universität Freiburg i.
Br., 1983). Freiburg i. Br. 1984.
Charles Saumarez Smith: The Building of Castle Howard.
Chicago 1990.
Edward W Leeuwin: Echoes of Arcadia. Rituals in the
Arcadian Landscape of Castle Howard. In: Die Gartenkunst
16/2004, issue 1, p. 73-84.
Lance M. Neckar: Polity and politeness at Castle
Howard. Awed and angry visitors in a baroque landscape
architecture. In: Michel Conan (ed.): Baroque garden
cultures. Emulation, sublimation, subversion (Dumbarton
Oaks colloquium on the history of landscape architecture,
25). Washington 2005.

Blenheim Castle und Park
Basic Facts
Location: Great Britain, England, county of
Oxfordshire, city of Woodstock
Historical outline: in the 12th-century a manor
with a water garden belonging to Henry
II and used as a dwelling for his mistress,
Rosamund Clifford; 1705-1716 construction
of Blenheim Palace by John Vanbrugh as a
monument to the Duke of Marlborough’s
military triumphs over Louis XIV and his
allies, especially the victory of Höchstädt
1704, the palace is named for the village of
Blindheim near Höchstädt; construction of a
monumental bridge over the Glyme river in
the palace’s main axis by Vanbrugh; 1722-
1725 completion of the building by Nicholas
Hawksmoor; 1723 demolition of the old
manor house north of the palace, laying out
of the ”Military Garden“ by Henry Wise, court
gardener to Queen Anne, south of the great
house, surrounded by walls and bastions and
planted with evergreen shrubs; laying out
of a monumental avenue as a continuation
of the bridge; 1727-1730 raising of a Victory
Column, from plans by Lord Herbert, as the
termination point of the avenue; from 1764
calling in of Lancelot ”Capability“ Brown,
dismantling of ”Military Garden“, damming
of the Glyme river to create a lake with
an undulating shoreline on both sides of
Vanbrugh’s bridge, general redesigning of the
3. Justification for Inscription
grounds in a landscape style and planting of
screening trees, extension of the lawns right
up to the palace; early 20th-century laying
out of formal, neo-Baroque gardens by Achille
Duchène; 1910 completion of “Italian Garden“
with four broderie parterres and a central
basin with a nymph by Waldo Storey; 1930
completion of the “Water Terraces“ west of
the palace, the upper is laid out as a water
parterre with fountains, the lower features
a miniature copy of “Bernini’s fountain” on
the “Piazza Navona” in Rome flanked by two
sphinxes. UNESCO World Heritage site since
1987.
Characteristics: The monumental Baroque
estate of Blenheim was orchestrated to look
imposing from the beginning – set on a hill,
unimpaired by formal gardens, with the main
axis extended all the way across a valley by
Vanbrugh’s huge bridge and the avenue;
today’s appearance is equally due to the
congenial landscaping by Capability Brown.
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Country seat of the Dukes
of Marlborough, not a summer residence in
the Continental sense; effectively integrating
the landscape over a long distance by way of
the extended main axis.
Synthesis of gardening styles: Blenheim
did not have a formal garden at the time of
its construction; the Baroque designing of
the landscape manifests itself solely in the
main axis with its avenues that was never
questioned, merely added to even when
Brown landscaped the grounds; formal
gardens close to the palace were only added
in the 20th-century and away from the main
axis.
Furnishing: The walls and bastions of the
”Military Garden“ were demolished in the
course of landscaping; Vanbrugh’s bridge and
column of victory preserved.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: The palace largely retains its
18th-century appearance, some of the interior
décor has been altered in the course of the
19th and 20th-centuries; the park with its
3.
81

3. furnishings
82
3. Justification for Inscription
is largely authentic in the shape it
was given by Brown’s landscaping.
Summary
As in the case of Castle Howard a comparison
of Blenheim Palace with Schwetzingen is
problematic; the stylistic and topographic
conditions in connection with the specific
character of English Baroque are too different.
In the case of Blenheim they result in a
seamless merging of two stylistic eras, the
Baroque and the landscape garden.
Bibliography
David Green: Blenheim Palace. London 1951.
Samuel J. Rogal: John Vanbrugh and the Blenheim Palace
controversy. In: Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, 33/1974, p. 293-303.
James Bond, Kate Tiller (ed.): Blenheim, landscape for
a palace (Oxford University, Department for External
Studies). Oxford 1987.
Howard Montagu Colvin: The Grand Bridge in Blenheim
Park. In: John Bold (ed.): English architecture, public and
private. Essays for Kerry Downes. London 1993, p. 159-175.
Christopher Ridgway, Robert Williams: Sir John Vanbrugh
and landscape architecture in Baroque England 1690 –
1730. Sutton 2000.
Kate Felus: The landscape of Blenheim Palace: three
centuries of conservation? In: Michel Conan, José Tito
Rojo, Luigi Zangheri: Histories of garden conservation.
Case-studies and critical debates (Giardini e paesaggio,
12). Florenz 2005, p. 185-212.
Christine Gadsby: Schloß Blenheim in den Jahren 1704
– 1722. In: Die Schlacht bei Höchstädt (Jahrbuch des
Historischen Vereins Dillingen an der Donau, 105/2004).
Dillingen 2005, p. 454-483.
Beloeil
Basic Facts
Location: Belgium, province of Hennegau,
municipality of Beloeil
Historical outline: Beloeil has been the
property of the princely family of de Ligne
for more than 600 years; in the 16th-century
conversion of the medieval fortress; garden
already present; late 17th-century extension
of the garden through purchases of land,
construction of the orangery, a large basin and
canals; 1721 laying out of a kitchen garden for
Claude Lamoral II de Ligne; 1737 construction
of a pavilion dedicated to Pomona,
enlargement of the great basin to its present
size; c. 1750 comprehensive plans for the
garden by Michel Chevolet, largely realised;
1760 installation of Neptune sculpture by
Adrien-Joseph Anrion as the crowning glory
of the great basin; 1766 Charles Joseph de
Ligne takes possession; until 1791 alterations
and extensions with input by Francois-Joseph
Bélanger; 1906 rebuilding of the palace after a
fire in 1900.
Characteristics: Garden surrounded by a canal,
a large basin serving as central axis, on both
sides formal areas in a Baroque idiom, on one
side next to the palace a landscaped extension
with follies, including a ruin. A general
beautification of the surrounding cultivated
countryside was planned, and to some degree
embarked on (embellishments were made to
everything within the distance covered in a
three-hour ride).

Topical Comparison
Summer residence: Beloeil is the ancestral seat
of the aristocratic de Ligne family.
Synthesis of gardening styles: The Baroque
garden dating from 1760 has been preserved
in its basic structure and substance, with
small-scale alterations that do not impair the
layout; some loosening of the formal character
within clearly defined areas by means of
small architectural elements; landscaped
extensions outside the formal areas (including
the kitchen garden) separated by a canal and
approached by a bridge; no 19th- or 20thcentury
redesign.
Furnishing: Statuary largely preserved, in
particular the Neptune group at one end of the
central basin. Buildings, including numerous
bridges, the “Pomona Pavilion” in the kitchen
garden and a number of architectural
elements in the bosquets, preserved as well.
Further original buildings survive in the
landscape garden – the summer house on
“Flora’s Isle”, the “temple of Morpheus” and an
artificially ruined temple.
Technical monuments: none documented.
Authenticity: The garden is largely preserved
in its original layout and form, with a number
of furnishing pieces and very few additions.
Even the remains of a bridge at the end of the
garden have simply been left in place. Other
built elements such as the basins are hardly
altered at all, although the need for some
restoration is currently being determined;
distinctive trees have habitually been replaced
by the same species and in the same location,
at least from the first half of the 20th-century
onwards.
Summary
The estate is comparable to Schwetzingen in
that it is a synthesis of two gardening styles.
The specific characteristics of the two styles,
however, are different due to regional factors
and the difference in political status of the
two estates.
3. Justification for Inscription
Bibliography
Uwe Kettmann, Uwe Quilitzsch (ed.): Prince Charles-Joseph
De Ligne: Der Garten zu Beloeil nebst einer kritischen
Uebersicht der meisten Gärten Europens. Reprint of the
edition Dresden 1799. Wörlitz 1995.
Christian Hlavac: Prince de Ligne. Der Gartenbesessene
und Kosmopolit in Wien. In: Die Gartenkunst, 1/2008, p.
151-164.
3.
83

3. Summary
84
3. Justification for Inscription
of Comparison
To ensure comparability the palace and palace
garden of Schwetzingen are here presented
with the same structuring of their traits used
for the other objects.
The Palace and Palace Gardens
at Schwetzingen
Basic Facts
Location: Germany, state of Baden-
Württemberg, city of Schwetzingen
Historical outline: 1541 rebuilding of the
medieval castle of Schwetzingen dating from
the 14th century under Elector Ludwig V;
palace destroyed and rebuilt, with a newly
laid out garden, from 1656 under Elector
Carl Ludwig; from 1698 another rebuilding
and enlarging of the war-damaged palace
by Elector Johann Wilhelm; from 1718
laying out of a small pleasure garden under
Elector Carl Philipp; 1720 Schwetzingen
becomes the official summer residence;
1748-50 construction of the first orangery on
a quarter-circle ground plan and laying out
of the market square by Alessandro Galli da
Bibiena under Elector Carl Theodor of the
Palatinate; 1753 construction of the second
quarter-circle orangery pavilion by Franz
Wilhelm Rabaliatti; from 1753 redesign of
the pleasure and kitchen gardens by Johann
Ludwig Petri, from 1761 by Nicolas de
Pigage, construction of a new orangery, 1762
construction of “Apollo temple” and “Natural
Theatre”, extension of orchard and vegetable
garden, construction of “Upper Waterworks”,
from 1766 laying out of a large basin, from
1767 construction of “Minerva temple”, from
1768 construction of bathhouse and laying
out of the bathhouse garden; 1770 fencing
in and stocking with deer of the hunting
park; 1777-1778 laying out of the “Arborium
Theodoricum” by Friedrich Ludwig Sckell;
1778 removal of Elector Carl Theodor to
Munich; 1778 construction of “Temple of
Botany”, from 1779 construction of the “Water
Tower”, laying out of the “Turkish Garden” and
construction of the mosque, 1786 laying out
of the mosque pond and adjacent landscape
garden; from 1787 construction of “Mercury
temple”; 1792–1804 Friedrich Ludwig
Sckell is court gardener; 1795 “Protocollum
commissionale” with guidelines for the
preservation of the garden; from 1804 Johann
Michael Zeyher is court gardener, laying out
of the “Arboretum” on the site of the former
“Menagerie”; 1823 landscaping of the “Great
Basin”; 1834 laying out of flower beds in the
“Cour d’honneur”; 1843 Grand Ducal garden
administration takes charge of the garden;
1924 State forestry commission is entrusted
with the garden’s upkeep.
Characteristics: Within the ensemble made
up of the palace, town and garden, the garden
still occupies the dominant position even
today. The late Baroque layout is characterised
by the Régence style. The composition is
traditional, without the common exotic
features typical of the time (the mosque
being the sole exception). The landscaped
enlargement of the garden takes place in
the earliest phase of the style in southern
Germany..
Topical Comparison
Summer residence: 1720 raised to the status
of official summer residence by Elector Carl

Philipp, enlarged from 1748 under Elector
Carl Theodor, in use as summer residence
until 1778, from 1803 little-used property of
the Grand Dukes of Baden, axial connection
to the former main residence of Heidelberg
and the residence in Mannheim; systematic
restructuring and enlargement of the village
of Schwetzingen into a stately residence and
laying out of a hunting park in Ketsch Forest
still recognizable.
Synthesis of gardening styles: From 1777
laying out of “Arborium Theodoricum”, from
1786 landscaped extensions surrounding
the formal basin, the shoreline of which is
redesigned in a more natural style in 1823. In
the 19th-century creative additions while the
Baroque layout is preserved and continued.
Furnishing: Lavish Baroque programme
of sculptures (around 240 pieces) mostly
preserved; Classicist architectural furnishing
with monumental buildings fully preserved.
Technical monuments: Upper (1762-64,
1771-74 enlarged, tower rebuilt) and Lower
Waterworks with bone mill (1774-1779)
preserved and fully functional; lightning rod
installed 1776 still in place on the roof of
Schwetzingen Palace.
Authenticity: The 18th-century gardens are
largely preserved and were never redesigned.
Some minor 19th-century additions in the
style of the time (”Cour d’honneur”, segments
of the circular parterre). In the second half of
the 19th-century increasing efforts to care for
and rejuvenate the wooded areas and avenues
in particular. In the 1980s the central area
of the circular parterre was restored, with
the historic simplifications being taken into
account.
Select Bibliography
Michael Zeyher, G. Römer: Beschreibung der
Gartenanlagen zu Schwetzingen. Mannheim 1809.
Kurt Martin: Die Kunstdenkmäler des Amtsbezirks
Mannheim. Stadt Schwetzingen. Karlsruhe 1933.
Jörg Gamer: Bemerkungen zum Garten der kurfürstlich
pfälzischen Sommerresidenz Schwetzingen. In: Kurfürst
Carl Theodor zu Pfalz, der Erbauer von Schloss Benrath. ed.
3. Justification for Inscription
by Jörn Bahns. Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Düsseldorf.
Düsseldorf 1979.
Wiltrud Heber: Die Arbeiten des Nicolas de Pigage in
den ehemals kurpfälzischen Residenzen Mannheim und
Schwetzingen. Worms 1986.
Hans Rall: Kurfürst Karl Theodor – regierender Herr in
sieben Ländern. Mannheim 1993.
Silke Leopold, Bärbel Pelker: Hofoper in Schwetzingen –
Musik, Bühnenkunst, Architektur. Heidelberg 2004.
Hubert Wolfgang Wertz, Uta Schmitt: Parkpflegewerk
Schwetzingen. Karlsruhe 2005.
Hubert Wolfgang Wertz: Wasserkunst im Schlossgarten zu
Schwetzingen. In: Barockberichte 46/47; p. 86-95, Salzburg
2007.
Carl Ludwig Fuchs, Claus Reisinger: Schloss und Garten zu
Schwetzingen. 2nd reviewed and extended edition, Worms
2008.
On the basis of the prevalence of those traits
of the properties used for comparison that are
relevant in connection with Schwetzingen,
the results will be summarized below.
The properties least comparable with
Schwetzingen will be considered first and
those similar to Schwetzingen last.
Summer Residence
Due to the fact that the summer residence
of Schwetzingen lost its chief function as
early as the late 18th-century, this function
can be comprehended today in the preserved
monument as a whole and in its details.
Neither was the property functionally
redesignated (something that happened
elsewhere when summer residence became
main residence), nor was there any major
creative redesign. Carl Theodor’s removal
to Munich, and later the acquisition of the
eastern part of the Palatinate by the Grand
Duchy of Baden, ultimately caused the
permanent conservation of the property with
all its buildings as a Palatinate Monument,
just as Carl Theodor had intended – and to
modern eyes, as a monument to a cultural
tradition that has disappeared, namely that of
the summer residence.
3.
85

3. Comparison
86
3. Justification for Inscription
with other properties reveals
major differences to Schwetzingen that may
be subsumed under three major points.
I. One characteristic group consists of palace
estates intended as main residences from the
first (Caserta, Ludwigsburg, Ludwigslust) or
redesignated accordingly (Versailles). The
function of a main residence necessitates
a different building programme (e.g.
including large amounts of administrative
space). Phenomenologically the difference
usually shows in a dominant, frequently
monumentalized palace-city connection
featuring an architectural “distancing”. The
Baroque unit of town, palace and gardens
that characterizes the Schwetzingen ensemble
is small-scale, particularly in the transition
areas and despite the axial alignment. Thus
the palace’s ”Cour d’honneur” and the houses
lining the middle-class Schlossplatz square
between them form a single long rectangle
that joins the world of the rulers to that of the
ruled.
Ansbach, the court garden of the main
residence, and Beloeil, the ancestral seat of
a princely family, feature courtly functions
similar to Schwetzingen to some extent,
but thoroughly different in detail and
characteristics.
II. Another group features palaces set into the
surrounding countryside like architectural
solitaire gems, with no close connection to
a city or town, usually serving as summer
palaces or hunting lodges (Augustusburg,
Schönbusch, Veitshöchheim, Drottningholm,
Het Loo and the English country seats of
Castle Howard and Blenheim). A summer
residence like Schwetzingen, on the other
hand, is characterized by the systematic
developing of a nearby settlement where the
buildings essential to a functional residence
(in Schwetzingen: stables, disabled soldiers’
barracks, ambassadors’ house, pages’ house
) end up constituting a considerable part of
the town. In small towns this network of
stately “outbuildings”, together with a large
percentage of inns and lodging houses, shapes
the appearance of the residence.
III. A third group is made up of large summer
residences transformed in the 19th-century
through alterations to the palace, developing
of the city or redesign of the garden
(Wilhelmshöhe, Lednice), and whose presentday
appearance is characterized largely by
these alterations. Although they frequently
add something of value to the overall property,
the appearance of the time of origin is lost. At
Schwetzingen, on the other hand, a textbook
example of an authentic 18th-century princely
summer residence survives intact.
The comparatively small degree of
preservation of the properties of “Solitude”
(with regard to the garden) and “Favorite” near
Rastatt (with regard to the working quarters)
excludes these objects from meaningful
comparison.
IV. Several of the properties cited feature
notable similarities with Schwetzingen as
regards their “summer residence” function,
but there are conspicuous differences
too. Herrenhausen served as a summer
residence over three centuries, and naturally
is less typical of the 18th-century; it is also
incompletely preserved due to the destruction
of the palace. At Sanssouci there was no
court, and consequently the structures
ensuring a court’s functioning, and with
them the “ensemble” character, are missing.
Wörlitz is formally true to type, stylistically
thoroughly Classicist, especially as regards
the urban setting. Schönbrunn and Peterhof,
imperial estates both, are very different in
size; the urban setting has changed beyond
recognition at Schönbrunn, while Peterhof
never had much of a connection to any
city, being orientated towards the sea. The
palace of Schönbrunn had a storey added.
Nymphenburg, very similar to Schwetzingen
structurally, is quite different as regards
the urban context – the originally planned
connection was never built, and today
the ensemble is much changed due to the

encroachment of the residential areas. At
Pillnitz major buildings that shape the
appearance of the whole date from the
19th-century (New Palace), and at the royal
summer residence of Aranjuez the balance of
predominance between the palace and garden
is the very opposite of Schwetzingen.
Today Schwetzingen is an example par
excellence of an 18th-century princely
summer residence. Outstanding in its
integrity and largely authentically preserved,
it is a complete ensemble of a town, palace
and garden with all buildings and features
necessary for an understanding of the culture
it represents.
Synthesis of Gardening Styles
I. In many of the gardens from the relevant
18th-century time period examined here, a
formal original layout was redesigned in the
landscape style – a practice quite common
at the time. If this is done thoroughly,
one stylistic era only remains discernible
today (Ludwigsburg pre-reconstruction,
Lednice, Ansbach prior to its Baroque
restoration). Sometimes, however, the new
layout is not all-encompassing, resulting in
a partial redesign (Ludwigslust). In certain
constellations the formal garden is preserved
with only minor alterations, resulting in a
present-day garden near-exclusively shaped
by its Baroque or Rococo phase (Solitude –
lost, Bayreuth “Hermitage”, Veitshöchheim,
Herrenhausen, Schönbrunn, Aranjuez, Het
Loo – reconstructed). Wörlitz and Schönbrunn
were created in the late 18th-century in the
then-modern landscape taste; here, too, one
era only is visible. Both Blenheim and Castle
Howard had no formal gardens to begin
with; the ones in place today are additions
created in the late 19th and early 20th-century
respectively.
II. Closest to the Schwetzingen synthesis of
the two stylistic eras, the Baroque and the
Landscape garden, is that of integration. This
is what happens when Baroque structures
are taken over into the Landscape garden,
3. Justification for Inscription
e.g. at Nymphenburg and Favorite. The
structures themselves are still recognizable,
but the formal garden with its characteristic
interlocking of structural levels is no longer
decipherable. An even further integration
of the formal elements occurred in the
landscaping of the Drottningholm and
Augustusburg gardens, although the basic
parterre structure was retained. Today both
gardens are characterized by reconstructed
Baroque parterres; the Swedish residence
in particular presents both styles side by
side. A typologically important sub-group
is represented by gardens characterized by
one single structural element, usually of
monumental size, which is retained as a
dominant feature by later incarnations (e.g.
the cascades of Wilhelmshöhe and Caserta).
Both of these gardens, perhaps not atypically
for layouts featuring such a monumental
gesture, were only partially realised Baroque
gardens; consequently some characteristic
stylistic features were planned but never
created (like the Caserta parterre). This in no
way lessens their status in garden history,
but it does constitute a clear difference from
Schwetzingen. On the other hand the Baroque
garden par excellence, that of Versailles,
was late and rather timid in introducing
landscaped features; there was some
landscaping in the vicinity of the Hamlet, but
other than that the style remained limited to
three isolated areas. In comparatively small
spaces like these the repertory of a landscape
garden cannot unfold fully. A beautification
plan for the vicinity never proceeded beyond
the initial designs (Thouin 1820). The
properties of Sanssouci and Peterhof are
comparable to Schwetzingen insofar as their
Baroque gardens are completely preserved,
and the landscape gardens were laid out
next to them. However, in both cases those
landscape gardens were created considerably
later than the one at Schwetzingen – at
Peterhof as late as 1829. At Sanssouci the
laying out of the landscape garden altered
the character of the Baroque garden insofar
as it integrated it into the large-scale design
3.
87

3. of
88
3. Justification for Inscription
a cultural landscape of palaces and parks,
which placed a very different emphasis on the
old Baroque and the new landscape garden.
Pillnitz was altered and developed several
times in the course of the 19th-century. Of
the properties examined in this context, the
garden of Beloeil comes closest to a synthesis.
The difference from Schwetzingen is here in
the specific characteristics of the gardening
styles and thus ultimately in the patrons’
differing status, the respective garden sizes,
and regional peculiarities.
The summer residence of Schwetzingen
represents the ”most perfect synthesis of the
two gardening styles“ of the 18th-century.
Created for one and the same patron, the
palace garden, itself part of an ensemble
that is unique in the world, documents the
development of the philosophy of creating
Art out of Nature more vividly than any other
place.
Furnishing
I. In many of the properties listed for
comparison only the furnishings of one
gardening style remain. At Herrenhausen and
Veitshöchheim there are Baroque sculptures
only as there was hardly any redesign in
the landscape style. On the other hand,
both gardens boast a lavish furnishing not
unlike Schwetzingen; at Veitshöchheim
there are about 300 garden sculptures
compared to Schwetzingen’s 280. Moreover
the Veitshöchheim garden is decorated with
several architectural features in a Rococo style.
The same goes for Schönbrunn. Buildings like
the “Roman Ruin” and the “Tyrolean Cottage”
were not orchestrated as landscape garden
follies but integrated into a concept that was
still Baroque. At Versailles large numbers of
furnishing elements, of both the Baroque and
the landscape gardens, have been preserved;
however, comparatively few of the follies
characteristic of the landscape style were ever
built.
Another group of gardens features only the
architectural elements typical of landscape
gardens, either because the gardens were
created in that time (Wörlitz, Schönbusch)
or because they were redesigned in the
newer style (Ludwigsburg, Nymphenburg,
Hermitage, Ludwigslust, Pillnitz, Favorite,
Lednice, Blenheim). Compared to
Schwetzingen Ludwigslust has a much larger
variety of follies, but due to the fact that the
garden was created as a landscape garden
from the first there is no Baroque statuary.
II. Gardens with comparatively negligible
sculptural furnishings – whether due
to loss (Solitude, Augustusburg) or to
their specific Baroque design (Ansbach,
Wilhelmshöhe, Caserta, where sculpture in
the Baroque garden is limited to the vicinity
of the cascade) – are not comparable to
Schwetzingen in this respect. Elsewhere,
for example at Peterhof, major pieces of
furnishing have been reconstructed; Het Loo
is a similar case with its statuary acquired
from a number of different sources.
III. Properties like Aranjuez, Drottningholm,
Sanssouci, to some extent Pillnitz and
Beloeil do have furnishing elements from
both stylistic eras, but fewer by far than the
Schwetzingen garden; in this respect they are
not comparable to Schwetzingen either.
IV. Many gardens are decorated with statuary
dating from several centuries, for example
Aranjuez, the gardens of which feature
sculptures dating from the 17th to the
19th-centuries. Most similar to Schwetzingen
in this respect is the furnishings preserved at
Castle Howard.
A unique feature of Schwetzingen is the
combination of two gardening styles, both
complete with their specific furnishings, both
surviving in uncommon concentration and
variety, of outstanding artistic value and both
near-completely preserved.

Technical Monuments
Technical monuments are considered to be
buildings and facilities serving to distribute
goods, as well as technical objects and
historically unique and/or typical facilities in
connection with a technical standard. Within
this broad range and in a garden context
it is frequently irrigation systems that are
considered technical monuments today.
I. For interior rooms, only the stage
machineries of court theatres will be
mentioned here. Those at Ludwigsburg and
Drottningholm have been preserved, as has
the one at Versailles, which is, however, not
functional.
II. Many of the properties compared to
Schwetzingen feature 19th-century technical
monuments. Herrenhausen has the water
wheels and pumps of its water displays
installed in 1860, Sanssouci the steam
engine hall of 1841-43, and Nymphenburg
the early 19th-century cast-iron pumping
stations in the “Green Wellhouse” and
“Johannisbrunnenhaus” that are considered
to be among the most significant technical
monuments in Bavaria.
III. Technical monuments from the 18thcentury
are significantly more rare. At Wörlitz
the “Vesuvius” steam engine constitutes
a technical monument similar to that at
Sanssouci, with the exception of the pump,
which was newly installed in 2005.
Frequently 18th-century irrigation systems
have been partly replaced at some stage,
or only survive in parts like those of
Wilhelmshöhe and Versailles. Many facilities
use the water pressure created by a gradient
to operate their water displays. At Caserta
the remarkable aqueduct remains of this
system, and at Peterhof the water pranks and
the “Wishing-Table”. The very early Bayreuth
water towers date from the earlier 18thcentury.
The first of them, built 1718, works
purely on the principle of communicating
pipes. The second, constructed in 1750,
3. Justification for Inscription
already uses a different system and is supplied
with a system of pressure and levers modelled
on the machine of Marly. Both precede the
Schwetzingen waterworks that also use
Marly as a model. However, of the Bayreuth
waterworks only the tower and reservoir
survive. At Veitshöchheim the old water tower
and the waterworks, with a water wheel, date
from 1765-68 (enlarged in 1770), and are
still functional. The Upper Waterworks at
Schwetzingen, however, was constructed in
1762-64 (tower rebuilt and enlarged 1771-74),
and is still in perfect working order.
IV. The bone mill attached to the Lower
Waterworks (1774-1779), which pounded the
bones left over from the Elector’s table into
bonemeal, completes the unique range of
monuments.
At Schwetzingen, recent research has
moreover discovered a remarkable technical
innovation by Pigage. The “ruined” temple
of Mercury with its broken dome lacks by
necessity an edge ring at the base of the dome,
the purpose of which would have been to
hold in the dome’s weight against thrusts,
and allow the construction of a dome in the
first place. Instead an ingeniously concealed
new construction of ring beams and imposts
creates a stable open ring capable of bracing
the dome’s thrust. The temple of Mercury
thus features a precursor of the pre-stressed
construction.
With the Upper Waterworks and the
functional pumping stations Schwetzingen
features the oldest complete pump-based
water supply system of all the residence
gardens. The Lower Waterworks’ bone
mill and the equally unique historic
lightning rods by Hemmer, today the oldest
surviving specimens of Europe’s modern
era, complement a remarkable inventory of
outstanding technical monuments. Moreover
the “temple of Mercury” boasts an early
version of a pre-stressed construction.
3.
89

90
3. Justification for Inscription
3. Authenticity
Ultimately the gardens of many comparable
properties survive in a state of authenticity,
which must be judged with a view to the
preserved original features from the 18thcentury.
I. Some gardens are characterized by
conversions and redesigns (Favorite,
Nymphenburg, Wilhelmshöhe, Ludwigslust,
Sanssouci, Pillnitz, Lednice, Caserta,
Blenheim, Aranjuez), frequently up to the
late 19th-century. At Sanssouci, which retains
a large 18th- and 19th-century inventory,
20th-century interventions have aimed
to reconstruct an earlier stage (vineyard
terraces). At Wilhelmshöhe the 18th- and
19th-century inventory has been reduced
by war damage; at Nymphenburg, too, the
war-damaged Badenburg has been completely
reconstructed.
II. Another group has been preserved, at
least in basics, in its 18th-century shape
(Veitshöchheim, Schönbusch, Wörlitz, Castle
Howard, Beloeil).
III. By contrast there are properties that have
lost most of their substance (Solitude) or
have been newly laid out in a largely creative,
quasi-Baroque style (Ludwigsburg, Ansbach).
IV. Partial reconstructions have taken place
at Schwetzingen and elsewhere, in various
degrees of detailing (Schönbrunn, Aranjuez,
Versailles). Schönbrunn is preserved in a
largely authentic state but with some 19thcentury
alterations based on the Baroque
layout (parterre), and some reconstruction
in sub-areas. The layout of Versailles, too, is
preserved authentically; in some parts of the
gardens reconstructions covering everything
from plant selection to buildings aim to
restore the appearance of Louis XIV’s time,
which is, however, documented in reliable
detail.
V. Large-scale reconstruction of central areas
of the garden, frequently surrounded by
authentically preserved landscaped areas,
has been taking place at Brühl (beginning
in the 1930s), Het Loo and Drottningholm.
Also in the 1930s, major reconstruction work
took place at Herrenhausen, including some
creative redesign. The Herrenhausen garden
had been regarded as a monument to the
Welf dynasty as early as the 19th-century,
and respectfully preserved in its Baroque
layout. An even farther-reaching strategy of
conservation going back even to the 18thcentury
was in place at Schwetzingen, starting
with the so-called Protocollum Commissionale
of 1795 which explicitly describes the whole
property as a “Palatinate Monument”, to be
preserved in its entirety.
Schwetzingen features an extraordinary
number of authentically preserved original
features. Schwetzingen survived both the
massive upheaval of the Industrialisation, and
the two great wars, without incurring major
damage. Schwetzingen is one of the most
authentic examples of 18th-century garden art
in existence today, and it is being restored and
preserved with all due care in its historicity,
that is to say whilst taking into account those
historic simplifications and additions based
on conceptual decisions.

Comparison of Outstanding
Artistic Achievements
The Circular Parterre
The so-called circular parterre or “Zirkel“ 1
is the garden’s dominant large feature. It
is based on a plan drawn up by the court
gardener, Johann Ludwig Petri, in 1753 and
in this marks the end of a discussion that had
been going on since the accession of Elector
Carl Theodor in 1742, about the further
development of the palace and estate. The
decision was preceded by much wavering and
ambiguity, but the result is decisive, the shape
clear and unambiguous. 2
In 1748 the Elector commissioned the
building of the northern quarter-circle
pavilion immediately adjacent to the palace.
The architect was Alessandro Galli da Bibiena,
who at the same time planned the layout of
the Schlossplatz and the four large blocks
to the east of it that would determine the
appearance of the town, and connect the
two earlier settlements. In the course of the
following years several designs for a new
palace building were circulated, and those
were already drawn up by Nicolas de Pigage.
Among the options were a palace built in the
centre of the circle already indicated in size
and location by the quarter-circle pavilion 3 ,
something that would have conformed to
the traditional star shape of the hunting
lodge in particular – witness the nearby and
1 Zeyher (1807, p. 23) and Sckell (1825, p. 295) refer to the
garden that describes a perfect circle or the Cirkus, the
Protokollum commissionale (1795) mentions the „central
part of the Great Circle“, Leger (1828; pp. 37, 44) refers to the
large front garden and the great amphitheatre, Schoch (1990,
p. 21) emphasizes the unusual arangement. The first to refer
to the feature as a circular parterre is Gothein (1914, p. 269),
also Hennebo, Hoffmann (1965, p. 362) und Hansmann (1983,
p. 286). Martin (1933, p. 141) is the only one to use the term
“Kreisparterre”. Other authors refer to the circle as a ground
plan ornament and a room (Hallbaum 1928; p. 104), to the
magnificent round of the circular space (Heicke 1937, p. 252),
Gamer (1979; p. 20f) the circle, the parterre, the central-plan
composition and to a unique spatial creation (Hajos 2006).
2 Carl Theodor stated that he not only graciously approved „the
renewed laying-out of the palace garden here, according to the
plan submitted by the court gardener of Pfalz-Zweibrücken“
but decreed specifically that the direction of the work should
belong to “none other than the aforementioned court gardener
Petri” (Martin 1933, p. 139).
3 Wiltrud Heber: Die Arbeiten des Nicolas de Pigage in den ehemals
kurpfälzischen Residenzen Mannheim und Schwetzingen.
Manuskripte zur Kunstwissenschaft vol.10. Vol. 1.2. Worms 1986.
3. Justification for Inscription
more or less contemporaneous examples of
Clemenswerth (1737-1747), of Favorite near
Ludwigsburg (1717-23) and of Waghäusel
Hermitage (1724). Another option would have
been to build the palace to the north of the
intended circle 4 , which would have had the
benefit of orientating the estate towards the
main residence of Mannheim. However, the
building of the second, mirror-image quartercircle
pavilion by Franz Wilhelm Rabaliatti
in 1752-54 put paid to those deliberations,
and the somewhat old-fashioned palace was
retained both in location and in its existing
shape.
Working on the circular parterre (1753-1758)
Petri now had two ”berceaux de treillage“
constructed to provide a mirror image of
the semicircle formed by the pavilions –
latticework arbour walks that together with
the pavilions circumscribed a full circle of vast
proportions. The cross contained within the
circle is outlined with parterre beds over the
width of the castle, both continuing the layout
of the town and providing the coordinate axes
of the entire garden. The Schlossplatz of 1748
represents the completion of the Baroque
layout of Schwetzingen, the circular parterre
its crowning glory.
In terms of the orchestration of a ruler’s estate
the retaining of the location and orientation of
the palace could be seen as a visual anchoring
in Palatine history, as the summer residence’s
main axis confirms and re-emphasizes the
avenue connecting it with Heidelberg that
had been laid out in the early 18th-century.
By contrast the links with Mannheim
are established by way of quasi-Arcadian
allusions, almost Utopian in nature, as it were
– an approach that can be found elsewhere in
the garden too but is introduced in the great
parterre. 5 With the placing and arrangement
4 Johann Michael Zeyher, G. Roemer: Beschreibung der Gartenanlagen
zu Schwetzingen. Mannheim 1809, p. 19.
5 The diorama next to the bathhouse is of particular significance
in this respect. The paradisiac landscape depicted conforms to
the topographic situation of Mannheim, which in this way is
imagined as a city founded in Elysium.
3.
91

3. of
92
3. Justification for Inscription
the sixteen latticework arches 6 arranged
round the central Arion basin, Pigage, who
took over when Petri left in 1758, emphasizes
the significance of the circle as the point of
intersection of the avenue leading up from
Mannheim with that from Heidelberg. 7
Opinions differ with regard to this creation,
both when it comes to its original inventor
and regarding its significance for garden
history. 8
Order and Dynamics
The circular parterre did not spring to life
fully formed. The credit is not due to Petri
alone; there were also the designs by Bibiena,
the building by Rabaliatti and the creative
interpretation by Pigage in the 1760s, all of
whom contributed to the final appearance
of this extraordinary piece of Baroque space
orchestration. The artist-gardeners were
faced with the daunting and in fact unique
task of reconciling the centralising force of
the serenely static circular shape with the
pull towards the distance the French parterre
had developed in the course of the 17th
and early 18th-centuries. 9 The contradiction
6 „In the vicinity of the great Arion-basin, in the very centre
of the circular garden, and specifically on the two diagonals
pointing towards the temples of Minerva and Galathea, are 16
wooden colonnades of latticework“ (letter written to the Elector
by Sckell, dated 6.9.1798, GLA 213/113).
7 Wiltrud Heber: Treillagearchitekturen im Zentrum des Schwetzinger
Schlossgartens – Gutachten für die Oberfinanzdirektion
Karlsruhe. Karlsruhe 1992, p. 35.
8 Lohmeyer (Karl Lohmeyer: Südwestdeutsche Gärten des Barock
und der Romantik. Saarbrücken 1937, p. 126 ) and Martin (Kurt
Martin: Die Kunstdenkmäler des Amtsbezirks Mannheim:
Stadt Schwetzingen. Die Kunstdenkmäler Badens, vol.10, 2.
Abt. Karlsruhe 1933, p. 141) consider it a unique achievement,
mainly by Petri, that has neither a model nor a successor in
European gardening. Quite early on Jörg Garner had pointed
out some precursors to the Schwetzingen central-plan layout in
the history of German garden art, limiting himself entirely to
parterres in his comparisons, whereas Heber extends his range
of possible models or parallel creations to cover all urban or
garden spaces with a circular feature (Heber: Treillagearchitekturen
im Zentrum des Schwetzinger Schlossgartens. Karlsruhe
1992, p. 35; occasionally critical: Elisabeth Szymczyk-Eggert:
„.. sogar wäre es mir lieb, wenn Ihr Schwetzingen besuchet“,
in: Günther Harri: Gärten der Goethe-Zeit. Leipzig 1993,
pp.149-159) and emphasizes the fact that several people were
involved in the planning and building process. Heber’s largely
justified criticism limits itself to the physical shape of the
circle, however, all but disregarding function and content.
The number of examples cited is impressive; nevertheless the
comparison is not wholly convincing either methodically or
with regard to the points it makes.
9 Jörg Gamer: Bemerkungen zum Garten der kurfürstlich
pfälzischen Sommerresidenz Schwetzingen. In: Kurfürst Carl
Theodor zu Pfalz, der Erbauer von Schloss Benrath. Ed. Jörn
Bahns. Stadtgeschichtliches Museum Düsseldorf. Düsseldorf
1979, p. 20.
appears insurmountable and particularly
evident if we consider insights taken from the
performing arts. According to dramatics, ideal
geometric shapes like the circle and square
are admirably suited for positioning purposes,
for assemblies and ritual or military spectacle;
they are quite unsuitable for dramatic
performances. 10 Like no other art form in
history Baroque gardening adapts to the laws
of stagy movement, of the courtly festivity;
not for nothing did it develop a spatial “canon”
that works both choreographically and with
regard to perspective. 11
Petri solved his artistic problem by classically
structuring the circle with a crossroads,
and emphasized the fact with the aid of
bosquet-type planting in the segments. He
orchestrates an axially (i.e. orthogonally)
structured parterre, supplemented in a way
by an ancillary parterre on the traverse
axis. The circle itself remains hidden in the
parterre. Where Petri had merely bordered
the space with simple latticework arches,
Pigage created the arbour walks to serve
as precise architectural equivalents of the
quarter-circle pavilions, 12 and by lowering the
lawn areas (the “boulingrin”) he brought the
architecture of the space, the circular shape,
into visibility. In this respect it is Pigage who
is the true creator of the ideal geometry that
constitutes the circular parterre, and with
his orchestration of the circular shape the
Utopian aspect of this geometry comes into
play.
The Utopian element has been a major
architectural topos since the days of the
early Humanists, usually with direct
10 „The acting area must necessarily be a rectangle and not a
circle. The circle allows one type of true movement only, the
turn. ... This is the reason it is so difficult to have a play in a
circular space. The circus ring is for horses, not humans, it does
not permit anything dynamic. The rectangle by contrast allows
all the great dynamic routes, the straight lines, the parallels, the
diagonals, that release and organize a multitude of dramatic
possibilities” (Jacques Lecoq: Der poetische Körper. Eine Lehre
vom Theaterschaffen. Berlin 2000, p. 184sqq).
11 Cornelia Jöchner: Die Ordnung der Dinge: Barockgarten
und politischer Raum. In: ICOMOS, Hefte des Deutschen
Nationalkomitees. München 1997, pp. 177-181.
12 The two central and four terminal pavilions should have
been constructed next, according to Pigage’s suggestion of
1761 (Wiltrud Heber: Treillagearchitekturen im Schwetzinger
Schloßgarten, in: Mannheimer Gbll NF 2, Mannheim 1995, p.
215).

eference to Greek antiquity. 13 The “authors
of (urban) utopias are quite obsessed with
the two absolute geometric shapes” 14 that
carry a whole host of meanings, among
them, at least in the dimensions realized
at Schwetzingen, that of governmental
power. 15 The circle is the ideal shape that in
the history of gardening traditionally carries
cosmological significance. 16 The original
purpose of the quarter-circle pavilions – to
serve as orangeries 17 – bridges the gap from
the pure Utopia represented by geometry
to an iconography of the Golden Age rooted
in the garden itself and so you can draw the
conclusion that it serves as a canon alluding
to the idea of the garden itself. The educated
visitor will be reminded of examples such
as the mythical island of Cythera from the
influential work of Francesco Colonna (1499)
or the programmatic layout of the botanical
garden of Padua with its cosmological
allusions going back to the Middle Ages. 18
Typological Comparison
So is the layout of the circular parterre, rooted
as it is in the European history of building
and ideas, outstanding and significant, or is
it merely another instance of the use of the
circle in the history of gardening?
13 Hanno Walter Kruft: Utopie und Idealstadt. In: Badisches
Landesmuseum: „Klar und lichtvoll wie ein Riegel“ – Planstädte
der Neuzeit. Karlsruhe 1990, pp. 31-37.
14 Bogdan Bogdanovic: Architektur der Erinnerung. Klagenfurt
1994, p. 43. There are two „ideal-typical“ examples in Baden-
Württemberg: Freudenstadt and Karlsruhe.
15 „From the very beginning the state represents itself through
emptiness: spacious rooms, huge avenues, vast squares designed
for monstrous parades” (Henri Lefèbvre: Die Revolution
der Städte. Frankfurt am Main 1990, p. 119).
16 The geometrical representation of the unfathomable (by the
Greeks) in a way constitutes the intellectual foundation of our
civilisation, which afterwards was loth for a long time to leave
that intellectual sphere – and is represented by the sphere,
symbol as well as Utopian shape of the world (Peter Sloterdijk:
Sphären II, Globen. Frankfurt am Main 1999, p. 50sqq); see
also: Geza Hajos: Die dritte Natur. In: the same, Denkmalschutz
und Öffentlichkeit. Zwischen, Kunst und Natur. Frankfurt am
Main 2005, pp. 233-259.
17 The most important plants of Baroque orangeries are the citrus
varieties. Their leaves are evergreen; moreover they bear leaves
and fruit simultaneously. Because of these botanical traits
they came to be regarded as symbols of the ruling dynasty’s
immortality; they were also associated with the golden apples
of the Hesperides from the Hercules myth. Raised to the status
of the virtuous hero’s attribute that was then transferred to the
prince, oranges were interpreted as symbolizing the return of
the Golden Age.
18 Geza Hajos: Die Weltbedeutung der kurfürstlichen Residenz
in Schwetzingen. Kunstgeschichtliche Stellungnahmen.
Schwetzingen 2009.
3. Justification for Inscription
To answer this question, and keeping in mind
the shifting intentions at Schwetzingen (from
the planned “star avenue” through a quartered
parterre enclosed within a circle to a circular
parterre) we will look at a number of selected
18th-century gardens with prominently
featured circles. As regards the use and
significance of the circle they can be roughly
subdivided into five categories.
(I) The ”Jagdstern“ (a hunting park with a
specific layout remniscent of a star shape):
From a central palace, or hunting lodge,
avenues radiate in all directions to give
access to the surrounding woodland. Like
the circle this layout is not “orientated”; the
multiple axes render it open in all directions
and without a defined border. The area
immediately adjacent to the palace gains
the character of a square; it is frequently
surrounded by a circle of pavilions and
generally not laid out as a parterre.
The palace of Favorite at Ludwigsburg (built
1717-24 by D.G. Frisoni) has the palace in
the centre of the hunting park where it
also constitutes the northern termination
of the prominently featured main axis of
Ludwigsburg Palace. An unrealised design
created by Pigage for the Belvedere of the
Stuttgart palace (1771) depicts the octagonal
pavilion in the centre of a star-shaped hunting
park on the hill facing the palace itself. 19
The circular shape only occurs in the
immediate vicinity of the palace, and its size
and featureless layout do not lend themselves
to comparison with the Schwetzingen
parterre.
19 Andrea Berger-Fix, Klaus Merten: Die Gärten der Herzöge von
Württemberg im 18. Jahrhundert. Katalog zur Ausstellung im
Württembergischen Landesmuseum Stuttgart. Worms 1981.
3.
93

3.
Ground plan of Ludwigsburg
Palace and both its gardens,
after Donato Giuseppe Frisoni,
1721-24 (detail).
94
3. Justification for Inscription
Hampton Court, 1708. Fredensborg Palace, 1728.
(II) The semicircle: The palace sits midway
on the semicircle’s diameter, which is
often emphasized as an axis; from it paths
or avenues fan out into the grounds. The
orchestration is orientated, the layout
open towards the grounds, without a clear
architectural boundary; the transverse axis
and avenues lead away beyond the grounds.
Hampton Court is probably the most
prominent example of this type; the semicircle
was laid out at the end of the 17th-century (G.
London, D. Marot). William III commissioned
two large parterres, one of which was
within the semicircle. The palace garden of
Fredensborg (design 1718-19, by J. C. Krieger)
is another example. 20 It is a semicircular
garden with the points of the two segments, in
the shape of broderie beds, emphasizing the
ballroom; the rest of the segments are planted
with topiary shrubs.
20 Jens Hendeliowitz: The Royal Gardens of Denmark. Hillerod
2005, p. 105sqq.
Both examples share a feature very different
from Schwetzingen. The semicircle has no
architectural perimeter. The emphasis is on
the minor axes and garden areas, all clearly
orchestrated towards the palace.
(III) The conch shape: The pavilions sit at
the end of an axially orientated garden space,
embracing its entire width and serving as a
clear boundary of an area defined as part of a
semicircle. The palace on the diameter marks
the true axis.
The palace of Lustheim situated at the end
of the Schleißheim park (built 1684-89 by
E. Zucalli) was surrounded at the back by a
semicircle of galleries and orangeries, with
the semicircular space between laid out
as a parterre. Phenomenologically similar
to Schwetzingen (with regard to the circle
segments only) but with no connection
to neighbouring areas, it constitutes the
termination not the beginning of the garden,
and ultimately employs a semicircle, not a full
circle.
(IV) The circle as a garden room: Part of the
garden is defined as a circular ”room“, but the
feature does not determine the general layout.
The garden of Solitude palace (plans by
R.F.H. Fischer, 1767) provides an example of
a multitude of circular forms occurring in a
bosquet, characteristic of the Rococo style.
A curious example is the Italian palace of
Stupinigi (built 1729-34 by F. Juvara), which
features two variations of the circle – in the
shape of a semicircle near the stables in front

of the palace and as a star-shaped bosquet-like
area in the grounds.
The dimensions of the Schwetzingen circle
alone raise it above small circular garden
rooms of this type. Moreover these rooms are
not directly adjacent to the palace due to their
function, and they are not parterres.
(V) The circular parterre as a small room:
Formally and functionally the similarities to
Schwetzingen are greatest here. However,
these parterres are not elements within
a graded Baroque layout; they have been
realised to accommodate a specific set of
circumstances such as the location within a
bastion or in the narrow confines of a villa’s
garden.
The eastern garden of the Würzburg
Residence (laid out from 1770 by J.P. Mayer)
featured a sunken circular parterre with a
fountain in front of the Imperial Pavilion;
it protruded into a second terrace and had
a layout of radially arranged, bell-shaped
segments and broderie beds. 21 The circular
„Baron Meyrische Lustgarten“ at Harlaching
near Munich (laid out in 1720 by M. Diesel)
has a similar array of central-plan rooms and
again no architectural “setting” of the circular
garden space. Formally similar solutions
occur in the 18th-century gardens of Tuscan
villas 22 ; the hillside estate of La Petraia near
Florence even features as one of its highlights
an intertwined double circle constituting a
separate, beautifully laid out room.
The Würzburg Residence layout could be
called a circular parterre in the strict sense
of the word. However, it lacks a connection
to a Baroque whole. It could be argued that
a Baroque circular parterre in the sense that
the entire circle constitutes a radially laid out
parterre is possible only as part of what is, in
essence, still a Renaissance concept – a small
solution, as it were (Würzburg, La Petraia).
The Schwetzingen parterre goes beyond any
of the examples cited above. In the cases of
21 Erich Bachmann et al.: Residenz und Hofgarten Würzburg.
Amtlicher Führer. München 2001, p. 36.
22 Luigi Zangheri: Im Dienste von Franz Stephan von Lothringen:
Gervais als Generaldirektor der Gärten in der Toskana (1737-
1756). In: Die Gartenkunst 2007/2. Worms 2007.
3. Justification for Inscription
the “Jagdstern” and the semicircular parterre
it is the centrally situated palace itself that
limits the unfolding of the layout. The space
cannot be developed as a garden (Jagdstern) or
remains typologically ambiguous (semicircle).
Most circular parterres are small-scale,
isolated solutions incapable of overcoming the
inward-looking character of the basic shape.
It is only at Schwetzingen that the basically
static circle gains a Baroque dynamic. This
is achieved by means of the hierarchically
structured intersection of avenues and a
3.
Ideal view of Lustheim Palace,
Maximilian de Geer, c.1730.
Plan of the palace and garden
of Solitude, Georg Peter
Schreyer, 1776.
95

3. subtle
96
Design by Court Gardener
Johann Prokop Mayer for the
East Garden at Würzburg.
3. Justification for Inscription
hierarchy of the forms used in the
parterre itself. This ranking on a second level
not only emphasizes the centre, already the
focal point of any circle. It also makes up for
the inherent non-directionality of the circle
that could otherwise present quite a problem
in a Baroque garden. In contrast to all the
examples mentioned above the arrangement
of beds within the parterre is orthogonal.
In order to transform the ideal shape of the
Renaissance into a Baroque feature a certain
amount of monumentalizing is inevitable: the
large solution that brings about the Utopian
character.
In summary it can be stated that the
Schwetzingen circular parterre is the sole
surviving monumental Baroque creation of its
kind. 23
23 The designation “circular parterre” is admissible in the sense
that it expresses a unique formal synthesis between the specific
ornament and the spatial design, both explicitly baroque
phenomena.
The Arboreta and Meadow Vale in the
18th- and 19th-Centuries
The ”Arboreum Theodoricum“ is the part of
the Schwetzingen palace gardens laid out in
1777 by a young Friedrich Ludwig (von) Sckell
(1750-1823) as his first landscape garden,
shortly after returning from an extended
study tour of England; it is also one of the
earliest landscape gardens in southwestern
Germany, and it combines two characteristic
features. 24 One is the layout as an artificially
(through much shifting of earth) created
but natural-looking “meadow vale“ with a
comparatively lively topography; the other is
the dedication as an arboretum, a collection
of foreign, mostly North American trees
and shrubs. In his five-volume theory of the
art of gardening (1779-1785) Christian Cay
Lorenz Hirschfeld (1742-1792) describes this
part of the Schwetzingen gardens thus: “The
plantation contains a collection of all manner
of native and foreign trees and shrubs that
occur in the Palatinate and that are here
marked with their names for the education of
young gardeners. This is a very excellent and
appropriate facility.“ 25 Sckell himself referred
to the garden as ”English garden (arboretum)“
and regarded it as a collection of woody plants
intended for educational purposes from the
beginning.
Arboretum
Plant collections that include woody plants
have a long tradition in the history of
gardening. 26 In Germany experimental
plantations focusing on American woody
plants had been created as early as 1750 in
the parks of Harbke and Schwöbber. 27 Their
marking with their proper names and the
24 Dieter Hennebo, Alfred Hofmann: Geschichte der deutschen
Gartenkunst, vol. 3: Der Landschaftsgarten. Hamburg 1963, p.
132 sqq.; Martin 1933, p. 170.
25 Christian Cay Lorenz Hirschfeld: Theorie der Gartenkunst, 5
vols., Leipzig 1779-1785. Repr. Hildesheim 1973. Qtd from:
Hubert Wolfgang Wertz: Orte für Seele und Geist. In: Schlösser
Baden-Württemberg, No. 3, 2004, pp. 24-27, here p. 24.
26 Paul Elliott, Charles Watkins (ed.): Cultural and historical
geographies of the arboretum, London: Kong. 6.-8.9.2006
(Garden history; 35. 2007, suppl. 2) [n.p.] 2007.
27 Marcus Köhler: „Wenn wir erst einen ins Wilde angelegten
Garten zu sehen gewohnt sind...“. Die frühen Landschaftsgärten
von Harbke und Schwöbber, in: Die Gartenkunst 5/1993, No. 1,
pp. 101-125.

laying out of such a collection as a naturallooking
garden, however, were new features.
The term “arborium” or more commonly
“arboretum“ 28 can be found as early as the
17th-century in the titles of various treatises,
both in Latin and German, 29 but it is there
always used figuratively. For the Germanspeaking
parts of Europe the Schwetzingen
arboretum is likely the very first instance of
the term being used for an actual collection
of woody plants accumulated for scientific
purposes. 30 In English-speaking parts the
term is first verifiable about half a century
later – the occasion of its first publication is
considered to be an article by John Claudius
Loudon in the “Gardener‘s Magazine” in 1833.
In the 1834 edition of his “Encyclopaedia
of Gardening” Loudon describes the then
famous Hackney Botanic Garden arboretum
in London, first created in 1816. 31 The term
arboretum gained wide recognition and
a more frequent use after the publication
of Loudon’s ”Arboretum et Fruticetum
Britannicum“ from 1838. 32 A strong impetus
to create similar displays of woody plants
was provided by the opening of the “Derby
Arboretum” in 1840; the arboretum, planned
by Loudon, was the first to be intended
28 Johann Heinrich Zedler: Grosses vollständiges Universallexikon
aller Wissenschaften und Künste [...], 64 vols. Halle u. Leipzig
1832-1854, here vol. 2, column 1171: „Arboretum, Arbustum, a
garden wherein there are planted fruit-bearing trees; a nursery
of trees“.
29 [Johann] Ursini: Arboretum biblicum: in quo arbores &
fructices passim, [...] 1699; N. N.: Arboretum Floridum. Oder:
Ein Gemüths-erfrischende Beschreibung der Bäumen: Den Liebhabern
der Göttlichen Geschöpffen, und grossen Wercken dess
Herrn, zu Lust und Nutzen in Kupffer vorgestellt, [...] 1689;
Johann Michael Döler: Arboretum oder geistlicher Baum-Garten
von sechs unterschiedenen Baümen auss dem schönen geistl.
Lust-Garten [...] versetzet [...] dem [...] M. Petro Hesselio zum immer
grünenden Gedächtniss [...] in einer sonderbahren Predigt
[...], Band 1, [...] 1679; Tobias Beutel: Arboretum mathematicum,
darinnen zu befinden: Himmelsfiguren und Geburtsstunden
hoher Häupter, auf aussgerechnete Finsternüsse, Sonnen-,
Mond- und Sternenuhren, Astrologia, Themata, und richtig
calculirte Longitudines Der Städte des Churf. Sachsen und
benachbarter Länder, [...] 1669.
30 The Wörterbuch der europäischen Gartenkunst names, as one
well-known example, the Arborium Theodoricum in Schwetzingen
(Gabriele Uerscheln, Michaela Kalusok: Wörterbuch der
europäischen Gartenkunst. Stuttgart 2003, p. 45); Regarding the
definition of the term and history of arboreta see: G. Kirchner,
E.[duard] Petzold: Arboretum Muscaviense. Über die
Entstehung und Anlage des Arboretum Sr. Königlichen Hoheit
des Prinzen der Niederlande zu Muskau [...]. Gotha 1864, pp.
12-16.
31 John Claudius Loudon: The Encyclopaedia of Gardening.
London 1834 (1. ed. London 1822).
32 John Claudius Loudon: Arboretum et Fruticetum Britannicum.
London 1838.
3. Justification for Inscription
specifically for the wider public. Subsequently,
and during the second half of the 19th-century
in particular, many more such collections were
created worldwide, often laid out as parks;
among them were the Westonbirt Arboretum
in England (established as early as 1828), the
Muskat arboretum 33 created from 1856/58,
the Arnold Arboretum in Boston, USA, laid
out by Frederick Law Olmsted from 1872, and
the Arborétum Mlyňany, established 1892,
of Count István Ambrózy-Migazzi (Slovakia).
The Schwetzingen Arboretum is thus at the
very beginning of a veritable fashion for
arboreta that was to develop in the following
decades.
Meadow Vales
Within Sckell’s work the meadow vale
has come to be considered the dominant
motif of his parks, and it usually serves
to define the basic spatial structure of his
layouts. 34 In his book “Beiträge zur bildenden
Gartenkunst für angehende Gartenkünstler
und Gartenliebhaber”: (Thoughts on the Art
of Creating Gardens for Future Garden Artists
and Garden Lovers) Sckell wrote: “Valleys
are among the most excellent features of the
33 G. Kirchner, E.[duard] Petzold: Arboretum Muscaviense. Über
die Entstehung und Anlage des Arboretum Sr. Königlichen
Hoheit des Prinzen der Niederlande zu Muskau [...]. Gotha
1864.
34 Volker Hannwacker: Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell – der
Begründer des Landschaftsgartens in Deutschland. Stuttgart
1992, p. 148; Jost Albert: Wiesentäler und Hügel bei Friedrich
Ludwig von Sckell. Grundsätze, Arbeitstechnik. Künstlerische
Qualität, in: Die Gartenkunst, 14/2007, No. 2, pp. 274-288, here
p. 275.
3.
The Meadow Vale in the
Arborium Theodoricum, 2009.
97

3. new
98
The Grecian Valley at Stowe,
Bickham, 1753.
3. Justification for Inscription
[landscaped] gardens“. 35 These grassy
vales, larger or smaller and very different
in topographic character depending on the
situation at hand, are enriched and enlivened
with small clumps of trees and shrubs. A
network of visual axes kept independent
of the actual paths in combination with
a carefully thought out topographic
composition leaves the spectator with the
impression of a stagelike orchestration of the
landscape, and the garden is made to appear
more spacious than it actually is. 36
The model for the layout of the ”Arborium
Theodoricum“ may be surmised to have been
the Grecian Valley at Stowe 37 which Sckell
is known to have been familiar with, having
visited the estate on his tour of England. 38
There Lancelot “Capability“ Brown had
developed a system for the laying out of
landscape gardens that remained valid for
many years. In the case of the Grecian Valley
Brown had to tackle a problem Sckell would
later encounter at Schwetzingen too – he had
to make do with an area of near-level ground.
As Sckell would do later, Brown solved this
35 Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell: Beiträge zur bildenden Gartenkunst
für angehende Gartenkünstler und Gartenliebhaber. 2.
ed. München 1825. Repr. Worms 1998, p. 86.
36 Saskia Dams: Der Englische Garten im Schwetzinger
Schlossgarten – Der Tempel der Botanik und das Römische
Wasserkastell mit Aquädukt und Obelisk (also: Studienarbeit
Universität Heidelberg). Norderstedt 2001.
37 Jörg Gamer: Bemerkungen zum Garten der kurfürstlichpfälzischen
Sommerresidenz Schwetzingen, in: Kurfürst Carl
Theodor zu Pfalz, der Erbauer von Schloß Benrath (exhibition
cat.). Düsseldorf 1979, pp. 20-25, here p. 22.
38 Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell: Beiträge zur bildenden Gartenkunst
für angehende Gartenkünstler und Gartenliebhaber, 2.
ed. München 1825. Repr. Worms 1998, p. VIII.
by large-scale digging and shifting until he
had created a shallow vale. Another feature
Sckell adopted for his own designs was the
line of shrubbery, the “belt”, with a path
running along it – the belt walk. Brown’s
basic principles inspired by William Hogarth’s
“line of beauty” he adapted for his own
purposes by laying out the course of his path
in a manner that reflected the topographic
shape. 39 In Brown’s work the artificial grassy
dell that is the Grecian Valley represents the
solution of a specific problem that did not
in itself become a model to be drawn on,
either by Brown himself or by other British
garden artists. 40 Sckell, on the other hand,
developed the feature of the meadow vale
from the ”Arborium Theodoricum“, which
is in the character of an early work, 41 into a
major element of his designs. Thus the park
of Schönbusch near Aschaffenburg, laid
out by Sckell from 1783, 42 is characterized
by three wide grassy vales alternating with
spacious wooded areas. In the west is the
“Green Avenue”, in the centre the “Great
Meadow Vale” which is actually a continuation
towards the south of the canal aisle cut into
the woods, and in the east the “Meadow of
Planes”. In Sckell’s later work these vales were
to be visually extended into the surrounding
countryside with the help of ha-has, as seen
for example in his plans for Innsbruck and at
Nymphenburg. 43 For Amorbach Sckell even
created a small secluded meadow vale within
a larger valley (1803-1804). 44 The best-known
of Sckell’s vales took shape in connection with
the redesign of the Nymphenburg palace
39 Ibid.
40 This is also due to the fact that most British landscape gardens
did feature one or several natural dells or valleys to begin with,
e.g. Stourhead, Painshill Park, Prior Park.
41 Franz Hallbaum: Der Landschaftsgarten. Seine Entstehung
und seine Einführung in Deutschland durch Friedrich Ludwig
Sckell, 1750-1823. München 1927, pp. 113 sqq.
42 Jost Albert: Wiesentäler und Hügel bei Friedrich Ludwig von
Sckell. Grundsätze, Arbeitstechnik, künstlerische Qualität, in:
Die Gartenkunst, 14/2007, No. 2, pp. 274-288.
43 Volker Hannwacker: Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell – der
Begründer des Landschaftsgartens in Deutschland. Stuttgart
1992, p. 148
44 Gerhard Siemon: Friedrich Ludwig Sckells Entwurf für den
Seegarten in Amorbach, in: Die Gartenkunst, 9/1997, No. 2, pp.
319-348.

gardens in 1804-1823. 45 Here Sckell retained
the Baroque feature of the triple radiating axes
(patte d’oie) but converted the two flanking
visual axes, towards Pasing and Blutenburg
Castle respectively, into landscaped vales; for
good measure he created another meadow
vale, the “Löwental” (“Lions’ Valley”), at the
back of the Badenburg pavilion. 46
The work of Peter Joseph Lenné, who studied
Sckell’s gardens closely in his formative
years as an artist and whose own artistry
owes much to his predecesssor, features the
meadow vale too. 47 Lenné’s original intention
at Sanssouci was to convert the majestic
“Grand Avenue” into an aisle-like vale and to
alleviate the narrow length of this axis, merely
visual in Lenné’s design, by introducing
transverse sheets of water. 48
Thus the „Arboreum Theodoricum“, Sckell’s
first creation, did not merely set a style within
his own work and provide a certain amount
of trail-blazing for the landscape garden in
southwestern Germany. 49 Sckell’s design
principles, realised here for the first time,
continued to have an effect on others such as
Peter Joseph Lenné and thus contributed to
the development of the landscape garden in
central Europe, causing John Claudius Loudon
to state in his “Encyclopedia of Gardening”,
possibly with a degree of exaggeration, “[...]
the names of Sckell and Lenné, prove that
45 Uta Hasekamp: „Allein diese alte symmetrische Gartenkunst
(…) hat doch auch ihre Vorzüge“. Der formale Garten im
Werk von Friedrich Ludwig Sckell am Beispiel der Gärten
Nymphenburg und Schwetzingen“, and Rainer Herzog: Die
räumlich-visuelle Struktur des Schlossparks Nymphenburg, in:
Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell (1750-1823). Gartenkünstler und
Stadtplane., ed. Iris Lauterbach. Special Issue of „Die Gartenkunst“,
N.F. 14/2002, No. 2. Rainer Herzog: Friedrich Ludwig
von Sckell und Nymphenburg. Zur Geschichte, Gestaltung und
Pflege des Schlossparks Nymphenburg. München 2003.
46 Rainer Herzog: Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell und Nymphenburg.
Zur Geschichte, Gestaltung und Pflege des Schlossparks
Nymphenburg. München 2003.
47 Seiler, Michael, Sckell und Lenné, in: Die Gartenkunst, 14/2007,
No. 2, pp. 306-310, here p. 306.
48 von Buttlar, Adrian, Der Landschaftsgarten, Köln 1989, p. 210.
49 In his preface for the second edition of “Beiträge zur bildenden
Gartenkunst” Sckell’s nephew, Carl August Sckell, writes: „Even
though the area given to our young garden artist to prove
his talent was rather small and insignificant, the work, when
finished, was much applauded not only by the Prince but by
the whole of the educated public. Everybody was in raptures
over the loveliness and grace inherent in this style, and in this
way the road was prepared. A new taste in gardening had been
introduced in Germany, which soon was universally accepted.”
(Sckell, Friedrich Ludwig von: Beiträge zur bildenden Gartenkunst
für angehende Gartenkünstler und Gartenliebhaber, 2nd
ed., München 1825, Reprint Worms 1998, pp. IX-X).
3. Justification for Inscription
both the principles of landscape-gardening
and their application are better understood in
Germany than they are in Britain“. 50
Eighteenth-Century Theatre Buildings
At the beginning of the 18th-century, the
Baroque Italian theatre with its tiers of boxes
was a fully developed type that was imitated
throughout Europe. The first building of this
type, the Teatro San Cassiano in Venice, had
been erected in 1637. 51
Contemporary Architectural Theory
There is a notable functional difference
between the private court theatre and the
public playhouse. The general layout was
usually the same, but the two types were
different in size and character. The smaller
court theatre typically constituted part of a
palace and thus required neither a distinctive
exterior, nor did it have to fit into an existing
cityscape. The public theatre, on the other
hand, occupied a prestigious site within
the city and was conceived as an imposing
building. The court theatre, built with the
money of the ruling family, was designed
with a view to elegance, display and comfort;
the public theatre was laid out to allow
for the maximum number of seats, simply
because it was the letting of boxes that
accounted for most of the theatre’s profits.
Consequently theatres of this type had a pit
surrounded on three sides by galleries, up
to six of them stacked on top of each other,
that were subdivided into boxes. 52 Some
examples: The five-gallery “Teatro Ducale” in
Milan was built in 1714-1717, and in 1776
Giuseppe Piermarini added a sixth gallery
to “La Scala” theatre; with 4000 seats it was
considered the world’s largest theatre. 53 The
“Teatro Argentina” in Rome, built in 1732
by Giovanni Teodoli, was conceived as a
50 Loudon, John Claudius: The Encyclopaedia of Gardening,
London 1850 (1 st ed. London 1822), p. 113.
51 Jung, Carsten: Wie es jetzt üblich ist. Theaterbau und Aufführungspraxis
als Ausdruck ihrer Zeit. In Ausstellungskatalog:
Theatrum Mundi – Die Welt als Bühne. München 2003, p. 22 ff.
52 Summerson, John: Die Architektur des 18. Jahrhunderts.
Stuttgart 1987, p. 106.
53 Summerson, John, p. 107.
3.
99

3. six-gallery
The auditorium of the
Schwetzingen Rococo theatre.
100
3. Justification for Inscription
house from the beginning. In 1735,
architects Giovanni Antonio Medrano and
Angelo Carasale built the “Teatro di San Carlo”
for the Bourbon King of Naples, Charles III.
For many years the “San Carlo” with its 3300
seats was the largest opera house in existence
and considered the best in Europe, surpassing
even “La Scala” in Milan. 54 The theatre built
in 1756 by Antonio Carlo Galli da Bibiena in
Bologna features four galleries of boxes in
the shape of rows of arches stacked one on
top of the other, somewhat reminiscent of an
outside-in version of the Colosseum in Rome.
54 In 1816 large parts of the theatre were destroyed by a fire. It
was restored along the original lines but with a classicist décor
by the architect Antonio Niccolini (Klucker, Ehrenfried: Neapel.
Zürich 1980, p. 69).
The Italian theatres with their small
subdivisions were criticized by French
architectural theoreticians, who derided them
as “chicken coops“ and called for a more
monumental layout modeled on Classical
examples. Visitors were to be seated on open
balconies. 55 In 1758 Charles-Nicolas Cochin
demanded simplicity, a neat arrangement
and a clearly visible architectural structure.
Public criticism culminated in a treatise, “Del
Teatro” by Francesco Milizia, published in
1773. It summarizes the strictures levelled
at the Baroque “box” theatre, including
construction defects and the general lack of
fire prevention measures that contributed to
the short life span of many theatres. Other
points raised were functional defects like
narrow and insufficient entrances, stairwells
and corridors, the lack of lobbies and the
frequently unacceptable viewing conditions
and acoustics within the auditorium itself. 56
To Milizia the great unparalleled model is the
Classical amphitheatre. There is an element of
social criticism here too: the loftiest function
of Art is not to serve as an aspect of an
absolutist ruler’s self-display but to represent
the public. No longer should the theatre be an
elitist courtly pastime; instead it should serve
the people.
Schwetzingen
These enlightened ideas were put into
brilliant practice by Nicolas de Pigage, the
Palatine director-in-chief of building. The
Schwetzingen Rococo theatre, built 1752/53,
is the earliest example of an open-balcony
theatre in Europe, without any subdivision
of the galleries into boxes. The simplicity of
its décor, in keeping with the demands of
the French theoreticians, is in stark contrast
to the bombastic interior decoration of the
contemporaneous theatres in Munich and
55 Hesse, Michael: Klassische Architektur in Frankreich. Kirchen,
Schlösser, Gärten, Städte 1600-1800. Darmstadt 2004, p. 141.
56 Meyer, Jochen: Vom barocken Theatrum Mundi zum modernen
Theater. Kritik und Rezeption der barocken Theaterbauten im
späten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert. In: Opernbauten des
Barock. Internationale Tagung des Deutschen Nationalkomitees
von ICOMOS und der Bayerischen Verwaltung der staatlichen
Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. Bayreuth 1998, pp. 15-25.

Bayreuth. A novel element is the slight tilt
of the auditorium floor towards the stage.
The benches had plain backs and were fixed
in place, 57 which effectively put paid to the
unmannerly behaviour of the audience.
Traditionally audiences both of public and
of court theatres felt quite free to eat, smoke,
sell drinks, receive visitors, chat and move
around during performances. None of which
was permitted at Schwetzingen, and the
seating arrangements served to put a stop to
it. 58 At the front and at a certain distance from
the railing separating the auditorium and
orchestra four chairs for the electoral couple
and their guests were placed. A ruler’s box
of the type installed by Alessandro Galli da
Bibiena for the opera house of the Mannheim
palace as late as 1742 was dispensed with
entirely. The open, projecting balconies
without subdivisions were a novel feature, and
so was the fact that the traditional forestage
boxes overlooking the orchestra pit were
dispensed with too. Instead trumpeters’ boxes
were installed there, concealed behind gilt
grilles decorated with musical instruments.
The ground floor boxes were divided off from
each other by low railings and furnished with
gilt grilles in the manner of “incognito” boxes;
they were the sole relics of the old Italian-style
box theatre, and retained largely for reasons
of statics.
The concept behind the balcony theatre
matched a changed audience. Performances
were no longer exclusive to members of the
Palatine court but open to the public and free
of charge. 59 The Schwetzingen Rococo theatre
with its early classicist painted décor (c.1770)
is thus the earliest prototype of an opengalleried
theatre as called for by the French
architectural theory of the time.
57 Two original benches with thin cushions of red cloth have been
preserved. The benches were clamped to the floor on both sides
of a central aisle.
58 Von Mannlich, Johann Christian: Rokoko und Revolution.
Stuttgart 1966, p. 187.
59 Burney, Charles: Tagebuch einer musikalischen Reise durch
Frankreich und Italien, durch Flandern, die Niederlande und
am Rhein bis Wien, durch Böhmen, Sachsen, Brandenburg,
Hamburg und Holland 1770-1772. Reprint Wilhelmshaven
1985, p. 228.
3. Justification for Inscription
France
In France, too, the first galleried theatre was
built in 1753 – the Lyon “Salle de Comédie” by
the architect Germain Soufflot. This, however,
was a public theatre. 60
In Versailles a purpose-built theatre was
a late addition. Performances had been
taking place in temporary buildings in the
“Marble Court” during the summer, and
the riding hall in winter. In the time of
Louis XIV there was a removable theatre
for the Princes’ Staircase, and Madame de
Pompadour owned another created for the
Ambassadors’ Staircase. 61 Ange-Jacques
Gabriel had been working on plans for a real
theatre since 1748, but it was only for the
wedding of the dauphin, later Louis XVI, to
Marie Antoinette in 1770 that it was finally
built in the course of just 21 months. As at
Schwetzingen the traditional galleries of
boxes were replaced with projecting balconies.
They are subdivided into compartments by
waist-high railings. The topmost (third) gallery
is enhanced with a colonnade of arches, at
the back of which mirrors and chandeliers
serve to make the room seem even larger.
The columns are reminiscent of the “Teatro
Olympico” created in 1584 by Andrea Palladio
in Vicenza. The oval auditorium that made
for a very unsatisfactory view of the stage
was an old-fashioned element compared to
Schwetzingen. Backless benches make up the
stalls, and there is no tilt of the floor towards
the orchestra that might have improved the
view. At the front an armchair was placed for
the King’s convenience, but Louis XV liked to
watch plays in private, and so the third gallery
was furnished with three “incognito” boxes
shielded with grilles. Moreover the topmost
colonnade by itself constituted a royal box of
sorts, modelled after a detail of the “Fontana
di Trevi” in Rome by Charles De Wailly. 62 After
the French Revolution the theatre was altered
considerably; the painted ceiling was replaced
60 The theatre was destroyed by fire in 1828.
61 Siefert, Helge: „Le Raffinement et l’Élégance“ als Lebensmaxime.
In Ausstellungskatalog: Madame de Pompadour. L’Art
et l’Amour. Ed. Xavier Salomon. München 2002, p. 37sqq.
62 Hesse, Michael, p. 116.
3.
101

3. with
102
3. Justification for Inscription
a skylight, and the building was used by
the senate as a session room. In 1950-1952 the
stage (without its machinery) and auditorium
were returned to their original appearance,
and since then they have been shown as a
museum.
A smaller, more intimate theatre was built in
1784 by Richard Mique for Marie Antoinette
in the garden of the “Petit Trianon”. Here the
floor does tilt slightly towards the orchestra.
Rows of removable benches flank a central
aisle. Two open galleries surround the
horseshoe-shaped auditorium. The amateur
theatre is decorated in the “Goût grec“ and
was used for private productions for the
enjoyment of the Queen, who occasionally
performed in them herself. The layout
conforms, if somewhat timidly, to the
demands of modern theatre-building that had
been put into practice at Schwetzingen years
before.
It was not until 1773 that a theatre – the
“Grand Théâtre” built by Victor Louis
in Bordeaux – met the demands of the
theoreticians and satisfied the critics. It
served as a model for what is today called the
“Théâtre de l’Odeon” in Paris, built 1778-
1782 from plans by Charles de Wailly and
Marie-Joseph Peyre. 63 On the whole, France
was late in adapting to the demands made by
architectural theoreticians regarding modern
theatres.
Developments in Germany
Germany’s oldest theatre survives in the
castle of Celle, once the seat of the Welf
Dukes of Braunschweig-Lüneburg. It was
built in 1676, featuring tiers of boxes in the
Italian style, and first altered in 1690. After
having been partially destroyed during the
Seven Years’ War it was restored in 1772, in
a different style and with fewer boxes. The
fourth gallery was removed entirely, and the
third became an open balcony. Here, too,
modern developments made themselves felt,
if rather slowly. Repairs in 1817 and 1837
63 Hesse. Michael, p. 141.
were followed, in 1855, by a full-scale redesign
in a neo-Rococo style. With further renovation
work carried out in 1935 and 1939, little
original substance is left in Germany’s oldest
theatre today. 64
The oldest German theatre actually preserved
in its original shape can be found in “Schloss
Friedenstein” in Gotha, formerly the seat
of the Dukes of Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg.
Originally the auditorium, which had served
as a hall for ball games before being converted
into a theatre in 1681, was furnished with
simple chairs. The scenery stage of what today
is called the “Ekhof Theatre” was technically
among the most advanced in the entire Holy
Roman Empire. 65 As late as 1687 a gallery
with a ducal box was added at the level of the
stage, modelled on the Italian tradition. The
auditorium was given its current appearance
in 1775 when a second balcony was added;
at the same time the ducal box was reduced
in size, and neither balcony had any further
subdivisions. These changes were introduced
in order to allow the public access to the
theatre. 66 For all its early establishment and
advanced stage machinery, its owners were
rather late in introducing developments that
had been put into practice as early as 1753 at
Schwetzingen.
Next in the chronology is the “Markgrafen
Theater” in Erlangen, built in 1719 for
the Prince of Brandenburg-Bayreuth as a
Baroque box theatre. In 1743 the Margravine
Wilhelmine of Bayreuth, sister of Prussia’s
Frederick the Great, had the interior
refurbished and redesigned; Giovanni
Paolo Gaspari created a horseshoe-shaped,
three-tiered box theatre that adhered to
the traditional type but also featured a
fashionable rocaille décor. The theatre’s
64 Köhler, Marcus: Das Schlosstheater in Celle. Die Geschichte
einer verfehlten Rekonstruktion. In: Opernbauten des Barock.
Internationale Tagung des Deutschen Nationalkomitees von
ICOMOS und der Bayerischen Verwaltung der staatlichen
Schlösser, Gärten und Seen. Bayreuth 1998, pp. 48-53.
65 Reus, Klaus-Dieter: Faszination der Bühne. Bayreuth
2001, p. 49. The first stage to have wings mounted on trolleys
that could be pulled on and off stage was constructed
in 1628 by Giovanni Aleotti for the Teatro Farnese“.
66 Dobrittsch, Elisabeth: Barocke Zauberbühne. Das Ekhof-Theater
im Schloss Friedenstein Gotha. Weimar 2004, p. 57 sqq.

current appearance is shaped by numerous
20th-century alterations. 67
The Berlin opera house, built from 1742 at
the request of the Prussian king, Frederick the
Great, by Georg Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff,
was a conventionally laid out theatre with
the traditional tiers of boxes. Its free-standing
façade, however, was a novel element in
Germany as it made the theatre into a
detached, imposing feature of the surrounding
cityscape. Later alterations and the damages
inflicted on the building during WWII have
left nothing of the original interior, however.
Knobelsdorff again supplied the design of the
theatre inserted into the Potsdam city palace
in 1745-1748. The semicircular auditorium
was inspired by the Teatro Olympico, and
featured gradually rising rows of seats in the
manner of an amphitheatre. This theatre,
destroyed in 1802 when it was converted into
apartments, represents the earliest attempt
at recreating the type of the Classical theatre,
and is typologically more significant and more
far-reaching in its influence even than the
Schwetzingen balcony theatre. 68
In 1766-68 Johann Christian Hoppenhaupt
created a small theatre for the “Neues Palais”
in Potsdam that was a unique combination
of an amphitheatre and an open-balcony
theatre. 69 Prior to this another architect,
Carl von Gontard, had submitted plans for a
late Baroque box theatre with a bell-shaped
ground plan; this, however, did not suit the
ideas of Frederick the Great.
When the Margravine Wilhelmine of
Bayreuth saw the plans for the Berlin opera
house her brother sent her she decided to
have another theatre built at Bayreuth. The
structure, intended as a court opera house,
was nevertheless erected not as part of the
palace but as an independent building in
town, flanked by elaborate townhouses. The
exterior façade was designed by Josef Saint-
Pierre, the auditorium and stage machinery by
67 Reus, Klaus-Dieter, p. 21.
68 Sommer, Claudia: Vom kurfürstlichen Jagdsitz zur Residenz
Friedrichs des Großen. In: Ausstellungskatalog Potsdamer
Schlösser und Gärten. Bau und Gartenkunst vom 17. bis 20.
Jahrhundert. Potsdam 1993, p. 76.
69 Sommer, Claudia, p. 131 sqq.
3. Justification for Inscription
Giuseppe Galli da Bibiena and his son, Carlo.
The interior was inaugurated on the occasion
of the wedding of Elisabeth Friederike, the
Margrave’s daughter, to Duke Carl Eugen
of Württemberg in 1748; the exterior was
not finished until 1750. The bell-shaped
auditorium based on Italian models features
three tiers of boxes, an imposing ruler’s box
and an open gallery. The room is magnificent
with its sumptuous decoration of sculptures,
emblems and frescoes in a high Baroque
style. Never altered since, the margrave’s
opera house in Bayreuth is the most splendid
Baroque theatre north of the Alps. 70 Despite
its sheer magnificence the structure remains
faithful to that of the traditional Italian box
theatre.
In Munich a theatre was built in 1751-53 for
Elector Max III Joseph of Bavaria; the plans
were by François Cuvilliés, and the layout was
that of a traditional four-tiered box theatre
with a horseshoe-shaped ground plan and
an electoral box, two tiers in height, directly
opposite the stage. The entire auditorium was
put into storage during WWII, and rebuilt
elsewhere in 1958. 71
The Duke of Swabia, Carl Eugen,
commissioned a ”Commoedien Theatri“
in 1758/59; it was built by Philippe de La
Guêpière, and situated in the eastern pavilion
of Ludwigsburg Palace. In structure it is a
three-tiered box theatre with a bell-shaped
ground plan. The original basic structure, the
stage, large parts of the stage machinery and
a number of sets have survived. In 1812 King
Frederick commissioned alterations and a
redesign in the then fashionable Empire taste
that were carried out by Nicolaus Friedrich
Thouret. The royal box and forestage boxes
were preserved while the rest of the boxes
were removed, to be replaced by open
balconies. 72
70 Krückmann, Peter O.: Das markgräfliche Opernhaus. In:
Ausstellungskatalog: Paradies des Rokoko I. Das Bayreuth der
Markgräfin Wilhelmine. München 1998, p. 69 sqq.
71 Strictly speaking it was the box fronts that were removed.
72 Scholderer, Hans-Joachim, p. 37 sqq.
3.
103

3. Outside
104
3. Justification for Inscription
Germany
In Český Krumlov in Bohemia Duke Johann
Christian of Eggenberg had a theatre built in
1680 as an extension to his mountain-spur
castle. In 1765/66 one of his heirs, Prince
Josef Adam of Schwarzenberg, commissioned
the Viennese architect Andreas Altomonte
to refurbish and redesign the old “Comedia
Haus”. On the level floor the benches increase
in height towards the back to allow for a
better view of the stage. The sole balcony
is open, with no subdivisions except for
the central ruler’s box. The ČeskČ Krumlov
refurbishment thus adopted the very latest
developments in theatre design. The theatre
is also unique in the wealth of surviving
sets, costumes, props and everything else
pertaining to a working theatre of its time. 73
A further development of the concept
underlying the Schwetzingen Rococo theatre
is represented by the palace theatre built in
1766 by Carl Friedrich Adelcrantz for Queen
Ulrica Louisa of Sweden at Drottningholm.
The auditorium realizes the idea postulated by
the architectural theoreticians – that of a “hall
theatre” entirely without galleries and boxes.
The area at the front is oval in shape and was
originally designated the royal box. There are
three entrances on the side, all surmounted
by balconies, two of which are furnished
with grilles to serve as incognito boxes. The
auditorium is enlarged by a rectangular room
with benches rising towards the back. The
Baroque stage machinery is the best-preserved
in all of Europe. 74
Despite being an intimate court theatre the
“Teatro di Corte” of Caserta Palace near Naples
was built according to the tradition of the
tiered box theatre in a corner of the western
courtyard from plans by the architect Luigi
Vanvitelli, and completed in 1767. It boasts
five galleries of boxes separated by colossal
alabaster columns taken from the temple of
Serapis at Pozzuoli. 75
73 Slavko, Pavel: Das Schlosstheater in ČeskČ Krumlov. ČeskČ
Krumlov 2001.
74 Reus, Klaus-Dieter, p. 75 sqq.
75 Ciaparelli, Pierluigi: Il Teatro Di Corte Di Caserta. Storia e
restauro. Neapel 1995.
Progress within 18th-century theatre-building
was represented by the theatre of Gripsholm
Castle, built 1781 by Erik Palmsted for King
Gustav III of Sweden to replace an earlier,
smaller theatre on the third floor of one of
the towers. The redesign owed something
to the “Teatro Olympico”; the semicircular
auditorium was laid out on the model of the
Classical amphitheatre with ionic columns
and benches rising towards the back. The
royal box has been inserted into the base of
the columns, and surmounting it is a balcony
for the royal entourage while the so-called
lorgnettes, allowing servants to attend, are
hidden in the ornamentation of the coffered
ceiling. 76
Later 18th-century theatre buildings
usually remained true to the traditional
type featuring tiers of boxes, among them
the theatre in Hanau-Wilhelmsbad (1781)
or that of the St. Petersburg “Hermitage”
(1763) that was redesigned by the architect
Giacomo Quarenghi in 1783 to become a
modern amphitheatre 77 . As late as 1793
the “San Carlos” opera house in Lisbon,
commissioned by King Charles IV, was built
as a conventional box theatre in the Italian
tradition, and when the Princes Waldstein
commissioned a new theatre in LitomyČl in
Bohemia the building, completed in 1796/97,
featured a horseshoe-shaped auditorium
with a level floor, and a single balcony with a
central ruler’s box. It was only at the very end
of the 18th-century that the modern theatre
was more generally accepted. 78
In summary it can be stated that of all the
court theatres discussed, Schwetzingen is the
earliest to have met the demands identified
by contemporary architectural theory. Public
theatres in cities were quick to follow: as
76 Reus, Klaus-Dieter, p. 101 sqq.
77 The palace theatre of Ostankino near Moscow, built 1790-97
for Count Nicolai Scheremetjev, is an interesting and unique
oddity. The theatre takes up the very centre of the palace
compound. Corinthian columns encircle an open, horseshoeshaped
auditorium with benches arranged in an amphitheatrelike
pattern. The benches could be dismantled easily, and
with the aid of machinery hidden beneath the floor the entire
auditorium could be raised to the level of the stage, creating
a grand ballroom (Denisova, Y.: The Hermitage Theatre.
St.Petersburg 2004).
78 Reus, Klaus-Dieter, p. 111 sqq.

early as 1753 the “Salle de Comédie” in Lyon
was built, another theatre featuring open
balconies. The Schwetzingen Rococo theatre is
therefore the oldest surviving European court
theatre of the modern type.
The Bathhouse
The bathhouse in the Schwetzingen palace
gardens, built by Nicolas de Pigage for Elector
Carl Theodor between 1768 and 1772, is
unusual in several respects. On the one hand
it is a tiny pleasure palace in the tradition of
the French ”maison de plaisance“, on the other
hand it was at the same time designed to be a
private baths.
True to the type of the small pleasure palace,
the Schwetzingen bathhouse was built to
accommodate its owner and his personal
interests, and served as a refuge away from
courtly ceremonial and governmental
duties. Accordingly the little building is fully
furnished with all the rooms and amenities
necessary for actual living. Carl Theodor is
known to have used the bathhouse for smallscale
musical performances, among other
things, and in this he followed the example
set elsewhere in other pleasure palaces
built in Baroque gardens, the Petit Trianon
at Versailles among them. As regards its
building type and its small size, however, the
Schwetzingen bathhouse cannot be compared
to other pleasure palaces of this kind; in this it
is more comparable to Palladio’s villas.
The function, that determined the shape
the building was to take, was its intended
use as a baths – it should be noted that the
point of bathing there was not so much
personal hygiene but rather relaxation and
contemplation. Comparable courtly “bathing
pavilions” in Germany are the Badenburg
in the park of Nymphenburg Palace 79 and
the “marble baths” in the Karlsaue park in
Kassel 80 .
79 Ulrika Kiby: Die Exotismen des Kurfürsten Max Emanuel in
Nymphenburg. Hildesheim 1990, p. 134.
80 Jens Ludwig Burk: Marmorbad Kassel. Spätbarocker Pavillon
in der Karlsaue mit bedeutenden Skulpturen und Reliefs von
Pierre Etienne Monnot. Regensburg 2002.
3. Justification for Inscription
It is likely that the Badenburg served as a
model for the Schwetzingen bathhouse. Carl
Theodor and his architect, Nicolas de Pigage,
would have seen the structures in the park
during one of the Elector’s many stays with
his Wittelsbach relatives. The Badenburg
was built by Joseph Effner between 1718 and
1722, in the time of Elector Max Emanuel of
Bavaria. 81 It houses a reception hall, ballroom,
bedroom and Chinese cabinets as well as a
large bathroom with a “tub“ about 6 x 9 m in
size that would make a decent enough pool. 82 .
It is surmounted by a gallery supported by
large projecting consoles and paneled with
stucco marble in a conventional “ballroom“
style. The gallery not only reinterprets
the duality common to the architecture of
Baroque palaces – a lower, mundane level, the
Sala Terrena, and an upper domain reserved to
the nobility, the Piano Nobile – it also invites
watching. Exhibiting the bather to that degree
was not what was intended at Schwetzingen.
The basement housed two resting rooms or
“antechambers“ and two bathrooms, officially
called “cooling-down rooms”; they were
connected by a windowed ventilation corridor.
81 Gesche von Deessen: Die Badenburg im Park von Nymphenburg.
München 1986, p. 17sqq.
82 In his ground plan of 1772 François de Cuvilliés calls it a
„Bassin à nager“. See Deessen, loc cit p. 53.
3.
The Marmorbad at Kassel,
interior with the “bathing
temple” and a statue of Bacchus
on the balustrade.
105

3.
Bathroom in the Badenburg in
Nymphenburg palace gardens.
Preliminary design for the
Badenburg in Nymphenburg
palace gardens, Mathias Diesel,
c.1720.
106
3. Justification for Inscription
All of this suggests a therapeutic use of the
baths that is very reminiscent of the thermae
of Classical Antiquity, but Turkish inspirations
are equally evident.
The Karlsaue “marble baths” in Kassel is a
little later – it was built between 1722 and
1730 by Marcus Schlichting for Landgrave
Carl of Hessen-Kassel. The Marmorbad is
located in one of the corner pavilions of the
orangery, and constitutes a counterpart to the
kitchen pavilion added later. The building’s
interior decoration suggests that it was
inspired by park architecture. The structure
appears to have been used as a showroom for
the work of the sculptor Monnot. In type the
Marmorbad at Kassel is quite similar to the
Munich Badenburg – the Marmorbad, too,
has a gallery running all around the room and
allowing a view of the basin, even though the
bath itself could not be used as such. Thus
both “bathing pavilions” differ significantly
from Schwetzingen in size, intended use
and even the time of their construction, both
having been built earlier in the 18th-century.
Moreover the original incorporation of the
Schwetzingen bathhouse into its surroundings
is still visible today, a sophisticated, carefully
orchestrated microcosm, whereas both the
Badenburg and the Marmorbad have lost their
original Baroque surroundings to landscaped
redesigns. The building at Schwetzingen
was conceived as part of a carefully arranged
sequence of images leading from the Apollo
temple through the arbour of the „”waterspouting
birds“ and on to the so-called
“World’s End”, a diorama reached by way of a
dark passage.
Two small rooms designated as bathrooms
in Benrath Palace near Düsseldorf (built by
Nicolas de Pigage, 1756-c.1763) were probably
never fully furnished.
The Schwetzingen bathhouse with its largely
preserved original furnishing is thus both one
of the last remaining examples of Baroque
bathing culture, and the focal point of a subtle
and sophisticated garden microcosm.
Still surrounded by its original Baroque
“garden within a garden” and still furnished
with the original pieces, the Schwetzingen
bathhouse represents one of the last
courtly baths of their era in Europe. This
immaculately preserved, highly original
synthesis of gardening, architecture, painting
and sculpture is unique; none of the examples
cited can compare.

Garden Mosques
The mosque, built 1782-95, is the largest of the
buildings in the Schwetzingen grounds, and
was preceded by the Ambulatory (cloister).
The first reference to a Turkish Garden dates
from 1774. 83 From 1779 an ambulatory with
pavilions took shape in this jardin turc, to be
finished by 1784. Work on the actual mosque
building started in 1782, 84 that is to say only
after Elector Carl Theodor had moved to
Munich. 85 By 1786 all facades of the main
building were finished, as were the dome
and the quarter-circle walls connecting the
structure with the minarets. 86
The Ambulatory itself already represents
contemporaneous ideas of what a mosque
building looked like; the similarities with
the depictions and descriptions of the holy
sites of Mecca 87 in Fischer von Erlach’s book
”Entwurf einer historischen Architektur“ (A
Plan of Civil and Historical Architecture) are
as unmistakable as the similarity of the corner
pavilions with the mosque built by William
Chambers at Kew Gardens.
The mosque itself, a building just outside the
”cloister“, enlarges the iconographic spectrum
– it is a fairly autonomous structure with a
temple-like portico and Baroque dome, and
represents the attitudes, based on the ideal of
tolerance, of the patron, Carl Theodor of the
Palatinate. In its embodiment of the changed
intellectual and political attitudes towards
the Orient it leaves others, merely decorative
garden buildings behind.
The Model at Kew Gardens
The architectural type of the garden mosque
that spread throughout Europe in the second
half of the 18th-century originated at Kew
Gardens near London, seat of the Crown
83 Wiltrud Heber: Die Arbeiten des Nicolas de Pigage in den ehemals
kurpfälzischen Residenzen Mannheim und Schwetzingen,
Part II. Darmstadt 1986, p. 595.
84 The term ”Mosqué“ first appeared in the building documents in
1782. Heber 1986, p. 596.
85 Heber 1986, pp. 596-600. See also Claus Reisinger: Der
Schloßgarten zu Schwetzingen, Gerlingen 1987, pp. 63sqq.
86 Reisinger 1987, p. 63.
87 An image of the “Prospect von einen theil der großen Stadt
Mecha“ can be found in Harald Keller (ed.): Johann Bernhard
Fischer von Erlach. Entwurf einer historischen Architektur.
Dortmund 1978, p. 90.
3. Justification for Inscription
Prince, Frederick Prince of Wales, and later of
his widow, Augusta of Saxe-Gotha-Altenburg.
In the landscape garden, laid out from 1730,
a number of exotic structures were built
from plans by Sir William Chambers; the
idea was to have a microcosm of the world’s
civilisations contained within the garden.
The main attraction, besides numerous other
follies, was provided by three sensational
buildings – the pagoda, the alhambra and
the mosque, of which today only the pagoda
(constructed 1761) remains. The mosque
was the first example of Turkish-“Oriental“
architecture in a landscape garden; it
appeared in numerous publications and
from 1763 onwards became well known on
the European continent, too. Chambers took
the inspiration for his numerous buildings
from his travels but also from the depictions
in Johann Bernhard Fischer von Erlach’s
influential book of copperplate engravings
published in 1721, A Plan of Civil and
Historical Architecture, the first attempt at a
universal history of the world’s architecture.
Compared to the Schwetzingen building the
3.
William Chambers, view of the
Mosque at Kew, 1763
(Plans, elevations, and
perspective views of the
gardens and buildings at Kew
in Surry, London 1763).
107

3. Kew
108
3. Justification for Inscription
Mosque was a rather small-scale folly
within a cluster of buildings designed to offer
a stroll through foreign architecture. It was
strictly a mood piece, and its model function
for Schwetzingen was purely architectural. It
was also rather short-lived – the Kew Mosque
had been pulled down by 1783.
The Surviving Minaret of Lednice
A somewhat mosque-like building based on
Turkish models was constructed from 1797 for
the Moravian summer residence of Lednice
(Eisgrub) of the Princes of Liechtenstein. The
building from plans by Joseph Hardmuth was
variously called “Turkish Tower”, “Minaret”
or even “Mosque” and is still standing today.
The 68m tower serves as a point de vue in
the palace’s main axis and was used as a
lookout tower. It rests on a square, colonnaded
basement surmounted by a storey containing
eight “Oriental” rooms. In the centre,
surrounded by twelve smaller spires, rises the
massive minaret with three exterior balconies.
Originally four square pavilions flanked the
structure, and both the interior rooms and the
exterior walls were decorated with ornaments
and Qur’an quotes in Arabic characters. The
building, usually referred to as the minaret,
does not adhere to the type of “Oriental
mosque” current in Europe at the time, or
the Kew model either. As regards its building
type it is therefore barely comparable to the
Schwetzingen Mosque, constituting instead
a very idiosyncratic interpretation of an
“Oriental” building. Due to its use as a lookout
tower it is different from its Schwetzingen
counterpart not only in form but in function,
too.
Lost Garden Mosques
Simultaneous with the Schwetzingen building
a mosque was constructed from 1778 at
Hohenheim near Stuttgart, commissioned
by Duke Carl Eugen of Württemberg. It
was a small elongated structure with an
octagonal central pavilion and two square
terminal pavilions connected by covered,
trellised walks. At either end rose a minaret
crowned with a flagpole. It was a folly used
for pheasant breeding, with pheasant runs
attached at the back, 88 and was dismantled
in 1796. Judging from surviving depictions
the Hohenheim Mosque was very similar in
type to the model at Kew. With the fact that
it was a garden folly doubling as a pheasant
house, it represented the very opposite of
the intentions that led to the building of the
Schwetzingen Mosque – even though to the
contemporaneous mind the idea of keeping
exotic birds in a decorative building “in the
Oriental taste” would have seemed quite
natural.
Another garden mosque that has not survived
was constructed 1795/96 at the Floride, four
kilometres from Hohenheim. Here three
domed pavilions crowned with crescent
moons were connected by artificial Roman
ruins. 89 This exotic structure was also used as
a pheasant house. The plurality of Antique
and Oriental styles and, again, the use the
building was put to do not allow a direct
comparison with the Schwetzingen Mosque.
After 1770 the Baroque gardens of the
Weißenstein Park at Wilhelmshöhe Palace
were divided up into a number of areas and
converted into a landscape garden under
Landgrave Friedrich II of Hessen-Kassel. Of
the ambitious plans, partly inspired by Kew
Gardens, only a mosque from designs by
Heinrich Müntz was realised (c.1785) in the
pre-Romantic, sentimental garden. It consisted
of a central octagonal building with a drum
and dome and square, domed extensions with
small round windows; there was no minaret
at first. However, a view of the mosque
by Johann Heinrich Tischbein the elder of
1786/87 depicts a later version, with two
minarets added. The mosque was pulled down
some time before 1813 as it no longer appears
88 Andrea Berger-Fix, Klaus Merten: Die Gärten der Herzöge von
Württemberg im 18. Jahrhundert. Exhibition catalogue. Worms
1981, p. 78.
89 Ibid. S. 93.

in a garden plan of that year. 90 The Kassel
Mosque was modeled on the one at Kew
Gardens but, again, served as a folly and
pheasant house and so again does not convey
a philosophy in the manner the Schwetzingen
building does. 91
Another mosque modeled on the one at Kew
Gardens was built within the so-called Bagno,
in the “anglo-chinois” garden of the Counts
of Bentheim-Steinfurt in Burgsteinfurt near
Münster. During a first phase around 1765,
follies inspired by Vauxhall Gardens and the
London Bagni were built there to serve as part
of a public pleasure garden. With the fees
paid by the crowds of visitors the economic
situation of the tiny state did take a turn for
the better. When Count Charles visited Kew
Gardens in 1783, and discovered that the Kew
Mosque had been demolished, he decided to
raise the attractivity of his own Bagno even
further by having it faithfully reconstructed
from its depiction by Le Rouge. This shortlived
mosque, no trace of which remains,
appears in Le Rouge’s 1787 Nouveaux Jardins
Anglo-Chinois . 92 The use the mosque in the
Burgsteinfort Bagno was put to, as a tourist
attraction and an exotic pleasure pavilion 93
in a garden that was basically an amusement
park, is in stark contrast to the principles of
tolerance and education that prompted the
building of the Schwetzingen Mosque.
Another small Turkish pavilion, occasionally
referred to as a mosque, featured in the park
of Laxenburg near Vienna. Built 1797 under
Emperor Franz II/I 1797 by Gottlieb Nigelli,
it consisted of a small domed room with an
octagonal ground plan. Surmounting the
entrance was a panel inscribed with Arabic
characters; the pavilion was used for a warlike
tilting game with wooden “turks’ heads”
providing the targets. The pavilion did not
90 Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser und Gärten Hessen, Park
Wilhelmshöhe Kassel. Parkpflegewerk. Regensburg 2007, p.
384.
91 Adrian von Butlar: Chinoiserien in deutschen Gärten des 18.
Jahrhunderts. In: Sir William Chambers und der englischchinesische
Garten in Europa. Ostfildern-Ruit 1997, pp. 65-75;
here p. 72.
92 Ibid. p. 71.
93 Cp. Susan Richter: Die sogenannte „Moschee“ – ein kunsthistorisches
und geistesgeschichtliches Kleinod, volume of texts for
nomination.
3. Justification for Inscription
stand for very long; by 1807 it was gone. 94
In the so-called Mosque of Laxenburg there
was a marked contrast between outward
appearance and interior use, something
visitors appreciated as a surprise effect. In
this manner it provided the sort of courtly
entertainment characteristic of the time, and
neither its building type nor its function
lends themselves to comparison with the
Schwetzingen Mosque.
With the sole exception of the building at
Schwetzingen all garden mosques have been
demolished, many as early as the late 18thcentury
when the fondness for this type of
park building waned. Taken together with
the forecourt or cloister, built long before the
mosque proper, Schwetzingen features a very
94 Lieselotte Hanzl-Wachter: Staffage- und Lustgebäude im
Laxenburger Park. In: Géza Hajós (Ed.): Der malerische Landschaftspark
in Laxenburg bei Wien. Wien 2006, pp. 165-200.
3.
The Weißenstein Mosque at
Wilhelmshöhe, Johann Heinrich
Tischbein the Elder, 1786/87
(detail).
Design for the Burgsteinfurt
Mosque, 18th-century.
109

3. autonomous
110
View of the Schwetzingen
Mosque from the Temple of
Mercury.
3. Justification for Inscription
response to the Kew Mosque,
German copies of it, or contemporaneous
depictions of Mecca. Functionally, too, the
Schwetzingen Mosque is in a very different
league from buildings intended for use
as pheasant houses, pleasure pavilions or
lookout towers in exotic wrapping. It was
built not only as a physical structure but as
an intellectual one as well, reflecting a serious
interest in the Orient and in Islam.
The mosque in the Schwetzingen palace
gardens is of uncommon significance in
art and cultural history. Today it is the last
surviving example of a type of building quite
common in European landscape gardens up
to the end of the 18th-century. Moreover, in
its monumental dimensions, lavish furnishing
and sophisticated program it far surpasses
any other garden mosque ever documented.
Its architectural models are the Karlskirche
in Vienna, a work by the architect Fischer
von Erlach, and the Kew Gardens Mosque
by Sir William Chambers. The verdict of
contemporaneous, knowledgeable visitors
such as Jean Charles Kraft is unanimous:
”This building is so magnificent that you will
not find its like in all of Europe; the wealth
and the artistry that make up its beauty are
beyond human imagination“. 95
The Schwetzingen Mosque, in its own time
in the 18th-century the largest and most
sophisticated garden mosque ever built, is
today the last surviving example of its type
and era in Europe.
95 Jean Charles Krafft: Plans des plus beaux jardins pittoresques
de France d’Angleterre et de l’Allemagne. Pläne der schönsten
und malerischsten Gärten Frankreichs, Englands und Deutschlands,
Reprint of the original edition, 1809-1810 [the original
appeared in three languages]. Worms am Rhein 1993.

3.d)
Integrity and/or Authenticity
Integrity
The Schwetzingen summer residence of
Elector Carl Theodor is almost completely
preserved in the shape it was given during
the Elector’s rule, 1742-1799. This is true not
merely for the palace and garden but for the
urban setting as well (Venice Charter, Article
1). The palace estate, altered and extended
several times in the course of the previous
centuries, in its present shape appears as if
it had been frozen in time since the end of
the eighteenth-century. The ensemble made
up of the town, palace and garden thus
offers an extraordinary concentration of
cultural monuments from the 18th-century:
The inventory of buildings within the town
includes plain middle-class dwellings, inns, a
barracks, a stables and a slaughterhouse, all
of them necessary elements for a workable
summer residence. Technical monuments
such as the waterworks, high-ranking artistic
achievements like the bathhouse, but also
plain relics of everyday life in the 18thcentury
like park benches, the leather buckets
marked with the Elector’s monogram of “CT”,
kept in readiness in the palace theatre in case
of fire, a cast-iron heating stove, again marked
CT, for heating the orangery – all has been
preserved in uncommon variety.
Many of the buildings within the estate are
still being used according to their original
purpose, or recall the use they were created
for: stately as well as private suites of
rooms in the palace and the quarter-circle
pavilions, premises for musical and theatrical
performance (palace theatre, Natural
Theatre, the concert room in the southern
quarter-circle pavilion, the bathhouse), the
indispensable auxiliary buildings and working
quarters (orangery, guardhouses, waterworks)
and so on.
Another unique feature is the fact that on the
estate consisting of the palace and garden the
entire inventory of buildings and sculptures
3. Justification for Inscription
from the second half of the 18th-century
has survived. This is due entirely to Carl
Theodor’s removal to Munich in 1777 and the
acquisition of Schwetzingen by the House
of Baden soon after. The palace and gardens
were maintained, but they were spared major
alterations, redesigns and extensions (Venice
Charter, Art. 4-8). The summer residence
survived the massive social upheaval brought
about in the wake of the industrialisation, and
the two great wars, without suffering major
damage.
As the comparative analysis has shown, this
state of preservation of all buildings and
features necessary for an understanding of
the phenomenon of the summer residence has
become exceedingly rare.
Even during the 19th-century the ensemble
nominated for inscription already adhered
to the conditions and parameters for
conservation, maintenance and restoration set
down by the “Venice Charter”.
With its wealth of authentic features the
palace garden is a veritable handbook of
the art of gardening (both Baroque and
landscape gardens), a panorama of artistic
techniques (sandstone, marble, lead and
bronze sculpture), a typology of “fabriques”
(trellis structures, grottoes, temples, ruins,
monuments etc.), a collection of artistic
disciplines (architecture, gardening, sculpture,
painting, artisan crafts) and last but not least
a magnificent synthesis of 18th-century ideas
and themes (the sciences, the intellectual
universe of the Enlightenment, musical
culture, mythology, Christian mysticism etc.).
Authenticity
Besides the near-complete preservation of the
garden’s built substance, that of the vegetal
elements and compositions is remarkable
too – and ultimately due to the fact that at
Schwetzingen, conservation was an issue from
a very early stage. This considerate attitude
towards the garden was in evidence even
before its completion – for example, the plant
stock of the formal areas remained untouched
even when the layout was simplified. After
3.
111

3. Elector
112
3. Justification for Inscription
Carl Theodor’s removal to Munich
the garden lost its original function, but
it was still completed as a monument; the
Mosque and Temple of Mercury were built,
and with the great inspection record of 1795,
the “Protocollum Cmmissionale”, it was
preserved as a “Palatinate monument”. The
record contains guidelines for the further
preservation and maintenance of the garden.
Due to the desolate financial situation, and in
hopes of better times, the main focus was on
the conservation of the basic layout; some of
the fine structure was simplified. Maintenance
of the woody plants was to be reconciled
with artistic demands. These guidelines were
adhered to in the first half of the 19th-century,
the time of Garden Director Johann Michael
Zeyher, who declared that his creative ideas
were modelled on those of his predecessor,
Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell. He converted the
site of the former menagerie (discontinued in
1778) into a modern arboretum (continuing
the tradition of the first arboretum created
by von Sckell) and turned the great formal
basin into a natural-looking pond; at the same
time elements like the “Uncanny Grove” were
added to the landscape garden. The greening
of the former court of honour, now without
a function, was another change in the taste
of the time. However, the basic layout of the
garden remained untouched. In his garden
guidebook of 1829, Thomas Leger justly
praised Zeyher as a careful and intelligent
conservator of the greater whole. The
cultivation of the garden in the 19th-century
was done in full awareness of its historical
significance, and today it has become a part of
the garden monument in itself: it is preserved,
maintained, renewed and exhibited, as shown
by the publication of a guidebook specializing
on the arboreta in particular.
Numerous documents bear witness to
the efforts to maintain the garden. “If we
but look closely, we will see the laudable
endeavour to preserve this creation of an
earlier century, so rare in Germany, as best
the disposable means allow”, states a report
drawn up in 1882 by the Grand Duchy’s
gardens department. Numerous documents
from the second half of the 19th-century refer
to maintenance and renewal measures. The
successful rejuvenating of the avenues by
Garden Inspector Johan Wagner in particular
was widely acclaimed. This tradition of both
preserving and renewing the basic structure
was the first priority of Court Gardener Unselt
too. Overall there was a unique and “truly
exemplary continuity in the conservation and
preservation of a magnificent garden creation”
(von Krosigk, 2006). At the beginning of
the 20th-century experts were in agreement
that the great whole had been successfully
preserved and even enlarged upon (Schoch,
1900).
The positive response to Schwetzingen at
the beginning of the 20th-century was not
limited to the Baroque parts, quite contrary to
the fashion of the day. If anything, it was this
garden that brought the significance of the
picturesque style back into the awareness of
the art-loving public. Maintenance measures
following the reports by Hallbaum (1928)
and Heicke (1937) were based on gardening
experiences from the 19th-century and
remained comparatively modest in scope.
Neither in the 1930s nor the 1950s were
there large-scale alterations. Interest in the
garden was mainly scientific and historical in
those decades; in the name of the “Deutsche
Gesellschaft für Gartenkunst” (Germany
Society for Garden Art) Heicke suggested a
grand national renewal scheme, pointing out
the examples of Herrenhausen and Brühl, but
the appeal never went further.
It is important to note that the garden was
always maintained and rejuvenated in its
historicality, not restored to its late Baroque
appearance. If the focus, from the point of
view of monument protection, is on the late
18th-century, this concerns the basic structure
only. Later stages and additions such as the
arboretum, inspired by an interest in botanics
very characteristic of its time, are equally
accepted and considered equally worthy of
preservation; this goes for simplifications
carried out at certain points in history too.

Thus the numerous small 18th-century trellis
structures were not reconstructed, not even
within the parterre. The clumps of lilac
there date from c.1900, the grassed court
of honour from the first half of the 19thcentury,
the orangery square in its current
shape and furnishing from the second half
of the 19th-century. Larger-scale measures
like the restoration of the parterre beds and
the avenue trees 1 have been conducted with
proper scientific care. The latter undertaking
in particular was highly appreciated by
experts of the time for its close approximation
of Baroque planting schemes, something that
had not been accomplished before.
The ”International Symposium on the
conservation of historic gardens“ organised
in Schwetzingen in 1975 as part of the
“European Monument Year”, with the
assistance of the German National Committee
of ICOMOS, was a tribute and proof of
national and international appreciation of the
high preservation and maintenance standards.
Schwetzingen does not owe its high level
of authenticity as an 18th-century summer
residence to the outstanding number and
quality of its original features only. The
systematic protection of buildings and
furnishings against the elements, the expert
maintenance of the garden areas and the
use of original materials and techniques for
necessary repairs ensure the entire estate’s
authenticity in accordance with the “Venice
Charter” (Articles 4-14), and that of the
1 The overhaul of the central parterre was limited to the beds
and broderies. Historical simplifications in the vicinity, such as
the dismantling of the latticework features, were accepted as
given. When weighing the pros and cons the fact was relevant
that by contrast to gardens like that of Nymphenburg there had
been no conceptual reorientation at Schwetzingen – merely
an extensification due to limited funds. In the course of the
19th-century the scheme of border planting was taken up again
several times, and redefined in the taste of the time. In the
then-modern context of the “garden monument” discussion the
original planting schemes were reintroduced as the circular
parterre’s basic design pinciple. The renewal of missing lime
trees (the trees were pruned regularly in the 18th and 19thcenturies)
was also legitimized by the “rejuvenating” tradition
inherent in the estate itself. This was put into practice after
phases of relative neglect, in response to some requirement or
concern and in the shape of major activities, usually involving
the successful road-testing of new gardening practices. An
ongoing rejuvenation of the avenue trees was not practiced
at Schwetzingen, again in contrast to Nymphenburg. What
ultimately caused the replanting was the fact that the aging
trees made the area unsafe for passersby.
3. Justification for Inscription
gardens in accordance with the “Florence
Charter” (Articles 10-22). These efforts
to maintain that degree of authenticity
are documented in detail by the park
management plan, building management plan
and the relevant Articles (Gestaltungssatzung)
issued by the town of Schwetzingen. Five
examples should serve to illustrate this:
1. Protection of original features:
In accordance with Article 13 of the “Florence
Charter”, most of the sculptures installed
in the palace gardens were replaced with
copies in the second half of the 20th-century.
Fountain statuary was re-cast in lead, marble
statues copied in marble, sandstone sculptures
reproduced in cast stone. The full set of
originals has remained at Schwetzingen;
an exhibition space has been created in the
orangery where the sculptures are protected
from the weather and may be viewed at
leisure.
2. Use of original materials and traditional
techniques:
In the case of building measures the main
objective is a maximal preservation of original
features, and the use of well-documented
traditional materials in accordance with
Article 9 of the “Venice Charter”. During
the restoration of the orangery (1993-1999)
the original 18th-century windows, doors
and gates were merely repaired, and all
plastered walls preserved in their original
state. As in the 18th-century the rooms, still
used as an orangery in winter, feature a
high-maintenance clay floor and the original
cast-iron heating stove that together with the
plant tubs present an authentic image of the
building and its function during the winter
months.
3. Expert garden maintenance:
In the gardens, too, the degree of authenticity
is remarkable. The fact is proved by the
park management plan, which documents
all stages of every area of the garden from
the 18th-century to the present. This is due,
3.
113

3. not
114
3. Justification for Inscription
only to the uncommon concentration
of original features but also to the strict
adherence to historical sources, especially as
regards the care and rejuvenation of plantings.
Expert maintenance on site is ensured by
a state-owned gardening company, which
also guarantees the passing on of gardening
expertise. Maintenance of the garden is
thus an excellent example of the practical
application of Articles 10-12 of the “Florence
Charter” which stresses the importance of
a continuous, careful maintenance of the
historic garden.
4. Documentation:
As proved impressively by the detailed
inspection report of 1795, today in the
archives of the “Generallandesarchiv”
in Karlsruhe, there is a long tradition at
Schwetzingen to document and analyse
garden conditions and to preserve the
garden’s authenticity for the future by longterm
planning for its care and maintenance.
The park management plan drawn up in
1970, and still valid in its basic points, was
largely the work of Christian Bauer, Director
of State Gardens in Munich, and was one of
the first in all of Germany. It was updated
in 2006 by Hubert Wertz, and brought up to
date methodically – the first update of a park
management plan in Germany.
The text and image documents used in
the park management plan and building
management plan are also being made
available to the public. The “Garden
Documentation” exhibition in the south
quarter-circle pavilion familiarizes the public
with the garden’s history, the exhibition of
historical implements in the former building
materials repository with its care and
maintenance. The “Museum of town history”
in the Karl-Wörn-Haus documents the history
of Schwetzingen from the town’s point of
view, without neglecting the palace and
garden. This approach is in accordance with
Article 16 of the “Venice Charter”.
5. Cultivation of cultural traditions:
Last but not least the site’s authenticity is
preserved by a careful cultivation of the
immaterial values associated with the cultural
heritage that is the summer residence of
Schwetzingen. The revitalization of the town
by the annual festival of music organized
by the “Südwestrundfunk” radio station is
exemplary in this respect: On the one hand,
the repertory of music written and performed
in 18th-century Schwetzingen is cultivated; on
the other, the promoting of young artists and
premièring of contemporary operas continues
the programme established by Carl Theodor.
The examples cited are meant to show that at
Schwetzingen a high degree of authenticity
in accordance with the “Nara Document”
(ICOMOS 1994) is ensured. With this
authenticity comes the awareness that the
material and immaterial riches created in the
second half of the 18th-century, and passed
on through the entire 19th and 20th-centuries,
are inextricably linked. The nomination for
inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage
List gives voice to the determination of all
parties to faithfully preserve and care for this
cultural legacy in the future too.

3. Justification for Inscription
3.
115

3.
116
3. Justification for Inscription
WATER-SPOUTING BIRDS
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
“
… but the summer residence of Schwetzingen in the second half of the 18th-century was more
than a conventional retreat for the purposes of aristocratic recreation and self-presentation, and
the entertainment of the court. Instead, the summer palace of Schwetzingen is strikingly modern
both in its conscious adaptation to the more informal “country” lifestyle believed at the time to be
simple and close to nature, and in the impressive results of a cultivation of the arts that was fond
of experiment and open to a variety of cultural trends. Inspiring all this is both the longing for an
Arcadia of happiness and an Enlightened belief in Man’s capacity to be reformed and perfected.

4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting
the Property
4.a)
Present State of Conservation
The nominated property, consisting of parts
of the town, the palace and the palace gardens,
is in a good state of conservation. Both the
buildings in the town and the various parts
of the palace are protected from the elements
and structurally sound. Since many features
of the gardens are unusually vulnerable,
such as the wooden structures of the arbour
walks, with some actually designed to be
ruins (the Temple of Mercury and the Roman
water-fort, for example), there is continual
need for conservation work here; however, the
overall state of conservation of the gardens is
very good. All currently vulnerable areas are
being addressed; details are outlined in the
Management Plan.
A detailed description of the state of
conservation of all the buildings in the palace
and gardens is laid out in the Buildings
Management Plan. The state of the gardens
is analysed in the Gardens Management Plan.
Information on the state of conservation of
the buildings in the town is provided by the
Urban Development Plan.
Preservation and Restoration Work in the
Palace and Gardens from 1964 to 2009
The following areas are in an exemplary state
of conservation, having been meticulously
restored over the last four decades with care
taken to retain the original fabric:
4.
117

4. Area
118
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
Work carried out Scheduled for
North and south quarter-circle
pavilions
Restoration of interior fixtures, roof 1964-1966
Palace theatre Fire-protection measures 1964
South cour d’honneur wing and
kitchen building
Conversion to School of Court Registrars 1966-1968
Palace chapel Restoration of interior 1966-1968
Mosque Partial restoration 1970-1974
District Court Complete restoration 1970-1974
Palace theatre Reconstruction of stage area 1972-1975
Orangery Restoration of surrounding garden 1975-1976
Lower waterworks Partial restoration 1976-1978
Roman water-fort Complete restoration 1977-1979
Bridges in palace gardens Repair of all wooden bridges 1979-1980
Bathhouse Partial restoration 1979
Main wing of palace Structural work to main wing: 1975-1982 1975-1982
Restoration of interiors: 1984-1991
1984-1991
Disabled soldiers‘ barracks Complete restoration 1983-1988
18th-century metal gates Restoration of all metal gates 1987-1995
Temple of Apollo Complete restoration 1984-1986
Bathhouse kitchen Roof repairs 1983-1985
Diorama Complete restoration 1988-1991
South quarter-circle pavilion Complete restoration, interiors, roof 1983-1993
Watercourses: canals, ponds and Repairs to banks, walls and retaining 1965-2006
lake
battens (ongoing)
Palace theatre Fire protection 2000-2006
Chinese bridge Complete restoration 1992
Mosque, colonnades Complete restoration 1990-2001
Water-spouting birds Complete restoration 1988-1993
Statuary Replacement of all original sculptures
with copies
1970-2004
Minerva Temple Complete restoration 1990-2000
Orangery Compl. interior and exterior restoration 1993-1999
Upper waterworks Complete restoration 1994-2000
Bathhouse Compl. interior and exterior restoration 1999-2006
Palace restaurant Compl. overhaul of technical installations 1995-1998
Mosque: dome Complete restoration 2000-2006
Palace chapel, north wing of
palace
Complete restoration 1998-2002
Palace theatre Complete interior restoration 2000-2006
North quarter-circle pavilion Restoration of roof 2004-2007
Lower waterworks Structural renovation, Stage 1 2005--2010

4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
4.
Bathhouse. The complex
restoration of the bathhouse
was completed in July 2006.
Arbour walks (berceaux en
treillage) framing the circular
parterre. Restoration of
weather-damaged wooden
latticework started in 2007.
119

4. Gardening
120
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
Work from 1970 to 2009
Careful preservation and revitalisation work
has been in progress since the compilation
of the Gardens Management Plan in 1970,
Work Carried Out in the Town 1999-2009
Much restoration work has been carried out
over the last few decades in the areas of the
town nominated for inscription on the List.
Largely in private ownership, the nominated
buildings (principally in Carl-Theodor-Straße
and Schlossplatz, but also including individual
buildings such as the Palais Ysenburg) are in
good to very good condition.
with the result that the gardens are in an
exemplary state of conservation. Key stages
in this work are outlined below.
Area Work carried out Scheduled for
Gardens to north and south of
main wing of palace, incl. terrace
and foregardens
Restoration 1973 and 1998
Landscape garden by Temple of
Botany (Arborium Theodoricum)
Revitalisation 1972/1973
Orangery parterre Clearing; planting 1975/1977
Sea-horse garden (to the east of
south pavilion)
Revitalisation; planting 1997
Berceaux en treillage Restoration of lateral openings 1976
Chestnut avenues Replacement of overmature trees
(ongoing)
Mosque garden Revitalisation; planting 1997-1999
1970/1973, 1990-1998,
2005-2009
Lime avenues Replacement of overmature trees Avenue of balls 1976,
Avenues in circular
parterre 1982-1988,
2006-2007
Centre of circular parterre Modifications; planting 1973/74
Bosquet zones west of circular
parterre
Open-air theatre and area around
bathhouse
Landscape garden west of
bathhouse
Landscape garden west of
lake/by Temple of Mercury
Apollo, Zähringer and Black Sea
canals, Great Basin
Hedge-planting and regeneration
(ongoing)
1984-2004, 2005-2009
Revitalisation 1984-1992
Revitalisation 1984
Revitalisation 1984-1994
Restoration (continuing) 1984-1986, 1998, 2007-
2008
Zeyher’s arboretum Revitalisation 1986-2004
Cour d‘honneur Revitalisation 1991
Sunken lawns in circular parterre Revitalisation 1995-1999
After an international competition, work
was carried out in 1999 and 2004 to redesign
Carl-Theodor-Straße. Re-planting of espaliertrained
lime trees has restored the original
character of the road as a tree-lined avenue.
In October 2009, preliminary work for the
Schlossplatz redesign was begun.

Planned Measures
The Management Plan outlines all work to be
carried out over the next few years, with time
frames for completion being set according to
4.b)
Factors Affecting the Property
(i) Development Pressures (e.g. Encroachment,
Adaptation, Agriculture, Mining)
The property nominated for inscription on the
List is protected by the protective measures
outlined in the Management Plan.
(ii) Environmental Pressures (e.g. Pollution,
Climate Change, Desertification)
No adverse effects have been ascertained from
environmental pressures.
(iii) Natural Disasters and Risk Preparedness
(Earthquakes, Floods, Fires, etc.)
Earth tremors which could put the structural
integrity of the property at risk are unknown
in Schwetzingen’s history. Risk of flooding
is also negligible, since the Rhine and Neckar
rivers are sufficiently far away and the
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
priority. The following projects are all vital
in maintaining a high level of conservation of
the property:
Work to be carried out (project number in Management Plan) Scheduled for
Restoration of lower waterworks (B - 1.3.) 2006-2011
Restoration of Temple of Mercury (B - 1.4.) 2007-2011
Restoration of arbour walks (B - 1.5.) 2007-2013
Restoration of guardhouses in cour d’honneur (B - 1.7.) 2009-2011
Restoration of Temple of Botany (B - 1.9.) 2013-2014
Restoration of roof of main wing and School of Court Registrars
(B - 1.12.)
2009-2011
Redesign of Schlossplatz (Palace Square) (B - 1.14.) bis 2010
Revitalisation of avenues in palace gardens (B - 1.21.) 2005-2012
Revitalisation of bosquets (B - 1.22.) 2005-2016
Revitalisation of the English garden (B - 1.23.) 2006-2010
Restoration of waterways, lakes and ponds (B - 1.24.) 2005-2016
Overhaul of plumbing and hydraulics (B - 1.27.) 2005-2016
Historic views from the gardens; areas surrounding gardens
(B - 1.30.-35.)
2007-2014
Leimbach, which flows through Schwetzingen,
is regulated by a system of locks.
Adherence to fire regulations is monitored
at regular intervals by independent experts
(such as those from the Technical Surveillance
Association (TÜV)). All buildings in the
palace and gardens which could be damaged
by fire are equipped with smoke alarms
and fire extinguishers. Being a particularly
vulnerable part of the site, the palace theatre
was equipped with a state-of-the-art fire
protection system in 2004-2006.
(iv) Visitor/Tourism Pressures
The average number of visitors to
Schwetzingen is well under acceptable limits
and poses no risk to the property. Given
the sound infrastructure of the town and
a total area of 72 ha in the gardens, even a
considerable increase in the volume of day
trippers would be unproblematic. Historic
interiors are open to the public only within
guided tours for groups of limited size.
4.
121

4. The
122
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
Florence Charter (ICOMOS, 1982) is
taken into account in planning all events
in the palace square and the gardens. The
following, still valid regulations for use of the
property are laid down in Schwetzingen Town
Council’s Tourism Plan (2006) and the Plan
for Sustainable Use and Effective Presentation
drawn up by the former Baden-Württemberg
State Agency for Property Assets and
Construction (2006):
Extract from Schwetzingen town council’s
tourism policy document:
The Schlossplatz (Palace Square) is
particularly popular: its Continental flair
along with the many and varied events it
hosts throughout the year has earned it a
degree of fame well beyond the bounds of
Schwetzingen and brought in many visitors
to the town. We are aware, however, of the
need to set certain limits to the use of the
historic town centre. With this in mind, a
conscious decision has been taken to reject
plans which would result in an increase in
the number of events or visitors. Instead, the
focus is on quality assurance in the spirit of
the International Cultural Tourism Charter
(Charter of Mexico, 1999).
Extract from the plan for use and
presentation of the property compiled
by the Baden-Württemberg Castles and
Gardens:
The preservation and conservation of the
buildings and gardens always takes priority
over their use for tourism, events, or hire by
third parties (Florence Charter, Article 21). [...]
In the buildings visitors are admitted under
supervision only. [...]
These restrictions are essential if priority
is to be accorded to the protection and
conservation of the buildings in the site. For
similar reasons, all interior cleaning work
and care of works of art is subject to detailed
guidelines laid down by the specialists of
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens [...]
Rules for behaviour of visitors to the palace
and gardens are laid down in Schwetzingen’s
Palace and Gardens Code. [...]
Schwetzingen Palace is one of the most
popular stately-home venues in Germany for
cultural and social events. The historic rooms
in the central wing and the garden buildings
are not available for hire. Efforts are made
to maximise income through advertising and
customer service; but all events must meet
monument-protection criteria before they can
be approved. [...]
The theatre has been host to the annual
Schwetzingen Festival since the first
Festival in 1952. To better meet the needs
of the festival, major restoration work was
carried out in 1974, along with a complete
reconstruction of the stage area, which now
fulfils all the technical requirements of
modern theatre production. The original
construction is still largely intact in the
auditorium, which was carefully restored
from 2003 to 2005 to preserve the neoclassical
style of the 1770s. The theatre is also used
by Schwetzingen’s Mozart Society, which
has been staging top-class events in its
annual Mozart Festival for over 30 years.
The fragility and the value of the theatre
dictate that it must not be overused, and this
principle guides the actions of those in charge
of managing it. Specific rules are laid down
for each event staged there, and events are
supervised by the palace’s own staff. [...]
The palace restaurant has an exclusive
contract with the palace administration for all
catering in the palace and gardens, including
catering for third-party events. This means
that the gardens are spared the additional
deliveries and other traffic that would be
caused by external caterers. [...]
A wide range of events is held in the palace
gardens, from a Festival of Music and Light,
open-air concerts and folk-music festivals
through military tattoos and changing of the
guard to weddings and champagne receptions.
The Florence Charter is the basis on which
all decisions on the admissibility of events
are made. This means, for example, that all

necessary steps are taken to avoid events
causing material damage to the site. A sine
qua non of all arrangements made with
third-party organisers is a commitment that
no damage will be caused. [...]
The gardens can only be let out on condition
that event organisers pay for staff familiar
with the gardens and the conservation issues
involved to be present. These members of
staff monitor proceedings and make sure
that conditions laid down by the palace
administration are observed; they act as
agents of the property owner and have full
authority over event organisers.
This means that no event in the gardens or
quarter-circle pavilions is possible without
the presence of a representative of the palace
administration; for large-scale events, a highranking
member of the administration itself is
always present.
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
(v) Number of Inhabitants within the Property
and the Buffer Zone
Area of nominated property: 620
Buffer Zone: 9,725
Total: 10,345
(Figures valid for December 2009)
4.
123

4.
TEMPLE OF BOTANY
124
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
4. State of Conservation and Factors Affecting the Property
„ “
A pantheon-like structure covered in simulated bark, the Temple of Botany (1779/80), with its
iconography of fertility, of growth and decay in the course of the seasons and of the zodiac, at
first glance conforms to what one would expect of a typical garden building. There is, however,
the very unusual pictorial connection of natural rhythms with modern science – presented,
moreover, in a way that appears to comment on history: the ancient authorities of Theophrastus
and Pliny meet the modern natural scientists, Joseph Pitton de Tournefort and Carl von Linné.
It is only appropriate, then, that the statue of the goddess of fertility should present the revolutionary
findings of a contemporary Swedish scientist, the „Caroli Linnei Sistema Plantarum“.

5. Protection and Management of the Property
5.a)
Ownership
The greater part of the nominated property
is owned by the state of Baden-Württemberg.
Areas in state ownership include:
• The palace complex including gardens and
buildings. Parts of the complex are sublet.
(Postal address: Schloss/Schlossgarten 2.)
• The upper waterworks, icehouse and
adjoining building (postal address:
Zeyherstraße).
• The District Court (formerly envoys’
lodgings; postal address: Zeyherstraße 6).
• The lower waterworks (postal address:
Collinistraße 36, 38).
• Carl-Theodor-Straße 8 a-f, residential and
commercial building (former electoral
stables).
• Forsthausstraße 11, Forestry Office
(former home of the grandveneur, or head
gamekeeper).
Ownership of other property in the town is
indicated in the land registry plan held by the
Planning Department of Schwetzingen town
council (Hebelstraße 7, 68723 Schwetzingen).
The state of Baden-Württemberg and
Schwetzingen town council are public regional
and local authorities. The palace and the palace
gardens are part of the real estate of the state of
Baden-Württemberg.
Contact Details
State of Baden-Württemberg,
represented by the Ministry of Finance,
Schlossplatz 4, 70173 Stuttgart
Schwetzingen Town Council, Real Estate
Office: Stadt Schwetzingen, Liegenschaftsamt,
Rathaus, Hebelstraße 1, D-68723 Schwetzingen
5.b)
Protective Designation
The federal laws, state laws and local statutes
detailed in the Management Plan ensure
comprehensive protection of the nominated
property.
• Core property: the palace and gardens
enjoy special protection as a historic
monument of special significance under
section 12 of the Baden-Württemberg
Monument Protection Act (DSchG). The
palace, gardens and parts of the historic
town centre are further protected as an
entire fixture in accordance with section
19 of the Act.
• The buffer zone is protected by virtue
of its status as the surroundings of a
registered historic monument under
sect. 15, para. 3 of the Monument
Protection Act. It is further covered by the
Townscape Ordinance of Schwetzingen
town council.
• Additional protection of the buffer zone
is afforded by the building development
plans passed on the basis of the Federal
Building Code (BauGB), which cover
matters such as height of buildings,
advertising space and nature conservation
in the areas surrounding the palace,
gardens and historic town centre.
• The whole of the palace grounds
and the area bordering it to the
west are designated as a landscape
conservation area in accordance with
section 29 of Baden-Württemberg‘s
Nature Conservation Act (NatSchG),
ensuring that the gardens and their
immediate surroundings are used in an
environmentally friendly manner.
5.
125

5.
126
Map 2
5. Protection and Management of the Property

5. Protection and Management of the Property
Map 3
5.
127

5.
128
Map 4
5. Protection and Management of the Property

5. Protection and Management of the Property
Map 5
5.
129

5. Breakdown
130
5. Protection and Management of the Property
of Protective Legislation:
1. Supra-Regional Protective
Legislation (Federal Law)
a) Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch –
BauGB)
of 23rd September 2004, last amended 21st
June 2005
Content:
The Federal Building Code is a body of law
laid down at federal level. It establishes a
legal framework for such areas as land-use
planning, renovation work and urban
development.
Outside the areas of Schwetzingen covered by
building development planning provisions,
planning is generally carried out in accordance
with Section 34 of the Code, which stipulates
that construction projects may not have a
detrimental effect on the appearance of the
area.
Extract from Section 34 of the Federal Building
Code: “Within built-up areas a development
project is only permissible where, in terms of
the type and scale of use, the coverage type
and the plot area to be built on, the building
proposal blends with the characteristic
features of its immediate environment and the
provision of local public infrastructure has been
secured. The requirements of healthy living
and working conditions must be satisfied; the
overall appearance of the locality may not be
impaired.“
b) Federal Nature Conservation Act
(Bundesnaturschutzgesetz - BNatSchG)
of 25th March 2002, last amended 21st June
2005
Content:
The Federal Nature Conservation Act is a law
passed at federal level. The Act defines nature
and the landscape as fundamental to human
existence and lays down regulations for nature
conservation and landscape management with
a view to sustainability and the preservation
of this part of our heritage for future
generations. Section 7 of the Act requires that
particular attention be paid to these aims in
the management of publicly-owned land, such
as that of the palace gardens.
Section 7 of the Federal Nature Conservation
Act: ”In the management of land in public
ownership or possession, particular attention
shall be paid to the aims and principles
of nature conservation and landscape
management. Land of particular conservation
value shall, to the extent that this is
appropriate, not be altered in a way that would
adversely affect its ecological qualities. The
first and second sentences of this Section shall
not preclude the earmarking and subsequent
use of the land for public purposes.“
2. Regional Protective Regulations
(State Law)
a) Baden-Württemberg Planning Act
(Landesplanungsgesetz)
Plan for the lower Neckar region, 1992 (in
force since 1994)
It is intended that the next update of the
regional plan will ensure that construction
projects do not obscure historic views.
b) Baden-Württemberg Building Code
(Landesbauordnung - LBO)
of 8th August 1995, last amended 14th
December 2004
The Baden-Württemberg Building Code is
a legally binding set of regulations passed
at state level. It applies to structural works.
Section 11 of the Code requires that structural
works are made to harmonise with the
surroundings and that cultural and natural
monuments are treated with respect.
Extract from Section 11 of the Baden-
Württemberg Building Code: ”(1) Structural
works shall be made to harmonise with their
surroundings in such a way that streets
and roads, cities, towns and villages, and
the landscape are not defaced and do not
suffer adverse effects to their intended
design. Cultural and natural monuments and

environmental features worthy of preservation
are to be respected.”
c) Monument Protection Act
(Denkmalschutzgesetz - DSchG)
of 25th February 1971 in the version as of 6th
December 1983, last amended 14th December
2004
The Monument Protection Act is a law passed
at state level. It describes the measures to be
taken for the protection of monuments and
stipulates the responsibilities of the various
authorities involved. It contains provisions
for the protection of monuments and the
organisation of monument conservation in
Baden-Württemberg. Schwetzingen’s palace,
gardens and historic town centre are covered
in particular by Sections 2, 8, 12, 15 and 19,
which contain provisions for the protection of
cultural monuments and the preservation of
“entire fixtures”.
Extracts from the Monument Protection Act:
Section 2 - Object of monument
protection
(1) Cultural monuments within the meaning of
this Act are items, collections of items and
parts of items in the preservation of which
there is a public interest for scientific,
artistic or local historical reasons.
(2) A cultural monument also includes
accessories provided that they constitute
a unit of monument value with the main
item.
(3) Likewise objects of monument protection
are:
1. the surroundings of a cultural monument,
provided they are of significant importance
for its appearance (Section 15, Paragraph
3), as well as
2. entire fixtures (Section 19).
Section 8 - General protection of historic
monuments
(1) A historic monument may only with
approval by the Monument Protection
Authority:
1. be destroyed or eliminated,
5. Protection and Management of the Property
2. be impaired in its appearance, or
3. be removed from its surroundings where
the latter are of significant importance for
its monument value.
(2) This applies to movable historic
monuments if they are generally visible or
accessible.
Section 12 - Historic monuments
of special significance
(1) Historic monuments of special significance
enjoy additional protection through entry
into the monument register.
(2) Movable historic monuments are only
registered:
1. if the owner applies for registration, or
2. if they have a significance transcending
the locality or have a special relation to the
Land‘s cultural field, or
3. if they constitute a nationally valuable
cultural heritage, or
4. if they constitute nationally valuable
archives or archives of significance for the
history of the Land or the locality, or
5. if they are to be protected due to an
international recommendation.
(3) The entry shall be removed from the
register if the prerequisites for registration
are no longer fulfilled.
Section 15 - Effect of registration
(1) A registered historic monument may only
with approval of the Monument Protection
Authority:
1. be restored or repaired,
2. be modified in its appearance or in its
substance,
3. be provided with annexes or
superstructures, inscriptions or advertising
fixtures,
4. be removed from its permanent location
or place where it is kept to the extent that
when being registered it was determined
for reasons of monument protection
that the historic monument may not be
removed. Rescinding its status as an
accessory within the meaning of Section 2,
Paragraph 2 also requires a permit.
5.
131

5. (2)
132
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Individual items may only be removed from
a registered entirety of items, in particular
from a collection, with approval from
the Monument Protection Authority. The
senior Monument Protection Authority may
provide general approval for individual
items being removed in the context of
proper administration.
(3) In the surroundings of a registered historic
monument, provided that they are of
significant importance for its appearance,
building structures may only be erected,
modified or eliminated with the approval
of the Monument Protection Authority.
Other projects require such approval if
utilisation of the grounds heretofore is
changed. Approval is to be granted if the
project would only modify the monument‘s
appearance to an insignificant extent or
only impair it temporarily or if overriding
reasons of public interest inevitably
demand that they be considered.
Section 19 – Entire fixtures
(1) The local communities in consultation with
the Senior Monument Protection Authority
may by statute place entire fixtures, in
particular the appearance of streets,
squares or localities under monument
protection if there is a special public
interest in their preservation for scientific,
artistic or local historical reasons.
(2) Modifications of the protected appearance
of the entire fixtures require approval by
the lower Monument Protection Authority.
Approval is to be granted if modification
would only insignificantly change the
appearance of the entire fixtures or only
impair it temporarily or if overriding
reasons of public interest inevitably
demand that they be considered. The
Monument Protection Authority must hear
the local community prior to its decision.”
d) Act for nature protection and landscape
conservation and for the preservation of
the recreational value of the countryside
(Naturschutzgesetz – NatSchG)
of 13th December 2005
The Nature Conservation Act is a law passed
at state level. It regulates the principles of
nature protection, landscape conservation and
the provision of recreational areas. Sections
26 and 29 (nature and landscape conservation
areas) are particularly significant for the
protection and preservation of the nominated
World Heritage area and the buffer zones.
Sections 36-40, relating to the European
ecological network Natura 2000, are also of
particular relevance.
This Act protects both the open countryside
and populated rural areas, which are seen
as fundamental to human existence and of
considerable recreational value.
Extracts from the Act (NatSchG):
Section 1 – Aims of nature protection and
landscape conservation
(1) Nature and the countryside in both
populated and uninhabited areas shall
be protected, managed, maintained,
developed, and if necessary restored, in a
sustainable and ecologically sound manner
so as to guarantee for future generations:
1. a fully functioning ecosystem,
2. the regeneration and sustainable use of
natural resources (earth, water, air, climate,
flora and fauna),
3. biodiversity, including that of flora and
fauna and their habitats, and
4. the diversity, unique character and beauty
of nature and the countryside.
(2) Appropriate habitats shall be conserved for
native wildlife. Effective measures shall be
taken against the extinction of indiividual
plant and animal species. Populations
shall be conserved at a level that assures
their sustained survival. Measures shall
be taken to prevent isolation of indiviual
populations.
[…]
Section 36 Establishing of the „Natura
2000” European ecological network
(1) The State of Baden-Württemberg
contributes to the establishment and
protection of the European network of

special conservation areas designated
„Natura 2000”. […]
Section 37 General conservation
regulations, non-deterioration rule
It is prohibited to introduce any change or
disruption which could lead to significant
impairment of the integrity of a Site of
Community Importance or a site classifed
as a Special Protection Area under the EC
Birds Directive. […]
Section 38 Compatibility and
inadmissibility of plans and projects,
exemptions
(1) Projects affecting a Site of Community
Importance or a site classifed as a
Special Protection Area under the EC
Birds Directive shall be assessed before
being approved or carried out in order
to ascertain their compatibility with the
conservation aims of the site. […]
Ordinance of the Regional Council in
Karlsruhe on the landscape conservation
area “Schwetzingen palace gardens and the
surrounding area“
Aug. 1952
The landscape conservation area which
extends over approx. 190 ha, covers the whole
area of Schwetzingen palace gardens along
with the area bordering to the west and the
area which was once the Sternallee hunting
park. It is prohibited to introduce any change
in this area which disfigures the landscape,
damages wildlife or other natural features, or
impairs enjoyment of nature. All measures
carried out require approval by the lower
nature conservation authority.
Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of the
European Communities on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (Habitats Directive)
“Sand areas between Mannheim and
Sandhausen” (area number 6617-341), subarea
Schwetzingen palace gardens and the
surrounding area
May 1992
5. Protection and Management of the Property
This directive aims to ensure “the restoration
or maintenance of natural habitats and
species of Community interest at a favourable
conservation status” and the establishment
of a coherent Community-wide network of
conservation areas under the title ”Natura
2000”. Schwetzingen palace gardens and
the surrounding area, as a sub-area within a
Natura 2000 Special Area of Conservation,
contain old oak trees which are home to the
stag beetle and the cerambyx longicorn, both
of which are species listed in Annex II of the
Habitats Directive.
3. Local Protective Measures
a) “Town Centre Plan” pursuant to Section
1 Para. 5 sentence 2 no. 10 of the Federal
Building Code
May 2004
The town centre plan protects the town
centre (historic town centre and connecting
areas built up to late 1950s/early 1960s)
from excessive building and adverse effects
on historic and other features worthy of
conservation. It defines objectives for the
preservation and the future development
of the town based on a comprehensive and
systematic description and analysis of the
townscape.
b) Ordinance for the regulation of urban
development and the preservation of
townscape heritage (Townscape Ordinance)
pursuant to Section 74 of the Baden-
Württemberg Building Code
July 2004
This ordinance was passed as part of
Schwetzingen’s sustainable development plan.
It applies to an area of approx. 70 ha covering
the town centre (original village centres,
Baroque town centre, main shopping streets,
and residential areas within the town up to the
1950s), which it divides into five areas (A-E),
and regulates almost all conceivable changes
to the townscape, with particular attention
to the town centre. A brochure produced for
the public sets out clear regulations on the
following topics:
5.
133

5. 1.
134
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Maximum height of buildings.
2. Roofs: types, materials, gutters, skylights,
dormers and conversions.
3. Facades: styles, materials and colour.
Types of doors and gates; windows,
storefronts; bays, balconies and porches;
canopies and awnings.
4. Advertising space and vending machines.
5. External aerials and satellite dishes.
6. Fences, walls and hedges.
In accordance with the Townscape Ordinance,
all alterations are to be made in such a way
that they do not have an adverse effect on the
appearance of the building concerned, the
surrounding buildings or the street on which
the building is situated; all alterations are to be
in keeping with the historic, artistic and urban
character of the area.
c) Ordinance for the protection of
Schwetzingen as an entire fixture in
accordance with Section 19 of the
Monument Protection Act (Entire Fixture
Protection Ordinance)
23rd February 2006
This ordinance ensures that the core property
nominated for inscription on the World
Heritage List, consisting of the palace, gardens
and Baroque town centre, enjoys special
protection as an entire fixture in the terms of
Section 19 of the Monument Protection Act.
The borders of the protected area are indicated
in the map in the Appendix. The Ordinance
is designed to protect the existing appearance
of the Baroque town centre and its historic
views. Protection is afforded to the view of the
town and the surrounding countryside from
the gardens, and to the historic views of the
palace and gardens from the town and the
surrounding countryside. The Ordinance also
protects the townscape within the Baroque
town centre.
Extracts from the “Schwetzingen: A Prince
Elector’s Summer Residence” Ordinance of
Schwetzingen Town Council in accordance with
Section 19 of the Monument Protection Act:
”Pursuant to Section 19 of the Act for the
Protection of Cultural Monuments in the
version as of 14th December 2004 (Law
Gazette p.895) in conjunction with Section
4 of the Local Government Code for Baden-
Württemberg in the version as of 24th July
2000 (Law Gazette p.582, as corrected
p.698), last amended 1st December 2005
(Law Gazette p.705), Schwetzingen Town
Council, in consultation with the Regional
Council in Karlsruhe in its capacity as
higher nature conservation authority,
passed the following ordinance on 23rd
February 2006:
Section 1 Protection order
(1) The appearance of the erstwhile
summer residence of Prince-Elector Carl
Theodor, covering an area in the town
of Schwetzingen defined in Section 2, is
hereby placed under monument protection
as an entire fixture entitled “Schwetzingen
– a Prince-Elector’s summer residence”.
(2) The order is intended to preserve the
historic appearance of the buildings,
townscape and landscape on the site.
The preservation of the entire fixture is of
particular public interest by virtue of its
value for science, the arts, and local history.
Section 2 Area covered
The area protected is the palace complex
in the town centre, the palace gardens to
the west, and the Baroque town centre to
the east. The borders of the entire fixture
are laid out in the site plan entitled “Entire
fixture: Schwetzingen – a Prince Elector’s
summer residence”. The site plan is an
integral part of this Ordinance.
Section 3 Subject of protection
The subject of protection is the existing
appearance of the site. Of particular
relevance are:
• the Baroque palace complex, built on the
site of an old hunting lodge and consisting
of the palace and its adjoining buildings;

• the palace gardens, combining Baroque
gardens in the French geometrical style,
meticulously landscaped English-style
gardens, fountains, statuary and garden
buildings, landscape areas bordering off to
the open countryside, and a principal axis
which runs through the centre of the palace
and gardens and on which the Königstuhl
and Kalmit hills form the horizon.
• the Baroque town centre, inextricably
linked with the palace and gardens in form,
function and structure, consisting of the
network of streets and squares radiating
out from the palace (Schlossplatz, Carl-
Theodor-Strasse, Lindenstrasse) with views
of the Königstuhl hill on the horizon; the
two-storey, side-gabled buildings forming a
continuous frontage along the Schlossplatz
and the western part of Carl-Theodor-
Strasse up to the forner royal stables;
and the part of Lindenstrasse forming a
tree-lined avenue as an extension to the
north of the cross-axis running through the
gardens;
• the “Ysenburg Palais”, Forsthausstraße 7, a
Baroque manor next to the palace.
Protection is afforded to:
• the external appearance of the palace, as
seen by an observer standing in places such
as the open countryside, the Baroque town
centre, and Schwetzingen Observatory;
• the internal appearance of streets, squares,
green spaces and open spaces as formed
by historical construction and landscaping
work.
Section 4 Consent for alterations
(1) Alterations to the protected appearance
of the entire fixture require the consent of
the lower Monument Protection Authority.
Attention is drawn in particular to the
following:
• the construction, alteration, renovation or
removal of structural works, other works,
and fixtures and fittings as defined by
the Baden-Württemberg Building Code,
5. Protection and Management of the Property
even if the intended work does not require
planning permission;
• the attachment, alteration, renovation
or removal of outside-wall cladding and
surfacing (plaster, paint), fascias, blinds,
canopies and awnings, lighting fixtures
and fittings, vending and other machines,
aerials and satellite dishes, advertising
space, and photovoltaic and thermic solar
panels, if they are visible from the street or
from outside the entire fixture;
• the alteration of roofing, roof features,
facade elements (doors, windows, shutters),
if they are visible from the street or from
outside the entire fixture;
• the alteration of green spaces or open
spaces, if they are visible from the street or
from outside the entire fixture.
(2) Consent shall be granted if the alteration
would impair the appearance of the entire
fixture only negligibly or temporarily, or if
there are imperative reasons of overriding
public interest for carrying out the
alteration.
(3) Consent may be conditional on the
fulfilment of additional conditions and
requirements.
(4) If alterations described in para.1 require
permission in accordance with other laws
and statutes, the approval of the Monument
Protection Authority takes the place of
the consent required under monument
protection legislation. Projects subject to
a planning approval procedure are not
conditional upon consent as described in
para.1.
(5) Applications for consent are to be
addressed to the Planning Department
(Baurechtsbehörde) of Schwetzingen Town
Council.
(6) If alterations are made to the protected
appearance of the entire fixture illegally
and consent cannot be granted, an order
that the protected appearance of the site
be reinstated may be made.
5.
135

5. Section
136
5. Protection and Management of the Property
5 Offences
(1) It is an offence under Section 27 para. 1 no.
6 of the Monument Protection Act to carry
out any of the acts described in Section
4 para.1 wilfully or negligently without
consent or to violate the requirements
or conditions laid down when consent is
granted.
(2) Anyone committing such an offence can
be liable to a fine of up to E 50,000, rising
to up to E 250,000 in particularly serious
cases.
Section 6 Commencement
This Ordinance comes into effect on the
day of its promulgation.
d) Building development plans
The following building development plans
apply to the nominated site (see map 5).
No. Name of building development plan In force since
4 “Im kleinen Feld” (west of Lindenstrasse) 24th Jan.1958
31 “Nadlerstrasse – Herzogstrasse“ 28th Oct.1972
38/42 “Bismarckstrasse – Marstallstrasse“ 10th July 1984
39/43 “Lindenstrasse – Maschinenweg“ 17th July 1984
41 “Schälzig“ 17th July 1984
48 “Werderstrasse, south“ 11th Nov. 1983
51 “Alter Bauhof car park“ 23rd Sept. 1988
57 “Bismarckplatz and surrounding area“ 13th Mar. 1997
65 “Mannheimer Strasse 40-50“ 27th Mar. 2003
66 “Quartier XV“ 28th July 2003
70 “Quartier I inner block area“ 23rd June 2005
71 “Quartier XI“ 3rd May 2006
72 “Quartier VII“ 23rd May 2009
75 “Quartier X northern area“ in preparation
77 “Quartier XXV“ 4th April 2007
78 “Quartier XXI“ 2nd July 2007

5.c)
Means of Implementing Protective
Measures
All the bodies involved in managing the
property are represented in a steering group
made up of high-ranking members of the
Ministry of Economic Affairs, the Ministry
of Finance, the State Office for Monument
Preservation, the State Agency for Property
Assets and Construction, Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens and Schwetzingen town
council. The steering group coordinates all
matters affecting Schwetzingen’s nomination
for inscription on the List and works in
cooperation with the local-level working
party to ensure that the Management Plan
is implemented in conformity with the
protective measures covering the property (see
organigram, p. 153).
The various monument protection and
nature conservation measures are tailored
to the needs of the areas they cover. The
incorporation of protective measures into
planning processes is guaranteed by a tried
and tested system that requires all supervisory
bodies to be involved in planning processes
(section 8 of the Monument Protection Act).
Planning and Monument Protection
Legislation
Section 8 of the Monument Protection
Act stipulates that any construction or
alteration work on cultural monuments
(as defined in section 2 of the Act) and on
historic monuments of special significance
(sections 12 and 18) requires the approval of
the monument protection authority if it is
likely to cause partial or complete loss of the
substance of the building and/or will impair
the appearance of the property. Section 15
of the Act stipulates that projects affecting
the surroundings of a historic monument of
special significance (as defined in sections 12
and 28) are also subject to approval by the
monument protection authority.
5. Protection and Management of the Property
The designation of the whole of the
nominated property as an entire fixture as
defined in section 19 of the Act means that
construction or alteration work on buildings
not registered as monuments is also subject
to approval. This protection extends to any
surface not built on, such as streets, squares
and green spaces.
Violations of these regulations are treated
as summary offences and carry fines of up to
€ 250,000.
Adherence to planning and monument
protection legislation is monitored by the
following authorities:
1. Baden-Württemberg’s Ministry of Economic
Affairs in its capacity as supreme planning
and monument protection authority;
2. the Regional Council in Karlsruhe in its
capacity as senior planning and monument
protection authority;
3. the town councils of Schwetzingen and
Ketsch (Ketsch being responsible for the
protected areas bordering the palace gardens
to the west) as lower planning and monument
protection authorities.
Approval is granted by the lower monument
protection authority after it has heard the
advice of the senior authority.
Nature Conservation Legislation
Section 37 of the Nature Conservation Act
prohibits changes or disruptions which
could lead to impairment of the integrity of
designated sites. Section 38 stipulates that all
projects are to be assessed for compatibility
with the conservation aims of the site before
being approved or carried out. In addition,
measures have been taken to ensure the
general protection of plants and animals in
accordance with section 43 of the Act.
Adherence to nature conservation legislation is
monitored by the Rhine-Neckar District Office
in its capacity as lower nature-protection
authority.
5.
137

5. 5.d)
138
Management Plan,
Schwetzingen 2009.
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Existing Plans Related to
Municipality and Region in which
the Proposed Property is Located
With the significance of Schwetzingen as
a cultural heritage site in mind, the state
of Baden-Württemberg and Schwetzingen
town council have compiled a management
plan which forms an integral part of the
nomination of Schwetzingen for inscription
on the UNESCO World Heritage List. The
management plan applies to the palace, the
gardens and the Baroque parts of the town,
thus covering the extent of the nominated
property “Schwetzingen - A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence”.
Nomination
for Inscription on the
UNESCO
World Heritage List
Management Plan
Schwetzingen
A Prince Elector’s Summer Residence
The authorities involved publish all planning
concerning the site nominated for inscription
on the World Heritage List in the form of
single-authority plans covering a period of 10
years (2010-2020):
• The preservation and maintenance of
the gardens is regulated by the Gardens
Management Plan.
• Preservation and management of the
cultural heritage inherent in the buildings
in the palace and gardens is detailed in the
Buildings Management Plan.
• Long-term preservation and management
of the cultural heritage of the buildings
within the town is guaranteed by an urban
development plan.
• A “plan for sustainable use and effective
presentation” governs the use of the
palace and gardens, facilities for visitors,
and appropriate presentation and
interpretation of the cultural values of the
site.
• A “Tourism in Schwetzingen” plan lays the
groundwork for sustainable development
of tourism and appropriate local
infrastructure.

5.e)
Property Management Plan or
Other Management Systems
The Management Plan appended to the
nomination establishes guidelines for
sustainable action and brings together
existing plans of diverse authorities into one
common vision. The Management Plan was
passed by the steering group in March 2009
and subsequently, in the course of 2009,
implemented in the operating procedures of
the authorities involved.
The steering group is responsible for
the continuing implementation of the
Management Plan and is supported by a
working party which may call on external
consultants, researchers and interest groups.
Section B of the Management Plan, entitled
“Areas of action of the joint management
group”, brings together projects planned by
the various authorities for the next ten years
under one common vision.
5. Protection and Management of the Property
5.
139

5. 5.f)
140
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Sources and Levels of Finance
Baden-Württemberg Castles
and Gardens
Palace administration budget
(including running costs,
excluding labour costs)
Baden-Württemberg State
Agency for Property Assets and
Construction
Building maintenance and
restoration
Expenditure on restoration
work since 1960 (excluding staff
labour costs)
Planned expenditure for the next
15 years
Resources for building
maintenance (excluding labour
costs)
Schwetzingen town council
Renovation work currently in
progress in the Kernstadt (Town
Centre) and Quartier II areas
Planned restoration projects:
funds applied for
Investment in public projects
(e.g. Carl-Theodor-Straße;
Bismarckplatz, Kleine Planken,
Schlossplatz etc.)
Expenditure on cultural activities
(including labour costs)
Source of funding Level of funding
Budgeted funds of the state of
Baden-Württemberg, allocated by
the Ministry of Finance
Budgeted funds of the state of
Baden-Württemberg, allocated by
the Ministry of Finance
Planned budget of the state
of Baden-Württemberg, funds
earmarked by the Ministry of
Finance
Budgeted funds of the state of
Baden-Württemberg, allocated by
the Ministry of Finance
Federal and state finance: 60%
Schwetzingen town council: 40%
Federal and state finance: 60%
Schwetzingen town council: 40%
annually: approx.
2 million euro
(of which approx.
800,000 euro is for
garden maintenance)
from 1960 to 2009:
approx. 66,5 million
euro
total:
approx.20 million
euro
annually:
approx. 800,000 euro
total:
approx. 10 million
euro
total:
approx. 4 million
euro
Town council funds from 1999 to 2009:
approx. 15 million
euro
Town council funds annually:
approx. 700,000 euro

5.g)
Sources of Expertise and Training
in Conservation and Management
Techniques
The state of Baden-Württemberg and
Schwetzingen town council boast highly
professional administrative systems and a
wealth of connections with key institutions
throughout Germany.
Baden-Württemberg State Office for Monument
Preservation (Esslingen) and Department
of Monument Preservation, Regional
Council in Karlsruhe
The State Office for Monument Preservation
in Esslingen and the Department of
Monument Preservation at the Regional
Council in Karlsruhe employ specialists with
an academic background in the preservation
and restoration of art and architectural
heritage to guarantee sustained expert
conservation of the property. Many of
the staff of the Department of Monument
Preservation are members of ICOMOS, thus
ensuring that international standards are
adhered to. The Department for Monument
Conservation at the Regional Council in
Karlsruhe, along with the State Office for
Monument Preservation, offers expert advice
and support to staff involved in the day-to-day
management of the property. As part of the
senior authority for monument protection,
the Department of Monument Preservation
also plays a procedural role in all planning
affecting the palace, gardens and town.
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens,
Baden-Württemberg State Agency for
Property Assets and Construction (Stuttgart)
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens and
the specialised department within the State
Agency for Property Assets and Construction
provide high-quality support in the
conservation and management of the property.
Support in preservation and presentation is
provided by the highly qualified art historians,
5. Protection and Management of the Property
garden specialists and museum education
officers of the Baden-Württemberg Castles and
Gardens department at the Agency’s central
office, who have connections with national
organisations such as the Facharbeitskreis
Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten in
Deutschland (Research Group for State-owned
Castles and Gardens in Germany) and the
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gartenkunst und
Landschaftskultur (German Society for Garden
Design and Landscape Architecture). Staff
employed at the Agency’s Mannheim office
and its associated departments are supported
by an extensive system of administration
culminating in the offices of the Ministry of
Finance.
Schwetzingen
Schwetzingen has a modern, tightly organised
administration. Urban development, cultural
events and tourism play an important role
in the life of the town, commensurate with
its status as a local urban centre and focus of
culture and tourism. Schwetzingen is part of
the European Metropolitan Region of Rhine-
Neckar and as such an active member of a
dynamic region with a well-developed network
of inter-municipal training opportunities.
5.
141

5. 5.h)
142
Information Pack
“Schwetzingen -
Love at First Sight”.
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Visitor Facilities and Statistics
Schwetzingen’s Stadtinformation, or
Information Centre (run by the Office of
Culture and Sport of Schwetzingen Town
Council,) and the palace administration
(Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens)
have been providing professional, visitororiented
services for tourists for several
decades. The two institutions provide
complementary services, with the town
information service ensuring an attractive
general framework of services for visitors,
while the palace administration focuses on
access to historic buildings and interiors along
with the presentation and interpretation of the
cultural heritage of the property.
Pre-visit Services
The town’s Information Centre and the
Service Centre run by Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens provide a telephone
line for enquiries from potential visitors to
Schwetzingen; and there are various websites
offering more detailed information. The town
information website at [www.schwetzingen.
de] provides information on current events,
dining out, and accommodation. The [www.
schloss-schwetzingen.de] website run by
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens
is angled towards the needs of visitors
interested in the palace and gardens. A
website for the nomination of Schwetzingen
as a World Heritage site has been set up, and
this site supplies more detailed background
information on Schwetzingen’s heritage
value [www.welterbeantrag-schwetzingen.
de]. Additional information on the region is
provided on the website of the Rhine-Neckar
Metropolitan Region [www.rhein-neckardreieck.de].
On request, Schwetzingen’s Information
Centre [stadtinfo@schwetzingen.de] mails
visitors an information pack entitled
“Schwetzingen – Love at First Sight“ which
can be tailored to visitors‘ individual needs.
It may include brochures specifically geared
towards wheelchair users or children, for
example, along with a hotel and restaurant
guide, a brochure giving general information
on the town, an up-to-date calendar of events,
and much more. The brochure service
of Staatsanzeiger-Verlag (Government
Gazette Publications) also includes specific
information on Schwetzingen palace and
gardens [prospektservice@staatsanzeiger.de].
Copies of the following guides are available for
purchase at the palace ticket office.
Guided Tours of the Palace and Gardens
It is the remit of Baden-Württemberg Castles
and Gardens to convey to as broad a public as
possible a sense of the artistic and historical
value of Baden-Württemberg’s heritage.
A commercially run Service Center [info@
service-center-schloss-heidelberg.com] has
been set up in order to ensure economically
viable responses to the growing demand of
visitors for more individually tailored services.
The Service Center organises around 2,000
tours of vastly differing kinds each year for
the palace alone.

Since 1991, guided tours of the palace have
been offered daily at advertised intervals in
summer (except Mondays) and at weekends
in winter. Additional prebooked tours
are available. The tour focuses on the two
summer-residence apartments of the Elector
and Electress on the first floor, alongside the
contrasting depiction of nineteenth-century
use of the palace to be found on the second
floor.
In addition, there are several special tours on
offer. The series of tours entitled “Aspects
of an Era” (which includes themed tours,
costumed tours and event tours) has been a
great success for many years and is now a
hallmark of the work of Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens. Special tours for children
and school groups are enormously successful,
which is due in large part to the roleplaying
activities incorporated into the tours.
Children’s birthday parties are an increasingly
popular event: a room in the orangery devoted
to educational activities is used to stage
educative entertainment.
Tours of the Town
The number of guided tours of Schwetzingen
on offer has steadily increased in line with
growing demand, and several new tour types
have been introduced. The Information Centre
offers a general tour entitled “Schwetzingen
– a town with a flair of its own” giving an
overview of the town’s history, along with
more adventurous tour types which aim
to make Schwetzingen’s history a tangible
experience. These include themed tours
(available in English and French) such as
“A walk with the asparagus seller” and
“Schwetzingen at dusk”; historical-costume
tours such as “Fallen among thieves” and “In
Mozart’s footsteps”; a “lantern tour”; historical
murder-mystery dinners; and children’s
treasure hunts. All tours are on foot, thus
promoting gentle, sustainable tourism within
the town.
5. Protection and Management of the Property
The Karl Wörn Museum and the Town
Archives also offer occasional tours on
particular topics from Schwetzingen‘s history.
S O N D E R - J O U R N A L
SCHWETZINGEN
SCHLOSS • SCHLOSSGARTEN • STADT
Sommerresidenz:
Die glanzvolle Zeit
Kunst und Kultur:
Die prägende Größe
Genuss:
Der richtige Ort
Guides and Brochures
Schlossgarten Schwetzingen (Hartmut
Troll, Andreas Förderer, Uta Schmitt), 80
p., München 2008. Available in English and
French as well.
Schloss Schwetzingen (Wolfgang Wiese, Ralf
Richard Wagner, Wolfgang Schröck-Schmidt),
72 p., München 2009. Available in English and
French as well.
Schwetzingen special issue (ed. Staatsanzeiger-
Verlag/Dr. Helmuth Bischoff/Baden-
Württemberg Castles and Gardens/City of
Schwetzingen), 88 p., 97 illustrations, Stuttgart
2009.
7 €
5.
Brochure “Schwetzingen -
Palace, Garden, Town”. 2009.
143

5. Visitor
144
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Statistics
These statistics cover the number of tickets
sold for entry to the gardens and guided tours,
and the number of overnight stays in the
town.
Entry to the gardens and entry to the palace
(guided tours) for 1995-2008
Year Gardens Palace TOTAL
1995 367,296 32,595 399,891
1996 457,453 32,046 489,499
1997 474,910 29,184 504,094
1998 411,218 31,226 442,444
1999 559,133 38,494 597,627
2000 582,491 39,159 621,650
2001 534,510 36,599 571,109
2002 518,217 40,245 558,462
2003 513,279 40,490 553,769
2004 476,238 37,889 514,127
2005 491,278 35,809 527,087
2006 415,214 33,423 448,637
2007 436,348 35,178 471,526
2008 436,855 33,901 470,756
Arrivals and overnight stays in the town
2002-2008
Year Establishments
open total international
visitors
Arrivals Overnight stays Length of stay
total international
visitors
2002 11 53.116 20.910 86.662 32.351 1.6
2003 10 44,192 17,348 77,839 30,045 1.8
2004 15 52,240 21,897 88,658 35,261 1.7
2005 13 51,598 20,732 89,329 34,013 1.7
2006 14 51,762 18,103 91,346 29,709 1.8
2007 14 57,503 20,930 98,354 31,524 1.7
2008 14 50,905 17,353 88,977 28,143 1.7
average length
(days)

5.i)
Policies and Programmes Related
to the Presentation and Promotion
of the Property
Exhibitions at Schwetzingen
1. The south quarter-circle pavilion houses
an exhibition on the history of the gardens
featuring a large-scale model which affords the
visitor an overall view of the gardens. Display
boards contain information on the history
and creation of the gardens at Schwetzingen
and sensitise the visitor to the peculiarites of
historic gardens in general, with information
on topics ranging from technical terms to
botanical revitalisation.
2. The exhibition of historical implements
brings the history of work carried out in
the gardens closer to its visitors. After an
introduction to Schwetzingen’s gardeners,
the exhibition reveals garden implements
and other tools, old machinery, and fire
engines from the nineteenth-century. It also
features educational presentations of valuable
eighteenth-century relics such as original
benches from the gardens and the remains of
the wooden proscenium of the open-air theatre.
3. The orangery houses an exhibition on
the history and function of orangeries in
general, with particular focus on orangeries
at Schwetzingen, thus conveying a sense of
the significance of the Schwetzingen orangery
buildings. In the winter months it is possible
to look through a glass wall into the east
side of the building, which is still used as an
orangery and features an eighteenth-century
stove and an authentic clay floor. The west
side of the building contains an exhibition
of much of the original garden statuary;
with copies in the gardens, the originals are
thus protected from the elements, and the
carefully designed museum-like environment
encourages detailed contemplation and study
of the original figures and vases exhibited.
4. A Historic Way has been created in the town
at the suggestion of the Schwetzingen branch
of the Baden Local History Association. The
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Historic Way is a life-sized history book made
up of information boards and commemorative
plaques marking historic places and buildings
in the town. The places marked along the Way
are indicated in the street map published by
the Information Centre, which also includes
other routes of discovery. This map is now
available in English, French and Italian as well
as German.
5. The Karl Wörn Town Museum, which
houses the Schwetzingen Collections, aims to
convey the history of Schwetzingen from the
first neolithic settlement 5,000 years ago up
to the present day, presenting the history of
the town from various angles in its permanent
collection and regular exhibitions.
5.
South quarter-circle pavilion:
Exhibition on the history of the
gardens.
Building materials storehouse:
Exhibition of historical
implements.
145

5. The
146
Orangery: Exhibition on
the history and function of
orangeries; exhibition of the
original garden statuary.
Schwetzingen town: One of the
commemorative plaques of the
‘Historic Way’
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Schlösser Baden-Württemberg Magazine
Schlösser Baden-Württemberg (Baden-
Württemberg Castles and Palaces) is a
quarterly magazine initiated by Baden-
Württemberg Castles and Gardens and
published by Staatsanzeiger-Verlag
(Government Gazette Publications). Since
Schwetzingen palace and gardens are among
the most important cultural monuments in
Baden-Württemberg, the magazine regularly
features Schwetzingen in its articles. Together
with its website [www.schloesser-magazin.de],
which is available in English, the magazine is
an indispensable forum for the presentation
and public-relations work carried out in
connection with Schwetzingen.
Castle Road/European Mozart Ways
Schwetzingen is part of two international
tourist routes. The Castle Road [www.
burgenstrasse.de] is a 1,000km route leading
from neighbouring Mannheim to Prague; and
the European Mozart Ways association [www.
mozartways.com] is a European network
tracing the steps of Wolfgang Amadeus
Mozart. Both associations present and
promote Schwetzingen as part of an exclusive
international group of venues.
Schwetzingen Festival
Schwetzingen Festival has been held annually
during the summer months for over fifty years
and makes a major permanent contribution
to the presentation and promotion of
Schwetzingen beyond regional and expertinterest
boundaries. With approx. 700 annual
broadcasts, the Festival is the largest radio
festival of classical music in existence, and it
serves to establish Schwetzingen in the public
mind as a key destination for cultural tourists
[www.swr.de/swr2/schwetzinger-festspiele].

5.j)
Staffing Levels (Professional,
Technical, Maintenance)
Staff at the palace and gardens are employed
by the Baden-Württemberg Castles and
Gardens.
Senior Management (Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens, State Agency for
Property Assets and Construction)
Overall management responsibility lies
with three members of Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens (including staff from
the Conservation and Historic Gardens
departments Central Management Bruchsal),
along with two administrative staff at the
Agency’s Mannheim office.
Staff Employed by the Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens
Schwetzingen palace administration, which is
responsible for the day-to-day management of
the palace and gardens, has thirty employees
(gardeners, guides, porters and other security
staff, administrative staff, and shop and ticketoffice
staff).
5. Protection and Management of the Property
Schwetzingen palace building and
maintenance department, responsible for
building maintenance and construction plans,
has a staff of seven (architects, site managers
and technicians).
The palace administration calls on an
additional five guides and security staff on a
seasonal basis.
In addition, the “Service Center“ in Heidelberg
provides staff for guided tours of the palace
and gardens.
Staff Employed by the Town Council
The Department of Culture and Sport has five
administrative staff (department manager,
art historian PhD as a senior officer, secretary,
clerical officer, trainee). A further six staff are
employed at the Information Centre (head
of centre qualified in tourism management,
five clerical officers). The Karl Wörn Town
Museum has a staff of one (art historian), as
do the Town Archives (an archivist).
The Planning Department has a staff of 49
(the Chief Planning Officer, a civil engineer,
a qualified geographer, a land surveyor, an
administration manager, administrative
and clerical staff, builders and tradesmen,
assistants, and gardeners).
5.
147

5.
148
5. Protection and Management of the Property
TEMPLE OF MERCURY
„ “
Particularly instructive and encyclopaedic, as it were, is in this respect a garden on the
threshold between the Baroque and the English style: the loveliest of them all, the Schwetzingen
palace garden. Next to reeded ponds and urns the world’s memorable sights have been
collected here in the shape of follies and facades – a green exhibition hall. An exhibition
hall, however, displaying expressed moods and fantasies, a natural treasury of artificial and
sentimental valuables. Green yew and white deities, aviary and hidden bathhouse, Apollo
temple and mosque – all these early flights of fancy are there. There is a temple of Mercury
and another of Minerva, with a subterranean chamber dedicated to Wisdom; there is a
temple of Botany and a Roman water-tower, all transferred from the theatre of the Baroque
age into the open park. This was the pleasure garden of princes, the stage of courtly masques
and promenades, yet at the same time, a breath of rapture, of a fantastic remoteness lingers.
Susanna’s aria from the Marriage of Figaro lives right here, the nobility of Mozart’s music
is heard in these gardens next to the flamboyance that creates its curious artificial world
from history, mythology, foreign parts. – Ernst Bloch, Das Prinzip Hoffnung, Berlin 1959.

6. Monitoring
6.a)
Key Indicators for Measuring
State of Conservation
Indicator Periodicity Location of records
1. External
appearance
1:
Schwetzingen’s status as a cultural heritage
site of outstanding significance is largely
dependent on the authenticity of the picture
it presents, that of an 18th-century summer
residence with gardens dating from the
latter half of the 18th-century. Points of
comparison for measuring the preservation
of Schwetzingen’s external appearance take
the form of textual and graphical sources
depicting the state of the property in the
18th-century. The Gardens Management
Plan delivers a detailed comparative analysis
of these sources, setting them alongside the
subsequent historical state of conservation
of the gardens and the gardens‘ present
appearance.
The Images volume appended to the
nomination includes extensive photographic
records of the site in 2006, thus providing
ample opportunity for comparison. The
implementation of the measures outlined in
the Management Plan, and the continuation
of the conservation work detailed in
the buildings management and gardens
management plans represent reliable
measures of whether and to what extent the
appearance of the property has changed.
Not only is the state of the property itself
important fo the appearance of the ensemble,
however; the conservation of views from the
gardens, historic lines of sight, and views
of the town, palace and gardens from the
annual Regional Council in Karlsruhe, Dept. of
Monument Preservation
2. State of buildings annual Baden-Württemberg State Agency for
Property Assets and Construction
Mannheim Office, Schwetzingen Building
and Maintenance Dept.
3. State of gardens annual Castles and Gardens, Bruchsal
surrounding countryside are also essential to
the overall Baroque picture. The photographic
records of 2006, along with the photographic
evidence in the Buildings Management Plan
and the Gardens Management Plan, provide
significant opportunity for comparison in this
aspect of the property’s appearance.
2:
The most important measures of the state
of conservation of the buildings in the
property are structural stability and resistance
to deterioration from the elements. The
Buildings Management Plan lists the
work necessary for the preservation of each
individual building. Any neglect of this
maintenance would result in a deterioration in
the state of conservation of the buildings.
3:
The state of conservation of the gardens is
similarly dependent on constant maintenance
work. Work to be carried out is described in
the Gardens Management Plan, which also
provides expert justification for the measures
detailed. Neglect of such work would not only
bring about short-term deterioration of the
overall appearance of the gardens; it would
also put the gardens‘ state of conservation at
long-term risk, since it would mean that vital
gardening knowledge and skills would be lost
through lack of use.
6.
149

6.
150
6. Monitoring
6.b)
Administrative Arrangements for
Monitoring the Property
The property is monitored through the control
mechanisms of the institutions involved in
managing the property, the implementation
of the Management Plan, and also by the
Working Party and Steering Group.
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens,
Schwetzingen Town Council
All the departments of Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens involved in managing the
palace and gardens (administrative, palace,
and gardens staff) meet once a month; and
once a year there is a comprehensive tour of
the site together with high-ranking members
of the Castles and Gardens. This tour enables
staff to view and analyse the entire extent
of the palace and gardens, and it is here
that the need for restoration or preservation
work is established and discussed. The
results of these annual tours are recorded
and channelled directly into plans for work.
Planned work is listed in order of urgency in
the “Overall Planning” section of the Baden-
Württemberg State Budget, and funds are
released accordingly.
Work on areas in or affecting the town is
discussed and planned at meetings of the
town council.
Acute conservation problems are resolved
immediately by the relevant authority, and
rapid coordination of responses to acute issues
is facilitated by the proximity of the palace
administration and buildings department to
the administrative and planning offices of the
town council.
Working Party and Steering Group
Longer-term issues are raised by the
representatives of the institutions involved at
the quarterly meetings of the working party.
The working party, in turn, submits an annual
report to the steering group on the state of
conservation of the property along with any
necessary work to be carried out.

Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector‘s Summer Residence. Authorities Involved in the Management of the Property
n Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Trade and Commerce (Stuttgart)
As Baden-Württemberg’s highest authority for monument protection, the Ministry is responsible for implementing the Monument
Protection Act. The Ministry makes all general policy decisions affecting monument protection, conservation and management
across Baden-Württemberg, and oversees all of Baden-Württemberg’s World Heritage projects.
n Regional Council in Stuttgart, State Office for Monument Preservation (Esslingen)
The State Office for Monument Preservation draws up guidelines for the conservation of buildings, works of art and archaeological
sites, and participates in their implementation. Working to ensure consistency across Baden-Württemberg, the Office
develops criteria for the examination and assessment of cultural monuments and entire fixtures, and acts as the authority on
monument-conservation issues both within state government and for the wider public.
n Administrative Office and Public
Relations
Schedules meetings of the steering
group and working party. In charge of
public relations and the drafting and organization
of events in connection with
the nomination for inscription on the
World Heritage list. The office is part of
Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten Baden-
Württemberg (Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens).
n Steering Group
Coordinates all issues related to
Schwetzingen’s nomination for
inscription on the World Heritage
List; oversees the working party; is
responsible for implementation of the
Management Plan and implementation
of projects. Members: Ministry of Trade
and Commerce, Ministry of Finance,
Regional Council in Stuttgart (State
Office for Monument Preservation),
Baden-Württemberg Castles and
Gardens, State Agency for Property
Assets and Construction (Mannheim),
Schwetzingen Town Council.
n Regional Council in Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe)
Department 26, Monument Preservation
The Department of Monument Preservation is responsible for supervising specialist conservation work on buildings, works of
art and archaeological sites. The Department provides expert consultancy for the owners of cultural monuments and for lower
monument-protection authorities in the administrative region of Karlsruhe; renders expert opinion in legal proceedings; documents
and catalogues cultural monuments; and processes applications for grants and subsidies.
Department 56, Nature Conservation and Landscape Management
As the senior nature conservation authority, the Department for Nature Conservation and Landscape Management manages
nature conservation areas.
n Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Finance (Stuttgart)
The Ministry owns the palace and gardens. As the highest-ranking authority in Baden-Württemberg, it exercises supervision
over the State Agency for Property Assets and Construction
6. Monitoring
n Working Party
Represents the groups and institutions
responsible for the property;
implements projects connected with
Schwetzingen’s nomination for
inscription on the List. Members:
Baden-Württemberg Castles and
Gardens, State Agency for Property
Assets and Construction (Mannheim,
Schwetzingen Building and Maintenance
Deptartmen), Regional Council
in Stuttgart (State Office for Monument
Preservation), Regional Council in
Karlsruhe (Dept. for Monument Preservation,
Dept. for Nature Conservation),
Schwetzingen Town Council.
n Baden-Württemberg State Agency for Property Assets and Construction (Stuttgart)
Acts as property owner on behalf of the Ministry of Finance.
Mannheim Office (Mannheim)
Manages state-owned real estate and acts on behalf of Baden-
Württemberg Castles and Gardens in Heidelberg, Mannheim
and the Rhine-Neckar administrative district.
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens
Central Management Castles and Gardens (Bruchsal)
Acts as property owner on behalf of the Ministry of
Finance.
Schwetzingen Building and Maintenance Dept.
Carries out construction and maintenance work.
Schwetzingen Palace Administration
Responsible for administration, staffing, garden maintenance
and use of property.
Schwetzingen Town Council (Schwetzingen)
Management of those parts of the property which lie in the town.
Planning Department (Schwetzingen)
Lower monument-protection authority as part of the lower
planning authority. Responsible for granting planning permission
and planning approval. The lower planning authority
makes its decisions after consultation with the monument
preservation department at the Regional Council.
Mayor’s Office
Business development; press office; events.
Dept. of Families, Senior Citizens, Culture and Sport
Responsible for cultural matters, town twinnings, tourism
Dept. of Culture.
6.
151

6.
152
6. Monitoring
6.c)
Results of Previous Reporting
Exercises
The palace gardens in particular have been the
object of many surveys and reports, the most
pertinent of which are outlined below. These
reports demonstrate that the Schwetzingen
Date Title, author, source Content
1795 “Protocollum Commissionale
über das Schwezinger Hof-,
Bau- und Gartenwesen“
by Nicolas de Pigage,
Friedrich Ludwig von Sckell
et al.
Karlsruhe,
Generallandesarchiv (Central
State Archives).
1928 “Schwetzingen – ein
Arbeitsprogramm für seine
künstlerische Erhaltung“
by Franz Hallbaum
In: Die Gartenkunst, July
1928, pp. 102-105.
1937 “Vorschläge für eine
Verbesserung des
Bestehenden im
Schwetzinger Schlossgarten“
by Carl Heicke
In: Die Gartenkunst,
December 1937, pp. 249-256.
ensemble of palace, gardens and town was
perceived as a cultural monument from
an early stage, and that even in the past its
preservation was considered an essential and
permanent task.
Reports on the State of Conservation of the
Property
This text, the result of a comprehensive inspection
of the palace and gardens lasting several weeks, is a
unique record of heritage garden management avant
la lettre. It covers all the buildings in the palace
grounds, listing their contents and indicating where
repairs are needed; and it deals in detail with both
the state of the gardens and the processes leading
to that state, with a catalogue of instructions for
the future care of plants and trees in which the
principles of garden design are accorded absolute
priority (transcribed in the Gardens Management
Plan by Hubert Wolfgang Wertz und Uta Schmitt,
Bruchsal 2005).
This text, by one of the most renowned garden
historians of the time, gives a description and
analysis of the contemporary state of the gardens.
The author pleads for forward-looking conservation
of the palace gardens in the form of constant, careful
regeneration of plants and trees.
Heicke analyses the entire ensemble, starting with
the town. He stresses “that the town, palace and
gardens were conceived, planned and built as a
harmonious whole, and that, in particular, the
street [i.e. what is now Carl-Theodor-Strasse], the
Marktplatz [i. e. the Schlossplatz], the entrance to the
gardens with the porters‘ lodges, and the palace were
conceived and created as an architectural unit“. His
main concern, however, is the state of the copses in
the palace gardens, and he draws attention to the
problems of the 150-year-old gardens, pleading for
measures to be taken in which “forestry experience
and garden design go hand in hand”.

Date Title, author, source Content
1933 “Die Kunstdenkmäler des
Amtsbezirks Mannheim –
Stadt Schwetzingen“
edited by Kurt Martin
Verlag C. F. Müller, Karlsruhe
1933
1970 “Parkpflegewerk für den
Schwetzinger Schlossgarten“
(Gardens Management Plan)
by Christian Bauer and
Walter Schwenecke.
Archives of Baden-
Württemberg Castles and
Gardens (Bruchsal).
1987 “15 Jahre Parkpflegewerk
für den Schwetzinger
Schlossgarten – eine
Zwischenbilanz“
by Walter Schwenecke
In: Das Gartenamt, 36, 1987,
p. 7 ff.
1988/89 “Formschnitt der Bäume und
Hecken im Schwetzinger
Barockgarten – Gutachten
für die Oberfinanzdirektion
Karlsruhe“
by Clemens Alexander
Wimmer
Archives of Baden-
Württemberg Castles and
Gardens (Bruchsal).
6. Monitoring
This work, part of a series of volumes on
monuments in the area, continues to supply the
basis of any serious examination of the history
of the Schwetzingen ensemble. Martin not only
researched and incorporated extensive source
material; he undertook an in-depth description,
documentation and analysis of the contemporary
state of the property. His texts are complemented
by extensive photographic material (Rudolf Beideck)
and numerous plans of the existing buildings by
the architect Wilhelm Schweitzer, documenting the
state of all the important buildings in the ensemble
around 1930.
Schwetzingen’s Gardens Management Plan was
one of the first gardens management plans to be
compiled in Germany. After discussing the history
of each part of the gardens and providing an
analysis of their existing state, the Plan lists specific
details of work to be carried out in order to ensure
a continued high level of conservation in the future.
The Plan was ratified in 1972 and implemented
for the most part over the following decades. The
current exemplary state of conservation of the
gardens demonstrates the quality of the Plan, which
served as a model for many subsequent gardens
management plans.
Walter Schwenecke, one of the authors of the
1970 Gardens Management Plan, discusses
the contemporary state of the gardens in this
preliminary report on the success of the Plan after
its partial implementation in the 1970s and 1980s.
This report by Clemens Alexander Wimmer, a
renowned expert in heritage gardens conservation,
deals with a topic of particular relevance for
Schwetzingen’s Baroque gardens, one that could
not be dealt with within the scope of the Gardens
Management Plan: the numerous topiaried trees
and hedges the gardens contain. Wimmer gives
proposals for dealing with individual issues and for
the proper maintenance of the gardens’ topiary.
6.
153

6. Date
154
6. Monitoring
Title, author, source Content
1992 “Treillagearchitekturen im
Zentrum des Schwetzinger
Schlossgartens – Gutachten
für die Oberfinanzdirektion
Karlsruhe“
by Wiltrud Heber.
Archives of Baden-
Württemberg Castles and
Gardens (Bruchsal).
2005 “Parkpflegewerk
Schwetzingen –
Fortschreibung“
by Uta Schmitt und Hubert
Wolfgang Wertz
Archives of Baden-
Württemberg Castles and
Gardens (Bruchsal)
2006 “Baupflegekatalog
Schwetzingen“
by Hans-Dieter Proske
Archives of Schwetzingen
Building and Maintenance
Dept.
Trellis constructions enjoy a special status at
Schwetzingen, with the palace gardens possessing
a remarkable wealth of such structures (e.g. the
quarter-circle pergolas, the structure supporting
the water-spouting birds, the arbour walk of the
diorama). Wiltrud Heber, the author of a seminal
volume on the work of Nicolas de Pigage, delivers
an exhaustive report on the history of trellises at
Schwetzingen at Schwetzingen and the current state
of the structures remaining.
This update of the Gardens Management Plan,
completed in 2005, is more than a mere appendix
to the original Plan of 1970 (listed above). Extracts
from the 1970 plan are used as a basis for
comprehensive discussion of written and visual
sources which draws on the most recent research
in the field. A clearly presented division of the
gardens into individual areas permits each section
to be documented across time: historical states are
analysed and directly compared with the state of the
gardens today.
Emphasis is placed on the documentation of work
carried out between 1970 and 2005, assessment
of the level of conservation of the gardens, and an
overall plan for preservation and restoration.
A comprehensive range of appendices includes a
summary of work to be carried out in the future and
observations on use of the property and publicrelations
activities.
The Buildings Management Plan complements the
Gardens Management Plan in outlining the history
of the architectural elements in the palace and
gardens. It presents the history of each building in
terms both of its creation and the uses to which it
has been put, and gives details of conservation work
carried out in the twentieth-century, an analysis of
the current state of the buildings, and a programme
of action for the future.

6. Monitoring
6.
155

6.
156
6. Monitoring
THE MOSQUE AND CLOISTER
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
„ “
… the mosque in the Schwetzingen palace grounds would be of outstanding historical and art
historical value for the sole reason that it is the only surviving building of a type once quite
common in 18th-century European landscape gardens. However, the Schwetzingen mosque
by its sheer dimensions, the magnificence of its décor and the sophistication of its underlying
programme surpasses all other known garden mosques, and in fact all “Oriental” buildings
of its time. […] in contrast to the other, lost garden mosques the Schwetzingen structure
was neither a mere set piece nor an exotic summer house. The entirety of the architecture,
decorative elements and inscriptions, among them quotes from the Koran, bears witness to
a sincere and heartfelt desire to approach a different religion, and the quotes of Oriental
wisdom, on a basis of tolerance in search of the common principle of Enlightened reason.

7. Documentation
7.a)
Photographs, Slides, Image
Inventory and Authorization Table
7.a) 1: Photographs
Between summer 2005 and autumn 2009,
the State Office for Monument Preservation
at the Regional Council in Stuttgart compiled
comprehensive photographic documentation
of the property: Dr. Otto Braasch took aerial
photographs of the entire ensemble, and Mr.
Bernd Hauser photographed all the most
important buildings, interiors and garden
areas. These photographs are reproduced
in chapters IV and V of the Images volume
appended to the nomination.
7.a) 2: Digital Images
The material described under (1) above is also
supplied on a disk attached to the nomination
(DVD 2).
7.a) 3: Slides
The material described under (1) above is also
supplied in the form of 35mm slides attached
to the nomination.
7.a) 4: Image Inventory and Authorisation
Table
The image inventory lists the visual
documentation provided and gives
authorisation details.
7.b)
Texts Relating to Protective
Designation
7.b) 1: Administrative Plans
These are documents on the development of
the town, palace and gardens compiled by the
state of Baden-Württemberg and the town
council of Schwetzingen.
Management Plan
The Management Plan is a development
plan produced jointly by the state of Baden-
Württemberg and the town of Schwetzingen,
and was finalised in March 2009.
7.b) 2: Laws and Statutes
Laws, statutes and ordinances governing the
actions of the administration.
• Baden-Württemberg Monument
Protection Act in the version as of 1
January 2005 (in German and English)
• Federal and state nature-conservation
legislation (in German)
• Schwetzingen Townscape Ordinance of
28 July 2004 (in German)
7.
157

7. 7.b)
158
7. Documentation
3: Large-format Maps (folded)
• Plan of „Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence“, scale: 1:2500, plan as
in 2009
• Map 1: „Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence “, Nominated Area
and Proposed Buffer Zone, plan as in
December 2009.
• Map 2: „Schwetzingen: A Prince
Elector’s Summer Residence “, Cultural
Monuments in Accordance with Baden-
Württemberg’s Monument Protection Act
(DSchG BW), plan as in December 2009.
• Map 3: “Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence“, Entire Fixture and
Protection of Surroundings in Accordance
with Baden-Württemberg’s Monument
Protection Act (DSchG BW), plan as in
December 2009.
• Map 4: “Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence“, Protection in
Accordance with Baden-Württemberg’s
Act for Nature Protection and Landscape
Conservation (NatSchG BW), plan as in
December 2009.
• Map 5: “Schwetzingen: A Prince Elector’s
Summer Residence“, Local Protective
Measures, plan as in December 2009
7.c)
Form and Date of Most Recent
Records or Inventory of Property
The list of monuments for the entire town
of Schwetzingen was updated in 2009 by
Department 26 (Monument Preservation) of
the Regional Council in Karlsruhe, and the list
of monuments within the property nominated
for inscription on the List is reprinted in the
Appendix. The Buildings Management Plan,
which deals in detail with the buildings in the
palace grounds, was drawn up in the same
year. In 2006 the Gardens Management
Plan was updated, which covers the gardens
in great detail. Finally, Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens in Bruchsal holds a
continually updated catalogue of movable
works of art (sculptures, paintings, furniture
and objets d’art).

7.d)
Addresses where Inventory,
Records and Archives are Held
List of Cultural Monuments (Denkmalliste):
Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe, Referat 26,
Denkmalpflege
Moltkestraße 74; 76133 Karlsruhe
Head of department: Curator-in-Chief
Dr. Johannes Wilhelm
e-mail: johannes.wilhelm@rpk.bwl.de
Archive Sources:
1. Baden-Württemberg Archives at
Karlsruhe:
Generallandesarchiv Karlsruhe
Nördliche Hildapromende 2;
76133 Karlsruhe
e-mail: glakarlsruhe@la-bw.de
2. Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens,
Central Management:
Referat Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten
Schlossraum 22a; 76646 Bruchsal
e-mail: gabriele.kleiber@ssg.bwl.de
3. Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens,
Schwetzingen Palace Management:
Schloss Schwetzingen
Schloss (Mittelbau); 68723 Schwetzingen
e-mail: harry.filsinger@ssg.bwl.de
4. Schwetzingen Town Archives:
Stadtarchiv Schwetzingen
Rathaus
Hebelstraße 1; 68723 Schwetzingen
e-mail: joachim.kresin@schwetzingen.de
7.e)
Bibliography
7. Documentation
An extensive bibliography can be found
at the end of the Appendix ‘Texts’. The
selection listed below represents the ten most
important publications on the nominated
property, in chronological order:
1. Johann Michael Zeyher/J. G. Rieger,
Schwezingen und seine Garten-Anlagen, 3.
veränderte Auflage der Erstausgabe von 1809,
Mannheim 1824 (Reprint: Schwetzingen
1997).
2. Die Kunstdenkmäler des Amtsbezirks
Mannheim – Stadt Schwetzingen, bearbeitet
von Kurt Martin, Karlsruhe 1933.
3. Wiltrud Heber, Die Arbeiten des Nicolas
de Pigage in den ehemals kurpfälzischen
Residenzen Mannheim und Schwetzingen, 2
Bände, Worms 1986.
4. Nicolas de Pigage (1723-1796) Architekt des
Kurfürsten Carl Theodor, Ausst. Kat. Reiss-
Museum Mannheim, Köln 1996.
5. Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit. Kurfürst
Carl Theodor (1724-1799) zwischen Barock
und Aufklärung, Ausst.-Kat. Reiss-Museum
Mannheim, 2 Bände, Regensburg 1999.
6.Karl Wörn, Schwetzingen zur
Jahrtausendwende, 5. erweiterte Auflage,
Schwetzingen 2000.
7. Carl Ludwig Fuchs/Claus Reisinger, Schloß
und Garten zu Schwetzingen, Worms 2001.
8. Silke Leopold/Bärbel Pelker, Hofoper
in Schwetzingen – Musik, Bühnenkunst,
Architektur, Heidelberg 2004.
9. Hartmut Troll/Andreas Förderer/Uta
Schmitt, Schlossgarten Schwetzingen,
München 2008.
10. Ralf Richard Wagner, In seinem Paradiese
Schwetzingen ... Das Badhaus des Kurfürsten
Carl Theodor von der Pfalz, Ubstadt-Weiher
2009.
7.
159

7.
MOSQUE
N. N. [Dodd, Charles Edward]:
An Autumn near the Rhine;
or sketches of court, society,
scenery etc, in some of the
German states bordering on the
Rhine, London 1818, S. 371.
160
7. Documentation
„
“
We rode over from Mannheim to Schwetzingen, an ancient residence of the Electors Palatine
with a garden considered the most splendid in Germany, and not exceeded by many in Europe.

8. Contact Information
8.a)
Preparer
Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Economic
Affairs:
MR Ludwig Ostberg
Theodor-Heuss-Straße 4
70174 Stuttgart
Tel.: + 49 (0) 711-123-0
Fax: + 49 (0) 711-123-2126
E-Mail: poststelle@wm-bwl.de
Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Finance:
MRin Dr. Cornelia Ruppert
Neues Schloss
70173 Stuttgart
Tel.: + 49 (0) 711-279-3717
Fax: + 49 (0) 711-279-3905
E-Mail: cornelia.ruppert@fm.bwl.de
Regional Council in Stuttgart,
State Office for Monument Preservation:
Prof. Dr. Michael Goer
Berliner Straße 12
73728 Esslingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 711-66463-170
Fax: + 49 (0) 711-66463-444
E-Mail: michael.goer@rps.bwl.de
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens:
Director
LRD Michael Hörrmann
Schlossraum 22a
76646 Bruchsal
Tel.: + 49 (0) 7251-742700
Fax: + 49 (0) 7251-742740
E-Mail: michael.hoerrmann@ssg.bwl.de
Mayor of Schwetzingen:
Oberbürgermeister Dr. René Pöltl
Rathaus, Hebelstraße 1
68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-87201
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87202
E-Mail: rene.poeltl@schwetzingen.de
Sincere thanks are due to the members of the
steering group and working party and the
many other individuals who were involved in
this nomination:
Dr. Kurt Andermann, Dr. Claudia Baer-
Schneider, Dr. Barbara Brähler, Dr. Kai
Budde, Dr. Rob de Jong, Volkmar Eidloth,
Dr. Robert Erb, Andreas Falz, Harry Filsinger,
Tanja Fischer, Dr. Thomas Flum, Dr. Andreas
Förderer, Prof. Dr. Michael Goer, Prof. Dr. Géza
Hajós, Dr. Andreas Hensen, Prof. Dr. Michael
Hesse, Annegret Kalvelage, Sven Kasper, Peter
Knoch, Joachim Kresin, Dr.-Ing. Klaus von
Krosigk, Ing. Wolfgang Leberecht, Dr. Sabine
Leutheußer-Holz, Ilona Martini, Jochen Martz,
Stefan Moebus, Dr. Stefan Mörz, Dr. Michael
Niedermeier, Dr. Petra Pechacek, Dr. Bärbel
Pelker, Angel Ponz, Hans-Dieter Proske,
Gerhard Raab, Dr. Susan Richter, Franziska
Rieland, Hermann Rohr, Petra Schaffrodt, Uta
Schmitt, Dr. Monika Scholl, Dr. Udo Simon,
Svenja Schrickel, Peter Stieber, Prof. Dr. Rainer
Stripf, Hans Struve, Peter Thoma, Dr. Hartmut
Troll, Dr. Ralf Richard Wagner, Harald Weiß,
Mathias Welle, Achim Wendt, Gerhard Wenz,
Hubert Wolfgang Wertz, Dr. Wolfgang Wiese,
Dr. Klaus Wirth.
Material was compiled in agreement with the
Baden-Württemberg Ministry of Economic
Affairs, the Baden-Württemberg Ministry of
Finance, the Regional Council in Stuttgart
(State Office for Monument Preservation,
Esslingen), the Regional Council in Karlsruhe
(Dept. 26, Monument Preservation; Dept. 56,
Nature Conservation and Landscape
Management), the Baden-Württemberg State
Agency for Property Assets and Construction
(Mannheim Office), Baden-Württemberg
Castles and Gardens and Schwetzingen
town council (Mayor’s office, Department of
Culture, Department of Marketing, Planning
Department, Schwetzingen Collections).
8.
161

8.
162
8. Contact Information
8.b)
Official Local Institutions/
Agencies
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens:
Schlossraum 22; 76646 Bruchsal
Tel.: + 49 (0) 7251-74-2700
Fax: + 49 (0) 7251-74-2740
Baden-Württemberg Castles and Gardens:
Schwetzingen Palace Administration
Schloss (Mittelbau); 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-81-484
Fax: + 49 (0) 7251-81-386
Schwetzingen Town Hall:
Rathaus Schwetzingen,
Hebelstraße 1; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-87-201
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87-202
8.c)
Other Local
Institutions
Lower Monument Protection Authority
Stadtbauamt Schwetzingen
(Schwetzingen Planning Dept.)
Hebelstraße 7; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-87-296
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87-279
Department for Town Planning,
Traffic Development and Architecture
Hebelstraße 7; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-87290
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87279
Department for Promotion of Trade
and Industry, Coordination and Press
Hebelstraße 1; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-87105
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87111
Culture and Tourism Schwetzingen
Department for families, senior citizens,
culture and sports
Hebelstraße 1; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel: + 49 (0) 6202-87137
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87138
Karl-Wörn-Haus, Schwetzinger Sammlungen
(Karl-Wörn Town Museum, Schwetzingen
Collections)
Marstallstraße 51; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-26769
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-87-111
Freundeskreis der Schwetzinger Festspiele
(Friends of Schwetzingen Festival)
Hebelstraße 1; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-139117
Fax: + 49 (0) 6202-139138

Badische Heimat, Bezirksgruppe
Schwetzingen (Baden Local History
Association, Schwetzingen branch)
c/o K.-F. Schimper Realschule
Carl-Diem-Straße 4; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-93910
Xylon-Museum und Werkstätten
(Xylon Museum and Workshops)
Invalidenkaserne; Schlossgarten 2;
68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-17400
Mozartgesellschaft Schwetzingen e. V.
(Schwetzingen Mozart Society)
Uhlandstraße 4; 68723 Schwetzingen
Tel.: + 49 (0) 6202-56606
Fax: + 49 (0) 6292-127977
8.d)
Official Web Addresses
8. Contact Information
www.schloss-schwetzingen.de
www.welterbeantrag-schwetzingen.de
www.schloesser-magazin.de
www.schwetzingen.de
8.
163

8.
WATER-TOWER
164
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
8. Contact Information
„ “
… a small-scale method of depicting Classical buildings that was characteristic of the late
18th and early 19th-centuries has been transferred to monumental architecture – that of the
phelloplastic model. From the mid-18th-century cork models of antique buildings allowed
aristocratic visitors to Italy to take a reminder of the sights of Rome and the Roman Campagna
home with them. Cork was considered suitable for recreating the ruinous appearance and
weathered surfaces of the original buildings, and thus their atmosphere; coloured plaster was
used to represent delicate architectural detail. Ruined structures can be found in many gardens
of the later 18th-century, among them Bayreuth, Potsdam and Schönbrunn, but only at Schwetzingen
was the specific appearance of the phelloplastic model retranslated into architecture.

9. Signatures on Behalf of the State Party
Signatories:
Ernst Pfister,
Minister of Economic Affairs of the State of Baden-Württemberg
Willi Stächele,
Minister of Finance of the State of Baden-Württemberg
Dr. René Pöltl,
Mayor of Schwetzingen
Schwetzingen, 15 th December 2009
9.
165

The following reports by internationally
renowned experts testify to Schwetzingen’s
unique universal value from the point of view of
various fields of research.

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical
Importance
Schwetzingen – Prime Example of a Ruling
Prince’s Summer Residence
An extraordinarily unified whole and largely
preserved in its authentic state, Schwetzingen
provides a prime example of a ruler’s summer
residence from the age of Enlightened
Absolutism. It was largely shaped during
its cultural and artistic heyday, the rule of
Elector Palatine Carl Theodor from his coming
to power in 1742 up to his court’s removal
to Munich in 1777/78 when Carl Theodor
inherited the Electorate of Bavaria. Unlike
many other pleasure palaces and summer
residences of the 17th to the late 19th-century,
Schwetzingen was never converted to
conform to the requirements (both functional
and aesthetic) of a full-scale residence the
way Schönbrunn near Vienna, Ludwigsburg
near Stuttgart, Potsdam-Sanssouci or even
Versailles, originally a hunting lodge and
maison de plaisance, were. For that reason
alone Schwetzingen would be a heritage site
of outstanding historical and art historical
importance.
Even by European standards the blend of
architecture, art, interior decoration and
garden design as realized at Schwetzingen
would be hard to match in its sheer scope and
breadth of vision. Functional aspects, motifs
and aesthetic inspirations from a variety
of eras and cultural landscapes have been
combined into a harmonious ensemble of
outstanding artistic merit and originality.
But the summer residence of Schwetzingen in
the second half of the 18th-century was more
than a conventional retreat for the purposes
of aristocratic recreation and self-presentation,
and the entertainment of the court. Instead,
the summer palace of Schwetzingen is
strikingly modern both in its conscious
adaptation to the more informal “country”
lifestyle believed at the time to be simple
and close to nature, and in the impressive
results of a cultivation of the arts that was
fond of experiment and open to a variety of
cultural trends. Inspiring all this is both the
longing for an Arcadia of happiness and an
Enlightened belief in Man’s capacity to be
reformed and perfected.
Overall Layout and Interaction with the
Surrounding Landscape
The visible influence of the ruler’s ordering
hand throughout his territory that is so
characteristic of the age of Absolutism is
still visible in the system of axes and the
integrated whole of the town, palace, and
garden. Even today it shapes the historic
cultural landscape of the former Palatinate.
Even though the core of the palace’s
residential wing dates back to the late Middle
Ages, and a number of irregularly shaped and
built-up areas were included, the 18th-century
saw the creation of an axially structured,
symmetrical and hierarchical layout of
unusual consistency.
The main axis, begun in Elector Karl Philipp’s
time and extended under Carl Theodor, links
the Königsstuhl summit in the east with the
Kalmit, the highest of the Pfälzer Wald hills,
in the west. In the shape of the avenue leading
up from Heidelberg it provides the drive in
front of the palace, bisecting the planned
town laid out by Building Director Alessandro
Galli da Bibiena from 1748, the market square
and the court of honour; it then continues as
the garden’s main axis and beyond, creating
a grand view towards the west. Major
transverse axes are provided by the streets
linking the new residential areas and the
north-south axis of the grand circular parterre,
the northern half of which becomes the
avenue to Mannheim. All the axes have been
preserved and are clearly visible even today
– care has been taken to ensure that even the
more recent buildings within the town centre
comply with the Baroque structure.
I.
167

I.
168
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
The Residential Wing of the Palace and the
Function Rooms of the Quarter-Circle Wings
Given the conditions of the existing
residential building it was all but impossible
for Court Architect Nicolas de Pigage (1723-
1796) to adapt the rooms to the ceremonial
requirements of a residence. Nevertheless
he succeeded in creating, for both the
Elector and the Electress, the requisite suites
of state rooms by making deft use of the
existing structure, merely adding a few small
extensions. Today’s decoration and furnishing
of the comparatively plain rooms of the étage
noble, aiming for the greatest possible degree
of authenticity and consisting of both original
pieces and suitable replacements, gives a
clear idea of the functions assigned to the
individual rooms of each suite in the Elector’s
time. Especially valuable is the second-floor
apartment of the Countess of Hochberg,
redecorated for her use from 1803, during
the rule of the House of Baden. It features
remarkably well-preserved hand-printed
wallpapers made by the Rixheim firm of
Zuber in 1804; they include the spectacular
trompe l’oeil draperies in the bedroom
and the Grand Cabinet and in particular a
panoramic view of the Alps, the “Vues de
Suisse”, in the salle de compagnie.
The lack of the large function rooms needed
for courtly life in Carl Theodor’s time was
compensated for by the quarter-circular wings,
unique structures in late Baroque architecture.
Originally built as orangeries, the northern
(1748) and southern (1753) wings were
used for court dinners and entertainments
including games, balls and concerts; they
also served as a foyer and storeroom for the
theatre. The dining and gaming halls in the
southern wing feature a fine stucco décor in
late Rococo forms.
This architectural separation between the
Elector’s living quarters and the function
rooms is unique to Schwetzingen. It is
possible to ascribe it to practical constraints
arising from the palace’s building history;
however, I believe it to be intentional. It is
well known that a modern residential palace
was well into the planning stage before the
plans were abandoned. Lack of funds has
been quoted as a possible reason, but the
reason is not convincing. The solid-stone
quarter-circle wings are of the finest quality;
like the horrendous building and finishing
costs of the later mosque complex they
demonstrate that no expense was spared. It is
a very modern characteristic of Schwetzingen
that the palace should try to impress, not by
overwhelming with outward splendour, but
by a a sophisticated simplicity designed to
express the dignity, education and virtues of
the Elector.
Simplicity and the greatest possible degree of
informality representing a seemingly simple
and carefree country lifestyle thus appear
to have been deliberate. Corresponding to
this are the living quarters of the Electoral
couple, decorated in accordance with the
Sensualist characterology, in a manner that for
all the required stateliness is remarkably and
pointedly restrained. Moreover, the function
rooms in the quarter-circle wings where most
of the courtly life took place allowed groundlevel
access to the garden. Ever since the late
17th-century the architectural type of the
orangery had been gradually developed into
the orangery palace for exactly that purpose.
Prominent examples of this new type are the
Grand Trianon of Louis XIV at Versailles or
the vineyard palace of Sanssouci of Prussia’s
Frederick II, both intended as places of refuge
for the ruler. The quarter-circle function
rooms at the Schwetzingen summer residence
provide the greatest possible closeness to
nature in a strikingly original and unique
way. Here architecture and garden design
have been merged, making Schwetzingen,
as it were, the garden residence among the
summer palaces.

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
The Court Theatre
The Schwetzingen court theatre is the oldest
surviving theatre in Baden-Württemberg. It
is of outstanding importance in a musical
context as well as in those of art and
architectural history. For a quarter of a century
under Carl Theodor’s rule, Schwetzingen was
the scene of major musical innovations all
connected with the term “Mannheim School”.
Europe’s best musicians were active here.
During the most important years of European
opera reform all forms and styles of music
theatre, of the highest order, were cultivated
at Schwetzingen. With the Mannheim theatre
buildings lost, Schwetzingen alone is left to
represent those epoch-making developments
today.
The Schwetzingen court theatre, opened on
15th June 1753, was the world’s first galleried
theatre. Designed by Nicolas de Pigage in the
spring of 1752, it precedes the Lyons theatre
by Jacques-Germain Soufflot, occasionally
quoted as the prototype in older literature, by
about a year. It was not until December 1753
that Soufflot presented his plans for the Lyons
theatre to the local academy; the building,
opened in August 1756, was pulled down in
1826.
The Schwetzingen court theatre was a
very modern building that met the ideas
of Enlightened reformers as worked out in
the mid-18th-century and put into practice
in 1771, in the shape of the new Comédie
française (today Théâtre de l’Odéon) by
Charles Dewailly and Marie-Joseph Peyre.
They wanted a house that allowed viewers
to enjoy the performance as a shared
experience, with no separations dictated by
social rank. The surprising modernity of
the Schwetzingen theatre becomes evident
from a look at the Margravian opera house at
Bayreuth, designed only a few years earlier,
in 1744, by Giuseppe Galli da Bibiena. It is a
traditional structure with boxes separated by
high partitions. At Schwetzingen these “hen
cages” (as critics called them) stacked next to
and on top of each other have been replaced
by an auditorium with a monumental and
all-encompassing layout, notwithstanding the
fact that the building’s size is actually quite
modest.
The fine interior decoration enhances this
impression. The popular name for the
building – “Rococo theatre” – is misleading.
The original décor did combine restrained
rocailles and Neoclassical elements in the
so-called “Transition” style, but the house’s
current appearance was largely created
during a rebuilding by Pigage in 1762. Even
compared to the most progressive French
creations of its time it is a remarkably early
example of the new Neoclassical Louis Seize
style.
The Palace Gardens and their Sculpture
The Schwetzingen palace gardens are unique.
Almost everywhere else new gardening styles
replaced older ones, resulting in the loss or
complete conversion of the earlier layout. At
Schwetzingen the older, formal garden in the
French style and the more modern landscape
garden based on English models combined
to grow into a unique, organic synthesis with
an unbroken tradition of maintenance and
preservation.
The historic garden of Schwetzingen will be
the subject of another expert report; suffice
it to say here that the garden sculpture is of
outstanding historical and art historical value.
It includes many works by the Flemish artist
Peter Anton von Verschaffelt, trained in Paris
and for a time active in Rome, one of the
major exponents of European sculpture in the
transitional period between the late Baroque
and early Neoclassical eras. Moreover, some
pieces in the Schwetzingen garden are all
that remains of the once-magnificent garden
sculpture of Lunéville, summer residence of
the Polish King in exile and last ruling Duke
of Lorraine, Stanisław Leszczyński, whose
court was considered one of the most splendid
of mid-18th-century Europe. The sculptures
I.
169

I.
170
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
were bought in 1766 when the residence was
broken up after StanisČaw’s death, and part of
the art collection was auctioned off. The Arion
and wild boar fountains are among the chief
works of Lorraine court sculptor and architect
Barthélemy Guibal, famous for his decorative
ironwork and fountains in Nancy. The bird
sculptures of the bathhouse garden are from
the estate of the Polish King too.
The Garden Buildings
Typologically and stylistically diverse garden
buildings suggesting a variety of associations
are a characteristic element of the landscape
art of the later 18th-century. However, the
Schwetzingen buildings are no mere follies
and set pieces but real buildings, monumental
in design and in some cases of considerable
size. There is a programmatic focus and
didactic earnestness to them that is well
beyond mere decoration and the creation
of “atmosphere”. It is notable that all of
them except for the Electoral refuge of the
bathhouse and the functional water tower
and orangery belong to the highest order of
Classical buildings, that of the temples.
The Temples
With the buildings of the so-called Garden
Kingdom of Dessau-Wörlitz, Pigage’s Temple
of Minerva (under construction in 1769)
is among the earliest structures of its kind
in Germany and Central Europe – an early
Classicist building with a Corinthian order.
Minerva, the goddess of wisdom, here appears
as the goddess of peace and of the civil arts
and sciences as well, and as the patroness
of garden art in particular. A unique feature
within the type is the re-interpretation of
the cella as a meeting room open to nature.
It makes the building into an imaginary
council chamber for those who have attained
wisdom, and thus an Enlightened monument
to creative reason and human civilization
rising above the Pan-dominated basement
representing the irrational.
A pantheon-like structure covered in
simulated bark, the Temple of Botany
(1779/80), with its iconography of fertility, of
growth and decay in the course of the seasons
and of the zodiac, at first glance conforms to
what one would expect of a typical garden
building. There is, however, the very unusual
pictorial connection of natural rhythms with
modern science – presented, moreover, in a
way that appears to comment on history: the
ancient authorities of Theophrastus and Pliny
meet the modern natural scientists, Joseph
Pitton de Tournefort and Carl von Linné. It
is only appropriate, then, that the statue of
the goddess of fertility should present the
revolutionary findings of a contemporary
Swedish scientist, the „Caroli Linnei Sistema
Plantarum“.
The Temple of Mercury (1784-1788), built
of tuff seemingly in an advanced state of
decay, also rises above a basement, here
made of large sandstone blocks. In this
way architecture is presented as an artistic
achievement, the result of a historical
development – an idea belonging to the most
progressive minds of the time: Goethe saw it
realized in the three-layered “Roman House”
in the Ilmpark at Weimar, and Claude-
Nicolas Ledoux in the gatehouse of the royal
salt-works of Arc-et-Senans. The temple is
dedicated to the once-omnipotent trinity of
Hermes Trismegistos, visualizing like no other
garden building of the times the thinking of
the sectarian, hermeneutic secret societies
of the 18th-century, which at Schwetzingen
is shown to have been outgrown by reason,
wisdom and tolerance and accordingly
represented by a crumbling ruin.
Another significant aspect of the
Schwetzingen Temple of Mercury is that
here as in the case of the so-called Roman
water tower a small-scale method of depicting
Classical buildings that was characteristic of
the late 18th and early 19th-centuries has been
transferred to monumental architecture – that
of the phelloplastic model. From the mid-

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
18th-century cork models of antique buildings
allowed aristocratic visitors to Italy to take
a reminder of the sights of Rome and the
Roman Campagna home with them. Cork was
considered suitable for recreating the ruinous
appearance and weathered surfaces of the
original buildings, and thus their atmosphere;
coloured plaster was used to represent delicate
architectural detail. Ruined structures can
be found in many gardens of the later 18thcentury,
among them Bayreuth, Potsdam and
Schönbrunn, but only at Schwetzingen was
the specific appearance of the phelloplastic
model retranslated into architecture.
Among the most original architectural
creations at Schwetzingen is the Apollo
precinct with the temple (from 1765/66)
which belongs to two different spheres.
From the terraced basement facing the canal
in the west the visitor must accomplish a
quasi-ritualistic ascent through dark tunnels
lined with rough stone – as it were, through
the sphere of the narrow, obscure, unfinished
– towards the sunlit upper platform with its
ideal, Classical monopteros sheltering the
god of order, clarity and reason. At the same
time and viewed from the other side, that
is to say from the green theatre, the temple
surmounts the stage. Here Apollo is the god
of the arts, leader of the muses on Mount
Helicon, where the hoof of Pegasus had called
forth the well of Hippocrene. Its sacred waters
are represented at Schwetzingen by a small
waterfall offered to humanity by two naiads.
All of the garden buildings mentioned – the
Temples of Minerva, Apollo, Mercury and
Botany – share a common feature: a lower
sphere of darkness, shapelessness, chaos or
base instinct surmounted by an upper sphere
of order, clarity and reason. The Temple
of Apollo even allows visitors to reenact,
directly and physically, the journey from
chaotic darkness to the temple’s bright upper
terrace. The temples of the Schwetzingen
palace grounds thus represent with a rare and
startling clarity processes of initiation and
transformation, rites of passage and ascent,
paths to redemption and illumination. The
great themes of the Age of Enlightenment
are thus presented as visible and tangible
experiences in an utterly unique way,
something that has been noted even by the
earliest books dealing with the phenomenon
that is Schwetzingen – even if, perhaps, the
connection to Mozart’s Zauberflöte has been
somewhat overstressed at times. More recent
research suggests that there is a Masonic layer
of meaning to the garden buildings too.
The Mosque
The mosque in the Schwetzingen palace
grounds would be of outstanding historical
and art historical value for the sole reason
that it is the only surviving building of a
type once quite common in 18th-century
European landscape gardens. However,
the Schwetzingen mosque by its sheer
dimensions, the magnificence of its décor
and the sophistication of its underlying
programme surpasses all other known garden
mosques, and in fact all “Oriental” buildings of
its time.
Moorish, Turkish or Chinese pavilions were a
common feature in the larger artist-designed
gardens of the 18th-century. By association
they conjured up foreign civilizations and
alternative, supposedly happier realities.
In Germany mosques once could be found
at Hohenheim, Württemberg, in the
Bagno gardens near Burgsteinfurt and at
Wilhelmshöhe near Kassel. They were all
of them modelled on the mosque at Kew
Gardens near London, built in 1761 by
Sir William Chambers. The Schwetzingen
mosque, too, adopted elements of the Kew
Gardens structure, but the overall layout,
created in the late 1770s by Nicolas de Pigage,
was entirely different.
Part of this layout is the rectangular cloister,
completed in 1781 and consisting of trellis
walks and stone-built pavilions modelled
closely on the view of the sacred precinct
I.
171

I.
172
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
of Mecca in Johann Bernhard Fischer
von Erlach’s 1721 book Entwurff einer
historischen Architektur. Highly original as
well as a virtual mirror of the architectural
debates of those years is the quasi-Oriental
interior décor of the cloister, the pavilions
and the central hall of the mosque itself, built
1782-1795. The inspiration for this conversion
of the small-scale model of Kew into the
monumental structure at Schwetzingen was
provided by another of Fischer von Erlach’s
works, the Karlskirche in Vienna.
However, in contrast to the other, lost garden
mosques the Schwetzingen structure was
neither a mere set piece nor an exotic summer
house. The entirety of the architecture,
decorative elements and inscriptions, among
them quotes from the Koran, bears witness
to a sincere and heartfelt desire to approach a
different religion, and the quotes of Oriental
wisdom, on a basis of tolerance in search of
the common principle of Enlightened reason.
The Bathhouse
The bathhouse – a tiny palace with
outbuildings and the Elector’s private garden,
begun in 1768 from a design by Nicolas
de Pigage – again has no equivalent in
European architecture. Filial palaces within
great complexes had been established since
Louis XIV – it is no coincidence that the
Schwetzingen bathhouse is situated much
as the Trianon palaces are. However, the
bathhouse is very much a private, carefully
secluded refuge for Carl Theodor to live
as a private gentleman and cultivate his
personal inclinations, for a few hours a day
at least. Other filial palaces of the time were
designed for the ruler to remain a public
person, surrounded by a court that was merely
reduced in numbers. The well-preserved
original décor and furniture of the bathhouse
drawing room, bathroom, bedroom, study
and cabinet, all created by Mannheim court
artists, is of very fine quality and conforms to
the new, early Neoclassical Louis Seize style.
At the same time it provided the Elector with
every comfort and convenience. This is a
very early example of a thoroughly modern
concept – the distiction between the public
and the private sphere reflected by the living
conditions.
But then the shape of the building itself
is unique too, reflecting a complex and
considered response to the architecture
of the Palladian villa. While the palace of
Wörlitz, built only a little later (1769-73),
merely transferred the British concept of
the Palladian country house to Germany,
the bathhouse is modelled on a synthesis of
elements found in characteristic villeggiatura
buildings. Andrea Palladio’s Villa Almerico,
the so-called La Rotonda near Vicenza, and
Vincenzo Scamozzi’s Villa La Rocca are
evoked – two buildings that established the
type of the late Renaissance Venetian villa.
There are allusions to Lord Burlington’s
Chiswick House near London too, the epitome
of early 18th-century English Palladianism.
Finally the bathhouse owes a lot to one of the
defining structures of French Neoclassicism,
built shortly before – Ange-Jacques Gabriel’s
Petit Trianon, the villa-style miniature palace
of Louis XV near Versailles. Moreover,
the bathhouse’s situation on the palace
canal evokes the most famous of all villa
landscapes, the buildings lining the Brenta
canal between Padua and Venice – which in
the later 18th-century constituted one of the
major destinations of a typical Grand Tour,
the educational trip to Italy taken by Europe’s
young élites.
One detail should be pointed out to
emphasize the avant-garde element of Pigage’s
building – the entrance niche, screened off
by a pair of columns, taking the place of the
conventional portico. Pigage was thus the
first to adapt an element of Classical thermae
architecture for the exterior of a building, a
solution that was to become a defining motif
of early Neoclassicism – witness Claude-
Nicolas Ledoux’ Maison Guimard (1770)
or his pavilion at Louveciennes (1771), the

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
creations of Robert Adam and his successors,
the orangery in the Neuer Garten of Potsdam
by Carl Gotthard Langhaus (1791), or the
Pavlovsk monument of Princess Frederica by
Giacomo Quarenghi (1791).
Of equal originality is the layout of the long
northern axis of the bathhouse’s separate
garden: A trelliswork gallery opens to reveal
the water-spouting birds, modelled on the
lost Versailles birdbath in both theme and
execution. Bird sculptures from the estate
of King Stanisław were used to illustrate
an Aesop fable; live birds in aviaries served
to enhance the illusion. In the reliefs of the
agate cabinets, elaborately decorated with
semiprecious stones, the pleasures of nature
and the country life combine with erotic
symbols. Raised viewing areas provide a vista
of the surrounding gardens, and at the end of
yet another trelliswork is the grotto leading
to the diorama. Here, a trompe-l’oeil painting
illuminated from above offers a sweeping
view of an untouched, idyllic landscape – a
subject that appears to contradict the garden’s
intimacy and separateness but that may in
fact, by offering a space for personal longings,
serve to complement it.
Summary
• Schwetzingen is an outstanding example
of a ruler’s summer residence from the
age of enlightened Absolutism. Unlike
most summer residences of that time
it has not been converted or rebuilt
since then, and it is moreover the bestpreserved
complex among the 18thcentury
palaces on the Upper Rhine.
• Schwetzingen can boast works of art,
including architecture, sculpture and
garden art, of the highest order, even
judged by international standards.
• The ruler’s ordering hand, shaping his
domain with rare vision and consistency,
is still clearly visible in the network of
axes and the unified whole made up of
the town, the palace buildings and the
garden.
• In the circular parterre and the
harmonious ensemble of formal and
landscaped areas the palace and garden
reveal a unique overall layout based on
their planning and functional history.
• Intentional simplicity and an unusually
close interconnection of the buildings and
garden serve to articulate a closeness to
nature and the informality of country life
in accordance with the new awareness
of nature and the changing values of the
18th-century.
• The Schwetzingen court theatre is the
earliest galleried theatre in existence. The
theatre and the garden buildings were
among the most avant-garde buildings
of their time. The park buildings are
formally unique structures und invaluable
for both history and art history.
• Both in their shape and their pictorial
plan the park’s buildings illustrate in
an uniquely rich and varied way the
attitudes of the Age of Enlightenment
– the discovery of nature, faith in man’s
creative reason and in the progress of
civilization. The Schwetzingen mosque in
particular, expression of an awareness of
another religion and civilization based on
tolerance, is without parallel in its time.
• The buildings, the gardens and the
interior decoration and furniture have
been preserved in a fine and largely
authentic state.
It is my opinion that with regard to
architectural and art historical aspects
the former Palatine summer residence
of Schwetzingen fulfills the criteria for
inscription on the UNESCO World Heritage
list to an unusual degree.
Heidelberg, 7th May 2006
(Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse)
I.
173

I.
174
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
I.
175

I.
176
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
I.
177

I.
178
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
I.
179

I.
180
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
I.
181

I.
182
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse
I.
183

I.
184
I. Report on the Architectural and Art Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse

II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance
The World Status of the Electoral Residence
of Schwetzingen: Art Historical Report
As an art historian and a professional
involved in the care and preservation of
historic gardens the world status of the
Electoral residence of Schwetzingen appears
to me to be threefold.
1. Schwetzingen represents a unique
and uncommonly vivid example of the
fundamental shift in the manner Western
civilization perceived the relationship
between Art and Nature (embodied by the
garden, always an ideal representation of the
world) that occurred in 18th-century Europe.
2. The spatial layout of the palace and garden,
and of the palace and town, was realized in an
almost Utopian form. Considered against the
intellectual and social conditions of the time, a
transitional period between princely Baroque
and Romantic Enlightenment (here frequently
without definite and identifiable models) it is
also remarkably modern.
3. The manner in which the gardens that
define and inspire this princely residence are
cared for and maintained have been pointing
the way for historic garden conservation not
only in German-speaking parts but throughout
Europe.
The Relationship of Art and Nature:
Old Attitudes and New
From the later 17th-century onwards the
ruling princes of the German states modeled
their palaces and gardens on the one great
model, Versailles. The apotheosis of the Sun
King, Louis XIV, on the central axis of the
terraced gardens between his bedroom and
the Apollo fountain, required nothing less
than a resurrection of Classical times with
the aid of garden buildings, marble statues,
water features and parterres set with flowers;
the microcosm created in this manner could
then be contemplated and admired in the
Humanist tradition as a “terza natura” (a third
nature besides wild and agrarian nature, the
two types of nature distinguished by Cicero).
In a pre-Romantic garden natural phenomena
were harnessed for the greater glory of
the ruler in near-grammatical formula:
mythological statues represented “the”
elements, “the” seasons and so forth; basins
stood in for “the” sea; grottoes led visitors
down into the legendary underworld where
Art and Nature had become indistinguishable
in an Ovidian sense; shady arbours set with
singing birds or labyrinthine bosquets were
intended to be recognized as “the” forests of
Arcadia; terraces and stairs could be climbed
in lieu of “the” mountain of heaven. Historic
reality and mythological stories become one in
a Baroque garden.
Within this concept the “real” and visible
image of profane Nature did not play any part
in the geometrical, architecturally composed
garden layout. Everything was regular and
smooth as it had been in the depictions of
Paradise ever since the Middle Ages. In this
traditional spirit, but in keeping with his
times, the Elector Palatine, Carl Theodor, had
his new garden laid out from 1748 onwards.
Like the Sun King of France he aspired to
incorporate, and rule, the whole world in
his summer residence. Here, too, was an
opportunity, very much in the spirit of Rococo
and later Régence, to provide the ruler’s court
with the intimacy needed for the Ancient
Régime to celebrate its last parties. Confusing
bosquets and diagonally laid out avenues
provide the garden with a dynamic that had
been unknown to classical Baroque.
This central feature of the garden is a
magnificent creation by two leading artists
– Building Director Nicolas de Pigage and
Court Gardener Johann Ludwig Petri (many
other artists and craftsmen contributed to it
as well). The Lorraine gardens of the Polish
King Stanisław Leszczyński, since destroyed,
served as a model and a point of reference.
A layout comparable to Schwetzingen and
still in existence today is the bosquet area
of Schönbrunn in Vienna; it was restored
at about the same time as the Palatine
residence, in the 1740s and 1750s, by the
Lorraine colony of artists associated with
II.
185

II.
186
II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
Emperor Franz Stephan, the husband of
Empress Maria Theresia. But until the 1780s
the range of garden buildings and sculptures
at Schönbrunn was nowhere near as rich as
it was at Schwetzingen. Today, the gardens
of Schwetzingen are comparable only to
Versailles; their variety and complexity
regarding both iconography and content
would be hard to match, and still leaves a deep
and lasting impression on present-day visitors.
When the young gardener Friedrich Ludwig
Sckell returned from a three-year study trip
to France, England and the Netherlands in
1776, the views his employer the Elector
held on the relationship between Art and
Nature underwent a fundamental change.
From the end of the 17th-century the English
had introduced Parliamentarianism into the
political culture of their country, and Lord
Shaftesbury had developed a new view of
Nature that could no longer be kept from
the public. The country’s liberal world-view
opposed the French King’s tyrannical
Absolutism and derided his gardens with
their clipped hedges as a violation of nature.
Around 1720 Joseph Addison and Alexander
Pope had developed a new philosophy of
gardening – gardens should no longer be
dominated by geometrical order; instead
the picturesque principle of the landscape
painting should prevail, conveyed by
subjective mood. Irregularity (propagated
by the garden artists William Kent and
later Thomas Whately, as well as Lancelot
“Capability” Brown) and the meandering
path (William Hogarth defined the “line
of beauty” as a serpentine line), generally
the psychological effects of nature on
Man, and thus those of the artfully created
“Nature” of the parks too, were discovered
and examined (Henry Home). Around the
middle of the 18th-century these ideas were
general knowledge among the educated in
England; from around 1770 they had spread
to the Continent as well. The works of the
French authors of the Age of Enlightenment
that were popular reading in Germany, such
as Rousseau’s Julie ou la Nouvelle Héloise,
inspired a desire in garden owners to “return
to Nature”. This no longer meant an encoded
recreation of the Golden Age in Ancient Greek
or Roman forms, as in the Baroque part of the
Schwetzingen gardens. It meant a tangible
discovering and aesthetic exploration of the
rustic landscape that had been rejected as
profane before, and contemplated from afar
at most. This landscape was to be enhanced
and presented like a painting, by means
of a new type of planting (clumps of trees
on undulating lawns) and artfully ruined
buildings (in order to encourage a mood of
gentle melancholy in considering the past).
Sckell was offered the opportunity to put
these ideas into practice, on a strip of land
immediately adjacent to the Baroque garden.
Nowhere in the world is it possible to
experience the confrontation of the two
attitudes towards Nature as directly and
immediately as at Schwetzingen. The Trianon
at Versailles may offer a similar situation,
but the Baroque gardens of Louis XIV and
Marie Antoinette’s landscape park are not
immediately adjacent to each other, and
artistically less in tune with each other than
the Baroque garden created by Petri and
Pigage and the landscape garden added by
Sckell – for which Pigage continued to create
buildings. The iconographic depth and the
intensity of the points made by the garden
buildings surpass the “English” garden of
Trianon; in Germany they are comparable to
Wörlitz alone.
The garden buildings of Schwetzingen also
reflect a fundamental shift in the historical
consciousness of the time, towards an
awareness of history in Winckelmann’s sense.
The Baroque age had seen ancient Greece and
Rome mainly as a Golden Age of mankind,
long past but perceived as an unchanging
phenomenon; there had been little interest
in the question of how Classical art and
architecture had developed. The eternal
validity of Classical antiquity produced ideal

uildings – that rarely corresponded to actual,
preserved monuments; at Schwetzingen
examples include the Temple of Minerva
near the main parterres, the Temple of
Apollo rising over its dramatic grotto, and
the bathhouse with its aviaries. On the other
hand Pigage attempted, in the buildings he
designed for those parts of the garden newly
created by Sckell (among them the Roman
aqueduct, the Temple of Mercury and the
Turkish mosque), to stay closer to authentic
sources than had been usual in the Rococo
period. The phenomenon of the onset of
Historicism, and its relationship to the world
of the Ancien Régime, can be observed at
Schwetzingen better than anywhere else.
A Unique Creation: the Schwetzingen
Garden Spaces
In today’s surviving Baroque gardens there is
no circular garden room to match the grand
parterre at Schwetzingen. Matthias Diesel did
create a small circular garden in Harlaching
near Munich, and two ideal depictions (J.
Gamer) appear in Anton Danreiter’s 1731
book about garden layout, but the realization
of those ideas was either much more modest
than planned, or it never materialized at all.
At Schwetzingen, however, Court Gardener
Johann Ludwig Petri brilliantly used the two
quarter-circle pavilions to counteract the
“pull” of the parterre’s axes, thus creating a
magnificent whole.
The value Elector Carl Theodor placed on his
orangeries – two massive new wing pavilions
flanking the palace’s garden front were
erected for the purpose – suggests that he
must have had older models in mind besides
those from the time immediately preceding
the year 1748. Francesco Colonna’s book
Hypnerotomachia Poliphili, first published in
1499, comes to mind; from the 16th-century
onwards its many illustrations have depicted
a circular core area with the island of Cythera,
and the book remained very popular with
patrons of garden art. The early botanical
gardens may have provided some inspiration
II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
as well, for example the one at Padua; they,
too, were circular in layout, and the plants
were an object not only of scientific but also
of mythological reverence and fascination.
There may even be a connection between the
references to the Golden Age in the imagery
of the Schwetzingen garden and the circular
depiction of Paradise that had been common
since the Middle Ages. However, so far there
are no sources to support this possibility,
which for now will have to remain a matter
of conjecture – but it should not discourage
our admiration of a grand layout that does not
have its equal in the world.
Then there is the close formal connection
between the palace and the regular, geometric
layout of the town; it, too, bears witness
to an almost Utopian attitude on the part
of the ruling prince, who was determined
to integrate his subjects into the layout of
his residence – an idea both Absolutist and
Enlightened. There is a parallel example in
Oranienburg near Wörlitz, but the planning
there is altogether less grand than at
Schwetzingen, where the central axis creates
a noble sequence of landscape, garden, palace,
town and landscape. Again, it is the model
of Versailles that comes to mind – there the
settlement was laid at the ruler’s feet by
means of three axes arranged “à la patte d’oie”.
The Exemplary Care and Maintenance
of the Grounds
In the German-speaking parts of Europe
there are, and have been for several decades,
the so-called “Parkpflegewerke” – detailed
management plans drawn up to the end of
researching and analyzing historic gardens
and parks for conservation purposes,
estimating maintenance costs and defining
possible future functions without endangering
those gardens or their integrity as historic
monuments. Here, too, Schwetzingen was
a pioneer project: Around 1970 the first
Parkpflegewerk was completed here; from
around 2005 it has been critically revised,
updated and continued. I do not know of
II.
187

II.
188
II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
another country that would have drawn
up such a massive, practically oriented,
scientifically based document of garden
conservation twice.
Practical restoration measures since around
1970 have been exemplary by European
standards too; nowhere else in the world has
a major Baroque garden’s parterre been as
meticulously reconstructed, or reconstructed
on a basis of such strict scholarship. Here,
too, authentic planting based on primary
historic sources and books published in the
time of the garden’s creation (such as Dézallier
d’Argenville) has been a concern from a very
early stage. Today the continuous care and
maintenance has produced spectacular results.
The Baroque rooms and landscaped scenarios
of the gardens provide an authentic vision
of what the Elector’s unique, magnificent
creation may have looked like in the 18thcentury.
After years of the type of fantasy
Baroque propagated by many historic
gardens and parks well into the 1970s and
1980s it is especially important to present
this authenticity to an interested public
that should not be mislead by superficial
and inappropriate design and maintenance
decisions.
University Professor Dr. Géza Hajós
Bundesdenkmalamt
A-1010 Vienna
Vienna, 15th March 2006

II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
II.
189

II.
190
II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós

II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
II.
191

II.
192
II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós

II. Report on the Garden Historical Importance: Prof. Dr. Géza Hajós
II.
193

III.
194
III. Report on the Excellence of Garden
Conservation in Schwetzingen
The Global Significance of the Electoral
Residence at Schwetzingen
Report on the Gardens
The absolutely unique heritage significance
of Schwetzingen gardens rests largely on two
factors: firstly, the archetypal and outstandingly
conserved Baroque areas; and in addition, also
from the eighteenth-century, from the period
of the Enlightenment, the areas designed in
the sentimental landscape style, all of which is
incorporated into a grand residence which has
a town bordering directly onto it.
These features of garden, building and
urban design come together to form an
ideal embodiment of an eighteenth-century
royal residence; and they are supplemented
by a further, remarkable and increasingly
appreciated, factor that establishes
Schwetzingen‘s unique heritage status, namely
the exemplary continuity of preservation and
maintenance of the splendid gardens that
has been practised there over the years. This
awareness of the importance of conserving the
gardens was in place at an incomparably early
point of time; it was clear from the earliest
days of the gardens that they constituted a
work of art of the highest order, a monument
which as early as 1768 prompted Voltaire,
the renowned philosopher, to sigh, „I wish to
enjoy one more comfort before I die -- I wish
to see Schwetzingen again!“ It was felt as early
as the end of the eighteenth-century that the
undisturbed authenticity and the great variety
of design of the gardens needed to be preserved
for posterity as the legacy of an enlightened
absolutism.
While the significance of Schwetzingen palace
gardens in terms of art history and garden
design has been honoured in numerous and
comprehensive treatises in recent years,
attention has only recently come to be drawn
to the quality of conservation work carried
out, work based on scientific research into
conservation issues as well as a wealth
of experience. For this reason, I shall be
focusing here primarily on the conservation
aspects contributing to the uniqueness of
Schwetzingen‘s status.
The greatest respect is accorded these days
to the value of authenticity when properties
are considered for World Heritage status,
a criterion which is of particular relevance
in the case of properties with an increased
risk of alteration such as gardens, parks
and agricultural landscapes. It is here that
Schwetzingen comes into its own. Alongside
comprehensive preservation of gardens
originating from two eras and associated with
the best designers of the time -- the Baroque
gardens by Johann Ludwig Petri (1714-1794)
and Nicolas de Pigage (1723-1796), and the
landscape gardens by Johann Wilhelm Sckell
(1721-1792) and his son, Friedrich Ludwig
Sckell (1759-1823) -- the quality of preservation
found at Schwetzingen derives from the
conservation strategies employed at the end
of the eighteenth-century, an extraordinarily
early point in the history of European garden
conservation. The core concern even then was
not only to preserve the gardens themselves
in situ together with the administrative and
planning arrangements that went along with
them, as set in place by Prince Elector Carl
Theodor of the Palatinate (1724-1799), whose
reign saw the Palatinate, and Schwetzingen
with it, develop into one of the most advanced
and modern residences of the eighteenthcentury;
but also to develop the heritage
inherent in Schwetzingen further while largely
adhering to the original design of the property.
We have now come to accept, at least since
the Charter on Historic Gardens passed by
the International Council of ICOMOS-IFLA
in Florence in 1981, our responsibility to
authenticity in maintaining and developing
our garden heritage, thus putting an end to the
the era of „creative garden conservation“ with
its attendant absurdities such as the „Blooming
Baroque“ in Ludwigsburg. Schwetzingen
is a forerunner in this respect, having
demonstrated what can only be described as
exemplary commitment to authenticity from
an extraordinarily early date, namely the latter
stages of the eighteenth-century.

III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen: Dr. Klaus von Krosigk
The most obvious evidence of this is what
is perhaps the earliest written work on the
Continent addressing the conservation of a
historic garden, the Protocollum commissionale,
Friedrich Ludwig Sckell‘s conservation plan
for the Schwetzingen gardens. This inspection
report, commissioned by the Court and Gardens
Commission and compiled in 1795, focused
on the continuing maintenance of the royal
palaces and gardens after the removal of the
court to Munich in 1778. Given the threat
posed to Schwetzingen by French revolutionary
troops, it was also considered necessary to
draw up an inventory detailing the state of
the precious gardens and the buildings within
them along with strategies for preserving and
maintaining them. It is tempting to call this
work an early management plan along the
lines of those required by UNESCO; and in
fact the protocollum commissionale contained
everything that was necessary and desirable in
order to ensure the long-term preservation of
the recently-completed work of art that is the
gardens.
The present Director of Gardens at
Schwetzingen, Hubert Wolfgang Wertz, is right
to point out the parallels between this and the
Gardens Management Plans drawn up much
later, in the 1960s, under the auspices of the
then Director of State-Owned Gardens Christian
Bauer (1903-1971). Like the protocollum
commissionale before them, these plans have
as their aim the development of long-term
management strategies for the sustainable
preservation of the gardens, preserving what
was recognised as worthy of preservation
with a critical awareness of, and respect for,
the artistic and historical significance of the
gardens, and with careful reference to historical
sources. It is remarkable that even in the
1820s, the heyday of the landscaped garden,
Sckell insisted that „the old symmetrical garden
design, where extant, is to be retained“ and
that he made reference to Schwetzingen‘s
„grand symmetrical gardens“. In fact, it is to
the great merit of Friedrich Ludwig Sckell that
he preserved the complex heritage inherent in
the Schwetzingen palace gardens, using a range
of specifically tailored techniques, continual
revitalisation and replanting, and in general
limiting his intervention to repairs in the best
sense of the word. He was also highly skilled
at channelling resources, so that even in times
of shortage of funds he was able to ensure
the long-term preservation of the structures
constituting the property, in the Baroque
gardens as well as the landscape areas.
Sckell‘s successors continued this tradition:
neither Johann Michael Zeyher (1770-1843) nor
the Karlsruhe-based management appointed by
the Grand Duchy ventured to make alterations
involving new gardens of contemporary design;
they endeavoured instead to preserve the
existing gardens, employing measures such as
the then rarely attempted rejuvenation of trees.
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning
of the twentieth-century, when the popularity
of the Neo-Baroque style sparked a renewal
of interest in Schwetzingen‘s long-disdained
Baroque garden heritage, Schwetzingen was
once more elevated to a position of importance;
in fact, appreciation of Schwetzingen‘s
uniqueness in the German-speaking world was
such that in 1910 Schwetzingen was referred to
in the literature as the „best-preserved gardens
of the late classical era“.
Schwetzingen‘s status remained unchallenged
in the years between the two world wars, in
spite of the extreme difficulties of the period.
This was not only due to the fact that, as the
renowned art historian Franz Hallbaum put it,
Schwetzingen „represents the perfect synthesis
of the two styles of garden“, but derived also
from the unique level of conservation of the
gardens.
As a result of this renewed appreciation of
Schwetzingen‘s heritage value, the Director
of Gardens for the city of Frankfurt am Main,
Carl Heicke, was charged with the compilation
of a report on the conservation of the gardens
before the outbreak of the Second World War.
This report, produced in 1937, came to the
conclusion that „the formal uniqueness and
beauty of the gardens“ was to be „preserved
for posterity by means of careful attention
to maintenance“, thus demonstrating a
III.
195

III.
196
III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen: Dr. Klaus von Krosigk
continuation of the unwavering commitment
to the preservation of gardens in an
unchanged state. Before the outbreak of war,
work was already under way to regenerate
Schwetzingen‘s avenues, and this work was
subsequently continued in the post-war years
under the supervision of Josef Bussjaeger,
Director of Gardens at Mannheim. Of all
those involved in preserving Schwetzingen‘s
heritage, it is, however, the work of Director of
State-Owned Gardens Christian Bauer that is
most worthy of note, work that resulted in the
Gardens Management Plan mentioned earlier,
which at the time of its completion in 1970 was
one of the first works of its kind in Germany.
As if he were anticipating Schwetzingen‘s
nomination as a World Heritage site, Bauer
describes the indeed unique Schwetzingen
palace gardens „as a climax in the history of
German garden design, a garden of worldwide
significance“.
In 1972, when the State authorities had
approved the wide-ranging conservation
measures laid down in the Gardens
Management Plan, work began on what
is probably still the most wide-ranging
programme of regeneration in Germany, a
programme which has now been in operation
for over thirty years. The significance of the
work carried out at Schwetzingen as a model
for the conservation of historic gardens is
demonstrated by the fact that the magnum
opus of garden conservation, Conservation
of garden heritage -- the fundamentals of
preserving historic parks and gardens edited
by Professor Hennebo in 1985 devotes a
separate and lengthy chapter to the work
done on the parterre at Schwetzingen as an
example of best practice in restoration and
maintenance. This chapter, along with the
management arrangements in place at the
site, the publication in 2005 of Schwetzingen‘s
Gardens Management Plan, and the continual
updating of the Plan are to be credited to the
untiring commitment of the State of Baden-
Wuerttemberg and its present Director of
Gardens, Hubert Wolfgang Wertz.
We should not forget that Schwetzingen
was the site from which, in the European
Architectural Heritage Year of 1975, a call
went out to advance the study, protection
and preservation of the heritage inherent in
Europe‘s historic gardens. This International
Symposium on Historic Parks and Gardens,
held in Schwetzingen by the State of Baden-
Wuerttemberg with the support of the German
National ICOMOS Committee made a decisive
contribution to the dawn of a new era in the
maintenance and preservation of historic
gardens in Germany -- in fact, its influence was
felt all over Europe.
The fact that Schwetzingen was chosen as the
venue for the conference was due not only to
the outstanding significance of Schwetzingen
in terms of garden design -- Christian Bauer
was often heard to assert that the significance
of Schwetzingen was comparable with that
of Vaux le Vicomte and Versailles -- but also,
and perhaps decisively, to the fact that the
preservation and maintenance strategies
employed at Schwetzingen were highly
esteemed both nationally and at international
level, particularly so in the case of the great
broderie parterre. My colleague, Professor
Hajos, could not have put it better when he
looked back to the Schwetzingen of the early
1970s, a time when the scientifically based
conservation of historic gardens was in its
infancy, and said „no important Baroque
garden anywhere in the world had seen
such exemplary reconstructions of Baroque
parterres with such strict adherence to scientific
principles as the gardens at Schwetzingen“.
This statement applies as unreservedly now as
it did then.
Berlin, July 2006
Dr.-Ing. Klaus Hennig von Krosigk
Director of Garden Construction
Vice-President and Chair of the Working Party
on Historic Gardens of the German Society for
Garden and Landscape Design

III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen: Dr. Klaus von Krosigk
III.
197

III.
198
III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen: Dr. Klaus von Krosigk

III. Report on the Excellence of Garden Conservation in Schwetzingen: Dr. Klaus von Krosigk
III.
199

IV.
200
IV. Report on the Historical Importance
The Historical Significance of the Electoral
Residence at Schwetzingen
Schwetzingen is a palace that was used by
the Prince Electors of the Palatinate as a
hunting lodge as well as a subsidiary, summer
and alternative residence for around four
centuries, in the course of which it developed
under the sway of manifold cultural
influences from all over Europe and beyond.
The rich heritage of its extensive gardens
bears witness to the status and importance of
the Palatine Electors as princes of European
rather than merely German standing.
It all began with a small moated castle
belonging to aristocratic liegemen, knights in
the service of the counts palatine, which in
1427 passed into the possession of the Prince
Electors residing at Heidelberg, a dynasty
that since the fourteenth-century had steadily
risen to supremacy in the northern reaches
of the Upper Rhine, possessing the most
splendid court to be found far and wide, and
effectively commanding the position of kings.
The reason for this was their membership
of the exclusive circle of those who had the
right to elect kings, together with the office
of Imperial Seneschal. The Counts Palatine
of the Rhine, furthermore, had long held the
office of Imperial Vicar and were entitled
to sit in judgment over the King in the
Frankish-law territories, and could boast that
one of their own, Count Palatine Rupert III
(1398-1400) even held the German throne,
reigning for ten years after coming to power
as „Rupert of Germany“ in 1400. In addition,
the Prince Electors, who enjoyed abundant
revenue from the numerous road and Rhine
tolls they imposed over and above the regular
territorial taxes, exercised many prerogatives
over neighbouring princes, counts, gentry and
knights, claiming escorts, serfs, capture and
resettlement of individuals travelling through,
bastard succession, alluvial rights, and many
more privileges that extended beyond the
bounds of their own highly fragmented
territory into the surrounding lands, thus
confirming the hegemonial status of the
Palatine Counts.
There is evidence that the Prince Electors
stayed at Schwetzingen from as early as 1467,
from the time of Frederick the Victorious
(1449-1476), during whose reign the Palatinate
attained its late-mediaeval zenith. It was
during this period that the castle gardens were
extended for the first time, their use having
originally been limited to that of a herb
garden for the castle kitchen. In the 1530s
and 1540s the castle was extended to form a
three-winged palace of symmetrical design
with the cour d‘honneur that is still in place
today.
In the third quarter of the seventeenthcentury,
at at time when the Palatinate was in
the process of recovering from the devastation
wrought by the Thirty Years War, the palace
at Schwetzingen, reconstructed in 1655-58,
was home over a lengthy period of time to
Prince Elector Charles Louis (1649-1680),
who resided there with his morganatic wife
Luise von Degenfeld. It was this same Charles
Louis, son of the British princess Elizabeth
Stuart, who was responsible for restoring the
Palatinate to its former pre-eminence after
the fiasco of 1618-1621 brought about by
his father Frederick V, the „Winter King“ of
Bohemia. The fact that Charles Louis was
able to marry his daughter Elizabeth Charlotte
(1652-1721), popularly known as „Liselotte“,
to the brother of Louis XIV, the French „Sun
King“, is evidence of the renewed esteem
enjoyed by the Palatinate and the Palatine
princes among the European monarchy;
but the new-found glory was shortlived:
this marriage also triggered the Orleans
War of 1688-93, in which the Palatinate was
devastated anew, much more thoroughly so
than it had been two generations earlier in the
Thirty Years War. The palace and gardens
at Schwetzingen were among the many sites
ruined in the war.

By 1681, Liselotte‘s brother, Prince
Elector Karl II (1680-1685), had handed
Schwetzingen over to his wife Wilhelmine
Ernestine, a Danish princess who maintained
Schwetzingen as one of her residences
after the death of her husband four years
later. After the palace‘s destruction in 1689,
restoration work was carried out which
continued up to 1715, and after Wilhelmine
Ernestine‘s death in 1706, the palace was once
more used by the regent of the Palatinate. It
was in this period that the wings flanking the
cour d‘honneur were built, the constructors
achieving the remarkable architectural feat
of smoothing out the irregularities of the
existing mediaeval fabric and bringing them
in line with Baroque aesthetic ideals. In
1720, after demonstratively giving up his
ancestral home in Heidelberg over a quarrel
with the Protestants of the town concerning
the partitioning of the Church of the Holy
Spirit, the Catholic Prince Elector Karl Philip
(1716-1742) moved the royal household to
Schwetzingen, from where he conducted,
over several years, the ambitious project of
building a new palace at Mannheim. But
even after the court had moved to Mannheim,
Schwetzingen remained the frequently used
summer and alternative residence of the
Electors Palatine, its open design, in contrast
to the tight confines of the Mannheim
property, appealing to the bucolic tastes of the
time. Its relatively modest palace building
hardly befitted an absolutist prince, but that
mattered little, for it was the gardens, not the
palace, that made Schwetzingen so highly
appreciated -- in a sense, Schwetzingen was
the garden of the Electoral Palatinate.
The real efflorescence of the palace and
gardens finally began with the succession to
power of Karl Theodor (1742-1799), a Prince
Elector of the Enlightenment, who generated
an atmosphere of sheer resplendence at
Schwetzingen that prevailed until his move
to Munich in 1778. Complete reconstruction
of the palace was cut short around 1750
owing to the high costs involved, but work
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann
subsequently continued to be invested into
making Schwetzingen a residence fit for a
Prince of the Empire: extensions were made to
the palace itself, in the form of the generously
proportioned quarter-circle pavilions (1748-
54) and the theatre (1752-62), which is still in
use today; and the grounds were transformed
into a set of gardens which, with its numerous
buildings and sculptures, gave expression to
the Prince Elector‘s broad cultural horizons,
an aspect further underlined by the addition
in 1771 of an observatory on the palace roof.
In 1750 work started on the electoral stables
still to be found today in Schwetzingen, and
the town itself gained in size and importance
through the electoral residence, with
buildings and streets constructed so as to
radiate out from the palace. Further factors
contributing to the prestige of the town and
its status as an integral part of the electoral
residence were the institution of two fairs
in 1749; Schwetzingen‘s elevation to the
status of market town in 1759; the transfer to
Schwetzingen of the Palatinate Foot Guards
and subsequent construction in 1774 of
separate barracks for them; the extension
of the recently built (1736) Catholic parish
church and redesign of its facade so as to
reflect the increased importance of the parish;
and finally, the foundation of a Franciscan
monastery in the town.
Karl Theodor‘s move to Munich in 1778,
forced by his succession to the Bavarian
throne of the Wittelsbachs, may have put an
end to regular courtly events at Schwetzingen,
but the maintenance and development of
the site continued unabated. The palace
continued to be put to various uses in the
nineteenth-century, by members of the
House of Baden, not least by Grand Duchess
Stephanie Beauharnais, the adopted daughter
of Napoleon Bonaparte. Nevertheless, the site
was left intact in all its magnificence after the
end of the old regime, and it has remained in
this state to the present day, providing us with
what is to my mind a unique example of an
IV.
201

IV.
202
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann
intact eighteenth-century summer residence, a
„garden residence“ par excellence.
There is a further factor which makes
Schwetzingen special, indeed unique: the
axis around which the palace, the gardens
and the town are arranged gives particularly
striking expression to the hegemonial designs
of the Palatine Prince Electors who resided
at Schwetzingen over several generations.
Axes of streets and avenues served the
purpose in early modern times of drawing
all the surrounding areas into the sphere of
the palace, thus satisfying the needs of an
absolutist ruler to have his territory in his
grasp and give it structure, and by doing so
ultimately to stamp it with his mark.
The Schwetzingen axis was already in place
in the symmetrical design of the sixteenthcentury
palace building. After the Thirty
Years War, the east side of the axis, leading to
Heidelberg, was planted with mulberry trees
to form an avenue, and in the eighteenthcentury
the axis was extended to the west,
beginning as the principal axis of the gardens
and extending beyond the great lake into the
countryside, up to the boundary of the parish
of Ketsch, then part of the diocese of Speyer.
If we
follow the axis further, across the Rhine,
we arrive finally at the Kalmit, part of the
territory of the bishop-princes of Speyer
and the highest elevation in the Palatinate
Forest; in the other direction, at the eastern
end of the axis, the Kalmit is answered by
the Koenigstuhl rising above Heidelberg, the
highest elevation in the Kleiner Odenwald
forest.
This axis makes for an impressive view which
is easily visible on days of low atmospheric
pressure from the palace archway, an axis
that traverses the palace and the gardens to
extend out over the whole of the Rhine plain,
from Heidelberg (Electoral Palatinate) to
Speyer (imperial city) and beyond, ending at
Neustadt (Electoral Palatinate), placing all of
this territory squarely under the dominion
of the regent residing at Schwetzingen and
thus giving figurative voice to the claims
to supremacy over the northern reaches
of the Upper Rhine that were held by
Schwetzingen‘s princes for generations. At
approximately fifty kilometres, this axis is
not only of a length unknown anywhere else
in Europe, but also overrides -- as indeed
we might expect given the hegemonial
pretensions inspiring it -- all territorial borders
west of Schwetzingen; in this respect it
crucially differs from other axes constructed
in the Baroque period, which always remained
within the territory to which they belonged
(axes at Karlsruhe; Ettlingen-Rastatt-Fort
Louis; Ludwigsburg-Solitude; Nymphenburg;
Herrenhausen near Hanover).
There is, then, a sense in which the
Schwetzingen residence with its grand
gardens served not only to provide the court
with pleasure and a certain cachet, but also to
propagate a political message. With its truly
incomparable axis, Schwetzingen continues
to convey the claim of the Palatinate Prince
Electors to supremacy over the northern
Upper Rhine up until the present day.
From a historian‘s point of view, there
is absolutely no doubt that the uniquely
authentic Schwetzingen property is worthy of
inscription onto the UNESCO World Heritage
List.
Stutensee, 31st May 2006
Kurt Andermann

IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann
IV.
203

IV.
204
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann

IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann
IV.
205

IV.
206
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann

IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann
IV.
207

IV.
208
IV. Report on the Historical Importance: Dr. Kurt Andermann

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance
Music at the Court of Prince Elector Carl
Theodor, with Particular Reference to the
Summer Residence in Schwetzingen
In 1777, Leopold Mozart described Prince Elector
Carl Theodor’s residence in glowing terms as
a place “whose renowned court radiates sunlike
throughout Germany and beyond, to the
farthest reaches of Europe” 1 . This assessment,
based on music at the court and proffered
by one of the most discerning connoisseurs
of the contemporary European music scene,
was a judgement shared by many of Mozart’s
contemporaries, who considered the Electoral
Palatinate to have developed, under the reign
of the music-loving Prince Elector Carl Theodor
from 1743 to 1778, into one of the eighteenthcentury’s
most advanced and modern centres of
musical activity. This view is confirmed by the
studies carried out at the Heidelberg “Academy
of Sciences and Humanities” in the research unit
into Court Orchestras in the German Southwest
in the 18th-Century, whose job it is to perform
research into both musical and social aspects of
the history of music at the court of the Electorate
of the Palatinate 2 .
Music lovers from all over Europe (members of
the nobility, distinguished clergymen, artists,
culture seekers and adventurers) used to travel
to Mannheim in order to experience at first
hand the principal attractions of the court music,
namely the lavishly arranged operas and the
“Musical academies” (as the court concerts were
called at the time). Along with the Mozart family,
the most prominent members of the audiences
who experienced the court orchestra included
Johann Christian Bach, Niccolò Jommelli,
Christoph Willibald Gluck, Luigi Boccherini,
Johann Friedrich Reichardt, Christian Friedrich
Daniel Schubart, Charles Burney, Giacomo
Casanova, Carl Ludwig Junker, François Marie
Arouet (better known as Voltaire), Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Gottlieb
Klopstock, Christoph Martin Wieland, Gotthold
1 Letter dated 13 Nov. 1777, in: Mozart. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen,
Gesamtausgabe, collected by W. A. Bauer and O. E.
Deutsch. Kassel 1962, vol. 2, p. 117
2 Homepage: www.hof-musik.de
Ephraim Lessing, Wilhelm Heinse and Friedrich
Heinrich Jacobi, as well as Princess Christina
of Saxony, Princess Elector Maria Antonia of
Saxony, Friedrich II of Prussia, Prince Friedrich
of Hesse, Duke Carl of Curland, Prince Carl
Christian of Nassau-Weilburg and his lady wife,
Caroline, Prince Karl August of Hardenberg,
the bishops of Speyer (Spires), Hildesheim and
Augsburg and the Prince Electors of Mainz, Trier
and Bavaria.
The musical attainments at the court of Prince
Elector Carl Theodor have gone down in the
history of music as an epoch in their own right.
The term often used is “Mannheim school”, and
its attainments are still acknowledged around
the world under this name today. It is a term that
entered widespread usage after 1902, following
the studies published by Hugo Riemann, but
its actual meaning is far from clear-cut. The
same applies to other popular expressions, such
as the “Mannheim court orchestra” or just “the
Mannheimers”. “Mannheim” is simply the place
where the government of the time had its seat,
not necessarily where the musicians actually
performed. It could well be argued that that was
the case for all court orchestras or the private
orchestras retained by noble families in the
eighteenth-century, given that the princes of that
day and age only used to spend a few weeks of
the year in their summer residences, but this
is another respect in which Prince Elector Carl
Theodor was an exception. It was a fixed part
of the annual routine that the Prince Elector
would spend six months each in Mannheim
and Schwetzingen and that his court music
would accompany him. From the beginning of
November to the end of April the whole court
would reside in Mannheim and it would spend
the summer months from the beginning of May
to the end of October in Schwetzingen. For that
reason, contemporaries used to speak of the
court music not as the “Mannheim school” but
more correctly as the “electoral palatine school”
or, after the court was transferred to Munich in
1778, as the “Bavarian palatine school”.
V.
209

V.
210
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
In essence, it is the three attainments of the
music at the court of the Elector of the Palatinate
that decisively influenced the historical
development of European music and culture.
These are:
1. the structure and performing culture of the
so-called classical orchestra, which has now
become the established pattern and standard
practice;
2. the advanced level of musical training
(systematic instruction in performance
and composition) which, in combination
with the electoral palatine music school (or
“Tonschule”) founded by the court’s director
of music, Georg Joseph Vogler, in 1776, is
regarded as the prototype that was emulated
by other conservatories and music faculties;
and
3. the training in a classical-romantic orchestral
technique and the important contribution
made to the concert symphony in the history
of composition.
A further particularity about the music at court
was the deliberately programmed distinction
between the opera repertoires played in
Mannheim and Schwetzingen.
Re 1: The development of the court orchestra
The development of the court orchestra into
one that was focused on the quality of its
music and the production of a modern body of
sound began in 1747, when the court returned
from Düsseldorf, where it had spent nearly a
year. The first step involved taking the rather
fragmentary ensemble, comprised of just
sixteen musicians 3 and transforming it into a
fully functioning orchestra again. For several
years at the start of this process, this pioneering
work was handled by the orchestra’s leader,
Johann Stamitz (1717–1757), who came from
Bohemia and who kept on enlarging the violin
section. In summer 1753, Stamitz received
powerful support from Ignaz Holzbauer
3 1746 list of court musicians (vocalists and instrumentalists),
(Munich, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv, Geheimes Hausarchiv,
Traitteur manuscript t206 II)
(1711–1783), who came originally from Vienna,
who had worked at the Württemberg court
immediately prior to his new appointment and
who had successfully established himself in
Schwetzingen as a composer with his “favola
pastorale” called “Il figlio delle selve”. As director
of music, he was responsible for all facets of
the court orchestra from the very beginning.
For Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, it was
thus Holzbauer who “contributed most to the
perfection of this large orchestra” 4 . The strategy
underlying this successful improvement work
lay in ensuring that the leading positions in
each of the instrument sections were occupied
by good, even excellent, musicians. The only
way of achieving this at the start was to bring
virtuoso players in from the outside (such as
Jean Nicolas Heroux, Innocenz Danzi, Anton Fils,
the Jean Baptist brothers and Franz Wendling).
Later on, however, as of the middle of the 1760s
with the second generation of students, the best
musicians to replace the original ones came from
the orchestra’s own school (such as the violinists
Wilhelm Cramer, Carl and Anton Stamitz and
the oboists Friedrich Ramm and Ludwig August
Lebrun).
The decisive change in the orchestra’s
transformation into a modern top-quality one
took place in 1758, in other words one year
after Stamitz’ death. At the time, the office of
director of music was shared by two of his
former students, Christian Cannabich and Carlo
Giuseppe Toeschi, and the violin section was by
now comprised primarily of young musicians
from the electoral palatine orchestra school. The
lead positions in each of the instrument sections
were now occupied by specialists, something that
was by no means to be taken for granted in those
days – and certainly not with such consistency.
In addition, two clarinettists, Michael
Quallenberg (c. 1726–1786) and Johannes
Hampel, appeared officially in the
4 Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart: Ideen zu einer Ästhetik
der Tonkunst. Vienna 1806, Reproduced in Hildesheim 1990, p.
131

list of musicians for the first time 5 . In that way,
not only were all the sections of the orchestra
up to full strength, but the legendary court
orchestra had taken on its definitive shape. The
court records for the next twenty years show
that the orchestra was continuously enlarged.
In 1762, the number of musicians playing in
it exceeded seventy for the first time, and after
1770 there were more than eighty of them. The
highest headcount was for the years 1773 and
1774, when the number of active musicians
on the payroll totalled 89. After that, the figure
fell to around 75, where it stayed with slight
fluctuations. This ensemble was thus one of
the largest eighteenth-century court orchestras
anywhere in Europe.
Contemporaries were first of all amazed by
the sheer size of the orchestra and its full
complement of musicians. None less than
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart vouchsafes for the
orchestra’s composition: “the orchestra is very
good and strong. On each side: 10 to 11 violins,
4 violas, 2 oboes, 2 flutes and 2 clarinets, 2
horns, 4 cellos, 4 bassoons and 4 double basses,
as well as trumpets and drums. It can produce
lovely music” 6 . With this formation of two big
violin sections, the wind players with solo parts 7
(the bassoons were used to strengthen the bass
whenever they had no solo parts to play) and
the decision taken as early as the 1750s not
to include a harpsichord, lute or theorbo, the
palatine musicians produced the sound quality
of a modern orchestra, namely the so-called
classical symphony orchestra, for which Haydn,
Mozart, Beethoven and other composers wrote
their symphonies on into the nineteenth-century.
5 In other orchestras, clarinets only featured as standard instruments
in the last quarter of the eighteenth-century, especially
in the 1780s. In Stuttgart, for example, they were still absent in
1789. Cf. Ottmar Schreiber: Orchester und Orchesterpraxis in
Deutschland zwischen 1780 und 1850. Berlin 1938, reproduced
in Hildesheim-New York 1978, pp. 133–134
6 Letter dated 4 November 1777, in: Mozart. Letters, 2nd vol., p.
101
7 The usual practice at the time was for the wind instruments to
play chorally, i.e. for there to be several of each of them. One
example is Dresden in 1756: 3 flutes, 5 oboes and 6 bassoons.
Planned positions for clarinets were not added until 1795 (cf.
Ortrun Landmann: Die Entwicklung der Dresdener Hofkapelle
zum ‘klassischen’ Orchester. Ein Beitrag zur Definition dieses
Phänomens. In: Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis,
XVII [1993]. Winterthur 1994, pp. 175–190, esp. p. 181)
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Quite apart from the large number of
musicians, with players for every instrument,
what contemporaries admired most about the
Palatinate’s court orchestra was its musical
discipline and its (quite literally) breath-taking
performance, with the famous crescendo and
diminuendo effects as well as the advanced
technical skills of each individual musician.
One of the earliest judgements on the court
orchestra by someone who knew what he was
saying came, once again, from Leopold Mozart,
who sat through the whole four-hour musical
academy on 18 July 1763, in which his children
“moved the whole of Schwetzingen”. He thus had
sufficient time to obtain an impression of the
performing skills of the court musicians: “I had
the pleasure of hearing not only good singers
(both male and female) but also a remarkable
flutist, Mr. Wendling, and the orchestra is the
unchallenged best in Germany and made up
solely of young people leading a clean life,
without drinking or gambling or dressing
slovenly, so that both their manners and their
production are to be held in high esteem” 8 . In
1775, the court orchestra’s performance inspired
Klopstock to proclaim that: “living here is being
pampered by the voluptuousness of music!” 9
The most famous words of praise for the court
orchestra came from Schubart in expressing his
ideas on the aesthetics of the musical art: “When
the Prince Elector was in Schwetzingen and had
been followed there by his exquisite orchestra,
it was easy to feel transported to a magic island,
where everything sang and played music. [...] No
orchestra on earth has ever before managed to
perform in the way the Mannheim one does. Its
forte is a peal of thunder, its crescendo a torrent
of water, its diminuendo a crystal-clear river
babbling into the distance and its piano a breath
of spring.” 10 For Jacobi, the residence in 1777 was
without doubt a “musicians’ paradise” 11 . There
was no disguising the enthusiasm expressed
in the letter that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
8 Letter dated 19 July 1763, in: Mozart. Letters, vol. 1, p. 79
9 Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart: Deutsche Chronik, 2nd
year, 1775, no. 23, p. 183
10 Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart: Ideen zu einer Ästhetik
der Tonkunst, p. 130
11 Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi: Briefwechsel, Gesamtausgabe, series
1, vol. 2. Stuttgart 1983, p. 62, letter no. 466
V.
211

V.
212
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
wrote from Paris on 9 July 1778, looking back
on the music at the palatine court orchestra,
comparing and contrasting it with Salzburg and
describing the attitude towards work and the
exemplary lifestyle of the court musicians, which
was not something to be taken for granted:
“Subordination clearly rules in this orchestra!
(Such is Cannabich’s authority.) Everything
is taken seriously. Cannabich, who is the best
director I have ever seen, is both loved and
feared by those under him. He is also respected
throughout the whole town – and his troops too.
They also act differently from others, they are
well mannered, they dress well and they do not
frequent the inns and get drunk” 12 .
As Mozart’s letter already shows, the court
orchestra had above all an excellent orchestral
educator in Christian Cannabich. According to
Schubart, a “nod of the head” or a “twitch of the
elbow” 13 from him was enough to guarantee a
precise rendition of the compositions. Cannabich
trained his “troops” in performing works with
precision and in nuancing dynamic contrasts
within tight confines, and they cultivated this
until it became second nature. This exemplary
musical discipline and musical culture, both
of which are preconditions for a perfect
interpretation of compositions, are without
doubt Cannabich’s work. The introduction of
synchronous bow movements throughout the
orchestra, which has remained the usual practice
through to the present, is reputed to be the
invention of this “best director”. Cannabich’s
style of leadership was taken as the yardstick
for other orchestra leaders, for instance by
Beethoven’s teacher, Johann Gottlieb Neefe, in his
appraisal of Cajetano Mattioli, the leader of the
court orchestra in Bonn 14 .
The much admired orchestral discipline was,
however, also due to the fact that whole families,
even whole dynasties, of instrumentalists,
singers and composers, such as the Cannabich,
Cramer, Danzi, Fränzl, Grua, Lang, Lebrun,
12 Letter dated 9 July 1779. In: Mozart. Letters, vol. 2, p. 395
13 Schubart: Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, p. 137
14 Alexander Thayer: Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, vol. 1, 3rd
edition, Leipzig 1917, pp. 92ff
Ritschel, Ritter, Toeschi, Wendling and Ziwny
families, stayed with the court orchestra for
decades, and at least the basics of music were,
quite literally, handed down from father to
son. This makeup of the court orchestra and,
linked to that, the uniform method of training
were major contributory factors to its elevated
musical style. The quality of the orchestra
can also be ascribed to the fact that the court
musicians were not affected when the court
otherwise needed to make savings. They were
paid through a patronage foundation, and most
of them earned an adequate annual livelihood, so
that they were able to concentrate on practising
music. The musicians’ early specialisation on a
particular instrument and the adequate financial
arrangements made for them were by no means
common practice at that time 15 .
Re 2: The musical training of the Prince Elector’s
court orchestra
It was the system of training practised by the
Prince Elector’s court orchestra that was the
decisive element in its much praised musical
discipline. Contemporaries used to regard
Johann Stamitz as the “spiritus rector” of this
school, and that was correct, since it was he who
trained the largest number of violinists during
the build-up phase, beginning in 1747. That
explains why the school was initially considered
to be just a violin or orchestra school. It was,
however, more than that – and this is another
speciality of the palatine court orchestra. During
his European tour in August 1772, Charles
Burney spent some time in Schwetzingen and
made the following entry in his diary: “I cannot
quit this article, without doing justice to the
orchestra of his Electoral Highness, so deservedly
celebrated throughout Europe. I found it to be
indeed all that its fame had made me expect:
power will naturally arise from a great number
of hands; but the judicious use of this power, on
15 Cf. on this point: Richard Petzoldt: “Zur sozialen Lage des
Musikers im 18. Jahrhundert”. In: Der Sozialstatus des Berufsmusikers
vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert. Edited by Walter Salmen
(= Musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten 24), Kassel 1971, pp.
64–82, esp. pp. 68–69. Christoph-Hellmut Mahling: Herkunft
und Sozialstatus des höfischen Orchestermusikers im 18. und
frühen 19. Jahrhundert in Deutschland. Op. cit. pp. 103–136.

all occasions, must be the consequence of good
discipline; indeed there are more solo players,
and good composers in this, than perhaps in
any other orchestra in Europe; it is an army
of generals, equally fit to plan a battle, as to
fight it” 16 . What Burney, with his keen sense of
observation, was referring to with the metaphor
of an “army of generals” was the fact that there
was no other court orchestra at the time with
more composers and virtuoso players in one and
the same person than in that of the Electoral
Palatinate. The members of the orchestra
acquired their skills as composers, primarily
mastering counterpoint, through theoretical
tuition in their young years, in accordance with
the knowledge acquired up to then by Johann
Stamitz, Ignaz Holzbauer, Christian Cannabich
and Georg Joseph Vogler. Concerts and opera
performances at the electoral court then gave the
students further opportunities for intensifying
their knowledge of all types of music and of the
best composers of the time though the works
performed. The Prince Elector granted additional
stipends to particularly talented students to
spend some time studying in Italy, preferably
under Padre Martini in Bologna. The earliest
documentary evidence referring to the school
as one for composers is to be found in the
text written by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in
dedicating his six violin sonatas (KV 301–306)
from 1778 to the Electress Elisabeth Augusta. In
this he makes the obvious distinction between
the “orchestra” (“chapelle”) and the “school”
(“école”) and goes on to emphasise “the large
number of excellent teachers playing for it”
and the “splendour of so many masterpieces
to have come out of this famous school” 17 .
There were other schools for composers in
the German-speaking world in the eighteenthcentury
which had certain basic characteristics
and compositional details in common with
Schwetzingen/Mannheim, for instance in
16 Charles Burney: The Present State of Music in Germany, the
Netherlands and United Provinces, vol. 1 London 1773, pp.
92ff.)
17 Gertraut Haberkamp: Eine bisher unbekannte Widmung
Mozarts an die Kurfürstin Maria Elisabeth von Bayern zur
Erstausgabe der Sonaten für Klavier und Violine KV 301–306.
In: Musik in Bayern, 1979, vol. 18–19, Facs. p. 7, translated p.
11
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Berlin, Dresden and Vienna, but it was only
in the Palatinate that there was this distinct,
characteristic double function of a combined
orchestral and composers’ school.
In the spirit of the Enlightenment, Prince Elector
Carl Theodor had plans that as of 1776 at the
latest “all children from the palatine lands” who
were interested in lessons in acting, dancing and
music would not only be taught free-of-charge
by the court musicians but would also receive
ten guilders of monthly support 18 . In was in
this context that the court’s director of music,
Georg Joseph Vogler, established his palatine
music school (“kurpfälzische Tonschule”),
which was opened on the Prince Elector’s
name day, 4 November 1776. In addition to the
daily tuition, which was comprised of public
lectures, harmony teaching, counterpoint,
exemplary analysis of printed works and
composition exercises in various types of music
(concerto, symphony, aria, choral and fugue),
a kind of colloquium was held on Saturdays
for discussing questions and the students’
homework 19 . Between 1776 and 1781 Vogler
published the lectures and lessons along with
practical examples of compositions, including
those by the students themselves, in a unique
model curriculum, more thoroughly prepared
in a didactic sense than anything musicology
had ever experienced before 20 . The basic
characteristics of the training schemes practised
by our music conservatories and faculties right
through to the present day are derived from this
training model.
18 Felix Joseph Lipowsky: Karl Theodor, [...], wie Er war, und wie
es wahr ist, oder dessen Leben und Thaten. Sulzbach 1828, p.
98
19 Pfälzischer kleiner Kalender, 1778, F3v–F4r
20 Tonwissenschaft und Tonsezkunst, Mannheim 1776; Stimmbildungskunst,
op. cit. 1776; Kuhrpfälzische Tonschule, op. cit.
1778; Gründe der Kuhrpfälzischen Tonschule in Beispielen, op.
cit. 1778; Betrachtungen der Mannheimer Tonschule, op. cit.
1778–1781. Vogler’s most famous students included Carl Maria
von Weber and Giacomo Meyerbeer
V.
213

V.
214
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Re 3: Music at the electoral court as a pioneer of
the classical-romantic orchestral technique and
the concert symphony
Throughout the period between 1743 and its
transfer to Munich in 1778, the court of the
Prince Elector of the Palatinate was a hive of
orchestral and composing creativity unparalleled
anywhere else in Europe. It was the cradle of
the classical-romantic orchestral technique and
it gave a lasting impetus to the development of
the big concert symphony. The precondition
for this workshop in innovation was formed
by the makeup of the court orchestra, with the
dual function of composers and musicians, as
described above. According to Ludwig Finscher,
it is this unique combination that explains the
“twofold significance of Carl Theodor’s court
orchestra – for the history of orchestra and the
history of the symphony” 21 . Writing even earlier,
Charles Burney had established a link between
the particularity of the court orchestra discussed
here and the new style of the palatine concert
symphony. In writing about Schwetzingen in
his diary in August 1772, he continued: “But
it has not been merely at the Elector’s great
opera that instrumental music has been so
much cultivated and refined, but at his concerts,
where this extraordinary band has ‘ample room
and verge enough’ to display all its powers [...];
it was here that Stamitz first surpassed the
bounds of common opera overtures, which had
hitherto only served in the theatre as a kind of
court cryer, with an ‘O Yes!’ in order to awaken
attention, and bespeak silence, at the entrance
of the singers. Since the discovery which the
genius of Stamitz first made, every effect has
been tried which such an aggregate of sound
can produce; it was here that the Crescendo
and Diminuendo had birth; and the Piano,
which was before chiefly used as an echo, with
which it was generally synonimous, as well as
the Forte, were found to be musical colours
which had their shades, as much as red or blue
in painting (Burney: The Present State..., pp.
21 Ludwig Finscher: Mannheimer Orchester- und Kammermusik.
In: Die Mannheimer Hofkapelle im Zeitalter Carl Theodors.
Edited by the same author. Mannheim 1992, pp. 141–176, esp.
p. 144
93ff.)” 22 . Many years later, when penning his
“General History of Music”, Burney once again
described this new type of symphony: “The
band of the Elector Palatine was regarded as the
most complete and best disciplined in Europe;
and the symphonies that were produced by the
maestro di capella, Holtzbaur, the elder Stamitz,
Filtz, Cannabich, Toeski, and Fräntzel, became
the favourite full-pieces of every concert, and
supplanted concertos and opera overtures, being
more spirited than the one, and more solid than
the other. Though these symphonies seemed at
first to be little more than an improvement of
the opera overtures of Jomelli, yet, by the fire and
genius of Stamitz, they were exalted into a new
species of composition.” 23
In its essential points, Burney’s appraisal remains
valid today, even if a number of details have been
adjusted in the course of time. What was decisive
for the development of a new type of orchestral
language or symphonic type as far as the
Prince Elector’s court orchestra was concerned
were not the technical or stylistic inventions,
which Burney ascribed to it, but the further
development and synthesis of stimuli from the
outside. Thanks to the court orchestra’s technical
perfection, its crescendos, its subtle contrast
dynamics (forte and piano coinciding within
tight confines) and, for instance, its resounding
unisonous passages at the beginnings of
movements produced more intensive effects
than anywhere else. These orchestral effects were
veritably celebrated in the “musical academies”
– in present-day language it might even be said
that they had a cult following.
In setting each movement of a symphony, the
palatine musicians took the orchestra as their
starting point and not (like, for instance, the
22 Burney: Diary of musical travels, pp. 73ff
23 Charles Burney: General History of Music from the Earliest
Ages to the Present Period, vol. 4, London 1789, p. 582. As
regards the Palatine symphony, see also Joachim Veit: Zur
Entstehung des klassischen und romantischen Orchesters in
Mannheim. In: Die Mannheimer Hofkapelle im Zeitalter Carl
Theodors, pp. 177–195. Eugene K. Wolf: On the Origins of
the Mannheim Symphonic Style. In: Studies in Musicology
in Honor of Otto E. Albrecht. Edited by J.W. Hill. Kassel 1980,
pp. 197–239. By the same author: The Symphonies of Johann
Stamitz: a Study in the Formation of the Classic Style. Utrecht
1981

classical Viennese composers) the structure
of the movement. The movement structure in
the palatine concert symphony is massively
orchestral, but, at the same time, it is also relaxed
and more colourful than before, thanks to the
introduction of new types of passages for the
wind instruments. With the simple harmonic
relationships and the regular periodicity, the
major elements are very stable and thus provide
the solid basis for experimenting with all sorts
of different inspirations. It was the hallmark
of the court musicians that they separated out
smaller melodious motifs, that they exploited
contrast, variety and surprise and that they
paid particular attention to the sound of the
orchestra as a whole. The extent to which the
form of setting was rooted in the musical and
aesthetic perception of the day is brought out
in the description of the symphony contained
in Sulzer’s “General Theory of the Fine Arts”,
which was published in 1774: “The allegros
of the best chamber symphonies contain bold
and expansive ideas, liberal treatment of the
movement, [...] strong rhythms of various type,
powerful bass melodies and unisons, middle
parts playing in concert, [...] strong shading
to both the forte and the piano and first and
foremost the crescendo, which has the greatest
effect of all if combined with a rising and
increasingly emphatic melody” 24 .
It is evident that the unique combination of the
virtuosity of the ensemble and the virtuosity of
so many individual members of the orchestra
was bound to induce the composers-cummusicians
to experiment with the sounds
produced by each of the instruments and various
combinations of instruments. In this context,
it is particularly worth mentioning the novel
treatment of the wind instruments. Right at
the beginning, however, these were only used
to underscore the violins or to support the
harmony, but in the course of time they gained
greater autonomy. The passages with strong
melodies (“second themes”) were more and more
shaped by the wind instruments. The further
24 Johann Georg Sulzer: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste,
vol. 2, Leipzig 1774, p. 1122
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
development of the palatine symphony consisted
to an essential degree in the continued pushing
of the orchestra’s capabilities to their limit, which
emerged clearly not only in the differentiated
use of the wind instruments, often in solo parts,
but also in symphonies for two orchestras. The
treatment of the orchestra and the language it
used made it possible, for example, to produce
evocative sonorous representations of thunder
or storms at sea, and these became an inimitable
component of these symphonies. A symphony
of this type played on the piano would lose an
essential part of its musical meaning. This novel
nature of orchestral language, elevating the
quality of the tone to the formative principle,
leads directly on to musical romanticism.
With their differentiated instrumentation
and, associated with that, the opening up of
new ranges of tonality and possible sounds,
the composers serving the Palatinate’s court
orchestra created a new momentum, which was
to have a lasting influence not only on orchestral
music in the second half of the eighteenthcentury
and through to Viennese classical
music. Thanks to its orchestral technique, it also
prepared the way for the orchestral compositions
of the nineteenth-century.
The opera repertoire hand-picked for the summer
residence in Schwetzingen
During the reign of Carl Theodor, the
electoral court was not only the place of an
exemplary orchestral culture, which numerous
court orchestras set out to copy, it was also
extraordinary in terms of its repertoire of operas.
It is true that Carl Theodor was not the only
ruler with two theatres available to him. Duke
Carl Eugen of Württemberg, Friedrich II of
Prussia, Gustaf III of Sweden and Louis XVI of
France also had operas performed in Stuttgart
und Ludwigsburg, in Berlin and Potsdam, in
Stockholm and Drottningholm and in Paris and
Versailles, but Carl Theodor was the only one
to make a clear conceptual distinction between
the programme of performances at his two
opera-house locations. Whereas the subject of
V.
215

V.
216
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
the ceremonial opera in Mannheim on the name
days of the Elector and Electress, on 4 and 19
November, was intended primarily to celebrate
the Prince’s rule, the content of the Schwetzingen
opera programme presented audiences with a
veritable Arcadia, the Utopia of a “Golden Age”,
free from conflicts and constraints. The choice of
the very first opera was programmatic in nature.
It was “Il figlio delle selve”, and its story is that of
a “son of the wild”, who is unaware of his royal
origin, yet is transformed into a responsible
prince. The interpretation of the substance of the
repertoires shows that Carl Theodor, in making
this choice, had already laid down the idea for
Schwetzingen without a shadow of a doubt,
since the motif of human perfection through
knowledge was particularly topical in the age of
Enlightenment. Most of the operas that followed
in Schwetzingen reflected societal order in all
sorts of different ways. The operas dealt with
the advantages of country life, the erosion of
the traditional barriers between the estates, the
antagonism between nations, stories of love
across socially divisive barriers, the casualness
of communication liberated from social rules,
humanity, humanitarianism, compassion
and (in the case of “Alceste” by Wieland and
Schweitzer) fulfilment of duties to the extent of
self-abnegation.
The design of the theatre also matched the
programmatic concept of the special roster of
performances. In contrast to the court theatre
in Mannheim, Carl Theodor deliberately did
without the prince’s box. He used to take a seat
in the stalls, at the same level as his subjects.
A further intention of the artistically minded
Prince Elector is brought to the fore by the
properties of the auditorium with its timber
structure, its open circles, the double floor of
its orchestra pit as an additional resonating
chamber and the choice of the colour scheme.
This involuntarily draws the observer’s gaze
away from the colours of the balcony balustrades
to the proscenium, which contrasts very strongly
with them on account of deep-blue marble
tones and gold decoration dominating space.
The auditorium was never designed to have any
representative function, purely to be part of a
theatre, concentrating on what matters most
(the happenings on stage) and, at the same
time, guaranteeing perfect reproduction of the
works performed, thanks to the most modern
understanding of acoustics. The outcome of this
is a theatre, which is not only the oldest one in
the world with a gallery and which still has its
original eighteenth-century three-dimensional
decorations, but, more than that, one that can
also be considered as the ideal prototype of a
theatre for both music and the spoken word.
The inclusion of the Arcadian surroundings of
the summer residence is strikingly mirrored in
the description of the stage decorations, which
are specified in the librettos of the following
selected operas. These distinguish between “wild”
regions and laid-out gardens, and this can most
certainly be seen as reflecting of the two parts of
the Schwetzingen estate (the English and French
gardens) 25 :
Il figlio delle selve: A forest, with rocks, caves
and springs
L’isola disabitata: A very appealing region of a
small uninhabited island facing the sea, with
exotic trees, very specially decorated by nature,
with wondrous caves and flowering shrubs
Il Don Chisciotte: A forest at the end of a
mountain, with cliffs, the mouth of a cave
big enough for people walk in; a fountain
surrounded by benches
I Cinesi: The scenery takes the form of a number
of rooms giving onto the garden [...]
Il filosofo di campagna: A garden
Le nozze d’Arianna: An uninhabited island
ends in a gigantic cliff rising from the sea,
where Theseus’ completed boat is seen moving
away from land. A region of laughter, fun and
amusement, with grapevines, ripe grapes and
25 The only instructions for stage sets quoted here are those that
make some reference to nature. The detailed Schwetzingen
opera repertoire is to be found in: Hofoper in Schwetzingen.
Edited by Silke Leopold and Bärbel Pelker. Heidelberg 2004,
pp. 87–154. The descriptions given here are from the German
translations of the original libretti. Since the Schwetzingen
stage had a double door leading out to the gardens, it is also
conceivable that the gardens were really integrated in opera
performances (as sort of real perspective, such as in “La
contadina in corte”).

green vines, and mystifyingly bound together
with ivy, twisted around the whole length of the
vines. The sea is visible in the distance.
Leucippo: The scene is set in Arcadia, in a sacred
forest dedicated to the Lycian Jupiter and the
regions adjacent to it. The outmost forecourt of
the temple of Diana, decorated with cypresses.
The sacred forest, next to a large space seen in
perspective, where the alter to the Lycian Jupiter
stands. An open field on the bank of the river. On
one side, this river can be seen falling steeply, on
the other side, however, a pleasant countryside
with laurels
Alceste: Temple of Apollo
La buona figliuola: A sumptuous garden,
bordering on the marquis’ palace in the distance.
Bushes. Agreeable fields with trees and hills
L’isola d’amore: The sea coast with festive
decorations. A large arch of roses and greenery
in the centre. A forecourt on one side behind the
arch. In front of the arch on the other side, the
view of a temple with an altar and a portrayal
of love. A small wood near the temple. A temple
with portrayals of Bacchus and Love. An altar
centre-stage. A garden. The floor of a deep valley
with mountains in the distance
Gli stravaganti: A forest
L’amore artigiano: A garden
La contadina in corte: Landscape with fruit
tress. A hill in the background. A number of
farmhouses on the sides. Small wood with rural
fountain on one side. Room at ground level with
an exit to a garden
L’isola d’Alcina: A magnificent garden with a
fountain in the middle of it
Das Milchmädgen und die beiden Jäger (The
milkmaid and the two hunters): The stage
represents a thick forest. Right at the front there
is a tall tree and, on the left at some distance, an
old hut.
L’amante di tutte: A rural region with a palace
and a farmhouse on one side
Amor vincitore: The scene is a delightful
landscape. Green trees in the background. Forest
on one side and cliffs with a rural fountain on
the other
L’Endimione: Landscape with trees, grottos and
waterfalls. Cliffs surrounded by trees with a
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
view of the sea in the background. Forest with
mountains in the background near Silvano’s
grotto
L’incognita perseguitata: A garden. A field with
shepherds’ dwellings. Hanging gardens
L’Arcadia conservata: Apollo’s temple built by
Evandern on the steep slopes of Mount Palatinus.
The buildings rise up above the entrance to the
“Oracle” and the shady laurels over the holy
forest surrounding it (opera performed on
the temple of Apollo, which still exists in the
gardens)
Alceste: A garden full of urns and statues and, at
some distance, the royal palace resting on Doric
columns
Zemira e Azor: Forested location between cleft
cliffs in Azor’s fenced-in magic garden. Grotto
on the left. Façade of Azor’s enchanted palace,
looking towards a delightful, elegant garden. A
throne centre-stage
La festa della rosa: Delightful countryside
with a beach in the background. Peasants on
the opposite bank busy repairing the damage
cause by a heavy storm. High mountains in the
background. The beach is dominated by a small
hill rising up above it front-stage to the left, but
not as high as the other hill on the opposite river
bank which people can walk on.
Considering the compositions, there was no
other summer residence anywhere in Europe
where the range of operas performed was as vast
as in Schwetzingen: Opera buffa, Opéra comique
or German musical plays – “the Schwetzingen
repertoire brought the history of European opera
into focus, as if under a magnifying glass” 26 .
Whereas during the 1750s court society was
entertained with the operas “L’isola disabitata”
(1754), “Il Don Chisciotte” (1755), “I Cinesi”
(1756) and “Le nozze d’Arianna” (1756) by
Ignaz Holzbauer as well as Baldassare Galuppi’s
successful operas “Il filosofo di campagna”
(1756) and “Le nozze” (1757), Musical Europe
descended on Schwetzingen in the course of
26 Silke Leopold: Europa unterm Brennglas. Oper in Schwetzingen
zur Zeit Carl Theodors. In: Hofoper in Schwetzingen, p. 57.
This work includes a detailed, fundamental interpretation of
the Schwetzingen opera repertoire in the European context, pp.
55–70
V.
217

V.
218
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
the next two decades in the form of works
by Johann Christian Bach, Egidio Romoaldo
Duni, Florian Leopold Gassmann, Giuseppe
Gazzaniga, Christoph Willibald Gluck, François-
Joseph Gossec, André Ernest Modeste Grétry,
Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Johann Adolf
Hasse, Niccolò Jommelli, Giovanni Paisiello,
Niccolò Piccinni and Antonio. Another unique
feature in European musical history is the
continuity of the active interest in comic opera
of Italian and French origin, as it used to be
staged in Schwetzingen between 1753 and the
court’s move to Munich in 1778, and which
was intensified even further in 1771, once the
troupe of French actors had left. Starting in
summer 1772, for example, up to four different
operas were performed several times over in
Schwetzingen 27 .
In choosing which Italian comic operas to
perform (which were predominantly works by
the composers Galuppi, Piccinni and Sacchini,
who were amongst the most famous and
most successful in Europe) the Schwetzingen
programme is, however, a unique reflection of
the taste of the time in its mixture of works
in French and German. In the early years, the
French operas were translated into German. The
first of these, in summer 1774, was Duni’s “La
laitière et les deux chasseurs” (Das Milchmädgen
und die beiden Jäger). In his official statement of
opinion, Carl Theodor thus began by expressing
his predilection for the German language, which
he brought onto the opera stage with the help of
these translations, with the intention of having
the “genuine” German operas follow them later.
That happened in 1775 with a performance
in Schwetzingen palace theatre of the opera
“Alceste” composed by Anton Schweitzer (with
the libretto by Christoph Martin Wieland) on 13
August, two years after its premiere in Weimar.
With this large-scale opera performance, Carl
Theodor made it unmistakably clear that he
wanted to make the German language acceptable
at court as a language of theatre – if necessary,
27 Detailed records of performances including documentary
evidence of the librettos and music scores are to be found in:
Hofoper in Schwetzingen, pp. 87–154 and 391–405.
even against the will of his wife, Elisabeth
Augusta. There is evidence of initial sympathies
for German as a language of theatre as early as
1767, and on 25 June 1768 the Prince Elector had
a German play staged at his summer residence
for the first time. The end of this development,
and at the same time its climax, can be seen
as Ignaz Holzbauer’s opera “Günther von
Schwarzburg”, with the libretto by Anton Klein.
For the first time, this took an episode from
German history as its theme. The composer
completed this work in 1776, once again in
Schwetzingen, upon the personal command of
the Prince Elector. With this opera, the electoral
court established the definitive profile for itself
as the cradle of reformed German opera, which
had begun on the court’s experimental stage
in Schwetzingen. It was to be a position that
was only short-lived, on account of the court’s
transfer to Munich in 1778.
Both the last two operas, “La festa della rosa”
and “Zemira e Azor”, were Italian translations
of French operas by Grétry and were performed
in Schwetzingen in 1776. They once again
confirmed the unique variety of the opera
repertoire and also Carl Theodor’s interest in
focussing on European opera traditions and then
melting them together as if under a magnifying
glass.
The legacy of the music at the court of the Prince
Elector
In presenting an inventory of the visible
evidence of this important epoch in the history
of European music, a good place to start is with
the compositions of the musicians at the electoral
court in the Electoral Palatinate, which are to
be found today in nearly all the leading music
libraries (there are comprehensive collections,
for instance, in Paris, London, Brussels, Berlin,
Munich and Washington). The world’s largest
collection, however, with more than 6000
compositions is to be found at the Heidelberg
Academy of Sciences and Humanities in the
research unit concerned with Court Orchestras in

the German Southwest in the 18th-Century. This
collection is still housed in Heidelberg at the
time of writing, but it is planned to transfer it to
the Prince Elector’s former summer residence in
Schwetzingen in the near future. The fact that it
is still possible to reconstruct the collected works
of the court orchestra on this representative
scale and thus to bring them to life again in
concerts is due to a considerable extent to its
fame, which spread definitively throughout the
whole of Europe in the 1770s. There was thus
a correspondingly large demand for the works
of the court musicians. In addition to the paid
copyists, whose full-time job it was to meet the
numerous orders for handwritten scores, various
German and foreign publishing houses secured
privileges to print the new works 28 and thus also
contributed to the survival of this compositional
inheritance.
Along with these visible testimonies, the legacy
of the Prince Elector’s musicians also extends
to their pioneering musical achievements,
which had their impacts on musical culture and
technique, in other words on those performing
music too. Those who contributed significantly
to their dissemination throughout Europe
included government ministers, envoys and
agents 29 as well as numerous visitors from
abroad, who, in the age of Enlightenment, were
keen on undertaking those oh-so-important
educational journeys, which included the
28 Leading publishers: De LaChevardière, Sieber, Venier, Huberty,
Le Clerc, Bailleux, Bureau d’abonnement de musique, Boüin &
Bérault in Paris; Hummel in Amsterdam and Bremner, Welcker,
Walsh, Longman and Broderip in London; cf. on this point, inter
alia: Cari Johansson, French Music Publishers’ Catalogues of the
Second Half of the Eighteenth-Century (= Publications of the
Library of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music 2), Stockholm
1955; Cari Johansson, J. J. & B. Hummel. Music-Publishing and
Thematic Catalogues (= Publications of the Library of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Music 3), vol. 2, Stockholm 1972
Starting in 1773, Johann Michael Götz published works by the
court musicians in the residence town of Mannheim, cf. Hans
Schneider: Der Musikverleger Johann Michael Götz (1740–1810).
2 vols. Tutzing 1989
29 Ministers and servants of the Electorate of the Palatinate spent
time at all the important courts and in all the important places
in Europe: Amsterdam, Augsburg, Berlin, Brussels, Colmar,
Cologne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Kleve, Liege, London, Loreto,
Mainz, Milan, Munich, Naples, Paris, Regensburg, Rome,
Strasbourg, The Hague, Trier, Venice, Vienna and Wetzlar. The
Electorate of the Palatinate was represented for many years
especially at the following courts: Ansbach, Berlin, Dresden,
Munich, Paris, Rome and Vienna. The envoys reported the
latest happenings to their courts two or three times a week,
resorting to cipher for critical matters.
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
“Germans’ musical Athens” 30 . The biggest
contribution of all, however, came from the
court musicians themselves, who, when making
guest appearances during their journeys
abroad, preferably to London, Paris and Italy,
successfully demonstrated their artistic skills
before local audiences and thus repeatedly
acted as ambassadors of the music from the
Electorate of the Palatinate. The final group that
also contributed to the spread of the Palatinate’s
musical tradition was those musicians who
served abroad. Of these, it is worth mentioning
the examples of Wilhelm Cramer (orchestra
conductor in London), Franz Eck (solo violinist
and director of concerts at the court of the tsars
in St. Petersburg), Franz Xaver Richter (musical
director at Strasbourg cathedral), Franz Tausch
(clarinettist in the court orchestra of King
Friedrich Wilhelm III in Berlin and founder
there of the institute of wind instruments) and
Georg Joseph Vogler (director of the Swedish
royal orchestra). The court musicians of Prince
Elector Carl Theodor contributed decisively
to improving orchestral and playing culture
throughout Europe through achievements
which we take for granted these days, such as
precision in playing together, synchronous bow
movements and innovations in the tones and
technical playing qualities of their instruments 31 .
Heidelberg, 30 November 2009
Dr. Bärbel Pelker
30 Schubart: Deutsche Chronik, 53. No. 29. 9. 1774, p. 423
31 The improvement in the violinist’s virtuosity in playing
technique, for which the evidence is most striking in the
solo concerts, would have been unthinkable without the
further development of the bow. The decisive change in bow
manufacture, which was completed around 1760, is linked
with the name of the palatine violinist, Wilhelm Cramer. It was
the so-called “Cramer bow” which already displayed the most
important characteristics of the modern bow that members of
the Tourte family in Paris took from about 1780 onwards as
the bow model valid until the present (Thomas Drescher: Art.
“Streichinstrumentenbau”, in: Ludwig Finscher (ed.): Die Musik
in Geschichte und Gegenwart. Second revised edition, technical
part, vol. 8. Kassel 1998, col. 1883
V.
219

V.
220
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
HEIDELBERGER AUGUSTINERGASSE 7
AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN D-69117 HEIDELBERG
Forschungsstelle Südwestdeutsche Hofmusik Tel.: 06221-542728
Dr. Bärbel Pelker Fax: 06221-542786
baerbel.pelker@adw.uni-heidelberg.de
www.hof-musik.de
Die Hofmusik des Kurfürsten Carl Theodor unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Sommerresidenz Schwetzingen
Im Jahr 1777 bezeichnete Leopold Mozart die kurfürstliche Residenz schwärmerisch als den
Ort, „von dessen berühmtem Hofe die Strahlen, wie von der Sonne, durch ganz Teutschland,
ja durch ganz Europa sich verbreiten“ 1 . Diese Einschätzung, die sich auf die Hofmusik
bezieht, ausgesprochen von einem der besten Kenner der europäischen Musikszene, spiegelt
die Ansicht vieler Zeitgenossen wider, nach der sich die Kurpfalz unter der Regentschaft des
Musik liebenden Kurfürsten Carl Theodor in der Zeit von 1743 bis 1778 zu einer der
fortschrittlichsten und modernsten Musikmetropolen des 18. Jahrhunderts entwickelt hatte.
Diese Einschätzung wird auch durch die Studien der Forschungsstelle Südwestdeutsche
Hofmusik der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, die mit der Erforschung der
Musik- und Sozialgeschichte der kurpfälzischen Hofmusik betraut ist, bestätigt 2 .
Musikliebhaber aus ganz Europa – Hochadel, geistliche Würdenträger, Künstler,
Bildungsreisende und auch Abenteurer – kamen nach Mannheim und Schwetzingen, um die
Hauptanziehungspunkte der Hofmusik, die prächtig ausgestatteten Opern und die
musikalischen Akademien (Hofkonzerte), mitzuerleben. Zu den prominentesten Zuhörern der
Hofkapelle zählten außer der Familie Mozart Johann Christian Bach, Niccolò Jommelli,
Christoph Willibald Gluck, Luigi Boccherini, Johann Friedrich Reichardt, Christian Friedrich
Daniel Schubart, Charles Burney, Giacomo Casanova, Carl Ludwig Junker, François Marie
Arouet gen. Voltaire, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Christoph
Martin Wieland, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Wilhelm Heinse, Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi
sowie Prinzessin Christina von Sachsen, Kurfürstin Maria Antonia von Sachsen, Friedrich II.
von Preußen, Prinz Friedrich von Hessen, Herzog Carl von Curland, Fürst Carl Christian von
Nassau-Weilburg mit seiner Gemahlin Caroline, Karl August Fürst von Hardenberg, die
Bischöfe von Speyer, Hildesheim und Augsburg oder etwa die Kurfürsten von Mainz, Trier
und Bayern.
Die Leistungen dieser Hofmusik sind unter dem Begriff „Mannheimer Schule“ als eigene
Epoche in die Musikgeschichtsschreibung eingegangen und werden unter diesem Namen bis
heute weltweit anerkannt. Der Begriff „Mannheimer Schule“, der sich vor allem seit 1902
durch die Studien Hugo Riemanns eingebürgert hat, oder auch andere populäre Begriffe, wie
1 Brief vom 13. Nov. 1777, in: Mozart. Briefe und Aufzeichnungen, Gesamtausgabe, gesammelt von W. A.
Bauer und O. E. Deutsch, Kassel-Basel 1962, 2. Bd., S. 117.
2 Homepage: www.hof-musik.de.
1

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
„Mannheimer Hofkapelle“ oder „die Mannheimer“, sind inhaltlich allerdings unscharf. Denn
sie benennen lediglich den Regierungssitz, nicht aber die tatsächlichen Wirkungsstätten der
Hofmusik. Dies mag zwar für die Hof- und Adelskapellen des 18. Jahrhunderts generell
zutreffend sein, verbrachten die Fürsten in der Regel nur wenige Wochen des Jahres in ihrer
Sommerresidenz, doch auch hier nimmt Kurfürst Carl Theodor eine Sonderstellung ein. Im
Jahresturnus festgeschrieben war die jeweils halbjährliche Anwesenheit des Kurfürsten und
damit auch seiner Hofmusik in Mannheim und Schwetzingen: Von Anfang November bis
Ende April hielt sich der Hof in Mannheim auf, die Sommermonate von Anfang Mai bis Ende
Oktober verbrachte er in Schwetzingen. Auf die Hofmusik bezogen sprachen die
Zeitgenossen in der Regel daher nicht von der Mannheimer, sondern korrekterweise von der
„kurpfälzischen Schule” bzw. nach der Übersiedlung des Hofes nach München 1778 von der
„pfalzbayerischen Schule“.
Es sind im Wesentlichen drei Errungenschaften der kurpfälzischen Hofmusik, die die
europäische musik- und kulturgeschichtliche Entwicklung maßgeblich beeinflusst haben:
1. die zum Muster und zur Norm gewordene Struktur und Spielkultur des sogenannten
klassischen Orchesters;
2. die fortschrittliche Musikausbildung (systematischer Instrumental- und Kompositionsunterricht),
die zusammen mit der 1776 gegründeten kurpfälzischen Tonschule durch den
Hofkapellmeister Georg Joseph Vogler als Prototyp für die nachfolgenden Konservatorien
und Musikhochschulen angesehen wird;
3. die Ausbildung einer klassisch-romantischen Orchestertechnik und der kompositionshistorisch
wichtige Beitrag zur Konzertsinfonie.
Eine weitere Besonderheit der Hofmusik besteht in der programmatischen Unterscheidung
des Opernrepertoires, das in Mannheim und Schwetzingen gepflegt wurde.
zu 1. Die Entwicklung des Hoforchesters
Die Entwicklung des Hoforchesters in Richtung eines leistungsorientierten und modernen
Klangkörpers begann mit dem Jahr 1747, als der Hof nach einem fast einjährigen Aufenthalt
von Düsseldorf zurückkehrte. Zunächst galt es, den eher fragmentarischen Klangkörper,
bestehend aus nur mehr sechzehn Musikern 3 , wieder in ein voll funktionierendes Orchester zu
verwandeln. Diese Pionierarbeit leistete in den ersten Jahren der aus Böhmen gebürtige
Konzertmeister Johann Stamitz (1717–1757) mit der konsequenten Erweiterung der
Violinklasse. Tatkräftige Unterstützung erhielt Stamitz im Sommer 1753 in dem zuletzt am
württembergischen Hof wirkenden Wiener Ignaz Holzbauer (1711–1783), der sich zuvor mit
seiner „favola pastorale“ Il figlio delle selve in Schwetzingen erfolgreich als Komponist
empfohlen hatte. Als Kapellmeister war er von Anfang an für den gesamten Bereich der
Hofmusik zuständig. Für Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart trug Holzbauer daher „das
meiste zur Vollkommenheit dieses grossen Orchesters bey“ 4 . Die Strategie dieser
3
Hofmusikerliste (Vokalisten und Instrumentalisten) von 1746 (München, Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv,
Geheimes Hausarchiv, Traitteur Handschrift 206 II).
4
Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, Wien 1806, Reprint Hildesheim
1990, S. 131.
2
V.
221

V.
222
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
erfolgreichen Aufbauarbeit bestand in der Maßnahme, dass man die Führungspositionen
innerhalb der Instrumentalgruppen mit qualitativ guten bis ausgezeichneten Musikern
besetzte. Zu Anfang musste dies durch das Engagement auswärtiger Virtuosen erfolgen (z. B.
Jean Nicolas Heroux, Innocenz Danzi, Anton Fils, die Brüder Jean Baptist und Franz
Wendling), spätestens seit Mitte der Sechzigerjahre – mit der zweiten Schülergeneration –
rückten dann die besten Musiker aus der eigenen Orchesterschule nach (z. B. die Geiger
Wilhelm Cramer, Carl und Anton Stamitz, die Oboisten Friedrich Ramm und Ludwig August
Lebrun).
Der entscheidende Wandel in Richtung eines modernen leistungsstarken Orchesters
vollzog sich im Jahr 1758, also ein Jahr nach Stamitz‘ Tod: Das Amt des Konzertmeisters
teilten sich die beiden Stamitz-Schüler Christian Cannabich und Carlo Giuseppe Toeschi; die
Violingruppe bestand nun überwiegend aus jungen Musikern der kurpfälzischen
Orchesterschule. Die Führungspositionen waren in jeder Instrumentalgruppe mit Spezialisten
ihres Faches besetzt – in jener Zeit ebenfalls in dieser Konsequenz keine
Selbstverständlichkeit. Außerdem sind erstmals zwei Klarinettisten, Michael Quallenberg (ca.
1726–1786) und Johannes Hampel, offiziell in der Musikerliste vertreten 5 . Damit waren nicht
nur alle Instrumentalgruppen vollständig besetzt, sondern auch die Zusammensetzung des
legendären Hoforchesters war nun endgültig geschaffen. In den folgenden zwanzig Jahren ist
anhand der Hofkalender eine kontinuierliche Vergrößerung der Hofkapelle zu verzeichnen:
Im Jahr 1762 zählte die Kapelle erstmals über 70 und ab 1770 über 80 Hofmusiker. Die
höchste Mitgliederzahl war in den Jahren 1773 und 1774 mit 89 aktiven besoldeten Musikern
erreicht. Danach pendelte sich die Zahl auf 75 ein. Das Ensemble gehörte damit zu den
größten Hofkapellen im 18. Jahrhundert europaweit.
Die Bewunderung der Zeitgenossen galt zunächst der zahlenmäßigen Größe und der
besetzungsmäßigen Vollständigkeit. Die genaue Besetzungsangabe des Orchesters ist durch
Wolfgang Amadé Mozart verbürgt: „das orchestre ist sehr gut und starck. auf jeder seite 10
bis 11 violin, 4 bratschn, 2 oboe, 2 flauti und 2 Clarinetti, 2 Corni, 4 violoncelle, 4 fagotti und
4 Contrabaßi und trompetten und Paucken. es läst sich eine schöne musick machen“ 6 . Mit
dieser Formation, der beiden stark besetzten Violingruppen, den solistisch eingesetzten
Bläsern 7 (die Fagotte fungierten bassverstärkend, wenn sie nicht solistisch tätig waren) und
dem bereits in den 1750er-Jahren erfolgten Verzicht auf das Cembalo, die Laute oder
Theorbe, schufen die Kurpfälzer jenen modernen Orchesterklang des sogenannten klassischen
Sinfonieorchesters, den Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven und andere Komponisten bis in das 19.
Jahrhundert ihren Sinfonien zugrunde legten.
Neben der starken und vollständigen Besetzung bewunderten die Zeitgenossen an dem
kurpfälzischen Hoforchester vor allem die Spieldisziplin und die im wahrsten Sinne des
Wortes atemberaubende Ausführung mit den berühmten Crescendo- und Diminuendo-
5 In anderen Kapellen wurden Klarinetten in der Regel erst im letzten Viertel des 18. Jahrhunderts, vor allem
in den Achtzigerjahren, heimisch. In Stuttgart fehlten sie beispielsweise noch 1789; vgl. Ottmar Schreiber,
Orchester und Orchesterpraxis in Deutschland zwischen 1780 und 1850, Berlin 1938, Repr. Hildesheim-
New York 1978, S. 133–134.
6 Brief vom 4. November 1777, in: Mozart. Briefe, 2. Bd., S. 101.
7 Üblicherweise waren die Bläser in der Zeit chorisch, also mehrfach besetzt, z.B. in Dresden 1756: 3 Flöten, 5
Oboen, 6 Fagotte, Planstellen für Klarinetten kamen erst 1795 hinzu (s. Ortrun Landmann, „Die Entwicklung
der Dresdener Hofkapelle zum ‚klassischen’ Orchester. Ein Beitrag zur Definition dieses Phänomens“, in:
Basler Jahrbuch für historische Musikpraxis, XVII [1993], Winterthur 1994, S. 175–190, spez. 181).
3

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Effekten sowie das hohe spieltechnische Vermögen des Einzelnen. Eines der frühesten
sachkundigen Urteile über das Hoforchester fällte kein Geringerer als wiederum Leopold
Mozart, der während der vierstündigen Akademie am 18. Juli 1763, in der seine Kinder „ganz
Schwetzingen in Bewegung“ setzten, ausreichend Zeit hatte, sich einen Eindruck von der
Leistungsfähigkeit der Hofmusiker zu verschaffen: „Ich hatte das Vergnügen nebst guten
Sänger und Sängerinnen einen bewunderungswürdigen Flutotraversisten Mr: Wendling zu
hören, und das Orchester ist ohne widerspruch das beste in Teutschland, und lauter junge
Leute, und durch aus Leute von guter Lebensart, weder Säufer, weder Spieler, weder
liederliche Lumpen; so, daß so wohl ihre Conduite als ihre production hochzuschätzen ist“ 8 .
1775 veranlassten die Leistungen der Hofkapelle Klopstock zu dem Ausruf: „Man lebt hier
recht in den Wollüsten der Musik!“ 9 Das wohl berühmteste Lob sprach Schubart dem
Hoforchester in seinen Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst aus: „Wenn der Churfürst in
Schwetzingen war, und ihm sein vortreffliches Orchester dahin folgte; so glaubte man in eine
Zauberinsel versetzt zu seyn, wo alles klang und sang. [...] Kein Orchester der Welt hat es je
in der Ausführung dem Manheimer zuvorgethan. Sein Forte ist ein Donner, sein Crescendo
ein Catarakt, sein Diminuendo – ein in die Ferne hin plätschernder Krystallfluss, sein Piano
ein Frühlingshauch“ 10 . Für Jacobi war die Residenz 1777 zweifellos „nun einmal das
Paradies der Tonkünstler“ 11 . Geradezu begeistert klingt es in dem Brief Wolfgang Amadé
Mozarts vom 9. Juli 1778 aus Paris, wenn er – rückblickend und die kurpfälzische Hofmusik
gegen die Salzburger ausspielend – die Arbeitsmoral und die keineswegs selbstverständliche
beispielhafte Lebensführung der Hofmusiker beschreibt: „die subordination die in diesem
orchestre herscht! – die auctorität die der Cannabich hat – da wird alles Ernsthaft verichtet;
Cannabich, welcher der beste Director ist den ich je gesehen, hat die liebe und forcht von
seinen untergebenen. – er ist auch in der ganzen stadt angesehen, und seine Soldaten auch –
sie führen sich aber auch anderst auf – haben lebens=art, sind gut gekleidet, gehen nicht in
die wirths=häüser und sauffen“ 12 .
Wie bereits dem Brief Mozarts zu entnehmen ist, hatte das Hoforchester vor allem in
Christian Cannabich einen ausgezeichneten Orchestererzieher. Nach Schubart genügten
bereits ein „Nicken des Kopfes“ und ein „Zucken den Ellenbogens“ 13 , um eine präzise
Wiedergabe der Kompositionen zu gewährleisten. Cannabich schulte seine „Soldaten“ in der
Präzision der Ausführung der Werke und der Nuancierung dynamischer Kontraste auf
engstem Raum, die bis zur Manier kultiviert wurde. Diese beispielhafte Spieldisziplin und
Spielkultur, beides Voraussetzungen für eine vollendete Wiedergabe der Kompositionen, sind
die Verdienste Cannabichs. Auch die Einführung des bis heute gebräuchlichen einheitlichen
Bogenstriches im Orchester soll die Erfindung dieses „besten Directors“ gewesen sein.
Cannabichs Führungsstil wurde als Maßstab für andere Orchestererzieher zugrunde gelegt, so
beispielsweise von Beethovens Lehrer Johann Gottlieb Neefe in seiner Beurteilung des
Konzertmeisters Cajetano Mattioli der Bonner Hofkapelle 14 .
8
Brief vom 19. Juli 1763, in: Mozart. Briefe, 1. Bd., S. 79.
9
Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, Deutsche Chronik, 2. Jg., 1775, 23. Stück, S. 183.
10
Christian Friedrich Daniel Schubart, Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, S. 130.
11
Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, Briefwechsel, Gesamtausgabe, Reihe 1, 2. Bd., Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 1983, S.
62, Brief Nr. 466.
12
Brief vom 9. Juli 1779, in: Mozart. Briefe, 2. Bd., S. 395.
13
Schubart, Ideen zu einer Ästhetik der Tonkunst, S. 137.
14
Alexander Thayer, Ludwig van Beethovens Leben, 1. Bd., 3. Aufl., Leipzig 1917, S. 92f.
4
V.
223

V.
224
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Zu der viel bewunderten Spieldisziplin trug aber auch die Tatsache bei, dass die Familien,
ja ganze Dynastien von Instrumentalisten, Sängern und Komponisten wie die Familien
Cannabich, Cramer, Danzi, Fränzl, Grua, Lang, Lebrun, Ritschel, Ritter, Toeschi, Wendling
oder Ziwny über Jahrzehnte in der Hofkapelle blieben und nun ihrerseits den musikalischen
Nachwuchs zumindest zu Anfang ausbildeten. Diese Zusammensetzung der Hofkapelle und
die damit verbundene einheitliche Ausbildungsmethode hatte ganz wesentlichen Anteil an der
hohen Spielkultur des Orchesters. Auch die Tatsache, dass die Hofmusiker dank der
medicäischen Stiftung von finanziellen Sparmaßnahmen des Hofes verschont blieben und in
der Regel über ein ausreichendes Jahresgehalt verfügten, sodass sie sich ganz auf die
Musikausübung konzentrieren konnten, trug zur Qualität des Orchesters bei. Die frühe
Spezialisierung der Musiker auf ein Instrument und die ausreichende Versorgung waren für
die damalige Zeit keineswegs selbstverständlich 15 .
zu 2. Die Musikausbildung der kurfürstlichen Hofmusik
An der viel gerühmten Spieldisziplin hatte das Ausbildungssystem der kurfürstlichen
Hofmusik entscheidenden Anteil. Als ‚spiritus rector’ dieser Schule wurde von den
Zeitgenossen Johann Stamitz angesehen, was auch zutrifft, da er in der Aufbauphase ab 1747
die meisten Violinisten ausbildete. Daher wurde die Schule zunächst als Violin- bzw.
Orchesterschule verstanden. Doch sie war mehr, und dies ist eine weitere Besonderheit der
kurpfälzischen Hofkapelle. Charles Burney, der auf seiner Europatour im August 1772 auch
in Schwetzingen Station machte, beschrieb sie folgendermaßen: „Ich kann diesen Artikel
nicht verlassen, ohne dem Orchester des Churfuersten Gerechtigkeit zu erweisen, welches mit
Recht durch ganz Europa so berühmt ist. Ich fand wirklich alles daran, was mich der
allgemeine Ruf hatte erwarten lassen. Natürlicher Weise hat ein stark besetztes Orchester
grosse Kraft. Die bey jeder Gelegenheit richtige Anwendung dieser Kraft aber muß die Folge
einer guten Disciplin seyn. Es sind wirklich mehr Solospieler und gute Komponisten in
diesem, als vielleicht in irgend einem Orchester in Europa. Es ist eine Armee von Generälen,
gleich geschickt einen Plan zu einer Schlacht zu entwerfen, als darin zu fechten“ 16 . Das, was
der fein beobachtende Burney mit dem Bild der „Armee von Generälen“ meinte, war die
Tatsache, dass es in keinem anderen Hoforchester der Epoche mehr Komponisten und
Virtuosen in einer Person gab als in dem kurpfälzischen. Das kompositorische Handwerk, in
erster Linie wohl die Beherrschung des Kontrapunktes, hatten die Orchestermusiker in jungen
Jahren im theoretischen Unterricht erlernt, nach bisherigem Kenntnisstand vor allem von
Johann Stamitz, Ignaz Holzbauer, Christian Cannabich und Georg Joseph Vogler. Konzerte
15 Vgl. dazu: Richard Petzoldt, „Zur sozialen Lage des Musikers im 18. Jahrhundert“, in: Der Sozialstatus des
Berufsmusikers vom 17. bis 19. Jahrhundert, hg. von Walter Salmen (= Musikwissenschaftliche Arbeiten 24),
Kassel [u.a.] 1971, S. 64–82, spez. S. 68–69. Christoph-Hellmut Mahling, „Herkunft und Sozialstatus des
höfischen Orchestermusikers im 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert in Deutschland“, in: ebda., S. 103–136.
16 Charles Burney, Tagebuch seiner musikalischen Reisen, Hamburg 1773, 2. Bd., S. 73, Eintrag vom 9. 8.
1772. Engl. Übers.: „I cannot quit this article, without doing justice to the orchestra of his electoral highness,
so deservedly celebrated throughout Europe. I found it to be indeed all that its fame had made me expect:
power will naturally arise from a great number of hands; but the judicious use of this power, on all occasions,
must be the consequence of good discipline; indeed there are more solo players, and good composers in this,
than perhaps in any other orchestra in Europe; it is an army of generals, equally fit to plan a battle, as to fight
it“ (Charles Burney, The Present State of Music in Germany, The Netherlands and United Provinces, 1. Bd.,
London 1773, S. 92f.).
5

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
und Opernaufführungen am kurpfälzischen Hof boten den Schülern dann weitere
Möglichkeiten, ihre Kenntnisse anhand der aufgeführten Werke in allen musikalischen
Gattungen und von den besten Komponisten der Zeit zu vertiefen. Besonders begabten
Schülern gewährte der Kurfürst zusätzlich Stipendien für Studienaufenthalte in Italien,
vorzugsweise zu Padre Martini in Bologna. Der früheste Beleg für die Schule, verstanden als
Kompositionsschule, findet sich im Widmungstext Wolfgang Amadé Mozarts an die
Kurfürstin Elisabeth Augusta, den er seinen sechs Violinsonaten (KV 301–306) aus dem Jahr
1778 voranstellte, und in dem er sinnfällig zwischen „Chapelle“ und „école“ unterscheidet
sowie des weiteren „le grand nombre d‘excellents professeurs qui la composent“ und den
„éclat de tant de chef doeuvres Sortis de cette fameuse école“ hervorhebt 17 .
Kompositionsschulen, die gemeinsame Grundzüge und kompositorische Einzelheiten
aufweisen, gab es im deutschsprachigen Raum im 18. Jahrhundert beispielsweise auch in
Berlin, Dresden oder Wien, aber nur in Mannheim/Schwetzingen war diese ausgeprägte und
prägende Doppelfunktion der Orchester- und Kompositionsschule zu finden.
Im Zeichen der Aufklärung plante Kurfürst Carl Theodor spätestens ab 1776, dass alle
„Kinder aus den churpfälzischen Staaten“, die Interesse am Schauspiel-, Tanz- und
Musikunterricht hatten, nicht nur kostenlosen Unterricht von den Hofmusikern, sondern
zusätzlich noch 10 Gulden monatlich Unterstützung erhalten sollten 18 . In diesem
Zusammenhang gründete der Hofkapellmeister Georg Joseph Vogler seine Kurpfälzische
Tonschule, die am Namenstag des Kurfürsten, am 4. November 1776, eröffnet wurde. Zum
täglichen Unterricht, bestehend aus öffentlichen Vorlesungen, Harmonielehre und
Kontrapunkt, exemplarischer Analyse von gedruckten Werken sowie Kompositionsaufgaben
in den Gattungen Konzert, Sinfonie, Arie, Chormusik und Fuge gehörte am Samstag
außerdem eine Art Kolloquium, in dem Fragen und Hausarbeiten der Schüler besprochen
wurden 19 . Die Vorlesungen und Lektionen mit praktischen Kompositionsbeispielen, auch der
Schüler, die bis dahin in dieser umfassenden didaktischen Aufbereitung ein einmaliges
Lehrmodell in der Musikwissenschaft darstellen, gab Vogler in den Jahren 1776 bis 1781
heraus 20 . Das Ausbildungssystem unserer Konservatorien und Musikhochschulen geht in
seinen Grundzügen bis heute auf dieses Ausbildungsmodell zurück.
zu 3. Die kurpfälzische Hofmusik als Wegbereiter der klassisch-romantischen
Orchestertechnik und der Konzertsinfonie
Der kurpfälzische Hof war in der Zeit von 1743 bis zu seiner Übersiedelung nach München
im Jahr 1778 eine Orchester- und Kompositionswerkstatt, die ihresgleichen in Europa suchte.
Hier entstand die klassisch-romantische Orchestertechnik und hier wurde die Entwicklung der
großen Konzert-Sinfonie nachhaltig angestoßen. Die Voraussetzung für diese
17
Gertraut Haberkamp, „Eine bisher unbekannte Widmung Mozarts an die Kurfürstin Maria Elisabeth von
Bayern zur Erstausgabe der Sonaten für Klavier und Violine KV 301–306“, in: Musik in Bayern, 1979,
H.18–19, Faks. S. 7, Übers. S. 11.
18
Felix Joseph Lipowsky, Karl Theodor, [...], wie Er war, und wie es wahr ist, oder dessen Leben und Thaten,
Sulzbach 1828, S. 98.
19
Pfälzischer kleiner Kalender, 1778, F3v–F4r.
20
Tonwissenschaft und Tonsezkunst, Mannheim 1776; Stimmbildungskunst, ebd. 1776; Kuhrpfälzische
Tonschule, ebd. 1778; Gründe der Kuhrpfälzischen Tonschule in Beispielen, ebd. 1778; Betrachtungen der
Mannheimer Tonschule, ebd. 1778–1781. Zu den berühmtesten Schülern Voglers gehörten Carl Maria von
Weber und Giacomo Meyerbeer.
6
V.
225

V.
226
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Werkstattsituation bildete die Zusammensetzung des Hoforchesters, die oben beschriebene
Doppelfunktion von Komponist und Musiker. Diese einzigartige Verbindung erklärt nach
Ludwig Finscher die „doppelte Bedeutung der Hofkapelle Carl Theodors – für die Geschichte
des Orchesters und für die Geschichte der Symphonie“ 21 . Die genannte Besonderheit des
Hoforchesters brachte auch schon Charles Burney mit dem neuen Stil der kurpfäzischen
Konzertsinfonie in Verbindung, im Schwetzinger Tagebucheintrag vom August 1772 heisst es
weiter: „Es ist aber nicht allein in der grossen Oper des Churfürsten, daß die
Instrumentalmusik so sehr ausgebildet und verfeinert worden ist, sondern in seinen
Concerten, woselbst diese ausserordentliche Capelle Platz und Raum genug hat, ihre ganze
Macht zu beweisen, und grosse Wirkungen hervorzubringen [...]. Hier eben wars, wo Stamitz
zuerst über die Gränzen der gewöhnlichen Opernouvertüren hinwegschritt, die bis dahin bey
dem Theater gleichsam nur als Rufer im Dienste standen, um durch ein Aufgeschaut für die
auftretenden Sänger Stille und Aufmerksamkeit zu erhalten. Seit der Entdeckung, auf welche
Stamitzens Genie zuerst verfiel, sind alle Wirkungen versucht worden, deren eine solche
Zusammensezzung von inartikulirten Tönen fähig ist. Hier ist der Geburtsort des Crescendo
und Diminuendo, und hier ist es, wo man bemerkte, daß das Piano, (welches vorher
hauptsächlich als ein Echo gebraucht wurde, und gemeiniglich gleich bedeutend genommen
wurde,) sowohl als das Forte musikalische Farben sind, die so gut ihre Schattirungen haben,
als Roth oder Blau in der Mahlerey” 22 . Jahre später geht Burney in seiner General History of
Music nochmals auf den neuen Sinfonientypus ein: „the band of the Elector Palatine was
regarded as the most complete and best disciplined in Europe; and the symphonies that were
produced by the maestro di capella, Holtzbaur, the elder Stamitz, Filtz, Cannabich, Toeski,
and Fräntzel, became the favourite full-pieces of every concert, and supplanted concertos and
opera overtures, being more spirited than the one, and more solid than the other. Though
these symphonies seemed at first to be little more than an improvement of the opera overtures
of Jomelli, yet, by the fire and genius of Stamitz, they were exalted into a new species of
composition“ 23 .
Burneys Urteil hat in seinen Grundzügen bis heute Bestand, auch wenn einige Details
inzwischen korrigiert worden sind. Entscheidend für die Entwicklung einer neuartigen
Orchestersprache bzw. sinfonischen Gattung waren für die Kurpfälzer nicht die technischen
21 Ludwig Finscher, „Mannheimer Orchester- und Kammermusik“, in: Die Mannheimer Hofkapelle im
Zeitalter Carl Theodors, hg. von dems., Mannheim 1992, S. 141–176, spez. S. 144.
22 Burney, Tagebuch seiner musikalischen Reisen, S. 73f.; engl. Übers.: „But it has not been merely at the
Elector’s great opera that instrumental music has been so much cultivated and refined, but at his concerts,
where this extraordinary band has „ample room and verge enough“, to display all its powers [...]; it was here
that Stamitz first surpassed the bounds of common opera overtures, which had hitherto only served in the
theatre as a kind of court cryer, with an „O Yes!“ in order to awaken attention, and bespeak silence, at the
entrance of the singers. Since the discovery which the genius of Stamitz first made, every effect has been
tried shich such an aggregate of sound can produce; it was here that the Crescendo and Diminuendo had
birth; and the Piano, which was before chiefly used as an echo, with which it was generally synonimous, as
well as the Forte, were found to be musical colours which had their shades, as much as red or blue in
painting.“ (Burney, The Present State, S. 93f.)
23 Charles Burney, General History of Music from the Earliest Ages to the Present Period, 4. Bd., London
1789, S. 582. Zur Sinfonie der Kurpfälzer s.a.: Joachim Veit, „Zur Entstehung des klassischen und
romantischen Orchesters in Mannheim“, in: Die Mannheimer Hofkapelle im Zeitalter Carl Theodors, S. 177–
195. Eugene K. Wolf, „On the Origins of the Mannheim Symphonic Style“, in: Studies in Musicology in
Honor of Otto E. Albrecht, ed. J.W. Hill, Kassel 1980, S. 197–239. Ders., The Symphonies of Johann
Stamitz: a Study in the Formation of the Classic Style, Utrecht 1981.
7

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
oder stilistischen Erfindungen, wie sie Burney ihnen noch zuwies, sondern wichtig waren die
Ausarbeitung und Synthese der Anregungen von außen: Dank der spieltechnischen Perfektion
des Hoforchesters machten das Crescendo, die ausgefeilte Kontrastdynamik (das
Aufeinandertreffen von Forte und Piano auf engstem Raum) oder etwa das dröhnende
Unisono am Anfang eines Satzes größeren Effekt als anderswo. Diese Orchestereffekte
wurden in den musikalischen Akademien geradezu zelebriert, nach heutigem Sprachgebrauch
hatten sie Kultcharakter.
Auch in der Anlage des Sinfoniesatzes dachten die Kurpfälzer vom Orchester her und nicht
– wie etwa später die Komponisten der Wiener Klassik – von der Struktur des Satzes. Die
Satzstruktur der kurpfälzischen Konzertsinfonie ist einerseits massiv orchestral, andererseits
durch die neuartige Einbeziehung von Bläserepisoden aufgelockert und farbiger als zuvor;
durch die einfachen harmonischen Verhältnisse und die regelmäßige Periodik sind die
Großformen sehr stabil und damit die solide Basis für das Spiel mit unterschiedlichsten
Einfällen. Denn die Hofmusiker setzten auf die Aneinanderreihung kleinerer melodischer
Motive, auf Kontrast, Abwechslung und Überraschung und ganz besonders auf den
Orchesterklang. Wie sehr diese Anlage in der musikästhetischen Vorstellung jener Zeit
verankert war, zeigt die Beschreibung der Sinfonie in Sulzers Allgemeinen Theorie der
schönen Künste aus dem Jahr 1774: „Die Allegros der besten Kammersymphonien enthalten
große und kühne Gedanken, freye Behandlung des Sazes, [...] stark marquirte Rhythmen von
verschiedener Art, kräftige Baßmelodien und Unisoni, concertirende Mittelstimmen, [...]
starke Schattirungen des Forte und Piano, und fürnehmlich des Crescendo, das, wenn es
zugleich bey einer aufsteigenden und an Ausdruk zunehmenden Melodie angebracht wird, von
der größten Würkung ist“ 24 .
Dass die einzigartige Verbindung von Ensemble-Virtuosität und der Virtuosität so vieler
Orchestermitglieder die spielenden Komponisten reizen musste, mit den Klangfarben der
Instrumente und Instrumenten-Kombinationen zu experimentieren, liegt auf der Hand. In
diesem Zusammenhang ist vor allem die neuartige Bläserbehandlung zu nennen. Anfangs
lediglich als Verdoppelung der Violinen oder zur Stützung der Harmonie eingesetzt,
gewinnen die Bläser an Eigenständigkeit. Die melodisch geprägten Abschnitte (‚zweites
Thema’) werden zunehmend von den Bläsern gestaltet. Die weitere Entwicklung der
kurpfälzischen Sinfonie besteht zu einem wesentlichen Teil in der fortgesetzten
Ausschöpfung orchestraler Möglichkeiten, die sich nicht nur in der differenzierten und häufig
solistischen Verwendung der Bläser zeigt, sondern auch durch Sinfonien für zwei Orchester
deutlich wird. Die Orchesterbehandlung und die aussagefähige Orchestersprache, die
beispielsweise tonmalerische Darstellungen von Gewitter- oder Meeresstürmen ermöglichte,
wird in diesen Sinfonien zu einem unverzichtbaren Bestandteil: Eine solche Sinfonie, auf dem
Klavier gespielt, würde einen wesentlichen Teil ihres musikalischen Sinns verlieren. Diese
neuartige Orchestersprache, die die Klangfarbe zum gestalterischen Prinzip erhebt, führt
geradewegs in die musikalische Romantik.
Mit ihrer differenzierteren Instrumentation und der damit zusammenhängenden
Erschließung neuartiger Klangbereiche und Klangmöglichkeiten gaben die Komponisten der
kurpfälzischen Hofkapelle neue Impulse, die nicht nur die Orchestermusik in der zweiten
Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts bis hin zur Wiener Klassik nachhaltig beeinflussten, sondern mit
ihrer Orchestertechnik bereiteten sie auch den Weg für die Orchesterkompositionen des 19.
Jahrhunderts.
24 Johann Georg Sulzer, Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste, 2. Bd., Leipzig 1774, S. 1122.
8
V.
227

V.
228
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Das speziell auf die Sommerresidenz Schwetzingen abgestimmte Opernrepertoire
Der kurpfälzische Hof war unter der Regentschaft Carl Theodors aber nicht nur der Ort einer
mustergültigen Orchesterkultur, die zahlreichen Hofkapellen als Vorbild diente, sondern er
zeigte sich auch in der Ausrichtung des Opernrepertoires als außergewöhnlich. Carl Theodor
war zwar nicht der einzige Herrscher, der über zwei Theater verfügte, auch Herzog Carl
Eugen von Württemberg, Friedrich II. von Preußen, Gustaf III. von Schweden oder Louis
XVI. von Frankreich ließen Opern in Stuttgart und Ludwigsburg, Berlin und Potsdam,
Stockholm und Drottningholm bzw. in Paris und Versailles aufführen, aber allein Carl
Theodor machte einen klaren konzeptionellen Unterschied in der Spielplangestaltung seiner
beiden Opernhäuser: Während das Sujet der zeremoniellen Festoper in Mannheim an den
Namenstagen des Kurfürstenpaares am 4. und 19. November vorrangig dazu diente, die
Herrschaft des Fürsten zu zelebrieren, so führte das inhaltliche Programm der Schwetzinger
Opern dem Publikum ein wahres Arkadien, die Utopie eines Goldenen Zeitalters ohne
Konflikte und Zwänge vor Augen. Bereits die Wahl der Eröffnungsoper Il figlio delle selve,
die Wandlung von einem naiven „Sohn der Wildnis“ ohne Kenntnis von königlicher Herkunft
in einen edlen, verantwortungsvollen Fürsten, hatte durchaus programmatischen Charakter.
Denn die stoffliche Auswertung des Repertoires zeigt, dass Carl Theodor mit dieser Wahl
bereits die Idee für Schwetzingen unmissverständlich vorgegeben hatte: Das Motiv der
Menschwerdung durch Erkenntnis war gerade in Zeiten der Aufklärung aktuell. Die meisten
Opern, die danach in Schwetzingen gespielt wurden, reflektierten auf unterschiedlichste
Weise die ständische Ordnung. Die Opern handelten von den Vorzügen des Landlebens, von
dem Abbau der traditionellen Standesschranken, von dem Gegeneinander der Stände, von der
Liebe über trennende gesellschaftliche Schranken hinweg, von der Zwanglosigkeit einer von
gesellschaftlichen Regeln freien Kommunikation, von Humanität, Menschlichkeit, Mitgefühl,
Mitleid oder auch – wie im Fall der Alceste (Wieland/Schweitzer) – von Pflichterfüllung bis
zur Selbstaufgabe.
Auch die Gestaltung des Theaterraumes korrespondiert mit der programmatischen
Konzeption des besonderen Spielplans. Im Gegensatz zum Mannheimer Hoftheater
verzichtete Carl Theodor bezeichnenderweise in Schwetzingen auf die Fürstenloge. Hier
nahm er im Parkett Platz – auf gleicher Ebene mit seinen Untertanen. Die Beschaffenheit des
Zuschauerraumes mit den Holzkonstruktionen, den offenen Rängen, dem doppelten Boden
des Orchestergrabens als zusätzlichem Resonanzkörper und einer Farbigkeit, die den Blick
des Betrachters von der lichten Farbgebung der Rangbrüstungen unwillkürlich auf das dazu
im stärksten Kontrast stehende, raumdominierende tief blau marmorierte und goldverzierte
Proszenium lenkt, führt aber noch eine weitere Intention des kunstsinnigen Kurfürsten vor
Augen: Der Zuschauerraum ist nicht als Repräsentations-, sondern als reiner Theaterraum
konzipiert, der sich auf das Wesentliche, auf das Bühnengeschehen konzentriert und der
gleichzeitig mit Hilfe modernster, akustischer Erkenntnisse eine vollendete Wiedergabe der
Bühnenwerke gewährleisten sollte. Somit entstand ein Theater, das nicht nur das weltweit
älteste erhaltene Rangtheater mit einer originalen Raumdekoration aus dem 18. Jahrhundert
ist, sondern das darüber hinaus auch als Idealtypus eines Sprech- und Musiktheaterraumes
gelten kann.
Die Einbeziehung der arkadischen Umgebung der Sommerresidenz spiegelt sich auch ganz
augenfällig in der Beschreibung der Bühnendekorationen wider, die in den Libretti der
folgenden ausgewählten Opern angegeben sind, und die in ihrer Unterscheidung in eine
9

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
„wilde“ Gegend und dem angelegten Garten durchaus in Beziehung zur zweiteiligen Anlage
des Schwetzinger Parks (englischer – französischer Teil) gebracht werden können 25 :
Il figlio delle selve: Ein Wald, mit Felßen, Höhlen, und Wasser–Quellen
L'isola disabitata: Eine sehr angenehme Gegend einer kleinen unbewohnten Insul in dem Angesicht des Meers,
mit fremden Bäumen, von der Natur gantz besonders geziehret mit wundersamen Höhlen, blühenden
Gebüsch
Il Don Chisciotte: Ein Wald an dem Bug eines Bergs mit Felsen, und der Oeffnung einer gangbahren Höhlen;
ein Spring – Bronnen mit Bäncken umgeben
I Cinesi: Es stellet die Schau–Bühne einige auf den Garten gehende Zimmer [...]
Il filosofo di campagna: Ein Garten
Le nozze d'Arianna: Eine unbewohnte Insul, stellet einen ungeheuren Felßen an dem Meer vor, wo man das
Schiff des Teseus in Bereitschafft siehet sich von dem Ufer zu entfernen. Eine Lachende, angenehme, und
lustige Gegend, mit Weinstöck, zeitigen Trauben, und grünen Reben gezieret, und mit Ebhen auf eine
wundersame Arth umwunden, welches die Reben der Länge nach umschlinget. Man siehet das Meer von
weithem
Leucippo: Der Schau–Platz ist in Arcadien, in einem, dem Liceischen Jupiter geheiligten Wald; und denen daran
stossenden Gegenden. Der äusserliche Vorhoff vom Dianen – Tempel, der mit Cypressen ausgezieret ist. Der
geheiligte Wald, nebst einem grossen Platz in Prospect, worauf des Liceischen Jupiters Altar steht. Ein
offenes Feld, an dem Ufer des Flußes Ladon. Auf einer Seit siehet man, wie dieser Fluß gähling herabfällt,
auf der andern aber eine angenehme Gegend von Lorbeer – Bäumen
Alceste: Tempel des Apollo
La buona figliuola: Ein kostbarer Garten, welcher in der Ferne an den Pallast des Marquis anstosset. Gebüsche.
Angenehme Felder, mit Bäumen und Hügeln
L'isola d'amore: Das Ufer des Meers, festlich gezieret. Ein groser Bogen von Rosen und grünem Laubwerk in
der Mitte. Ein Vorhof auf der einen Seite hinter dem Bogen. Vor dem Bogen auf der andern Seite die
Aussicht eines Tempels mit einem Altar und dem Bildniß der Liebe. Ein kleiner Wald in der Nähe des
Tempels. Ein Tempel mit den Bildnissen des Bachus und der Liebe. In der Mitten ein Altar. Ein Garten. Der
Grund eines tiefen Thals, und in der Ferne Gebürg
Gli stravaganti: Ein Wald
L'amore artigiano: Ein Garten
La contadina in corte: Landschaft mit Obstbäumen. Im Hintergrund ein Hügel. An den Seiten einige
Bauernhäuser. Wäldchen, mit bäuerlichem Brunnen auf einer Seite. Ebenerdiger Saal mit Ausgang zu einem
Garten
L'isola d'Alcina: Ein prächtiger Garten, in dessen Mitte ein Springbronnen
Das Milchmädgen und die beiden Jäger: Das Theater stellet einen dicken Wald vor. Ganz vornen stehet ein
hoher Baum und linker Hand in einiger Entfernung eine alte Hütte
L'amante di tutte: Eine ländliche Gegend, mit einem Schloß, und auf der Seiten ein Bauernhauß
Amor vincitore: Die Szene ist eine lieblichen Landschaft. Grüner Hügel im Hintergrund. Wald auf einer Seite,
Felsen mit bäuerlichem Brunnen auf der anderen (moderne Übersetzung)
L’Endimione: Landschaft mit Bäumen, Grotten und Wasserfällen. Baumumstandene Felsen mit Sicht auf das
Meer im Hintergrund. Wald, mit Gebirge im Hintergrund bei der Höhle des Silvano (moderne Übersetzung)
L’incognita perseguitata: Ein Garten. Ein Feld und Hirtenwohnungen. Hangende Gärten
L'Arcadia conservata: Der Tempel des Apollo, Welcher von Evandern auf dem gähen Abhange des Berges
Palatinus ist erbauet worden. Das Gebäude erhebet sich über dem Eingange zum Orakel, und über dem
heiligen Walde der schattigten Lorberbäume, die dasselbe umgeben (Aufführung am noch erhaltenen
Apollotempel im Schlosspark)
Alceste: Ein mit Urnen und Bildsäulen besetzter Garten, und, in einiger Entfernung ein Theil des königlichen
Palasts auf Dorischen Säulen ruhend
25 Zitiert sind nur die Dekorationen mit Naturbezug. Das ausführliche Schwetzinger Opernrepertoire siehe in:
Hofoper in Schwetzingen, hg. von Silke Leopold und Bärbel Pelker, Heidelberg 2004, S. 87–154. Zitiert
wurde, wenn nicht anders vermerkt aus den deutschen Übersetzungen der Originallibretti. Da die Bühne
durch eine Doppeltür zum Garten hin zu öffnen war, ist darüber hinaus auch die reale Einbeziehung des
Schwetzinger Gartens in eine Opernaufführung (als eine Art realer Prospekt) durchaus denkbar (z.B. La
contadina in corte).
10
V.
229

V.
230
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Zemira e Azor: Bewaldeter Ort zwischen zerklüfteten Felsen im eingefriedeten Zaubergarten des Azor. Links
eine Grotte. Fassade von Azors verwunschenem Palast mit Blick auf einen eleganten, entzückenden Garten.
In der Mitte ein Thron (moderne Übersetzung)
La festa della rosa: Liebliche Landschaft mit einem Gestade im Hintergrund. Bauern an dem
gegenüberliegenden Ufer, die damit beschäftigt sind, die von einem heftigen Gewitter verursachten Schäden
zu reparieren. Hohe Berge im Hintergrund. Das Gestade wird auf der vorderen Seite zur Linken von einer
kleinen Anhöhe beherrscht, die es überragt, und die übrigens nicht so hoch ist wie der andere begehbare
Hügel, der sich auf dem gegenüberliegenden Ufer erhebt (moderne Übersetzung).
Aus kompositorischer Sicht ist der Opernspielplan nirgends sonst in Europa in einer
Sommerresidenz so vielfältig wie in Schwetzingen: Opera buffa, Opéra comique oder
deutsches Singspiel – „das Schwetzinger Repertoire fokussierte die europäische
Operngeschichte wie unter einem Brennglas“ 26 .Während in den 1750er-Jahren die Opern
L’isola disabitata (1754), Il Don Chisciotte (1755), I Cinesi (1756) und Le nozze d'Arianna
(1756) von Ignaz Holzbauer sowie Baldassare Galuppis Erfolgsopern Il filosofo di campagna
(1756) und Le nozze (1757) die Hofgesellschaft unterhielten, war in den folgenden beiden
Jahrzehnten mit Werken von Johann Christian Bach, Egidio Romoaldo Duni, Florian Leopold
Gassmann, Giuseppe Gazzaniga, Christoph Willibald Gluck, François-Joseph Gossec, André
Ernest Modeste Grétry, Pietro Alessandro Guglielmi, Johann Adolf Hasse, Niccolò Jommelli,
Giovanni Paisiello, Niccolò Piccinni oder Antonio Sacchini das musikalische Europa in
Schwetzingen zu Gast. Die Pflege der komischen Oper italienischer und französischer
Provenienz in einer Sommerresidenz, wie sie in Schwetzingen von 1753 bis zu der
Übersiedlung des Hofes nach München im Jahr 1778 umgesetzt wurde, und die 1771 nach der
Verabschiedung der französischen Schauspielertruppe noch intensiviert wurde, indem ab dem
Sommer 1772 beispielsweise bis zu vier unterschiedliche Opern mehrfach in Schwetzingen
gegeben wurden, ist in dieser Kontinuität ebenfalls ein einmaliger Vorgang in der
europäischen Musikgeschichte 27 .
In der Wahl der italienischen komischen Oper – überwiegend von den Komponisten
Galuppi, Piccinni und Sacchini, die zu den berühmtesten und erfolgreichsten in Europa
gehörten – entsprach der Schwetzinger Spielplan dem Zeitgeschmack, in der Mischung mit
französischen und deutschen Opern aber steht er einzigartig da. Zunächst wurden
französische Opern ins Deutsche übersetzt. Den Anfang machte im Sommer 1774 Dunis Das
Milchmädgen und die beiden Jäger. Damit begann Carl Theodors offizielle Stellungnahme
seiner Vorliebe für die deutsche Sprache, die er mit Hilfe dieser Übersetzungen auf die
Opernbühne brachte, bevor dann die ‚echten’ deutschen Opern folgen sollten. Dies geschah
im Jahr 1775 mit der Oper Alceste von Anton Schweitzer (Text: Christoph Martin Wieland),
die zwei Jahre nach ihrer Weimarer Uraufführung am 13. August im Schlosstheater in
Schwetzingen aufgeführt wurde. Mit dieser großen Opernaufführung machte Carl Theodor
unmissverständlich deutlich, dass er die deutsche Sprache als Theatersprache hoffähig
machen wollte, notfalls auch gegen den Willen seiner Gemahlin Elisabeth Augusta. Erste
Sympathien für die deutsche Theatersprache lassen sich bereits für das Jahr 1767 nachweisen,
am 25. Juni 1768 ließ der Kurfürst dann erstmals ein deutsches Schauspiel in der
26
Silke Leopold, „Europa unterm Brennglas. Oper in Schwetzingen zur Zeit Carl Theodors“, in: Hofoper in
Schwetzingen, S. 57; dort ausführliche und grundlegende Interpretation des Schwetzinger Opernrepertoires
im europäischen Kontext, S. 55–70.
27
Detaillierte Aufführungsangaben sowie Nachweise der Libretti und Musikalien, in: Hofoper in Schwetzingen,
S. 87–154, 391–405.
11

V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Sommerresidenz aufführen. Als End- und Höhepunkt dieser Entwicklung ist Ignaz
Holzbauers Oper Günther von Schwarzburg (Text: Anton Klein) zu bezeichnen, die erstmals
eine Episode aus der deutschen Geschichte thematisierte, und die der Komponist auf
kurfürstlichen Befehl 1776 vollendete – wiederum in Schwetzingen. Mit dieser Oper
profilierte sich der kurpfälzische Hof, wenn auch wegen der Übersiedlung nach München im
Jahr 1778 nur für kurze Zeit, endgültig als Stätte der deutschen Reformoper – eine
Entwicklung, die auf der höfischen Experimentierbühne in Schwetzingen begonnen hatte.
Die beiden letzten Opern, La festa della rosa und Zemira e Azor, Übersetzungen zweier
französischer Opern Grétrys ins Italienische, die 1776 in Schwetzingen aufgeführt wurden,
bestätigen sowohl nochmals die einzigartige Vielfalt des Opernrepertoires als auch Carl
Theodors Interesse, europäische Operntraditionen auf der Schwetzinger Bühne wie unter
einem Brennglas zu bündeln und zu verschmelzen.
Das Erbe der kurpfälzischen Hofmusik
Als sichtbare Zeugnisse dieser vergangenen bedeutenden Epoche der europäischen
Musikgeschichte sind die Kompositionen der kurpfälzischen Hofmusiker zu nennen, die heute
in nahezu allen bedeutenden Musikbibliotheken zu finden sind (umfangreiche Sammlungen
z.B. in: Paris, London, Brüssel, Berlin, München, Washington). Die weltweit umfangreichste
Sammlung mit über 6000 Kompositionen verwahrt allerdings die Forschungsstelle
Südwestdeutsche Hofmusik der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, die derzeit noch
in Heidelberg angesiedelt ist, aber zeitnah in die ehemalige Sommerresidenz des Kurfürsten
nach Schwetzingen umziehen wird. Dass sich das kompositorische Œuvre der Hofkapelle
überhaupt noch in diesem repräsentativen Umfang rekonstruieren und durch Konzerte daher
auch wiederbelebbar machen lässt, ist nicht zuletzt dem Ruhm dieser Hofkapelle geschuldet,
der sich vor allem in den Siebzigerjahren des 18. Jahrhunderts endgültig in ganz Europa
verbreitet hatte. Entsprechend groß war die Nachfrage nach den Werken der Hofmusiker.
Neben den hauptamtlich angestellten Kopisten, die die zahlreichen Bestellungen
handschriftlicher Werke zu erfüllen hatten, sicherten sich ausländische und deutsche Verleger
die Druckprivilegien an neuen Musikalien 28 und trugen somit zum Erhalt des
kompositorischen Erbes bei.
Neben diesen sichtbaren Zeugnissen besteht das Vermächtnis der Kurpfälzer auch in der
Vorgabe musikalischer Errungenschaften, die sich auf die Spielkultur und Spieltechnik, also
auf den Musik ausübenden Bereich, auswirkten. An ihrer Verbreitung über ganz Europa
hatten neben den Ministern, Gesandten und Agenten 29 sowie den zahlreichen auswärtigen
28 Führende Verleger: De LaChevardière, Sieber, Venier, Huberty, Le Clerc, Bailleux, Bureau d’abonnement de
musique, Boüin und Bérault in Paris; Hummel in Amsterdam sowie Bremner, Welcker, Walsh, Longman and
Broderip in London; vgl. dazu u.a.: Cari Johansson, French Music Publisher‘s Catalogues of the Second Half
of the Eighteenth Century (= Publications of the Library of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music 2),
Stockholm 1955; dies., J. J. & B. Hummel. Music-Publishing and Thematic Catalogues (= Publications of
the Library of the Royal Swedish Academy of Music 3), 2 Bde., Stockholm 1972.
Ab 1773 verlegte Johann Michael Götz Werke der Hofmusiker in der Residenzstadt Mannheim, vgl. Hans
Schneider, Der Musikverleger Johann Michael Götz (1740–1810), 2 Bde., Tutzing 1989.
29 Kurpfälzische Minister und Bedienstete weilten an allen wichtigen Höfen und Orten in Europa: in
Amsterdam, Augsburg, Berlin, Brüssel, Colmar, Den Haag, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Kleve, Köln, London,
Loreto, Lüttich, Mailand, Mainz, München, Neapel, Paris, Regensburg, Rom, Straßburg, Trier, Venedig,
Wetzlar und Wien. Durch auswärtige Gesandte waren langjährig vor allem folgende Höfe in der Kurpfalz
vertreten: Ansbach, Berlin, Dresden, München, Paris, Rom und Wien. Die Gesandten berichteten ihren
Höfen über die neuesten Ereignisse zwei- bis dreimal die Woche, je nach Brisanz auch in kodierter Form.
12
V.
231

V.
232
V. Report on the Music Historical Importance: Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Besuchern, die das „musikalische Athen der Deutschen“ 30 auf den im Zeitalter der Aufklärung
so wichtigen Bildungsreisen kennenlernen wollten, vor allem die Hofmusiker selbst einen
ganz wesentlichen Anteil, da sie ihre Kunstfertigkeit auf ihren Auslandsgastspielen, die sie
vorzugsweise nach London, Paris und Italien führten, vor dem dortigen Publikum erfolgreich
unter Beweis stellten und dadurch immer auch als Botschafter kurpfälzischer Musik
fungierten. Zur Verbreitung der kurpfälzischen Musiktradition trugen schließlich auch
diejenigen Musiker bei, die in auswärtige Dienste gingen. Zu nennen sind beispielsweise
Wilhelm Cramer (Orchesterleiter in London), Franz Eck (Sologeiger und Direktor der
Hofkonzerte am Zarenhof in St. Petersburg), Franz Xaver Richter (Domkapellmeister in
Straßburg), Franz Tausch (Klarinettist in der Hofkapelle König Friedrich Wilhelms III. in
Berlin, gründete dort das Institut für Blasinstrumente) oder Georg Joseph Vogler (Kgl.
schwedischer Kapellmeister in Stockholm). Durch ihre, für uns heute so selbstverständlichen
Errungenschaften – wie zum Beispiel Präzision des Zusammenspiels, Einführung des
einheitlichen Bogenstriches oder die Neuerungen zur tonlichen und spieltechnischen
Verbesserung der Instrumente 31 – haben die Hofmusiker des Kurfürsten Carl Theodor
maßgeblich an der Verbesserung der Orchester- und Spielkultur europaweit mitgewirkt.
Heidelberg, den 30. November 2009
Dr. Bärbel Pelker
Forschungsstelle Südwestdeutsche Hofmusik
der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften
30 Schubart, Deutsche Chronik, 53. Stück, 29. 9. 1774, S. 423.
31 So ist die Steigerung der spieltechnischen Virtuosität der Geiger, die sich in den Solokonzerten am
augenfälligsten nachweisen lässt, ohne die Weiterentwicklung des Streichbogens undenkbar. Der
entscheidende Umschwung in der Bogenherstellung, der sich um 1760 vollzog, ist mit dem Namen des
kurpfälzischen Violinisten Wilhelm Cramer verbunden. Aus dem sog. „Cramer-Bogen“, in dem die
wichtigsten Merkmale des modernen Streichbogens bereits angelegt waren, entwickelten die Mitglieder der
Familie Tourte in Paris ab ca. 1780 das bis heute gültige Bogenmodell (Thomas Drescher: Art.
„Streichinstrumentenbau“, in: Ludwig Finscher [Hg.]: Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, 2. neu bearb.
Ausg., Sachteil, 8. Bd., Kassel 1998, Sp. 1883).
13

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens
as a whole
Schwetzingen Gardens
Veneration of the Memory and Symbol of the
Rule of the Palatine Electoral Family
I. Whatever form architecture may take,
it contains a shape to satisfy the technical
requirements expected of it, but, in addition to
that, it also offers a “reflection of the thinking
of the society responsible for its creation” 1 .
As of the sixteenth-century at the latest, the
semiotisation of architecture changed, given
the consciousness that the world was in a state
of upheaval. Interior design opened itself up to
the construction of political spaces, allowing it
to discover traditions and the representation
of power. The conquest of space in towns
was followed by the spread of the creation of
political spaces into the countryside, too. This
happened synchronously and on the same scale
to begin with, but later on became more and
more the predominant element. 2 This process
was full of tension, insofar as landscape and
garden design no longer derived its importance
solely from the function of representation and as
a repository for knowledge but also from being
the space into which utopian, cosmopolitan and
identity designs were projected – a function
which gardens always possess latently anyway.
In an awareness of discontinuities, the models
of garden spaces were used to reflect the
threat to memory and identity since the time
of the Renaissance, and especially so in the
eighteenth-century. The character of landscape
design and the perception of it as a storehouse
of knowledge and as the scene for a political
display underwent a change induced by
the constraint of time, which is tied in with
successive acts of passing through it and
contemplating it. The image of the maze, which
depicts life’s path as one of trial and error, on
the one hand, and as the correctly chosen path
leading to the acquisition of knowledge and
1 Wolfram Martini: Introduction. In: Architektur der Erinnerung.
Edited by Wolfram Martini. (SFB 434 Erinnerungskulturen,
Giessen University; Formen der Erinnerung, vol. 1, p. 9
2 Cf. Martin Warnke: Politische Landschaft. Zur Kunstgeschichte
der Natur. Munich 1992
virtue, on the other hand, is complemented by
the path of initiation, which the “apprentice of
superior wisdom” might manage to take with the
guidance of a visible or invisible “mystagogue”
in order to arrive at secret knowledge. The
tension between overt and covert political
display and arcane determination of the
meaning of a natural or divine order used to
mould the character of man-made landscapes as
memorial spaces up until the beginning of the
industrial age. Considering the point of view of
imagination and memory, which are rendered
tangible in garden and landscape spaces, the
artistic design of natural space progressed
from a generally marginal position amongst
the arts to one having the same value as the
others and even to one acting as a model for
the others. 3 The gardens of the seventeenth and
eighteenth-centuries can be explained in the
context of forces pulling in different directions,
such as reformation thinking, philosophy and
the formation of various political camps in
Europe, which is symbolically reflected in the
artistic layout and technical equipment of the
“garden considered as a holistic work of art”.
The construction of a Roman/antique and a
Nordic national identity led to a recoding of the
old building styles of Palladianism and Gothic
in garden art. 4 Starting in the first third of the
eighteenth-century in gardens in Britain and
in those in the northern and central parts of
Germany, gardens became increasingly identified
with Teutonic freedom, which was once again
hailed under the house of Hanover, whereas the
Second Palladian Revival by Burlington and his
circle was also used for the assertion of dynastic
continuity, such as between Elizabeth Stuart,
3 Cf. for example John Dixon Hunt: „Ut Pictura Poesis“: The
Garden and the Picturesque in England (1710-1750). In:
Monique Mosser, Georges Teyssot (ed.): The Architecture of
Western Gardens. Cambridge, Mass. 1991, pp. 231-242; Günther
Oesterle, Harald Tausch (ed.): Der imaginierte Garten. (Formen
der Erinnerung, vol. 9). Göttingen 2001; Richard Saage,
Eva-Maria Seng (ed.): Von der Geometrie zur Naturalisierung.
Utopisches Denken im 18. Jahrhundert zwischen literarischer
Fiktion und frühneuzeitlicher Gartenkunst (Hallesche Beiträge
zur Europäischen Aufklärung, vol. 10). Tübingen 1999. Michael
Niedermeier: Erinnerungslandschaft und Geheimwissen:
Inszenierte Memoria und politische Symbolik in der deutschen
Literatur und den anderen Künsten (1650-1850). Postdoctoral
thesis at TU Berlin 2007, pp. 6-18
4 G.B. Clarke: Ancient Taste and Gothic Virtue. Lord Cobham’s
Gardening Programme and its Iconography. In: Apollo 97,
1973, pp. 566-71
VI.
233

VI.
234
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
the daughter of James I and wife of the “winter
king”, Prince Elector Friedrich V of the Palatinate
(Hortus Palatinus, Heidelberg), and the
Hanoverian line, which enjoyed the support of
the Whigs: “Architecture as political propaganda
was on the agenda from the very start of the
eighteenth-century”. 5 It was the intention that
citations in the form of motifs of arcane and
esoteric paths to initiation would make the true
knowledge of moral and ruling virtues attainable
to those traversing the symbolic planes of
time, world and existence (progressing from
ancient mysteries and concepts of morphology).
Across all denominational, political and cultural
boundaries, they were a commonly available
system of codes and explanations, which were
able to make tangible the tension between this
world and the underworld, between origin, the
passing of time and permanence, through the
foreboding shivers of those moving through the
garden space.
Schwetzingen Gardens appear as the most
prominent memorial site and the most
significant monument to the memory of the
sovereign territory of the Electorate of the
Palatinate, and Prince Elector Carl Theodor set
out to use these gardens to combine his life’s
design and the genealogical one of his dynasty
and to place it in a specific topographic and
geographic metaphorisation, along with a
comprehensive theological, philosophical and
cosmological metaphorisation too. In that way,
his design for ruling over the Electorate of
the Palatinate was to remain inscribed in the
memory of the landscape way beyond his own
death and was to ensure a lasting memory of
him in the lofty form of an artistically designed
landscape monument.
As things turned out, it was thus not the famous
“Hortus Palatinus”, which Salomon de Caus
(1576-1626) had laid out in Heidelberg for
Friedrich V (1596-1633, ruled 1610-1620), the
Protestant “winter king“, which the Catholic
Prince Elector took as his focus in arranging
his landscape. The formal Heidelberg gardens,
5 Stephen Curl: Symbolism in Eighteenth-Century Gardens:
Some Observations. In: Symbolism in 18th-century gardens,
pp. 25-68
which had been spectacularly designed in terms
of layout and iconography, had been inspired
by the idea of a divine universal harmony,
expressed in the architectural implementation
of complex Euclidic, Pythagorean and Platonian
combinations of numbers, in the use of the
most modern mechanical fountains available
at the time, capable of generating musical
notes, and much more. It is true that the Prince
Elector had cherished plans to reconstruct
Heidelberg as a subsidiary residence, but he
abandoned all projects for moving back into
that palace and resuscitating its gardens after
even more damage was caused by lightning
in 1764. 6 The programme for the Heidelberg
gardens was never completed. It was one which
can be explained by the soul’s perambulation
though various forms of existence (represented
allegorically by different sections of garden, such
as mazes, bosquets and parterres), which also
contain references to astrology and the mysteries
of divine love, 7 and which would thus have been
suitable for juxtaposition with Carl Theodor’s
Enlightenment thinking. 8
Schwetzingen’s artistic design is outstanding,
particularly because the dynastic, political,
religious, ideological and personal views of the
Prince Elector were inscribed in it at a period of
time in which the Palatinate and Bavaria had,
once again, become the lynchpins in the struggle
for political power in the Old Empire and,
indeed, in the whole of Europe. It is particularly
important to consider the background of the
War of Bavarian Succession and the attempts
by Carl Theodor and the Austrian Emperor
Joseph II to exchange Bavaria for the Austrian
Netherlands (Belgium) to be able understand
6 Starck 1898, p. 4: Quoted in translation from: Sigrid Gensichen:
Die Quellen zum Heidelberger Schlossgarten 1614 bis 1945:
Hortus Palatinus, Landschaftsgarten mit Lehrfunktion, Waldpark
und Teilrekonstruktion des Hortus Palatinus. Dossenheim
2009, section 2.3.2
7 Richard Patterson: The ‘Hortus Palatinus’ at Heidelberg and
the Reformation of the World. In: Journal of Garden History
1/1 (January-March), pp. 67-104; 1/2 (April-June), pp. 179-200;
Luke Morgan: Nature as model: Salomon de Caus and early
seventeenth-century landscape design [Hortus Palatinus u. a.].
Philadelphia, PA 2007
8 The garden and palace of Friedrich V, the unlucky “winter
king”, who was married to the oldest daughter of James I/IV
(1566-1625), King of England, Scotland and Ireland, who had
tried to position the Palatinate as the leading Protestant power
in the Empire and in so doing had triggered the war that was
devastating for Europe, might have been the starting point for
Carl Theodor as far as his own rule was concerned.

the significance of Schwetzingen Gardens as a
“unique monument to the Electoral Palatinate”
(Nicolas de Pigage) 9 .
The gardens of rulers and top-ranking noble
families in the Empire at that time (such
as Sanssouci, Hohenzieritz, Wörlitz, Neuer
Garten (Potsdam), Hohenheim, Gotha, Weimar,
Schönbrunn, Laxenburg, Franzensburg and
others) took on a key function in these long
drawn-out political disputes as memorial
landscapes bestowing identity, in which
genealogical and dynastic, political and patriotic,
natural-science and allegorical, exotic and
universalistic as well as antique and mystical
strategies of argumentation were rooted in the
landscape to impart a meaning and provide
evidence. 10
9 Protocollum commissionale (1795): “Having felt it necessary,
despite his advancing years, to express a view, Mr von Pigage
reminded those assembled in an impeccable presentation that
a very considerable sum of money would be required to do
no more than maintain the Palace Gardens in their entirety
as a monument to the Electoral Palatinate and that it would,
however, be unseemly to apply for money to expand the
gardens given the current state of finances, and that only at
some time in the future, in different circumstances and with
fuller coffers,…“ (author’s emphasis).
10 Cf. in particular: Adrian von Buttlar: Der englische Landsitz
1715-1760. Symbol eines liberalen Weltentwurfs. Mittenwald
1982; Adrian von Buttlar: Der Landschaftsgarten. Gartenkunst
des Klassizismus und der Romantik. Munich 1980. 2nd edition
Cologne 1989; Bernard Korzus: Neugotik im Alten Reich. Zum
Architekturhistorismus in deutschen Landschaftsgärten des
18. Jahrhunderts (1996). In: Bagno – Neugotik – Le Rouge.
Nachgelassene Beiträge zur europäischen Gartenforschung
von Bernard Korzus. Mitteilungen der Pückler-Gesellschaft. Ed.
Sybille Backmann, Elfriede Korzus, Michael Niedermeier. 23.
vol. – new series – 2008, pp. 27-62; John Harris, Bernard Korzus:
Das Englische bei Jussow. In: Heinrich Christoph Jussow, 1754-
1825. Ein hessischer Architekt des Klassizismus. [exhibition
catalogue]. Edited by Hans Ottomeyer. Worms 1999, pp. 53-65;
Michael Niedermeier: “Die ganze Erde wird zu einem Garten”:
Gedächtniskonstruktionen im frühen deutschen Landschaftsgarten
zwischen Aufklärung und Geheimnis. In: Im Auftrage
der Stiftung Weimarer Klassik edited by Georg Bollenbeck
(et.al.): Weimar. Archäologie eines Ortes. Weimar 2001, pp.
120-175. Idem: Germanen in Gärten. “Altdeutsche Heldengräber”,
“gotische” Denkmäler und die patriotische Gedächtniskultur.
In: Jost Hermand, Michael Niedermeier: Revolutio Germanica.
Die Sehnsucht nach der alten Freiheit der Germanen 1750-1820.
Frankfurt am Main 2002, pp. 21-116; Annette Dorgerloh, Michael
Niedermeier: Pyramiden im frühen Landschaftsgarten. In: Pegasus.
Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike. vol. 7, 2005, pp.
133-161. Idem: Im Gartenland der Göttin Venus. Dessau-Wörlitz
zwischen Aufklärung, Politik und erotisch-kosmologischer Weltanschauung.
In: „Schauplatz vernünftiger Menschen“ – Kultur
und Geschichte in Anhalt-Dessau. Catalogue edited by Hans
Wilderotter. Dessau 2006, pp. 157-192. Klassizismus – Gotik.
Karl Friedrich Schinkel und die patriotische Baukunst. Edited by
Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier and Horst Bredekamp
with the participation of Axel Klausmeier. Munich 2007. Annette
Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier: Helden, Hirten und gefälschte
Götter – Anciennitätskonzepte in herrschaftlichen Gärten des
18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. In. Preussische Gärten in Europa. 300
Jahre Gartengeschichte. Edited by Stiftung Preussische Schlösser
und Gärten in cooperation with ICOMOS-IFLA. Leipzig 2007,
pp. 162-165. Michael Niedermeier: “So vermähle sich die
germanische und slawische Welt”. Archäologie, Genealogie und
Landschaftsgestaltung in Brandenburg und Mecklenburg. In:
Die Gartenkunst 1/2009, pp. 37-50.
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
It is impossible to understand the reasons why
Schwetzingen did become the pre-eminent
monument of the Electoral Palatinate and the
memory-prompting legacy of the Prince Elector
beyond his death without also understanding
Carl Theodor’s complicated path to power and
his attempts to maintain it once he had it.
II. Carl (Philipp) Theodor (1724-1799), to whom
Schwetzingen owes its predominant position
as an extensive summer seat and top-ranking
work of garden art, assumed the title of Elector
of the Palatinate (Palsgrave on the Rhine) as
Karl IV on 31 December 1742. It was most
certainly a surprise when, thirty years later, he
also inherited the large Electorate of Bavaria.
Through this quirk of fate, Carl Theodor
extended his political and cultural influence at
the end of the eighteenth-century to the whole
of the southern part of Germany and advanced
to ruling over the third-largest territory in
the whole of the Empire, smaller only than
that of the houses of Habsburg and Prussia.
Furthermore, he endeavoured to secure his
position and his dynasty beyond his death in
midst of the conflict potential between the major
European powers: Britain, France and Russia.
In terms of family genealogy, it had been most
unlikely in the beginning that Carl Theodor
would ever become heir to the throne. Carl
Theodor was born into the collateral family line
of the Duke of Pfalz-Sulzbach, which would only
have been able to provide the Prince Elector
Palatine in the event of the extinction of the
principal line, that of Pfalz-Neuburg. The Prince
Elector Palatine Karl III Philipp (1661-1742) 11
from the dominant Pfalz-Neuburg line was
an eager promoter of the counter-reformatory
Jesuits and had attempted through union and
inheritance treaties with the other rulers to
maintain and strengthen the whole of the
Wittelsbach legacy. However, his marriage to
Luise Charlotte von Radziwiłł (1667-1695) from
the highest Lithuanian-Polish nobility resulted in
11 He had actually been brought up to join the priesthood and
was already canon of Cologne at the age of 14. Following the
death of his elder brother in 1716 it was not until 1718 that he
settled reluctantly in Heidelberg, where he found himself in
conflict with the Protestant population. That prompted him to
transfer his residence from Heidelberg to Mannheim.
VI.
235

VI.
236
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
only one daughter eligible for marriage, namely
Elisabeth Auguste Sofie (1693-1728). So, in the
course of time, the end of the Pfalz-Neuburg
line appeared more and more likely, since
none of the Prince Elector’s eight brothers had
produced a male heir either. In that situation,
Prince Elector Karl III tried, by marrying
his only daughter to survive to adulthood to
Palgrave Joseph Karl of Pfalz-Sulzbach (1694-
1729), to maintain the succession by bringing
the two lines together. With the early death of
the young couple and with their three sons all
dying while still babies, the right to inherit the
title passed first of all to Joseph Karl’s brother,
Johann Christian Joseph (1700-1733), and, after
his death to his son, Carl Theodor, who was still
a minor. Carl Theodor’s distant uncle, Karl III
Philipp, had his orphaned ten-year-old successor,
Carl Theodor, who up until then had been living
under the tutelage of his great-grandmother in
Brussels, brought to the Palatinate, where he was
placed under the strict educational supervision
and teaching of the Jesuits. When Carl Theodor
finally became Elector of the Palatinate in
1743 it meant the fulfilment of the apparently
impracticable wish that the whole line of dukes
of Pfalz-Sulzbach had long cherished of one day
ascending to a higher rank in the Empire.
When, 35 years later, the Electorate of Bavaria
suddenly fell to Carl Theodor too (and he
changed his title to Karl II of Bavaria as well),
the family concord, which he had concluded
with Maximilian III Joseph of Bavaria in 1766,
took effect. In it, they had agreed that Bavaria
and the Palatinate were to become a single,
indivisible realm. In the 1770s, the question of
the Bavarian or Palatine succession had become
the dominant issue in the Empire in the context
of the disputes over the predominance of Austria
and Prussia. The powers’ European allies took
a keen interest in this constellation too, and it
was observed and debated throughout the whole
continent from Russia to France. 12
In this situation, the Habsburg Emperor, Joseph
II, tried to offset the territorial losses suffered
12 Cf. for a summary: Karl Otmar von Aretin: Das Reich und der
österreichisch-preussische Dualismus (1745-1806; Das Alte
Reich 1648-1806, vol. 3). 4th edition, Munich 1997, esp. pp.
183-203, here p. 183.
to Prussia in Silesia by making claims on
Bavaria and the Upper Palatinate, as a means of
effectively countering Prussia’s influence and of
pre-empting the emergence of a further major
power on German territory. The upshot of this
was the War of Bavarian succession with Prussia
in 1778-79. In the end, the Emperor managed
to persuade Prince Elector Carl Theodor to pay
a very considerable sum of money and to cede
Anterior Austria (Freiburg and Konstanz) to the
Habsburgs and also Lower Bavaria and parts of
the Upper Palatinate. All of this meant that Carl
Theodor (who as a result was very unpopular
in Bavaria) was forced to give in to the pressure
and move away from his residence in Mannheim
(and Schwetzingen, which had advanced into a
centre of culture) to Munich and Nymphenburg.
Despite that, Carl Theodor secretly pursued the
idea of exchanging lands, as had been expressly
allowed for in article 14 of the 1774 treaty with
Maximilian III, namely of exchanging Bavaria
for the Austrian Netherlands, as had been
under discussion since the time of Maximilian
Emanuel (1662-1726). 13
Carl Theodor wanted to join together his
electoral lands and his duchies of Jülich and Berg
in the Lower Rhineland plus the Kingdom of the
Netherlands (which was not part of the Empire)
to create a Kingdom of Burgundy, which he
deliberately conceived of in the tradition of
Charles the Bold’s Duchy of Burgundy, which
had seen its demise in 1477. Having been born
near Brussels, he had only reached the age of
three before he inherited his first land, the
Marquisat of Bergen-op-Zoom, from his mother.
There were strong genealogic roots leading back
to there. 14
The marriage between Carl Theodor and his
cousin, Elisabeth Auguste, (which had been
concluded solely for dynastic reasons) was
characterised by infidelity and reciprocal
distrust. The ambitious and domineering
Electress had various affairs, including with her
brother-in-law, Palsgrave Friedrich Michael of
13 Op. cit.
14 Cf. Jörg Engelbrecht: Carl Theodor und die “Niederen Lande”.
In: Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit, Kurfürst Carl Theodor (1724-
1799) zwischen Barock und Aufklärung; manual and exhibition
catalogue edited by Alfried Wieczorek. 2 vols. Regensburg
1999, vol. 1, p. 195

Pfalz-Zweibrücken, the Palatinate’s general-enchef
and governor of Mannheim, whose family
stood in the way of Carl Theodor’s political plans
on account of the internal concords between the
various Wittelsbach family lines.
After nineteen years of marriage with no
offspring, a legitimate pregnancy happened
as if by a miracle. The son, who was born in
Schwetzingen Palace on 28 June 1761, died
shortly after birth, however. That was definitely
the end of any hope of legitimate heirs. Carl
Theodor now completely changed direction
and he, in turn, took mistresses, while his
wife withdrew more and more to Oggersheim
Palace. On Christmas Eve in 1769, the Prince
Elector’s mistress, Maria Josepha Seiffert (3
or 4 September 1747 – 27 November 1771),
a former dancer in the electoral court ballet,
bore him a son, Karl August (24 December
1769 – 27 February 1823). Carl Theodor had
already elevated his mistress to the nobility
in 1767, using the name of an extinct family
(“von Heydeck”). Even before their son was
born, he had further promoted her to the rank
of countess on 3 September 1769. She bore
the Prince Elector a total of four children, and
Carl Theodor legitimised all of them, using
his privileges and freedoms. 15 The Prince
Elector now concentrated all his hope on
the development of this son. Carl Theodor
bestowed various offices on him, including that
of his representative in Jülich-Berg, the Upper
Palatinate and the Electorate of the Palatinate in
1778, having already granted him the fiefdom
of Bretzenheim and other lands in 1773. At the
end of 1789, he procured the title of Imperial
Prince of Bretzenheim and Winzenheim for him
by purchasing an enfeoffment with imperial
immediacy. Through these steps, Karl August
ascended to the highest rank of nobility in
the Empire, making him clearly eligible to
be considered as Carl Theodor’s successor. In
1781, Carl Theodor gave his son a house in
Schwetzingen, which he had acquired from
the heirs of the court architect, Franz Wilhelm
15 Günther Ebersold: Karl August Reichsfürst von Bretzenheim.
Die politische Biographie eines Unpolitischen. Norderstedt
2004, p. 29
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Rabaliatti. In 1789, the Prince Elector then had
another property in Schwetzingen purchased for
his son, the “Maiers’ house” and had it converted
to a prestigious standard. 16
As the European powers tried to assert
themselves, the Prince Elector managed to
secure papal protection and goodwill for himself
and persuaded the Pope to appoint his son to
the rank of a knight of the Bavarian “Langue of
the Order of St. John” and to elevate him later
to its grand prior. The order of St. John (or the
Order of the Knights of Malta), through which
Carl Theodor tried to win the Palatine-Bavarian
nobility over to his side, moved into the position
previously occupied by the Jesuit Order, which
Pope Clemens XIV dissolved in 1773. Carl
Theodor, who had been brought up by Jesuits
and advised by them and who even referred to
himself while on his death bed as a “good Jesuit
all through life” 17 , did not intervene when the
Jesuit Order was disbanded. He did, however,
provide pensions and court offices for several
of his Jesuit confidants. In 1782, he managed
to persuade the Papal See to grant the Jesuit
assets that had been confiscated throughout
his territories to the Bavarian “Langue of
the Order of St. John”. He even succeeded in
getting the head of the Catholic church to grant
exceptional permission for the order’s highest
officer, i.e. his son as grand prior, to marry
and thus to continue the dynasty. 18 The Prince
Elector repeatedly tried to exchange lands
with the Emperor so that he would be able to
leave a grand principality to his son. He also
prepared for the possible failure of this plan
and attempted to protect his natural son beyond
his death from the unloved Pfalz-Zweibrücken
line of the family by appointing him to various
offices and by assigning inheritance rights to
him.
III. Schwetzingen Gardens acquired their
position as a unique “monument to Palatine
16 Rudolf Haas: Das Palais Bretzenheim in Mannheim A2 und
seine Geschichte. 2nd edition Mannheim 1975, pp. 7ff
17 Karl Weich SJ: Jesuiten am Hof Carl Theodors. In: Lebenslust
und Frömmigkeit, vil. 1, p. 153
18 Günther Ebersold: Karl August Reichsfürst von Bretzenheim.
Die politische Biographie eines Unpolitischen. Norderstedt
2004, p. 52
VI.
237

VI.
238
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
history” thanks to the repossession of the old
seat, which, according to tradition, had stood
“even before 1350” and had without doubt been
strengthened and expanded into a fortress with
moats and drawbridges during the reign of
Friedrich the Victorious (1425-1476). The guides
to Schwetzingen Gardens repeatedly make the
point that historically significant dates refer
to early history. Inscriptions found on spoils
include, for instance, references to Ludwig the
Pacific (1478-1544), who ruled over the land
for 36 years (“PFALTz GR. LUDWIG. CHURD.
1541”). 19 Despite various plans to replace the old
and not particularly prestigious building with
a new one, Schwetzingen Palace maintained
its original shape, obviously in deference to its
ancient origin. By contrast, the planned gardens
were given a far-reaching new programmatic
design. It was the extremely demanding gardens
and their buildings that now commanded the
attention of the Prince Elector, his architects and
his gardeners.
One of the major considerations in choosing
Schwetzingen as the location for the summer
residence, as the place for the Elector of the
Palatinate’s self-veneration, was surely the
knowledge of the region’s earlier history. A
handwritten register known as the “Codex
Laureshamensis” (or “Lorscher Codex”), which
had been compiled between 1167 and 1190,
includes the deed whereby Charlemagne handed
Suezzingen (as it was then called) over as a gift,
although the actual wording speaks of “Villa que
dictur in Sozinga”. 20 One of the most important
episodes in the early history of the place of the
summer residence was the victory of Friedrich
I the Victorious (1425-1476) in the battle of
the “lowlands by Schwetzingen”, 21 which led to
a strengthening of the Palatinate – a position
it defended successfully against its enemies
after 1465, thanks to its alliance with Charles
the Bold of Burgundy. In addition to that, the
axial relationships within the garden and the
lines of vision from the minaret, the temple of
19 Gartendirektor Zeyher und J.G. Rieger: Schwetzingen und seine
Garden-Anlagen. Mannheim o.J. [c. 1820], p. 169
20 Beschreibung der Gartenanlagen zu Schwetzingen. Published
by Garden Director Zeyher and G. Roemer. New extended
edition Mannheim o.J. [1809?], p. 2
21 Op. cit., p. 45
Mercury and the “ruin of a Roman viaduct” all
clearly point to the palatine residence towns of
Mannheim und Heidelberg. Huge allegorical
figures of the rivers Rhine and Danube were
erected by the large pond, while another two
similar allegorical figures of the Meuse and
Moselle had been planned but were never
executed. These rivers would have been on
the territory of the Kingdom of Burgundy, on
which the Prince Elector had set his sights. 22
The statues representing rivers were intended to
illustrate the territory actually ruled over by the
Prince Elector and the territory he was hoping
to possess. The so-called “Perspektiv” (diorama),
which is one of Schwetzingen’s unmistakable
highlights, was conceived in a similar vein. It is
a landscape painting with a three-dimensional
effect based on a model by the court painter,
Ferdinand Kobell, and reminiscent of the
illusionist painting found in Jesuit churches. It
obviously also took up the motif of a memorial
to the Electoral Palatinate. The bathhouse, which
was very probably intended to be a reminder
of the idea of a Roman bath, one of which had
recently been discovered during excavations
near Schwetzingen and placed under protection
by the Prince Elector, 23 had just one resident,
Carl Theodor himself, who lived in his own
exotic interior, completely cut off from the
outside world of the gardens. It was possible to
steer the illusionary long-distance view either to
one of an imagined future or one of a perceived
past. It is clear that the model that Kobell had in
mind for the picture was the confluence of the
rivers Rhine and Neckar near Mannheim, but
with a paradisiacal landscape free of buildings. 24
However, the significance of early history for
the choice of location and the design of the
gardens goes much further still. It was clear that
Schwetzingen Gardens were a reaction to early
history, and it must be considered as certain
that it was the Prince Elector’s familiar advisors,
the learned Jesuits, who drew his attention to
the significance of early history and prehistory.
22 Op. cit., p. 123
23 Casimir Häffelin: Dissertatio de Balneo Romano in agro
Lupodunensi reperto. Acta Academiae Theodoro-Palatinae III.
[Mannheim 1775], pp. 213-227
24 Ralf Richard Wagner, by word of mouth

On 29 August 1749, the Prince Elector issued
a decree whereby all public offices were
required to report on any “antiquities and other
monuments” found in the Rhine regions and to
send these to “his Highness the Prince Elector
in person”. In doing that, the Prince Elector
was acting in accordance with a development
amongst the families of princely rulers
throughout Europe in collecting archaeological
finds made on their lands and presenting them
as monuments of their own heroic past. 25 It was
only about this time that rulers began to include
local finds in their own representative gardens
(such as Ledreborg and Jägerspreis in Denmark
and Stourhead in Great Britain), and Prince
Elector Carl Theodor was thus at the forefront
of contemporary garden-art development in this
respect in Germany. 26
During levelling work on the land in the region
of the southern bosquet, a burial ground was
discovered in 1765, including weapons and other
finds, and was subsequently excavated in the
presence of the Prince Elector himself. 27 In 1777,
the theologian and historian, Casimir Haeffelin
(1737-1827), who had studied under the Jesuits,
explained the excavations as the necropolis
belonging to a Roman settlement, whereas the
Prince Elector’s assumption was that it had to be
the site of a battle fought by the ancient Romans,
with the mortal remains of the victors and the
vanquished lying side-by-side. Carl Theodor had
the archaeological finds incorporated in situ into
the gardens and had them designed to act as
prominent starting points for the large southern
bosquet. In 1768 and 1771, Peter Anton von
Verschaffelt created two classical monuments
25 Cf. Claudia Braun: Kurfürst Carl Theodor als Denkmalpfleger.
In: Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit, vol. 1, pp. 347-352, here p. 347
26 Cf. Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier: Helden, Hirten
und gefälschte Götter – Anciennitätskonzepte in herrschaftlichen
Gärten des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts; Idem: Wodan und
Svantevit oder von Lethra bis Rethra. Germanische und slawische
Vorzeit in herrschaftlich-patriotischen Gartenprogrammen
Dänemarks, Mecklenburgs, Brandenburgs und Polens. In: Vom
höfischen Garten zum öffentlichen Grün. Gartenkunstgeschichte
und Gartendenkmalpflege in Deutschland und Polen. Edited
by Gabriele Horn (forthcoming); Michael Niedermeier: Anthyrius
– Odin – Radegast. Die gefälschten mecklenburgischen
Bodendenkmäler und inszenierte Herrscherabstammungen im
“englischen” Garten. In: Vorwelten und Vorzeiten. Archäologie
als Spiegel historischen Bewusstseins in der Frühen Neuzeit.
Edited byDietrich Hakelberg, Ingo Wiwjorra. (Herzog-August-
Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel) 2009 (in press).
27 Peter Fuchs: Palatinatus illustratus – Die Historische Forschung
an der kurpfälzischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mannheim 1963, p. 156
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
with Latin inscriptions. Opposite the “memorial
to the gardens” praising the Prince Elector’s
peaceful activity in creating the gardens as a
monument and tribute to Nature, the great
mother of all things (“Magna rerum mater
Natura”), there stands the “warriors’ monument”
recalling the archaeological finds: “Martis et
Mortis|Romanor. ac Teutonum (…).” (“The field
of battle and the death of the Romans and
Germans were discovered through the weapons,
urns, bones and instruments found in 1765.”)
The rear of the warriors’ monument bears the
inscription in which the Prince Elector portrays
himself as a prince of peace and protector of
monuments: “Pacis Artibus|Vitae Suae deliciis
(…)” (“In honour of the arts of peace, the joy
of his life, Carl Theodor re-consecrated this
land, which had been lowered by seven feet,
and had this monument erected in 1768”. 28
Present-day knowledge interprets the finds
as Neckar-Suebian cremation graves from the
first-century ad, and they are now part of the
“Hofantiquarium” collection in Mannheim. A
further burial ground was uncovered in April
1777 during excavation work near to what is
known today as the ruin of a Roman aqueduct.
Haeffelin published details of it that same year
in his work on “discoveries of a number of
antiquities in the Prince Elector’s pleasance in
Schwetzingen”. It was known early on that the
whole of the estate occupied by the gardens and
the land beyond it was rich in archaeological
artefacts. In the introduction to the 1820 guide
to the gardens, the subject is presented in
detail (occupying 20% of the total volume) as
a patriotic characteristic of the landscape. It
must be considered as certain that the authors
of that guide to the gardens had recourse to
older traditions, which claim that Schwetzingen
Gardens are located in “Hadrian’s valley”, which
formed the boundary of the [Roman] Empire”. 29
It seems more than likely that Carl Theodor
must have had the idea of a Roman or
Renaissance villa (“Villa Adriana” or “Villa
d’Este”) in mind for his summer seat, as he
would have seen them during his journeys to
28 Zeyher [c. 1820], p. 105f
29 Op. cit., pp. 1-39, here p. 34
VI.
239

VI.
240
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Italy in 1774 and 1785, about which he was
most enthusiastic. As was the case with other
princes of the time, the classical garden follies
as well as the exotic (oriental, Chinese, Tahitic,
etc.) and Gothic-style ones did not primarily
make their way into the Prince Elector’s
gardens fortuitously, as the fruit of a passion
for collecting or on account of a claim to have a
mission to educate the masses. They were often
also monuments to the ruler’s own (fictitious)
genealogy, which set out to position their own
dynasty in an impressive line of tradition and to
adorn the landscape with “genuine” monuments,
imaginative reconstructions and structures made
artificially to look like ruins, to act as proof of
their claim to eternity.
The Jesuits, such as the court astronomer and
professor of mathematics, Father Christian
Meyer (whose observatory was very significantly
located on the roof of Schwetzingen Palace), and
the Prince Elector’s tutor and confidant, Father
Franz Seedorf (who lived in a sumptuous house
in Schwetzingen just in front of the palace,
known today as “Palais Hirsch”), maintained
that there was a universal claim to knowledge,
spanning everywhere in space and time. For
the Jesuits, who were steeped in Renaissance
knowledge, all the various stages of development
of society, the regions of the world, religions and
philosophies were, in principle, comparable in
their various appearances and characteristics
and, in the final analysis, all stood for God’s one
and only revelation. Since, having espoused
these premises, the Jesuits were then able to
adapt to ruling foreign cultures, they were
amongst the first to be in a position to research
and understand such cultures and to bring
the first viable findings from the most remote
parts of the world to Europe. In this way, they
also managed to research and explain foreign
civilisations and other periods of time, such
as ancient Egypt. One of their most influential
intellects, Father Athanasius Kircher, “the last
of the universal scholars”, tried through mystic
intuition and his own enormous breadth of
knowledge, including that of specialist fields, to
produce an overview of the cultures and to give
them legibility. Starting with ancient theology,
he thus managed to compile a comparative
study of the religions and the world, in which he
interpreted the artefacts of all peoples as forms
of expression of Christian or divine beliefs.
Kircher saw the polytheism and idolatry of the
Egyptians as the origin of Greek and Roman
religion and also as the starting point for the
beliefs of the later Hebrews, the Chaldeans, the
Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Turks and
the American Indians. 30 Given that all tribes and
all knowledge were descended from Adam and
Noah, they all had a share in the same primeval
tradition and were all inspired by the same
“Holy Ghost” (a mirror image of this familygenealogical
structure has also existed since the
Renaissance as regards the origins of the old
princely ruling houses of Europe and even as
regards the genealogy of the popes in the Holy
See). 31
IV. Playing with antique, natural/mystic and
arcane motifs and symbols is significant for
many early “English” gardens in the Old Empire
in the second half of the eighteenth-century
(including Sanssouci, Gotha, Wörlitz, Neuer
Garten, Hohenzieritz, Machern, Neuwaldsegg,
Vöslau and Schönau), but there is evidence
of the same phenomenon too for various
British, Polish, French and Russian gardens.
Iconography and symbolic references to do
with Freemasonry have also been ascribed to
Schwetzingen Gardens for some time now. 32 It
was, however, an exceptional situation for the
30 Cf. Thomas Leinkauf: Mundus combinatus. Studien zur
Struktur der barocken Universalwissenschaft am Beispiel Athanasius
Kirchers SJ (1602-1680). Berlin 1993; Joscelyn Godwin:
Athanasius Kircher. A Renaissance man and the quest for lost
knowledge. London 1979. (German edition: Berlin 1994)
31 Cf. for example B. A. Kircher: Arca Noé. Amsterdam 1675, p.
140. – Cf. also: Alfred Schröcker: Die deutsche Genealogie im
17. Jahrhundert zwischen Herrscherlob und Wissenschaft.
Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von G. W. Leibniz. In:
Archiv für Kulturgeschichte, 59, 1977, pp. 432ff.; Genealogie als
Denkform in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. Edited by Kilian
Heck and Bernhard Jahn. Tübingen 2000. Michael Niedermeier:
Altertümer und Artefakte. Patriotische Baukunst im frühen
Landschaftsgarten und ihr Wandel um 1800. In: Klassizismus
– Gotik. Karl Friedrich Schinkel und die patriotische Baukunst.
Edited by Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier and
Horst Bredekamp with the participation of Axel Klausmeier.
München 2007, p. 17-42
32 Carl Ludwig Fuchs, Claus Reisinger: Schloss und Garten
zu Schwetzingen. Worms 2001, pp. 177-184; Symbolism in
18th-century gardens. The Influence of Intellectual and Esoteric
Currents, such as Freemasonry. Edited by Jan A.M. Snoek,
Monika Scholl und Andréa A. Kroon. The Hague 2006

owners and designers of gardens to be practising
Freemasons or members of a secret order
themselves (Illuminati, Rosicrusians or similar).
Nor were they forced to be, since arcane paths
to initiation and those combining nature and
magic have belonged to gardens for as long as
gardens have existed, and Eros and Thanatos
together always encompass the tension between
this world and the underworld. Particularly
in connexion with the conflicts over Bavarian
succession, the rulers’ gardens were suitable for
use as the predominant and finely adjustable
medium for asserting the political profile of their
owners (includes making use of the symbols of
Freemasonry and secret societies). 33
As far as the arcane motifs and hints of paths
to initiation in the Prince Elector’s gardens
in Schwetzingen are concerned, it would
appear more likely that Jesuit thinking rather
than that of the Freemasons or Illuminati
was responsible for them, the latter, in turn,
being wary of potential infiltration by the
Jesuits. Athanasius Kircher has already been
mentioned. With his far-reaching research
and influential books (especially “Oedipus
Aegyptiacus” (1652–1654); “Sphinx mystagoga”
[1676]; “Mundus subterraneus” [1678] and
“Turris Babel” [1679]), he himself had a direct or
indirect impact on the thinking of English and
European Freemasons and secret societies. It
was he who, in his widely-read work “Oedipus
Aegyptiacus”, explained that everything that lay
been the wisdom Noah received from God and
Christ’s revelation was at least a part-truth of
divine knowledge. In his way of thinking, the
space available was large enough for Zoroaster,
Orpheus, Hermes Trismegistus, Pythagoras and
Plato alike to share. For him, it was perfectly
natural to draw parallels between the Egyptian
gods and those of other civilisations. Isis, the
33 Cf. for exmple: Michael Niedermeier: Von der Schrift in die
Landschaft. Die Isis-Initiation des Apulejus in der Mystischen
Partie des Wörlitzer Gartens. In: Übersetzung und Transformation.
Edited by Hartmut Böhme, Christof Rapp and Wolfgang
Rösler. Berlin 2007, 267-308; Den Haag: Der Herzogliche
Englische Garten in Gotha und das Geheimbundwesen. In:
Freimaurerische Kunst – Kunst der Freimaurerei, edited by
Helmut Reinalter. Innsbruck 2005, 127-151. Den Haag: Freimaurer
und Geheimbünde in den frühen Landschaftsgärten
der Aufklärung. In: Aufklärung in Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Edited by Brunhilde Wehinger, Richard Faber. Würzburg 2009
(forthcoming)
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Magna Mater or Mother Goddess, was identical
with each and every one of Minerva, Venus,
Juno, Proserpina, Ceres, Diana, Rhea, Rhamnusia,
Bellona, Hecate and Luna. 34 Comparable
situations also applied to Osiris, Pan and Jupiter
or Anubis and Mercury. In this way, Jesuit
thought took on very considerable breadth and
also appeared to be reasonably tolerant, so it
is no surprise with hindsight that a number of
Jesuits who were close to the Prince Elector, such
as the influential Father Seedorf, were eager to
join the Freemasons after their own order had
been banned. In many aspects, the combined
natural and mystic thinking of the Jesuits and
Freemasons was fed from the same sources. As
early as 1737, Prince Elector Carl Philipp had
had the Freemasons’ lodge, which had existed
since 1727 as the first in Germany, disbanded,
and Carl Theodor had never reversed that
ban. The fear that major foreign powers (such
as Prussia, England or Upper Saxony) might
secretly be in control of the lodges led repeatedly
to anxieties about conspiracies and prohibitions.
In 1756, however, a Franco-Scottish lodge called
“Saint Charles de l’Union” was initially founded
in Mannheim in honour of King Charles Stuart
of Scotland, who had taken on the new name of
“King of the Union” in 1784. Several members of
court society belonged to it, probably including
the Jesuit Father Seedorf, who wielded great
influence over the Prince Elector before dying in
1772. Carl Theodor had ordered the disbanding
of the lodge following major disputes with
a group of Jesuits regarding his new father
confessor and court chaplain, Father Ignaz
Frank SJ, who was director of a Rosicrucian
circle opposed to the Enlightenment. 35 Carl
Theodor had allowed himself to be convinced
of the apparent harmfulness of Freemasonry by
Father Frank who, after the dissolution of the
Jesuit order, benefited from the protection of the
Prince Elector in his position as court chaplain
34 Oedipvs Aegyptiacvs. Hoc est Vniuersalis Hieroglyphicae
Veterum. Doctrinae temporum iniuria abolitae instavratio (...)
Ad Ferdinandvm III. Caesarem Semper Avgvstvm. M DC LII.
(1652), vol. 1, p. 189
35 Cf. Eugen Lehnhoff, Oskar Posner, Dieter A. Binder:
Internationales Freimaurerlexikon. Überarb. u. erweiterte
Neuauflage Munich 2000, p. 111. Ursula Rumpler: Ignaz Frank.
In: Bautz. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon, vol.
23. Nordhausen 2004, pp. 398-413
VI.
241

VI.
242
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
and who, in 1777, was even elevated to the
rank of “electoral privy councillor” and the true
“spiritual privy councillor in Mannheim”. Frank,
who also enjoyed the Prince Elector’s absolute
trust in matters going beyond questions of
belief, acted from that time on as a spearhead of
the censorship of Enlightenment works and the
fanatical persecutor of the enlightened order of
Illuminati. In 1784/85, the Prince Elector ordered
the disbanding throughout his territories of
the secret society of the Illuminati, which had
started with Professor Adam Weisshaupt of
the former Jesuit university of Ingolstadt and
which, with its decidedly anti-Jesuit thrust, had
the reputation of wanting to undermine the
lodges and the institutions of the state in the
interest of foreign powers. This was followed by
tough measures against its members, who were
sacked from all public offices and persecuted.
The Illuminati branch, which had been founded
in 1782, had about twenty members in each
of Mannheim and Heidelberg, while the order
of the Illuminati in Munich even held two
so-called “Minerva churches”, with more than
two hundred members. The actual centre of
the society in Germany was in Munich up until
its prohibition in 1785. Its intention was to
penetrate the Freemasons’ lodges with a view
to taking control of them and steering them. 36
The ancient gods, Minerva and Mercury, had
a predominant position in the imagery used
by the Freemasons, the secret societies and the
Jesuits.
Along with the temple of Minerva, with its
mysterious underground cellar, it is the temple
of Mercury that is the feature in Schwetzingen
Gardens that has had the greatest significance
ascribed to it on many occasions. In his guide
to the gardens, Zeyher refers to a temple of
36 Cf. for example: „Fortgang der Illuminatenverfolgung in
Baiern; Etwas zum Trost für Freymäurer und Illuminaten. Aus
Brantoms Biographie oder Lobrede der Catharina von Medicis,
Gemahlin Heinrich II. Königs von Frankreich“. In: Journal von
und für Deutschland, 2nd annual vol., 1785, pp. 196ff.; On the
utopian potential of the illuminati: Adam Weisshaupt: Grössere
Mysterien. In: Johann Joachim Christoph Bode: Journal von
einer Reise von Weimar nach Frankreich im Jahr 1787; including
an introduction, comments, a register and a documentary
annex by Hermann Schüttler. Munich 1994, p. 372. Richard
van Dülmen: Der Geheimbund der Illuminaten. Darstellung,
Analyse, Dokumentation. Stuttgart 1975, pp. 25, 90, 339 and
393; Hermann Schüttler: Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens
1776-1787/93. Munich 1991, pp. 214ff
Mercury reputed to have stood on the site of the
cathedral buildings of St. Johannes /St. Guidon
in Speyer (Spires) in the Upper Rhineland. He
also claims that in Heidelberg, where Roman
monuments had already been discovered over a
long period of time up until then, the Romans
had erected a fort and a temple of Mercury on
the “holy mountain”. 37 Father Christian Meyer,
the astronomer and mathematician who had
studied under the Jesuits, whom Prince Elector
Carl Theodor had appointed court astronomer in
1761 and for whom he had had an observatory
with a moveable roof and equipped with
English instruments built on the palace roof in
Schwetzingen in 1763, kindled Carl Theodor’s
enthusiasm for observing the planet Mercury. A
year earlier than that, Carl Theodor, whom the
guide to the gardens refers to panegyrically as
“the German Salomon” 38 , had made the gardens
into the place for observing Mercury’s transit
across the sun: “In 1762, at the time of the
transit across the sun by the Planet Mercury,
Carl Theodor, Prince Elector of the Palatinate,
had a small wooden observatory erected
on this spot [the open space in front of the
orangery], where the scholarly Jesuit and court
astronomer, Christian Mayer [sic!], observed this
strange occurrence in our planetary system.” 39
This event, which occurs approximately every
ten years and which used to be of central
importance, lives on in tradition, and it is also
known that it is necessary to have a specially
equipped telescope to be able to see it.
A statue of Mercury by Gabriel de Grupello was
erected in the southern angloise, right next to
the temple of Minerva. It had the attributes
of a winged hat, winged feet, a cockerel and a
caduceus (staff) with intertwined snakes (of
which only the staff remains distinguishable
today). The origins of the temple of Mercury
can be seen as evidence that the gods featured
in Schwetzingen Gardens were more than a
fortuitous late-baroque collection and had a
broader significance ascribed to them in the
37 Zeyher [1820], pp. 11 and 14
38 Zeyher [1820], p. 53
39 Zeyher [1820], p. 152

conceptualisation underlying the gardens as a
whole.
Work started in 1784 on erecting the temple
of Mercury, which evidently also played on the
natural/mystic syncretism of the gods, which the
Jesuits, Freemasons and members of the secret
societies had all followed. In his publication on
the theory of garden art, Christian Cay Lorenz
Hirschfeld reported in 1785 on an “Egyptian
section, on which design work has commenced
in Schwetzingen: It is a mountain, on which
a monument to King Sesostris is to be newly
placed (…). Burials and mummies are to be
located in the vaults underneath the mountain,
and it is Charon, so they say, who is to carry the
souls of the newly dead to there. Lake Moeris is
being dug around the mountain”. 40
The memory of the Egyptian King Sesostris and
the wisdom of the Egyptians certainly played a
role in garden art in the late eighteenth-century.
In Gotha, where Freemasons and Illuminati
influenced the design of the duke’s garden,
the following was written on the subject of
the Egyptians in the genealogical “Gotha court
calendar” for 1778: “they were the first who
achieved a certain degree of correctness in the
art of putting numbers together and calculating
them. They researched the trajectories of
the stars, divided them up into certain
constellations, gave names to the signs of the
zodiac, noticed the difference between planets
and fixed stars and made the most profitable
use of this knowledge in arable farming and
in dividing time into units. The erection of
the obelisks, the gigantic stones on the highest
buildings, proves their insight into mechanics.
The division of fields, which was their usual
practice even in very ancient times, all the
channels for carrying water from the Nile,
their understanding of geometry and the land
register drawn up during the reign of Sesostris
all leave no doubt as regards their knowledge of
geography.” 41
It is only at first sight that the fact that what
Pigage built in reality was a temple to the god
40 C.C.L. Hirschfeld: Theorie der Gartenkunst. vol. 5. Leipzig 1785,
pp. 344ff
41 Gothaischer Hofkalender zum Nutzen und Vergnügen
eingerichtet auf das Jahr 1778. Gotha 1778, p. 67
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Mercury appears to be in contradiction with the
Egyptian plan, given that in the minds of ancient
writers and also in Kircher’s and others to follow
him (not only the Freemasons) Mercury was
equated with the Egyptian Anubis, the god who
carried souls to the underworld. 42 In Athanasius
Kircher’s “Oedipus Aegyptiacus” (1653), the
pattern of the sephirothic tree, the heart of
the kabbalah, with its ten divine numbers or
potencies of god is developed octagonally into
the ground plan of Salomon’s temple. Allusions
to the Jesuit universal design might have played
a role in planning the temple of Mercury in
Schwetzingen. There are at least grounds for
suspecting that Kirchner, in considering the
building of the temple of Mercury, is induced
to make a deliberate allusion to Salomon’s
temple or to the astronomic and cosmological
dynastic doctrine, with Mercury in the centre
(sun) in the sense of Ptolemy, Manilius, Hyginus,
Vitruv’s architectural concepts of, or the
“Hypnerotomachia Poliphili”. 43
It is also possible that the tomb of King Moeris
may have prompted ideas for a “labyrinth”
which was “divided into twelve courts” in
accordance with the “twelve Egyptian landscapes
and full of pyramids and labyrinths (“Oedipus
Aegyptiacus” 44 ; “Turris Babel” 45 ). In the case
of Abbé Jean de Terrasson, who wrote his
“King Sethos” novel (1731) in the same vein
as “Telemachos”, as an educational novel for
the sons of princes, Mercury or Orpheus
carries the deceased into the labyrinth of the
Egyptian Kings’ Realm of the Dead next to
Lake Moeris, which is crossed by Charon, the
boatman, ferrying the dead souls. 46 Reflecting
the perceptions of the time, the Egyptian
temples were constructed as large burial
grounds with gardens, with Mercury’s cavern
42 Cf. for example: A. Kircher: Turris Babel, sive Archontologia (...)
Auspiccii Augustissimi&Sapientissimi Caesaris Leopoldi Primi
Mecoenatis. Amsterdam 1679, vol. 2, p. 139
43 Cf. on this particular point for example: Horst Bredekamp:
Vicino Orsini und der Heilige Wald von Bomarzo. 2nd revised
edition Worms 1991, p. 66; pp. 132ff.; Figs. 172 and 173;
Gernot Böhme, Hartmut Böhme: Feuer, Wasser, Erde, Luft. Eine
Kulturgeschichte der Elemente. Munich 1996, pp. 257ff
44 3 vols. Rome 1642–1654, in particular vol. 1, pp. 16ff, 189ff and
207ff
45 Amsterdam 1679, vol. 2, pp. 73ff
46 Cf. for example: Terrasson: History of the Egyptian Kings
Sethos. Translated from French to German by Matthias
Claudius. vol. 1. Breslau 1777, pp. 37 and 53
VI.
243

VI.
244
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
inside – a room dedicated to natural history.
The famous Mercury of Thebes or Hermes
Trismegistos is seen here as the guardian of the
chemical wisdoms. 47 If the temple of Mercury
is considered in the light of the then-recent
history of the Electoral Palatinate, the reliefs
that have survived on the temple would allow
further associations. The relief showing Mercury
tying down Prometheus in the Caucuses, after
he had rebelled against Jupiter and the divine
order, might convey an allusion to the Prince
Elector’s major political opponent, Friedrich II
of Prussia, who had died in 1786. The second
relief depicts Mercury in the act of killing the
all-seeing Argos, whom Juno, the jealous wife,
has posted as a guard. Jupiter has transformed
the beautiful Io into a cow and wants to take
her as his lover. The third relief has not been
definitively identified up to the present, but it
might be possible to interpret it as follows: Io,
who has borne Jupiter his son, Epaphus, on the
river Nile, has escaped from Juno by fleeing to
Egypt, where she is worshipped as the goddess
Isis and her son as Apis, the original builder
of Memphis. Still being pursued by Juno, she
and her maidservant, Inyx, are trapped in an
impenetrable fog. Mercury frees them from
there “until they return to God and regain their
initial form and possible identity with God. Nat.
Com. l. VIII. c. 19”. 48 Jupiter is portrayed on the
relief as the eagle beholding his lover. His wife,
who is looking away from what is happening,
carries the peacock as her attribute and has put
the hundred eyes of the dead Argos on its tail
feathers. 49 Mercury’s explicit pointing gesture is
reminiscent of the pictorial motif of the “birth
of Bacchus”, as painted by Nicolas Poussin or
Peter Rysbrack, in which Mercury shows Semele,
Bacchus’s mother, who has remained in the
underworld, the way out of there and back to
Jupiter and Juno, who has been reconciled to
him. 50 The raising up of Jupiter’s lover, who
47 Op. cit., pp. 70f.
48 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon.
Leipzig 1770, p. 1352.
49 Metamorphoses by Publius Ovidius Naso translated and
annotated for young people, art students and uneducated art
lovers by August Rode. Part 1, Berlin 1791, pp. *2 and 51ff.
50 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon.
Leipzig 1770, pp. 2185ff
had been captured in the fog/underworld
by Mercury, the bearer of the dead, into the
spheres of eternal divine existence and love
might be interpreted as an allusion to the Prince
Elector and his departed mistress. Through this
allegorical comparison, Countess Maria Josepha
Heydeck, who died on 27 December 1771 as
a consequence of giving birth to their fourth
child, would enjoy eternal life, just like Jupiter’s
lover. Also, the son they had together, the Prince
Elector’s heir, the Imperial Prince Karl August of
Bretzenheim, would experience a higher “divine”
legitimisation, transcending death.
The extent to which allusions to the Egyptian
and Eleusinian mysteries had made their way
into the general contemporary sculptural and
architectural design of the gardens is shown
in a document published in Vienna in 1784
by the Habsburg chamber of court architects
and the imperial and royal sculptor, Johann
Wilhelm Beyer, with a title that translates as
“The new muse or the national garden”. In it, the
sculptures with Egyptian-style motifs, such as a
Harpocrates or a derelict circular temple of Isis,
appear side-by-side and on the same footing as a
Leda with the swan or Amour and Psyche. Just
like Carl Theodor and his gardener, Friedrich
Ludwig von Sckell, harmonious unity between
the baroque gardens and the irregular ones was
a heart-felt concern of those who designed and
equipped Schönbrunn. 51
The idea of building a new palace and starshaped
bundled avenues (“Jagdstern”) in the
middle of the space between two regularly
curved buildings, with its axes in line with
the avenue leading directly to Mannheim and
Heidelberg, was abandoned in 1750. Given
that Carl Theodor saw his territories in the
Lower Rhineland as under threat as a result
of Prussian power politics, he decided, as a
display of power in his own right, to build
Benrath Palace in Düsseldorf. So the old palace
in Schwetzingen was not replaced with a new
one, and in 1753 Carl Theodor ordered the
start of work on the newly designed circular
51 Wilhelm Beyer: Die neue Muse oder der Nationalgarten den
akademischen Gesellschaften vorgelegt. Vienna 1784, p. 14,
copper engraving 7

parterre, the “Schwetzingen compass” in
accordance with the garden plans by Johann
Petri. This was a completely new idea, and
everything else was given a lower priority.
This project was occasionally explained as a
logical further development of the abandoned
idea of a star-shaped hunting lodge and palace
and the axial constraints of reorienting the old
castle to serve as a summer residence. 52 Recent
research has found a basis for the belief that the
circular parterre with the intersecting axes in
the middle had been quite deliberately designed
and implemented: “The circular parterre is
unique in the whole world as an unrivalled
three-dimensional creation of baroque garden
art, whose shape and size can be considered as a
sign of utopian modernity. The spatial concept
for laying out the town takes the intersection
axes from inside the garden further and forms
the underlying system of coordinates for
designing the whole of the gardens, not just the
parterre. The market square, which was laid out
in 1748 completes the basic existing baroque
structure in Schwetzingen, but it is the circular
parterre that is its crowning glory”. 53 The circle
combined with the cross, which has made its
way into the basic pattern of Schwetzingen
Gardens corresponds in fact to Kircher’s
hieroglyphic monad, which is also reflected
in Mercury’s caduceus or Anubis’ key to the
Nile. Kircher saw this as a symbol of the divine
system of the world. The circle symbolises the
Ptolemaic universe with the trajectories of the
planets and the fixed stars, whereas the cross
symbolises the four elements. 54 At all events,
the shape of the circle or sphere was the Jesuits’
metaphor for the integration of the whole
universe; it was the expression of a manifestly
“closed” infinity and the universal order of
things. Through his combinatorics, Kircher
succeeded in uniting Islamic alchemy, Jewish
kabbalah, Persian magic, Chaldean astrology and
Zoroastic mysteries in the sense of “everything
52 Fuchs/Reisinger, p. 69
53 Troll, Förderer, Schmitt: Der Schlossgarten Schwetzingen.
Munich 2008, p. 28.
54 Joscelyn Godwin: Athanasius Kircher. Ein Mann der Renaissance
und die Suche nach verlorenem Wissen. Berlin 1994, p.
61; cf. also Leinkauf: Mundis cmbinatus, pp. 18ff, 28, 159, 184ff
and 211ff
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
in everything”. “The use originally intended
for the circular pavilions as orangeries helps
complete a full iconographic circle from the pure
utopia of its geometry to an iconography of the
Golden Age anchored in the garden. It is thus
correct to assume it to be a canonical allusion
to the history of the ideas concerning the
gardens themselves. In the mind of the cultured
visitor of the time, this would trigger memories
of examples such as the mythical island of
Cythera from Francesco Colonna’s seminal
work (1499) or the programmatic shape of the
botanical garden in Padua with references to
the cosmological allegory of the heavens, which
were already common in the middle ages.” 55 In
this respect, it is also possible to establish an
ideational link to the temple of Apollo. After all,
Mercury was the one who was prompted to start
playing music of his own after hearing Apollo
playing the lyre. Apollo had acquired the musical
instrument from Mercury in exchange for his
cattle and for teaching him the art of prophesy. 56
The spherical music, as can be experienced
in Apollo’s musical prowess, was the highest
expression of divine harmony – and Kircher was
of that view too. 57 A prominent feature on the
western side of the temple building is formed
by the numerous gilded allegories of the sun
incorporated in the railings, showing it to be a
temple to Apollo as the sun god. This is where
the gardens’ cosmological programme reaches
its zenith, after beginning in the bath house
with the ceiling painting of “Dawn (Aurora)
banishing the night” and reaching its conclusion
in the mosque, with the various moon and star
symbols.
The mosque built with two minarets in
Schwetzingen’s Turkish garden resembles the one
from Kew Gardens (built around 1763, but not
surviving). Apart from the fashionable nature of
these oriental-style garden structures, the carefully
selected Arabic inscriptions adorning the mosque
show that its builder harboured the ambitious
aim of “addressing an elite of the virtuous and
55 Hartmut Troll: Manuscript 2009, see section 3.c of the
Nomination
56 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon.
Leipzig 1770, pp. 331ff
57 Leinkauf, Mundus combinatus, pp. 342-348
VI.
245

VI.
246
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
those striving for knowledge. Nor is it to be
excluded that, in an age of the overrefinement
and stylisation of royal courts, it was important to
be able to enjoy the fun of allusions and secrets,
whilst remaining within the constraints to be
cautious for political and moral reasons. The
inscriptions might thus make both direct and
indirect statements and convey both tangible
and abstract references, which only the initiated
would be able to understand in full.” 58 Similar
situations might well also apply to the temple of
Botany, which can be understood as the temple
of Ceres/Persephone, the so-called “Arboricum
Theodoricum” or the Roman water fort. If Carl
Theodor had wanted to reunite the alienated
Christian churches in a single global concord
church, then he might well have considered ideas
close to the synchretising and combinational
views of the Jesuits, who saw a part of divine
wisdom in all cultures, peoples and religion. In
times of warmongering tensions between enemy
camps in which the Prince Elector also wanted to
be sure of lasting memorials in the countryside
to himself and his pedigree, the combinational,
analogy-based language of metaphors, as had
been devised by the Jesuits, linking in with the
cultural and religious traditions, crossing the
divides between denominations and camps,
would have been a binding system of codes that
all would have understood. That Schwetzingen
Gardens (like hardly any others) have survived
all the ravages of time essentially unscathed and
have maintained the balance between baroque
and landscaped elements exactly as Carl Theodor
had imagined them for his monument as Prince
Elector meant that, as early as 1828, John Claudius
Loudon, the author of the garden encyclopaedia,
considered them to be the “most splendid” and
“most delightful gardens in Germany (…).” 59
Berlin, November 2009
PD Dr. Michael Niedermeier
58 Udo Simon: Die arabischen Inschriften der Moschee im
Schwetzinger Schlossgarten. In: Symbolism in 18th-century
gardens. The Hague 2006, pp. 189-202, here p. 201
59 John Claudius Loudon: An encyclopaedia of gardening. New
edition London 1850, pp. 143-146

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
VI.
PD Dr. Michael Niedermeier, Scharnhorststr. 25, 10115 Berlin
Die Gärten von Schwetzingen
Inszenierte Memoria und Symbol kurpfälzischer Stammesherrschaft
Michael Niedermeier
I. Jede Architektur enthält neben ihrer den sachlichen Erfordernissen geschuldeten
Gestalt ein „Abbild von Vorstellungen der sie errichtenden Gesellschaft” 1 .
Spätestens seit dem 16. Jahrhundert stellte sich im Gewahrwerden eines
Umbruchs eine veränderte Semiotisierung der Architektur ein. Die Raumkunst
öffnet sich der Konstruktion politischer Räume zur Erfindung von Traditionen und
Machtrepräsentation. Der Eroberung des Stadtraumes folgte zeitlich gleichlaufend,
später aber immer stärker vorherrschend die Ausbreitung der Inszenierung politischer
Räume in der Landschaft. 2 Spannungsreich gestaltete sich der Vorgang insofern,
als die Gestaltung der Landschaft und des Gartens nicht mehr allein ihr Gewicht aus
der Speicherfunktion von Wissen und Repräsentation herleitete, sondern auch zum
Projektionsraum für Utopie-, Welt- und Identitätsentwürfe wurde; eine Funktion, die
Gärten ohnehin immer latent besitzen.
In einem Bewusstsein von Brüchen reflektierten die Modelle der Gartenräume seit
der Renaissance, besonders aber im 18. Jahrhundert die Bedrohung von Erinnerung
und Identität. Der Charakter von Entwurf und Wahrnehmung von Landschaft als
Wissensspeicher und politischer Inszenierung verändert sich unter den Bedingungen
der Verzeitlichung, der mit dem sukzessiven Durchschreiten und Betrachten verbunden
ist. Das Bild des Labyrinthes, das den Lebensweg als Weg des Irrtums und Scheiterns
einerseits und durch richtige Wahl des zum Ziel führenden Pfades andererseits als
Wissens- und Tugenderwerb vorgibt, ergänzt sich durch den Initiationsweg, den der
„Lehrling erhabener Weisheit”, unter Anleitung eines sichtbaren oder unsichtbaren
“Mystagogen” zum Erwerb geheimen Wissens gehen muss. Die Spannung zwischen
offener und verdeckter politischer Inszenierung und arkaner Sinnbestimmung
einer natürlichen oder göttlichen Ordnung prägt den Charakter der Konstruktion
von Landschaft als Memorialraum bis zum Beginn des Industriezeitalters. Unter
dem Gesichtspunkt der Imagination und der Erinnerung, die in den Garten- und
Landschaftsräumen vergegenständlicht sind, gelangte der künstlerisch gestaltete
Naturraum von einer eher marginalen Position unter den Künsten zu einer
gleichwertigen, ja modellgebenden Kunst. 3 Die Gärten des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts
lassen sich im Spannungsfeld von reformatorischem Gedankengut, Philosophie und
politischer Lagerbildung in Europa erklären, was in der künstlerischen Anlage und
technischen Ausstattung im „Gesamtkunstwerk Garten“ symbolischen Niederschlag
findet. Die Konstruktion einer römisch-antiken wie einer nordischen nationalen Identität
führte zu Neucodierung der alten Baustile des Palladianismus und der Gotik in der
- 1 -
Tel. 030 2822054
247

VI.
248
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Gartenkunst. 4 Die Gotik wurde beginnend mit dem ersten Drittel des 18. Jahrhunderts
in Gärten in Britannien und in nord- und mitteldeutschen Anlagen zunehmend mit
teutonischer Freiheit identifiziert, die unter den Hannoveranern erneut aufgerufen
wurde, während das Second Palladian Revival des Burlington-Kreises ebenfalls
zur Behauptung von dynastischer Kontinuität, etwa zwischen Elisabeth Stuart, der
Tochter von James I., und Gattin des Winterkönigs Kurfürst Friedrich V. von der Pfalz
(Hortus Palatinus, Heidelberg) und der von den Whigs gestützten Hannoveraner
Linie genutzt wurde: „Architecture as political propaganda was on the agenda from
the very start of the eighteenth-century“ 5 . Motivische Zitierungen von arkanen und
esoterischen Einweihungswegen sollten – in Anknüpfung an antike Mysterien und
Morphologievorstellungen – im Durchschreiten der symbolischen Zeit-, Welt- und
Seinsebenen das Erreichen von wahrer Erkenntnis und sittlicher wie herrscherlicher
Tugend erahnbar machen. Sie waren über alle konfessionellen, politischen und
kulturellen Grenzen hinweg ein gemeinsam verfügbares Code- und Erklärungssystem,
das beim Durchwandern des Gartenraumes durch ahnungsvolles Erschauern die
Spannung von Diesseits und Unterwelt, Werden, Vergehen und Dauer erfahrbar lassen
konnte.
Der Garten von Schwetzingen erscheint als prominentester Memorialort und
bedeutungsvolles Erinnerungsmonument des herrschaftlichen Territoriums der
Kurpfalz, mit dem der Kurfürst Carl Theodor seinen Lebensentwurf mit dem
genealogischen seiner Dynastie verbinden wollte und in eine konkrete topografischgeografische
wie umfassende theologisch-philosophische und kosmologische
Metaphorisierung bringen wollte. Damit sollte sein Entwurf der Herrschaft über
die Kurpfalz weit über seinen eigenen Tod hinaus im Gedächtnis der Landschaft
eingeschrieben bleiben und ihm in der überhöhenden Form des künstlerisch
gestalteten landschaftlichen Monuments ein Überdauern in der Nachwelt sichern.
So war es gerade nicht der berühmte Hortus Palatinus, der in Heidelberg von
Salomon de Caus (1576-1626) für Friedrich V. (1596-1633, reg. 1610-1620), den
protestantischen „Winterkönig“, angelegt worden war, den der katholische Kurfürst in
den Fokus seiner Landschaftsgestaltung nahm. Der in seiner Anlage und Ikonografie
großartig angelegte formale Heidelberger Garten war geprägt von der Vorstellung
einer göttlichen universalen Harmonie, die sich ausdrückte in der architektonischen
Umsetzung komplexer euklidischer, pythagoräischer und platonischer
Zahlenkombinationen, in der Anwendung modernster musikalische Klänge erzeugender
mechanischer Springbrunnen usw. Zwar hatte der Kurfürst Pläne gehegt, Heidelberg
als Nebenresidenz wieder herzurichten, nach einem Blitzeinschlag 1764 ließ er aber
alle Pläne einer Wiederbesetzung des Schlosses und einer Wiederbelebung des
Gartens fahren. 6 Obgleich das Heidelberger Gartenprogramm, das erklärbar wird
durch die Wanderung der Seele durch verschiedene Seinsformen, die – allegorisch
- 2 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
dargestellt durch Gartenbereiche wie Labyrinth, Boskette und Parterres – auf Astrologie
und die Mysterien göttlicher Liebe Bezug nehmen, 7 und damit an die aufklärerischen
Denkansätze Carl Theodors anschlussfähig gewesen wäre, blieb es unvollendet. 8
Herausragend ist die künstlerische Gestaltung Schwetzingens vor allem dadurch, dass
in sie die dynastischen, politischen, religiösen, weltanschaulichen und persönlichen
Anschauungen des Kurfürsten eingeschrieben worden ist, in einer Periode, in der die
Pfalz und Bayern erneut zum Scharnier im politischen Kräftespiel im Alten Reich wie
in ganz Europa wurden. Insbesondere der Bayerische Erbfolgekrieg und die Versuche
Carl Theodors und des österreichischen Kaisers Josephs II., Bayern gegen die
österreichischen Niederlande (Belgien) einzutauschen, müssen als der Hintergrund
betrachtet werden, vor dem die Bedeutung des Schwetzinger Gartens als einzigartiges
„Churpfälz[isch]es Monument“ (Nicolas de Pigage) 9 verstehbar wird.
Herrschaftliche und hochadlige Gärten der Zeit im Reich (z.B. Sanssouci, Hohenzieritz,
Wörlitz, Neuer Garten (Potsdam), Hohenheim, Gotha, Weimar, Schönbrunn,
Laxenburg, Franzensburg u.a.) erlangten in diesen sich lange hinziehenden
politischen Auseinandersetzungen als identitätsstiftende Memoriallandschaften
eine Schlüsselfunktion, wobei genealogisch-dynastische, politisch-patriotische,
naturwissenschaftlich-allegorische, exotisch-universalistische und antik-mystische
Argumentationsstrategien in der Landschaft sinnstiftend und beweisführend verortet
wurden. 10
Die Gründe, warum Schwetzingen das herausragende „Churpfälz[isch]e Monument“
und das erinnernde Vermächtnis des Kurfürsten über den Tod hinaus wurde, lassen
sich ohne den komplizierten Weg Carl Theodors zur Macht und seine Versuche des
Machterhaltes nicht verstehen.
II. Carl (Philipp) Theodor (1724-1799), dem Schwetzingen seine herausragende
Stellung als raumgreifendem Sommersitz und erstrangigem Gartenkunstwerk verdankt,
erlangte am 31.12.1742 (als Karl IV.) die pfälzische Kurwürde (Kurfürst zu Rhein).
Durchaus überraschend erbte er 35 Jahre später, am 30.12.1777, auch das große
Kurfürstentum Bayern. Durch diesen Zufall dehnte Carl Theodor am Ende des 18.
Jahrhunderts seinen politischen und kulturellen Einfluss auf den ganzen süddeutschen
Raum aus und avancierte neben Habsburg und Preußen zum drittstärksten
Territorialherren im Reich, der im Spannungsfeld der europäischen Großmächte
England, Frankreich und Russland seine Stellung und die seiner Dynastie über seinen
Tod hinaus zu verstetigen suchte.
Familiengenealogisch war Carl Theodors Thronanwartschaft zunächst völlig
unwahrscheinlich gewesen. Carl Theodor entstammte der herzoglichen Nebenlinie
Pfalz-Sulzbach, die nur im Falle des Aussterbens der Hauptlinie Pfalz-Neuburg die
pfälzischen Kurfürsten hätte stellen können. Der Pfälzer Kurfürst Karl III. Philipp
- 3 -
VI.
249

VI.
250
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
(1661-1742) 11 aus der dominierenden Neuburger Linie, ein eifriger Förderer der
gegenreformatorischen Jesuiten, der versucht hatte, durch Unions- und Erbverträge
mit den anderen Regenten die Wittelsbacher Gesamtlande zu erhalten und zu stärken,
erlebte mit seiner aus dem litauisch-polnischen Hochadel stammenden Gattin Luise
Charlotte von Radziwiłł (1667-1695) nur die Heiratsfähigkeit einer einzigen Tochter,
Elisabeth Auguste Sofie (1693-1728). So zeichnete sich nach einiger Zeit das zu
erwartende Ende der Neuburger Linie ab, da auch die acht Brüder des Kurfürsten
keinen männlichen Erben hervorgebracht hatten. Daher versuchte Kurfürst Karl III.
durch die Verheiratung seiner einzigen das Erwachsenenalter erreichenden Tochter
mit Pfalzgraf Joseph Karl von Pfalz-Sulzbach (1694-1729) die Erbfolge zu erhalten,
indem er die zwei Linien zusammenführte. Durch den frühen Tod der jungen Eheleute,
deren drei Söhne das Kleinkindalter nicht überlebten, ging der Erbanspruch zunächst
an Joseph Karls Bruder Johann Christian Joseph (1700-1733) und nach dessen Tod
an seinen noch minderjährigen Sohn Carl Theodor über. Sein entfernter Onkel Karl III.
Philipp holte seinen elternlosen zehn Jahre alten Nachfolger Carl Theodor, der bisher
unter der Ägide seiner Urgroßmutter in Brüssel gelebt hatte, zu sich in die Pfalz und
unterstellte ihn der strengen erzieherischen Aufsicht und Bildung der Jesuiten. Als
Carl Theodor schließlich 1743 pfälzischer Kurfürst wurde, erfüllte sich für die ganze
herzogliche Linie Pfalz-Sulzbach die lang gehegte, aber fast unrealisierbar erschienene
Wunschvorstellung der erstrebten Rangerhöhung im Reich.
Als dann 35 Jahre später überraschend auch das Kurfürstentum Bayern an Carl
Theodor fiel (er nannte sich nun auch Karl II. von Bayern), trat der zwischen ihm und
Max III. Joseph von Bayern 1766 geschlossene Erbverbrüderungsvertrag in Kraft, in
dem Bayern und die Pfalz als unteilbare Gesamtherrschaft vereinbart worden war.
Die bayerische bzw. pfälzische Erbfolge war in den 1770er-Jahren im Kontext der
Auseinandersetzungen um die Vorherrschaft zwischen Österreich und Preußen das
beherrschende Thema im Reich. Über die europäischen Verbündungsmächte wurde
diese Konstellation von Russland bis Frankreich in ganz Europa beobachtet und
diskutiert. 12
Der Habsburger Kaiser Joseph II. versuchte in dieser Situation die gegen Preußen
erlittenen territorialen Einbußen in Schlesien durch Ansprüche an Bayern und die
Oberpfalz auszugleichen, dem Einfluss Preußens wirksam entgegenzutreten sowie
dem Entstehen einer weiteren Großmacht auf deutschen Boden einen Riegel
vorzuschieben. So kam es 1778/79 zum Bayerischen Erbfolgekrieg mit Preußen.
Im Ergebnis bewegte der Kaiser den Kurfürsten Carl Theodor durch die Zahlung
erheblicher finanzieller Mittel und die Überlassung von Vorderösterreich (Freiburg
und Konstanz) auch zur Abtretung von Niederbayern und Teilen der Oberpfalz. All
dies führte dazu, dass Carl Theodor – in Bayern dadurch sehr unbeliebt – dem Druck
nachgeben musste, von seiner zu einem Zentrum der Kultur avancierten Residenz
- 4 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Mannheim (und Schwetzingen) weg nach München und Nymphenburg überzusiedeln.
Trotzdem betrieb Carl Theodor insgeheim, wie der einen Ländertausch gestattende
Artikel 14 im Vertrag von 1774 mit Max III. Joseph unterstreicht, den seit Max
Emanuels Zeiten (1662-1726) diskutierten Tausch Bayerns gegen die Österreichischen
Niederlande. 13
Carl Theodor wollte seine Kurlande mit seinen niederrheinischen Herzogtümern
Jülich und Berg mit dem außerhalb des Reiches liegenden Königreich Niederlande
zu einem Königreich Burgund verbinden, das er bewusst in die Tradition des 1477
untergegangenen Herzogtums Burgund Karls des Kühnen zu stellen gedachte. Schon
als Dreijähriger hatte er, der bei Brüssel geboren worden war, als mütterliches Erbteil
das Marquisat Bergen-op-Zoom ererbt. Hierhin führten starke genealogische Wurzeln
zurück. 14
Die Ehe zwischen Carl Theodor und seiner Cousine Elisabeth Auguste – aus rein
dynastischen Gründen geschlossen –, war geprägt durch eheliche Untreue und
gegenseitige Missachtung. Die ehrgeizige und herrschsüchtige Kurfürstin unterhielt
Liebschaften, unter anderem mit ihrem Schwager Pfalzgraf Friedrich Michael von Pfalz-
Zweibrücken, der pfälzischer General-en-chef und Gouverneur von Mannheim war,
und dessen Familie über die Wittelsbacher Hausverträge den politischen Plänen Carl
Theodors im Wege stand.
Nach 19-jähriger kinderloser Ehe kam es wunderbarerweise doch noch zu
einer ehelichen Schwangerschaft. Der Sohn, der am 28.6. 1761 im Schloss von
Schwetzingen zur Welt gekommen war, starb aber kurz nach der Geburt. Die
Hoffnungen auf einen ehelichen Erben waren damit endgültig vorbei. Carl Theodor
orientierte sich nun gänzlich um, nahm sich seinerseits Geliebte und seine Gattin zog
sich zunehmend nach Schloss Oggersheim zurück. Am Weihnachtsabend 1769 gebar
die Geliebte des Kurfürsten, die ehemalige Tänzerin am kurfürstlichen Hofballett Maria
Josepha Seiffert (3.od.4.9.1747-27.11.1771), einen Sohn Karl August (24.12.1769-
27.2.1823). Carl Theodor hatte seine Geliebte schon 1767 unter dem Namen eines
verloschenen Geschlechts („von Heydeck“) in den Adelsstand erhoben. Noch vor der
Geburt des Sohnes ließ er sie am 3.9.1769 in den Grafenstand erheben. Sie gebar
dem Kurfürsten insgesamt vier Kinder und Carl Theodor legitimierte sie kraft seiner
Privilegien und Freiheiten. 15 Auf die Entwicklung dieses Sohnes konzentrierte der
Kurfürst nun alle seine Hoffnungen. Carl Theodor stattete ihn mit Ämtern aus, unter
anderem übertrug er ihm 1778 seine Stellvertretung in Jülich-Berg, der Oberpfalz
und der Kurpfalz, belehnte ihn 1773 mit Bretzenheim und anderem Landbesitz,
verschaffte ihm Ende 1789 durch den Ankauf des reichsunmittelbaren Lehens den
Titel eines Reichsfürsten zu Bretzenheim und Winzenheim. Dadurch war Karl August
in die oberste Adelsschicht im Reich aufgestiegen, sodass er durchaus als Nachfolger
Carl Theodors gelten konnte. 1781 schenkte Carl Theodor seinem Sohn ein Haus
- 5 -
VI.
251

VI.
252
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
in Schwetzingen, das er von den Erben des Hofbaumeisters Rabaliatti erworben
hatte; 1789 ließ der Kurfürst mit dem Maier‘schen Haus ein weiteres Anwesen in
Schwetzingen für seinen Sohn ankaufen und repräsentativ umbauen. 16
Dem Kurfürsten gelang es, sich im europäischen Mächtespiel den Schutz und
die Gewogenheit des Papstes zu sichern und ihn dazu zu bewegen, seinen Sohn
zum Ordensträger, später zum Großprior der bayerischen Malteserordenszunge
zu erheben. Der Malteser- bzw. Johanniterorden, mit dem Carl Theodor auch den
pfälzisch-bayerischen Adel für sich zu gewinnen suchte, trat das Erbe des 1773 von
Papst Clemens XIV. aufgelösten Jesuitenordens an. Carl Theodor, der von Jesuiten
erzogen und beraten sich sogar noch auf dem Totenbett einen lebenslangen guten
„Jesuiter“ 17 nannte, intervenierte nicht, als der Jesuitenorden aufgelöst wurde. Er
versorgte aber eine Reihe seiner jesuitischen Vertrauten mit Pensionen und Hofstellen.
Und er erreichte 1782 beim päpstlichen Stuhl, dass das eingezogene Vermögen der
Jesuiten in seinen Landen der Bayerischen Zunge des Malteserordens zufiel. Er
rang dem Oberhaupt der katholischen Kirche sogar die Ausnahmeerlaubnis für den
Ordensoberen ab, damit sein Sohn als Großprior heiraten und damit die Dynastie
fortsetzen konnte. 18 Der Kurfürst versuchte immer wieder durch einen Ländertausch
mit dem Kaiser, seinem Sohn ein großes Fürstentum vererben zu können. Durch
Ämter und Erbverschreibungen im Ausland versuchte er, falls das nicht gelänge, den
leiblichen Sohn vor dem Zugriff der ungeliebten Linie Pfalz-Zweibrücken über seinen
Tod hinaus zu schützen.
III. Der Schwetzinger Garten erhielt seine Stellung als einzigartiges „Churpfälz[isch]es
Monument“ durch die Wiederinbesitznahme des alten Sitzes, der der Überlieferung
nach schon „vor dem Jahre 1350“ gestanden haben soll und ohne Zweifel während
der Regierung Friedrichs des Siegreichen (1425-1476) befestigt und mit Gräben und
Zugbrücken als Veste ausgebaut worden war. In den Schwetzinger Gartenführern
wird immer wieder darauf hingewiesen, dass historisch bedeutsame Jahreszahlen auf
die Vorgeschichte hinweisen. Als Spolien werden alte Inschriften wie die auf Ludwig
den Friedfertigen (1478-1544), der 36 Jahre sein Land regierte, in den Gartenführern
präsentiert: „PFALTz GR. LUDWIG. CHURD. 1541.“ 19 Das Schloss Schwetzingen
behielt, trotz verschiedener Pläne, den alten, wenig repräsentativen Bau durch
einen neuen zu ersetzen, die alte Form, offensichtlich, um auf die alte Herkunft zu
verweisen. Dafür erhielt der geplante Garten eine weitgreifende neue programmatische
Gestaltung. Den höchst anspruchsvollen Gartenanlagen und -gebäuden galt nun das
Hauptaugenmerk des Kurfürsten, seiner Architekten und Gärtner.
Wesentlich für die Wahl Schwetzingens als Ort für die Sommerresidenz, die der Ort
der Selbstinszenierung als Kurfürst der Pfalz wurde, dürfte nicht zuletzt der Kenntnis
um die alte Vorgeschichte der Gegend geschuldet sein. Aus dem handschriftlichen
- 6 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Codex Laureshamensis (Lorscher Codex, zw. 1167-1190) war die Schenkungskunde
von Suezzingen durch Karl den Großen übermittelt, hier war aber auch von einer
„Villa que dictur in Sozinga“ die Rede. 20 Dass der Kurfürst Friedrich I., der Siegreiche,
(1425-1476) in der Schlacht „in den Ebenen von Schwetzingen“ 21 die Kurpfalz stärkte
und ab 1465 im Bündnis mit Karl dem Kühnen von Burgund gegen seine Feinde
erfolgreich verteidigen konnte, gehörte zu der bedeutenden Vorgeschichte des
Ortes der Sommerresidenz. Zudem weisen die Achsbeziehungen der Gartenanlage
sowie die Blickachsen vom Minarett, vom Merkurtempel und von der „Ruine einer
römischen Wasserleitung“ dezidiert auf die pfälzischen Residenzstädte Mannheim
und Heidelberg. Es wurden kolossalfigurige Sinnbilder der Flüsse Rhein und Donau
am See beim Merkurtempel aufgestellt, zwei ähnliche allegorische Figuren, die Maas
und die Mosel, geografisch im Gebiet des angestrebten Königreichs Burgund liegend,
wurden zwar geplant, aber nicht ausgeführt. 22 Die Flussfiguren sollten auf das wirkliche
und das angestrebte kurfürstliche Herrschaftsgebiet verweisen. Die „Perspektiv“
genannte, an die Illusionsmalerei der Jesuitenkirchen erinnernde kongenial gemalte
perspektivische Landschaft nach einer Vorlage von Hofmaler Ferdinand Kobell – einer
der unverwechselbaren Höhepunkte Schwetzingens –, nahm offenbar die kurpfälzische
Memorialfigur auf. Im Badehaus, das sehr wahrscheinlich an die Idee eines
römischen Bades erinnerte, das gerade in diesen Jahren in geringer Entfernung von
Schwetzingen bei Ausgrabungen entdeckt und vom Kurfürsten unter Schutz gestellt
worden war, 23 lebte der von Außenwelt des Gartens völlig abgeschlossene einzige
Bewohner des Badehauses, Carl Theodor, in seinem eigenen exotischen Innenraum.
Der Blick der perspektivischen Fernsicht vermochte sowohl in eine imaginierte
Zukunft wie auch in eine vorgestellte Vergangenheit gelenkt werden. Als Vorbild für
die Landschaft hatte Kobell offenbar den Zusammenfluss von Rhein und Neckar bei
Mannheim vor Augen, allerdings als paradiesische Landschaft ohne Bebauung. 24
Die Bedeutung der Vorgeschichte für die Standortwahl und die Gartengestaltung
geht aber noch viel weiter. Es war dezidiert die Frühgeschichte, auf die im Garten
von Schwetzingen reagiert wurde, und es dürften gerade die vertrauten Berater
die Kurfürsten, die gelehrten Jesuiten, gewesen sein, die auf die Bedeutung der
Vor- und Frühgeschichte aufmerksam gemacht haben. Mit einem kurfürstlichen
Erlass vom 29. August 1749 wurden alle Ämter angewiesen, jegliche in den
Rheingegenden gefundenen „antiquitaten und andere monumenta“ zu melden und
„Ihrer Churfürst[lichen] D[urchlaucht]“ selbst zuzusenden. Der Kurfürst schloss sich
damit einer Entwicklung fürstlicher Herrscherhäuser in ganz Europa an, archäologische
Funde, die in der eigenen Landschaft gemacht wurden, zu sammeln und als
Denkmäler eigener heroischer Vorgeschichte zu präsentieren. 25 Die Einbeziehung
heimischer Fundstücke in die eigene herrschaftliche Gartenanlage begann erst um
diese Zeit (z.B. Ledreborg, Jägerspreis, Dänemark; Stourhead, Großbritannien), und
- 7 -
VI.
253

VI.
254
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Kurfürst Carl Theodor befand sich damit in Deutschland an der Spitze zeitgenössischer
Gartenkunstentwicklung. 26
Bei Planierungsarbeiten im Bereich des südlichen Bosketts hatte man 1765 ein
Gräberfeld mit Waffen und Fundstücken entdeckt, das im Beisein des Kurfürsten
aufgegraben wurde. 27 Der Theologe und Historiker Casimir Haeffelin (1737-1827),
der bei den Jesuiten studiert hatte, erklärte die Ausgrabungen 1777 zur Nekropole
einer römischen Siedlung, während der Kurfürst davon ausging, dass es sich um
ein ehemaliges Schlachtfeld einer Römerschlacht mit den Überresten von Siegern
und Besiegten handeln müsse. Carl Theodor ließ die Fundstellen in situ in die
Gartenanlage einbeziehen und zu markanten Ausgangspunkten des südlichen
großen Bosketts gestalten. Peter Anton von Verschaffelt schuf 1768 und 1771
zwei antikisierende Denkmale, die mit lateinischen Inschriften versehen waren.
Einem „Gartendenkmal“, das die friedliche gärtnerische Tätigkeit des Kurfürsten als
Monument und Tribut an die große Mutter der Dinge, die Natur („Magna rerum mater
Natura“) preist, steht das „Kriegerdenkmal“ gegenüber, das auf die Bodenfunde
verweist: „Martis et Mortis|Romanor. ac Teutonum (…). Das Feld des Krieges und des
Todes der Römer und Deutschen ward durch gefundene Waffen, Urnen, Gebeine und
Instrumente im Jahr 1765 entdeckt.“ Auf der Rückseite trägt das Kriegerdenkmal die
Aufschrift, in der sich der Kurfürst als Friedensfürst und Denkmalschützer inszeniert:
„Pacis Artibus|Vitae Suae deliciis (…) (Den Künsten des Friedens, der Wonne seines
Lebens hat Carl Theodor diese, sieben Fuß hoch abgetragene Stelle wieder geweihet
und dieses Denkmal gesetzt 1768)“. 28 Die Funde, bei denen es sich nach heutigem
Wissen um neckarsuebische Brandgräber aus dem 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. handelte,
wurden ins Hofantiquarium nach Mannheim gebracht. Im April 1777 fand man bei
Grabungsarbeiten in der Nähe der heutigen sog. römischen Wasserleitung ein weiteres
Gräberfeld, das Haeffelin 1777 in seinen „Entdeckungen einiger Alterthümer in dem
kurfürstlichen Lustgarten zu Schwetzingen“ ebenfalls publizierte. Dass das ganze
Gelände, auf dem sich der Garten befindet, und die weitere Umgebung als Fundstätte
archäologischer Artefakte in Erscheinung trat, war schon früh bekannt und wird in der
Einleitung des Gartenführers von 1820 ausführlich (20% des Gesamtumfangs) als
patriotisches Merkmal der Landschaft ausgeführt. Mit Bestimmtheit gehen die Autoren
des Gartenführers im offensichtlichen Rückgriff auf ältere Überlieferungen davon aus,
dass sich der Garten von Schwetzingen im „Thal Hadrians“ befinde, „welches die
Grenze des [Römischen] Reichs bestimmte“. 29
Carl Theodor dürfte also seinen Sommersitz im Sinne einer römischen Villa oder
einer Renaissancevilla (Villa Hadriana/Villa d‘Este) gedacht haben, wie er sie in
seiner Italienbegeisterung auf seinen Reisen 1774 und 1785 gesehen hatte. Wie
bei den anderen Fürsten seiner Zeit auch waren die antikisierenden, die exotischen
(orientalische, chinesische, o-tahitische usw.) wie die gotisierenden Gartenfollies nicht
- 8 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
von vornherein einfach einer kuriosen Sammelleidenschaft oder einem volksbildenden
Anspruchs wegen in den herrschaftlichen Garten eingestellt worden. Sie waren oftmals
zugleich Denkmäler eigener (fiktiver) Herrscherabstammung, die die eigene Dynastie in
eine große Traditionslinie zu stellen unternahm und anhand von „echten“ Denkmälern,
fantasievollen Nachbauten, aber auch künstlich gestalteten Ruinen beweisführend mit
einem Ewigkeitsanspruch in der Landschaft verorteten.
Die Jesuiten, wie der Hofastronom und Mathematikprofessor P. Christian Meyer
– seine Sternwarte befand sich bezeichnenderweise auch auf dem Dach des
Schwetzinger Schlosses – und der Erzieher und Vertraute des Kurfürsten P.
Franz Seedorf – er bewohnte vor dem Schloss in Schwetzingen ein stattliches
Haus, das heutige Palais Hirsch – vertraten einen universalen, welt- und
zeitenumspannenden Wissensanspruch. Die verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen
Entwicklungsstufen, Weltregionen, Religionen und Philosophien waren bei den durch
das Renaissancewissen geprägten Jesuiten in den Erscheinungen und Ausprägungen
prinzipiell vergleichbar und standen letztlich für die gleiche Offenbarung Gottes. Da
sie sich unter diesen Prämissen den herrschenden fremden Kulturen anzupassen
wussten, gehörten die Jesuiten zu den Ersten, die diese Kulturen zu erforschen
und zu verstehen in der Lage waren und erste belastbare Erkenntnisse aus den
fernsten Weltgegenden nach Europa brachten. So gelang es ihnen auch, fremde
Zivilisationen und Zeitalter, wie die des alten Ägyptens, zu erforschen und zu erklären.
Einer ihrer einflussreichsten intellektuellen Köpfe, P. Athanasius Kircher, „der letzte
Universalgelehrte“, versuchte durch mystische Intuition und enormes Spezial- und
Breitenwissen, die Kulturen zu überblicken und lesbar zu machen. Und so schaffte
er, von der antiken Theologie ausgehend, eine vergleichende Religions- und
Weltenkunde, bei der er die Artefakte aller Völker als Ausdruck einer Form christlicher
göttlicher Glaubensinhalte interpretierte. Kircher sah den Polytheismus und die
Götzenverehrung der Ägypter als den Ursprung der griechischen und römischen
Religion an, aber auch als den Ausgangspunkt des Glaubens der späteren Hebräer,
der Chaldäer, die Inder, Chinesen, Japaner, Türken und Indianer Amerikas. 30 Da sich
alle Stämme und alles Wissen von Adam und Noah ableiteten – eine spiegelbildliche
familiengenealogische Struktur findet sich seit der Renaissance auch in allen
altfürstlichen Herrscherabstammungen Europas und selbst der Genealogie der Päpste
auf dem Heiligen Stuhl – hätten sie alle Anteil an der gleichen Urüberlieferung und
seien vom gleichen heiligen Numen (Heiligen Geist) inspiriert. 31
IV. Das Spiel mit antikisch-naturmystischen und arkanen Motiven und Symbolen
ist für viele frühe „englische“ Gärten der zweiten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts im
Alten Reich signifikant (u.a. Sanssouci, Gotha, Wörlitz, Neuer Garten, Hohenzieritz,
Machern, Neuwaldsegg, Vöslau, Schönau), aber auch für verschiedene britische,
- 9 -
VI.
255

VI.
256
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
polnische, französische oder russische Gärten nachweisbar. Auch dem Schwetzinger
Garten werden seit einiger Zeit freimaurerische Ikonografien und Symbolverweise
zugeschrieben. 32 Nur ausnahmsweise waren die Besitzer und Gartengestalter aber
selbst praktizierende Freimaurer oder Mitglieder eines Geheimbundes (Illuminaten,
Rosenkreuzer u. Ä.). Sie mussten es auch gar nicht sein, arkane und naturmagische
Initiationswege gehören zu Gärten, solange es Gärten gibt, wobei Eros und
Thanatos die Spannung von Diesseits und Unterwelt stets umschließen. Gerade
im Zusammenhang mit den bayerischen Erbfolgeauseinandersetzungen konnten
herrschaftliche Gärten – auch mittels freimaurerischer oder geheimbündlerischer
Symbolik – zu feinjustierbaren Leitmedien politischer Selbstinszenierung ihrer Besitzer
werden. 33
Für arkane Motive und Anklänge an Einweihungswege erscheint im kurfürstlichen
Garten von Schwetzingen dabei eher die Gedankenwelt der Jesuiten verantwortlich
als die der Freimaurer oder Illuminaten, die ihrerseits argwöhnten, von den Jesuiten
unterwandert zu werden. Der erwähnte Athanasius Kircher hatte mit seinen
weitgreifenden Forschungen und einflussreichen Büchern (insbesondere „Oedipus
Aegyptiacus“ (1652–1654); „Sphinx mystagoga“ [1676]; „Mundus subterraneus“
[1678]; „Turris Babel“ [1679]) selbst unmittelbar oder mittelbar prägend auf das
Denken der englischen und europäischen Freimaurer und Geheimbünde gewirkt.
Er war es, der in seinem weitverbreiteten Werk „Oedipus Aegyptiacus“ alles, was
zwischen Noahs von Gott empfangener Weisheit und der Offenbarung Christi lag,
zumindest als Teilwahrheiten des göttlichen Wissens erklärte: In seinem Denken
hatten Zoroaster, Orpheus, Hermes Trismegistos, Pythagoras und Plato gemeinsam
Platz. Die ägyptischen Gottheiten parallelisierte er ganz selbstverständlich mit den
Göttern anderer Kulturkreise. Die Magna Mater oder Gottesmutter Isis war gleichsam
identisch mit der Minerva, der Venus, der Juno, der Proserpina, der Ceres, der Diana,
der Rhea, der Rhamnusia, der Bellona, der Hekate oder Luna. 34 Vergleichbares galt
danach für Osiris, Pan oder Jupiter bzw. Anubis und Merkur. Damit bekam das Denken
der Jesuiten eine große, überaus tolerant scheinende Breite, sodass es kein Wunder
ist, dass einige Jesuiten aus dem Umkreis des Kurfürsten, etwa der einflussreiche
Jesuitenpater Seedorf, nach dem Verbot ihres Ordens in die Freimaurerlogen drängten.
Das naturmystische Denken der Jesuiten und der Freimaurer speiste sich in vielen
Bereichen aus den gleichen Quellen. Schon 1737 hatte Kurfürst Carl Philipp die
Loge, welche seit 1727 als erste in Deutschland bestand, auflösen lassen und Carl
Theodor hatte dieses Verbot nie aufgehoben. Die Angst, dass ausländische Mächte
(etwa von Preußen, England oder Obersachsen aus) die Logen heimlich steuerten,
führte immer wieder zu Verschwörungsängsten und Verboten. 1756 war aber zunächst
eine französisch-schottische Loge „Saint Charles de l‘Union“ zu Ehren des Königs
Karl Stuart von Schottland in Mannheim gegründet worden, die sich 1784 in „Karl
- 10 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
zur Einigkeit“ umbenannt hat. Ihr gehörten mehrere Mitglieder der Hofgesellschaft,
darunter wohl auch der auf den Kurfürsten so einflussreiche Jesuitenpater Seedorf,
an, der 1772 starb. Nach heftigen Auseinandersetzungen mit einer Gruppe von
Jesuiten um den neuen Beichtvater des Kurfürsten und Hofpfarrer Pater Ignaz Frank
SJ, der Direktor eines antiaufklärerischen Rosenkreuzerzirkels war, hat Carl Theodor
die Loge auflösen lassen. 35 Carl Theodor hat sich durch Pater Frank, der auch nach
Auflösung des Jesuitenordens in seiner Stellung als Hofprediger unter dem Schutz
des Kurfürsten stand und 1777 sogar zum „Kurfürstlichen Geheimen Rat“ und zum
„Wirklichen Geistlichen Geheimen Rath zu Mannheim“ erhoben worden war, von der
angeblichen Schädlichkeit der Freimaurerei überzeugen lassen. Frank, der nicht nur
in Glaubensfragen das unbedingte Vertrauen des Kurfürsten besaß, wirkte ab nun
als die Speerspitze der Zensur von aufklärerischen Werken und fanatischer Verfolger
des aufklärerischen Illuminatenordens. 1784/85 ließ der Kurfürst den Geheimbund
der Illuminaten, der von der ehemals jesuitischen Universität Ingolstadt durch den
Professor Adam Weißhaupt seinen Ausgang genommen hatte und mit seiner dezidiert
antijesuitischen Stoßrichtung im Ruf stand, im Interesse ausländischer Mächte die
Logen und die Institutionen des Staates unterwandern zu wollen, in seinen Landen
verbieten und ihre Mitglieder mit harter Hand aus allen staatlichen Positionen entlassen
und verfolgen. In Mannheim und Heidelberg besaß die 1782 gegründete Niederlassung
der Illuminaten jeweils rund 20 Mitglieder, in München unterhielt der Illuminatenorden
sogar zwei sogenannte Minervakirchen mit mehr als zweihundert Mitgliedern. In
München befand sich bis zum Verbot 1785 das eigentliche Zentrum des Bundes in
Deutschland, der beabsichtigte, über das Eindringen in die Logen die Freimaurerei zu
kontrollieren und zu leiten. 36 Die antiken Götter Minerva und Merkur besaßen in der
Vorstellungswelt der Freimaurer, der Geheimbünde, aber auch der der Jesuiten eine
herausragende Stellung.
Neben dem Minervatempel mit seinem mysteriösen unterirdischen Keller ist es
der Merkur, der im Garten von Schwetzingen gleich mehrfach eine herausragende
Bedeutungszuschreibung erfährt. Der Gartenführer von Zeyher verweist auf einen
Tempel des Merkurs, der der Vorgängerbau zum St.-Johannes-Stift/St.-Guidons-Stift
im oberrheinischen Speyer gewesen sei. Auch in Heidelberg, wo man schon seit
langem römische Denkmäler entdeckte, hätten die Römer auf dem „Heiligen Berg“
ein Kastell und ebenfalls einen Merkurtempel errichtet. 37 Der jesuitische gelehrte
Astronom und Mathematiker P. Christian Meyer, den Kurfürst Carl Theodor 1761
zu seinem Hof-Astronomen erhoben hatte und dem er 1763 eine mit englischen
Instrumenten ausgerüstete Sternwarte mit beweglichem Dach auf dem Schloss
in Schwetzingen erbauen ließ, begeisterte Carl Theodor für die Beobachtung des
Planeten Merkur. Schon ein Jahr vorher hatte Carl Theodor, den der Gartenführer
panegyrisch den „deutschen Salomon“ 38 nennt, den Garten zum Ort der Beobachtung
- 11 -
VI.
257

VI.
258
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
des Merkurdurchgangs durch die Sonne gemacht: „Carl Theodor, Kurfürst von der
Pfalz, ließ, als im Jahre 1762 der Planet Merkur durch die Sonne gieng, an dieser
Stelle [Orangerieplatz] eine kleine Sternwarte von Holz erbauen, wo der gelehrte
Jesuit und Hofastronom Christian Mayer [sic!] dieses merkwürdige Ereigniß in unserm
Planetensystem beobachtete.“ 39 Die Überlieferung weiß noch, dass dieses etwa
alle zehn Jahre stattfindende Ereignis, für dessen Sichtbarmachung ein speziell
ausgerüstetes Teleskop notwendig ist, von zentraler Bedeutung war.
In der südlichen Angloise, in der unmittelbaren Nähe des Minervatempels, wurde
eine Merkurstatue von Gabriel de Grupello aufgestellt, die die Attribute Flügelhut,
Füße mit Flügeln, Hahn und den Stab mit den Schlangen, den Caduceus? (heute
nur noch der Stab erkennbar), trägt. Dass die Gartengötter in Schwetzingen mehr
als ein spätbarockes Sammelsurium darstellten und für die Vorstellungswelt des
Gesamtgartens eine weitreichende Bedeutung zugeschrieben bekamen, kann die
Genese des Tempels des Merkurs andeuten.
Der Tempel des Merkurs, der ab 1784 errichtet wurde, spielte offenbar auch mit dem
naturmystischen Götter-Synkretismus, dem die Jesuiten, aber auch die Freimaurer und
Geheimbünde gefolgt waren. Christian Cay Lorenz Hirschfeld berichtete 1785 in seiner
„Theorie der Gartenkunst“ von einer „ägyptischen Parthie“, die man in Schwetzingen
begonnen habe zu gestalten: „Es ist ein Berg, worauf ein Monument des Königs
Sesostris neu aufgeführt wird (…). In den Gewölben des Berges kommen Begräbnisse
und Mumien zu stehen, und die Todten soll, wie man sagt, Charon dahin bringen. Um
den Berg wird der See Möris gegraben.“ 40
In der Gartenkunst des späten 18. Jahrhunderts spielte die Erinnerung an den
ägyptischen König Sesostris und die Weisheit der Ägypter durchaus eine Rolle. So
schrieb man in Gotha, wo Freimaurer und Illuminaten Einfluss auf die Gestaltung des
Gothaer Herzoglichen Gartens nahmen, im genealogischen „Gothaischen Hofkalender“
1778 über die Ägypter: „Sie waren die ersten, die die Kunst Zahlen zusammen zu
setzen, und auszurechnen, auf einen gewißen Grad der Richtigkeit gebracht hatten.
Sie erforschten den Lauf der Gestirne; teilten sie in gewiße Bilder, bezeichneten den
Thierkreis, bemerkten den Unterschied zwischen den Planeten und Fixsternen, und
machten von diesen Kenntnißen auf den Feldbau und der Eintheilung der Zeit, die
vortheilhafteste Anwendung. Das Aufrichten der Obelisken, die ungeheuren Steine
an den höchsten Gebäuden, zeugen von ihrer Einsicht in die Mechanik: Die in
den ältesten Zeiten bey ihnen gebräuchliche Abtheilung der Felder, die sämtlichen
Leitungen des Nilwassers, von ihrer Kenntnis in der Geometrie, und die unter der
Regierung des Sesostris verfertigte Landcharte, läßt auch an ihrer geographischen
Kenntnis nicht zweiffeln.“ 41
Wenn in Schwetzingen nun tatsächlich von Pigage ein Tempel des Gottes Merkur
ausgeführt wurde, widerspricht das dem ägyptischen Plan nur auf den ersten Blick,
- 12 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
denn Merkur war in der Vorstellung antiker Schriftsteller, aber auch Kirchers und in
seiner Folge auch anderer – nicht nur der Freimaurer – gleich dem ägyptischen Anubis,
dem Führer in die Unterwelt. 42 In Athanasius Kirchers „Oedipus Aegyptiacus“ (1653)
wurde das Sefiroth-Baum-Schema, das Herzstück der Kabbala, mit seinen zehn
Urzahlen oder Potenzen Gottes als Grundriss des Salomonischen Tempels oktogonal
entwickelt. Anklänge an den jesuitischen Universalentwurf mögen beim Entwurf
des Merkurtempels in Schwetzingen eine Rolle gespielt haben. Eine beim Bau des
Merkurtempels von Kircher herrührende bewusste Anspielung auf den Tempel Salomos
oder die astronomische und kosmologische Häuserlehre mit dem Merkur im Zentrum
(Sonne) im Sinne Ptolemaios, des Manilius, des Hyginus, den Architekturkonzepten
Vitruvs oder der „Hypnerotomachia Poliphili“ lassen sich immerhin vermuten. 43
Ebenso kann das Grabmal des Königs Moeris Anregungen gegeben haben, ein „Irr-
Gebäue”, das nach den „zwölff Egyptischen Landschafften in zwölff Höfe” eingeteilt
und voller Pyramiden und Lustgänge gewesen sei. („Oedipvs Aegyptiacvs“ 44 ; „Turris
Babel“ 45 ). Bei Abbé Jean de Terrasson, der seinen „König Sethos“-Roman (1731) in der
Nachfolge des Telemachos als Erziehungsroman für Fürstensöhne geschrieben hatte,
führt Merkur oder Orpheus die Toten in das labyrinthische Totenreich der ägyptischen
Könige am See Möris, der vom Seelenschiffer Charon befahren wird, ein. 46 Die Tempel
der Ägypter waren demnach als große mit Gärten angelegte Grabanlagen gestaltet,
in deren Innerem sich die Höhle des Merkur befand; ein Saal, der der Naturhistorie
gewidmet war. Der berühmte Merkur von Theben oder Hermes Trismegistos wird
hier als der Bewahrer der chemischen Weisheiten angesehen. 47 Betrachtet man den
Merkurtempel vor dem Hintergrund der jüngsten Zeitgeschichte in der Kurpfalz, lassen
die am Tempel erhaltenen Reliefs eine weitere Assoziation zu. Das Relief, das Merkur
zeigt, wie er den gegen Jupiter und die göttliche Ordnung aufbegehrenden Prometheus
an den Kaukasus fesselt, könnte eine Anspielung auf den 1786 verstorbenen großen
politischen Hauptgegenspieler des Kurfürsten Friedrich II. von Preußen transportieren.
Das zweite Relief zeigt Merkur, im Begriff, den von der eifersüchtigen Gattin Juno als
Wache aufgestellten allsehenden Argos zu töten. Jupiter hat die schöne Io in eine
Kuh verwandelt und will sie zu seiner Geliebten nehmen. Das dritte Relief, bisher
nicht eindeutig identifiziert, könnte so interpretiert werden: Io, die Jupiter am Fluss
Nil den Sohn Epaphus gebar, floh vor Juno nach Ägypten, wo sie als Göttin Isis und
ihr Sohn als Apis und als Erbauer von Memphis verehrt wurden, und gerät – von
Juno verfolgt – mit ihrer Dienerin Inyx in einen undurchdringlichen Nebel. Merkur
befreit sie daraus, „bis sie sich wieder zu Gott kehren, und ihre erste Gestalt und
mögliche Gleichheit mit Gott wieder erlangen. Nat. Com. l. VIII. c. 19.“ 48 Jupiter ist auf
dem Relief gekennzeichnet durch den Adler, der seine Geliebte anschaut. Die vom
Geschehen wegblickende Gattin Juno hat als Attribut den Pfau bei sich, auf dessen
Schwanzfedern sie die hundert Augen des toten Argus gesetzt hat. 49 Die explizite
- 13 -
VI.
259

VI.
260
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Zeigegeste des Merkur lässt an das Bildmotiv „Die Geburt des Bacchus“, wie es durch
Nicolas Poussin oder Peter Rysbrack überliefert ist, denken, bei dem Merkur der in
der Unterwelt verharrenden Mutter des Bacchus, Semele, den Weg aus der Unterwelt
zu Jupiter und der mit ihr versöhnten Juno weist. 50 Die Erhebung der im Nebel/in der
Unterwelt gefangenen Geliebten Jupiters durch den Totenführer Merkur in die Sphären
ewiger göttlicher Existenz und Liebe könnte als eine Anspielung auf den Kurfürsten und
seine verstorbene Geliebte gedeutet werden. Der am 27.12.1771 an den Folgen der
Geburt des vierten gemeinsamen Kindes gestorbenen Maria Josefa Gräfin Heydeck
käme durch diese allegorische Gleichsetzung mit der Jupiter-Geliebten das ewige
Leben zu, und der gemeinsame Sohn und Erbe des Kurfürsten Reichsfürst Karl August
Fürst von Bretzenheim erführe eine höhere, über den Tod hinausreichende „göttliche“
Legitimierung.
Wie sehr Anklänge an die ägyptischen und eleusinischen Mysterien Eingang in die
allgemeine zeitgenössische skulpturale und architektonische Gestaltung der Gärten
gefunden hat, zeigt die 1784 in Wien erschienene Schrift des habsburgischen
Kammerarchitekten, Hofmalers und k. und k. Hofbildhauers Johann Wilhelm Beyer:
„Die neue Muse oder der Nationalgarten“, in der die Skulpturen mit ägyptisierenden
Motiven wie einem Harpokrates oder ein ruinöser runder Tempel der Isis durchaus
gleichberechtigt neben einer Leda mit dem Schwan oder Amor und Psyche dargestellt
erscheinen. Genauso wie Carl Theodor und seinem Gärtner Sckell lag dem Gestalter
und Ausstatter von Schönbrunn die harmonische Einheit zwischen barockem und
unregelmäßigem Garten am Herzen. 51
Die ursprüngliche Idee eines Jagdsterns, der die Achse der direkten Chaussee nach
Mannheim und Heidelberg aufnehmen sollte und einen Schlossneubau im Zentrum
zweier Zirkelbauten beabsichtigte, wurde 1750 aufgegeben. Da sich Carl Theodor
durch die Machtpolitik Preußens in seinen niederrheinischen Besitzungen bedroht
sah, entschied er sich, auch als Machtdemonstration, mit Benrath ein Schloss in
Düsseldorf zu bauen. In Schwetzingen wurde das alte Schloss nicht durch ein neues
abgelöst und 1753 ließ Carl Theodor das ganz neu entworfene Kreisparterre, den
„Schwetzinger Zirkel“, nach dem Gartenplan von Johann Petri beginnen. Es war dies
eine völlig neue Idee, der sich alles andere unterordnen musste. Er wurde gelegentlich
erklärt als logische Weiterentwicklung der Idee des alten Jagdsterns und den axialen
Erfordernissen der Umorientierung des Schlosses zur Sommerresidenz. 52 Dass
das Kreisparterre mit dem inneren Achsenkreuz aber ganz bewusst konzipiert und
umgesetzt wurde, erhält durch neue Untersuchungen eine Basis: „Das Kreisparterre
stellt eine in der barocken Gartenkunst weltweit einmalige Raumschöpfung dar, deren
Form und Größe als Zeichen utopischer Modernität aufgefasst werden kann. Das
innere Achsenkreuz führt das Raumkonzept der Stadtanlage weiter und bildet über das
Parterre hinaus das grundlegende Koordinatensystem für die Gestaltung des Gartens.
- 14 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
Der 1748 angelegte Marktplatz vollendet, der Zirkel aber krönt die vorhandene barocke
Grundstruktur von Schwetzingen.“ 53 Tatsächlich entspricht der Kreis in Verbindung
mit dem Kreuz, der auch in der Grundfigur des Schwetzinger Gartens eingeflossen
ist, der hieroglyphischen Monade Kirchers, die sich auch im Caduceus des Merkur
oder dem Nil-Schlüssel des Anubis spiegelt. Kircher sah hierin ein Symbol des
göttlichen Weltsystems: im Kreis das ptolemäische Universum mit den Planetenbahnen
und Fixsternen, während das Kreuz die vier Elemente symbolisiert. 54 Die Kreis-/
Sphärenform war auf jeden Fall die universal integrierende Metapher des Jesuiten, sie
war Ausdruck der sinnfälligen „geschlossenen“ Unendlichkeit und universalen Ordnung
der Dinge. Durch seine Kombinatorik gelang es Kircher, islamische Alchemie, jüdische
Kabbala, persische Magie, chaldäische Astrologie oder zoroastische Mysterien im
Sinne eines „Alles in Allem“ zu vereinigen. „Die ursprüngliche Zweckbestimmung
der Zirkelgebäude als Orangerien spannt den ikonografischen Bogen von der reinen
Utopie der Geometrie zu einer im Garten verankerten Ikonografie des Goldenen
Zeitalters und damit, so kann zu Recht vermutet werden, als kanonische Anspielung
zur Ideengeschichte des Gartens selbst. Im Gedächtnis des gebildeten Besuchers der
Zeit ruft dies Beispiele wie die mythische Insel Kythera aus dem wirkungsgeschichtlich
wichtigen Werk von Francesco Colonna (1499) oder die programmatische Form
des botanischen Gartens in Padua mit schon im Mittelalter gängigen Bezügen zum
kosmologischen Sinnbild des Himmels hervor.“ 55 In dieser Hinsicht lässt sich auch eine
ideelle Verbindung zum Apollotempel herstellen, war doch Merkur derjenige, der von
Apollo durch sein Spiel auf der Leier zur eigenen Musik angeregt worden war. Apollo
hatte von Merkur das Musikinstrument im Tausch gegen die Rinder und das Lehren
der Wahrsagekunst erlangt. 56 Die sphärische Musik, wie sie in Apollos musikalischem
Wirken erlebbar wird, war auch nach Kircher höchster Ausdruck göttlicher Harmonie. 57
Auf der Westseite zeigt sich der Tempelbau durch die vielen auf dem Geländer
angebrachten vergoldeten Sonnenallegorien als Apollo-Sonnen-Tempel. Hier kulminiert
das kosmologische Programm des Gartens, das im Badhaus mit dem Deckengemälde
„Die Morgenröte (Aurora) vertreibt die Nacht“ aufgenommen wurde und in der Moschee
mit den diversen Mond- und Sternensymbolen seinen Endpunkt findet.
Der Bau der Moschee im „jardin turc“ in Schwetzingen, ähnelt mit den zwei Minaretten
der nicht erhaltenen Moschee aus Kew Gardens (entstanden um 1763). Neben
dem Modecharakter dieser orientalisierenden Gartenbauten zeigen die sorgsam
ausgewählten arabischen Inschriften der Moschee, dass es für die Erbauer offenbar
um ein ambitioniertes Ziel ging, „eine Elite der Tugendhaften und nach Weisheit
Strebenden anzusprechen und heranzubilden. Nicht auszuschließen ist zudem,
dass in einem Zeitalter, in dem höfische Überfeinerung und Stilisierung, Lust an der
Allusion und am Geheimnis, aber auch der Zwang zur Vorsicht aus politischen und
moralischen Gründen eine so bedeutsame Rolle spielten, die Sprüche eine direkte und
- 15 -
VI.
261

VI.
262
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
eine indirekte Aussage, einen konkreten und einen ideellen Bezug vermittelt haben
könnten, der nur dem Eingeweihten voll verständlich war.“ 58 Ähnliches lässt sich für
den Tempel der Botanik, der als Tempel der Ceres/Persephone verstehbar ist, das
sogenannte Arboricum Theodoricum oder das Römische Wasserkastell vermuten.
Wenn Carl Theodor in einer übergreifenden Concordienkirche die verfeindeten
christlichen Kirchen wieder vereinigen wollte, so hat er sich durchaus im Umkreis der
synkretistischen und kombinatorischen Vorstellungen der Jesuiten bewegt, die in allen
Kulturen, Völkern und Religionen einen Teil der göttlichen Wahrheit erblickten. In Zeiten
von kriegerischen Spannungen verfeindeter Lager, in denen der Kurfürst für sich und
seinen Stamm auch in der Landschaft eine dauerhafte Memoria sichern wollte, bildete
die kombinatorische und analogisierende Metaphernsprache, wie sie von den Jesuiten
in Anknüpfung an die kulturellen und religiösen Überlieferungen ersonnen wurden,
über die Konfessionen und Lager hinweg ein überzeugendes, von allen verstehbares
verbindendes Codesystem. Dass der Schwetzinger Garten – wie kaum ein anderer
– alle Zeitläufe im Wesentlichen unbeschadet überstanden hat und seine Balance
zwischen barocken und landschaftlichen Elementen genau so erhalten hat, wie es Carl
Theodor für sein kurfürstliches Monument erdacht hatte, machte ihn schon für den
Autor der Gartenenzyklopädie John Claudius Loudon 1828 zum „most splendid“ und
„most delightfull garden in Germany (…).“ 59
Berlin, im November 2009
1 Wolfram Martini: Einleitung. In: Architektur der Erinnerung. ed. von Wolfram Martini. (SFB 434 Erinnerungskulturen,
Universität Gießen; Formen der Erinnerung, Bd. 1), S. 9.
2 Vgl. Martin Warnke: Politische Landschaft. Zur Kunstgeschichte der Natur. München 1992.
3 Vgl. etwa John Dixon Hunt: „Ut Pictura Poesis“: The Garden and the Picturesque in England (1710-1750). In: Monique
Mosser, Georges Teyssot (ed.): The Architecture of Western Gardens. Cambridge, Mass. 1991, S. 231-242; Günther
Oesterle, Harald Tausch (ed.): Der imaginierte Garten. (Formen der Erinnerung, Bd. 9). Göttingen 2001; Richard Saage,
Eva-Maria Seng (ed.): Von der Geometrie zur Naturalisierung. Utopisches Denken im 18. Jahrhundert zwischen literarischer
Fiktion und frühneuzeitlicher Gartenkunst (Hallesche Beiträge zur Europäischen Aufklärung, Bd. 10). Tübingen
1999. Michael Niedermeier: Erinnerungslandschaft und Geheimwissen: Inszenierte Memoria und politische Symbolik in
der deutschen Literatur und den anderen Künsten (1650-1850). Habil. Technische Universität Berlin 2007, S. 6-18.
4 G.B. Clarke: Ancient Taste and Gothic Virtue. Lord Cobham’s Gardening Programme and its Iconography. In: Apollo 97,
1973, S. 566-71.
5 Stephen Curl: Symbolism in Eighteenth-Century gardens: Some Observations. In: Symbolism in 18th-century gardens,
S. 25-68.
6 Starck 1898, S. 4: Zit. nach: Sigrid Gensichen: Die Quellen zum Heidelberger Schlossgarten 1614 bis 1945: Hortus
Palatinus, Landschaftsgarten mit Lehrfunktion, Waldpark und Teilrekonstruktion des Hortus Palatinus. Dossenheim
2009, Pkt. 2.3.2.
7 Richard Patterson: The ‚Hortus Palatinus‘ at Heidelberg and the Reformation of the World. In: Journal of Garden History
1/1 (Januar-März), S. 67-104; 1/2 (April-Juni), S. 179-200; Luke Morgan: Nature as model: Salomon de Caus and early
seventeenth-century landscape design [Hortus Palatinus u. a.]. Philadelphia, PA 2007.
- 16 -

VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
8 Der Garten und das Schloss des mit der ältesten Tochter von James I./IV. (1566-1625), König von England, Schottland
und Irland, verheirateten Friedrich V., der unglückliche „Winterkönig“, der versucht hatte, die Kurpfalz als führende
protestantische Macht im Reich zu positionieren, und damit den für Europa verheerenden Krieg ausgelöst hatte, hätte
für Carl Theodor Anknüpfungspunkt für die eigene Herrschaft sein können.
9 Protocollum commissionale (1795): „Tit herr V. Pigage für sich dermalen und bei seinem Hohen Alter allzu lästig
gehalten, ganz nothwendig und dem herrsch[aftlichen] besten vorträglich, einmüthig geäußeret, und dieses nur
noch zu erinnern nothwendig gefunden haben, daß der Lustgarten ohnedem von weitwendigem Umfang und als ein
Churpfälz[isch]es Monument zu unterhalten schon einen Großen Kosten Verwand erfodere, allerdings unbillig seÿe, auf
die erweiterung deselben bei gegenwärtig[en] betrübten Cassæ Umständen einen Antrag zu erstellen, gleichwohlen
wenn Zeit und Umständen sich ändern, und die Cassen in besere Verhältnisen sich befinden würden…“ (Hervorhebung
M.N.).
10 Vgl. insbesondere: Adrian von Buttlar: Der englische Landsitz 1715-1760. Symbol eines liberalen Weltentwurfs.
Mittenwald 1982; Ders.: Der Landschaftsgarten. Gartenkunst des Klassizismus und der Romantik. München 1980. 2.
Aufl. Köln 1989; Bernard Korzus: Neugotik im Alten Reich. Zum Architekturhistorismus in deutschen Landschaftsgärten
des 18. Jahrhunderts (1996). In: Bagno – Neugotik – Le Rouge. Nachgelassene Beiträge zur europäischen Gartenforschung
von Bernard Korzus. Mitteilungen der Pückler-Gesellschaft. Red. Sybille Backmann, Elfriede Korzus, Michael
Niedermeier. 23. Heft. – Neue Folge – 2008, S. 27-62; John Harris, Bernard Korzus: Das Englische bei Jussow. In:
Heinrich Christoph Jussow, 1754–1825. Ein hessischer Architekt des Klassizismus. [Ausstellungskatalog]. ed. von Hans
Ottomeyer. Worms 1999, S. 53–65; Michael Niedermeier: „Die ganze Erde wird zu einem Garten”: Gedächtniskonstruktionen
im frühen deutschen Landschaftsgarten zwischen Aufklärung und Geheimnis. In: Im Auftrage der Stiftung
Weimarer Klassik hg. von Georg Bollenbeck (u.a.): Weimar. Archäologie eines Ortes. Weimar 2001, S. 120-175. Ders.:
Germanen in Gärten. „Altdeutsche Heldengräber”, „gotische” Denkmäler und die patriotische Gedächtniskultur. In: Jost
Hermand, Michael Niedermeier: Revolutio Germanica. Die Sehnsucht nach der alten Freiheit der Germanen 1750-1820.
Frankfurt a. M. 2002, S. 21-116; Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier: Pyramiden im frühen Landschaftsgarten. In:
Pegasus. Berliner Beiträge zum Nachleben der Antike. Heft 7, 2005, S. 133-161. Michael Niedermeier: Im Gartenland
der Göttin Venus. Dessau-Wörlitz zwischen Aufklärung, Politik und erotisch-kosmologischer Weltanschauung. In:
„Schauplatz vernünftiger Menschen“ – Kultur und Geschichte in Anhalt-Dessau. Katalog, hg. von Hans Wilderotter.
Dessau 2006, S. 157-192. Klassizismus – Gotik. Karl Friedrich Schinkel und die patriotische Baukunst. ed. von Annette
Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier und Horst Bredekamp unter Mitwirkung von Axel Klausmeier. München 2007. Annette
Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier: Helden, Hirten und gefälschte Götter – Anciennitätskonzepte in herrschaftlichen Gärten
des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts. In. Preußische Gärten in Europa. 300 Jahre Gartengeschichte. ed. von der Stiftung
Preußische Schlösser und Gärten in Zusammenarbeit mit ICOMOS-IFLA. Leipzig 2007, S. 162-165. Michael Niedermeier:
„So vermähle sich die germanische und slawische Welt“. Archäologie, Genealogie und Landschaftsgestaltung in
Brandenburg und Mecklenburg. In: Die Gartenkunst 1/2009, S. 37-50.
11 Eigentlich zum geistlichen Stand erzogen, war er bereits mit 14 Jahren Domherr von Köln, ließ sich nach dem Tod
seines älteren Bruders 1716 erst 1718 widerwillig in Heidelberg nieder, geriet in Konflikt mit der protestantischen
Bevölkerung. Daraufhin verlegte er seine Residenz von Heidelberg nach Mannheim.
12 Vgl. zusammenfassend: Karl Otmar v. Aretin: Das Reich und der österreichisch-preußische Dualismus (1745-1806; Das
Alte Reich 1648-1806, Bd. 3). 4. Aufl. München 1997, bes. S. 183-203, hier S. 183.
13 Ebd.
14 Vgl. Jörg Engelbrecht: Carl Theodor und die „Niederen Lande“. In: Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit, Kurfürst Carl Theodor
(1724-1799) zwischen Barock und Aufklärung; Handbuch und Ausstellungskatalog, hg. von Alfried Wieczorek. 2 Bde.
Regensburg 1999, Bd. 1, S. 195.
15 Günther Ebersold: Karl August Reichsfürst von Bretzenheim. Die politische Biographie eines Unpolitischen. Norderstedt
2004, S. 29.
16 Rudolf Haas: Das Palais Bretzenheim in Mannheim A2 und seine Geschichte. 2. Aufl. Mannheim 1975, S. 7ff.
17 Karl Weich SJ: Jesuiten am Hof Carl Theodors. In: Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit, Bd. 1, S. 153.
18 Günther Ebersold: Karl August Reichsfürst von Bretzenheim. Die politische Biographie eines Unpolitischen. Norderstedt
2004, S. 52.
19 Gartendirektor Zeyher und J.G. Rieger: Schwetzingen und seine Garten=Anlagen. Mannheim o.J. [um 1820], S. 169.
20 Beschreibung der Gartenanlagen zu Schwetzingen. Herausgegeben von Gartendirektor Zeyher und G. Roemer. Neue
verb. Aufl. Mannheim o.J. [1809?], S. 2.
21 Ebd. S. 45.
22 Ebd. S. 123.
23 Casimir Häffelin: Dissertatio de Balneo Romano in agro Lupodunensi reperto. Acta Academiae Theodoro-Palatinae III.
[Mannheim 1775], S. 213-227.
24 Ralf Richard Wagner, mündlich
25 Vgl. Claudia Braun: Kurfürst Carl Theodor als Denkmalpfleger. In: Lebenslust und Frömmigkeit, Bd. 1, S. 347-352, hier
S. 347.
26 Vgl. Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier: Helden, Hirten und gefälschte Götter – Anciennitätskonzepte in herrschaftlichen
Gärten des 18. und 19. Jahrhunderts; Dies.: Wodan und Svantevit oder von Lethra bis Rethra. Germanische
und slawische Vorzeit in herrschaftlich-patriotischen Gartenprogrammen Dänemarks, Mecklenburgs, Brandenburgs
und Polens. In: Vom höfischen Garten zum öffentlichen Grün. Gartenkunstgeschichte und Gartendenkmalpflege in
Deutschland und Polen. ed. von Gabriele Horn (im Erscheinen); Michael Niedermeier: Anthyrius – Odin – Radegast.
Die gefälschten mecklenburgischen Bodendenkmäler und inszenierte Herrscherabstammungen im „englischen“ Garten.
In: Vorwelten und Vorzeiten. Archäologie als Spiegel historischen Bewusstseins in der Frühen Neuzeit. ed. Dietrich
Hakelberg, Ingo Wiwjorra. (Herzog-August-Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel) 2009 (im Druck).
27 Peter Fuchs: Palatinatus illustratus – Die Historische Forschung an der kurpfälzischen Akademie der Wissenschaften.
Mannheim 1963, S. 156.
- 17 -
VI.
263

VI.
264
VI. Interpretation of the Palace Gardens as a whole: Dr. Michael Niedermeier
28 Zeyher [um 1820], S. 105f.
29 Ebd. S. 1-39, hier S. 34.
30 Vgl. Thomas Leinkauf: Mundus combinatus. Studien zur Struktur der barocken Universalwissenschaft am Beispiel
Athanasius Kirchers SJ (1602-1680). Berlin 1993; Joscelyn Godwin: Athanasius Kircher. A Renaissance man and the
quest for lost knowledge. London 1979. (dt. Ausgabe Berlin 1994).
31 Vgl. z. B. A. Kircher: Arca Noé. Amsterdam 1675, S. 140. – Vgl. auch: Alfred Schröcker: Die deutsche Genealogie im 17.
Jahrhundert zwischen Herrscherlob und Wissenschaft. Unter besonderer Berücksichtigung von G. W. Leibniz. In: Archiv
für Kulturgeschichte, 59, 1977, S. 432ff.; Genealogie als Denkform in Mittelalter und Früher Neuzeit. ed. von Kilian
Heck und Bernhard Jahn. Tübingen 2000. Michael Niedermeier: Altertümer und Artefakte. Patriotische Baukunst im
frühen Landschaftsgarten und ihr Wandel um 1800. In: Klassizismus – Gotik. Karl Friedrich Schinkel und die patriotische
Baukunst. ed. von Annette Dorgerloh, Michael Niedermeier und Horst Bredekamp unter Mitwirkung von Axel Klausmeier.
München 2007, S. 17-42.
32 Carl Ludwig Fuchs, Claus Reisinger: Schloss und Garten zu Schwetzingen. Worms 2001, S. 177-184; Symbolism in
18th-century gardens. The Influence of Intellectual and Esoteric Currents, such as Freemasonry. ed. von Jan A.M.
Snoek, Monika Scholl und Andréa A. Kroon. Den Haag 2006.
33 Vgl. etwa: Michael Niedermeier: Von der Schrift in die Landschaft. Die Isis-Initiation des Apulejus in der Mystischen
Partie des Wörlitzer Gartens. In: Übersetzung und Transformation. ed. von Hartmut Böhme, Christof Rapp und Wolfgang
Rösler. Berlin 2007, 267-308; Ders: Der Herzogliche Englische Garten in Gotha und das Geheimbundwesen. In:
Freimaurerische Kunst – Kunst der Freimaurerei, hg. von Helmut Reinalter. Innsbruck 2005, 127-151. Ders.: Freimaurer
und Geheimbünde in den frühen Landschaftsgärten der Aufklärung. In: Aufklärung in Geschichte und Gegenwart. ed.
von Brunhilde Wehinger, Richard Faber. Würzburg 2009 (im Erscheinen).
34 Oedipvs Aegyptiacvs. Hoc est Vniuersalis Hieroglyphicae Veterum. Doctrinae temporum iniuria abolitae instavratio (...)
Ad Ferdinandvm III. Caesarem Semper Avgvstvm. M DC LII. (1652), Bd. 1, S. 189.
35 Vgl. Eugen Lehnhoff, Oskar Posner, Dieter A. Binder: Internationales Freimaurerlexikon. Überarb. u. erweiterte Neuauflage
München 2000, S. 111. Ursula Rumpler: Ignaz Frank. In: Bautz. Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon,
Bd. 23. Nordhausen 2004, Sp. 398-413.
36 Vgl. etwa: „Fortgang der Illuminatenverfolgung in Baiern; Etwas zum Trost für Freymäurer und Illuminaten. Aus
Brantoms Biographie oder Lobrede der Catharina von Medicis, Gemahlin Heinrich II. Königs von Frankreich“. In: Journal
von und für Deutschland, 2. Jg., 1785, S. 196ff.; Zum utopischen Potential der Illuminaten: Adam Weißhaupt: Grössere
Mysterien. In: Johann Joachim Christoph Bode: Journal von einer Reise von Weimar nach Frankreich im Jahr 1787; mit
einer Einleitung, Anmerkungen, einem Register und einem dokumentarischen Anhang versehen von Hermann Schüttler.
München 1994, S. 372. Richard van Dülmen: Der Geheimbund der Illuminaten. Darstellung, Analyse, Dokumentation.
Stuttgart 1975, S. 25, 90, 339, 393; Hermann Schüttler: Die Mitglieder des Illuminatenordens 1776-1787/93. München
1991, S. 214ff.
37 Zeyher [1820], S. 11, 14.
38 Zeyher [1820], S. 53.
39 Zeyher [1820], S. 152.
40 C.C.L. Hirschfeld: Theorie der Gartenkunst. Bd. 5. Leipzig 1785, S. 344f.
41 Gothaischer Hofkalender zum Nutzen und Vergnügen eingerichtet auf das Jahr 1778. Gotha 1778, S. 67.
42 Vgl. etwa: A. Kircher: Turris Babel, sive Archontologia (...) Auspiccii Augustissimi&Sapientissimi Caesaris Leopoldi Primi
Mecoenatis. Amsterdam 1679, Bd. 2, S. 139.
43 Vgl. hierzu etwa: Horst Bredekamp: Vicino Orsini und der Heilige Wald von Bomarzo. 2. überarb. Aufl. Worms 1991,
S. 66; S. 132ff.; Abb. 172, 173; Gernot Böhme, Hartmut Böhme: Feuer, Wasser, Erde, Luft. Eine Kulturgeschichte der
Elemente. München 1996, S. 257ff.
44 3 Bde. Rom 1642–1654, bes. Bd. 1, S. 16ff., S. 189ff., 207ff.
45 Amsterdam 1679, Bd. 2, S. 73ff.
46 Vgl. etwa: Terrasson: Geschichte des egyptischen Königs Sethos. Aus dem Französischen übersetzt von Matthias
Claudius. Bd. 1. Breslau 1777, S. 37, 53.
47 Ebd. S. 70f.
48 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon. Leipzig 1770, Sp. 1352.
49 Des Publius Ovidius Naso Verwandlungen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen für junge Leute, angehende Künstler und
ungelehrte Kunstliebhaber versehen von August Rode. 1. Teil, Berlin 1791, S. *2, 51ff.
50 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon. Leipzig 1770, Sp. 2185f.
51 Wilhelm Beyer: Die neue Muse oder der Nationalgarten den akademischen Gesellschaften vorgelegt. Wien 1784, S. 14.
Kupfer 7.
52 Fuchs/Reisinger, S. 69.
53 Troll, Förderer, Schmitt: Der Schlossgarten Schwetzingen. München 2008, S. 28.
54 Joscelyn Godwin: Athanasius Kircher. Ein Mann der Renaissance und die Suche nach verlorenem Wissen. Berlin 1994,
S. 61; vgl. auch Leinkauf: Mundis cmbinatus, S. 18ff., 28, 159, 184ff., 211ff.
55 Hartmut Troll: Manuskript 2009, siehe Kap. 3.c des Antrages.
56 Benjamin Hederich: Gründliches mythologisches Lexikon. Leipzig 1770, Sp. 331ff.
57 Leinkauf, Mundus combinatus, S. 342-348.
58 Udo Simon: Die arabischen Inschriften der Moschee im Schwetzinger Schlossgarten. In: Symbolism in 18th-century
gardens. Den Haag 2006, S. 189-202, hier S. 201.
59 John Claudius Loudon: An encyclopedia of gardening. New Ed. London 1850, S. 143-146.
- 18 -

About the Experts
Michael Hesse
Prof. Dr. Michael Hesse has been Professor
of Modern European Art History at the
Art History Department of the University
of Heidelberg since 1992 and is one of the
directors of the Centre for European History
and Cultural Studies.
He studied at Bochum, Münster and Paris,
gaining his first degree in 1976 and his PhD,
entitled Die Auseinandersetzung mit der Gotik
in der französischen Sakralarchitektur des
16., 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, in 1979. He
was awarded a Habilitation in 1986 for the
book Königsplätze in Paris; and from 1986 to
1992 held the chair of Professor of Mediaeval
and Modern Art History at the University of
Bochum.
Professor Hesse has published numerous
works on modern and present-day
architecture, urbanism and fine arts, focusing
in particular on classical influences in
modernity.
Selected publications:
Klassische Architektur in Frankreich. Kirchen,
Schlösser, Gärten, Städte 1600 bis 1800
(Darmstadt 2004); „’Das herrlichste Bauwerk
der Welt’. Zur Rezeption des Ostfassade des
Louvre im französischen Frühklassizismus“
(in: Tausch (ed.), Gehäuse der Mnemosyne.
Architektur als Schriftform der Erinnerung,
2003); Stadtarchitektur. Fallbeispiele von
der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Köln 2003);
„Ästhetische Autonomie und mythologische
Sinnstiftung. Überlegungen zur Architektur des
Frühklassizismus“ (in: Burdorf/Schweickard
(Eds.), Die schöne Verwirrung der Phantasie.
Antike Mythologie in Literatur und Kunst
um 1800, 1998); „Bauwerk und Betrachter.
Ästhetische Erfahrung in der Architektur“
(in: Stöhr (Hrsg.): Ästhetische Erfahrung
heute, 1996); „Mythos und Geschichte in
der Architektur der Aufklärungszeit“ (in:
Bering/Hohmann (Eds.), Mythos. Realisation
von Wirklichkeit, 1988); „Klassizismus als
Auflösung des klassischen Architekturkonzepts.
Vier Exkurse zur Architekturtheorie Marc-
Antoine Laugiers“ (in: Boehm/Stierle/
Winter (Eds.), Modernität und Tradition,
1985); Von der Nachgotik zur Neugotik. Die
Auseinandersetzung mit der Gotik in der
französischen Sakralarchitektur des 16ten,
17ten und 18ten Jahrhunderts (1984);
Géza Hajós
Professor Géza Hajós has worked at the
Bundesdenkmalamt (Federal Office of Historic
Monuments) in Vienna, Austria, since 1965,
serving as the head of the Department for
Historic Gardens since 1986.
He was awarded his first degree at Budapest’s
Eötövös Loránd University and his PhD at the
University of Vienna. From 1980 to 1988 he
was a member of the executive committee of
the Austrian Association of Art Historians. He
served on the advisory board of the Journal of
Garden History for several years, and has been
on the board of Die Gartenkunst magazine
since 1989. Since 1991 he has served as
General Secretary of the Austrian Association
of Historic Gardens. In 1992 he completed his
Habiliation at the University of Modern Art
History in Graz.
Professor Hajós is the author of many
publications, including Der malerische
Landschaftspark in Laxenburg bei Wien (2006);
Denkmalschutz und Öffentlichkeit. Zwischen
Kunst, Kultur und Natur. Ausgewählte Schriften
zur Denkmaltheorie und Kulturgeschichte
1981-2002 (2006); Illusion und Landschaft
(2003); Historische Gärten in Österreich.
Vergessene Gesamtkunstwerke (2001);
Romantische Gärten der Aufklärung (1998);
Der Schlosspark Laxenburg (1998).
Klaus von Krosigk
Dr.-Ing. qualified engineer, Director of Garden
Construction, born 1945 in Halle, Germany.
Degrees in Garden Architecture and Garden
History, and History of Art and Architecture at
the Technical University of Hanover.
Has worked for the state of Berlin since
1978, first at the Senate Department for
Construction and Housing, and since
1981 at the Senate Department for Urban
Development. Head of the Department
for Garden Conservation, part of Berlin’s
265

266
About the Experts
State Office for Monument Protection;
Deputy Curator of Berlin since 1994.
Chairperson of the Historic Gardens
Research Group (Arbeitskreis Histo rische
Gärten); Vice-President of the German
Society for Garden Design and Landscaping
(Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gartenkunst und
Landschaftskultur). German Member on the
special committee for historic gardens of the
International Committee of Historic Gardens
and Sites set up by ICOMOS-IFLA. Lecturer
in garden conservation at the Fachhochschule
Weihenstephan and other places of higher
education such as Berlin’s University of
Applied Sciences. Member of the executive
committee of the German Castles Association
(Deutsche Burgenvereinigung).
Doctorate in Engineering in 2005 from the
Technische Universität Berlin.
Dr von Krosigk is the author of numerous
publications and essays on the history of
garden design and heritage conservation.
Kurt Andermann
Dr. Kurt Andermann, archivist and
regional historian, is Project Manager at
the State Archives (Landesarchiv) of Baden-
Württemberg and lectures at the History
Department of the University of Freiburg.
He was chairperson of the Research Group
in Historical Area Studies of the Upper
Rhine (Arbeitsgemeinschaft für geschichtliche
Landeskunde am Oberrhein) from 1985 to
1995; member of the Committee for Historical
Area Studies in Baden-Württemberg
(Kommission für geschichtliche Landeskunde
in Baden-Württemberg); member of the
Palatinate Association for the Advancement
of Arts and Sciences (Pfälzischen Gesellschaft
zur Förderung der Wissenschaften); member
of the advisory board of the Baden Local
History Association (Landesverein Badische
Heimat); elected member of the Frankish
History Association (Gesellschaft für
Fränkische Geschichte); member of the
South-west German Research Group in Urban
History (Südwestdeutscher Arbeitskreis für
Stadtgeschichtsforschung).
Dr Andermann has written and edited many
books and papers, including Residenzen.
Aspekte hauptstädtischer Zentralität von der
frühen Neuzeit bis zum Ende der Monarchie
(Oberrheinische Studien 10), Sigmaringen
1992; Landesherrliche Städte in Südwestdeutsc
hland(Oberrheinische Studien 12), Sigmaringen
1992; „Raubritter“ oder „Rechtschaffene vom
Adel“? Aspekte von Politik, Friede und Recht
im späten Mittelalter (Oberrheinische Studien
14), Sigmaringen 1997; Regionale Aspekte des
frühen Schulwesens (Kraichtaler Kolloquien
2), Tübingen 2000; Zwischen Nicht-Adel und
Adel (Vorträge und Forschungen 53), Stuttgart
2001; Die geistlichen Staaten am Ende des
Alten Reiches. Versuch einer Bilanz (Kraichtaler
Kolloquien 4), Epfendorf 2004; Grafen und
Herren in Südwestdeutschland vom 12. bis ins
17. Jahrhundert (Kraichtaler Kolloquien 5),
Epfendorf 2006.
Bärbel Pelker
Dr. Bärbel Pelker has been employed at the
Mannheim Court Orchestra Research Unit of
Heidelberg’s Academy of Sciences since 1990.
She read Musicology and German at the
University of Heidelberg, and completed her
PhD in 1990.
Dr Pelker’s publications have focused largely
on the Mannheim School, appearing in the
Research Unit’s Quellen und Studien zur
Geschichte der Mannheimer Hofkapelle series
(from 1994) and in the Musik der Mannheimer
Hofkapelle series (1999); she has also
compiled a commentated facsimile of Ignaz
Holbauer’s opera Günther von Schwarzburg
for the Baden-Württemberg Music History
Association (Gesellschaft für Musikgeschichte
in Baden-Württemberg, 2000).
Together with Professor Silke Leopold, Dr
Pelker has co-authored a comprehensive
standard work on music at Schwetzingen
entitled Hofoper in Schwetzingen (2004).
Michael Niedermeier
Since 2000 Dr. habil. Michael Niedermeier
has headed the Goethe Dictionary research

team at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of
Sciences in Berlin.
Studied German, English and Education at
Humboldt University in Berlin, obtaining
his first doctor’s degree in 1983, and his
second in 2007 at the Technical University
of Berlin. 1983-2000 research fellow at HU
Berlin. Visiting researcher/guest lecturer at:
University of Budapest (ELTE), University of
Vienna, University of Klagenfurt, University
of Wisconsin, Madison, Dumbarton Oaks
(Harvard), Washington, D.C., University of
Massachusetts Amherst.
Co-opted in 2005 into the collaborative
research on Transformations of Antiquity at
HU Berlin. Lecturer at TU Berlin. 2000-2005
Scientific Advisory Council. Since 2005 board
member of Pückler Gesellschaft e.V., Society
for Preserving and Researching Historical
Gardens. 1995-97 German member on the
editorial board of the Journal of Garden
History. An International Quarterly (London/
Washington, D.C.), 1990ff. Co-edits the annual
bibliography of the history of garden design
in the academic journal: Die Gartenkunst
(Worms/Rhine).
Author of numerous publications on the
literary and cultural history of the 17th to
20th-centuries, landscape and garden history,
and the history of words and meanings,
including:
Das Gartenreich Dessau-Wörlitz als kulturelles
und literarisches Zentrum um 1780 (1995,
Dessau-Wörlitz-Beiträge 4); Erotik in der
Gartenkunst. Eine Kulturgeschichte der
Liebesgärten (1995); with Jost Hermand:
Revolutio Germanica. Die Sehnsucht nach der
alten Freiheit der Germanen 1750-1820 (2002);
Goethe-Wörterbuch. published by the Berlin-
Brandenburg. Akademie d. Wissenschaften
(2004); with Annette Dorgerloh: Arkadien.
Geschichten eines europäischen Traumes, to
accompany the exhibition in Weimar 2007,
Tiefurt 2008, Dessau 2009 (2007); with Horst
Bredekamp and Annette Dorgerloh assisted
by Axel Klausmeier: Klassizismus/Gotik.
Karl Friedrich Schinkel und die patriotische
Baukunst (2007); entry on Landscape/Garden
About the Experts
in: Handbuch Europäische Aufklärung. Ed.
Heinz Thoma (expected 2009).
267

268
Editor: Wirtschaftsministerium (Ministry of Economic Affairs)
Baden-Württemberg;
Finanzministerium (Ministry of Finance) Baden-Württemberg;
Stadt Schwetzingen (Town of Schwetzingen)
All rights reserved (© 2009).
Project Management
and Contact: Staatliche Schlösser und Gärten
Baden-Württemberg,
Schlossraum 22, 76646 Bruchsal
andreas.falz@ssg.bwl.de
Information: www.welterbeantrag-schwetzingen.de
Redaction: Andreas Förderer, Petra Schaffrodt,
Petra Pechacek
Translation: Kay Henn, Susanne Stopfel, Mike and Barbara Evans
Jacket image: Bernd Hausner, Regierungspräsidium
Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege
Michael Amm, Stuttgarter Luftbild Elsässer
Verso: Gesamtplan, Verdyck & Gugenhan, Landschaftsarchitekten
Layout: Struve & Partner, Atelier für Grafik-Design,
Sickingenstraße 1a, 69126 Heidelberg
hs@struveundpartner.de
Photo Credits
M. Amm (Stuttgarter Luftbild Elsässer): Titel bottom; p. 14, p. 84; Bayerische Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser, Gärten und Seen,
München: p. 29; p. 49; p. 95 top right; p. 96; p. 106 bottom; O. Braasch (Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege):
p. 22 top; DDGL Bayern-Nord: p. 51; P. van Bolhuis/Pandion: in: Steenbergen/Reh: Architecture and Landscape. Bussum 2003;
p. 79; p. 81; B. Fischer (Luftbildkontor): p. 54; A. Förderer, Schwetzingen: p. 16 bottom; p. 17 top + bottom; p. 18 top; p. 24 bottom;
p. 119 bottom; p. 145 top + bottom; p. 146 top + bottom; A. Gerngross (FOTAG.de): p. 47; Hansgrohe: in: Badewonnen. Gestern – Heute
– Morgen. (Hrsg.) Hansgrohe, Köln 1993, p. 106 top; B. Hausner (Regierungspräsidium Stuttgart, Landesamt für Denkmalpflege): Titel
top; p. 15 top; p. 16 top; p. 18 bottom; p. 19; p. 20 top + bottom; p. 21; p. 22 bottom; p. 23 bottom; istockphoto: p. 46; p. 52; p. 56; p. 61;
p. 64; p. 66; p. 70; p. 73; p. 74; p. 82; Kew Gardens: p. 107; K. Knyff: p. 94 top left; Kurpfälzisches Museum, Heidelberg: p. 27; p. 28;
Landesmedienzentrum Baden-Württemberg: p. 42; p. 43; p. 44; p. 97; p. 100; Jochen Martz, 2008 (BN): p. 71; P. Milbrod (Wolkenmond):
p. 59; Paleis Het Loo: p. 76; A. Moosbrugger, Schwetzingen: p. 23 top; p. 24 top; p. 119 top; P. Pechaček: p. 110; W. Rogasch:
p. 77; Rohde/Schomann (Hrsg.): In: Historische Gärten heute. Leipzig 2003, p. 63; H. Rohr (Stadt Schwetzingen): p. 9; p. 126, p. 127;
p. 128; p. 129; Schlossbibliothek Schwetzingen: p. 30; T. Schwerdt: p. 15 bottom; J. Silver (photos4you.at): p. 68; Staatsanzeiger Verlag
Stuttgart: p. 143; Stadt Schwetzingen: p. 142; H. Strickling: Das Bagno in Steinfurt, Steinfurt 2004, p. 109 bottom; Struve & Partner,
Atelier für Grafik-Design, Heidelberg: p. 7; p. 11; p. 138; p. 151; Verdyck & Gugenhan, Landschaftsarchitekten, Stuttgart: p. 12; back;
Verwaltung der Staatlichen Schlösser und Gärten Hessen: p. 105; p. 109 top; A. von Buttlar: in: Adrian von Buttlar, Der Landschaftsgarten,
Köln 1989; p. 98; Württembergisches Landesmuseum: p. 94 bottom; p. 95 bottom.