Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for :

  • "landscape garden" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Két atipikus Markó-festmény a kismartoni Esterházy-kastély parkjáról

Two Atypical Markó Paintings of the Park of the Esterházy Mansion in Kismarton (Eisenstadt)

Művészettörténeti Értesítő
Géza Galavics


The paper is connected to the Budapest exhibition in 2011 of Károly Markó (1793–1860), who was born in Hungary but earned a fame as a landscapist in Italy. In the exhibition catalogue Sabine Grabner wrote an article with the title Károly Markó's Viennese Connections, and published two, so-far unknown Markó paintings of 1831 from the central Bohemian country house of Červena Lhota: Landscape with figures in a boat and Landscape with figures strolling in the park. The present paper highlights the identification of the themes of the two paintings. Both were painted of the landscape garden of the Esterházy mansion in Kismarton/Eisenstadt, exactly its two most characteristic views: one shows the lateral view of the garden facade of the mansion and its surroundings, the other features the Leopoldine temple with the pond in front of it. The landscape garden and its edifices were commissioned by Prince Nicolaus Esterházy II (1765–1833), a fabulously rich Hungarian aristocrat and art collector from the Paris-based architect Charles Moreau who studied in Rome. The Leopoldine temple was modelled on the Sybilla temple in Tivoli (the marble statue of Esterházy's daughter Leopoldine was made by Canova for the temple).

Contemporaries and posterity reckon with Markó as the painter of “ideal landscapes with Biblical or mythological figures” and later “Italian landscapes with peasants”. The two paintings of the Kismarton landscape garden are atypical because they present real garden segments, contemporary architecture and genre figures dressed in the fashionable garments of the painter's time. They are unparalleled in the whole Markó oeuvre.

The paper compares the depicted garden sections and buildings with the venues today on the one hand, and with depictions approximately contemporaneous with Markó's works. The latter comparison provides ground to determine how much of the real sight is reflected in the pictures and how much is the pictorial trope drawn from a long-standing tradition by a painter of ideal landscapes.

The paper also touches on the question of the client. It is found that the two pictures were not created for Prince Nicolaus Esterházy who had the mansion and the garden around it built in Eisenstadt, but for a Vienna banker, Markó's main sponsor baron Johann Jakob Geymüller (1760–1834) and his wife. It was from the Geymüller family's Bohemian country house at Kamenica nad Lipou/ Kamnitz that the two painting came to Červena Lhota, and they probably belonged to the multitude of Markó paintings the couple ordered directly from the painter. (In the Austrian mansion of the family at Hollenburg there were still 14 Markó paintings in the early 20th century.) This is also a good example of the shift of art patronage in the early 19th century from the old artistocracy to new art-supporting layers.

Restricted access

Az oszlopos körtemplom és az angolkert — az antikvitás vágyképe és aktualitása

Kerttörténet és művészettörténet

Colonnaded Rotunda and Landscape Garden — Ideal and Topical Aspects of Antiquity. Garden History and Art History

Művészettörténeti Értesítő
Géza Galavics


The paper explores the history of columned rotundas in European landscape gardens with emphasis on three such edifices built in Hungary in the first half of the 19th century. The theme is the temple type called peripteros in architecture history which comprises a colonnade set in a circle around a pagan shrine, modeled on the Temple of Vesta surviving in Tivoli near Rome from the 1st century BC. It appeared in the art of the early modern times as a garden edifice, first in England in the first decades of the 18th century. The need for its modern-time use arose when man turned to the legacy and nature concept of antiquity to support his political, cultural, moral and artistic revival. With its architectural forms and role in the scenery the Temple of Vesta was already an iconic building of antiquity for artists and visitors to Italy well before it was transferred to landscape gardens where it was reborn in the form of a modern artistic phenomenon, incorporated in grand landscape compositions. Garden history registers some 15–20 surviving rotundas of the kind in European landscape gardens. The paper addresses itself to the history, owners, analogies of the rotundas in Stowe, Stourhead, Downhill (GB), Ermenonville, Méréville (F), Kassel (D), Pavlovsk (RUS), Puŀawy, Arkadia (PL), Veltrusy (CZ) and three Hungarian round temples: Hőgyész, Kismarton/Eisenstadt and Alcsút. It looks at their function, interior decoration, implications of the statues as well as their relation to antiquity and to the garden art creations of their own age.

Since the architectural form of the rotunda alone was capable of suggesting a connection with antiquity and at the same time represented modernity, the shaping of the specimens are compared to the Tivoli model. In this comparison the interior decoration and its implications might appear secondary. However, its significance lies in the fact that the designation and decoration of a rotunda became an important means for the adaptation of the building, representing the personality and personal affinities of the builder, the expectations of a country or community. When the rotundas with their statues and embellishments depicted political, philosophical programs, they reflected upon the present of the given country and anticipated a future image. For example, Stowe in England symbolizes liberal democracy, Ermenonville in France suggests the importance of science for humanity. In the two Polish rotundas at Puŀawy and Arkadia the enumeration of the relics of Polish and universal culture serves to preserve the unity and memory Poland cut up into three parts. These rotundas carry unusually strong emotional contents, which also characterizes the other colonnaded round temples, including the “Temples of Friendship”(Veltrusy, Pavlovsk, Kassel).

Where is the place of the Hungarian rotundas on this spectrum? The first was built by Count Antal Apponyi (1751–1817) at Hőgyész in Southern Hungary, in the garden of his country house (fig. 12). As a leading statesman of the Hungarian Kingdom, he spent a lot of time in his Vienna palace; steeped in music, he was the president of the Vienna Musikverein; also a free mason, he was one of the nominators of Joseph Haydn for his admission to the Vienna lodge. In his garden designed by Viennese masters he had a rotunda surrounded — unusually — by eight columns. The temple was to house the same-size replica of the Medici Venus in marble, made according to family tradition by Giuseppe Ceracchi of Rome, an Italian sculptor favored by European courts. For some time in the 1780s he worked in Vienna and was a member of the same masonic lodge as Apponyi. Later the sculptor became a Jacobin and was guillotined in Paris.

The other, far better known rotunda (fig. 13) was ordered by Prince Miklós Esterházy (1764–1833) to be built in the landscape garden (1803—1822) of his mansion in Kismarton (today Eisenstadt, Austria). The large-scale garden and its edifices were planned by the prince's architect from Paris, Charles Moreau. The character of the building has similarities with the rotunda of Méréville in both the shape of the building and the sculptural ornamentation of the interior. Besides, both rotundas were preceded by a painter's picture as a source of inspiration to have a rotunda in a natural setting. In Méréville Hubert Robert, in Eisenstadt Albert Christoph Dies painted a picture in oil (1807, fig. 11). A few years earlier Dies made a series of engravings of picturesque Italian landscapes including the Temple of Vesta in Tivoli (1793, fig. 10). Although the rotunda in Eisenstadt was first to have been dedicated to Neptun, then to Venus, eventually the prince had the magnificent statue of his daughter Leopoldina Esterházy by Antonio Canova inspired by statues of classical antiquity (1805–1819, fig. 17) placed in the temple.

The third Hungarian rotunda perished long ago, its memory revived by this paper alone. It was ordered to be built by Archduke Joseph of Habsburg (the brother of Emperor Francis I), the palatine of Hungary. His seat was in the royal castle of Buda, and he had a duly famous landscape garden on Margaret Island in the Danube. In the centre of his rural estates, Alcsút, he had a representative country house erected in a former wasteland and with the help of his court gardener Anton Trost a magnificent landscape garden was created around the house. At the tallest point he had first a monopteros (fig. 21) and later in the first half of the 1840s a peripteros erected (fig. 18) in which he collected the stone relics of a Roman military camp found in the neighborhood and excavated upon his order. Similarly to their European counterparts, the rotundas in Hőgyész, Eisenstadt and Alcsút manifest the changing concept of nature and the attraction to antiquity as a reliable point of reference. The owners chose for their landscape gardens a building type reminding one of ancient Rome while in the interiors all three manifested their personal relations to antiquity through different cultural orientations. That lent the architectural form and spiritual function of the colonnaded rotundas their exceptional harmony — for a short time.

In a relatively short time, this harmony began to crumble. Not that the decisions to choose these art works or architectural forms were mistaken: this building type was an up-to-date representative of European landscape gardens all over Central Europe at that time. The world changed around them concerning their function; nearly in the same decades as their construction, new communal forms and spaces of encountering arts, including the art of antiquity had appeared all over Europe: the museum. It emerged as an urban phenomenon, as part of the urban culture, accessible to all, a promoter or means of social integration. The art works — however valuable — collected by private art patronage and displayed in aristocratic residences were gradually obscured and left out of publicity, affecting their subsequent fate. Leopoldina Esterházy's statue disappeared from view for a long time, and for some sixty years now it has been in the Eisenstadt mansion instead of the peripteros. The replica of the Venus de' Medici once at Hőgyész was given to a Budapest museum by the Apponyi family over a century ago (figs. 15, 16) and the round temple was converted into their sepulchral chapel. The rotunda at Alcsút was pulled down in the second half of the 19th century, the Roman relics in the estate of palatine Joseph were transferred to the Hungarian National Museum (fig. 19). Few of the European peripteroi kept their original interior decoration, and those that did relied on the active participation of the official historic garden protection.

The art historical significance of the colonnaded round temples lies in their dual function in a decisive art form of the age, landscape architecture: they were pronounced elements of space articulation on the one hand and the representatives of the owners' attitude to antiquity and modernity. That lent them their appeal in and outside England, their adoption and transfer to the continent symbolizing a wide European horizon and the affirmation of the cultural community. The visual power of the formal order of a peripteros still emanates exceptional harmony and solemnity. This even comes through from the garden and landscape photos of visitors to landscape gardens, from the background elements of newly-wed couples or, for that matter, from the rotunda appearing at a dramaturgical culminating point in a new film adaptation of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice (2005, featuring Keira Knightley).

Restricted access

The period lasting from the Compromise betweeen Austria and Hungary in 1867 to World War I was a ‘golden age’ of Hungarian horticulture and garden art. Country houses with their parks belonged traditionally to the way of living of the aristocracy. The ‘construction boom’ generated by a fruitful interplay of the favourable economic conditions of the ‘Gründerzeit’ and the related social needs and financial abilities, resulted in a multitude of new gardens. This surge of development almost coincided with the spread of historical revivalism in garden design from the 1860s and with an increasing role played by Hungarian creators of gardens in addition to foreign specialists who settled or were invited to work here.

The period between the two World Wars did not effect a fatal break in this garden culture. In some cases, this slowly consolidating period brought real efflorescence (e.g. Hatvan, Röjtökmuzsaj, Szeleste), though these places were the exceptions. The construction and transformation of parks together with the modernization of houses continued in the interwar decades (e.g. Dég, Röjtökmuzsaj) and considerable new establishments were also created (e.g. Vajta, Csorvás, Selyp).

The country house gardens of historical revivalism, with their spectacular parterres, avenues, exotic plant rarities grown in the greenhouses or nursery gardens and transferred to the pleasure-grounds or shown at exhibitions, with their sports facilities and family mausoleums represented the prestige of the aristocracy which still clearly played the leading role in politics and society despite their declining economic and cultural influence. Alternatively they expressed the ambition of a new plutocracy to acquire social legitimation for their wealth. In a few cases and in both groups, there was something else: the garden became the site and instrument through which they could achieve accomplishment by means of creative activity.

The present study is a first attempt at summarising the partial results of research that in its initial phase on the topic. It describes 12 sites in detail, 9 from the period between 1880 and World War I, and 3 from the 1920–30s. After the descripions it gives a preliminary overview of tendences and characteristics of the examined period including the transformation of the landscape garden, revivalist structural elements, follies and utilitarian garden structures, statuary and other garden ornaments, landscape gardeners and creative owners, mainteneance and productive gardening, with a lot of further examples and personalities. Finally, a brief outlook closes the study to the post-1945 survival of the gardens described and historical revivalism in garden art in general.

Restricted access


The present paper must be interpreted as a sequel of the work “Daten zu Leben und Werk des Pariser Architekten Charles Moreau zwischen 1760 und 1803”published in the Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Denkmalpflege, Heft 4, 2001. This essay was finished when Moreau came to Vienna in the company of Prince Nikolaus II Esterházy at the end of 1803. The prince engaged the architect in Paris to lead the future works for the renewal of the family residence at Eisenstadt forming part of Hungary at this time. Moreau was quatered in the “Rothen Haus”which was situated in the Viennese suburb Alsergrund. In 1794 Prince Nikolaus II Esterházy became owner of the big family estates in the kingdom of Hungary. Shortly after his installation he engaged the French architect Jean-François Thomas de Thomon. He was responsible for the redesign of the garden of Nikolaus II in the Viennese suburb Landstraße, which was finished already in 1795. Surprisingly Thomas de Thomon quit his contract at the beginning of 1798 and went to Russia where he became architect of the tsar. Only at the end of 1802 Prince Esterházy employed another architect trained in Paris and Rome, Maximilian von Verschaffelt. Verschaffelt can be associated with the redesign of the garden in Eisenstadt and the alteration of the orangery still under construction. The other activities of Verschaffelt are not at hand. It seems that he was dismissed by the prince in favor of Charles Moreau in 1804. There is a good reason to believe that from 1804 on the activities followed to the directives of Charles Moreau because the first buildings invented and drawn by the architect were realized also at this time. In July 1804 the prince ordered the construction of the Marientempel which was situated north-west of Eisenstadt at the hillside of the Leithagebirge. At the same time the prince decreed the project for the Marientempel, he instructed the building department to start the works for the Maschinenhaus which was the first building designed by Charles Moreau for the landscape-garden. Among others it had to bare the steam-engine bought by the prince in London in 1803. Besides the mentioned activities the redesign of the old castle of Eisenstadt was started. According to the proposals of Charles Moreau the Prince ordered the beginning of the works in March 1805. First of all a passage under the north-wing and the basement for a representative portico flanked by two big ramps leading into the colonnade had to be constructed. Nikolaus II also started a project in Vienna in 1805. The work began in May 1805 and was not finished until 1807. Besides the works for Prince Nikolaus II Esterházy another client asked Moreau to design a palace in the city of Vienna. Elzbieta Anna Teofila Princess Lubomirska wanted to redesign several houses at the Mölkerbastei which defined an inner court. In the middle of 1806 Charles Moreau had to go back to Paris. He had been employed since the beginning of 1801 as “Architecte de la Sorbonne”. There is a good reason to believe that during his sojourn in Paris he visited not only his relatives but also his teachers, friends and old colleques. Virtually all of them were near Jacques-Louis David, the former teacher of Charles Moreau: Dominique Vivant Denon, François-Pascal-Simon Gérard and Antoine-Jean Gros, Charles-Paul Landon rival of Moreau and winner of the Grand prix de peinture as well as, among others, Jean-Baptiste Isabey who became a close collaborator of the architect during the Congress of Vienna. Although Nikolaus II was confronted with a proposal for the alteration and rearrangement of the so-called “Sauerbrunn”near Pöttsching – a new bath was mentioned for this place in 1805 – he decided to invest into the enlargement of a similar building already existing in Großhöflein. But at the beginning of 1807 there must have been some change of opinion and Charles Moreau was ordered to design a new bath not far from the old one. Another work of Moreau is located in Laxenburg where the Prince was responsible for the royal post-office and all its arrangements. It seems that the old station was too small. Therefore Nikolaus II ordered to enlarge the building by putting on a new flat and stables in 1805. He was also working on the new landscape gardens of the prince. When the garden of Pottendorf was nearly finished new hothouses were planned and built from the end of 1807. It was also in 1807 when the Prince possibly animated by the new constructions at Pottendorf ordered to construct new hothouses at Eisenstadt. A virtually new challenge was the design for a big festival-hall in the Viennese suburb, Schottenfeld, for which the Englishman Sigmond Wolfson made available his house and garden. The works for the building which consisted of several large rooms with different decorations was started in April 1807 and already finished in December of the same year. During the past years Charles Moreau and his family settled down in Vienna. In 1807 the painter Karl Johann Hummel charged him to design a new bath in the Viennese suburb Leopoldstadt. Moreau accepted and on Januray 1, 1808, they bought a big site near the Donaukanal. The idea to integrate the residences of both families into the complex must have been born at this time. Beside his activities in the service of Prince Esterházy, mainly in Eisenstadt, he was also commissioned to do other works. In 1811 Count Nikolaus Eszterházy gave a charge to the princely architect to redesign three houses situated between Walfischgasse and Krugerstraße in Vienna. The second work of Charles Moreau for the Count Esterházy was the design for a mausoleum for the deceased members of the family. Nagyganna was selected for it because of its geographical qualities. Also Count Johann Pálffy gave a contract to Charles Moreau. The count acquainted two houses in the Wallnerstraße in Vienna which were desolate from a fire-hazard. Moreau was ordered to redesign both buildings into a palace. The works done by Moreau in Austria and Hungary gave a lot of sympathy to the architect. The honoration was going so far that the council of the Akademie der vereinigten bildenden Künste in Vienna elected him as regular counsellor in 1812. Since Emperor Franz I did not confirm the decision there must have been some problems caused by the fact that Charles Moreau was no regular member of the institution at this time. So he became member of the academy in February 1812 and three months later he was nominated again for counsellor. But first on January 15, 1813, the emperor signed the letter of appointment.

Restricted access

and users’ perceptions of landscape gardens in a high-rise office building ,” J. Sustain. Develop. , vol. 3 , no. 4 , pp. 153 – 164 , 2010 . [2] A. Allouhi , Y. El Fouih , T. Kousksou , A. Jamil , Y. Zeraouli , and Y.   Mourad

Open access