1 This paper was first presented on 12 April, 1981, at the Commemorative Colloquium devoted to Gianlorenzo Bernini at the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton. I wish to express my gratitude to Professor Irving Lavin for the opportunity of presenting my research on that occasion, and the benefit of a stimulating discussion which followed. It was resumed subsequently with Professor Henry Milion, to whom I feel cordially obliged for his special interest and his valuable suggestions concerning the reconstruction of the original project by Carlo Fontana for the Cappella Cybo (Pls 36b, 37a and b; see Appendix). The reconstruction was carried out under my direction by Mr Gil Smith, advanced degree candidate in the Department of Art History, The Pennsylvania State University. While thanking Mr Smith for the diligently executed drawings (Pls 37a and b), I am pleased to acknowledge also his comments and observations made on the reconstructions. I also wish to thank the Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, and the College of Arts and Architecture for their generous support of my research.

2 Otto, Christian F., Space Into Light. The Churches of Balthasar Neumann (New York, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1979), p. 60 Google Scholar.

3 Passavant, Günther, ‘Balthasar Neumann oder Lucas von Hildebrandt? Zum Problem der Kollektivplanung der Schönbornkapelle am Würzburger Dom’, Alte und Moderne Kunst, 16 (1971), 9 n. 10 Google Scholar. For the inscription and the chronological facts of the projection and construction of the chapel see Boll, Walter, Die Schönbornkapelle am Würzburger Dom, Munich (1925)Google Scholar, whose extensive documentary research is still basic for our knowledge in this respect (see Chapter in, ‘Baugeschichte nach den Akten’, 22-53. For the inscription see p. 36) and Reuther, Hans, Die Kirchenbauten Balthasar Neumanns (Berlin, 1960), pp. 106-08Google Scholar.

4 W. Boll, op. cit., p. 17. Grimschitz, Bruno, ‘Das kollektivistische Problem der Würzburger Residenz und die Schönbornkapelle am Würzburger Dom’, Belvedere, VIII (1925), 13–22 Google Scholar; idem Johann Lucas von Hildebrandt (Vienna and Munich, 1959), pp. 105f, 132, 137, i66; cf. review by Günther Passavant Kunstchronik, 13 (1960), pp. 201-03; H. Reuther, op. cit., 21, 107.

5 W. Boll, op. cit., fig. 28. The drawing (S.E.44), formerly in the Mainfränkisches Museum, was destroyed during the Second World War (Passavant, op. cit., 1971, pp. 8, 9, n. 8); Rizzi, W. G., ‘Die Kuppelkirchenbauten Johann Lucas von Hildebrandts’, Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, XXIX (1976), 141 ffGoogle Scholar.

6 G. Passavant, op. cit., 1971, pp. 6-13, fig. 5. Passavant’s article, though basic for the argument, does not appear to have been considered by Christian Otto.

7 G. Passavant, op. cit., 1971, pp. 8, nf; cf. W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 28, 31, 34.

8 For the date of the foundation stone, see W. Boll, op. cit., p. 33; G. Passavant, op. cit., 1971, p. 9f. For further discussions of the problem of authorship, and reactions to the questions raised by Passavant’s article, cf. Reuther, Hans, ‘Die künstlerischen Einwirkungen von Lucas von Hildebrandt auf die Architektur Balthasar Neumanns’, Architectura, 1 (1973) 63 frGoogle Scholar.; idem, Die Zeichnungen aus dem Nachlass Balthasar Neumanns Der Bestand in der Kunstbibliothek Berlin (Berlin, 1981), p. 73; W. G. Rizzi, op. cit., 1976, pp. 141-44; Thies, Harmen, Grundrissfiguren Balthasar Neumanns. Zum masstäblich-geometrischen Rissaufiau der Schönbomkapelle und der Hofkirche in Würzburg (Florence, 1980), pp. 7–13 Google Scholar.

9 At the timejohann Philipp Franz had intended both to build a new façade to the cathedral, and to reconstruct the dilapidated Crispinikapelle, as a sepulchral chapel for himself and his family (W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 7, 22 ff., 25 ff.).

10 W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 4 f., 32, 114 f.; C. Otto, op. cit., 33 f. The references offered by Boll to the twin chapels in S. Maria Maggiore by Sixtus V and Paul V, the Strozzi Chapel in S. Andrea della Valle, the Medici Chapel and the Cappella dei Principi in S. Lorenzo, are important only so far as the category to which the Schönborn Chapel belongs is concerned: They are sepulchral chapels of noble families connected with churches, but none of them could be considered a precedent in a formal sense. More important than these examples is Guarini’s Cappella della S. Sindone in Turin, which Boll also mentions: it is circular in plan, with laterally arranged sepulchral monuments, of the dukes of Savoy, and is closer in date. It is not, however, possible to draw a convincing direct connection between the Chapel of the Holy Shroud and the Schönborn Chapel at Würzburg, with the exception perhaps of the employment of one architectural device, to which we shall refer again (see Appendix).

11 W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 27, 33, 114.

12 H. Reuther, op. cit., 1960, p. 21.

13 For the dating of the Lancellotti Chapel, built ex novo about 1680, see Hibbard, Howard, Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture, 1580-1630 (University Park, Pa., and London, 1971) p. 124 Google Scholar.

14 Before proceeding further along the ‘Roman path’, we have to turn our attention—for reasons of method — to another possible field of inspiration. We cannot forget that the sojourn in Florence of 1703 was particularly meaningful for Johann Philipp Franz, where he had been received by the Grand Duke of Tuscany (W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 5, 128, n. 3). The Cappella dei Principi at S. Lorenzo, as a most sumptuous structure attached to one of the most important churches in the city, can hardly have failed to attract his interest, but it has an octagonal plan and does not qualify as a direct model. But there are other, smaller chapels that come to mind, which originated in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, i.e., shortly before the arrival of Johann Philipp Franz: the Cappella dell’ Altare Maggiore at S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi, executed after a design by Ciro Ferri (1675-1701); the Cappella Feroni in the church of the Santissima Annunziata designed by Giovanni Battista Foggini (1691-93); and perhaps most prominently, the Cappella Corsini in S. Maria del Carmine (1675-91) for which the architects Pier Francesco Silvani and Giovanni Battista Foggini are mainly responsible. All are domed, and richly endowed with marble decoration, but none of them employs the circle as the basic scheme. They may have inspired the patron of the Schönborn Chapel in a general way, through the richness of their decoration, which besides the dome, was an essential feature for him. For illustrations and detailed information about the Florentine chapels, see Lankheit, Klaus, Florentinische Barockplastik (Munich, 1962), pp. 43–47 Google Scholar (figs 1, 10, 11); 86-89 (figs 29-30); 83-85 (figs 16-17)

The passage in Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn’s letter of 9 April, 1721, to his uncle Lothar Franz in Mainz, where he said that he wanted the interior ‘ . . . nach Arth des Grosherzogen von Florentz angreifen, und etliche Jahr darzu nehmen’ (W. Boll, op. cit., p. 32) should not be understood as implying that he considered the Cappella dei Principi or the Florentine tradition of family chapels as a ‘Leitbild’ in the direct sense and with the intent of emulation ( Freeden, Max H. von, Balthasar Neumann, Leben und Werk, 3rd edition (Munich, 1982), pp. 21 fGoogle Scholar.; C. Otto, op. cit., pp. 31 f.). What the Prince Bishop had in mind was procedural in nature: having explained shortly before that his aim was to bring the exterior ‘unter Tach’, still in the current year he expressed that he intended, as far as the interior was concerned, to take his time, and anticipated that its completion would require several years. This manner of approaching the task is quite in keeping with his philosophy in general, not only as a building patron but also as a ruler, as he had outlined it in a slightly earlier letter of 1 March, 1721, when he explained to his brother Rudolf Franz Erwein in Frankfurt that ‘. . . nach dem in allen meinen Sachen führenden Principio . . .’, he used to conduct matters he had decided upon, expeditely, though always not more than what was feasible; furthermore, he would not begin anything unless he could be certain of a successful completion.

The features of importance to him in the present chapel were the ‘welsche Kuppel’ or ‘Cuppola all’ italiana’, the adornment with white and reddish marble, a ‘beautiful’ altar in the central portion of the building, sufficient light, and laterally distributed, two epitaphs for the ‘Elector Johann Philipp selig’ and for himself (W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 28 ff.).

15 Hager, Hellmut, ‘La Cappella del Cardinale Alderano Cybo in S. Maria del Popolo’, Commentari, XXV (1974) 47–61 Google Scholar; idem, ‘Un riesame di tre cappelle di Carlo Fontana’, Commentari, XXVII (1976) 270, 274, figs 27-28 (illustrations reversed because of typographical error).

16 Identified by Hager, H., Commentari, (1974), 48 ff.Google Scholar, fig. 2; idem, ‘Carlo Fontana and the Jesuit Sanctuary in Loyola’, Journal of the Warburg and Courtaula Institutes, XXXVIII (1974), 288. For the typological connection with other works by Fontana see the same article, figs 68 a-d.

17 This affinity is the more remarkable since Balthasar Neumann was expected to look for inspiration during his sojourn in Paris, and reported on 15th March, 1723, that for the altars of the chapel in Würzburg he could not find anything more suitable than the style (’Maniré’) adopted in Versailles and Notre Dame in Paris (W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 35 ff). Neumann, in the same letter, recommended placing the ‘epitaphs’ in the lateral ovals and mentioned two designs by Boffrand. None of the altars he mentioned, however, existed in the context of a self-contained centralized chapel as in Würzburg.

Maren Holst, in a recent study has drawn a comparison between the Schönborn Chapel and Robert de Cotte’s first plan for the chapel of Schloss Schleissheim — projecting a domed circular structure articulated by single columns, which is opened into subsidiary spaces (c. 1714). Hoist (’Robert de Cottes Entwurf für die Schleissheimer Schlosskapelle und Balthasar Neumanns Schönbornkapelle am Würzburger Dom’, Architectura, 11 no. 2 (1981), 147-56) concluded, however, that the two architects came to a similar solution independently, because it is unlikely that Neumann met De Cotte before 1723 (see Appendix).

In addition it should be stressed that De Cotte’s Schleissheim project is less closely related to the Schönborn chapel than Carlo Fontana’s ground plan for the Cappella Cybo. Since De Cotte was in Rome in 1689-90, and even mentioned Fontana’s chapel as it stands now in his diary ( Bertrandjestaz, , Le Voyage d’Italie de Robert de Cotte (Paris, 1966), p. 202 Google Scholar), it is possible that he also had knowledge of Fontana’s original plan and was influenced by it like Balthasar Neumann.

18 C. Otto, op. cit., p. 60.

19 Hager, H., Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXXVII (1974), 288 Google Scholar.

20 For Bernini’s different ways of using directed light, see Lavin, Irving, Bernini and the Unity of the Visual Arts, 2 vols (New York and London, 1980)Google Scholar.

21 Made by Tessin (1687-88) this sketch was first published by Siren, Osvald, Nicodemus Tessin D. Y.: Studieresor (Stockholm, 1914), p. 150 Google Scholar, fig. 80; see also Kauffmann, Hans, Giovanni Lorenzo Bernini, Die figürlichen Kompositionen (Berlin, 1970), fig. 127 Google Scholar. Cf. H. Hager, op. cit., Commentari (1976), pp. 261ff.

22 The columns in our reconstruction (Pls 37b and c), as well as those in the executed building, have a static function only in a very limited sense. This is also the case in the Schönborn Chapel, where the columns were placed in their positions only in 1731 (on 22 April ofthat year they were still without their entablature) when the shell of the building had already been standing for several years (W. Boll, op. cit., pp. 42-44; G. Passavant, op. cit., 1971, no. 115, p. 9).

23 W. Boll, op. cit., p. 4; C. Otto, op. cit., p. 30.

24 Braham, Allan and Hager, Hellmut, Carlo Fontana. The Drawings at Windsor Castle (London, 1977), p. 36 Google Scholar.

25 A. Braham and H. Hager, op. cit. (1977), pp. 14, 70, 90, 125, 133-35, 160.

26 Lucas von Hildebrandt trained under Fontana about 1690 ( Coudenhove-Erthal, Eduard, Carlo Fontana und die Architektur des römischen Spätbarocks (Vienna, 1930), p. 140 Google Scholar) and therefore could very easily have been familiar with the earlier scheme for the Cappella Cybo, and, so to speak, have functioned as a mediator. His ground plan for the church of the seminary in Linz (1717-25), for example, is a fairly clear demonstration that Hildebrandt had indeed elaborated on it: the circle of Fontana’s plan for the Cybo Chapel appears to have been elongated into an oval, while for some reason the columns were simply omitted. See Grimschitz, Hildebrandt, pp. 90 f., figs 97 f.

27 After his arrival in Bamberg, about 1698, Dientzenhofer was, obviously with a view to future employment expectations, sent to Rome by the Elector of Mainz, Lothar Franz von Schönborn (as mentioned in the letter of recommendation ‘per approfittarsi mediante la vista et osservazione di Palazzi et Fabriche più cospicue’) and to complete his education as an architect ( Weigmann, Albert Otto, Eine Bamberger Baumeisterfamilie um die Wende des 17. Jahrhunderts (Strassburg, 1902), pp. 33 fGoogle Scholar. Immediately after his sojourn in Rome (1699-1700), Dientzenhofer received the commission for the Stiftskirche in Fulda, in the designing of which Carlo Fontana had also been involved (A. O. Weigmann, op. cit., pp.36, 137; E. Coudenhove-Erthal, op. cit., p. 141; A. Braham and H. Hager, op. cit., (1977), p. 17). That Dietzenhofer was also familiar with Fontana’s unexecuted plan for the Cappella Cybo becomes evident in Dientzenhofer’s likewise unexecuted plans for the former Probsteikirche in Holzkirchen (c. 1716; A. O. Weigmann, op. cit., p. 186, fig. 26; H. Reuther, Kirchenbauten, p. 14, figs 7, 8; C. Otto, op. cit., pp. 60 ff, figs 30-31) where he followed a similar line in his adaption as did Hildebrandt, and even retained Fontana’s coupled columns in his drawings. The scheme of the elevation of 1726 by Balthasar Neumann, who succeeded Dientzenhofer in the commission for Holzkirchen (C. Otto, op. cit., p. 34) appears to be dependent on Carlo Fontana’s Cappella dell’ Assunta of the Collegio dementino in Rome, which was generally accessible through the engraving in Disegni di Vari Altari e Cappelle, Rome, s.d., pl. 40, which according to Anthony Blunt was published in 1713 as a ‘kind of supplement’ to volume 11 of Domenico de Rossi’s Architettura Civile of 1711. See Blunt’s preface in the re-edition of De Rossi (Richmond and Surrey, England, 1972).

28 The importance of Johann Dientzenhofer as an influence on Balthasar Neumann has already been claimed for the Schönborn Chapel by H. Reuther (Kirchenbauten, p. 107; idem., Die Zeichnungen, p. 73; and see Appendix) and in a more general sense by the emphasis on Dientzenhofer’s familiarity with Roman architecture, by C. Otto, op. cit., p. 175, n. 1.

29 See the above-mentioned concept explained by Johann Philipp Franz in a letter of 19 March, 1721, to his brother Friedrich Carl, published by G. Passavant, op. cit. (1971) no. 115, 11 ff. In the light of our reconstructions it is no surprise, that whereas S. E. 44 (PI. 35a), as far as the style of the drawing is concerned, could fit well into Hildebrant’s oeuvre, the same cannot be said of the planimetrie concept: attempts following Passavant’s suggestion to relate the project S. E. 44 to Hildebrandt’s works of the corresponding period, did not and could not meet with satisfactory results (see bibliographical references in n. 8 above).

The related ground plan S. E. 27 (Pl. 35b) presents a clue which seems to deserve attention: the scales at the bottom of the page are given in ‘Moduli’, ‘Rheinische Schuh’ and ‘Palmi Romani’. G. Passavant (op. cit., (1971) no. 115, 10) interprets this as evidence that the plan served as the ‘basis’ for Neumann’s discussions in Paris in 1723 with Germain Boffrand and Robert de Cotte. While this may also have been the case, it is even more likely that the Palmi Romani scale was given for the convenience of an architect who was accustomed to work with this unit of measurement, either trained in Italy or even Italian himself— an expert who was to be asked for his judgment; or its purpose may even have been to relate it to that of an original project which had come from Italy, the scheme of which was to be adopted for Würzburg.

30 For the genesis of the Neresheim projects see B. Grimschitz, op. cit., Belvedere, p. 15; Neumann, Günther, Balthasar Neumanns Entwürfe für Neresheim, Phil. Diss. (Munich, 1942)Google Scholar; C. Otto, op. cit., pp. 123-29; Härmen Thies, op. cit., p. 9. For an illustration of the church and its interior after the extensive restorations of 1966-77, see Stoffels, Norbert and Windstosser, Ludwig, Martin Knoller, Seine Kuppelfresken in der Abbeikirche Neresheim (Neresheim, s. d., c 1975)Google Scholar.