bias to lo sky

8/2/2019 Bias to Lo Sky

1/23

Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968): Thinker, Historian, Human BeingAuthor(s): Jan BiaostockiReviewed work(s):Source: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1970), pp. 68-89Published by: Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3780356 .Accessed: 18/12/2011 22:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=svnkhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3780356?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3780356?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=svnk


2/23


3/23

PhotobyLotteJacobi

comparableerudition and his admirable alent for logical, althoughsometimesintricatethinking, his inborn wit and incredible feeling for languages,soon allowed him tocreate an individualwriting style in an Englishmarkedby Anglo-Saxonclarity of ex-pression. His highly specialized academic knowledge could now be fruitfully used inworks written for the generaleducatedpublic. The Americancustom of organizing ec-tures later to be publishedgave Panofsky's activity a convenientframework, acilitatingthe publication of the books which brought him fame and glory in the English-speaking world. Studies in Iconology (1939), The Life and Art of Albrecht Diirer(1943), Early NetherlandishPainting(1953), Tomb Sculpture (1964): all these books69


4/23

show a happy mixture of Germanprecisionand thoroughnesswith the simplicityandwit of the Englishessay style.Slowly Panofsky'sfame began to reach beyond the narrow circle of art historians,and also beyond the English-speaking orld, until it even penetratedhis land of origin,which had expelled him after his dismissal from the university in 1933. His books

began to be translated,even in Germanyand France,which for a long time had notbeen very interested in what was going on in the field of the humanitiesoutside herown borders.Panofsky was famous: he receivedmemberships n learned societies andacademies,and honorarydegreesfrom severaluniversities.The first of these, which wasgrantedto him at the nadirof his fortunes,in 1935, was the honorarydoctorate fromUtrecht University.It was only one year before his death that Panofsky decided to end an absenceof33 years and visit the country which was once his own, which had expelled him andwhich was as if forgotten. He came for a short stay, and even thoughhe acceptedthehigh national order of West Germany, Pour le merite, he delivered his lecture inEnglish. In these ways he stressed his being a foreigner,he maintaineddistance andmistrust.Although he admitted with pride to belongingto the great traditionof Ger-man scholarship,he stressedhis claim to being 'free from what may be suspected asretroactiveGermanpatriotism'.3

Panofskywas not only the creatorof a systemand a method(in spiteof the fact thathe deniedit, with his acquiredAnglo-Saxondislike for systems),he was also the nucleusof an interational groupof scholars,of something ike a 'clan'of art historiansboundupwith him either by the direct links of the teacher-pupil elationor by a - perhapsstillmore valuable- Wahlverwandschaft,roughtinto being by the animatingcontact withPanofsky's hought-provokingndilluminatingdeas. A stay at the Institute for AdvancedStudy in Princeton,wherePanofskyfrom 1935 on representedarthistoryin the Schoolof HistoricalStudies, sharing he membershipof the Institute with scholars ike Einstein,Oppenheimerand Maritain,was a dreamof art historians,not only because t gavethemthe opportunityfor quietwork in that wonderfulplacePrincetonwas and still is, but alsobecause of close contact with Panofsky's mind and intelligence. Everybodywho haslearned the completeness of the Princeton libraries,the charm of its University, itsavenues and gardens,understandswhy Panofskyhas called his compulsoryemigrationfromGermanyand his settlingdownin Princeton anexpulsioninto Paradise'.To many people - even to many art historians- Panofskyis known first of all, orexclusively, as a deviser of a method called iconology. Althoughhe probablydid notdislikebeing thought of in that way, late in his life he used to quote a statementby anArab statesman, who said that 'discussion of methods spoils application.'4 He alsoavoided the term 'iconology', taking care not to use it in his late studies. Its too greatpopularityand a too greatcrowd of imitators,with whom he often disagreed,provokedhis skepticism.In this there was quite a lot of his acquiredEnglishunderstatement, incePanofsky was, it seems, one of the most systematicallymindedof arthistorians,gifted

3. Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the VisualArts, Garden City, N.Y. 1955, 323.4. William S.Heckscher, 'The Genesis of Iconology', in: Stil und Uberlieferung in der Kunst desAbendlandes.Akten des XXI. InternationalenKongressesur Kunstgeschichte,Bonn 1964, Berlin1967, III, 239-262, quot. 262.70


5/23

with a powerfultalent for precisethinking.Hisscholarlyactivityin the historicalstudy ofart and of the literatureof art was accompanied- especially in the first half of hiscreative ife - by constant reflection on theory. In this way he built up a conceptualandmethodological frameworkthat sustained and justified his practicalwork. Hence theimportanceof the system of art analysisdevisedby Panofsky,a systemwhich is no lesssignificantan achievement hanthe resultsof his historicalresearchandinterpretation.Anyone seeking,at the beginningof the twentieth century,to get a clearview of thefundamentalproblemsof art study had to consider, and to form his own attitude to-wards, such concepts as 'style', 'forms of beholding', 'artisticvolition', 'symbol' and'symbolicform', concepts which had been formulatedand discussedby the generationofpredecessorsand teachersof Panofsky.The young scholar dealt with them in a masterlyway. Withan admirable trivingfor system and with a certain stubbornnesshe returnedover a long period of his life to those problems,in order to make his concepts moreperfect and to eliminate ambiguity.And he always looked on the questions from themost generalpoint of view. He succeededin creatinga systemwhich is perhaps he mostcoherent art-historicalmethod put together in our times. Problems of style, artisticvolition andgeneralconceptsof arthistorywereanalyzed n a Kantianspirit; he problemof the relation of art and ideas in a neo-Kantian,Cassirerianpirit;and the method of artstudy, which was later to be celebrated as 'iconology', was conceivedin a Warburgianspirit.2. Aprioristicconceptsof arthistoryIn a letter of April1, 1962 to Herbertvon Einem,Panofskywrote the following abouthimself:5 'Wasich mir vomahm, war nicht sowohl etwas "Originelles" u leisten, alsvielmehr unter Vermeidungder Einseitigkeit so viel von der grossen Tradition des19. Jahrhunderts V6ge, Riegl, Goldschmidt,Warburg, ogarein bisschen Wolfflin undFriedlander)n das20. Jahrhundert eruberzuretten, lses in meinenKraftenstand.Aberes muss auch Eklektikergebenin derWissenschaftwie in derKunst.'This 'topos of modesty', very frequentand typical in Panofsky's etters, was - so itseems - not a 'topos of falsemodesty'.He describedhimselfas 'vainbut not conceited'.6He was well awareof his own position and of his importance,andif he complained t wasonly when he felt that his efficiency in work was declining n his old age. Awareof therole he played in the art history of our time, he nonetheless wanted to be linked witholder tradition.Indeed, if any art historian n ourcenturyhasprofitedfromthe traditionof scholarship, t wasPanofsky.A tirelessreaderwho unitedcontemplationwith activity,he never worked in a state of immobileconcentration,but in an incessantconfrontationwith books, dictionaries,articles and photographs,constantly verifying his immenseerudition n orderto purge t of errorand doubt.With a youthful enthusiasm,at the age of twenty three he begana polemic with themost prominent eader of his discipline- HeinrichWolfflin.In 1912 Wolfflindeliveredalecture before the PrussianAcademy of Sciences in Berlin,presentingthe ideas of hisbook KunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffePrinciplesof ArtHistory),whichappearedonly

5. Herbert von Einem, obituary in Wallraf-RichartzJahrbuch, XXX, 1969, 72 f.6. E.H. Gombrich, obituary, Burlington Magazine 1968, 359.

71


6/23

in 1915.7 He distinguishedbetween two 'roots of style': individualstylistic featuresofthe artist,which expresshis specific mind, and the 'formof beholding'whichbelongstoeach penod of the aevelopmentof art.Panofsky took exception to this 'form of beholding'which, Wolfflinpretended,wastypical of the period ratherthan the individual,and in which the sourceof the diversityof styles should be sought. Seeing, Panofsky wrote,8 is a physiologicalprocess of re-ceivingvisualstimuli, and as such it does not changein history.Whatchanges s the pro-cess of interpretationof what is seen. It is the aesthetic choice whichchanges.Manmakeschoices by virtue of his mentalpowers.The aesthetic choice is apsychologicalprocess nwhich a certain attitude of the human mind to the visualworld is expressed.Hence,the'modes of representation' ypical for artof variousepochsarenot 'given',but area resultof an activeinterpretation,and assuch they arechargedwith expressivemeaning in spiteof their sometimesbeinglargelyconventional,and thusnot the productsof a realchoice).Panofsky states that seeing alone only furnishes the mind with visual elements;it hasnothing to do with expressionand has no influence on style. Style is shapedonly by theinterpretation of visual impressions. In this way Panofsky recovered the expressivemeaningof stylisticfeatures, ost in Wolfflin's forms of beholding'.ForPanofskystylisticfeatures are not a reflection of changesin the 'form of beholding'independentof thehumanmind, but a reflection of changes n the interpretationof the world as we see it;this in turnis the result of the spiritualevolution of mankind.Panofsky also took a critical attitude toward the famous categories of Wolfflin'sKunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe hortly after it was published.9But first he felt theneed to find the solution to anotherproblemwhichhad been puzzlingthose art historianswho were convincedof the existence of aestheticpluralism.The main representative fthis idea, which was responsiblefor the disappearanceromart-historicalerminologyofthe words 'decline', 'fall' and 'decadence',was Alois Riegl. Rieglintroduced he conceptof 'artistic volition' (Kunstwollen)into the very centerof discussion.Inhis own writingsthe term changedsomewhatin meaning,and it becamethe objectof a prolongeddebatein the firstquarterof the twentiethcentury.10For Riegl 'artisticvolition' was a dynamicfactor, consciousor unconscious,a drive,anecessity. Panofsky, however, wanted to make of the concept somethingmuch moreessential than an individualor social-psychologicalactor,as severalwriters nterpretedt.He therefore left psychology aside and created a philosophical nterpretationof Kunst-wollen. 'Artisticvolition', he wrote, 'cannotbe anythingelse thanwhat resides n artisticphenomenaas their essentialmeaning.'The wordSinn, often usedin Panofsky'sGermanwritings,means 'the essence of things' and probablycomes - as do so many concepts

7. Heinrich Wolfflin, 'Das Problem des Stils in der bildenden Kunst', SitzungsberichtedeskoniglichenPreussischen kademieder Wissenschaften,XXI,1912, 572ff.8. ErwinPanofsky, DasProblemdes Stils in derbildendenKunst',Zeitschriftur Aesthetikundallg. Kunstwissenschaft, , 1915,460467.9. HeinrichWolfflin,KunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe. as ProblemderStilentwicklungn derneuerenKunst,Munich1915.10. Hans Sedlmayr,'Die Quintessenzder LehrenRiegls',in: Alois Riegl, GesammelteAufsatze,Augsburg-Vienna929, xii-xxxiv; Otto Pacht, 'Art Historiansand Art Critics-VI:Alois Riegl',BurlingtonMagazine1963, 188-193; KsaweryPiwocki,Pierwszanoweczesna teoriasztuki,PogladyAloisaRiegla,Warszawa 970.72


7/23

used by Panofsky- from Kant.l 1 What s thatSinn, the essentialor intrinsicmeaningofartistic phenomena? It is the tendency one finds expressedin the choice and in theshapingof formal and figurativeelements, and which can be discerned n the uniformattitude towardsthe basicartisticproblems.Andwhat areartisticproblems?Startingwith his criticismof Riegl and Wolfflin,Panofskyundertook to build up asystem of 'aprioristicconcepts of the study of art', as Kant did for philosophy.In hisarticle of 1920 on the interpretationof 'artisticvolition', he merely sketched the pro-blem, announcing hat a history of art aimingat a study of meaninghas to proceedfrompreviously defined concepts applicable to 'any possible artistic problem'. This is thebackgroundof the 1924 articleby Panofsky(in which he took advantageof studiesbythe Hamburgart historian-philosopher dgarWind)concerning he relationof arthistoryto art theory, an article which could be entitled 'Prolegomenao any future arthistorywhichcould claimto be a science'.12The five pairs of concepts devisedby Wolfflinare, according o Panofsky,no morethan elaborationsof incidentalempiricalconcepts, fit perhapsto describe the individualdifferences between Renaissanceand Baroque,but not derivingfrom a transcendentalanalysisof the very possibilitiesof art. In other words, they aremerely aposterioristicinterpretationsof historical material, and not Grundbegriffeat all. A transcendentalanalysisof the possibilitiesof art was still lacking,and Panofskynow attemptedto fillthis lack, in the first of his tabularsystems of concepts, apparently ollowinga Kantianmodel.

The most general,inclusive antithesis in art is, according o Panofsky,that between'fullness' and 'form'. This line of thinkingleads Panofsky to formulate the system ofthreelayersof opposedvaluespresent n everywork of visualart:1. elementaryvalues(optical-tactile, .e. spaceas opposedto bodies)2. figurativevalues(depth-surface)3. compositionalvalues (internallinks-external inks, i.e. internalorganicalunity asopposedto external uxtaposition).In orderfor a work of art to be created,a balance must be struck within each of thesescales of value. The absolute poles, the limiting values themselves,are outside of art:

purely optical values characterizeonly amorphous uminousphenomena.Purelytactilevalues characterizeonly pure geometrical shapes deprived of any sensual fullness. Asolution which determinesthe position of the work of art at some point on any givenscale at the same time determines ts position on the other scales. To decide for surface(as opposed to depth) meansto decide for rest (as opposed to movement),for isolation(as opposed to connection) and for tactile values(as opposed to optical ones): a typicalexampleconfirming he analysisquotedabovemaybe the Egyptianrelief.The individualwork of art is not, as claimedby Wolfflin,definedby one antitheticalcategory or the other, but is situated at some point on the scale between the limitingvalues. For instance the scale 'optical-tactile'takes actual form in such categoriesas

11. Kirchner'sWorterbucherphilosophischenGrundbegriffe,th ed., ed. CarlMichaelis,Leipzig1911, 910.12. 'Uber dasVerhaltnisder Kunstgeschichteur Kunsttheorie',Zeitschrift iirAesthetikundallg.Kunstwissenschaft,XVIII, 1925, 120-161; cf. EdgarWind, 'Zur Systematikder kiinstlerischenProbleme',bidem438-486.73


8/23

'painterly'(near the 'optical' pole), through 'sculptural' in the middle of the scale) to'stereometric-crystalline'closest to the ideal, untroddenpole of the absolute 'tactile'quality).The borderlinesand the values attainableon the scale areconditionedby histori-cal tendencies:the qualitiesconsideredas most painterlyon the Renaissance calemovedcloserto the tactile pole in the Baroque,becausethe whole scale had shifted towardstheoptical pole.The manner n whichelements arecomposedin a work of artrevealsa specificcreativeprinciple, .e. a specificprincipleof solvingproblems.In a givenwork the set of principlesused for solvingartisticproblemsconstitutesa unity. And this unity is for Panofskytheessential meaningof a work or of an artisticperiod. It corresponds or him to what heunderstands y 'artisticvolition'.Theoretical,interpretative tudy of art revealsthat in case A artisticproblemX hasbeen solved; in case B artisticproblemY has been solved;moreoverwe observe that inboth cases they have been solved in a similarway, which means that A:X-B:Y. Theconstant attitude of the artist or of the historicalperiod towardsfundamentalartisticproblemscan be established n this way, andeventually he meaning, he artisticvolitionof the work,the artist or the period.Seen in this light, artisticvolition loses all traces of avoluntaristicor psychologicalcharacterand becomes 'the essence of style' or 'style in anintrinsicsense'.

Moreover,since 'artistic volition' is nothing but 'the intrinsicmeaning'of artisticphenomena,or the 'unityof the principlesof solvingartisticproblems', t is quite a usefulconcept from the methodologicalpoint of view, allowingone to join two methodologicalpositions usually opposed in the study of art. I mean the method which stressestheautonomy of artisticphenomenaandthe methodwhich stresses heirlinkswith the otherelements of the historicalprocess.What s more, this joining can now be done not as aTaine or a Semper did it, i.e. by consideringthe artisticphenomenaas influencedbytechnical, economical, geographicaland other factors, nor in the manner of Dvoriik's'expressionistic'relationbetween art andreligionor philosophy,of which the work of artis to be considered a function, but in a new way: by definingthe commonfactorin theintrinsicmeanings ound in the various ields of culture.Since the intrinsicmeaningof phenomenain the visual artsis nothing else than theunderlying similarityin the means of solvingthe basic artisticproblems,we are able tocompare t with the intrinsicmeaningof phenomenanot only in the otherarts,e.g. musicand literature,but also in the other fields of humanculture.Scientific,legalandlinguisticsystems are based - as far as they are systems - on some specific principlesof solvingproblems peculiar to those fields. A generalizinghumanistic study is able, then, tocomparethe intrinsicmeaningsof variousfields of humanactivityin any culture imitedin time, space, ideas or social character. Now we understand how it happened thatPanofsky, twenty-four years later, presentedan admirablecomparativeaccount of theparallel tructure n Gothic architectureandScholasticthinking.'3In this way the once dynamicconceptof Kunstwollenwas transformed n the handsofthe ingenioushumanist from a tool Riegl could use to describethe artisticfeatures ofdifferent periods, places and individuals, nto one enablingPanofsky to compare the

13. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism [lecture 1948], Latrobe, Pa., 1951.74


9/23

similaritiesof ideologicaland artisticattitudesmanifestin the variousaspectsof one andthe same culture. Fromhereit wasonly one step to the concept of 'symbolical orm' andto use it in the methodologyof arthistory.Panofsky'snext stepwaspreciselythat.3. SymbolicForms

Unaveritas n variis ignisvarieresplendetNicolasCusanusPanofskywas born in Hanover.He went to highschool in Berlin,where he was educatedin the famous JoachimsthalschesGymnasium,which gave him an excellent formationboth in the classics and in mathematics.He began his universitystudies in the LawDepartmentof the Universityof Freiburgm Breisgau,owinghis conversion o arthistoryto his friend KurtBadt,who took him to hear WilhelmVoge'slectureon Durer'sFeast ofthe Rose Garlands. Etcecideruntde oculis eius tamquam quamae',he wrote later.14 Hestudied art history with the most prominentmediaevalists f his time. First with Voge atFreiburg,where he completed his doctorate in 1914 with a prize thesis on Direr's arttheory; then, feeling the need to develop his erudition and method even further,hestudied for severalterms with Adolf Goldschmidt n Berlin.5s Thanksto an otherwiseinnocuous fall from a horseat the beginningof his militaryservice,he avoided he hell ofthe First World War.His abilities were so highly valued that in 1920 the new HamburgUniversity,just being organized, nvited him to passhis Habilitation and to become thehead of the art-historicaleminar.From 1921 on Panofskywas Dozent andfrom 1926 onthe full professorof the history of art in Hamburg Ordinarius), positionhe kept untilthe springof 1933, when he was dismissed- after the proclamationof the NurembergLaw- and left Germany.The Hamburg years were a period of intense scholarlyas well as pedagogicalandliteraryactivity for Panofsky.At the ageof thirty,his talent at its peak,he foundhimselflivingin one of the most interestingcentersof pre-warGerman cholarship,n the sphereof influence of two powerful minds, men one generationolder than he was - ErnstCassirerand Aby Warburg. hathe underwent heir influencewas to be expected;whatisinteresting s that he knew how to make use of that influence n anindependentway. Hewas able to learnfrom them what he needed,without surrenderingo the spell of theirstrongpersonalities.From the beginninghe stood on equalfooting with them,as it were.Cassirerand he understood eachotherat once thanksto their sharedKantian raining.He must have been fascinatedby the depthandscope of that thinker'sphilosophicalandhumanistic nterests. The conceptof symbolat the centerof Cassirer's hilosophy,a con-cept of great concern to every art historian,and Cassirer'specialconcentration n thefield of Renaissanceneo-Platonismand its consequencesmust also have contributedtothe formationof a strong ink between the philosopherandthe arthistorian.Theirdirect,close collaborationwas realizedprecisely n the field of neo-Platonic tudies. Two lecturesin the Warburg ibraryn Hamburgweredevotedto Plato's aesthetic deas.Cassirerpokeabout the idea of beauty in Plato's dialogues,Panofsky about the developmentof the

14. Erwin Panofsky, 'WilhelmVoge' in: Bildhauerdes Mittelalters. GesammelteStudien vonWilhelmVoge,Berlin1958, ix-xxxi,quot.xxiv.15. HansKauffmann, bituary,o.c. 261.

75


10/23

Platonicconcept of idea fromantiquityuntil Bellori.In the prefaceto his book Idea(thedevelopment of that lecture), dated March 1924, Panofsky expressed his thanks toCassireror hishelp andencouragement.Soon the mind of the art historian elt the influence of Cassirer'sundamental heory,which was at that time being developedin his magnumopus, the threevolumes of ThePhilosophyof Symbolic Forms. Perhaps he first echo of that theoryin the historyof artwas the descriptive itle Panofskygaveto his famousstudyof perspective,presentedas alecture in winter 1924/25 and published n 1927. As we all know, that studywas called'Perspektive ls"symbolischeForm" .The concept of symbolicform introducedat that time by Cassirers now well at homein the modernphilosophicalvocabulary; t has alreadypassed nto the historyof philoso-phy. It had greatimportancefor the study of culture.Onecansay that if Cassirer'sdeason language like those of Camap- heraldedandpavedthe way for the laterapproachof the semiologists16 - Cassirer'sheory of culture as a symboliccreationof manpavedthe way, as it were,for the methodof interpretinghe phenomenaof civilizationusedbythe recentschool of structural esearchn culturalanthropology.Howcanwe know the essenceof the humanworld,Cassirer sks, f neitherpsychologi-cal introspection,biologicalobservationand experimentnor historicalresearchgivesus asatisfactoryanswerto the question 'What s man? I have endeavoured o discoversuchan alternativeapproachn my Philosophyof SymbolicForms.The methodof this workisby no means a radical innovation. It is not designedto abrogatebut to complementformer views. The philosophyof symbolic forms starts from the presupposition hat, ifthere is any definition of the nature or 'essence'of man, this definition can only beunderstoodas a functionalone, not a substantialone. [... ] Man'soutstandingcharac-teristic,his distinguishingmark, s not his metaphysicalor physicalnature- but his work.It is this work,it is the systemof humanactivitieswhich definesand determines he circleof 'humanity'.Language,myth, religion,art, science, history are the constituents,thevarious sectors of this circle. A 'philosophy of man' would thereforebe a philosophy,which would give us insight into the fundamentalstructureof each of these humanactivities,and which at the same time would enable us to understandhem as an organicwhole. Language,art, myth, religion are no isolated, random creations.They are heldtogether by a common bond. But this bond is not a vinculum substantiale as it wasconceived and described n scholasticthought; t is rathera vinculum unctionale.It is thebasic function of speech, of myth, of art, of religionthat we must seek far behind theirinnumerable hapesand utterances,andthat in the lastanalysiswe must attemptto traceback to a commonorigin'.1Was hisnot the veryphilosophyPanofskyneeded in orderto developa conceptof theintrinsicmeaningof a work of art, a period, or a field of culture? The philosophyofsymbolicforms,which conceived the link between various ieldsof humanendeavor n afunctional or structuralway, appeared o be similar o the systemof concepts developedby Panofsky.Thismaybe due to Panofsky'sandCassirer'sommon Kantianbackground.'All human works arise under particularhistorical and sociological conditions. But we

16. MilkaIvic, Kierunki w lingwistyce, Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow 966, 111, 184.17. Ernst Cassirer,An Essay on Man. An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture, NewHaven 1944, reed. Garden City, n.d., 93.

76


11/23

could neverunderstand hese specialconditions unless we were able to grasp he generalstructuralprinciplesunderlying hese works. In our study of language,art,andmyth theproblemof meaningtakes precedenceover the problemof historicaldevelopment' ...]'This structuralview of culture must precede the merely historicalview. Historyitselfwould be lost in the boundless mass of disconnectedfacts if it did not have a generalstructural chemeby meansof which it canclassify,order,andorganize hese facts.'18 Sowrote Cassirer how similarto what was written by Panofskyon methodologicalmat-ters.

On May20, 1931 Panofsky spoke before the Kiel section of the Kant Society. Thetitle of his talk was 'ZumProblem der BeschreibungundInhaltsdeutungvon Werken erbildendenKunst'.He sketched for the first time a system of interpretationof the workofart centered on problemsof content. In that system, clearly derivedfrom Panofsky'sformer methodological studies, he formulated the program of an iconographicallyorientedhistory of art which conceivesworks of art as symptomsof general ntellectualhistory. Panofskydiscerned n the work of arta threefold'meaning':1. external,'pheno-menal';2. semantic;and3. documentary,or whathe called'essential'.In the first layerheincluded the representedobjects and their objective and expressivesignificance;n thesecond their conventionalmeaning,derivingfrom cultural tradition;in the third their'essential'meaning,namely the basic relation of the work of art to the total historicalprocess. This was what he formerlycalled 'artisticvolition'; in this first version of hisscheme he used as a label for that layer the term of CarlMannheim: documentarymeaning'.At each level of interpretation,Panofskyexpected the interpreter o be ade-quately prepared:at the first stage,with generalexperienceof life; at the second, withliteraryknowledge;at the third,with a conscious stancevis-a-vishe world. The correctiveto subjectivism n interpretation s providedby objectivehistoricalknowledgeof style inthe first stage, of the history of iconographical ypes in the second and of the generalhistoryof intellectualculture n the third.That scheme was modified by Panofsky twice more. Eight years later it received tsclassicalform, when Panofsky publishedit in the first part of the Introductionto hismost famous book, Studies in Iconology. In the place of Wesenssinn,with its obviousdebt to Riegl'sKunstwollen,a new term, 'intrinsicmeaning',appeared,now already nEnglish;'intrinsicmeaning'was understood as 'content which constitutesthe world ofsymbolicvalues'.It was only then, in 1939, that Panofskymadeplainthat he conceivedthe deep meaning of works of art as symptoms of cultural attitudes in the sense ofCassirer'symbolicforms.Riegl's artisticvolition', conceivedas the 'intrinsicmeaning'ofall art,becameidentifiedwith Cassirer'symbolsof culture.In the version of the system we are talking about, Panofsky introducedone moreverticaldivisionto house the descriptionof the kinds of interpretative unctions. In thefirst stage is 'pre-iconographic escription',in the second 'iconographicanalysis n thenarrower ense', in the third 'iconographicnterpretationn the deepersenseor iconogra-phic synthesis'. But that did not remain the final formulationof the system. Only in1955, when Panofskyreprinted hat articlein his volumeMeaning n the VisualArts, didthe system achieve its ultimate form. There is, to be sure, only one difference,but it

18. O.c.94.77


12/23

amountsto a definitive declaration.The act of interpretationaimingat the discoveryofintrinsicmeaning, .e. the worldof symbolicalvalues,was described ormerlyas 'iconogra-phicalinterpretation n a deepersense'. In the definitive versionof the systemPanofskycalled that act 'iconological nterpretation'.Thus, as he manifestedhis linkwith Cassirerin 1939, in 1955 he stressed inallyhis linkwith Warburgnd'iconology'.18aOf course,Panofsky'spracticalwork showed this muchearlier. t is alreadymanifest nthe title of his Studies in Iconology. Iconographical nterests and the influence of

Warburg re apparent n severalof his publications,beginningwith the book on Durer'sMelencolia , published n 1923 in collaborationwith Fritz Saxl. Butin the Introductionto Studies in Iconology, the first part of which bearsthe imprintof Cassireriannspira-tion, whereasthe second reflects the essentialpreoccupationsof Warburg'sircle,the tworoots of Panofsky'smethodologicalattitude were manifested n the most outspokenway.WhileCassirerreconfirmed,as it were, Panofsky's deas on the logical study of culture,which he had arrivedat independentlythroughrationalanalysis,Warburg penedto himthe greatirrationalworld of humanpassion,where the roots of art areto be found, andmade it possiblefor him to embrace an immense field of human cultureby showinghimhow to systematicallyabolish the borderlinesbetween the disciplines.Panofskywas ableto master with his mind both these mental dimensions and to make out of them ahomogeneouswhole. To havedonethat isjust one of his claims to greatnessas a historianof cultural ife.4. IconologyIn his obituaryof Warburg,written after the latter'sdeathin 1929, Panofskyquotedthewell-knownaphorismof Leonardoda Vinci: 'He who is fixed to a star does not changehis mind'.19 Warburgwas doubtless a man of inspirationand genius - theia mania. Onecould continue and guesswith which celestialbody Warburg as linked:Saturn,beyondany doubt! All the features of the Saturnianpsyche, from genius to madness,fromcreative ntellectual work to the abyssof the most profoundmelancholywerehis.20 Thecomparisonwith Nietzsche - only one generationolder - is so compellingthat onewonderswhy it was not developedfurther after Saxl mentioned it briefly in one of hisearly articles.21 The same incessant tension between rationalthoughtand the energyofthe subconscious,the irrational ife of the psyche;the sameloss of mental balancecursedthose discoverersof Dionysiacfollies and of powerfulinstinctsbehind the dynamismofforms.The sameunionof life andthoughtfor which one payswith madness.The fact that Panofskymet both Cassirer ndWarburgn Hamburgwaspartlyacciden-tal. Cassirer tudied in Marburg, nd before coming to Hamburgivedin Berlin.Warburg

18a. BernardTeyssedre ('Iconologie, Reflexions sur un concept d'Erwin Panofsky',Revue Philoso-phique, CLIV, 1964, 321-340) compares the 1955 version of the system with the 1962 reprint of theStudies in Iconology drawing the conclusion that Panofsky eliminated the term 'iconological inter-pretation' in the later version. The opposite is true.19. Erwin Panofsky, 'A.Warburg',Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft, XXXV, 1930, 1.20. Fritz Saxl, Lectures, London 1957, 325-357; Gertrud Bing, 'A.M.Warburg',Journal of theWarburgand Courtauld Institutes, XXVIII, 1965, 299-313: E.H.Gombrich, 'Aby Warburg zumGedenken', Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsatmlungen, XI, 1966, 15-27; Dieter Wuttke, 'AbyWarburgund seine Bibliothek', Arcadia I, 1966,319-333; Carlo Ginzburg, 'Da A. Warburg a E.H.Gombrich (Note su un problema di metodo)', Studi medievali, 3 ser., VII, 2, 1966, 1015-1065.21. See footnote 27.

78


13/23

was a member of an old, rich Hamburg amily. The familybank, of world importance,provided a basis for his scientific undertakings.On the other hand, the two thinkerssharedstrikinglyclose tendenciesas well as points of departure.Warburg'smaininteresttoo was the search for symptoms of thought and life in art; for him too art was anindicatorof changingattitudes,outlooks, religions,myths, superstitions.Cassirerdesigneda philosophyof humancultureconceivedas a system of symbolicforms.Warburg,asci-nated by the real life of history expressed hroughthose forms,appliedhimselfto actualhistoricalproblems.Startingwith detailedanalysis,he strove for a generalknowledgeoftraditionand of culturalcontinuity.

Warburg ealtwith questionsconcerning he role of the traditionof the classicalworldin Europeancultureand the significanceof Dionysiac,pathetic,non-classical ntiquity,towhich Nietzschehad shortlybefore opened the eyes of scholars.Thisaspectofantiquity,transmitted in long-forgotten systems of magic and astrology, is especially interestingbecauseit conserved n strange,often deformedshapethe image of classicalgods as thehumanists and artistsof the Renaissancehad first learned to know them. Warburg ealtwith questions concerningthe 'formulae of expressingpathetic passions'foundby thoseartists in the treasuryof classicalart, which depictednot only quiet beautybut alsopas-sions bound by form.22 Penetratingdeep into the history of the Renaissance,Warburgsolved severaldetailedproblems, e.g. the imporantquestionof the donorsrepresentedonthe shuttersof Memling'sLastJudgmentAltar.23Warburg'sriumphwashis performanceat'theInternationalCongressof ArtHistory nRome in 1912: he presentedthe 'iconologicalanalysis',as he called t, of the astrologicalfrescoes by Cossa and his collaborators n the Palazzo Schifanoiaat Ferrara.24Theserepresentations,ncomprehensibleo Warburg's redecessors,were interpretedby him asa pictorial formulation of an astrologicalprogramdevisedby a Ferraresehumanist inaccordancewith Arabic,Ptolemaicand Hindutraditions. The realistically onceivedper-sonifications representdecans of the months. This was Warburg'sriumphnot only inrespectto the resultsachieved,but also in respectto the methodused.25 Hisdiscoveryofthe solution to the riddleof the PalazzoSchifanoiafrescoes was not an accident.It wasnot by chance that he came acrossthe IntroductoriumMagnumof Abumasar, eprintedby Franz Boll in 1903 as an appendixto his Sphaera.It was a result of deep knowledgeand systematicresearch.At the end of his paperWarburgddedsome fundamental tate-ments conceming method: 'venturingto presenthere a provisionalsketch concerningaparticularquestion,I wanted at the same time to raisemy voice in defense of enlargingthe methodologicalborderlinesof our discipline,as concernsmaterialas well as space.[... ] I hope that with the help of the method used in my attemptedexplicationof thewall-paintingsn the PalazzoSchifanoiaat Ferrara, haveshownthat an iconologicalana-lysis which is not dissuadedby the rules of the borderpolice can study antiquity, the

22. Fritz Saxl, 'Rinascimento dell'Antichita. Studien zu den Arbeiten A.Warburgs',Repertorium furKunstwissenschaft, XLIII, 1922, 221-272.23. Aby Warburg, 'Flandrische Kunst und florentinische Fruhrenaissance', Jahrbuch derpreussischen Kunstsammlungen, XXIII, 1902, 247-266.24. Aby Warburg, 'Italienische Kunst und internationale Astrologie im Palazzo Schifanoja' [lecture19121, in: Atti del X Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell'Arte in Roma, L'Italia e lArte Straniera,Roma 1922, 179-193, reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften, Leipzig-Berlin 1932, II, 459-481.25. Heckscher, o.c. passim.

79


14/23

MiddleAges and modern times as interconnectedepochs and analyzethe works of the'finest' and the most 'applied'arts as equallyvalid documentsof expression.When thelight of sucha methodis beamedon one darkspot, it canenlightengreatgeneraldevelop-ments in their interconnection.I care less to presenta smooth solution than to discoveranew problem.. .2 6

This new branchof scholarship a synthesisof the knowledgeof culture,implicatingin its investigationsmyth, idea, word and imagewas to be realizedby means of thelibrarybuilt up by Warburg,irst ashis private ibrary, hen transformednto an institute,caredfor and organizedby Warburg'sollaborator,pupil and prophetof his ideas,FritzSaxl.27 That great promotor of Warburg'sdeas popularizedand brought togethertheingenious flashes of his master'sthought. He publishedsummariesof Warburg'sdeas.Warburghimself, affected by mental illness,did not round off his theories.Saxl carriedWarburg'swork on after the latter'sdeathin 1929. In 1933 he savedthe library rom theNazi deluge, transferred t to Great Britain and succeeded in incorporating t into theacademic ife of the adopted country. He was its head until his death in 1948. Saxlwasthe closest collaboratorof Panofsky n his Hamburg ears.28WhatWarburgnd his librarymeantfor the whole worldof humanisticscholarshipandphilosophyin Hamburg,we learnfrom Cassirern the fine dedicationto Warburgf oneof his now classicworks, The Individualand the Cosmos nRenaissancePhilosophy. 'Mydear and esteemed friend,' Cassirerwrote on June 13, 192629 - 'The work I am pre-sentingto you on your sixtiethbirthdaywasto havebeen a purely personalexpressionofmy deep friendshipand devotion. But I could not have completedthe work, had I notbeen able to enjoy the constant stimulationandencouragement f that groupof scholarswhose intellectual centre is your library.Therefore, amspeaking oday not in my namealone, but in the name of this groupof scholars,and in the name of all those who havelong honoured you as a leader in the field of intellectualhistory. For the past threedecades, the WarburgLibraryhas quietly and consistentlyendeavoured o gathermate-rialsfor research n intellectualand culturalhistory.Andit has done much morebesides.With a forcefulnessthat is rare,it hasheld up beforeus the principleswhichmustgovernsuch research. In its organizationand in its intellectualstructure,the Libraryembodiesthe idea of the methodologicalunity of all fields and all currentsof intellectualhistory.Today, the Library s enteringa new phase n its development.Withthe constructionof anew building, t will broaden its field of activity. On this occasion,we memberswant toexpress publicly how much the Librarymeans to us and how much we owe to it. Wehope, and we are sure, that above and beyond the new tasks which the Librarymustfulfil, the old tradition of our common, friendlycollaborationwill not be forgotten,andthat the intellectual and personalbond that has hitherto held us togetherwill becomeever stronger.Maythe organonof intellectual-historical tudieswhich you have createdwith your Library ontinue to askus questionsfor a long time. Andmay you continueto

26. Warburg,Gesammelte Schriften, 478f.; Heckscher, o.c. 246.27. Fritz Saxl, 'Die Bibliothek Warburgund ihr Ziel', Vortrageder Bibliothek Warburg,1921-22, 1,1923, 1-10.28. GertrudBing, 'Fritz Saxl, 1890-1948, A Memoir', n: Fritz Saxl, 1890-1948. A VolumeofMemorial Essays, ed. G.J.Gordon, Edinburgh 1957, 1-46.29. Ernst Cassirer, ndividuumund Kosmos in der Philosophieder Renaissance,Leipzig-Berlin1927, Engl. trans.: New York 1964, xiii.

80


15/23

show us new waysto answer hem as you have in the past.'Cassirer poke these words in the name of a groupof scholars o whichPanofskyalsobelonged.Cassirer's ook appeared n 1927. Two yearslaterWarburgwas no longeralive;six years aterHamburgost Cassirer, axl,Panofskyand the excellentlibrary.For the young Panofskythe circle of the philosopherof symbolic forms and that ofthe inventor of iconological analysiswere most stimulatingmilieus. The interest in thetheory of art and in Durer reflectedin his first studies,andhis knowledgeof mediaevalsculptureand architecture,acquired romVoge andGoldschmidtand formulated n 1924in his monumental book on Germansculpture of the llth-13th centuries,was nowsupplementedby some vast new fields: the problemsof the classicaltradition and theRenaissance,especially of Michelangelo (to whom his Habilitationsschriftwas dedi-cated30) andabove all - iconography.In his preciselyworked out scheme of interpretation he analysisof content took themain place. By iconographyPanofskydid not meanthe identificationof saints,attributesand symbols as practicedby theologians,art historiansand archaeologistsn their dailywork, an integralpartof art history sincethe nineteenthcentury,when the field becamea scholarlydiscipline.ForPanofskythe study of iconography,aswell as arttheory,was ameansto restorethe lost links between artandthought,betweenimagesand ideas.With these aims in mind Panofsky studied the classical tradition and its impact onDuirer'sart;31 together with Saxl he devoted a fundamental study to Diirer'sMelencoliaL32 He began a systematic study of religiousand humanisticiconography.Constantly sharpeninghis tools, he never stopped formulatingconcepts and generaltheoreticalpoints of view. A long study of 1927 entitledImago Pietatis, devoted to thehistory of the iconographical ype of the Man of Sorrows andMariaMediatrix,ncludedreflectionson the concept of iconographic ypes and on the method of research n thatfield.

A furtherstep was the book dedicated to the motif of Herculesat the Crossroads s amoralallegory,published n 1930. In this studythe imagewas- as impliedby the subject- always closely linked with ideasabout life andmorals.The scholarlyapproachncludedconstant confrontations of the sphereof artwith that of philosophyandconceptsof life.In the introduction Panofsky first formulated his ideas on the study of content,conceivingit as an integraland importantelement of the procedureof the art historian.We have alreadyseen that the final formulation of these ideas was expressed n theform of statements n whichPanofskyconvincinglyconnected the systemof fundamentalconcepts of art history, built up in the early stage of his development,with his new taskof the interpretationof content. Theprogram ameto fruition in the articlescollected inStudies inIconology andin several aterpapers,written in America.Panofsky's nterestsspreadout from alreadyexistingnuclei. Hisstudieson Diirer'sarthistory led to severalpaperson Durer'sart, culminating n the monumentalmonographon the artistpublished n 1943. Panofsky's nterestin Jan van Eyck didnot die after he

30. Hans Kauffmann, obituary, o.c.31. Panofsky, 'Dirers Stellung zur Antike', JahrbuchfiirKunstgeschichte, I, 1921-22, 43-92.32. Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Dirers Melencolia I, Leipzig-Berlin 1923. Enlarged ed.:R.Klibansky, E.Panofsky, F.Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy. Studies in the History of NaturalPhilosophy,ReligionandArt, London1964.

81


16/23

wrote the essay on perspective.It grew, as Panofsky produced a series of articles andpolemicsin the thirties,andreached ts climaxin his iconographical nalysesof the Ghentaltarpiece,the Amolfini portraitand the Timotheos;33 its summahas been givenus inPanofsky's biggest book, Early NetherlandishPainting of 1953. His inclination tophilologicalanalysisof texts broughtabout the publicationof the LeonardesqueCodexHuygens in 1940 and the masterlytranslationof Abbot Suger'swritings,publishedin1946 with a thoroughphilologicalandhistoricalcommentaryas well as anextraordinarilylively reconstructionof the personalityand ideas of that mediaeval hinkerandpatron.

Panofsky'smain passion,solvingiconographicriddles,foundexpression n numberlessdetailed studies and articles,and in some more extensiveworks such as Pandora'sBox,written with his wife, a humanistic document to his shared ife with DoraPanofsky;34astudy on the Galleryof Francis in Fontainebleau 1958), also written in collaborationwith his wife; the study on Correggio'sCameradi SanPaoloin Parma 1961); and articleson some picturesby Poussinand some worksby Durer.35Renaissanceand Renascences,a series of lecturesdelivered n Swedenandpublished n1960, is devoted to a defense of the authenticmeaningof the Renaissanceagainst therevolt of the mediaevalists'; largebook concerningTombSculptureresultedno doubtfrom a continuation of Panofsky'sold interest in the tomb of Julius II and its genea-logy.36

Panofsky'sdesire to link ideasandforms,artandhumanistic houghtwasexpressed nthe masterlyparallelof Gothic Architectureand Scholasticism(1948), which could bedescribedas an exercise in structuralanalysis; n his study on Galileoand his scientificviews in their relation to art (1954 and 1955); and in his last article on ErasmusofRotterdamand the visualarts(1969). Titianstudies,beautifullyinaugurated y an articlein Studies inIconology, became the subjectof Panofsky's astbook.37He once wrote that the world of the art historian s composedof manyislands.Theseislandsgrowup andmultiply,sometimes hey connect to form extensiveareas,recognizedand subjugated.38The world of art on which he ruled extended from antiquityto theeighteenth century, althoughhe undertook sporadicexcursions also into the last twocenturies.39Althoughhe did not have a negativeattitudetowardscontemporaryart,themovies seemed to him the most important of the various artisticexpressionsof ourcentury. He thought of film as an extremely 'iconographic'art, the heir of the traditionof symbolismandof the old meaningsconnected with images.It was not by accidentthathe devotedto the movies a studyhighlyappreciated venby specialists.He was troubledby areas which could not be subjugatedby logical, ordering hought.

33. Panofsky,'Jan van Eyck'sArnolfiniPortrait',BurlingtonMagazine,LXIV,1934, 177ff.; 'TheFriedsamAnnunciationandthe Problemof the GhentAltarpiece',Art Bulletin, XVII, 1935, 433ff.;'Once Morethe FriedsamAnnunciation ndthe Problemof the GhentAltarpiece',ArtBulletin,XX,1938, 429ff.; 'Who s Jan vanEyck's Timotheos? ', Journalof theWarburgndCourtauldnstitutes,XII, 1949, 80ff.34. Pandora'sBox, NewYork1956, reed.1962 and 1965.35. Erwin Panofsky, 'Et in ArcadiaEgo', Philosophyand History, EssaysPresented to ErnstCassirer,Oxford1936, 223-254; idem,A MythologicalPaintingbyPoussin,Stockholm1960.36. Idem,TombSculpture,New York1964.37. Idem,Problems n Titian,mostlyiconographic,New York1969.38. Idem,Meaningn the VisualArts,GardenCity, N.Y., 1955, 340.39. 'The '"Tomb n Arcady" at the "Fin-de-Siecle"',Wallraf-RichartzahrbuchXXX, 1968,287-304(withGerdaSoergel-Panofsky,is secondwife).

82


17/23

Whenthe materialof history did not yield to his expectationsof intellectualorder hecomplained okinglybut alsoaccusinglyof 'die verdammtenOriginale'.40 It was of courseeasierto put order nto photographsandtypes. He was alsotroubledby Spain- whichhenever visited, by the way - 'where everythingis always possible',where there was nocertainpoint of reference.His erudition andhis - to quote Gombrich4 - 'enjoymentofthe virtuosities of erudition' have led to his being considereda 'bookish' scholarwhoworked in his study with books and photographsonly. He was accused of a lack ofinterest in form,in art itself. Everybodywho knew thisexceptionalman knows how falsesuch an opinionis, andthat this kind of criticismwas altogetherunjust.But it is certainlytrue that his main interest was in meaning,whichhe saweverywhereandwhich he knewhow to reveal to others.42 In that he typified the basicinterestsof contemporaryhuma-nisticstudies,of whichhe was in severalrespectsthe precursor.5. Historian,writer,criticThe value of many scientific theories is revealed n, and sometimes imitedto, their fruit-fulness, especially in the case of methodological rather than ontological theories.Panofsky'ssystem, whatevercriticism can be appliedto it, and however much one couldtry to make it more perfect, has passed that critical test with flying colors. I doubtwhether the - in some respectsamended- versionsproposedby Klein, TeyssedreandForssmancould passit.42a Panofsky'ssystemhad the imprintof genius:in its recommen-dations of practicalprocedureit was unambiguous;t was a flash of revelationopeningthe eyes to thingsunseen before. It was rational,compactand fruitful.It should be stressed that Panofskyconceived the work of art first of all as an objectdesignedfor a practicalfunction, eitheras a vehicleof communicationor a tool. In orderto qualify as a workof art the objectwould have been creatednot only with anintentionof practicaluse but also of givingan aestheticexperience.An art historian constituteshis"material"bij means of intuitive aesthetic re-creation, ncludingthe perceptionand ap-praisal of "quality" .43 Therefore it is not right to say that Panofsky omitted theaesthetic element. The task of the historianis to find out that he has to do with a 'man-made object demandingo be experiencedaesthetically'; hat is how he defines the objectof his study. In a letter of August24, 1965 he clearedup his attitude to that question:44'I am the last to denyhis [GeorgeKubler's]contention that - asAristotle andSt.Thomasknew so well - every man-madeobjectproducedwith a purpose- is (or rathercan be) alegitimateobject of "art"historicalor "art"critical nvestigation if andwhen it has an"aesthetic" intentiontogetherwith aninfinitevarietyof others.But the fact remains hatwe ourselves must realize and qualify that "intention" (otherwise there would be norationalizabledifference between the descriptionsof a motor carby an engineerand an

40. MillardMeiss,obituary9, in thevolumequotedin footnote 2.41. E.H.Gombrich,bituary,quoted n footnote 6.42. HaroldCheriss 10f., obituary n the volumequotedin footnote 2.42a. RobertKlein, Considerations ur les fondements de l'iconographie',Archivio di Filosofia,1963, 419-436; BernardTeyssedre,articlequoted in footnote 18a;ErikForssman, IkonologieundallgemeineKunstgeschichte',Zeitschrift ur Aesthetik und allgemeineKunstwissenschaft,XI, 1966,132-169.43. ErwinPanofsky,Meaningn the VisualArts, 14f.44. A letterin the presentwriter'spossession.

83


18/23

art historian);and for this realizationand qualificationwe need explore what the artisthad in mind - including, n certaincases, iconologicalcontent and, in all cases,an auto-nomousframeof referencedeterminedonly by artistic"Grundprobleme".Panofsky was an historianbut also a philosopherand he liked to build up logicalconstructions.Nevertheless t would be a mistaketo giveundue stressto methodological

theories in the evaluationof his work. Hadit not been verifiedby a hundredexcellentstudies, his theory would probably have remained buried in the pages of specializedperiodicals.It should also perhapsbe addedthat in practicePanofskywas by no meansalways true to his prescriptions,and in each separatecase he adoptedlines of investiga-tion suitedto the particularaskhe wassettinghimself.His ambition was not only to solve particularquestions but also, and above all, toformulate general statements, something like 'humanistic laws'. Perhaps two ofPanofsky's statements in particularwill remainlong-lived acquisitionsof art-historicalscholarship.First is the law he formulated n collaborationwith Saxl,basedon Warburg'sstudies, concerningthe relation of the literary and visual tradition of antiquityin theMiddleAges. In the MiddleAges, accordingto Panofsky, 'classicalsubjectswere repre-sented by non-classical orms, and classical forms were used for representationof non-classicalsubjects'.The text-tradition andthe image-tradition f antiquitywereseparated.They were reunitedonly at the peak of the Renaissanceat the beginningof the 16thcentury.45 That correct and pertinentobservationbecame a lastingelement of historicalknowledge.Panofsky'ssecond discoveryis of what he called 'disguisedsymbolism'. 15th-centurypaintingaimed at representing eal space;mediaevalsymbolic thinkinghad to obey thelaws of the new realism.Since howeverthe principle tself of conveyingmeaning hroughsymbols did not disappear, ymbolshad to take on the formof actualobjectscoexistingwith people in the same space. In this way 'disguised symbolism' was created, as aconsequenceof the union of realismandsymbolic thinking.That discovery,while it gavenew perspectives o the second and third stagesof art-historical interpretation,also created a seriousmethodologicalproblem,concerningtheprinciplesof control. Wherewas interpretation o stop? Couldevery object alwaysandfor everybodybear all the symbolicalmeaningseverconnected with it? Panofsky nsistedon the applicationof strict historicalmethods and common sense moderatedby historicalknowledge.He was distressedby the fantastic and uncritical nterpretationsproposedbyhis followers, for which he felt at least partly, responsible.In one of his last works, thebook Tomb Sculpture of 1964, he admonished the younger scholars: 'Nor should weoverlook the dangerof readinga profoundsignificance nto each and every detail. Thehuman race is both playful and forgetful, and many a motif originally fraughtwithmeaningcame to be used for "purelydecorative"purposeswhen this meaninghas falleninto oblivion or had ceased to be of interest. I am convinced,however,that very fewmotifs were invented for "purely decorative"purposesfrom the outset: even so light-hearted an ornament as the garlandor festoon (serta) ubiquitousin Roman art and

45. First formulated together with Saxl in 'Classical Mythology in Mediaeval Art', MetropolitanMuseum Studies, IV, 1933, 228-280. Developed in Studies in Iconology, New York 1939 and inRenaissance and Renascences, Uppsala-Stockholm, 1960.84


19/23

enthusiasticallyrevivedby the Renaissance,was ritualin originand the specific connec-tion of such longaecoronae with funeraryrites is attestedby as venerablea source as theTwelve Tables.'46A tendency to precision,reflected in his attempts to establishlaws, predisposedthatmasterof philologyto a love for the sciences andpartisanshipn favor of theirapplication

in art history. His close collaboration with the BrusselsLaboratoireCentraland hisfriendshipwith its creator,PaulCoremans,wereproofs of that attitude.A recordof thataspect of his interests is preservedin Panofsky's obituary of Coremans.47Panofskystressed the close link between technologicaland scientific analysisand the humanisticinvestigationof a work of art. Experienceaidedby instrumentss blind if not led by the'aprioristic'humanisticconsiderations hat properlyprecedeit. Panofskyavailedhimselfeagerlyand often of the resultsof laboratory nvestigation,using X-raysandtechnologicalanalysisnot only in his researchon Jan vanEyck,but alsoon Poussin and Titian.

Technologyrewardedhim for that recognition,confirmingone of the beautifulanaly-tical investigations ncluded in his study of Rembrandt'sDanae of 1933. Panofskyde-monstrated the originality of Rembrandt's conographic conception againstthe back-ground of tradition. He reconstructedRembrandt's ideal' transformationof the usualtype of Danaeby the eliminationof the goldenshower n favor of raysof golden light,byshifting the position of the old nurse and by modifying the pose and gesture of theheroine. Technical nvestigationsby Soviet scholars n the Hermitage, ecentlypublishedand interpretedby Youri Kousnetsov,have confirmed Panofsky'sthesis, revealingun-expectedly that the processreconstructedby the scholarwas not 'ideal' but quite real:traces of the original,traditionalinvention have been found in the lower strataof thepicture.They were changed by the master some dozen or moreyearsafter the executionof the originalversion.48Lookinginto the pictorialstructureof the work of art,tryingto reach ts primaidea,Panofsky was far from restrictinghimself only to tracingcontent, meaningand symbo-lism. Like any inventor of a new method he was and still is looked upon in a one-sidedway. Opposingthat currentdistortedappraisal,Panofsky'selder colleague,WalterFried-lander s reportedby Gombrich49 o have said: 'Heis not as learnedas all that, but he hasa wonderfuleye.' Some of Panofsky's analysesof style, form and individualfeaturesofartistic expression are among the best-known in the whole history of art. One suchmasterpiece of critical and historical thought, based on an observationof Voge's, isPanofsky'ssystematizedand precisely formulated definition of the relation of volumeand space in Romanesqueand Gothic sculpture, n his study on perspective.50Anotherone is his excellent characterizationof Diirer'sgraphictechnique;51 still another the

46. Erwin Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, New York 1964, 32f.47. Idem, 'The promoter of a new cooperation between the natural sciences and the history of art',Bulletin de l'Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, VIII, 1965, 62-67.48. Youri Kousnetsov in Soobshthenia Gos. Ermitagea, XXVII, 1966, 26; Oud Holland, LXXXII,1968, 225-232; Kurt Bauch, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1967, 132f.; Youri Kousnetsov,Zagadki 'Danai', Leningrad 1970.49. E.H.Gombrich, obituary, o.c. 359.50. 'Die Perspektive als "symbolische Form" ', Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg[1924-25] 1927,258ff.; Erwin Panofsky, Aufsatze zu Grundfragender Kunstwissenschaft (H.Oberer and E.Verheyen,ed.) Berlin 1964, 113-115.51. Albrecht Durer, Princeton 1943 [also 1945 and 1948], 47f., 63ff., 133f.

85


20/23

descriptionof Jan van Eyck's style, crowningPanofsky'spresentationof his work. VanEyck's interpretationof the world is characterizedas a unique linking of a vision ofdetailswith the graspingof an immensewhole.52

Panofsky'spowerfulmind waswell servedby his talentas a writer.Hewasprobablyanexception amongGermanemigrants,since he mastered the languageof his new countrynot only in a perfect but even in a creativeway. RensselaerLee characterizesPanofsky'sEnglish style thus in his obituary:53'crisp,humorous,sometimesironical,full of lightsandhalf-lights hat mirror ubtlechanges n his own feeling,and aboveall, never dull.Hadhe remainedin Germanythe history of art written in Englishwould have sufferedanimmeasurableoss.'

There are, however, some featuresof thought and verbalizationcommon to the Ger-man and Englishworks. Everyattentive reader of Panofsky'swritingsnotes one of themat least. It is his inclinationconstantlyto contrasttwo qualities,values,tendencies;hisinclinationto use an antitheticscale,as it were. Sometimeshe likes to playwith relationshe has discovered,reversing hem in order to reinforce the connection of elements. Thatway of thinking, which became a stylistic figuretoo, sometimes seems to be a literaryornamentnot alwayscontributing o the classificationof his argument.54Sometimes his way of leading an argumentthrough constant comparisonsof con-trastingconcepts or valuesachievesbrilliantresults,as for instancewhen he compares heconcepts of spatial and historicaldistance,unknownto the MiddleAge.55 Perhaps hemost beautiful example of all is his magnificentpolyphonic considerationof the exactand the humanisticsciences, reprintedas the introduction to his book Meaning n theVisualArts. In that essay he condensedinto a few pagesfor the Americanreadershisgreatwisdom about art and arthistory.56

In the Americanperiod, three times longerthan his activity in Hamburg,Panofsky'sfunction was quite different from that of an academic teacher in Germany.Attuninghimself to the conception of scholarship nd culture n America,he participatedn a wayunknown in Germanyin the popularizationof knowledge.An indefatigableand enthu-siasticlecturer,entrancinghis audiencesby the content aswell as the form of his lectures- and first of all by his sense of humor - he knew how to link his creative, lonelyscholarlywork, done in the seclusionof the PrincetonInstitute,with pedagogicactivityon various levels. Everysecond yearhe conducted a guest seminarat Princeton Univer-sity, with which he always had friendly relations. Severalinvitationsbroughthim forlongeror shorterperiodsto such institutions as HarvardUniversity,BrynMawrCollege,New York University (wherehe beganhis Americancareer n 1931 as a VisitingProfes-sor)andthe BenedictineAbbeyof St.Vincentin Latrobe,Pennsylvania.

Everywherehe aroused interest and enthusiasm and everywherehe left students.Everywherehe suggested subjects, offered ideas, encouragedand helped. He used hisgrowingauthorityto endorseapplications or scholarships,unds andgrantswheneverhe

52. Early Netherlandish Painting, Cambridge, Mass. 1953, 180-182.53. Rensselaer W.Lee, obituary, Art Journal 1968, 568.54. This was observed already by Julius Held in his review of Early Netherlandish Painting, ArtBulletin, XXXVII, 1955, 207.55. 'Artist, Scientist, Genius', The Renaissance, Six Essays, New York 1962, 129.56. 'The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline' [1940], in: Meaning in the VisualArts, 1-25.

86


21/23

thought they were necessaryand useful. As Professorat the School of HistoricalStudiesof the Institute for AdvancedStudy he proposed annuallythe names of art historiansfrom all over the world for temporarymembershipof the Institute,givingthem in thisway the possibilityto work under deal conditions.He was gifted with such extraordinary ersonalcharm hat everybodywho once cameinto the orbit of his influence remainedforever underhis spell. People who conductedviolent polemicsagainsthis worksbecamefriendsof Panofsky's or life when they got toknow his amazingmind and his unexpected receptivity, even to the ideas of youngcolleagues. Short in stature and far from beautiful, he was attractedin his historicalimaginationby 'little great men', as he called them. We find that idea in his beautifulessay on Abbot Suger,where he gave us a - doubtlessautobiographical account ofpeople for whom 'anexceptionallysmallphysiqueseems to be insignificantn the eyes ofhistory'. It was certainly not without personal reference that as motto of his SugermonographPanofskychose the couplet found in the obituaryof the greatabbotwrittenby SimonCapraAurea:Corpore,gentebrevis,geminabrevitatecoactus,In brevitatesua noluit esse brevis.57

A passionatereader,also of detective novels, a loverof A. ConanDoyle, an enthusias-tic amateurof music who alwayshad the Kochel-Verzeichnis t hand in his livingroom,an intrepid discussionpartnerof physicists and mathematiciansaroundthe Institute,aman who used to give a lift in the afternoonto his old maid Emma,bringingher in hisvery old Cadillac o the Negroquarterof Princeton.Hehad a specialfondness for blacks.

Universallyadmired and loved, he reciprocatedthese feelings with warmth, neverleavinga letter unanswered,an offprintwithout a wise andwitty commentaryas a certainproof thathe had readthe text througheagerly.6. Humanistand manIn his life and in his scholarshipPanofskyfollowed the ideal of the humanisticattitude,which he characterizedmost beautifully in his lecture of 1940, mentioned already.Humanitasmeant for him the strengthof man,expressed n his reason and freedomofwill, but at the same time the weaknessof man,expressed n his shortcomings.Fromthisconcept of humanitashe deducedthe claim of responsibilityof man for his own conduct,but also of tolerationfor the shortcomingsof his fellow men. He did not acceptany formof determinism,a doctrinewhich deprivesman of his freedomto decide about his ownbehavior,and eventually liberateshim of any responsibility or his words and acts. Hedisagreedalso with those who deny the moralsignificanceof human acts. He was anta-gonisticto aestheticism, insectolatrism' rofessing he all-importance f the hive,but alsoto subordinationo any authoritynot controlledby reasonand moral aw.He appreciated he 'ironicalskepticism'of Erasmusand his 'unheroic ove' of studyintranquillity,but he recalled the duty inherent in the concept of a humanistof being awatchmanon the tower. The humanist s in a privilegedposition, commandsa view of a

57. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.Denis and Its Art Treasures,Princeton1946,Introduction, 1-37.87


22/23

large horizon unobstructedby practicallittle problemsof everyday life; but he has aresponsibility which devolvesupon the tower dwellernot in spitebut becauseof the factthat he dwells in a tower.' Thehumanistperceives ocialandpoliticaldangers asterthanothers. His duty is to spy out calamitiesand to raise his voice to preventthem. And heshouldnot remainsilentwhen it is necessary o speak.58A humanist,in Panofsky'sconception, rejectsuncontrolledauthority,but he respectstradition,and in interpreting t he discovers astingvalues n the human recordswhichhetransmitsto posterity. He analyzessignsandstructureswhichemergefrom the streamoftime, left behind by men of past times who expressedthroughthem theirthoughts.Thehumanist is thus, fundamentally,an historianwho 'endeavors o transform he chaoticvariety of humanrecords nto what may be called a cosmosof culture,' ust as a scientist'endeavorsto transformthe chaotic variety of naturalphenomenainto what may becalled a cosmos of nature.' The human world createshistory by interferingwith time,opposingconscious recordsof humanexistenceto its flow. The task of the humanist s todecode these records, to understand their message and to transmit them further, toresuscitatethat which without the humanistwould remaindead,destroyedby time. Thenaturalsciences, Panofsky wrote, attain a sum of knowledgecalledby the Latinwordscientia; the humanitiesattain learning,eruditio. The first is a mental possession, thesecond a mental process. 'The ideal aim of science would seem to be somethinglikemastery,that of the humanitiessomething ike wisdom.'59Within that cosmos of culture built up by the humanist- may I continuePanofsky'sargument- the art historian constructs the world of art. Althoughthe numberof ma-terialobjects, its components,remainsstatic or grows slowly, the function,the structureand the content of that world change, transformedby the mind of the scholar,whoconstitutes them according o his own conceptionof the cosmos of culture,according othe way in which his intellect and his imaginationorganize hat cosmos.The mind of the scholar is like a convex mirror which concentratesour sight onspecific objects, qualities,problemsand values.Some scholarspresentto us a foggy butbeautiful image;the imagepresentedby others is out of focus but touching;still otherspresentan imageof absolutesharpness,where we see each detail,but wherethe life of artis extinguished.

Panofsky'smirrorshowed the cosmos of art in a way similarto that in whichone ofthe artists closest to him, Jan van Eyck, showed the real world in his pictures. In amasterly way that paintersolved the fundamentalproblemconfrontinghis generationofartists: to establishan equilibriumbetween the analyticandsyntheticview,between thegeneral view of the forest and the individual trees. 'Jan van Eyck's eye operates as amicroscopeand as a telescopeat the same time.'Panofskysaid.60Likewise,the profoundvision of the greatart historianpenetrated he meaningand structureof the whole andofthe parts;it revealedgreat areasof thought andvalues,projectinga synthetic imageofthem based on the most detailed possible analysis of the individualelements. In its

58. 'In Defense of the Ivory Tower',TheCentennialReviewof Arts andScience, I (nr2), 1957,111-112; 'Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressionsof a TransplantedEuropean', 1953], Meaningn the VisualArts,321-346.59. Meaningn the VisualArts, 25.60. EarlyNetherlandish ainting,182.88


23/23

panoramicview, composed according o the fundamentalproblems ormulatedby 'trans-cendentalanalysis',Panofsky'svision took up everything n its ken with a strong feelingfor matter,objects, people andfacts.The cosmos of culture built by humanistschanges;it is transformedand becomesricher with the labors of the re-creatingand creatinghandsof scholars.The art historianchangesthat cosmos of artwhich existed beforehe came;he does it by discoveringa newbeauty, a new function or a new content.As a mass of materialobjects, the world of art could remain a massof lifelessthings.Organized y the thoughtof humanists nto a cosmos,it comes to life andbecomes a vitalpower. Panofskywas one of the greatarchitectsof that cosmos. He hasgivenlife to it. Heleft it quite differentthan he found it. In countlessplacesof that immense and his tracehas been so deeply engraved hat facingworks of art whose meaninghe has revealed, twould be impossibleever to forgetthat ErwinPanofsky uit hic.

89

bias to lo sky

Documents