Millard Meiss, American Art History, and Conservation: From Connoisseurship to Iconology and Kulturgeschichte 9780367138349, 9780367138356

Table of contents :
Cover
Half Title
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright Page
Table of Contents
Illustrations and Illustration Credits
Preface
Acknowledgements
List of Abbreviations
Cited Works by Millard Meiss
Introduction
Bibliography
Chapter 1 Two Generations of American Connoisseurs
Richard Offner’s Scientific Connoisseurship
The Two Cartographers
The Foundations for a Science of Connoisseurship
A Short History of Meiss’s Attributions
The First Thorny Problems of Ugolino Lorenzetti and Francesco Traini
‘Scusi, ma sempre Duccio’: The Case of the Frick Flagellation
‘The World Clearly Wants Giotto to Be the Author’: The Assisi Debate
The Sharp Eye of a Connoisseur and the Acute Mind of a Scientist
Bibliography
Chapter 2 The Far Side of the Moon: Erwin Panofsky’s Iconology
Panofsky Arrives in the United States
Towards an American-style Iconology
A Casual but Illuminating Conversation
The ‘Synthronismus’
‘Von Haus zu Haus’
The Extent of His Influence, the Weight of His Authority and the Solidity of His Reign
Panofskyan Pathways
Arnolfini’s Hat
Iconology of Light
‘Oology May Qualify as a Branch of Iconology’
Meissian Slumber
Bibliography
Chapter 3 Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?
Reviewing Antal
The ‘Pest Book’ and Post-war Scholarship
‘One of the Most Original and Sound Works in the History of Art’
The Historian’s View: Yves Renouard, Hans Baron and Roberto S. Lopez
The Habitus Does Not Make the Art Bishop: Berenson and Panofsky
‘A Book That Ought to Have Been Known in Italy Not Only by Scholars Alone’: The Complications of a Translation
‘The Holes in the Meissian Model Have Grown Larger with Each Passing Year’
The History of Culture after the Black Death
Bibliography
Chapter 4 The Technical Study of Art
Harvard’s Art Laboratory
‘America as Guardian of the World’s Art Treasures’: The American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments
ACRIM’s Projects of Restoration
The Involvement of Bernard Berenson
Meiss’s Studies on Mural Paintings
The Trigger-Happy Detachment of Frescoes
The Giornate in Assisi with Leonetto Tintori
A Book on the History of Art Techniques
American Aid after the Flood
‘An Acute Case of CRIAmania’
Ugo Procacci, Tintori’s Brigata and Italian ‘Stubborn Rivalries’
From The Great Age of Fresco to Firenze Restaura
Bibliography
Chapter 5 Italian Meiss-Fortunes
A Connoisseur’s Early Impressions of Italy
An American Panofsky and a Candid Iconologist
Meiss’s Associates
Longhi and Salmi
The Soprintendenti’s Circle
A True Gentleman from the 19th Century
The Champion of Iconology and History of Culture, or Our Man in Italy
When Princeton Mostly Spoke Italian
A Three-Faced Man
Bibliography
Index

Citation preview

Millard Meiss, American Art History, and Conservation

A member of the art history generation from the golden age of the 1920s and 1930s, Millard Meiss (1904–1975) developed a new and multi-faceted methodological approach. This book lays the foundation for a reassessment of this key fgure in post-war American and international art history. The book analyses his work alongside that of contemporary art historians, considering both those who infuenced him and those who were receptive to his research. Jennifer Cooke uses extensive archival material to give Meiss the critical consideration that his extensive and important art historical, restoration and conservation work deserves. This book will be of interest to scholars in art history, historiography and heritage management and conservation. Jennifer Cooke is a researcher in History of Art Criticism and Museum Studies at the University of Turin. Cover image: Photo of Millard Meiss by Hans Namuth (1961), Millard Meiss Papers, circa 1918-circa 1977, bulk 1950-1975, Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution.

Studies in Art Historiography Series Editor: Richard Woodfeld University of Birmingham

The aim of this series is to support and promote the study of the history and practice of art historical writing focusing on its institutional and conceptual foundations, from the past to the present day in all areas and all periods. Besides addressing the major innovators of the past it also encourages re-thinking ways in which the subject may be written in the future. It ignores the disciplinary boundaries imposed by the Anglophone expression ‘art history’ and allows and encourages the full range of enquiry that encompasses the visual arts in its broadest sense as well as topics falling within archaeology, anthropology, ethnography and other specialist disciplines and approaches. For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/Studies-i n-Art-Historiography/book-series/ASHSER2250 Comparativism in Art History Edited by Jaś Elsner Constructing the Viennese Modern Body Art, Hysteria and the Puppet Nathan J. Timpano Messerschmidt’s Character Heads Maddening Sculpture and the Writing of Art History Michael Yonan Time in the History of Art Temporality, Chronology, and Anachrony Edited by Dan Karlholm and Keith Moxey New Narratives of Russian and East European Art Between Traditions and Revolutions Edited by Galina Mardilovich and Maria Taroutina Making Art History in Europe after 1945 Edited by Noemi de Haro-García, Patricia Mayayo and Jesús Carrillo Millard Meiss, American Art History, and Conservation From Connoisseurship to Iconology and Kulturgeschichte Jennifer Cooke

Millard Meiss, American Art History, and Conservation From Connoisseurship to Iconology and Kulturgeschichte

Jennifer Cooke

First published 2021 by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 Taylor & Francis The right of Jennifer Cooke to be identifed as author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Cooke, Jennifer, 1983- author. | Cooke, Jennifer, 1983- Millard Meiss. Title: Millard Meiss, American art history, and conservation: from connoisseurship to iconology and Kulturgeschichte/Jennifer Cooke. Other titles: Millard Meiss. English Description: New York: Routledge, 2021. | Originally published in Italy in 2015 by Ledizioni as Millard Meiss: tra connoisseurship, iconologia e Kulturgeschichte. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifers: LCCN 2020025272 (print) | LCCN 2020025273 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367138349 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367138356 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Meiss, Millard. | Art–Historiography. | Historiography–United States–History–20th century. Classifcation: LCC N7483.M45 C6613 2021 (print) | LCC N7483.M45 (ebook) | DDC 709--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025272 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020025273 ISBN: 978-0-367-13834-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-13835-6 (ebk) Typeset in Sabon by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India

Contents

Illustrations and Illustration Credits Preface Acknowledgements List of Abbreviations Cited Works by Millard Meiss Introduction

viii x xii xiii xiv 1

Bibliography 4 1

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

5

Richard Offner’s Scientifc Connoisseurship 5 The Two Cartographers 6 The Foundations for a Science of Connoisseurship 8 A Short History of Meiss’s Attributions 10 The First Thorny Problems of Ugolino Lorenzetti and Francesco Traini 10 ‘Scusi, ma sempre Duccio’: The Case of the Frick Flagellation 17 ‘The World Clearly Wants Giotto to Be the Author’: The Assisi Debate 26 The Sharp Eye of a Connoisseur and the Acute Mind of a Scientist 34 Bibliography 36 2

The Far Side of the Moon: Erwin Panofsky’s Iconology Panofsky Arrives in the United States 47 Towards an American-style Iconology 49 A Casual but Illuminating Conversation 57 The ‘Synthronismus’ 65 ‘Von Haus zu Haus’ 68 The Extent of His Infuence, the Weight of His Authority and the Solidity of His Reign 69

47

vi

Contents Panofskyan Pathways 73 Arnolfni’s Hat 73 Iconology of Light 76 ‘Oology May Qualify as a Branch of Iconology’ Meissian Slumber 81 Bibliography 84

3

78

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

98

Reviewing Antal 98 The ‘Pest Book’ and Post-war Scholarship 100 ‘One of the Most Original and Sound Works in the History of Art’ 100 The Historian’s View: Yves Renouard, Hans Baron and Roberto S. Lopez 108 The Habitus Does Not Make the Art Bishop: Berenson and Panofsky 110 Ragghianti’s Attack and the Italian Response 114 ‘A Book That Ought to Have Been Known in Italy Not Only by Scholars Alone’: The Complications of a Translation 117 ‘The Holes in the Meissian Model Have Grown Larger with Each Passing Year’ 123 The History of Culture after the Black Death 125 Bibliography 128 4

The Technical Study of Art Harvard’s Art Laboratory 138 ‘America as Guardian of the World’s Art Treasures’: The American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments 139 ACRIM’s Projects of Restoration 143 The Involvement of Bernard Berenson 145 Meiss’s Studies on Mural Paintings 147 The Trigger-Happy Detachment of Frescoes 147 The Giornate in Assisi with Leonetto Tintori 150 A Book on the History of Art Techniques 154 American Aid after the Flood 157 ‘An Acute Case of CRIAmania’ 157 Ugo Procacci, Tintori’s Brigata and Italian ‘Stubborn Rivalries’ 162 From The Great Age of Fresco to Firenze Restaura 166 Bibliography 171

138

Contents 5

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

vii 182

A Connoisseur’s Early Impressions of Italy 182 An American Panofsky and a Candid Iconologist 184 Meiss’s Associates 187 Longhi and Salmi 187 The Soprintendenti’s Circle 191 A True Gentleman from the 19th Century 194 The Champion of Iconology and History of Culture, or Our Man in Italy 197 When Princeton Mostly Spoke Italian 200 A Three-Faced Man 201 Bibliography 204 Index

211

Illustrations and Illustration Credits

Where possible, the images in this book were purposefully chosen from Federico Zeri’s personal photo collection to illustrate the kind of visual reference that Millard Meiss would have used. 1.1 1.2

1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3

Francesco Traini, Triptych of St Dominic (central panel), 1344–1345, oil on panel, 175 × 74 cm, Pisa, Museo Nazionale di San Matteo [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23689] Francesco Traini, Madonna and Child with St Anne, 1340–1345, tempera on wood panel transferred to pressed wood panel, 84.9 × 56 cm, Princeton, Princeton University Art Museum [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23683] Lippo Memmi, Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas, 1323, tempera on panel, 375 × 258 cm, Pisa, Church of Santa Caterina d’Alessandria [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 21415] Buonamico Buffalmacco, Triumph of Death, ca. 1338–1339, fresco, Pisa, Camposanto [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23614] Buonamico Buffalmacco, St George and the Dragon, ca. 1350, fresco, Parma, Baptistry [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23608] Cenni di Pepo (known as Cimabue), Flagellation of Christ (cleaned and retouched), ca. 1280, tempera on poplar panel, 24.7 × 20 cm, New York, Frick Art Collection [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 9960] Giovanni Bellini (attr.), Portrait of Jacopo Antonio Marcello, ca. 1453, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS 940 Passio Mauritii et sotiorum ejus, f. 38 v Andrea Bonaiuti (known as Andrea da Firenze), Spanish Chapel, 1366–1368, view of the interior, Florence, Santa Maria Novella [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 16066] Andrea di Cione (known as Orcagna), Triumph of Death (fragment), ca. 1348, fresco, Florence, Santa Croce [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 15089] Lippo Memmi, Crucifxion, ca. 1340, fresco, San Gimignano, Collegiata di Santa Maria Assunta [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 21507]. Authorised by the Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio di Siena Grosseto e Arezzo

12

13 14 15 16

18 62 101 102

103

Illustrations and Illustration Credits 5.1

Cesi Master, Assumption of the Virgin (central panel of the Stella Altarpiece), 1308, tempera on wood, 191 × 175.5 cm, St.-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, Villa & Gardens Ephrussi de Rothschild [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 30907]

Photo credits © Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution © Fototeca della Fondazione Federico Zeri, Bologna © Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris

ix

189

Preface

Discussing Millard Meiss’s studies, his ‘modes of approach to works of art’, his ‘methods of investigation’ and his ‘critical vision’, is the purpose of this book.1 Originally a doctoral thesis defended in 2013, subsequently published in an abridged form in Italian in 2015, this research on the American art historian is now fnally brought to the English-speaking readership.2 Being a self-translation, its ties to the original are those of a belle infdèle, and the hiatus that occurred made a considerable revision of both content and reference literature necessary. The chapters are organised according to Meiss’s methodological axes, i.e. connoisseurship, iconology, Kulturgeschichte and the technical study of art, not to further a somewhat schizophrenic reception of his works, but to show on the contrary how these aspects are deeply interconnected in his approach. The fnal part addresses his critical fortune from a specifc perspective, that of Italian scholarship, not only because his studies were primarily concerned with Italian (or Tuscan) art and his personal relations with many Italian art historians, but mainly because the impact he exerted in Italy may be useful to understand the reception of his scholarly work in a broader framework. The reasons for what I termed an Italian ‘Meiss-fortune’ may be found not only in connoisseurs’ conficts, but also in a widespread myopia towards an approach that combined formal analysis with the interpretation of meaning – a ‘slippery word’ used by Panofsky for the intrinsic signifcance of the work of art. Consequently, Meiss was in the best-case scenario identifed with the iconological drift of American scholarship, or in the worst, assimilated with an accessory sociological interpretation of art. On the other hand, sharing Panofsky’s scepticism towards theory –‘a rather suspect concept, tainted as it was by theories of race (which classifed human beings hierarchically) and theories of quality (which classifed works of art hierarchically)’,

1 Borrowing David Rosand’s words: ‘If his own scholarship was exemplary, still more so was his critical vision. He never lost sight of what was important. His inquiry began with, was inspired by, the work of art. Even as he located an image in its historical and art historical contexts with convincing exactness, he insisted that we respect it for itself, for its intrinsic aesthetic and expressive qualities’, in: Rosand 1980, 447. 2 Cooke 2015.

Preface

xi

as Irvin Lavin described it – Meiss did very little to defend or convey his method(s). As a case in point, when asked to defne his approach, he replied with his proverbial understatement: 3

My work is related to that of scientists – you try on hats, you really put the hat on the object. The important thing is to get one that fts.4

Bibliography Cooke, J., Millard Meiss: tra Connoisseurship, Iconologia e Kulturgeschichte (Milan: Ledizioni, 2015). Glueck, G., ‘Art History Colleagues Honor Millard Meiss’, in: The New York Times (15 April 1974), 38. Lavin, I., ‘The Crisis of “Art History”’, in: The Art Bulletin LXXVIII, 1 (1996), 13–15. Rosand, D., ‘Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss by Irving Lavin; John Plummer’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXXIII, 3 (1980), 446–448.

3 Lavin was referring to the condition of art history in the United States in the 1950s, and further he wrote: ‘Meaning, in fact, links the formal to the conceptual revolution of my contemporaries’ (Lavin 1996, 13). Incidentally, Irving Lavin (1927–2019) was chosen by Meiss for his ‘wide variety of methods and approaches’ as his successor at Princeton (AAA, MMP. Letter of recommendation by Millard Meiss, August 1972). 4 Quoted in: Glueck 1974.

Acknowledgements

My deepest gratitude goes to the late Gianni C. Sciolla, who frst introduced me to American art historiography and directed my studies to Millard Meiss back in 2008, and to Franca Varallo for her unfailing support and advice throughout the last decade. A huge thank you goes to Richard Woodfeld for welcoming this book in the Historiography of Art series and his invaluable feedback in the writing process. Many dedicated and enthusiastic librarians and research staff have helped me put together this study. Amongst the people I would like to thank are Audrey Avenel, Carla Bernardini, Giuliano Berti Arnoaldi Veli, Marisa Bourgoin, Monica Cavicchi, Silvia Chiodo, Susan Chore, Marcella Culatti, Ilaria Della Monica, Loisann Dowd White, Ester Fasini, Emanuela Fiori, Sergio La Porta, Luca Lenzini, Julie Ludwig, Elisabetta Nencini, Mirjo Salvini, Giuseppa Saccaro del Buffa and Carla Zarrilli. My thoughts also go to Irving Lavin, or ‘IL’ as some of us will remember him, and to his memory I dedicate this book. Lastly, my family and my loving partner Michael, many friends and colleagues and a cat named Millard, have all played a part in this endeavour. To them I will always be indebted.

List of Abbreviations

Here follows a list of abbreviations for the archive collections consulted. AAA, MMP APCG APEB ASTo BB BMBP CRIA VIT PITTI FARLA, FC INHA LAELT PGRI, JHP UNISI, BLF

Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution, Millard Meiss Papers, ca. 1918–ca. 1977, bulk 1950–1975 Bologna, Archivio Privato Cesare Gnudi Rome, Archivio Privato Eugenio Battisti Turin, Archivio di Stato Settignano, Biblioteca Berenson, Villa I Tatti – The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, courtesy of the President and Fellows of Harvard College Bernard and Mary Berenson Papers Committee to Rescue Italian Art, Papers: Villa I Tatti Committee to Rescue Italian Art, Papers: Palazzo Pitti Offce New York, Frick Art Reference Library Archives, The Frick Collection Paris, Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art Figline di Prato, Laboratorio per Affresco Elena e Leonetto Tintori Los Angeles, The Paul J. Getty Research Institute, Julius S. Held Papers Siena, Università degli Studi di Siena, Biblioteca di Lettere e Filosofa

The mammoth volumes of Erwin Panofsky’s correspondence edited by Dieter Wuttke that are frequently referred to will be abbreviated as follows: Panofsky 2001 Panofsky 2003 Panofsky 2006 Panofsky 2008 Panofsky 2011

E. Panofsky, Korrespondenz 1910 bis 1936, vol. I, ed. by D. Wuttke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2001) E. Panofsky, Korrespondenz 1937 bis 1949, vol. II, ed. by D. Wuttke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2003) E. Panofsky, Korrespondenz 1950 bis 1956, vol. III, ed. by D. Wuttke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006) E. Panofsky, Korrespondenz 1957 bis 1961, vol. IV, ed. by D. Wuttke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2008) E. Panofsky, Korrespondenz 1962 bis 1968, vol. V, ed. by D. Wuttke (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011)

Cited Works by Millard Meiss

1931 ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’, in: The Art Bulletin XIII, 3 (1931), 376–397.1 1933 ‘The Problem of Francesco Traini’, in: The Art Bulletin XV, 2 (1933), 97–173. 1935 ‘Un dessin par le Maître des Grandes Heures de Rohan’, in Gazette des Beaux-Arts XIII, I (1935), 65–75. 1936 ‘Bartolomeo Bulgarini altrimenti detto “Ugolino Lorenzetti”?’, in: Rivista d’Arte XVIII, 2 (1936), 113–136. (a) ‘The Madonna of Humility’, in: The Art Bulletin XVIII, 4 (1936), 435–464. (b) 1937 ‘Fresques italiennes cavallinesques et autres à Béziers’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XVIII (1937), 275–286. 1938 ‘Grace Frank and Dorothy Miner, Proverbes en rimes’, in: The Art Bulletin XX, 3 (1938), 332–333. 1941 ‘A Documented Altarpiece by Piero della Francesca’, in: The Art Bulletin XXIII, 1 (1941), 53–68. 1944 ‘A Statement on the Place of the History of Art in the Liberal Arts Curriculum’, in: College Art Journal III (1944), 82–87.

1 For a complete bibliography of Meiss’s works up to 1977, refer to Irving Lavin and John Plummers (eds.), Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, 2 vols. (New York: New York University Press, 1977), xiii–xx.

Cited Works by Millard Meiss

xv

1945 ‘Light as Form and Symbol in Some Fifteenth-Century Paintings’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVII, 3 (1945), 175–181; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 3–18. 1946 ‘Italian Primitives at Konopiště’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVIII, 1 (1946), 1–16. (a) ‘War’s Toll of Italian Art’, in: Magazine of Art XXXIX (1946), 240–241. (b) 1947 ‘A Note on Piero della Francesca’s St. Augustine Altarpiece’, in: The Burlington Magazine LXXXIX, 535 (1947), 286. 1948 ‘Conditions of Historic Art and Scholarship in Italy’, in: College Art Journal VII (1948), 199–202. (a) ‘Enzo Carli, Le sculture del Duomo di Orvieto’, in: Magazine of Art XLI (1948), 321. (b) 1949 ‘Frederick Antal, Florentine Painting and Its Social Background’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXI, 2 (1949), 143–150. 1951 Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. The Arts, Religion and Society in the Mid-Fourteenth Century (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951). (a) ‘A New Early Duccio’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXIII, 2 (1951), 95–103. (b) 1952 ‘“Nicholas Albergati” and the Chronology of Jan van Eyck’s Portraits’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCIV, 590 (1952), 137–144. (a) ‘Scusi, ma sempre Duccio’, in: Paragone III, 27 (1952), 63–64. (b) ‘Grete Ring, A Century of French Painting: 1400-1500’, in: Magazine of Art XLV (1952), 46. (c) ‘Kenneth Clark, Piero della Francesca’, in: Magazine of Art XLV, 2 (1952), 93–94. (d) ‘Piero della Francesca, Frescoes, with an introduction by Roberto Longhi’, in: Magazine of Art XLV, 3, (1952), 141. (e) 1953 ‘Trecento Scramble’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 1 (1953), 52–55. 1954 ‘A World Jewel-Like and Sparkling. Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character’, in: The New York Times Book Review (7 March 1954), 5. (a) ‘“Ovum Struthionis”, Symbol and Allusion in Piero della Francesca’s Montefeltro Altarpiece’, in: D. Miner (ed.), Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954), 92–101; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 105–129. (b)

xvi

Cited Works by Millard Meiss

‘Addendum Ovologicum’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVI, 3 (1954), 221–222. (c) ‘George Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVI, 2 (1954), 148–149. (d) 1955 ‘Nuovi dipinti e vecchi problemi’, in: Rivista d’Arte XXX (1955), 107–145. (a) ‘Ovum struthionis: Symbol and Allusion in Piero della Francesca’s Montefeltro Altarpiece’, in: Actes du XVIIe Congrès International d’histoire de l’art, Amsterdam 23–31 July 1952 (The Hague: Imprimerie Nationale des Pays-Bas, 1955), 308–310. (b) 1956 ‘The Exhibition of French Manuscripts of the XII–XIV Centuries at the Bibliothèque Nationale’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVIII, 3 (1956), 187–196. (a) ‘Jan van Eyck and the Italian Renaissance’, in L. Venturi (ed.), Venezia e l’Europa, Acts of the 18th International Congress of the History of Art, Venice 12–18 September 1955 (Venice: Casa Editrice Arte Veneta, 1956), 58–69; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 19–35. (b) ‘Primitifs italiens à l’Orangerie’, in: Revue des Arts VI (1956), 139–148. (c) 1957 Mantegna as Illuminator. An Episode in Renaissance Art, Humanism and Diplomacy (New York: Augustin – Columbia University Press, 1957). (a) ‘The Case of the Frick Flagellation’, in Journal of the Walters Art Gallery XIX-XX (1956–1957), 43–63. (b) ‘Carl Nordenfalk, Kung Pratik’s Och Drottning Teoris Jaktbok. Le Livre des Deduis du Roi Modus et la reine Ratio’, in: Speculum XXXII, 3 (1957), 594–596. (c) 1959 ‘Mortality among Florentine Immortals’, in: ArtNews LVIII, 4 (1959), 26–29, 46–47, 56–57. 1960 Giotto and Assisi (New York: New York University Press, 1960). (a) ‘A Madonna by Francesco Traini’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts LVI (1960), 49–56. (b) ‘The Role of the Art Historian’, in Forum Lectures, Forum Art Series, 1960, 1–6. (c) ‘Toward a More Comprehensive Renaissance Paleography’, in: The Art Bulletin XLII, 2 (1960), 97–112. (d) 1961 De Artibus Opuscula XL. Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky, 2 vols. (New York: New York University Press, 1961). (a) ‘An Early Lombard Altarpiece’, in: S. Bottari (ed.), Studi di Storia dell’arte. Raccolta di saggi dedicati a Roberto Longhi in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno, in: Arte Antica e Moderna IV (1961), 125–133. (b) ‘“Highlands” in the Lowlands’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts LVII (1961), 273–314; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 36–59. (c)

Cited Works by Millard Meiss

xvii

1962 with L. Tintori, The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi, with Notes on the Arena Chapel (New York: New York University Press, 1962). (a) ‘Refections of Assisi: A Tabernacle and the Cesi Master’, in: G. de Francovich, A. Marabottini, V. Martinelli et al. (eds.), Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Mario Salmi, 3 vols. (Rome: De Luca, 1961–1962), II, 75–111. (b) 1963 Studies in Western Art, Acts of the 20th International Congress of the History of Art, New York 7–12 September 1961, 4 vols. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963). Vol. I: Romanesque and Gothic Art; vol. II: The Renaissance and Mannerism; vol. III: Latin American Art, and the Baroque Period in Europe; vol. IV: Problems of the 19th and 20th Centuries. (a) ‘Masaccio and the Early Renaissance: The Circular Plan’, in: Studies in Western Art cit., II, 123–145. (b) ‘French and Italian Variations on an Early Fifteenth-Century Theme: St. Jerome and His Study’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts LXII (1963), 147–170. (c) ‘Giovanni Bellini’s St Francis’, in: Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell’Arte III (1963), 11–30. (d) ‘A Lost Portrait of Jean de Berry by the Limbourgs’, in: The Burlington Magazine CV, 719 (1963), 51–53. (e) 1964 Giovanni Bellini’s St. Francis in the Frick Collection (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964). (a) ‘The Art Bulletin at Fifty’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVI, 1 (1964), 1–5. (b) ‘The Yates Thompson Dante and Priamo della Quercia’, in: The Burlington Magazine CVI, 738 (1964), 403–412. (c) Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. The Arts, Religion and Society in the Mid-Fourteenth Century (New York: Harper & Row, 1964). (d) with L. Tintori, ‘Additional Observations on Italian Mural Technique’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVI, 3 (1964), 377–380. (e) 1965 ‘An Illuminated Inferno and Trecento Painting in Pisa’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVII, 1 (1965), 21–34. 1966 with T.G. Jones, ‘Once Again Piero della Francesca’s Montefeltro Altarpiece’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVIII, 2 (1966), 203–206; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 130–141. (a) ‘Sleep in Venice; Ancient Myths and Renaissance Proclivities’, in: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society CX, 5 (1966), 348–382; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 212– 239. (b) ‘Letter. Giovanni Bellini’s “St Francis”’, in: The Burlington Magazine CVIII, 754 (1966), 27. (c) 1967 ‘Allocation of Funds to January 18, 1967’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XX, 1 (1967), 105–106. (a)

xviii Cited Works by Millard Meiss Giotto and Assisi (New York: The Norton Library Press, 19672). (b) French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Late Fourteenth Century and the Patronage of the Duke, 2 vols. (London – New York: Phaidon, 1967). (c) ‘Sleep in Venice’, in: H. von Einem (ed.), Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, Acts of the 21st International Congress of the History of Art, Bonn 14–19 September 1964, 3 vols. (Berlin: Mann, 1967), III, 271–279. (d) with L. Tintori, The Painting of The Life of St. Francis in Assisi: With Notes on the Arena Chapel and a 1964 Appendix (New York: The Norton Library Press, 19672). (e) 1968 French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Boucicaut Master (London: Phaidon, 1968). (a) ‘Florence and Venice a Year Later (Reports on Scholarship in the Renaissance)’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXI, 1 (1968), 103–118. (b) ‘La Mort et l’Offce des Morts à l’époque du Maître de Boucicaut et les Limbourgs’, in: Revue de l’Art (1968), 17–25. (c) A Commemorative Gathering for Erwin Panofsky at the Institute of Fine Arts. New York University in Association with the Institute for Advanced Study, 21 March 1968 (New York: The Spiral Press, 1968), 8–10. (d) with U. Procacci and U. Baldini (eds.), The Great Age of Fresco: From Giotto to Pontormo: An Exhibition of Mural Paintings and Monumental Drawings, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Il Fiorino, 1968). (e) 1969 ‘Florence and Venice Two Years Later’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXII, 1 (1969), 88–90. 1970 The Great Age of Fresco: Discoveries, Recoveries and Survivals (London: Phaidon, 1970). (a) ‘Progress in Florence and Venice during 1969’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXIII, 1 (1970), 107–111. (b) 1971 The Master of the Breviary of Jean Sans Peur and the Limbourgs (London: Oxford University Press, 1971). (a) La Sacra Conversazione di Piero della Francesca (Florence: Centro Di, 1971, Quaderni della Pinacoteca di Brera, I). (b) ‘Alesso di Andrea’, in: M. Salmi (ed.), Giotto e il suo tempo, conference proceedings, Assisi – Padua – Florence 24 September–1 October 1967 (Rome: De Luca, 1971), 401–418. (c) with S. Off, ‘The Bookkeeping of Robinet d’Estampes and the Chronology of Jean de Berry’s Manuscripts’, in: The Art Bulletin LIII, 2 (1971), 225–235. (d) ‘Notable Disturbances in the Classifcation of Tuscan Trecento Painting’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXIII, 817 (1971), 178–187. (e) ‘Recovery in Florence and Venice during 1970’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXIV, 1 (1971), 121–123. (f)

Cited Works by Millard Meiss

xix

1972 ‘Bartolomeo Bulgarini’, in: Dizionario biografco degli Italiani (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 1972), XV, 38–40. (a) with S. Off, ‘Deux miniatures perdues du Térence des Ducs’, in: Revue de l’Art 15 (1972), 62–63. (b) 1973 ‘Ugo Procacci: Forty Years in the Florentine Soprintendenza’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXV, 838 (1973), 41–42. 1974 French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and their Contemporaries, 2 vols. (New York: Braziller, 1974). (a) ‘Raphael’s Mechanized Seashell: Notes on a Myth, Technology and Iconographic Tradition’, in: U.E. McCracken, L.M.C. Randall and R.H. Randall (eds.) Gatherings in Honor of Dorothy E. Miner (Baltimore MD: The Walters Art Gallery, 1974), 317– 332; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 203–211. (b) ‘Scholarship and Penitence in the Early Renaissance: The Image of St. Jerome’, in: Pantheon XXXII (1974), 134–140; republ. in: Meiss 1976, 189–202. (c) 1975 ‘Not an Ostrich Egg?’, in: The Art Bulletin LVII, 1 (1975), 116. 1976 The Painter’s Choice. Problems in the Interpretation of Renaissance Art (New York: Harper & Row, 1976). 1982 Pittura a Firenze e Siena dopo la morte nera: arte, religione e società alla metà del Trecento (Turin: Einaudi, 1982). 1983 Francesco Traini, ed. by H.B.J. Maginnis (Washington DC: Decatur House Press, 1983). 1994 La peinture à Florence et à Sienne après la peste noire : les arts, la religion, la société au milieu du 14. siècle, ed. by G. Didi-Huberman (Paris: Hazan, 1994). 1997 ‘La “Sacra Conversazione” di Piero della Francesca’, in: E. Daffra and F. Trevisani (eds.), La Pala di San Bernardino di Piero della Francesca. Nuovi studi oltre il restauro (Florence: Centro Di, 1997, Quaderni di Brera, 9), 11–22. 1998 Malerei in Florenz und Siena nach der grossen Pest: Kunst, Religion und Gesellschaft in der Mitte des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts (Dresden: Verlag der Kunst, 1998).

Introduction

Meiss was described as acute, confdent, understated, introverted and tactful, but with a sense of humour. John Pope-Hennessy found in him that balance a good art historian needs, and was struck by how his personality corresponded exactly with his intellectual stature: He could have astonished but refrained from doing so; he could have allowed a powerful imagination to draw him beyond the permissible limits of the evidence; he could have disturbed the careful balance between formulation and the thought that it expressed. But he did none of these things.1 Such a balance was also refected in his approach, successfully combining the analysis of formal values, the knowledge of technical matters and the study of the meaning of works of art within their intellectual, historical and stylistic context. This multi-faceted and fexible modus operandi much owed to the complex and multi-layered nature of the discipline as it was in the ‘Golden Age’ of art history in the United States.2 Millard Lazare Meiss was born into a wealthy Jewish family in Cincinnati, Ohio, on 25 March 1904. In 1922 he attended the Princeton School of Architecture to train as an architect and earned a bachelor of arts in English and Literature in 1926.3 He then started work as a construction supervisor at Schroeder and Koppel in New York, but not long afterwards realised art history was his true passion. Once he dispelled his father’s qualms about studying history of art, Meiss was then able to resume his education.4 He chose Harvard instead of Princeton, probably because the New Jersey university was going through a period of economic strain following the death of Allan Marquand, its principal sponsor. This was, however, a thriving period for the teaching

1 Pope-Hennessy 1991, 305–306. Cf. also Glueck 1974 and Coolidge 1975. 2 This expression was famously used by Panofsky in his outline of the development of art history in the United States, ‘Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressions of a Transplanted European’, republished in Panofsky 1955, 321–346: 326. Cf. also DaCosta Kaufmann 2010. 3 On Princeton School of Architecture, see Aronberg Lavin 1983 and Van Zanten 1989. 4 ‘The Class of 1926’ 1975: ‘Upon graduation his father told him it was time for him to go to work. He did, in the construction industry, continuing his studies at night. He was construction supervisor on several New York buildings, and he recalled later that the experience of walking steel beams far above the ground conditioned him for later clambering in the upper reaches of Italian churches, studying frescoes up close. After two years, his father agreed to support his graduate study at Harvard and N.Y. University’.

2

Introduction

of art history at Harvard.5 Paul J. Sachs was laying the foundations of a connoisseurship rooted in the scientifc examination of techniques and materials and the study of art sources.6 Meiss later completed his post-graduate work under Richard Offner at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York, a mentor that honed his connoisseurial skills and initiated him to the study of Tuscan primitives.7 By then the New York institute had become a so-called ‘university of exile’, attracting the most prominent émigré scholars from Europe. Amongst them was Erwin Panofsky, who played a pivotal role in steering Meiss’s interest towards Flemish painting and French illumination. But more importantly, Panofsky encouraged the younger art scholar to shift his attention to the content of artworks. In the course of a professional and personal lifelong relationship, Meiss, in turn, signifcantly contributed to the Americanisation of the iconological method put forward by ‘Pan’ – as his close friends called the German art historian. After he completed his doctorate, Meiss began his academic career as a lecturer – frst at the Institute of Fine Arts in 1931–1933 and then at Columbia University from 1935 to 1937. At Columbia, where his colleagues included the likes of Rensselaer W. Lee, Julius S. Held and Meyer Schapiro, Meiss became an assistant professor in 1937 and was made an associate professor in 1947. Between 1940 and 1942, he took on the prestigious editorship of The Art Bulletin, bringing a wind of change to the historic journal by broadening its scope to architecture, portraiture, contemporary art and Oriental and Latin American art.8 Discouraged by an art department he did not feel was lively enough, Meiss left New York in 1954 and went to teach at Harvard where he also served as curator of paintings in the Fogg Museum. Finally, in 1957 Meiss joined Panofsky at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton and ultimately succeeded him as chair of art history in 1962. Meiss’s name mainly became synonymous with the book Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, whose contextual explanation of stylistic and iconographical changes in art was variously construed as either alternative or akin to the social history of art in the modes of Frederick Antal and Arnold Hauser. Another great scholarly achievement of his was the three-volume corpus, completed over the course of almost two decades, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, which analysed French illumination as a crucible for cross-cultural fertilisation between Flemish and Italian artistic civilisations. Most of his body of work otherwise consisted of articles and short essays, thus choosing a form that lent itself to pursuing several threads of research and constantly re-elaborating topics. True to the Offnerian legacy, on the

5 Brush 2003, 200: ‘The other Princeton scholars of the 1920s and 1930s, among them Morey, Ernest DeWald, E. Baldwin Smith, Frank Jewett Mather, Jr. and A.M. Friend, Jr., were not wealthy and did not move in the same circles as their Harvard counterparts; moreover, they did not travel so extensively in Europe during the 1920s. There was clear fnancial need at Princeton in the years following 1924. […] As a result, the Princeton department, which has a small art museum and shared quarters with the School of Architecture for much of the 1920s, made do with an additive approach to its physical quarters during the 1920s and 1930s that did not express a single coherent vision’. 6 Meiss would indeed attend Sachs’s famous Museum Course which trained generations of art scholars and museum professionals. On the Museum Course, refer to the recent Duncan and McClellan 2018. 7 Under Offner’s supervision, Meiss ventured into the examination of the corpus of such artists as Ugolino Lorenzetti (active ca. 1320–1360) and Francesco Traini (active ca. 1321–1365); see Meiss 1931 and Meiss 1933. 8 Meiss 1964d. Also see Brilliant 1991; Lang 2013; Publishing the Art Bulletin: Past, Present and Future (http://scalar.usc.edu/anvc/the-art-bulletin/index).

Introduction

3

one hand, Meiss threw his hat into the ring with such prickly matters as the attributive quarrel over the Frick Flagellation debated between Cimabue and Duccio (Figure 1.6), and the even more heated problem of Giotto’s presence in Assisi. His numerous lectures devoted to the ‘neat unravelling of iconographic niceties’, like the meaning of the ostrich egg in Piero della Francesca’s Brera Altarpiece or of slumbering damsels in Venetian painting, concurrently testify to a Panofskyan course of research.9 These two differing approaches were successfully combined in the study of stylistic trends as embedded in a specifc culture, which constituted the main purpose of Meiss’s investigations. Parallel to his scholarly output, Meiss was intent upon preserving artistic heritage and chaired the American committees that helped repair damaged works of art, both after the war and again after the 1966 food in Florence. The American art historian was also an active member of Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art in the post-war years. In 1961 he brought to the United States its frst international art congress, held in New York, and served as the organisation’s president until 1964 and as a member of the executive bureau in the following years. The work alongside conservators and restorers further deepened Meiss’s knowledge of the technical study of art, particularly as regards frescoes. The examination of the techniques used in mural painting became an engrossing pursuit for Meiss between the sixties and seventies, which resulted in his collaboration with Ugo Procacci and Leonetto Tintori. Dividing his time between conservation work in Florence, his academic engagements in Princeton as well as his institutional role within CIHA, Meiss would often have to defer his research, as was the case with the monumental corpus of French painting, which he began in the 1950s but was able to publish only at the end of the following decade. He retired from Princeton in 1973 and shortly thereafter was diagnosed with lung cancer. Meiss played the violin; he was fuent in Italian and French, was well-versed in German and spoke a bit of Spanish, too. In his formative years, he spent extensive periods in Italy, Germany and France, and made shorter visits to England, Belgium and Holland. When his hopes to recover from cancer were disappointed, he travelled to Italy one last time and saw the places of what he considered to be his spiritual homeland – Florence, Siena and Venice. Not without strain, he managed to deliver two fnal lectures in Paris at the Collège de France on his beloved Très Riches Heures du Duc du Berry in the presence of a dear friend, André Chastel. Sadly, soon after, his condition grew worse and he died in Princeton on 12 June 1975.

9 Gilbert 1958, 434.

4

Introduction

Bibliography Aronberg Lavin, M. (ed.), The Eye of the Tiger. The Foundation and Development of the Department of Art and Archaeology, 1883–1923, Princeton University, exhibition catalogue (Princeton NJ: The Art Museum, 1983). Brilliant, R., ‘The Squeaking Wheel, or The Art Bulletin at Seventy-Eight’, in: The Art Bulletin LXXIII, 3 (1991), 358. Brush, K., Vastly More than Brick and Mortar. Reinventing the Fogg Art Museum in the 1920s (Harvard MA: Harvard Art Museums, 2003). Coolidge, J., ‘Millard Meiss, Former Fogg Curator of Paintings’, in: Fogg Art Museum Newsletter XIII, 1 (1975), 4. DaCosta Kaufmann, T., ‘American Voices. Remarks on the Earlier History of Art History in the United States and the Reception of Germanic Art Historians’, in: Journal of Art Historiography 2 (2010), http://arthistoriography.fles.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_152 488_en.pdf. Duncan, S.A. and McClellan, A. (eds.), The Art of Curating: Paul J. Sachs and the Museum Course at Harvard (Los Angeles CA: Getty Research Institute, 2018). Gilbert, C., ‘Millard Meiss. Andrea Mantegna as Illuminator’, in: College Art Journal XVII, 4 (1958), 434–436. Glueck, G., ‘Art History Colleagues Honor Millard Meiss’, in: The New York Times (15 April 1974), 38. Lang, K., ‘The Art Bulletin at One Hundred’, in: The Art Bulletin XCV, 1 (2013), 7. Panofsky, E., Meaning in the Visual Arts. Papers in and on Art History (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955). Pope-Hennessy, J., Learning to Look (London: Heinemann, 1991). The Class of 1926, ‘Dr. Millard Meiss ’26’, in: Princeton Alumni Weekly (6 October 1975), 20. Van Zanten, D., ‘“The Princeton System” and the Founding of the School of Architecture, 1915–1921’, in: C.C. Mead (ed.), The Architecture of Robert Venturi (Albuquerque NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1989), 34–44.

1

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Richard Offner’s Scientifc Connoisseurship Meiss concluded his itinerant art education by joining the Institute of Fine Arts in New York in 1929, just before the arrival of many refugee European scholars who would put it at the forefront of American art history. After attending Richard Offner’s art course on Italian Trecento, Meiss was inspired to sink his teeth into problems of connoisseurship. Under his guidance, Meiss would indeed earn his master of art with a dissertation on ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’ (1931) and then continued his doctoral research on Francesco Traini and the frescoes in the Pisan Camposanto (1933).1 Born in Vienna into a Jewish family, Richard Offner moved to New York in 1891.2 After studying at Harvard (1909–1912), he became a fellow of the American Academy and returned to Vienna to complete his doctorate under Max Dvořák in 1914.3 While Dvořák’s idea of art history as intellectual history (Geistesgeschichte) was very infuential for other students like Frederick Antal,4 it was rather the studies on the attributionist riddle of the Van Eyck brothers that had a bearing on Offner.5 As a result of his training at the Vienna School of Art History, Offner developed a scientifc approach to connoisseurship that rejected all mystifcations of art appreciationism for a more objective formulation of attributions. When he went back to the United States, Offner began his academic career in Chicago (1915–1920) and subsequently moved on to the Institute of Fine Arts in New York in 1923, where he taught until 1961. Offner’s studies mainly include reviews, short articles, a catalogue and a collection of essays.6 Upon researching the works of Tuscan painters, Offner took short but

1 They were both published as articles in The Art Bulletin, Meiss 1931 and Meiss 1933. 2 On Offner (1889–1965), apart from the obituaries appeared in periodicals (Hope 1965; Middeldorf 1966; White 1966a), refer to Ladis 1998 and S. Chiodo, ‘Richard Offner (1889–1965), appunti per una biografa studi, pensieri e maestri prima del “Corpus”’, in: Caglioti, De Marchi and Nova 2018, 297–336. 3 On Max Dvořák (1874–1921), see Rampley 2003; Bakoš 2005; Aurenhammer 2007–2008; Scarrocchia 2009; Blower 2009; Aurenhammer 2010; Ars 2011; Markója 2017 and Vybíral 2017. 4 Other students at that time were Fritz Saxl, Otto Benesch, Ludwig von Baldass and Johannes Wilde; cf. Stirton 2006, 233 note 21. 5 Cf. Dvořák 1903. Offner presented his doctoral research on Florentine drawings in the 15th and 16th centuries at the same time as Antal; see H.B.J. Maginnis, ‘Richard Offner and the Ineffable: A Problem in Connoisseurship’, in: Ladis 1998, 21–34: 22; C.H. Smyth, ‘Glimpses of Richard Offner’, in: ibid., 35–46: 41. 6 The book on the Italian primitives in the collection of Yale University and the collected essays Studies in Florentine Painting were both published in 1927; see Offner 1927a; Offner 1927b.

6

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

frequent trips to Florence since 1925 until he fnally settled there to be close to the originals. From 1931 to his death, he worked on the Corpus of Florentine Painting, a monumental tribute to connoisseurship applied to the study of Florentine primitives that constitutes his legacy.7 Following the Mostra giottesca of 1937 in Florence, Offner famously wrote the controversial article ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’, in which he argued against Giotto’s authorship of the frescoes in Assisi and reopened an age-long quarrel between Anglo-Saxon and Italian scholars.8 Although he intended to write more about the Tuscan artist, Offner no longer engaged in attributionist disputes after the war, perhaps because connoisseurship was making way for ‘more communicative, more accessible methods’ such as those championed by Panofsky, Meiss and Pope-Hennessy.9

The Two Cartographers Richard Offner and Bernard Berenson were called the two ‘cartographers’ for their systematic mapping of previously ‘unexplored’ territories. The former analysed the style and corpus of unknown Trecento artists, whilst the latter distinguished the artistic personalities of the 15th and the 16th centuries.10 Both Harvard alumni, Berenson, or the ‘art bishop of Florence’, as Panofsky nicknamed him,11 graduated under Charles E. Norton in 1887, but unlike Offner, he did not hold any academic position. He preferred instead to work as an adviser to collectors and cultivate his studies in the Florentine Villa I Tatti, which became a cultural circle frequented by scholars and men of letters.12 Among the regular frequenters of Berenson’s home was also Offner, as the two used to work closely together, at least until they had a disagreement over BB’s attributions.13 The incident happened in 1924 when Offner challenged the authorship of some of the paintings featured in an exhibition of Italian primitives in the New York gallery of Joseph Duveen – Berenson’s questionable business partner.14 A panel ascribed to Cimabue was downgraded to ‘school of’, a work of Bernardo Daddi to a ‘Giottesque anonymous painter’, and Offner called a painting’s attribution to Fra Angelico ‘inadmissible’.15 Finally, a Virgin and Child that Berenson had described as ‘Verrocchio’s most impressive in existence’ was found to be a copy after a painting

7 Offner 1930–1981. Offner was only able to oversee the frst eleven volumes out of the thirty originally planned. Miklós Boskovits edited the remaining volumes, whilst the missing attributions were published by Craig H. Smyth and Meiss – ‘Offner’s former student and devoted friend’. See Smyth 1981; Chiodo 2015. 8 Offner 1939. 9 A. Ladis, ‘Richard Offner: The Unmaking of a Connoisseur’, in: Ladis 1998, 3–19: 17. 10 Cole 19722, [iii]. Cf. also Kleinbauer and Slavens 1982, 47–53. 11 Heckscher 1969, 16. 12 As concerns the extensive literature on Berenson (1865–1959), one can refer to the more recent Cohen 2013 and Connors 2014. As is known, Berenson then bequeathed his villa to Harvard; see http://itatti .harvard.edu/future-i-tatti. 13 Offner 1927b, vi: ‘To his [Mr Berenson’s] stimulus, to the quality of his culture, to his penetration, to the accessibility of his incomparable library, I have owed endless proft and inspiration from the early stages of my study’. 14 The partnership between ‘Doris’ (i.e. Berenson) and ‘Uncle Henry’ (i.e. Duveen) and the at-times untoward business they did together are documented in Simpson 1987 (cf. also Simpson 1986; Hoving 1986); also see Secrest 2004. 15 Offner 1924, 244–245.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

7

from the Kaiser Friedrich Museum in Berlin. Although Berenson would later concur with Offner on the Verrocchio Madonna,17 and despite the ‘handsome amends’ the latter made in Studies in Florentine Painting, this episode marked the end of their friendship.18 Only in Berenson’s fnal years – a time when more than one reconciliation occurred – did the two meet again.19 Even when all discord had been smoothed over, Berenson would still not spare Offner his sarcasm.20 Berenson resented Offner for over two decades, but this acrimony did not seem to hinder Meiss’s relationship with both of them.21 A young student, Meiss frst visited Villa I Tatti in 1928 and made a striking impression on the famous connoisseur, thanks to his precocious eye for Italian primitives.22 This was only one of many visits that Meiss paid to the villino in Settignano, as well as to Berenson’s summer residence in Vallombrosa, and the two scholars would keep a fairly regular correspondence over the following decades. Along with the customary exchange of books and offprints, Meiss turned to Berenson for his opinion on the more puzzling attributionist enigmas, such as that of the Frick Flagellation (Figure 1.6). But Meiss’s less subjective connoisseurship embracing the study of techniques and iconography clearly showed that he remained faithful to Offner’s approach. Nor did he listen to Berenson’s advice to steer clear from ‘Warburgian’ temptations, as the ‘art bishop’ admonished him to do after he read Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death.23 All the same, Berenson never made any mystery of his dislike for both the iconological method and Meiss’s close friend Panofsky, ‘the Hitler of art study’,24 a ‘learned industrious’ scholar whose work was ‘deplorable in itself’ and ‘deliberately unfriendly’ towards BB.25 The differences with Panofsky were certainly more insurmountable than the animosity with Offner. Meiss did not however engage Berenson on that polemic in an effort to maintain a certain deference and detachment. 16

16 Berenson had frst published the panel as ‘designed and superintended by Verrocchio’ (Berenson 1896, 187). On this episode, see Secrest 2004, 251. The panel was then donated to the National Gallery of Art in Washington in 1943 and is still considered ‘in the style of Verrocchio’ (www.nga.gov/fcgi-bin/tinfo_f? object=12099&detail=prov); cf. Brown 2003. 17 Brown 2003, 672. 18 Samuels 1987, 361. 19 Offner was at I Tatti in 1954 and again in 1957. In the 1950s, Berenson would also reconnect with Roberto Longhi after almost forty years of silence; see Berenson and Longhi 1993; Di Benedetto 1997. 20 While Offner complimented BB on his book on Lotto, but Berenson upon reciprocating on Offner’s discovery of the Master of San Martino della Palma famously quipped s’invecchia male (Samuels 1987, 150–151, 555; Ladis, ‘Richard Offner: The Unmaking of a Connoisseur’ cit., 6–7). 21 Another frequenter of Villa I Tatti mentions an episode occurred in 1937 that shows how diffcult it would have been to entertain relations with Berenson and Offner simultaneously: ‘At tea in the garden at I Tatti, Mrs. Berenson warned me against Offner. She would continue to ask me to meals, she said, but unless I promised not to see Offner she could not ask me when B.B. was there’, in: Pope-Hennessy 1991, 59. 22 Maginnis 1990, 104: ‘Left waiting in the drawing room, he turned to examine a fourteenth-century polyptych [sic] that stood atop the grand piano. When Berenson arrived, he asked his visitor what he found so interesting about the work, and Meiss replied that there seemed to be panels by two different painters. “Nonsense” was more or less Berenson’s reaction, and the conversation moved in other directions. Yet there were panels in the polyptych [sic] by two different painters, a fact that most modern graduate students can discern within seconds’. 23 See Chapter 3. 24 Samuels 1987, 402–404. 25 Panofsky 2001, 722 [Bernard Berenson – Paul J. Sachs, 17 April 1934].

8

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

The Foundations for a Science of Connoisseurship The divide between Offner and Berenson was one that did not concern problems of attribution alone but rested on a profound difference in method. The principal tenets of Offner’s science of connoisseurship, as summed up by Pope-Hennessy, were: First that the history of art is the history of artistic expression, second that the initial stage is deep study of the single object, third that the physical character of the single object, if properly analysed, will establish its aesthetic individuality, and fourth that conclusions to which this leads have then to be absorbed into a larger synthesis.26 As Offner professed in Studies in Florentine Painting (1927b), the purpose of his method was to contextualise the intrinsic artistic personality and not the modern (vide Berenson’s) ‘hero-worshipping sentimentalism’ and ‘baptismal habit’.27 A later commentator wrote that Offner had a ‘fner level of ocular analysis and categorical precision’ than Berenson, but he formulated such concepts in a nebulous way, adopting an obscure neo-idealistic tone that affected the reception of his theories.28 Thirty years later his critique of connoisseurship, reduced to ‘either a pastime or a form of witchcraft or outright charlatanry’, with the sole purpose of fnding ‘a fattering market-label for the work of art’, was unmitigated.29 Only if ‘exorcised’ with objective correctives – i.e. technical analysis, the philological examination of documents, the study of iconography – could the immediate visual apprehension of a work of art lose its ‘esoteric’ and ‘Rosicrucian’ character and achieve scientifc validity.30 Such attention for the work’s context and marginalisation of the role of intuition undeniably set Offner’s approach apart from Berenson’s empathetic, highly subjective formalism.31 Offner’s vision was unaffected by that ‘romantic illusion of the artist who endeavours […] to abolish the past, tradition, culture’, as Emilio Cecchi, a friend of Berenson and his Italian translator, remarked.32 The objectivity that Offner so obstinately pursued ultimately served interpretative frameworks that could be more easily formalised and transmissible in his teaching activity.33 For this reason, the literary elegance of Berenson’s wordy criticism gave way in Offner to a ‘connoisseurship of silence’ expressed in a less aesthetical language that adhered to the intrinsic values of the image.34

26 Pope-Hennessy 1991, 304. 27 R. Offner, ‘An Outline of a Theory of Method’, in: Offner 1927b, 127–136: 128–129. 28 Ibid., 132–134. See Maginnis, ‘Richard Offner and the Ineffable …’ cit., 23: ‘Students derive no practical guidance from them, and the concepts strike many as needlessly complex, if not bizarre. An essay, it is often regarded as eccentric. It is, instead, fundamental to our understanding of Offner’s work’. The fact that Studies in Florentine Painting, where this essay appeared, had a very limited circulation certainly did not help. 29 Offner 1951, 24. 30 Ibid., 25, 63. 31 Ladis, ‘Richard Offner: The Unmaking of a Connoisseur’ cit., 5. 32 Cecchi 1930, 35: ‘Lontano dall’illusione romantica dell’artista che pretende […] di abolire il passato, la tradizione, la cultura’. 33 On the non-transmissibility of traditional connoisseurship, see Ackerman 1963, 207. 34 Ladis, ‘Richard Offner: The Unmaking of a Connoisseur’ cit., 11–17.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

9

Craig H. Smyth’s account of the lectures that Offner gave at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York, in the years when Meiss attended his courses, offers some insight into the impact he may have had on the young scholar.35 He insisted on the frsthand examination of artworks – preferably directly of the originals in the nearby Metropolitan Museum when possible – as a means to do away with all interpretative constraints and reach an objective attribution based on stylistic, iconographic and technical considerations.36 Quite uncharacteristically for a connoisseur, the study of religious iconography – a merely ‘illustrative’ element to Berenson – played a very important role in the attributive process, a fact that Offner did not fail to underscore in the preface to George Kaftal’s iconographic corpus.37 Despite a long teaching career, ‘none of his more famous students shared his philosophical and methodological interests’, so Offner’s legacy was one of attributions rather than students.38 Though he was expected to take the place of the connoisseur one day,39 Meiss chose to follow Panofsky in Princeton. Both teaching at the Institute of Fine Arts, Panofsky and Offner were respectively known as the ‘macrocosm’ and the ‘microcosm’ for their different perspectives.40 By successfully combining an exact stylistic analysis of works and a broader iconological study, Meiss showed to have maintained both outlooks.41 Even after meeting Panofsky, Meiss’s interest in Tuscan Trecento did not fade and he continued to discuss problems of attribution and iconography with Offner.42 In the same year of his retirement from the Institute of Fine Arts, Offner participated in CIHA’s International Congress of Art History in New York in 1961 organised by Meiss.43 Offner passed away in 1965. At the funeral in the Church

35 Smyth, ‘Glimpses of Richard Offner’ cit. 36 Ibid., 39–41. 37 Offner 1952, xii: ‘To ignore the content is to forfeit an essential term in the work of art and the larger motive for its creation. […] And if for us today it conceals before anything else implications of an ethos or a culture, it was primarily intended as a means of communication and […] of open propaganda’. The same book, Kaftal’s Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting, was later reviewed by Meiss (1954d). 38 Maginnis, ‘Richard Offner and the Ineffable …’ cit., 27. 39 AAA, MMP. Letter from Walter W.S. Cook to Millard Meiss, 27 June 1951: ‘When I saw you I told you that I hoped when the time arrived you would be the person to succeed Offner on either a half- or full-time basis’. 40 C.H. Smyth, ‘The Department of Fine Arts for Graduate Students at the New York University’, in: Smyth and Lukehart 1993, 73–78: 75–76: ‘Offner’s seminars met in his apartment, with his large collection of photographs at hand […]. A seminar could go on all day and then adjourn to museums […], where Offner brought students face to face with problems of condition and restoration, besides questions of attribution and criticism. […] In lecture courses, while Offner tended to concentrate on short, crucial periods, he could on occasion unroll a long landscape of his making. […] He liked to deliver lectures slowly, thoughtfully, sharing his thoughts a word at a time. By contrast, Panofksy’s lectures were swift, manifestly innovative, brilliant, sometimes even temporarily paralyzing to an American student who had not encountered anything like them before’. 41 Offner never resented Meiss for working alongside Panofsky either; after all, he was amongst those who championed the arrival of the German art historian in the United States. 42 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Richard Offner, 14 July 1958: ‘I never feel that a work of mine is really published until I have heard it from you. This is not only an old habit or a state of mind, but a predilection’. 43 Offner 1963. In the session on art conservation chaired by Craig H. Smyth, Offner delivered a paper about the compensation of damaged paintings in which he championed the removal of all retouchings because they interfered with the harmony of style. A similar stance of non-intervention was held by other connoisseurs like Roberto Longhi.

10

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

of Santo Spirito in Florence, Meiss’s eulogy recalled the ‘aura of defnitive certainty’ that surrounded his mentor and his obstinacy in studying the same things over and over until he found the answers to the problems that interested him. His greatest achievement, the Corpus of Florentine Painting, stood in testament to his ‘extraordinary sensitivity, rigorous seriousness and indefatigable tenacity’.44

A Short History of Meiss’s Attributions The First Thorny Problems of Ugolino Lorenzetti and Francesco Traini Compared with Offner and Berenson, Meiss belonged to that new generation of university-trained art historians no longer involved in the affairs of the market.45 He did however share the same propensity for attributionist quarrels, as well as their vehemence in defending authorship. While attributions were initially mostly backed with stylistic evidence alone, Meiss gradually began to formulate his attributions based on those correctives, like iconography, materials and techniques, that Offner insisted upon in his courses. As he became a more experienced scholar, Meiss also gained more confdence in asserting his arguments with a polemical force that was worthy of his mentor. The topic that Offner assigned to Meiss for his master’s dissertation was an artist that Berenson frst discovered in 1917. ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’ was the Notname (name of convenience) that BB introduced for an artistic personality who trained under Pietro Lorenzetti and Ugolino di Nerio.46 In contrast to the corpus reconstructed by Berenson, Ernest T. DeWald assigned six works to another artist, the Master of the Ovile Madonna, instead.47 After examining the matter directly with Berenson at I Tatti, Meiss’s research confrmed that the body of works initially studied by the connoisseur indeed belonged to a ‘single intrinsic personality’. Through Morellian comparison, material examination and documentary evidence, Meiss was also able to add a few other pieces to ‘Ugolino di Lorenzetti’s’ corpus and his conclusions were later published in The Art Bulletin.48 The investigation of Tuscan archives eventually led Meiss to the discovery of a document revealing the painter’s identity, Bartolomeo Bulgarini.49 Art scholars largely accepted the reconstruction offered by the young American, who would revisit the subject forty years later when he was asked to write the painter’s entry for the Dizionario Biografco degli Italiani.50 The critical reconstruction of Francesco Traini’s oeuvre that Meiss had to tackle for his doctoral research proved to be a much more complicated predicament.51 After canvassing the territory between Pisa and Livorno to analyse Traini’s fgurative culture, Meiss compiled a catalogue of the artist’s body of work, which at the time only included the Triptych of St Dominic in the Museo Nazionale di San

44 AAA, MMP. Millard Meiss’s eulogy of Richard Offner, undated, probably read at his funeral in Santo Spirito in Florence. 45 Trotta 2003, 66. 46 Berenson 1917. Offner, too, agreed with Berenson’s attributions; see Offner 1919. 47 DeWald 1923. 48 Meiss 1931. 49 Meiss 1936a. 50 Meiss 1972a. Over the years, more works were attributed to Bartolomeo Bulgarini; see Steinhoff 1990; Steinhoff 2007, 55–60. [includes previous literature]. 51 Meiss 1933.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

11

Matteo in Pisa (Figure 1.1). To that piece, the young American scholar added the Madonna and Child with St Anne in Princeton University Art Museum (Figure 1.2) and a Bishop Saint from the Uffzi.52 He also rejected the Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas (Figure 1.3), which he ascribed to a Sienese master.53 More controversial was, however, Meiss’s attribution to Francesco Traini of the frescoes in Pisa’s Camposanto, which reopened a ‘scholarly controversy of some duration’.54 This identifcation had been frst proposed by Igino Benvenuto Supino in the late 19th century but had been subsequently challenged by Adolfo Venturi.55 Meiss contended that Traini painted the Triumph of Death (Figure 1.4), the Thebaid and the Last Judgement between 1345 and 1365, but he excluded that the artist could be the author of the Crucifxion on the south wall.56 Only a few years earlier, in 1928, Longhi advanced another theory about the Camposanto frescoes, which he suggested were the work of a Bolognese artist.57 First identifed as Vitale da Bologna and then as his collaborator in Pistoia, Lippo Dalmasio, Longhi defended his attribution to ‘a mediocre painter of the Emilian school’58 by emphasising the less Tuscan and more French components of the painter’s style.59 Meiss in turn explained the Emilian infuences in the Camposanto paintings by ascribing to Traini’s other works like St George and the Dragon in the Baptistry of Parma (Figure 1.5), two Saints in the San Paolo Church of Ripa d’Arno and some miniatures in the illuminated books of the Museo di San Matteo in Pisa.60 Anchoring a masterpiece of Pisan art such as the Camposanto frescoes to the Bolognese school was an essential move in the rediscovery of Trecento art in Northern Italy – namely, the Po Valley – that Longhi was in those years conducting.61 Even though his arguments were admittedly rather tentative, the Bolognese theory was widely accepted by Italian scholarship but exerted a more limited consensus among international art historians.62 The impasse between

52 Meiss 1960b, 49: ‘Just thirty years ago, when as a temporary inhabitant of Pisa I was studying the work of Francesco Traini and his contemporaries, I visited, one after the other, the churches of the city and its environs, from Calci and Pontedera to Sarzana and Livorno’. 53 The Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas is now attributed to Lippo Memmi; see Polzer 1993. 54 H.B.J. Maginnis, ‘Introduction’, in: Meiss 1983, xii–xxiv: xiii. On the 19th-century debate, see Förster 1835, 110–111 and Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1864, I, 444 and ff. 55 According to Giorgio Vasari the frescoes were painted by Andrea Orcagna. Supino, however, believed the Thebaid was by Pietro Lorenzetti (Supino 1894; Supino 1896, 61–70). Adolfo Venturi, in response, attributed the Triumph of Death to Spinello Aretino (Venturi 1904, 205). 56 Meiss 1933, 136, 143–144. The name of ‘Hymnal Master’ was proposed instead of Traini for the Crucifxion Master; see Polzer 2010. 57 Longhi 1928; Longhi 1932–1934; Longhi 1935 [1973], 34–45; Longhi 1950, 12–13. 58 Meiss 1933, 127. 59 Longhi 1932–1934 [1973], 215: ‘noto fra quei tratti, in primis, il grafsmo accentuato, le grinte grottesche, l’amore per il particolare di costume barbarico (cavalli catafratti etc.); e la ripresa neoromanica, certifcata da quel gruppo di soldati che si giovano le vesti del Cristo’. 60 Meiss 1933, 144–148. 61 On Longhi’s study of Trecento art, refer to Bellosi 1982, esp. 30. One of his closest followers, Carlo Volpe, too, once admitted to Bellosi that Longhi had never understood the frescoes in the Pisa Camposanto (‘Non hanno niente a che fare con Bologna’); see Bellosi 2012, 17. 62 Among the Italian art historians in favour of a Bolognese painter: Marangoni 1931, 29; Salmi 1931, 471–476; Lavagnino 1936, 693; Arcangeli 1950; Carli 1958–1961, I, 43–60; Carli 1961a, 10; Bellosi 1965, 29. For the international art scholars: Schlosser 1938, 87–88; Swarzenski 1970, 194. Few Italians championed Traini, for instance, Vigni 1950, 26–29.

12

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Figure 1.1 Francesco Traini, Triptych of St Dominic (central panel), 1344–1345, oil on panel, 175 × 74 cm, Pisa, Museo Nazionale di San Matteo [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23689].

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

13

Figure 1.2 Francesco Traini, Madonna and Child with St Anne, 1340–1345, tempera on wood panel transferred to pressed wood panel, 84.9 × 56 cm, Princeton, Princeton University Art Museum [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23683].

14

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Figure 1.3 Lippo Memmi, Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas, 1323, tempera on panel, 375 × 258 cm, Pisa, Church of Santa Caterina d’Alessandria [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 21415].

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

15

Figure 1.4 Buonamico Buffalmacco, Triumph of Death, ca. 1338–1339, fresco, Pisa, Camposanto [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23614].

Traini and the Bolognese painter became an ‘unsolvable problem’ that occupied Meiss over the following years.63 In 1960, the American art historian returned to the matter in a ‘well argued and unassailable article’ in which he added the Madonna in the Church of San Giusto in Cannicci in Pisa to Traini.64 Meiss also contemplated a monograph on Traini, but he was never able to complete it.65 Longhi still maintained that his opinion was a ‘consideration of common sense’, even though Ugo Procacci had brought new technical evidence against the Emilian theory.66 In 1964 Joseph

63 Bellosi 2003 [1974], 25–26. Cf. also Maginnis, ‘Introduction’ cit., xiv–xv. 64 AAA, MMP. Letter from Richard Offner to Millard Meiss, 26 October 1960. Meiss 1960b, esp. 49. Enzo Carli also agreed on this addition to Traini’s oeuvre, AAA, MMP. Letter from Enzo Carli to Millard Meiss, 25 September 1960: ‘La attribuzione da Lei proposta a Francesco Traini mi trova pienissimamente consenziente’ (‘The attribution that You proposed to Francesco Traini fnds me in full agreement’). 65 Maginnis, ‘Introduction’ cit., xviii: ‘Professor Meiss never had the occasion to return to the material in print. Ill-health and a series of prior scholarly commitments occupied the last years of his life. He did, however, discuss the matter and, in the end, recognized the strong possibility that the Camposanto frescoes belonged to the 1330s’. 66 Procacci 1961, 50–51. Longhi 1962, 44–45: ‘Oggi che la nuova opinione ‘padana’, o diciam pure, bolognese, sembra prevalere, non sorprende che non si imponesse già prima una considerazione di comune buon senso’ (in the same issue of Paragone was published an addendum to Traini’s oeuvre: Bucci 1962, 40–43).

16

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Figure 1.5 Buonamico Buffalmacco, St George and the Dragon, ca. 1350, fresco, Parma, Baptistry [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 23608].

Polzer predated the Pisan frescoes to 1328–1330, based on iconographic references, but he did not question their attribution to Traini.67 This revised chronology was accepted by Meiss, who in the following decade made new additions to the painter’s corpus that were bringing Traini closer to the Camposanto paintings.68 It was not until the mid-1970s that the authorship of the Pisan frescoes, ‘one of the biggest misunderstandings in which modern scholarship had fallen’, could be fnally resolved, and by a student of Roberto Longhi, no less.69 In 1974, Luciano Bellosi published conclusive documentary evidence that the Camposanto wall paintings were by Buonamico Buffalmacco.70 Even though Bellosi conceded that Meiss’s hypothesis was certainly the more tenable, he did not believe that an identifcation of the Master

67 Polzer 1964; Polzer 1971. 68 Meiss 1965; Meiss 1971e. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to the Samuel H. Kress Foundation, 17 March 1971: ‘Joseph Polzer has been making some very interesting observations about the iconography and the chronology of the early frescoes in the Camposanto in Pisa. Before a fnal formulation of his conclusions he needs to return to Pisa during the summer and I write to support his request for a grant for this purpose’. 69 Bellosi 2003 [1974], 10. Despite their different opinions on Traini/Buffalmacco, Bellosi dedicated his book to the memory of Roberto Longhi. 70 Bellosi 2003 [1974]. On Luciano Bellosi (1936–2011), see Laclotte 2011; Strehlke 2011; De Marchi 2010–2012; Bartalini 2010–2012; Cavazzini 2015 and Boskovits 2016.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

17

of the Triumph of Death with Traini could hold from a stylistic point of view either.71 Traini’s hand could only be recognised in the Crucifxion, Bellosi continued, which was conversely the only scene that Meiss did not attribute to the Pisan artist.72 In later studies, the Italian scholar credited Meiss with a convincing reconstruction of Traini’s oeuvre that excluded the Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas (Figure 1.3).73 He was, however, very critical of the fact that Meiss explained stylistic inconsistencies in the Camposanto paintings with the difference in technique and scale.74 Bellosi’s attribution to Buonamico Buffalmacco was almost universally accepted and settled the dispute over the identifcation of the Master of the Triumph of Death.75 Meiss’s studies on Francesco Traini, however, were instrumental in the re-evaluation of the Pisan school, which Longhi, on the contrary, considered an example of ‘cultural degradation’.76 His early research on Traini was often referred to as ‘mere preparation and purgatory’ for the outline of Pisan later Trecento in Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death.77 While certainly signifcant for the study of extra-Florentine Tuscan schools and the late Trecento, Meiss’s survey did not include Traini among the artists whose work refected the changes in style and iconography brought on by the Black Death.78 Later commentators would nonetheless use the predating of the Camposanto cycle to the 1330s as ammunition to invalidate the book’s theory about the impact of the pandemic on art – a misunderstanding that was more recently reiterated in the obituary of Bellosi penned by Strehlke.79 ‘Scusi, ma sempre Duccio’: The Case of the Frick Flagellation In 1950 Helen Clay Frick acquired the Flagellation of Christ (Figure 1.6) from Knoedler’s art gallery in Paris.80 The 18th-century inscription on the back of the panel

71 Bellosi argued that in Pisa’s Camposanto there was no trace of the infuence of Sienese painting that was instead evident in Traini’s style. Bellosi 2003 [1974], 29: ‘Ad impedire l’identità Traini-‘Maestro del Trionfo della Morte’ sta questo fatto insormontabile, che l’artista pisano ha le sue radici culturali nella pittura senese, e più precisamente nella linea che fa capo a Simone Martini; mentre negli affreschi di Camposanto non è traccia alcuna di una cultura simile. Comunque si voglia considerare la questione, il punto chiave rimane questo’. 72 Bellosi ascribed to Buonamico Buffalmacco not only the Triumph of Death, the Last Judgement, Hell and the Thebaid but also the frescoes in Parma’s Baptistry and two Saints in the Church of San Paolo in Ripa d’Arno (ibid., 25–27). 73 L. Bellosi, ‘Su Francesco Traini (1991)’, in: Bellosi 2006, 388–398. 74 Bellosi 2003 [1974], 26. Ellen Callmann also agreed with Bellosi on this point, see Callmann 1975, 4. Interestingly, Offner had used a similar argument to attribute some scenes in the same Pisan Camposanto to Antonio Veneziano; cf. Offner 1927b, 76–77; Offner 1929, 230. 75 Hayden B.J. Maginnis was one of the few who still defended the Traini authorship in a review of Bellosi’s book (Maginnis 1976). Maginnis then edited a collection of Meiss’s articles on the painter which fulflled Meiss’s wish to publish a monograph (Meiss 1983). Polzer recently argued that a number of American scholars still accept the Traini attribution; see Polzer 2014, 75–76 note 21. 76 Longhi 1962, 47. Cf. also Volpe 1983, 285–286 note 37. Longhi’s remark was directed at Enzo Carli’s La pittura pisana del Trecento (Carli 1958–1961). 77 Rowland 1952, 319, 322. 78 Meiss 1951a, 171. 79 De Benedictis 1979, 35; Strehlke 2011, 480: ‘Meiss, who was unfortunate to fall more than once in Bellosi’s line of fre, had in good part constructed the theory on the basis of an incorrect attribution of the frescos to Francesco Traini (Buffalmacco operated before 1348 and Traini after)’. 80 FARLA, FC, Central Files. Knoedler & Co. receipt sent to the Frick Collection, 1 December 1950. On Helen Clay Frick (1888–1984), see Frick Symington Sanger 2008 and Reist 2011.

18

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Figure 1.6 Cenni di Pepo (known as Cimabue), Flagellation of Christ (cleaned and retouched), ca. 1280, tempera on poplar panel, 24.7 × 20 cm, New York, Frick Art Collection [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 9960].

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

19

purported it was by Cimabue, an attribution confrmed by both Longhi and Berenson.81 Longhi dated the Flagellation to the latter half of the 13th century, between the artist’s Pisan period and when he worked in Assisi.82 Struck by the quality ‘worthy of classic antiquity’, the Italian connoisseur intended to promptly publish the panel and present it alongside the Christ the Saviour that he had previously seen in a Swiss private collection.83 The Frick Collection also contacted Berenson for a second opinion. BB only recognised the Florentine artist’s hand in the drawing and believed the execution was carried out by an assistant.84 Upon reporting the recent acquisition of the Frick Collection, The New York Times however featured a different opinion on the author of the Flagellation: Dr. Meiss believes the panel is pervaded strongly by Sienese infuence and probably was done either in Siena or by a gifted painter who had been exposed both to late classical art and contemporary art in Siena.85 After mulling over his attribution for a while,86 Meiss anticipated Longhi and shortly after published the Flagellation as a work of Duccio.87 In order to explain the stylistic and iconographic similarities with Cimabue’s paintings, Meiss claimed the panel was painted when Duccio was working in Florence and was under the infuence of the Florentine master. The treatment of draperies, the arabesque line and the strong characterisation of fgures, on the other hand, suggested to the American scholar a

81 For the previous provenance of the panel, see Stubblebine 1979, 128. For a discussion of the debated attribution, see G. Ragionieri, entry no. 4, in: Bellosi 1998, 275; Bellosi 2002 and L. Bellosi, entry no. 22 and V.M. Schmidt, entry no. 24, in: Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, 152–154, 158–160. 82 Louchheim 1951b, 22: ‘The one scholar to pass judgment on it, the Italian Roberto Longhi, agrees with an eighteenth- or nineteenth-century inscription on the back – the single word Cimabue’. A translation of Longhi’s letter was sent to the Frick Collection: FARLA, FC, Central Files. Typewritten translation of Roberto Longhi’s letter to the Flagellation previous owner dated 26 January 1950, forwarded by Charles R. Henschel to Frederick Mortimer Clapp on 14 October 1950. 83 Ibid.: ‘I hope to be able, at a time not too distant, to publish this picture and that will be for me the highest possible satisfaction that a student of Italian art can ever encounter in his lifetime’. Cf. also Bologna 1983, 330. 84 Meiss mentioned a letter dated 4 May 1951, but it cannot be found in the Frick Collection archives in New York (Meiss 1956–1957, 43 note 6). On the other hand, in Berenson’s archives at I Tatti there is only a letter dated 16 February 1951 that Helen C. Frick sent to Berenson about the Flagellation enclosing a picture on which Berenson wrote ‘Certainly Cimabue’. A few months later, Meiss wrote to Berenson to inform him of the article about the Flagellation that he had just sent him (BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 3 April 1951). Berenson commented upon it in a letter to Kenneth Clark dated 1 September 1951: ‘He brings to bear all the big and little up-to-date artillery to prove that it is by DUCCIO. It is obviously (so far as a reproduction can tell) by CIMABUE’, in: Cumming 2015, 349–350: 350. 85 Louchheim 1951a. 86 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 15 March 1951: ‘I would be glad if you kept my attribution of the Flagellation to Duccio under your hat for the time being. I want to mull over it for a couple of weeks more, at least, and I should like to be the frst to publish it with what I believe to be the correct attribution. Longhi speaks of publishing it as Cimabue, over whose name the picture now hangs, because of his expertise’. 87 Meiss 1951b. In the article, Meiss mentioned that Richard Offner and Karl Lehmann also agreed on his attribution to Duccio (Ibid., 100).

20

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Sienese painter.88 The references to the sculpture of Nicola Pisano also pointed to Duccio, whom Meiss considered to be the frst artist to understand ‘the revolutionary art of the Pisani’.89 Meiss’s examination then turned to iconography to support his Sienese argument. First, the Christ triumphans was a typology that refected the gradual humanisation and development of individual conscience more prominent in that school. Second, the iconographic motif of the two fagellants, especially the foreshortened pose of the one on the left, was a unique example in the 13th-century painting that could only belong to a fgurative culture imbued with Byzantine prototypes such as that of Siena.90 In outlining the ‘intrinsic personality’91 behind the Frick Flagellation, Meiss relied on both a stylistic and an iconographic examination.92 This different approach could be refective of Panofsky’s infuence and bear some resonance with the original concept of Typus as formulated in the essay ‘Imago Pietatis’ dating back to Pan’s German period.93 At the same time, the study of iconography had always been a well-established component of the studies on mediaeval art, with notable precedents like Emile Mâle, Charles R. Morey or even Offner himself. Duccio’s and Giotto’s use of subjects and iconographic motifs, more specifcally, had already been analysed by Raymond van Marle in 1920.94 Another important source for the scholars involved in the Duccio– Cimabue controversy was Evelyn Sandberg-Vavalà’s book La croce dipinta (1929), which also specifcally mentioned the Frick panel.95 The Frick Flagellation was not the only case of a painting whose authorship oscillated between Cimabue and Duccio in those years. These controversial attributions were the consequence of a ‘roguish Sienese issue’, animated by ‘ludicrous cultural parochialism’ as Longhi decried in his ‘Giudizio sul Duecento’.96 Originally written as a reaction to the 1937 Mostra giottesca, Longhi’s article was published only in 1948 and caused a ‘clamorous disruption’ in art scholarship.97 In the infamous arti-

88 Meiss 1951b, 99. In the Frick Flagellation Meiss found reminiscences of the Rucellai Madonna, Duccio’s Maestà, the Crevole Madonna and the stained glass windows in Siena Cathedral. 89 Ibid., 101. 90 Meiss 1951b, 102–103. 91 Offner 1927b, 132. 92 A fact that Berenson did not fail to notice after Meiss sent him the article on the Frick Flagellation: ‘I regret that I see you not at all I am convinced of the intellectual integrity of all your publications and am therefore persuaded that we proftably could discuss differences of method and conclusions’ (BB, BMBP, Letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 24 August 1952). 93 Panfosky referred to Typus as a protype in which form and content were inextricably fused. Later however the concept was reduced to the simple illustration of texts; see Panofsky 1927; cf. also Cooke 2015. 94 Van Marle also remarked that Duccio’s motifs were dependent upon Byzantine prototypes; see Marle 1920, 33. On Raymond van Marle (1887–1936), see Grasman 2001. 95 Namely, Sandberg-Vavalà remarked that while this Byzantine iconography had gradually disappeared in the East, it became popular in the West and its emotional character was emphasised; see SandbergVavalà 1929, 248–250; Sandberg-Vavalà 1934. On Sandberg-Vavalà (1888–1961), see Pope-Hennessy 1961 and http://cini.it/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/e724a8064f97b70005dd2b2f2fa199e8.pdf. 96 Longhi 1948 [1974], 30–31: ‘ribalda “questione senese”’; ‘balordo campanilismo culturale’. 97 Longhi’s ‘Giudizio’ was initially written just before the war in 1939 and then published in 1948 with an addendum (‘Corollario’). Castelnuovo 1986, 8: ‘clamoroso terremoto’. The article indeed caused quite a stir in the art historical community: Pope-Hennessy 1948; Contini 1949; Bologna 1949; Bettini 1949, 145–147. More recently, cf. A. De Marchi, ‘Perché vale ancora la pena di fare i conti col “Giudizio sul Duecento”?’, in: Ambrosini Massari, Bacchi, Benati and Galli 2017, 25–57.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

21

cle the Italian connoisseur expressed his inclement, sweeping opinion of 13th-century Sienese art, which was described as decadent and entrapped in a belated Byzantine style.98 Central to his argument was the relationship between Cimabue and Duccio that Longhi claimed was one between a master and his disciple – notably since the Rucellai Madonna had been ascribed to Duccio. The corollary of this theory was that Duccio worked in Assisi as an apprentice of Cimabue.99 Longhi’s contentious theories, more generally, harked back to an age-long dispute over the primacy of either the Florentine or the Sienese school that involved Italian and Anglo-Saxon art historians.100 This controversy, however, was now taking on a further methodological connotation. The despisal of Byzantine art and its reverberation in Sienese painting was based on a hierarchy of values rooted in Crocean aesthetics.101 At the same time, such anti-Byzantine stance was perceived as synonymous with a nationalist art historical rhetoric of a fascist origin.102 Longhi’s theses therefore inevitably sparked a polemical response on the home front.103 Pro-Byzantinist and anti-Byzantinist positions in Italy in fact chimed with another clash between opposite schools as their key proponents were Lionello Venturi and Roberto Longhi respectively.104 More severe criticism, however, came from American scholarship, and from a student of Offner, Edward B. Garrison, whose ‘philological method’ was incidentally praised in Longhi’s ‘Giudizio’.105 In the pages of the College Art Journal, Garrison took Longhi to task for his Crocean views and anti-Byzantinist prejudice tinged with fascist, ‘solipsist-idealist racism’.106 More generally, Garrison intended to stigmatise the idealist criticism ‘plaguing’ art historians, who were solely concerned with the poetic form instead of the artwork’s historical and material aspects.107 This point was further emphasised by Charles R. Morey in a critique that appeared in a later issue of

98 According to Longhi’s devaluating view of Byzantine art, the Florentine Coppo di Marcovaldo was the frst artist to guide Sienese painting out of its Byzantine manner. 99 Longhi 1948 [1974], 33–34. Cf. also Bologna 1983, 334: ‘He [Longhi] accepted that the Rucellai Madonna was profoundly infuenced by Cimabue (whence, clearly, the old attribution), but at the same time could not ignore the document of 1285, which linked it with Duccio; accordingly he advanced the new hypothesis that Duccio, as the younger of the two, had been Cimabue’s pupil. This, Longhi thought, was confrmed by the evidence of the frescoes in the Upper Church at Assisi; in his opinion, Duccio’s hand could be recognised in many parts of these as Cimabue’s collaborator at a date earlier than the Rucellai Madonna’. 100 Contini 1949, 205–208. Cf. Monciatti 2010, 158. 101 The Crocean underpinning of Longhi’s ‘Giudizio’ was evident in his vitriolic remark about iconographers’ ‘equivalence charts’, in: Longhi 1948 [1974], 3: ‘È impossibile negare che l’irretimento iconografco non sarà mai segno di quella autonomia fantastica che è buona premessa d’ogni epoca liberamente operante. Ma che i puri iconograf abbian trovato nel Duecento pascolo così abbondante per le loro tabelle di concordanza signifca qualche cos’altro in più: che cioè all’irretimento tematico va del pari un irretimento tecnico, che è un’altra prova di ineffcienza espressiva’. 102 On the implications of the judgement on Byzantine art in Italian scholarship, refer to Bernabò 2001 and Bernabò 2003. 103 Longhi was criticised in particular by Roberto Salvini, Sergio Bettini and Carlo L. Ragghianti; Salvini 1948; Bettini 1949; Ragghianti 1955 (cf. also Caleca 2000, 62). 104 Cf. Bernabò 2003, 188; M. Andaloro, ‘Giudizio sull’arte bizantina’, in: Andaloro and Cordaro 1988, 71–77. 105 Garrison was the author of a corpus of Romanesque panel painting (Garrison 1949). On Garrison (1900–1981), see Gardner 1982. 106 Garrison 1951, 117. 107 Ibid., 111.

22

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

the same journal. The tendency to minimise ‘the importance of content, environment and historical evolution’ prevalent among Italian art scholars was, to Morey’s mind, the result of Croce’s idealism – which posed more of a threat than fascist ideology.108 Such a disposition inevitably led to a rift with American art history, as evidenced in the dispute over the Castelseprio frescoes that occurred between a group of Princetonian academics and Longhi’s school only a few years earlier.109 Appearing in the same year (1951) as Garrison’s and Morey’s critiques, Meiss’s article, challenging his attribution to Cimabue of the Frick Flagellation, therefore provided Longhi with an opportunity for a ‘good moral payback’.110 That more than the authorship of a single painting was at stake was clear from the title of Longhi’s prompt reply, ‘First Cimabue, then Duccio’. In fact, not only did Longhi refute the Flagellation’s ascription to Duccio, but he also fought back the accusations of racism made by Garrison – ‘another American researcher who has no such titles that would encourage a discussion’.111 Since Byzantine art was an art in the service of totalitarianism, Longhi countered, despising it was actually an act of liberalism.112 Longhi was rather piqued by Garrison’s ‘idiotic and despicable and mendacious attack’ and, in his rejoinder in Paragone, reproached Meiss for not speaking in his defence.113 While some of Longhi’s cohorts would defend him and malign Garrison even a decade later, Meiss preferred not to get involved in the dispute.114 He thought, on the other hand, that Longhi’s remarks on the affaire ‘cast a pall’ over the real matter at hand.115

108 Morey 1951, 220: ‘In fact I have heard this attitude defned by Italians as the characteristic Italian approach to art-criticism, in contrast to the ‘American’ disposition to seek in material and historical conditions the determinants of artistic creation’. 109 The frescoes were discovered in 1944 and published in 1948 (Bognetti, Chierici and De Capitani d’Arzago 1948). Also see Bertelli 1988; Cutler 1994; De Spirito 1998; Bernabò 2005; Pace 2007. 110 De Marchi, ‘Perché vale ancora la pena …’ cit., 44: ‘Si meritò una bella rivincita morale, anche contro Millard Meiss, nel saper leggere, al netto delle spuliture che avevano sfbrato e ‘duccizzato’ la materia, la paternità cimabuesca della Flagellazione Frick’. 111 Longhi 1951, esp. 11: ‘un altro cercatore americano che purtroppo non ha titoli tali da invogliare a una discussione’. 112 The Italian art historian also rejected Garrison’s allegations in a tribute to Croce (Longhi 1952), in which he also recalled that in his book Arte Italiana & Arte tedesca (Florence: Sansoni, 1941) he had attacked Byzantine art as an expression of a despotic imperialism similar to Mussolini’s regime; see Croce’s review (Croce 1942). For a critical analysis of Longhi’s book, refer to Mascolo 2014. 113 AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 23 February 1952: ‘non posso astenermi dall’esprimerLe la mia tristezza nel rilevare che, rispondendo alla mia polemica, e trattandosi di un articolo dove io consideravo anche il caso Garrison, Ella non abbia colta l’opportunità di esprimere la Sua deplorazione per lo stolto e ignobile e mendace attacco del Garrison contro di me’. (‘I cannot but express to You my sadness upon remarking that, in replying to my polemic, and since it was an article in which I also considered Garrison’s case, You did not cease the opportunity to express Your deploration for Garrison’s idiotic and despicable and mendacious attack’.) 114 Bologna defned Garrison’s corpus ‘a masterpiece of detached, descriptive philology, a masterpiece of indifference’ worthy of Offner’s teaching (Bologna 1962, 8). Cf. also Donati 1972, 149, in which Garrison is mocked as the ‘prince of systematic iconographers’. 115 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Longhi, 4 March 1952: ‘In your article you do distinguish clearly between the case of Garrison and myself, but I must confess that I felt that the discussion of G. at the end of the article was bound to color for the reader his impression of the earlier part. This last section did seem to me to cast a pall over what preceded it’. This matter is further analysed in J. Cooke, ‘Prospettive critiche tra Italia e Stati Uniti attraverso la corrispondenza epistolare tra Millard Meiss e Roberto Longhi’, in: Galassi 2017, 503–518: 508–510.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

23

As concerns the attribution, Longhi re-iterated his opinion that Cimabue painted the Frick Flagellation in the 1270s–1280s, around the same time as the Crucifx in Santa Croce. Meiss’s stylistic assumptions, Longhi conceded, were misled by the panel’s excessive cleaning that had falsifed its true formal values.116 On a more general level, however, the American art historian’s Sienese leaning was born out of the longstanding German and Anglo-Saxon tradition that endeavoured to ‘oppress the grandiose presence of Cimabue in order to more preciously examine the supreme elegance of Duccio’.117 Meiss did not budge in the reply – ‘Sorry, but always Duccio’ – that Longhi agreed to publish in Paragone, pending a few amendments.118 Though he admitted that the cleaning might have been too aggressive, his attribution to Duccio was based on elements like design and overall composition that were unaffected by the restorer’s hand.119 Meiss was also adamant that the German/Anglo-Saxon underestimation of Cimabue had nothing to do with his own conclusions about the Frick Flagellation.120 Conversely, he implied that perhaps Longhi was the one infuenced by his cultural background.121 Curt H. Weigelt was one of the principal representatives of that German American art historiographical trend that Longhi alluded to.122 Weigelt wrote the frst monograph on Duccio (1911) and devoted many studies to the Sienese school.123 If his earlier works were mostly circulated in German-speaking countries, Meiss was familiar with the essays Weigelt published in Art in America and the English translation of his

116 Longhi 1951, 9: ‘Ora si trova che in questa operazione il restauratore abbia seguito un suo gusto che, accademico per defnizione, non può essere che più “bizantineggiante” di quanto Cimabue non sia mai stato ed abbia perciò, sia pure poveramente, percorso una strada parallela a quella che fra l’80 e il ’90 […] anche Duccio compieva con ben altro animo, accarezzando sui modelli drammatici di Cimabue. Ecco che per via un ‘dianzi-Cimabue’ può ormai apparire più affne al suo elegantissimo famulo senese, Duccio di Buoninsegna’. The panel had been recently cleaned and retouched by the restorer William H. Suhr (Louchheim 1951b, 21). With regard to the Frick panel, Bruno Toscano remarked that attributive restoration was extremely signifcant at a time when the connoisseurship of primitives was so much emphasised, as can be seen in the national and international discussions on cleaning and patine; see Toscano 2005. 117 Longhi 1951, 9: ‘opprimere la grandeggiante presenza di Cimabue, per più preziosamente sfaccettare la suprema eleganza di Duccio’. 118 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Longhi, 13 February 1952: ‘I enclose a brief reply to the questions raised by your piece printed in the November issue of Paragone’. Meiss’s frst draft of the article was not found. As for Longhi’s remarks, they will be analysed in Chapter 5. 119 Meiss 1952b. 120 Meiss 1952b, 63. Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Longhi, 4 March 1952: ‘Here I agree with your statement of principle about a critic’s formation but since there is no evidence that underestimation of Cimabue played a part in my attribution, I fail to understand the relevance of the principle’. 121 In a frst draft of the article, Meiss’s tone on this matter must have been harsher, criticising Longhi’s argument for not being on ‘serious’ grounds. To that Longhi retorted (AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 23 February 1952): ‘Io trovo invece che non v’è nulla di più serio e di più doveroso che di rintracciare quanto, in ogni critico, possa essere il rifesso della sua formazione culturale. In tutto questo non c’è nulla di offensivo; tutto anzi riguarda la storia intima di ogni problema storico’. (‘I, on the other hand, think that there is nothing more serious and dutiful than to trace, in each critic, what the refection of his cultural background is. In all this there is nothing offensive; it is actually all about the intimate story of each historical problem’.) 122 On Curt H. Weigelt (1883–1934), see Winkler 1935 and Waetzoldt 1937. 123 Weigelt 1911; Weigelt 1914.

24

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

popular book on Trecento art in Siena.124 Another signifcant contribution to the reevaluation of Sienese art was made by Meiss’s mentor. In an article that appeared only a year before the attribution of the Frick Flagellation, Offner opened new perspectives on Guido da Siena and his relations with Coppo di Marcovaldo in contrast with Longhi’s ‘Giudizio’.125 Most of the studies on Duccio and his school that appeared in the course of the ffties had to reckon with the disputed Frick Flagellation. André Chastel and John PopeHennessy both wrote in support of Meiss’s attribution.126 Enzo Carli, too, agreed with the American scholar and included the painting in his book on Duccio (1952).127 Pietro Toesca’s Il Trecento did not mention the Frick Flagellation, as the book was already in print when Meiss published the New York panel. However, being the only scholar who still ascribed the Rucellai Madonna to the eponymous Master of the Rucellai Madonna, Toesca was likely to have rejected its attribution to Duccio.128 Cesare Brandi, conversely, managed to discuss the panel in his monograph on the Sienese painter published in 1951, in which he ascribed it to Cimabue siding with Longhi.129 In 1953, Evelyn Sandberg-Vavalà also assigned the work to Cimabue, though she noted a Sienese character in the architectural foreshortening.130 Carlo Volpe could not but second the ‘Cimabuesque explanation’ of his mentor, Longhi, all the more because it further confrmed ‘the priority of the Florentine on the most salient facts of the 1280s’.131 Following the negative response that his thesis received, Meiss decided to return on the problem in 1955 and reconsidered his attribution to Duccio in the pages of Rivista d’Arte.132 More tentatively, he was now suggesting that the Flagellation was a product of Florence’s ‘artistic cosmopolitanism’ around 1285, epitomised by the ‘fortunate encounter’ between Duccio and Cimabue. Like the Madonna and Child in the Galleria Sabauda in Turin, the Frick panel was, to Meiss’s mind, among those works that could not be unequivocally attributed to either of the two masters.133 In an essay for Lionello Venturi’s Festschrift, Meyer Schapiro discussed the painting and focussed on the two fagellants whose rigid symmetry made the scene similar to an Andachtsbild (‘devotional

124 Weigelt 1929–1930; Weigelt 1930. Guido da Siena had been frst rediscovered in a pioneering study by Wickhoff, who was also the frst to ascribe the Rucellai Madonna to Duccio (Wickhoff 1889). 125 Offner 1950. Offner would then direct his student James S. Stubblebine (1920–1987) to pursue this line of research in a doctoral thesis and later in a monograph on Guido da Siena; see Stubblebine 1958; Stubblebine 1964. On the fortune of Sienese art in Anglo-Saxon art scholarship, see Petrioli 1996. 126 Chastel 1951, 252; Pope-Hennessy 1952, 85. 127 Carli 1952, [13]. From the correspondence between the two scholars, it emerged that Meiss asked Carli’s opinion on the panel and the latter also requested his permission to publish an image of the Flagellation in his monograph; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Enzo Carli, 12 September 1951; UNISI, BLF, Fondo Enzo Carli. Letter from Enzo Carli to Millard Meiss, 9 October 1951. 128 Toesca 1951, 499–519. On Pietro Toesca (1877–1962), see Gabrielli 2009; Callegari 2009; Crivello 2011 and Bertelli 2017. 129 Brandi only admitted a Pisan artist as an alternative to Cimabue; see Brandi 1951, 156. Cf. V.I. Stoichita, ‘Duccio quarant’anni dopo’, in: Andaloro and Cordaro 1988, 87–92. 130 Sandberg-Vavalà 1953, 42 note 6. 131 Volpe 1954, 4–5: ‘la priorità del forentino sui fatti più salienti dell’ottavo decennio’. 132 Meiss 1955a. 133 Ibid., 107–108. For the attributive history of the Gualino Madonna in Turin, see Bellosi, ‘Il percorso di Duccio’, in: Bagnoli, Bartalini and Bellosi et al. 2003, 118–145: 126 and De Marchi 2019, esp. 117–119.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

25

image’). Schapiro’s explanation of the recurrence of this subject in the 13th century with the new wave of fagellant brotherhoods during the struggle between the papacy and empire resonated with Meiss’s contextual approach.135 The two scholars – who were friends and colleagues – however disagreed on the artistic merit of the painting. Schapiro believed the foreshortened position of the left soldier was a ‘summary and unsure’ imitation of a Byzantine compositional scheme, which suggested that it could have been painted not by the master himself but by a member of Duccio’s workshop active in Florence around 1290.136 Albeit sure of the Flagellation’s high quality, Meiss’s confdence in ascribing the work to Duccio was beginning to falter as he wrote in a subsequent article in the Journal of the Walters Art Gallery.137 Even if the reinterpretation of classical canons was no longer singled out as ‘unique’, Meiss still thought the author of this composition had been inspired by classical prototypes seen through the works of Nicola Pisano.138 To Schapiro’s remarks about the fgure of the foreshortened fagellant, he countered that the painter’s evolving style affected the rendering of the subject.139 Meiss’s wavering opinion fnally annihilated the scant defence in favour of Duccio, and the cimabuisti took over in what was described as a ‘fight of scholarly fancy’.140 Pope-Hennessy, who had initially accepted the attribution to Duccio, now opted for a follower of Cimabue working on an overall design by the master himself.141 Ferdinando Bologna could not conceal his satisfaction upon sanctioning the defeat of Meiss’s argument and linked his interpretation to the general debate over Duccio’s presence in Assisi as a young apprentice.142 Enzo Carli failed to mention the Frick panel in his 1955 book on Sienese painting.143 The Flagellation was later expunged in Carli’s monograph on Duccio (1961), perhaps because the prudent corpus of the artist that he compiled was a reaction to the attributive frenzy of Longhi’s associates who assigned to Duccio works that mostly belonged to Cimabue’s workshop.144 Carli would change his mind several times over the years, also as concerns Duccio’s apprenticeship in Assisi (frst refuted and then fnally accepted), until he fnally professed his 134

134 Schapiro 1956, 29: ‘This article arose from a question addressed to me by Millard Meiss concerning the fgures of the fagellants’. On Meyer Schapiro (1904–1996), see Camille 1994; Hemingway 1994; Seidel 1997; Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 1997; Sauerländer 2004; Hemingway 2006; Bortolototti, Cieri Via, Di Monte and Di Monte 2010; Thomas 2015 and Stirneman 2017. 135 Schapiro 1956, 32. 136 Ibid., 40–41. This point was further debated in their correspondence; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Meyer Schapiro, 23 April 1957. 137 Meiss 1957b, 62: ‘This is perhaps the most diffcult attribution I have ever proposed, and I am proportionately less confdent of its correctness’. Cf. also Berenson 1963, I, 50. 138 Meiss 1957b, 49. 139 Ibid., 63: ‘Aren’t we confronted, in the two representations of the Flagellation, with a perfectly consistent artistic change, rather than an inexplicable iconographic one that could point to two different masters? Doesn’t “style” often affect iconography?’ 140 White 1979, 157. Cf. also Van Os 1981; Conti 1980; Pope-Hennessy 1980. 141 Meiss wrote directly to Pope-Hennessy asking what his views on the matter were and the latter replied: ‘I did from photograph at frst believe the painting to be Sienese, but after studying it in the original I was inclined to go back to the view that it was by a Florentine Cimabue follower’, AAA. MMP. Letter from John Pope-Hennessy to Millard Meiss, 7 July 1957. 142 Bologna 1960. 143 Carli 1955, 50–51. 144 Carli 1961b, 5–6, 32.

26

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

agreement with Meiss’s interpretation in 1972 – ‘it is not by Cimabue, but almost certainly by Duccio’.145 Eugenio Battisti listed the Flagellation in his 1963 catalogue raisonné of Cimabue, but wrongly cited Meyer Schapiro in support of this attribution, an oversight that a disgruntled Meiss complained to Panofsky about.146 The 1968 catalogue of the Frick Collection still referred to the Flagellation as ‘Tuscan School of the end of the 13th century’.147 Unable to reach a defnitive conclusion, scholars seemed to prefer the hypothesis of a lesser painter of Cimabue’s workshop infuenced by Duccio.148 James H. Stubblebine even suggested the hand of a third personality, the St Peter Master, an older Sienese artist who painted in a belated Duecento style in the early 14th century.149 The only one defending Meiss’s attribution in the late seventies was Miklós Boskovits, who equally rejected the idea of a young Duccio ‘created’ by Cimabue, but he became a reformed cimabuista in the new millennium.150 In the catalogue of the 2003 Duccio exhibition in Siena, Bellosi ascribed the work to Cimabue but agreed with Meiss on its high artistic quality, and remembered the controversy with Longhi as a testament to the fact that the style of Cimabue and the young Duccio was almost identical.151 The attributive debate that spanned nearly ffty years was fnally resolved in that same 2003, when a Madonna and Child by Cimabue recently acquired by the National Gallery in London was proven to belong to the same altarpiece as the Frick Flagellation.152 ‘The World Clearly Wants Giotto to Be the Author’: The Assisi Debate When Meiss studied the Frick Flagellation, he dealt with the early corpus of a great artistic personality and the opposite views of Italian and Anglo-Saxon scholarship. Offner urged his students to hone their connoisseurial skills, as Meiss wrote, with such ‘famous, old, refractory art-historical problems’ regarding the frst works of

145 Carli 1965, 95. AAA, MMP. Letter from Enzo Carli to Millard Meiss, 10 February 1972: ‘sono venuto alla conclusione che non è di Cimabue, ma quasi certamente di Duccio e che Lei ha ragione: “scusi, ma sempre Duccio!”’ (‘I have come to the conclusion that it is not by Cimabue, but almost certainly by Duccio and that You were right: “sorry, but always Duccio!”’). 146 Battisti 1963, 109. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 6 February 1964: ‘The foot note at which we were looking is a typical performance of Battisti and proves that though he is intelligent he doesn’t give a darn for a fact’. APEB. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Eugenio Battisti, 25 February 1964: ‘You profess to side with Schapiro even though the latter, in spite of his objections to the views of Professor Meiss, agrees with him in assigning the picture to the School of Siena rather than the circle of Cimabue’. 147 Davidson 1968, II, 262–265. 148 Baccheschi 1972, 98; Sindona 1975, 118–119; Stoichita 1976, 134; Deuchler 1984, 19–20; Gibbs 1996. 149 Stubblebine 1972; Stubblebine 1979, I, 5. Stubblebine frst introduced the name ‘St Peter Master’ for follower of Duccio to whom he attributed the St Peter Altarpiece (Siena, Pinacoteca Nazionale); see Stubblebine 1964, 49. After long being considered the work of Guido da Siena, the St Peter Altarpiece was later attributed to Guido di Graziano; see Bellosi 1991, 15, 17–22; F. Mori, entry no 12, in: Bagnoli, Bartalini, Bellosi and Laclotte 2003, 88–91 [including previous literature]. 150 Boskovits 1979; Boskovits 2000; Boskovits 2007, 578 note 7. 151 Bellosi, ‘Il percorso di Duccio’ cit., 119–121. 152 Gordon 2003. When they were placed alongside in New York, the two panels showed identical size and the same red painted border.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

27

revolutionary artists. By delving into the even more intricate matters of the frescoes in the Upper Church of Assisi, whose Giotto authorship was attested in the literature but had no documentary evidence, Meiss defnitely raised the stakes.154 The debate over its attribution did in fact inspire ‘intuitive clairvoyants’, ‘learned diagnosticians’, ‘graphologists or footprint fnders or even criminologists’ to muster a convincing stylistic explanation to either include or discard the cycle from Giotto’s oeuvre, and Offner had famously been one of them.155 Giotto’s authorship of the Saint Francis cycle in Assisi was originally questioned by a group of Anglo-Saxon and German art historians, the so-called separatisti, because they believed it was stylistically different from the frescoes Giotto painted in Padua between 1303 and 1305. They then embarked on a strenuous polemic with Italian scholarship, which turned into a dialogue of the deaf between two distinct camps and two parallel literatures.156 The frst to challenge Giotto’s attribution was Friedrich Rintelen, who in 1912 argued that the Life of St Francis was by a follower of the artist active between 1320 and 1350 in a style imbued with 13th-century reminiscences.157 Across the Atlantic, Osvald Sirén in his Harvard lectures assigned the cycle to a collaboration between several artists, and namely the Life of St Francis to a Roman painter.158 In the momentous Giotto exhibition of 1937, great emphasis was placed on the connection between the crucifx of Santa Maria Novella and the Assisi frescoes (and the Life of Isaac especially) in order to document Giotto’s early years and provide a linchpin for the inclusivist claims.159 This was the opportunity Richard Offner had been waiting for to openly challenge the Giottesque attribution and he did so at the conference Giuseppe Fiocco organised in Padua that year.160 His dissent was then clearly spelled out in an article Offner published in The Burlington Magazine in 1939, whose title ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’ became synonymous with the entire debate.161 The art historian controversially dismissed the attribution to Giotto of both the Life of St Francis in Assisi and the Santa Maria Novella Crucifx, which he believed stemmed 153

153 154 155 156

157

158 159 160

161

Meiss 1960a, 1–2. Some of the more recent studies on this subject include Tomei 2009 and Cooper and Robson 2013. W. Sauerländer, ‘Giotto, Assisi e la crisi dei conoscitori’, in: Zanardi 2002, 7–12: 7. Bellosi 1985, 41: ‘Coloro che sono rimasti fedeli all’idea giottesca hanno quasi sempre evitato un confronto sistematico con i separatisti, sicché si sono formati come due circoli chiusi, che hanno dialogato all’interno di se stessi, dando luogo a due letterature parallele su Giotto, a “due verità” giottesche’. Rintelen 1912 (cf. Fiocco 1912, 397). On Rintelen (1881–1926), see Betthausen 20072. Friedrich von Rumohr had already raised doubts over Giotto’s presence in Assisi: Rumohr 19202, 269–271. On Rumohr (1785–1843), see Battezzati 2009; Dilk 2010; Basteck and Müller 2010 and C. Battezzati, ‘Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785–1843) tra Milano e Brescia. Rifessioni e nuove letture’, in: Caglioti, De Marchi and Nova 2018, 15–26, 163–165. Sirén 1917. On Sirén (1879–1966), see Honour 1990; Harris 1991 and Vakkari 2002. On this exhibition and the contemporary debate, see Monciatti 2010. Offner’s paper was however not included in the conference proceedings published in Rivista d’Arte (1937), which featured: M. Salmi, ‘Le origini dell’arte di Giotto’; G. Fiocco, ‘Giotto e Arnolfo’; L. Lochoff, ‘Gli affreschi dell’antico e nuovo testamento nella basilica superiore di Assisi’; C. Gamba, ‘Osservazioni sull’arte di Giotto’; P.L. Rambaldi, ‘Dante e Giotto nella letteratura artistica sino al Vasari’ and ‘Postilla al passo di Riccobaldo’; R. Zanocco, ‘L’Annunciazione all’Arena di Padova’ and ‘Giotto dipinse anche nel Duomo Vecchio di Padova?’; U. Procacci, ‘Relazione dei lavori eseguiti agli affreschi di Giotto nelle cappelle Bardi e Peruzzi in S. Croce’; F. Rossi, ‘Relazione dei lavori eseguiti nella cappella giottesca del Palazzo del Podestà’. Offner 1939. The essay was republished in Ladis 1998, 61–88 [citations here refer to the latter edition].

28

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

from a ‘misconception of the structure of Florentine evolution’ fed by patriotism.162 Compared to Giotto’s mature style in the Paduan frescoes, the mural paintings in the Upper Church could not have been painted by the same hand. Offner indeed remarked a different sense of form, plan and composition, and Morellian comparisons equally indicated that they were not by the same master. Nor could such differences be simply explained with an artist’s own stylistic development.163 Although Offner refrained from providing ‘a defnite suggestion of the authorship of the Assisi cycle’,164 his article did raise doubts that had never been put to rest, particularly amid Anglo-Saxon scholarship.165 Mason Perkins immediately wrote a letter to The Burlington Magazine endorsing the ‘Rintelen-Offner interpretation’, and incidentally lamenting the lack of an English translation of Giotto-Apokryphen.166 Yet, others like Frank H.J. Mather, Jr. maintained that the Assisi Legend was Giotto’s frst work as an independent master, which he completed in 1296–1297 before he went to Rome and the St Cecilia Master would take over.167 Alfred Nicholson, on the other hand, justifed the stylistic discrepancies between Padua and Assisi as the result of the different nature of the two cycles and their ‘antipodal subject matters’. Namely the artist in Assisi had to make ‘visual important episodes from the offcially approved life of the great Saint, with all the appurtenances, and to this with the barest traditional background’.168 Before ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’, Meiss touched on the Assisi revisionism in a lecture on mural painting that he delivered in 1932, in which he anticipated Offner’s views on ‘the famous series of the Life of St. Francis usually, but erroneously, said to have been painted by Giotto’.169 When Meiss returned to the subject some thirty years later, however, the revisionist front was thinning out. The idea that Giotto may have provided the cartoons and his workshop completed the frescoes was beginning to gain currency among such art historians as Robert Oertel, Kurt Bauch and Wolfgang Schöne.170 In the meantime, Meiss had also become a ‘not fully convinced separatista’, who was trying to bridge the gap between the ‘two closed circles’ of giottisti and anti-giottisti.171

162 Offner 1939 [1998], 61. 163 Ibid., 87 note 4: ‘Indeed the tendency in the development of the artist, whatever his capacities, is towards expansion of relaxation of plan, of form and of a physical type already present in his frst maturity. […] Whatever his native powers, his growth and deterioration can neither be so rapid nor so capricious as to render his production at any stage more diverse from the body of his known works than from that of another master’. 164 Ibid., 88 note 10. 165 Monciatti 2010, 140. 166 Perkins 1939. Mason Perkins had authored a famous Giotto monograph in 1902 and his views on the Assisi cycle ought to have been included in a Vasari edition that he never completed; see Hutton 1953, 236–237. On Mason Perkins (1874–1955), see Hutton 1955; Zeri 1998 and Nicolai 2016. 167 Mather Jr. 1943. 168 Nicholson 1944, 193. 169 AAA, MMP. ‘Italian Mural Painting’, lecture typescript, 1932 [emphasis added]. 170 Oertel 1943–1944; Oertel 1968 [1953], 64–82; Bauch 1953; Schöne 1957. On Oertel (1907–1981), see Isermeyer 1982; Iselt 2012 and I. Hueck, ‘Robert Oertel (1907–1981): Museumsmann und Universitätslehrer’, in: Caglioti, De Marchi and Nova 2018, 457–465, 255–258. On Bauch (1897– 1975), see Sauerländer 1975; Wiedegand Petzet 1975 and Papenbrock 2003. On Schöne (1910–1989), see Tümpel 1990. 171 Bellosi 1985, 41–43: ‘separatista non del tutto convinto’ and ‘due circoli chiusi’. Bellosi introduced the term separatisti for the Anglo-Saxon art scholarship that rejected Giotto’s attribution of the Legend of St Francis frescoes in Assisi. The reference is clearly to the Homeric dispute.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

29

His theories on the matter were frst put forward in a lecture at New York’s Institute of Fine Arts from 9 February 1959 and then more fully expounded in the book Giotto and Assisi published in the following year.172 Even though Meiss saluted Offner’s as ‘the most penetrating recent account of the stylistic diffculties created by such an attribution’ that redefned the corpus of several Italian primitives,173 he did not fully agree on the comparisons his mentor made with Giotto’s Florentine works.174 Aligning himself with the separatisti, Meiss insisted that the expressiveness of the fgures and the overall composition made Giotto’s manner in Padua inconsistent with that of the author of the Life of St Francis – which he dated 1307–1308. The hand of Giotto could however be recognised in the scenes of the Lamentation and the Life of Isaac that were attributed to the Isaac Master. The Romanising style shaped on classical references that much owed to Pietro Cavallini masterfully combined with reminiscences of Cimabue and French Gothic sculpture, indeed, led Meiss to conclude that the Isaac Master was none other than Giotto.175 If the Isaac Master is not Giotto, then he and not Giotto is the founder of modern painting.176 Meiss effectively turned the ‘Pancavallinism’ many separatisti (including Offner) used to deny the presence of Giotto in Assisi into an argument in favour of his authorship.177 According to Bellosi, by identifying the Isaac Master with Giotto, Meiss was appeasing the ‘remorse of a separatist’s conscience’.178 The Giotto-Isaac Master identifcation was frst advanced by Henry Thode in 1885.179 The painter was then associated with Gaddo Gaddi in the book on the Isaac Master that Mather published in 1932 – resuming the theory once proposed by Giovanni B. Cavalcaselle.180 At the Giotto conference of 1937, Mario Salmi argued that the Isaac Master was not Giotto but an artist whose

172 Meiss 1960a. 173 Ibid., 1–2. Meiss also contested the expansionist tendency of Italian scholarship using a Berensonian terminology; cf. Berenson 1948, 305. 174 When the book was nearly fnished, Meiss in fact wrote to Offner asking him to further elucidate his views on Giotto’s early works. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Richard Offner, 4 August 1959. 175 Meiss 1960a, 24–25: ‘Confrmation of our reconstruction by Morellian method may be unobtainable, but who would deny that the larger aspects of design and content, when identifed and defned precisely, are less telling, especially when the authorship of a great new art is at stake?’ 176 Ibid., 25. 177 Luciano Bellosi indeed remarked how the myth of Cavallini was at its zenith when Offner published his article (Bellosi 1985, 138). Bellosi would equally point out that just as Cavallini was praised as a pivotal artist, Giotto’s role was being somewhat diminished; see Bellosi 1983, 9–13. Cf. Hermanin 1902; Hermanin 1924; Van Marle 1921; Busuioceanu 1925. On Hermanin and the Cavallini problem, see Rolf 2000. 178 Bellosi 1985, 66–67: ‘I suoi rimorsi di coscienza di separatista’. 179 Thode 1993, 209–210. Also see Scarpellini 1995. On Thode (1857–1920), refer to: Szylin 1993; Urbini 2006; Passini 2013; Urbini 2014; M. Mozzo, ‘La raccolta fotografca di Henry Thode (1857–1920) al Vittoriale degli Italiani’, in: Caglioti, De Marchi and Nova 2018, 102–112, 185–187. 180 Mather 1932, 1: ‘If Giotto was, broadly speaking, the master of the St. Francis series, then the great painter who did the Deception of Isaac, the Pietà, and designed the Four Latin Fathers, was Giotto’s exemplar and presumably his actual teacher’. Cf. Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1923, 24–27.

30

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

fgurative culture derived from Rome.181 Meiss’s thesis, however, found its closest precedent in Robert Oertel, who in 1943 posited that Giotto and the Isaac Master were one and the same and that the Isaac scenes constituted a turning point in the artist’s style, explaining how his manner later developed in Padua.182 The British scholar Alastair Smart welcomed Meiss’s book precisely because of the Giotto-Isaac Master identifcation which made it one of the most important studies on the subject.183 M. Roy Fisher, too, focussed on the Isaac Master and saluted Meiss’s effort of studying the iconography and style in connection with the communicative purpose of the scenes without falling into the pitfalls of erudition.184 According to Ulrich Weisstein, the authorship of the Legend could not be on the contrary questioned by assigning the Life of Isaac to Giotto and Meiss’s theory was wrongfully premised on the idea that an artist’s work is the result of a technical and stylistic development where no regression is admissible.185 Meiss’s identifcation of Giotto with the Isaac Master was, on the other hand, hailed by Giovanni Previtali as a frst step towards a rapprochement with the Italian inclusivist camp in the review he penned for Paragone.186 George T. Noszlopy would later also commend Meiss’s Solomonic effort to reconcile Assisi and Padua by establishing the Isaac Master-Giotto connection.187 Like Offner before him in 1937, Meiss was invited to chair a session at the international conference marking the 700th anniversary of Giotto’s birth, held in Assisi, Padua and Florence in 1967.188 The paper that he delivered on that occasion, however, refrained from mentioning the attributive minefeld of the Legend in Assisi and tactfully addressed a painter of Giotto’s workshop, Alesso di Andrea, instead.189 The separatisti front had not lost its currency nonetheless. Only a year before, John White summed up the debate on this problem and concluded that the Life of St Francis was

181 Salmi 1937. Salvini agreed with Salmi that Giotto’s authorship ought to be limited when it came to the Life of Isaac; see Salvini 1952, 24–25. 182 Oertel 1943–1944, 19 and ff. 183 Smart 1960b. Smart frst contested Giotto’s authorship in a study on the St Cecilia Master in which the painter of the Life of St Francis was believed to have belonged to his workshop; see Smart 1960a, 406: ‘A re-examination of the frescoes from this point of view discloses no less than the artistic dependence of the St Francis Master upon the St Cecilia Master; and hence the stylistic resemblances between the two painters to which Offner especially has drawn attention’. Alistair Smart formed his anti-Giottesque opinion when he attended Howard M. Davis’s lectures at Columbia University in 1954–1955 and further studied the matter in Princeton under Meiss’s auspices in 1966–1967. On Smart (1922– 1992), see Robinson 1993. 184 Fisher 1961. A few years earlier, Fisher had tackled this subject in an article that anticipated Meiss’s views frst expounded at a seminar the American scholar held at Harvard, where they both taught. Fisher 1956, 47, note 13: ‘In his book, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death […] where he discusses the Stigmatization of St. Francis, Mr. Meiss carefully refrains from mentioning Giotto’s name in connection with the Assisi frescoes. […] More recently, in a seminar at Harvard University, 1954–1955, Mr. Meiss stated his doubt of the traditional attribution’. 185 In Weisstein’s words, Meiss committed ‘an evolutionary fallacy’; Weisstein 1961, 186. 186 Previtali 1962, 63–64: ‘Sempre meno comprensibile diviene quindi a questo punto la reticenza del Meiss ad accettare la paternità giottesca per le Storie di San Francesco, sia pure limitata alla sola ideazione (ma certo l’intervento del maestro andò più oltre)’. 187 Noszlopy 1968. Cf. Meiss 19672b. 188 Salmi 1971. Cf. Boskovits 1971b, 34–56. The organising committee included Sergio Bettini, Cesare Brandi, Cesare Gnudi, Roberto Longhi, Bruno Molajoli, Rodolfo Pallucchini, Ugo Procacci, Roberto Salvini and Giorgio Vigni. 189 Meiss 1971c.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

31

painted in the 1290s by an artist who was neither Giotto nor the Isaac Master. The more extremist of the ‘two fathers of the very new formulation’,191 Alastair Smart elucidated his separatist views in The Assisi Problem published in 1971.192 He claimed that the Life of St Francis was painted by three different artists, the St Cecilia Master, the Master of the Obsequies of St Francis and the Master of St Francis, but he did not think the Isaac Master could be identifed with a young Giotto, despite their mutual Cavalliniesque origin.193 The other persevering separatista was Hayden B.J. Maginnis, who sided with his teacher, Meiss, just like he had in the Francesco Traini debate.194 Maginnis frst studied the frescoes with Tintori in Assisi in the early seventies and published a technical analysis of the cycle as it was being restored by the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in 1974.195 In the following decades, Maginnis continued to deny that the paintings in Assisi were executed by Giotto, claiming that they were the work of a group of Roman artists.196 In a note written in 1959 arguing for Giotto’s authorship, Pietro Toesca analysed the St Francis frescoes from the point of view of materials and technique and observed that the a secco retouchings matched those in the Scrovegni Chapel.197 In that same year, Meiss accompanied the restorer Leonetto Tintori and the soprintendente Ugo Procacci on their conservation campaigns in Assisi, Padua and Florence. Despite Meiss’s initial qualms, there his attribution found further validation. In Padua, Procacci also began to doubt that Giotto was the author of the Legend but ‘the world clearly wants Giotto to be the author, and it will take a hundred years for a contrary view to gain recognition’.198 Following this close study of Giotto’s frescoes, Meiss and Tintori wrote a book on the technical evidence that they uncovered in the examination of the Life of St Francis. The two scholars mapped the cycle according to its division in giornate (i.e. what could be painted in true fresco in one day’s work), which allowed for a more accurate dating of the scenes. They also examined the practices employed that ultimately supported the separatist theory.199 As Meiss informed him of his close-up examinations of mural paintings, Panofsky ironically spoke of a new kind of 190

190 White 1966b, 232. White already studied the fresco cycle in 1956; see White 1956. 191 Gioseff 1963, 102: ‘due padri della formulazione nuovissima’. 192 Smart 1971, ix: ‘It is again to Professor Meiss that I owe an invitation to spend two semesters at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, where I was able both to pursue my study of the Assisi problem in an atmosphere of idyllic quietude and also to proft from Professor Meiss’s unequalled knowledge of this period of Italian art and from the many insights that he was so generously willing to share’. 193 Smart 1971, 38. 194 Cf. Meiss 1983. 195 Maginnis 1975. Also see Chapter 4. 196 Maginnis 1997, 79–102; Maginnis 2004. 197 Toesca 1959. 198 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959: ‘I was able, not only to examine the Isaac scenes at very close range but even to touch Jacob’s fake hair. By determining partly by touch and partly by sight, the joints between the patches of intonaco, we were able, after all these years of discussion, to prove absolutely that the frst fresco in the cycle of St. Francis (by the St. Cecilia Master) was painted after the second (the gift of the cloak) and thus the whole chronology of the cycle is established. […] I was, of course, scared to look at the “verdammte orginalen”, having turned over to the press my little book and quite naturally loathe to rewrite it. […] Even Procacci, who on this question thinks with his heart, came close to abandoning his belief that Giotto painted the Francis Legend’. 199 Meiss and Tintori 1962. On this book see Chapter 4.

32

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

connoisseurship made of ‘attributions by touch as well as attributions by intuition’.200 Apart from an interest in his friend’s studies, the Giotto problem certainly did not concern Panofsky, who only made a passing reference to the Isaac Master’s scenes ascribed to an early Giotto in Renaissance and Renascences.201 Nor did Panofsky delve into any attributionist matter as he congratulated Meiss on his book – that was something that Offner would have been more inclined to do.202 By assigning the Isaac scenes to Giotto, Meiss adopted a more conciliatory position compared to more combative separatisti like Offner, but he was still faced with an agelong tradition of Italian scholarship, convinced that the Legend, too, was by the same artist.203 In fact, when Meiss’s book came out, other art historians were already fghting the inclusivist corner. In 1958, Cesare Gnudi attempted to establish with ‘certainty’ that Giotto was the author of the Assisi cycle in his monograph on the artist.204 To do so, he conclusively proved the authenticity of the earliest written record of Giotto in Assisi, the Compilatio Chronologica by Riccobaldo Ferrarese (1312–1313), which the separatist had always dismissed as an interpolated document.205 At the 1967 conference, Gnudi illustrated the disputed fresco cycle as the expression of a painter’s changing language which refected the French artistic civilisation fltered through Arnolfo di Cambio’s Gothic style. For this reason, these paintings could not fnd a seamless parallel in Giotto’s oeuvre. Also, Giotto in Assisi was overseeing a group of artists who worked on his preparatory drawings, while the master only painted a few parts like the Isaac scenes – thus explaining the higher quality of the latter.206 In the same year as Giotto and Assisi, another friend of Meiss, Eugenio Battisti assigned the Life of St Francis to Giotto, but believed the Isaac Master was another painter from Rome, possibly Cavallini himself. Battisti also affrmed that the Florentine master took part in the completion of all the frescoes, including those executed by his workshop.207 In the same 1960, Margherita Gabrielli interpreted the stylistic inconsistencies in the Legend as a consequence of the dissent prevalent amongst the Franciscan Order at the time. Gabrielli remarked that the attributive debate failed to consider that, in the course of the 14th and 15th centuries, the Spiritualists commissioned Puccio Capanna to alter some scenes to beft their views. Their requests included introducing more realism to the episodes and eliminating all the references to Bonaventure’s Legenda Maior – a

200 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 20 May 1959. 201 Panofsky 1960, 136. 202 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 11 April 1960: ‘[it] is a little masterpiece not only as far as content is concerned (ça va sans dire) but also with respect to appearance’. 203 Cf. Berenson 1932, 233; Salmi 1937; Cecchi 1937; Lochoff 1937; Sinibaldi and Brunetti 1943, 301; Brandi 1938–1939; Toesca 1941, 58–66; Toesca 1942; Coletti 1949, 41–56; Toesca 1951, 446–470; Longhi 1948; Salvini 1952, 24–34. Carlo Carrà who ascribed the Legend to the St Cecilia Master was the only exception, see Carrà 1924, 73–74. 204 Gnudi 1958. Cf. Gardner and Mahon 1981, 304: ‘This remains in many ways the most persuasive and temperate statement of the ‘inclusive’ school of opinion, which would see the fresco cycle of the Legend of Saint Francis in the Upper Church at Assisi as the foundation of the early career of Giotto’. Gnudi sent Meiss a copy of his book, see APCG. Letter from Millard Meiss to Cesare Gnudi, 29 February 1960: ‘I thank you warmly for the gift of your splendid Giotto, which, as you know, I admire greatly’. 205 Gnudi 1959. Before Gnudi, Peter Murray analysed the literary sources in support of Giotto’s attribution and concluded that they were too accurate not to be taken into consideration (Murray 1953). 206 Gnudi 1971. Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Cesare Gnudi to Millard Meiss, 23 August 1971. 207 Battisti 1960, 59–65.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

33

text largely discredited by the new Franciscan trend. To account for the stylistic gap between Assisi and Padua, Decio Gioseff focussed on Giotto’s Riminese works which would, to his mind, ‘reasonably fll the most unsettling void’ in the artist’s career.209 A comparison with the frescoes in Florence, on the other hand, permitted to conclude that the Isaac Master was the author of the Legend.210 Gioseff’s teacher, Roberto Salvini mentioned Meiss’s ‘intelligent, albeit highly debatable’ essay in the second edition of his 1952 monograph published in 1962.211 The two scholars would in the following years become close friends but never discussed the matter in their letters. When Meiss received an honorary degree from the University of Florence in 1968, Salvini outlined the scholar’s career and works in a compelling laudatio, but Giotto and Assisi was only remembered for the ‘originality of its method’, with no further comment on the theory defended therein.212 This contention saw Meiss once more on the path of Longhi’s ‘patrols’, in Gnudi’s words.213 But it was the studies on the Pisan School of Traini defeating the Bolognese ‘artistic colony’, so close to Longhi’s heart, that had brought the two scholars head to head.214 Even if they did not agree on the attribution of the Life of St Francis, Longhi did credit Meiss with identifying the Isaac Master as Giotto, and the Longhian cohorts followed suit.215 Ferdinando Bologna emphasised the identifcation between Giotto and the Isaac Master to second the opinions of the inclusivist school.216 In his review of Meiss’s Giotto and Assisi, as well as in a short monograph on the Tuscan master, Giovanni Previtali accepted the Giotto-Isaac Master hypothesis but contended the artist only painted certain parts of the Legend and left the rest to his workshop.217 In the following Giotto e la sua bottega, Previtali rejected the ‘romantic concept of personality or authorship’ altogether and rather considered the whole cycle as a collective work supervised by Giotto. Previtali maintained that Assisi marked the beginning of a stylistic development towards realism and a plastic defnition of volumes, which Giotto gradually ‘educated’ his audience in Rimini to, and brought to its full accomplishment in the Scrovegni Chapel.218 Carlo Volpe remarked that Meiss’s ‘singularly conciliatory’ stance on the Isaac Master stood him in a good stead with the Italian 208

208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218

Gabrielli 1960. Gioseff 1961, 11: ‘riempire ragionevolmente il più inquietante vuoto dell’itinerario giottesco’. Cf. also Gioseff 1963, 104–109. Salvini 19622, 47–48. The book printed in January could not have mentioned The Painting of the Life of St Francis in Assisi published in the same 1962. AAA, MMP. Account of the Scholarly Record of Millard Meiss delivered by Professor Roberto Salvini of the University of Florence at the convocation held for the award of Honorary Litt. D. 16 May 1968. AAA, MMP. Letter from Cesare Gnudi to Millard Meiss, 23 August 1971: ‘pattuglie longhiane’. Ibid.: ‘Questi pisani stanno contrattaccando e sgominando (guidati dal Meiss) i poveri bolognesi, ormai a rimorchio’. AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 15 May 1963. Cf. also Longhi 1961, 18–19. Bologna 1962, 136–138. Ferdinando Bologna also played down the impact of Cavallini on Giotto. Previtali 1962; Previtali 1965, 2–3. Previtali 1967. The author claimed Giotto in Padua had become an accomplished bourgeois, a social ascent that coincided with a stylistic development towards classicism, thus adopting a markedly Antalian stance. Also see Gosebruch 1969; Bellosi 1985, 43. When Meiss received a copy of Previtali’s book, he commented: ‘I see we have many common interests and I shall fnd the study of the book a very engrossing experience’ (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Giovanni Previtali, 24 September 1968).

34

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

inclusivist camp.219 But such a theory was equally contested by others like Angiola M. Romanini, who preferred to leave the Isaac Master an unsolved riddle and simply allude to someone close to Arnolfo di Cambio.220 Finally, Luciano Bellosi in La pecora di Giotto forced art scholarship to ‘dismantle and then rebuild the complex edifce of hypothesis surrounding Assisi’.221 He opined that Giotto and his workshop painted the St Francis frescoes and dated the cycle before 1295. Such a time lapse and the different patronage would explain the stylistic distance from the Scrovegni Chapel. Lastly, Bellosi reaffrmed the absolute centrality of the connection between Rome and Assisi, which was where Meiss and Offner disagreed, making the former ‘a not too convinced separatista’.222 Bellosi was therefore mostly interested in discrediting Offner’s ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’ and years later he described it as ‘the mistake of a great art historian who insisted on splitting hairs’.223

The Sharp Eye of a Connoisseur and the Acute Mind of a Scientist Not only did he pursue the artistic problems of Duecento and Trecento art up to his later years, but Meiss also showed a theoretical interest in connoisseurship. Albeit sharing the pragmatic scepticism towards conceptualisation of his fellow American art historians, he manifested the intention of writing a historical outline of connoisseurship in the 1970s.224 As we learn from a letter to Craig Hugh Smyth, Meiss intended to deliver the paper ‘On the History and Principles of Connoisseurship’ for the Wrightsman Lectures, but he was forced by his poor health to postpone and died before he could complete it.225 Even though both the manuscript and the notes for this lecture have not yet been uncovered, one can imagine Meiss would have investigated the origins of connoisseurship and analysed the following European and American developments. Perhaps to that end, in July 1969, Meiss sent a request to Carlo Volpe to view the doctoral thesis on Berenson written by a student of his, Alberto Montanari.226 Also, the correspondence with Alessandro Bettagno mentions that Meiss consulted Giovanni

219 220 221 222

223 224

225

226

Volpe 1983, 234. Boskovits expressed a similar opinion (Boskovits 1971, 40–41). Romanini 1987; Romanini 1989. Cf. also Pesenti 1977; Tomei 1995. Bellosi 1985; Cannon 1988, 701. For a recent critical reappraisal, see Bartalini 2015. Bellosi 1985, 143, note 57. That Meiss was not entirely aligned with Offner’s position was already clear in an early article on the frescoes in Béziers, in which he ascribed the paintings in the Holy Spirit Chapel to a Roman team close to Cavallini strongly infuenced by Giotto – and namely his Legend of St Francis; see Meiss 1937, 284. Bellosi 2000, 38–39: ‘l’errore di un grande storico dell’arte che ha preteso di spaccare il capello in quattro’. Maybe Meiss chose to analyse the historical foundations of connoisseurship because Panofsky had in a way already done so for iconology and the latter approach was being critically reappraised in the course of the 1960s starting from the International Congress of Art History in Bonn (1964). AAA, MMP, Wrightsman Lectures fle. Letter from Millard Meiss to Craig H. Smyth, 28 September 1970; minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Henk W. van Os, 24 January 1972: ‘Then there is the general problem that I must complete my last big French volume, and then without delay start preparing the Wrightsman book or lectures, which I am to deliver in 1974 and about which I have done hitherto nothing at all’. Especially since this request dated back to July 1969 (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Carlo Volpe, 15 July 1969).

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

35

Battista Cavalcaselle’s notebooks in the Marciana Library in Venice. Around the same time, the Princeton scholar was invited to a conference for the 150th anniversary of Cavalcaselle’s birth organised by Giuseppe Fiocco at the Cini Foundation in Venice in autumn 1970, but he was equally unable to attend.228 Fiocco was also thinking of showcasing Cavalcaselle’s drawings in the notebooks, a project that, when it came to fruition 1973, marked the critical re-evaluation of the Italian art historian.229 Later that year, Bettagno from the Cini Foundation sent Meiss a copy of the exhibition catalogue together with the folder ‘Cavalcaselle e Vienna’, which the latter may have used for his unwritten historical outline of Kennerschaft.230 Even after the epiphany of iconology, Meiss’s early training as a connoisseur remained an integral component of his method. This did not go unnoticed by Carl Nordenfalk, when he praised his ‘sharp eye of a connoisseur’ and ‘acute mind of a scientist’ in the letter he wrote endorsing the choice of Meiss as a successor of Panofsky at Princeton.231 His ability to combine the perceptiveness of formal values with the contextualisation of the work of art made a lasting impression on Michel Laclotte when he met Meiss for the frst time in Paris in 1956, as he later recalled: 227

He was at once able to tell if that painting was or not by Pietro Lorenzetti, but at the same time to place it within a well-studied socio-economic, religious and intellectual system. […] He was an exquisite man.232

227 Alessandro Bettagno, who in those years was studying the Italian connoisseur at the Cini Foundation in Venice, mentioned this to Meiss (AAA, MMP. Letter from Alessadro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 17 April 1970): ‘Fammi sapere di tutto quello che hai bisogno per il Cavalcaselle e cercherò subito di aiutarTi. Proprio pochi giorni fa, guardando le carte del Cavalcaselle, ho scoperto in un suo taccuino di viaggio il Tuo … biglietto da visita. Cosa che ho trovato molto bella e spiritosa!’ (‘Let me know of anything you may need for the Cavalcaselle and I will do my best to help you. Just a few days ago, looking at Cavalcaselle’s papers, I found in one of his travel notebooks Your … card. I thought this was a very nice and funny thing!’). 228 In the early 1950s, Ragghianti wrote the frst study that marked the beginning of a critical re-examination of Cavalcaselle, to which Giuseppe Fiocco immediately responded; see Bettagno 1973. Cf. also Ragghianti 1952; Fiocco 1952. 229 Moretti 1973. On Cavalcaselle and his critical fortune, refer to Levi 1988 and Tommasi 1998. 230 AAA, MMP. Letter from Alessadro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 3 November 1973. As Meiss wrote to Henk van Os: ‘Then there is the general problem that I must complete my last big French volume, and then without delay start preparing the Wrightsman book or lectures, which I am to deliver in 1974 and about which I have done hitherto nothing at all’ (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Henk W. Van Os, 24 January 1972). 231 Panofsky 2006, 1072–1073: 1072 [Carl Nordenfalk – Erwin Panofsky, 19 November 1956]. 232 Laclotte 2003, 71: ‘Il [Meiss] était tout à la fois capable de dire si telle peinture était de Pietro Lorenzetti ou pas, mais en même temps de la replacer dans un ensemble socio-économique, religieux et intellectuel parfaitement étudié. […] C’était un homme exquis’.

36

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Bibliography Ackerman, J.S. and Carpenter, R. (eds.), Art and Archaeology (Englewood Cliffs NY: Prentice Hall, 1963). Ambrosini Massari, A., Bacchi, A., Benati, D. and Galli, A. (eds.), Il mestiere del conoscitore: Roberto Longhi (Bologna: Fondazione Federico Zeri, 2017). Andaloro, M. and Cordaro, M. (eds.), Per Cesare Brandi, seminar proceedings, Rome 30–31 May 1984 (Rome: De Luca, 1988). Arcangeli, F., ‘Affreschi veronesi di Jacopino di Francesco’, in: Paragone I, 9 (1950), 35–42. Ars XLIV 1 (2011) [monographic issue on Max Dvořák]. Aurenhammer, H.H., ‘Max Dvořák (1874–1921)’, in: U. Pfsterer (ed.), Klassiker der Kunstgeschichte, 2 vols. (Munich: Beck, 2007–2008), I, 214–226. Aurenhammer, H.H., ‘Max Dvořák and the History of Medieval Art‘, in: Journal of Art Historiography 2 (2010), http://arthistoriography.fles.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_152 487_en.pdf. Baccheschi, E., L’opera completa di Duccio (Milan: Rizzoli, 1972). Bagnoli, A., Bartalini, R., Bellosi, L. et al. (eds.), Duccio. Alle origini della pittura senese, exhibition catalogue, Siena 2003–2004 (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2003). Bakoš, J., ‘Max Dvořák – A Neglected Re-Visionist‘, in: M. Theisen (ed.), Wiener Schule: Erinnerung und Perspektiven (Vienna– Cologne –Weimar: Böhlau, 2005), 55–71. Bartalini, R., ‘Luciano Bellosi (1936–2011)’, in: Prospettiva 139–140 (2010–2012), 2–3. Bartalini, R., ‘Postfazione’, in: L. Bellosi (ed.), La pecora di Giotto (Milan: Abscondita, 2015), 357–382. Bastek, A. and Müller, A. von (eds.), Kunst, Küche und Kalkül. Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785–1843) und die Entdeckung der Kulturgeschichte, exhibition catalogue (Petersberg: Imhof, 2010). Battezzati, C., ‘Carl Friedrich von Rumohr e l’arte nell’Italia settentrionale’, in: Concorso 3 (2009), 6–23. Battisti, E., Cimabue (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Italiano, 1963). Battisti, E., Giotto (Geneva: Skira, 1960). Bauch, K., ‘Die geschichtliche Bedeutung von Giottos Frühstil’, in: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz VII, 1 (1953), 43–64. Bellosi, L., ‘Da Spinello Aretino a Lorenzo Monaco’, in: Paragone XVI, 187 (1965), 18–43. Bellosi, L., ‘Roberto Longhi e l’arte del Trecento, in: G. Previtali (ed.), L’arte di scrivere sull’arte. Roberto Longhi nella cultura del nostro tempo (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1982), 27–36; republ. in: id: “I vivi parean vivi”. Scritti di storia dell’arte italiana del Duecento e del Trecento (Florence: Centro Di, 2006), 454–457. Bellosi, L., ‘La rappresentazione dello spazio’, in: G. Previtali (ed.), Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1983), IV, 6–39. Bellosi, L., La pecora di Giotto (Turin: Einaudi, 1985). Bellosi, L., ‘Per un contesto cimabuesco senese: b) Rinaldo da Siena e Guido di Graziano’, in: Prospettiva 62 (1991), 15–28. Bellosi, L., Cimabue (Milan: Federico Motta, 1998). Bellosi, L., ‘Giotto e la Basilica Superiore di Assisi’, in: A. Tartuferi (ed.), Giotto. Bilancio critico di sessant’anni di ricerche, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Giunti, 2000), 33–54. Bellosi, L., ‘The Function of the Rucellai Madonna in the Church of Santa Maria Novella’, in: V.M. Schmidt (ed.), Italian Painting of the Duecento and Trecento, symposium proceedings, Florence 5–6 June–Washington 16 October 1998 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2002), 147–159. Bellosi, L., Buffalmacco e il Trionfo della Morte (Milan: Five Continents, 2003; 1st ed. Turin: Einaudi, 1974). Bellosi, L., “I vivi parean vivi”. Scritti di storia dell’arte italiana del Duecento e del Trecento (Florence: Centro Di, 2006).

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

37

Bellosi, L., ‘Testimonianze su Carlo Volpe’, in: Paragone LXII, 101–102 (2012), 14–20. Berenson, B., The Florentine Painters of the Renaissance (New York: Putnam, 1896). Berenson, B., ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’, in: Art in America V, 6 (1917), 259–275; VI, 1 (1917), 25–52. Berenson, B., Italian Pictures of the Renaissance. A List of the Principal Artists and their Works with an Index of Places (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1932). Berenson, B., Italian Pictures of the Renaissance. A List of the Principal Artists and their Works with an Index of Places. Florentine School, 2 vols. (London: Phaidon, 1963). Berenson, B. and Longhi, R., Lettere e scartafacci 1912–1957, ed. by C. Garboli (Milan: Adelphi, 1993). Bernabò, M., ‘Un episodio della demonizzazione dell'arte bizantina in Italia: la campagna contro Strzygowski, Toesca e Lionello Venturi sulla stampa fascista nel 1930’, in: Byzantinische Zeitschrift XCIV, 1 (2001), 1–10. Bernabò, M., Ossessioni bizantine e cultura artistica in Italia. Tra D’Annunzio, fascismo e dopoguerra (Naples: Liguori Editore, 2003). Bernabò, M., ‘Roma, Bisanzio, Castelseprio: aggiornamenti dai manoscritti greci miniati di Giobbe’, in: A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo: immagini e ideologie, Conference proceedings, Parma 23–27 September 2002 (Milan: Electa, 2005), 191–197. Bertelli, C., ‘Castelseprio e Milano’, in: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo (ed.), Bisanzio, Roma e l’Italia nell’Alto Medioevo (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1988), 869–906. Bertelli, G. and Bertelli, P., ‘Pietro Toesca, cenni biografci’, in: E. Parlato (ed.), Altro rinascimento. Il giovane Filippo Lippi e la Madonna di Tarquinia (Milan: Offcina Libraria, 2017), 112–116. Bettagno, A., ‘Cavalcaselle a San Giorgio’, in: Arte Veneta XXVII, 1973, 356–357. Betthausen, P., ‘Rintelen, Friedrich’, in: P. Betthausen, P.H. Feist and C. Fork (eds.), Metzler Kunsthistoriker Lexikon: zweihundert Porträts deutschsprachiger Autoren aus vier Jahrhunderten (Stuttgart– Weimar: Metzler, 20072), 348–349. Bettini, S., ‘Studi recenti sull’arte bizantina’, in: La Critica d’Arte VII, II 28 (1949), 135–147. Blower, J., ‘Max Dvořák and Austrian Denkmalpfege at War‘, in: Journal of Art Historiography 1 (2009), http://arthistoriography.fles.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_1 39127_en.pdf. Bognetti, G.P., Chierici, G. and De Capitani D’Arzago, A. (eds.), Santa Maria di Castelseprio (Milan: Fondazione Treccani degli Alferi per la storia di Milano, 1948). Bologna, F., ‘Roberto Longhi, Giudizio sul Duecento’, in: Lo Spettatore Italiano II, 3 (1949), 50–52. Bologna, F., ‘Ciò che resta di un capolavoro giovanile di Duccio (Nuovi studi sulla formazione del maestro)’, in: Paragone XI, 125 (1960), 3–31. Bologna, F., La pittura italiana delle origini (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1962). Bologna, F., ‘The Crowning Disc of a Duecento ‘Crucifxion’ and Other Points Relevant to Duccio’s Relationship to Cimabue’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXV, 963 (1983), 330–340. Bortolotti, L., Cieri Via, C., Di Monte, M.G. and Di Monte, M. (eds.), Meyer Schapiro e i metodi della storia dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 22–24 February 2006 (Rome: Mimesis, 2010). Boskovits, M., ‘Nuovi studi su Giotto e Assisi’, in: Paragone XXII, 261 (1971), 34–56. Boskovits, M., ‘Cenni di Pepo’, in: Dizionario Biografco degli Italiani (Rome: Treccani, 1979), XXIII, 541–542. Boskovits, M., ‘Entry no 81’, in: M. Medica (ed.), Duecento. Forme e colori del Medioevo a Bologna, exhibition catalogue (Venice: Marsilio, 2000), 277. Boskovits, M., ‘Da Duccio a Simone Martini’, in: A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo: la Chiesa e il Palazzo, Conference proceedings, Parma 20–24 September 2005 (Milan: Electa, 2007), 565–582.

38

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Boskovits, M., ‘Per Luciano Bellosi’, in: I. Droandi (ed.), “In nome di buon pittore”: Spinello e il suo tempo, conference proceedings, Arezzo 8 November 2011 (Florence: Edifr, 2016), 27–44. Brandi, C., ‘Giotto’, in: Le Arti I, 1 (1938), 5–21; 2 (1939), 116–131. Brandi, C., Duccio (Florence: Vallecchi Editore, 1951). Brown, D.A., ‘Entry’, in: M. Boskovits and D.A. Brown (eds.), Italian Paintings of the Fifteenth Century (New York – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 671–674. Bucci, M., ‘Un San Michele Arcangelo di Francesco Traini nel Museo Nazionale di Pisa’, in: Paragone XIII, 147 (1962), 40–43. Busuioceanu, A., ‘Pietro Cavallini e la pittura romana del Duecento e del Trecento’, in: Ephemeris Dacoromana III (1925), 259–406. Caglioti, F., De Marchi, A. and Nova, A. (eds.), I conoscitori tedeschi tra Otto e Novecento (Milan: Offcina Libraria, 2018). Caleca, A., ‘Per un proflo biografco di Carlo L. Ragghianti’, in: M. Scotini (ed.), Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti e il carattere cinematografco della visione, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Charta, 2000), 52–66. Callegari, P. and Gabrielli, E. (eds.), Pietro Toesca e la fotografa: “saper vedere” (Milan: Skira, 2009). Callmann, E., ‘Thebaid Studies’, in: Antichità Viva XIV, 3 (1975), 3–22. Camille, M., ‘“How New York Stole the Idea of Romanesque Art”: Medieval, Modern and Postmodern in Meyer Schapiro’, in: Oxford Art Journal XVII, 1 (1994), 65–75. Cannon, J., ‘Luciano Bellosi, La pecora di Giotto’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXX, 1026 (1988), 701–702. Carli, E., Duccio (Milan – Florence: Electa, 1952). Carli, E., La pittura senese (Milan: Electa, 1955). Carli, E., La pittura pisana del Trecento, 2 vols. (Milan: Martello, 1958–1961). Carli, E., Capolavori del Museo di Pisa (Turin: Eri, 1961a). Carli, E., Duccio di Buoninsegna (Milan: Aldo Martello, 1961b). Carli, E., ‘Recuperi e restauri senesi. I – Nella cerchia di Duccio’, in: Bollettino d’Arte L, 1–2 (1965), 94–99. Carrà, C., Giotto (Rome: Casa Editrice d’Arte Valori Plastici, 1924). Castelnuovo, E., ‘Mille vie della pittura italiana’, in: id. (ed.), La pittura in Italia. Il Duecento e il Trecento (Milan: Electa, 1986), 7–24. Cavazzini, L., ‘Luciano Bellosi’, in: A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo, natura e fgura, conference proceedings, Parma 20–25 September 2011 (Milan: Skira, 2015), 769–771. Cecchi, E., Giotto (Milan: Hoepli, 1937). Cecchi, E., Pietro Lorenzetti (Milan: Treves, 1930). Chastel, A., ‘Chronique de l’art ancien et moderne. Fin du Moyen Age et Renaissance’, in: La Revue des Arts I, 4 (1951), 251–256. Chiodo, S., ‘Il Corpus of Florentine Painting da Richard Offner a Miklós Boskovits’, in: Ars Hungarica XLI, 3 (2015), 301–308. Cohen, R., Bernard Berenson: A Life in Picture Trade (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013). Cole, B., ‘Richard Offner and Modern Trecento Scholarship’, in: R. Offner, Studies in Florentine Painting. The Fourteenth Century (New York: Junius Press, 19722), unpaged. Coletti, L., Gli affreschi della Basilica di Assisi (Bergamo: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafche, 1949). Connors, J. (ed.), Bernard Berenson: Formation and Heritage (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2014). Conti, A., ‘John White, Duccio, Tuscan Art and the Medieval Workshop’, in: Prospettiva 23 (1980), 98–101. Contini, G., ‘Sul metodo di Roberto Longhi’, in: Belfagor IV, 2 (1949), 205–210.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

39

Cooke, J., ‘Nota’, in: E. Panofsky, ‘Imago Pietatis. Un contributo alla storia tipologica dell’Uomo dei dolori e della Maria Mediatrix (1927)’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 10 (2015), 9–74. Cooper, D. and Robson, J., The Making of Assisi : The Pope, the Franciscans and the Painting of the Basilica (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 2013). Crivello, F. (ed.), Pietro Toesca all’Università di Torino: a un secolo dall’istituzione della cattedra di Storia dell’arte medievale e moderna 1907–1908/ 2007–2008, symposium proceedings, Turin 17 October 2008 (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2011). Croce, B., ‘Roberto Longhi, Arte italiana ed arte tedesca’, in: La Critica XL, 3 (1942), 161–162. Crowe, J.A. and Cavalcaselle, G.B., A New History of Painting in Italy, 3 vols. (London: Murray, 1864). Crowe, J.A. and Cavalcaselle, G.B., A History of Painting in Italy. Umbria Florence and Siena from the Second to the Sixteenth Century, vol. II Giotto and the Giottesque (London: Murray, 1923). Cumming, R. (ed.), My dear BB. The Letters of Bernard Berenson and Kenneth Clark, 1925– 1959 (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 2015). Cutler, A., ‘La questione bizantina nella pittura italiana: una visione alternativa della maniera greca’, in: C. Bertelli (ed.), La pittura in Italia. L’Altomedioevo (Milan: Electa, 1994), 335–354. Davidson, B.F., The Frick Collection. An Illustrated Catalogue, 8 vols. (New York: The Frick Collection, 1968). De Benedictis, C., La pittura senese 1330–1370 (Florence: Salimbeni, 1979). De Marchi, A., ‘Luciano Bellosi (1936–2011)’, in: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instutes in Florenz LIV, 1 (2010–2012), 207–210. De Marchi, A., ‘“Il bel colore gemmato su fondo d’oro”. La collezione di Riccardo Gualino fra il Castello di Cereseto e la casa di via Galliari, gli acquisti di “primitivi” prima e dopo Lionello Venturi’, in: A. Bava and G. Bertolino (eds.), I mondi di Riccardo Gualino: collezionista e imprenditore, exhibition catalogue (Turin: Allemandi, 2019), 111–125. De Spirito, G., ‘A propos des peintures murales de l'église Santa Maria foris portas de Castelseprio’, in: Cahiers archéologiques XLVI (1998), 23–64. Deuchler, F., Duccio (Milan: Electa, 1984). DeWald, E.T., ‘The Master of the Ovile Madonna’, in: Art Studies I (1923), 45–54. Di Benedetto, A., ‘Memoria di un’inimicizia: omaggio a Berenson e a Longhi’, in: Intersezioni XVII 2 (1997), 315–323. Dilk, E.Y., Das “verzweifelte allerhand Talent”. Neue Studien zu Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (Hildesheim: Olms, 2010). Donati, P.P., ‘Il punto su Manfredino d’Alberto’, in: Bollettino d’Arte LVII, 3–4 (1972), 149. Dvořák, M., ‘Das Rätsel der Kunst der Brüder van Eyck’, in: Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien XXIV, 5 (1903), 161–319. Fiocco, G., ‘Rintelen (Friedrich): Giotto und die Giotto-Apokryphen’, in: L‘Arte XV 30, (1912), 397. Fiocco, G., ‘Gli appunti di Giambattista Cavalcaselle’, in: Arte Veneta VI (1952), 208–210. Fisher, M.R., ‘Assisi, Padua, and the Boy in the Tree’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVIII, 1 (1956), 47–52. Fisher, M.R., ‘Millard Meiss, Giotto and Assisi’, in: Renaissance News XIV, 4 (1961), 252–254. Förster, E., Beiträge zur neuern Kunstgeschichte (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1835). Frick Symington Sanger, M., Helen Clay Frick: Bittersweet Heiress (Pittsburgh NY: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2008). Gabrielli, E., ‘Pietro Toesca: il riscatto del Medioevo italiano’, in: A. Masi (ed.), L’occhio del critico: storia dell’arte in Italia tra Otto e Novecento (Florence: Vallecchi, 2009), 41–56. Gabrielli, M., Giotto e l’origine del realismo (Rome: Bardi, 1960). Galassi, C. (ed.), Critica d’arte e tutela in Italia: fgure e protagonisti nel secondo dopoguerra, conference proceedings, Perugia 17–19 November 2015 (Perugia: Aguaplano, 2017).

40

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Gardner, J. and Mahon, D., ‘Cesare Gnudi’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXIII, 938 (1981), 304, 307. Gardner, J., ‘Obituary. Edward B. Garrison’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXIV, 947 (1982), 96–97. Garrison, E.B., Italian Romanesque Panel Painting: An Illustrated Index (Florence: Olschki, 1949). Garrison, E.B., ‘The Role of Criticism in the Historiography of Painting’, in: College Art Journal X, 2 (1951), 110–120. Gibbs, R., ‘Cimabue’, in: J. Turner (ed.), The Grove’s Dictionary of Art, 34 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1996), VII, 319. Gioseff, D., ‘Lo svolgimento del linguaggio giottesco da Assisi a Padova: il soggiorno riminese e la componente ravennate’, in: Arte Veneta XV (1961), 11–24. Gioseff, D., Giotto architetto (Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1963). Gnudi, C., Giotto (Milan: Aldo Martello, 1958). Gnudi, C., ‘Il passo di Riccobaldo Ferrarese relativo a Giotto e il problema della sua autenticità’, in: P.A. Underwood (ed.), Studies in the History of Art Dedicated to William E. Suida on his Eightieth Birthday (London: Phaidon, 1959), 26–30. Gordon, D., ‘The Virgin and Child by Cimabue at the National Gallery’, in: Apollo CLVII, 496 (2003), 32–36. Gosebruch, M., ‘Giovanni Previtali, Giotto e la sua bottega’, in: Kunstchronik XX, 9 (1969), 262. Grasman, E., ‘Raimond van Marle (1887–1936): een kort leven in de kunst’, in: Incontri XVI, 3–4 (2001), 167–179. Harris, J., ‘In Honour of Osvald Sirén, and Recollections’, in: Apollo CXXXIV, 354 (1991), 104–107. Heckscher, W.S., ‘Erwin Panofsky: A Curriculum Vitae’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University XXVIII, 1 (1969), 4–21. Hemingway, A., ‘Meyer Schapiro and Marxism in the 1930s’, in: Oxford Art Journal XVII, 1 (1994), 13–29. Hemingway, A., ‘Meyer Schapiro: Marxism, Science and Art’, in: id. (ed.), Marxism and the History of Art. From William Morris to the New Left (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 123–142. Hermanin, F., ‘Gli affreschi di Pietro Cavallini a Santa Cecilia in Trastevere’, in: Le gallerie nazionali italiane V (1902), 61–115. Hermanin, F., ‘Il maestro romano di Giotto’, in: Almanacco di Roma (1924), 148–161. Honour, H., ‘Introduction’, in: O. Sirén, China and Gardens of Europe of the Eighteenth Century (Washington DC: Dumbarton Oaks, 1990), v–ix. Hope, H.R., ‘Richard Offner (1879–1965)’, in: The Art Journal XXV, 1 (1965), 54. Hoving, T.P.F., ‘The Berenson Scandals. An Interview with Colin Simpson’, in: Connoisseur CCXVI, 897 (1986), 132–137. Hutton, E., Assisi and Umbria Revisited (London: Hollis and Carter, 1953). Hutton, E., ‘F. Mason Perkins’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVII, 633 (1955), 391–392. Iselt, K., ‘Robert Oertel (1907-1981) – Kustos der Gemäldegalerie Dresden 1939–1946‘, in: Dresdener Kunstblätter LVI, 1 (2012), 45–54. Isermeyer, C.A., ‘Robert Oertel, 1907–1981‘, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XLV, 4 (1982), 437–440. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism LV, 1 (1997) [monographic issue on Meyer Schapiro]. Kleinbauer, W.E. and Slavens, T.P. (eds.), Research Guide to the History of Western Art (Chicago IL: American Library Association, 1982). Laclotte, M., Histoires des musées. Souvenirs d’un conservateur (Paris: Editions Scala, 2003). Laclotte, M., ‘Luciano Bellosi (1935–2011)’, in: Revue de l’Art 174 (2011), 109. Ladis, A. (ed.), A Discerning Eye. Essays on Early Italian Painting by Richard Offner (University Park PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998).

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

41

Lavagnino, E., Storia dell’arte medievale italiana (Turin: UTET, 1936). Levi, D., Cavalcaselle. Il pioniere della conservazione dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1988). Lochoff, L., ‘Gli affreschi dell’antico e del nuovo testamento nella basilica superiore di Assisi’, in: Rivista d’Arte II, IX, 3–4 (1937), 240–270. Longhi, R., ‘Me Pinxit’, in: Pinacotheca I, 2 (1928), 74. Longhi, R., ‘Vitale da Bologna e i suoi affreschi nel Camposanto di Pisa (1931)’, in: Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz IV (1932–1934), 135–137; republ. in: Paragone I 5 (1950), 32–35 and published in full in: id., Lavori in Valpadana (Florence: Sansoni, 1973), 207–226. Longhi, R., La pittura padana del Trecento (Bologna: Università, 1935); republ. in: id., Lavori in Valpadana cit., 3–90. Longhi, R., ‘Giudizio sul Duecento’, in: Proporzioni II (1948), 5–54; republ. in: id., Giudizio sul Duecento e ricerche sul Trecento nell’Italia centrale (Florence: Sansoni, 1974), 1–53. Longhi, R., ‘Mostra della pittura bolognese del Trecento’, in: Paragone I, 5 (1950), 5–44; republ. in: id., Lavori in Valpadana cit., 155–169. Longhi, R., ‘Prima Cimabue, poi Duccio’, in: Paragone II, 23 (1951), 8–13. Longhi, R., ‘Omaggio a Benedetto Croce’, in: Paragone III, 35 (1952), 5. Longhi, R., ‘Un dossale a St. Jean-Cap-Ferrat’, in: Paragone XII, 141 (1961), 11–19. Longhi, R., ‘Qualche altro appunto sul Traini e suo seguito’, in: Paragone XIII, 147 (1962), 43–45. Louchheim, A.B., ‘Rare Art Acquired by the Frick Museum’, in: The New York Times (1 February 1951a), 27. Louchheim, A.B., ‘Splendid Trinity for the Frick’, in: ArtNews XLIX, 10 (1951b), 20–22. Maginnis, H.B.J., ‘Assisi Revisited: Notes on Recent Observations’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXVII, 869 (1975), 511–517. Maginnis, H.B.J., ‘Luciano Bellosi, Buffalmacco e il Trionfo della Morte’, in: The Art Bulletin LVIII, 1 (1976), 126–128. Maginnis, H.B.J., ‘The Role of Perceptual Learning in Connoisseurship: Morelli, Berenson, and Beyond’, in: Art History XIII, 1 (1990), 104–117. Maginnis, H.B.J., Painting in the Age of Giotto. A Historical Reevaluation (University Park PA: Pennsylvania University Press, 1997). Maginnis, H.B.J., ‘In Search of an Artist’, in: A. Derbes and M. Sandona (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Giotto, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 10–31. Marangoni, M., ‘La Crocifssione del Camposanto di Pisa’, in: L’Arte XXXIV, II 1 (1931), 3–29. Markója, C., ‘János (Johannes) Wilde and Max Dvořák, or Can we speak of a Budapest school of art history?’ in: Journal of Art Historiography 17 (2017), https://arthistoriography.word press.com/17-dec17/. Marle, R. van, Recherches sur l’iconographie de Giotto et de Duccio (Strasbourg: J.H.Ed. Heitz, 1920). Marle, R. van, ‘La scuola del Cavallini a Rimini’, in: Bollettino d’Arte I, 1 (1921), 248–261. Mascolo, M.M., ‘“Una spuntatura affrettata”: Arte italiana e arte tedesca di Roberto Longhi’, in: Prospettiva 155–156 (2014), 151–166. Mather Jr., F.J., The Isaac Master. A Reconstruction of the Work of Gaddo Gaddi (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1932). Mather Jr., F.J., ‘Giotto’s St. Francis Series at Assisi Historically Considered’, in: The Art Bulletin XXV, 2 (1943), 97–111. Middeldorf, U., ‘Richard Offner in memoriam magistri et amici’, in: Kunstchronik XIX (1966), 21–23. Monciatti, A., Alle origini dell’arte nostra. La Mostra giottesca del 1937 a Firenze (Milan: Il Saggiatore, 2010). Moretti, L. (ed.), G.B. Cavalcaselle: disegni da antichi maestri, exhibition catalogue (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1973). Morey, C.R., ‘Art and the History of Art in Italy’, in: College Art Journal X, 3 (1951), 219–222.

42

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Nicholson, A., ‘Again the St. Francis Series’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVI, 3 (1944), 193–196. Nicolai, F., ‘More Than an Expatriate Scholar: Frederick Mason Perkins as art adviser, agent and intermediary for American collectors of the twentieth century’, in: Journal of the history of collections XXVIII, 2 (2016), 311–325. Noszlopy, G.T., ‘Millard Meiss, Giotto and Assisi’, in: Art Journal XXVIII, 1 (1968), 120, 122. Oertel, R., ‘Wende der Giotto-Forschung’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XI, 1–2 (1943– 1944), 1–27. Oertel, R., Early Italian Painting to 1400 (London: Thames and Hudson, 1968); or. ed. id., Die Frühzeit der italienischen Malerei (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1953). Offner, R., ‘Italian Pictures at the New York Historical Society and Elsewhere, II’, in: Art in America VII, 5 (1919), 189–198. Offner, R., ‘A Remarkable Exhibition of Italian Paintings’, in: The Arts V, 5 (1924), 241–264. Offner, R., Italian Primitives at Yale University (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1927a). Offner, R., Studies in Florentine Painting. The Fourteenth Century (New York: Junius Press, 1927b). Offner, R., ‘Four Panels, a Fresco and a Problem’, in: The Burlington Magazine LIV, 314 (1929), 224–245. Offner, R. (ed.), A critical and Historical Corpus of Florentine Painting, 14 vols. (New York: Institute of Fine Arts, 1930–1981). Offner, R., ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’, in: The Burlington Magazine LXXIV, 435 (1939), 259–268; LXXV, 438 (1939), 96–113; republ. in: Ladis 1998, 61–88. Offner, R., ‘Guido da Siena and A.D. 1221’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts XXXVIII (1950), 61–90. Offner, R., ‘Connoisseurship’, in: ArtNews L, 1 (1951), 24–25, 62–63. Offner, R., ‘Preface’, in: G. Kaftal, Iconography of the Saints in Tuscan Painting (Florence: Sansoni, 1952), xi–xiii. Offner, R., ‘Restoration and Conservation’, in: Meiss IV (1963), 152–162. Pace, V., ‘La questione bizantina in alcuni monumenti dell’Italia altomedievale: la “perizia greca” nei “tempietti” di Cividale e del Clitumno, Santa Maria foris portas a Castelseprio e San Salvatore a Brescia, Santa Maria Antiqua a Roma’, in: A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo mediterraneo: l’Occidente, Bisanzio e l’Islam, conference proceedings, Parma 21–25 September 2004 (Milan: Electa, 2007), 215–223. Panofksy, E., ‘Imago Pietatis’, in: Festschrift für Max J. Friedländer zum 60. Geburtstage (Leipzig: Seeman, 1927), 261–308. Panofsky, E., Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell/ Gebers Förlag AB, 1960). Papenbrock, M., ‘Kurt Bauch in Freiburg 1933–1945’, in: Kunst und Politik V (2003), 195–215. Passini, M., ‘Arte italiana e arte tedesca nell’opera di Henry Thode’, in: S. Frommel and A. Brucculeri (eds.), L’idée du style dans l’historiographie artistique: variantes nationales et transmissions (Rome: Campisano, 2013), 273–283. Perkins, F.F.M., ‘Letter. Giotto and Assisi’, in: The Burlington Magazine LXXV, 437 (1939), 85. Pesenti, F.R., ‘Maestri arnolfani di Assisi’, in: Studi di storia delle arti (1977), 43–53. Petrioli, P.G., ‘Da Lord Lindsay a Bernard Berenson. La pittura senese nella storia dell’arte anglosassone’, in: M. Civai (ed.), Siena tra storia e mito nella cultura anglosassone (Siena: Betti Editrice, 1996), 38–51. Polzer, J., ‘Aristotle, Mohammed and Nicholas V in Hell’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVI, 4 (1964), 457–469. Polzer, J., ‘Observations on known paintings and a new altarpiece by Francesco Traini’, in: Pantheon XXIX 5 (1971), 379–389. Polzer, J., ‘The “Triumph of St Thomas” panel in Santa Caterina, Pisa. Meaning and date’, in: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz XXXVII, 1 (1993), 29–70. Polzer, J., ‘Who is the Master of the Crucifxion in the Campo Santo of Pisa?’, in: Studi di Storia dell’Arte 21 (2010), 9–40.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

43

Polzer, J., ‘Michelangelo’s Sistine “Last Judgment” and Buffalmacco’s Murals in the Campo Santo of Pisa’, in: Artibus et Historiae XXV, 69 (2014), 53–77. Pope-Hennessy, J., ‘Proporzioni II’, in: The Burlington Magazine CX, 549 (1948), 359–360. Pope-Hennessy, J., ‘Recent Research’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCIV, 588 (1952), 82–87. Pope-Hennessy, J., ‘Mrs. Evelyn Sandberg-Vavala’, in: The Burlington Magazine CIII, 704 (1961), 466–467. Pope-Hennessy, J., ‘A Misft Master’, in: New York Review of Books XXVII, 18 (1980), 45–47. Pope-Hennessy, J., Learning to Look (London: Heinemann, 1991). Previtali, G., ‘Giotto and Assisi, di Millard Meiss’, in: Paragone XIII, 147 (1962), 63–65. Previtali, G., Gli affreschi di Giotto ad Assisi (Milan: Fabbri – Skira, 1965). Previtali, G., Giotto e la sua bottega (Milan: Fabbri Editori, 1967). Procacci, U., Sinopie e affreschi (Milan: Electa, 1961). Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Come lavorava un critico nell’Ottocento’, in: seleArte I, 2 (1952), 3–9. Ragghianti, C.L., Pittura del Dugento a Firenze (Florence: Stabilimento Tipolitografco Vallecchi, 1955). Rampley, M., ‘Max Dvořák: Art History and the Crisis of Modernity‘, in: Art History XXVI, 2 (2003), 214–237. Reist, I., ‘Helen Clay Frick: Charting her own Course’, in: ead. and R. Mamoli Zorzi (eds.), Power Underestimated: American Women Art Collectors (Venice: Marsilio, 2011), 161–183. Rintelen, F., Giotto und die Giotto-Apokryphen (Munich – Leipzig: Georg Müller, 1912). Robinon, D., ‘Alastair Smart (1922–1992)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXXV, 1084 (1993), 486. Rolf, S., ‘Appunti dall’archivio di un funzionario delle Belle Arti: Federico Hermanin da Cavallini a Caravaggio’, in: Bollettino d’Arte s. VI, LXXXV, 114 (2000), 1–28. Romanini, A.M., ‘Gli occhi di Isacco. Classicismo e curiosità scientifca tra Arnolfo di Cambio e Giotto’, in: Arte medievale I, 1–2 (1987), 1–43. Romanini, A.M., ‘Arnolfo all’origine di Giotto: l’enigma del Maestro di Isacco’, in: Storia dell’arte 65 (1989), 5–26. Rowland, B. Jr., ‘Review of Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, Millard Meiss’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXIV, 4 (1952), 319–322. Rumohr, C.F. von, Italienische Forschungen, ed. by J. von Schlosser (Frankfurt am Main: Frankfurters Verlags Anstalt, 19202). Salmi, M., ‘Per la storia della Pittura a Pistoia ed a Pisa’, in: Rivista d’Arte XIII, 4 (1931), 451–476. Salmi, M., ‘Le origini dell’arte di Giotto’, in: Rivista d’Arte XIX (1937), 193–220. Salmi, M. (ed.), Giotto e il suo tempo, conference proceedings, Assisi – Padua – Florence 24 September – 1 October 1967 (Rome: De Luca, 1971). Salvini, R., ‘Apologia di Bisanzio’, in: Rassegna d’Italia III, 11 (1948), 1132–1141; republ. in: id., Medioevo nordico e Medioevo mediterraneo. Raccolta di scritti (1934–1985) (Florence: Studio Per Edizioni Scelte, 1987), 289–298. Salvini, R., Tutta la pittura di Giotto (Milan: Rizzoli, 1952). Salvini, R., Tutta la pittura di Giotto (Milan: Rizzoli, 19622). Samuels, E., Bernard Berenson: The Making of a Legend (Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1987). Sandberg-Vavalà, E., La croce dipinta italiana e l’iconografa della Passione (Verona: Casa Editrice Apollo, 1929). Sandberg-Vavalà, E., L’iconografa della Madonna col Bambino nella pittura italiana del Dugento (Siena: Stabilimento d’arti grafche San Bernardino, 1934). Sandberg-Vavalà, E., Sienese Studies. The Development of the School of Painting of Siena (Florence: Olschki, 1953). Sauerländer, W., ‘Kurt Bauch’, in: Kunstchronik XXVIII (1975), 375–379.

44

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

Sauerländer, W., ‘The Great Outsider: Meyer Schapiro’, in: id. (ed.), Romanesque Art: Problems and Monuments, 2 vols. (London: Pindar Press, 2004), II, 833–849. Scarpellini, P., ‘Henry Thode, Francesco d’Assisi e le origini dell’arte del Rinascimento in Italia’, in: Commentari d’Arte I, 1 (1995), 69–72. Scarrocchia, S., Max Dvořák: conservazione e moderno in Austria (1905–1921) (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2009). Schapiro, M., ‘On an Italian Painting of the Flagellation of Christ in the Frick Collection’, in: M. Salmi (ed.), Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Lionello Venturi, 2 vols. (Rome: De Luca, 1956), I, 29–53. Schlosser, J. von, ‘Poesia e arte fgurative nel Trecento’, in: Critica d’Arte III, 3 (1938), 81–90. Schöne, W., ‘Studien zur Oberkirche von Assisi’, in: B. Hackelsberger, G. Himmelheber and M. Meier (eds.), Festschrift Kurt Bauch. Kunstgeschichtliche Beiträge zum 25. November 1957 (Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1957), 50–116. Secrest, M., Duveen: A Life in Art (New York: Knopf, 2004). Seidel, L., ‘“Shalom Yehudin!” Meyer Schapiro’s Early Years in Art History’, in: The Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 27 (1997), 559–594. Simpson, C., ‘The Bilking of Jules Bache’, in: Connoisseur CCXVI, 897 (1986), 126–131. Simpson, C., The Partnership. The Secret Association of Bernard Berenson and Joseph Duveen (London: The Bodley Head, 1987). Sindona, E., L’opera completa di Cimabue e il momento fgurativo pregiottesco (Milan: Rizzoli, 1975). Sinibaldi, G. and Brunetti, G. (eds.), Pittura italiana del Duecento e Trecento, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Sansoni, 1943). Sirén, O., Giotto and Some of His Followers, 2 vols. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1917). Smart, A., ‘The St. Cecilia Master and his School at Assisi I-II’, in: The Burlington Magazine CII, 690 (1960a), 404–413; 691, 1960, 430–439. Smart, A., ‘Giotto and Assisi’, in: The Burlington Magazine CII, 693 (1960b), 240–241. Smart, A., The Assisi Problem and the Art of Giotto. A Study of the Legend of St. Francis in the Upper Church of San Francesco, Assisi (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971). Smyth, C.H., ‘Foreword’, in: H.B.J. Maginnis (ed.), The Fourteenth Century. A Legacy of Attributions (Florence: Giunti, 1981), ix–xii. Smyth, C.H. and Lukehart, P.M. (eds.), The Early Years of Art History in the United States. Notes and essays on Departments, Teaching, and Scholars (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Steinhoff, J.B., Bartolomeo Bulgarini and Sienese painting of the Mid-Fourteenth Century, 2 vols. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University, Phil. Diss., 1990). Steinhoff, J.B., Sienese Painting After the Black Death. Artistic Pluralism, Politics and the New Art Market (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Stirneman, P.D., ‘Meyer Schapiro as Iconographer’, in: C. Hourihane (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Medieval Iconography (London – New York: Routledge, 2017), 142–153. Stirton, P., ‘Frederick Antal’, in: A. Hemingway (ed.), Marxism and the History of Art. From William Morris to the New Left (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 45–66, 231–237. Stoichita, V.I., Ucenicia lui Duccio di Buoninsegna. Studii despre cultura fgurativă a secolului al XIII-lea (Bucharest: Editura Meridiane, 1976). Strehlke, C.B., ‘Luciano Bellosi (1936–2011)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CLIII, 1300 (2011), 479–480. Stubblebine, J.H., An Altarpiece by Guido da Siena and His Narrative Style, dissertation (New York: New York University, 1958). Stubblebine, J.H., Guido da Siena (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1964). Stubblebine, J.H., ‘The Frick Flagellation Reconsidered’, in: Gesta XI (1972), 3–10.

Two Generations of American Connoisseurs

45

Stubblebine, J.H., Duccio di Buoninsegna and his School, 2 vols. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979). Supino, I.B., ‘Il Trionfo della Morte e il Giudizio Universale nel Camposanto di Pisa’, in: Archivio Storico dell’Arte VII, 1 (1894), 21–40. Supino, I.B., Il Camposanto di Pisa (Florence: Fratelli Alinari Editori, 1896). Swarzenski, H., ‘Before and After Pisano’, in: Boston Museum Bulletin LXVIII (1970), 178–196. Szylin, A.M., Henry Thode (1857–1920). Leben und Werk (Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 1993). Thode, H., Francesco d’Assisi e le origini dell’arte del Rinascimento in Italia (Rome: Donzelli, 1993); or. ed. id., Franz von Assisi und die Anfänge der Kunst der Renaissance in Italien (Berlin: Grote, 1885). Thomas, K., ‘“The art historian among artists”: Kunstkritik und Kunstgeschichte bei Meyer Schapiro’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte LXXVIII, 1 (2015), 45–64. Toesca, P., Giotto (Turin: UTET, 1941). Toesca, P., ‘Gioventù di Giotto’, in: Civiltà III, 8 (1942), 29–50. Toesca, P., Il Trecento (Turin: UTET, 1951). Toesca, P., ‘Una postilla alla “Vita di San Francesco” nella chiesa superiore di Assisi’, in: P.A. Underwood (ed.), Studies in the History of Art Dedicated to William E. Suida on his Eightieth Birthday (London: Phaidon, 1959), 21–25. Tomei, A., ‘Giotto’, in: A.M. Romanini (ed.), Enciclopedia di Storia dell’Arte Medievale, 12 vols. (Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani, 1991–2002), VI (1995), 656. Tomei, A., ‘La decorazione della Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi come metafora della questione giottesca’, in: id. (ed.), Giotto e il Trecento. «Il più Sovrano Maestro stato in dipintura», exhibition catalogue (Geneva – Milan: Skira, 2009), 31–49. Tommasi, A.C. (ed.), Giovanni Battista Cavalcaselle conoscitore e conservatore, conference proceedings, Legnago 28 November 1997–Verona, 29 November 1997 (Venice: Marsilio, 1998). Toscano, B., ‘Restauri e mutamento disciplinare della storia dell’arte’, in: C. Piva and I. Sgarbozza (eds.), Il corpo dello stile. Cultura e lettura del restauro nelle esperienze contemporanee. Studi in ricordo di Michele Cordaro, conference proceedings, Rome 20–21 February 2004 (Rome: De Luca, 2005), 40–41. Trotta, A., Rinascimento americano. Bernard Berenson e la collezione Gardner 1894–1924 (Naples: La Città del Sole, 2003). Tümpel, C., ‘In memoriam Wolfgang Schöne. Predigt zu seiner Beedigung, Timmerdorfer Strand am 28. August 1989’, in: Idea IX (1990), 7–12. Urbini, S., ‘Henry Thode fra storia, arte e romanzo: l’anello dei Frangipane’, in: U. Rozzo and M. Gabriele (eds.), Storia per parole e per immagini (Udine: Forum, 2006), 319–346. Urbini, S., Somnii explanatio. Novelle sull’arte italiana di Henry Thode (Rome: Viella, 2014). Vakkari, J., ‘Alcuni contemporanei fnlandesi di Lionello Venturi: Osvald Sirén, Tancred Borenius, Onni Okkonen’, in: Storia dell’Arte 101 (2002), 109–110. Van Os, H.W., ‘Duccio’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXIII, 936 (1981), 165–167. Venturi, A., ‘I. Benvenuto Supino: Arte Pisana’, in: L’Arte VII, 13 (1904), 204–206. Vigni, G., Pittura del Due e Trecento nel Museo di Pisa (Palermo: Palumbo, 1950). Volpe, C., ‘Preistoria di Duccio’, in: Paragone V, 49 (1954), 4–22. Volpe, C., ‘Il lungo percorso del dipingere dolcissimo e tanto unito’, in: F. Zeri (ed.), Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1983), V, 229–304. Vybíral, J., ‘Why Max Dvořák did not become a Professor in Prague’, in: Journal of Art Historiography 17 (2017), https://arthistoriography.fles.wordpress.com › 2017/11 › vybiral. Waetzoldt, W., ‘Curt H. Weigelt’, in: Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz V, 1 (1937), 92–93. Weigelt, C.H., Duccio di Buoninsegna. Studien zur Geschichte der frühsienesischen Tafenmalerei (Leipzig: Karl W. Hiersemann Verlag, 1911).

46 Two Generations of American Connoisseurs Weigelt, C.H., ‘Duccio’, in: U. Thieme and F. Becker (eds.), Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künstler von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart (Leipzig: Seeman, 1914), X, 25–29. Weigelt, C.H., ‘The Madonna Rucellai and the Young Duccio’, in: Art in America XVIII, 1 (1929), 3–25; 3 (1930), 105–120. Weigelt, C.H., Die sienische Malerei des vierzehnten Jahrhunderts (Florence: Edizioni Pantheon, 1930); En. transl. id., Sienese Painting of the Trecento (New York: Harcourt – Brace, 1930). Weisstein, U., ‘Millard Meiss, Giotto and Assisi’, in: Art Journal XX, 3 (1961), 184, 186. White, J., ‘The Date of the Legend of St Francis at Assisi’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVIII, 643 (1956), 344–351. White, J., ‘Obituary. Richard Offner’, in: The Burlington Magazine CVIII, 758 (1966a), 262, 265. White, J., Art and Architecture in Italy: 1250 to 1400 (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966b). White, J., Duccio. Tuscan Art and the Medieval Workshop (London: Thames and Hudson, 1979). Wickhoff, F., ‘Über die Zeit des Guido von Siena’, in: Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung X, 2 (1889), 144–186. Wiedegand Petzet, H., ‘Kurt Bauch’, in: Weltkunst XLV (1975), 440. Winkler, F., ‘Curt H. Weigelt’, in: Bullettino senese di storia patria VI, 4 (1935), 379–384. Zanardi, B., Giotto e Pietro Cavallini. La questione di Assisi e il cantiere medievale della pittura a fresco (Milan: Skira, 2002). Zeri, F., La collezione Federico Mason Perkins (Turin: Allemandi, 1988).

2

The Far Side of the Moon Erwin Panofsky’s Iconology

Panofsky Arrives in the United States In September 1931 Erwin Panofsky disembarked on the Port of New York. Waiting for him on the pier was a young Meiss for whom this frst encounter marked the discovery of the ‘far side of the moon’.1 Panofsky2 arrived in the United States two years before his colleagues would be forced into exile because of the political contingency that sealed the crisis of German art history.3 After many scholars were ousted, the history of art was left in the hands of either those who were cataloguing stolen artworks or those who were singing the praises of their own national artistic glory.4 In the New World, Panofsky had to adapt to a new cultural environment, a different education system, but mostly an art historical discipline that was then fnding its feet.5 Charles R. Morey and Richard Offner invited him to teach at an institute headed by an expert in Spanish art called Walter W.S. Cook,6 who years earlier had started a graduate course separate from the Department of Art History at the New York University.7 Familiar with the research centres in Marburg and Hamburg, Cook envisaged the Institute of Fine Arts (IFA) as a forum for debate between American

1 Heckscher 1969. The quote is taken from Toscano 1982, xxi. 2 As concerns the considerable literature on Panofsky (1892–1968), only the more general studies shall be mentioned: Heidt 1977; Chastel 1983; Holly 1984; Reudenbach 1994; Lavin 1995; Wuttke 1996; Wegener 1997; Recht, Warnke and Didi-Huberman 2008; Rieber 2012; Wuttke 2018. For his American years, also refer to Cieri Via 2009; A. Beyer, ‘Stranger in Paradise: Erwin Panofsky’s Expulsion to the Academic Parnassus’, in: Goebel and Weigel 2013, 429–444; Keenan 2014; Panofsky-Soergel 2017 and Lavin 2019. 3 On the intellectual exodus to the United States, refer to the classic studies: Fermi 1968; Fleming and Bailyn 1969; Coser 1984; Heilbut 19972; Barron and Eckmann 1997; Michels 1999; Della Terza 20012; Goebel and Weigel 2013. 4 Petropopulos 2000, 166. Also see Preiss 1990; Belting 1992 [1998]. 5 Michels 2003. The reference to Panofsky’s ‘Impressions of a Transplanted European’ (in: Panofsky 1955b, 321–346) is well known, but another less famous testimonial worth mentioning is Krautheimer’s preface to a collection of essays published in Italian (Krautheimer 1993). 6 On Walter W.S. Cook (1888–1965), see Frankfurter 1962 and Smyth 1963. 7 Panofsky 2001, 378 [Richard Offner – Erwin Panofsky, 13 December 1930]. For the history of the department, see Bober 1962 and C.H. Smyth, ‘The Department of Fine Arts for Graduate Students at the New York University’, in: Smyth and Lukehart 1993, 73–78. Moreover, Philip McMahon at the Florentine conference of 1948 sketched an outline of the history of art history in America, making a specifc reference to the institute (McMahon 1948).

48

The Far Side of the Moon

art history and European Kunstwissenschaft.8 For this reason, its doors were open to both American and European academics of any methodological orientation, as long as their lectures put forward ‘new theories and ideas’.9 Before Panofsky, the institute had already welcomed Karl Lehmann, but it was only when Hitler assumed power that numerous scholars would join the IFA and Cook would coin his famous dictum ‘Hitler is my best friend … he shakes the tree and I collect the apples’.10 The apples he gathered were indeed plenty and illustrious: Walter Friedländer, Richard Krautheimer, Julius S. Held, Henri Focillon, Erwin Panofsky and many others.11 The frst courses of this ‘University in Exile’ took place in the basement of the Metropolitan Museum, but the growing number of both students and general public made those premises unsuited for the institute, so a permanent venue was found in a house donated by the banker Paul Warburg.12 This fnal landing place was like turning full circle since the Hamburg years of the Warburg Library, especially because the New York institute would signifcantly contribute to the dissemination of the iconological method in the United States.13 Panofsky taught there for two years and befriended – as he wrote to his wife Dora – Richard Offner, Dmitri Tselos and Millard Meiss, for whom he immediately showed a special predilection.14 The positions at the IFA were however only temporary, so visiting professors had to eventually fnd a placement at other American universities, which was never an easy task. Panofsky, too, encountered some diffculties until Charles R. Morey fnally invited him to Princeton.15 There Abraham Flexner had founded the ‘fnancially well endowed and beautifully situated’16 Institute for Advanced Study, which at the time could boast the presence of Thomas Mann, Hermann Broch and especially Albert Einstein, among others.17 Used to frequenting Cassirer’s philosophical coterie in Hamburg, in Princeton, Panofsky could proft from a similar collaboration

8 In 1924 Morey sent Cook on a tour around Europe to learn about its museums and academic organisations; see Brush 2005. Cook would head the IFA until 1951. 9 The lectures at the IFA were often the subject of later publications or otherwise featured in the famous syllabi. Brush 1999, 16: ‘by about 1920 American art history had reached a stage when enterprising scholars like Porter, Sachs and Cook, despite their receptiveness to European scholarship at large, realized that any “serious” or “ambitious” form of art history in America would have to assimilate or emulate the standards, methods and institutions of German art history’. Cf. also DaCosta Kaufmann 2010. 10 Bober 1962, 1. 11 Smyth, ‘The Department of Fine Arts …’ cit., 74–77. 12 Brush 2005, 205–207. 13 This centre, in Berenson’s words, would have become the fulcrum of a new ‘Germanic kind of art history in which primary emphasis would no longer be on the appreciation of art but on the recondite areas of iconography and symbolism’, quoted in: Samuels 1987, 402. 14 Panofsky 2001, 400 [Erwin Panofsky – Dora Panofsky, 14 October 1931]. Dimitri Tselos taught history of architecture and would later teach at the University of Minnesota; see Bober 1962. 15 In his doctoral dissertation on Panofsky’s acculturation in the United States, Daniel Keenan offered a more nuanced picture of how foreign scholars were welcomed in American universities in the face of a fnancially stretched academic situation. Keenan also showed that Panofsky’s employment was not as swift as the German scholar loved to remember; see Keenan 2014, esp. 53–54. On Morey (1877–1955), aside from the obituaries (Lee 1955; Panofsky 1955a; Taylor 1955), refer to Smyth 1989; C.H. Smyth, ‘The Princeton Department in the Time of Morey’, in: Smyth and Lukehart 1993, 37–42; Sjöqvist 1996; Hourihane 2002 and Hourihane 2017. 16 Heilbut 19972, 80. 17 On the Institute for Advanced Study: Regis 1987; Batterson 2006; Lavin and Aronberg Lavin 2012. The Lavins shed light on the idea of interdependence between science and humanism that inspired Flexer in

The Far Side of the Moon

49

with the Department of Philosophical Studies, thanks to the special programme in the humanities, and he became acquainted with Paul Elmer More and Theodore M. Greene.18 Panofsky’s presence also strengthened the well-established reputation for iconographic studies at the Department of Art History and Archaeology chaired by Morey – who had previously sought out other iconographers in the likes of Emile Mâle and Gabriel Millet.19 This iconographic tradition was epitomised by the famous Index of Christian Art begun in 1917, to which Panofsky contributed with new classifcation standards.20 After the war, unlike most of the exiled intelligentsia, Panofsky did not return to Germany except for a short stay in 1967 when he was awarded the Pour le Mérite.21 He also remained faithful to Princeton University, aside from a brief Harvardian intermission as Charles Eliot Norton Professor in 1947–1948.22 To ensure a smooth transition, Panofsky worked in his fnal years of teaching alongside Meiss, who fnally succeeded him in 1962.

Towards an American-style Iconology Panofsky himself admitted that his ‘transplant’ to the New World had a deep impact on his methodological outlook. On the one hand, he was using a new language that allowed him to reformulate his thinking in less abstract terms and, on the other, the different organisation of lectures – open to a non-specialised audience, too – prompted him to approach single fgurative problems rather than broad theoretical matters.23 Pan’s calling card in the United States was the essay he co-authored with Fritz Saxl, ‘Classical Mythology in Mediaeval Art’, published in the momentous 1933 (the year when European intellectuals began to expatriate).24 While Gombrich underscored how Saxl and Panofsky were actually swaying from a strictly Warburgian ‘formula’ and

18

19

20

21 22

23 24

creating this research institute. As is known, Panofsky’s sons both became accomplished scientists – and the elder, Wolfgang K.H., was a physicist specialised in the study of sub-nuclear particles. C.H. Smyth, ‘Thoughts on Erwin Panofsky’s First Years in Princeton’, in: Lavin 1995, 353–361. Namely, Smyth compared Greene’s book The Arts and the Art of Criticism, a result of Princeton’s cultural milieu in the late 1930s, to Panofsky’s contemporary theories suggesting a possible connection between the two. On Greene (1897–1968): Hendel 1970–1971. On Panofsky’s relations with Cassirer in Hamburg, see Rieber 2010; Levine 2013; Hagelstein 2014 and Michels 2017. The idea of inviting Millet was suggested by Walter W.S. Cook, after he had seen him in Paris, who wrote to Morey: ‘Will Mâle come over? He would be a good person to start with. Another good person would be Gabriel Millet. He could give you a series of talks on Byzantine illumination. […] It will certainly be best to bring over people like Mâle and Millet frst, and then take the Germans’, quoted in: Brush 2005, 348–349. On Gabriel Millet (1867–1953), see Lepage 2005. Cf. Letter dated 30 April 1962 from Panofsky to Rensselaer W. Lee, in: Ragusa 1998, 223–224. Apart from this reference, on the Index also see Weitzmann 1994, 98–100; Hourihane 2002, 3–16; Hourihane 2014. On Morey’s cultural motivations and goals: Morey 1931. Heilbut 19972, 28. Białostocki reported that on that occasion Panofsky delivered his gratulatory speech in English to emphasise that he was a foreigner; see Białostocki 1970, 70. Panofsky had been invited to become a full professor at Harvard, but he preferred to take on only the position of visiting professor, as he wrote to Meiss: AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 2 January 1947. Panofsky 1955b, 329–330. The lecture however dated back to a conference held in Princeton two years earlier to raise funds for the transfer of the Warburg Institute and its library overseas (Panofsky and Saxl 1933). Cf. Cieri Via 2009, xxxviii–xxxix. On the suggestion of moving the Kunstwissenschaftliche Bibliothek to America, see Panofsky 2001, 458–460, 475–478 [Fritz Saxl – Erwin Panofsky, 5 January 1932; Erwin Panofsky

50

The Far Side of the Moon

charting new paths by studying the survival of the antique in connection to mediaeval rather than 15th-century art, recent commentators tended to reduce the gap between Panofsky and Warburg.25 In 1939 Panofsky published a collection of essays on different iconological problems titled Studies in Iconology, whose introduction famously laid the foundations of a method that became the cri de guerre for the next generation of American scholars.26 Iconology was defned as a feld that was concerned with the subject or meaning as opposed to form.27 The object of the art historian’s investigation was therefore to understand the artwork’s ‘intrinsic meaning’ or the ‘symbolical values’ determined by those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion – unconsciously qualifed by one personality and condensed into one work.28 This defnition caused quite a stir among the scholars across the Atlantic, especially because Panofsky did away with the intended meaning, and hence the artistic intention, that was indispensable for both the ‘Courts of Law and those of Criticism’.29 By stating that an artist ‘unconsciously’ conveyed those symbolic values, Panofsky seemed to undermine volition and accept an irrational dimension. This aspect was alien to American pragmatism, and more importantly, at odds with the scientifc objective pursued in aesthetic speculation that was synonymous with a democratic outlook.30 Also, by opposing meaning and form, Panofsky’s theory lent itself to a marginalisation of the formal element. This was probably not the intention of the German scholar, who on the contrary proposed to fuse style and history into one single system of knowledge – just like that inextricable union of form and content encapsulated in the concept of Typus expounded in his German years.31 The ‘scepticism’ this book was met with testifes to the fact that something did get lost in translation. This is well exemplifed in A. Philip McMahon’s critique expressing his fear of an ‘-ology’ placed under the tutelage of idealist metaphysics, just after

25

26 27 28 29

30

31

– Gertrud Bing, 24 January 1932], whilst for an account of the transfer of the library, see Burkart 2000 and Fleckner and Mack 2015. In his intellectual biography of Warburg, Gombrich wrote about this revision undertaken by Saxl and Panofsky: ‘Whether or not this formula can be strictly applied, it is doubtful if it would have satisfed Warburg’ (Gombrich 19862, 311). Dieter Wuttke, on the other hand, gave a more nuanced account of the relationship between Panofsky and Warburg regarding this lecture; cf. Wuttke 2012. Lavin 1996, 13. Among the studies on the iconological method worth mentioning are: Holly 1984; Holly 1992; de Vries 1999; Baert, Lehmann and Van den Akkerveken 2011; Elsner and Lorenz 2012. Panofsky 1939b, 7 [emphasis added]. Gombrich 1972, 3–4: ‘Is it really with the intention that the iconologist is primarily concerned? It has become somewhat fashionable to deny this, all the more since the discovery of the unconscious and of its role in art seems to have undermined the straightforward notion of intention. But I would contend that neither the Courts of Law nor the Courts of Criticism could continue to function if we really let go of the notion of an intended meaning’. McCorkel 1975, esp. 39. According to McCorkel, this strive for a democratic outlook had elicited art historical studies to open up to linguistics, anthropology and social sciences. On American philosophical pragmatism, refer to West 1989 and to the more recent Bacon 2012. Cieri Via 1994, 123; Cieri Via 2016, 225 and ff. For the notion of Typus, refer to Panofsky 1927b; cf. also Cooke 2015.

The Far Side of the Moon

51

art history had fnally managed to sever the ties to romantic idealism. In less strong terms, Jean Lipman in the pages of Art in America (i.e. the stronghold of connoisseurship) did recognise the importance of the book, but warned against the indiscriminate application of a method that was safe in capable hands only.33 The Art Bulletin, whose editor at the time was Meiss, could not help but give ample space to Studies in Iconology with a double review by the literary scholar Allan H. Gilbert and an expatriated student of Panofsky, Horst W. Janson.34 While Gilbert’s remarks only concerned single iconographic interpretations, Janson analysed the book’s methodological import, i.e. an art history open to other humanistic disciplines that could overcome formalism.35 In the British Burlington Magazine, Wolfgang Stechow, in turn, saluted this ‘masterly example of a novel and fruitful viewpoint and method in art history’.36 But not everyone agreed with that statement. In his book Babel’s Tower (1945), the director of the Metropolitan Museum, Francis H. Taylor – a ‘professional sniper’ in Meiss’s words37 – openly attacked Panofsky’s Studies in Iconology for separating art from the formal values that were necessary to its popularisation.38 The debate on the iconological method continued into the 1950s. Creighton Gilbert also noted that the study of form was relegated to a marginal corrective, while iconology could be basically assimilated to the history of culture. The appeal of the study of subject matter, conversely, relied on the claim that it was based on objective data – though Gilbert countered that the content of the work was of little if no relevance to the artist.39 Along these lines, Gombrich cautioned against attributing religious and symbolic meanings to every Renaissance work of art and urged to redress a balance.40 When Panofsky wrote the introduction to the 1967 French translation of his Studies, he was in some ways addressing these objections.41 First, he admitted that replacing ‘iconology’ with the term ‘iconography’ would have clarifed a slightly too ‘esoteric’ 32

32 Quote taken from Previtali 1975, xxi. McMahon 1940, 45: ‘But as scholarship in the feld of art history has gradually succeeded in abandoning romantic, emotional idealism, it is now invited to replace it with a foundation of idealist metaphysics. For Ruskin and Norton, Plato was a guiding star; the patron of iconologists is to be Plotinus’. 33 Lipman 1940. 34 Gilbert and Janson 1940. 35 Ibid., 174. In the following issue, Panofsky replied with a letter to the objections Gilbert and Janson raised on the interpretation of Bronzino’s Allegory (Panofsky 1940). 36 Stechow 1941. 37 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 12 February 1952. 38 Taylor 1945, 34, 50. Meyer Schapiro would respond to Taylor’s comments in his review of Babel’s Tower (Schapiro 1945b, 274). 39 Gilbert 1952. Gilbert would later temper his views on iconology, and for two decades he characterised it as one of the most effective approaches to a work of art when he prefaced a collection of essays (Gilbert 1970, xvi). 40 Gombrich 1953 [1966], 110: ‘Today the reaction against too facile an acceptance of this very view has led us to insist so much on the religious and symbolic signifcance of Renaissance art that the balance must perhaps once more be restored’. 41 In the 1960s, France turned its attention to iconology and the translation of Panofsky’s works was in many ways prepared by appraisals like those penned by Robert Klein, Bernard Teyssèdre and Guy de Tervarent: Klein 1963 and Klein 1965; Teyssèdre 1964; Tervarent 1965. Klein also defended Panofsky against the accusation of being concerned with the mere identifcation of the subject (see esp. Klein 1965). Roland Recht’s review explained the main tenets of iconology and commented on the translations of Panofsky edited by Pierre Bourdieu (Recht 1968). Cf. also Martin 2000; Lamoureux 2014.

52

The Far Side of the Moon

Warburgian word.42 But at the time, Panofsky continued, ‘iconography’ seemed to conjure a descriptive taxonomy rather than an interpretative approach. Nevertheless, the German scholar in hindsight realised he should have done differently, because ‘iconology risked appearing […] not like ethnology in the face of ethnography, but like astrology in the face of astronomy’.43 Another point he reformulated in the decades following Studies in Iconology was the place accorded to the artist’s will in conveying symbolic values in the work of art. To that end, in the subsequent publication Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, Panofsky put forward the concept of ‘mental habit’, whereby the artwork is imbued with the culture to which the artist belongs.44 Panofsky further rationalised the artist’s creative sphere in Early Netherlandish Painting (1953).45 By describing the meaning Flemish painters consciously hid in their works as ‘disguised symbolism’, Pan introduced a ‘level of consciousness’ that effectively marked a shift from iconology to iconography, as argued by Otto Pächt.46 In the chapter ‘Reality and Symbol in Early Flemish Painting’ especially, Panofsky expounded how Flemish artists painted an ‘imaginary reality […] controlled to the smallest detail by a preconceived symbolical program’.47 Artistic creation had become a rational operation in which complex iconographical programmes were consciously translated into a disguised symbolism.48 To penetrate this intrinsic meaning, the iconologist had to consequently study the cultural and philosophical background underlying the reality depicted by the artist. The iconological method itself was therefore being rationalised and given that objective clarity previously attributed to stylistic interpretation alone.49 Panofsky’s ‘Americanisation’50 was thus achieved by bracketing the Cassirerian symbolic form and moving from the unconscious to the disguised. This change, however, may be gleaned already in the notion of ‘transfgured reality’

42 Panofsky 1967, 3: ‘Aujourd’hui, en 1966, j’aurais peut-être remplacé le mot-clé du titre, iconologie, par iconographie, plus familier et moins sujet de discussion; mais – et l’avouer me remplit d’une sorte d’orgueil mélancolique – le fait même que cette substitution soit désormais possible tient précisément, dans une certain mesure, à l’existence même des ces Essais d’iconologie’. Incidentally, the title of Panofsky’s Wrightsman lectures in 1969 signifcantly read Problems in Titian: Mostly Iconographic (New York: New York University Press, 1969). 43 Ibid., 5: ‘L’iconologie risquait d’apparaître […] non pas comme l’ethnologie en face de l’ethnographie, mais comme l’astrologie en face de l’astronomie’. 44 Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism will be discussed in Chapter 3 in connection to Meiss and the history of culture. 45 Panofsky 1953; for a critical appraisal of this book, refer to Nash 2013. 46 Pächt 1956a, 276. In his review of the book, Julius S. Held remarked that Tolnay was the frst to identify disguised symbolism as a characterising element of Flemish ars nova (Held 1955, 212); cf. Tolnay 1932; Tolnay 1939. 47 Panofsky 1953, I, 137; 140: ‘A non-perspective and non-naturalistic art, not recognising either unity of space or unity of time, can employ symbols without regard for empirical probability or even possibility. In High Medieval representations, personages of the remote past or the distant future could share the stage of time – or rather timelessness – with characters of the present. Objects accepted and plainly recognisable as symbols could mingle with real buildings, plants or implements on the same level of reality – or, rather, non-reality’. Cf. Gombrich 1968, 360. 48 Pächt 1956a, 276. 49 Ibid. On this point also cf. Ginzburg 20132, 37. 50 Cieri Via 1994, 116.

The Far Side of the Moon

53

that Panofsky posited twenty years earlier in the essay on the Arnolfni Portrait, which raised a few eyebrows amid connoisseurs.51 Both Otto Pächt and Julius S. Held detected the infuence of Meiss in Panofsky’s elaboration of disguised symbolism.52 They referred to the Cassirerian-titled article ‘Light as Form and Symbol’ published in The Art Bulletin in 1945, in which Meiss analysed the meaning of the depiction of luminous rays penetrating glass surfaces in Flemish paintings as an allusion to the Immaculate Conception.53 Apart from a few reservations on single chronological and interpretative problems, Panofsky thoroughly appreciated Meiss’s analysis – ‘ET LUX PERPETUA LUCEAT VOBIS!’, as he quipped in a letter.54 Meiss’s examination of the symbolical meaning of light resonated, at the same time, with Panofsky’s studies on Abbot Suger of St Denis, and his Neoplatonic thought transposed into artistic objects.55 The aforementioned issue of The Art Bulletin contained another article on the symbolic interpretation of the Mérode Altarpiece penned by Meyer Schapiro, which was also mentioned as a precedent for the theory of disguised symbolism.56 However, as he confessed to Meiss, Panofsky was rather sceptical of Schapiro’s ‘Mousetrap theory’ and did not agree with his ‘excursion into the feld of psychoanalysis’.57 Despite Panofsky’s reservations, the two articles by Schapiro and Meiss later appeared alongside his study of the Arnolfni Portrait in a collection of essays on the Renaissance edited by Gilbert, who further underlined their common iconological mould.58 A closer study of their correspondence revealed that ‘Pan’ collaborated with Meiss throughout the preparation of Early Netherlandish Painting, starting from the very choice of the title.59 The German scholar would often consult Meiss on matters regarding illuminated manuscripts, profting from his knowledge of French illumination.60 Meiss also reviewed the corpus on Flemish art in The New York Times Book

51 Panofsky 1934; Panofsky 1935; Panofsky 1938. Cf. Beenken 1937, 220. 52 Held 1955, 212; Pächt 1956a, 276: ‘When M. Meiss, approvingly quoted in Panofsky’s recent book, talks of ‘Light as form and symbol’ the motif of the frst correctly observed rays of sunshine is not analysed as ‘symbolical form’, but evaluated as supposedly intended symbol of supernatural radiance’. 53 Meiss 1945; on Meiss’s essay I may also refer to Cooke 2011a. 54 Panofsky 2003, 657–660: 659 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 10 November 1945]. 55 Cf. Panofsky 1944, 109: ‘Every signifcant WORD, then, refers manifestly to a sensory or “esthetic” experience and esoterically to a religious or “metaphysical” concept; and this because every perceptible THING is thought of a symbol of and guide to an intelligible truth: the objects themselves, too, are invested with an esoteric as well as with a manifest meaning’. 56 Schapiro 1945a. Schapiro’s famous interpretation of the Mérode Altarpiece focuses on the mousetrap that Joseph is making (along with the fnished one on the windowsill), claiming it refers to St Augustine’s sermons, in which Christ on the cross is described as the devil’s mousetrap. On this matter, also see Cooke 2011a, 56–59. 57 Panofsky 2003, 659. Panofsky thought the mousetrap could symbolise damage and detraction rather than an allusion to Joseph making an instrument to trap the devil. 58 Gilbert 1970, xvii. The essays were presented in a section signifcantly titled ‘Appearances and Meanings in Early Flemish Painting’. 59 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 16 February 1951: ‘What I need is a title saying that the book deals with the origins of early Netherlandish painting, the main masters of the frst and second generations and their heritage, but not with Jerome Bosch whom I don’t dare to tackle’. 60 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 9 April 1951; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 12 April 1951; letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 16 April 1951.

54

The Far Side of the Moon

Review.61 The review praised Pan’s successful attempt at overturning the common misconception of Flemish painting as a naturalistic art devoid of the aesthetic sensitivity of Italian painting.62 Meiss also emphasised the ‘pervasiveness of disguised symbolism’, but equally raised a few objections to his interpretation of Jan van Eyck’s Madonna in the Church as a personifcation of the Church.63 Panofsky was however more wary of what his reviewer would make of his ‘excursions into the dangerous jungle of “connoisseurship”’.64 But much to his contentment, Meiss commended the proposed changes in attribution of the Sibiu Portrait, the Philadelphia St Francis, the Berlin Crucifxion, the new hypotheses for the Ghent Altarpiece, as well as his survey of lesser-known local schools.65 Other positive reviews included those penned by Harry Bober, Martin Davies, Julius S. Held, Friedrich Winkler and Otto H. Förster.66 Julius S. Held did, on the contrary, take Panofsky’s concealed symbolism to task for potentially turning every object into a symbol and dangerously inviting ‘trigger-happy iconologists’ to ‘shoot from the hip’.67 Frances G. Godwin interestingly spoke of a ‘brilliant integration of a socioliterary study with an aesthetic-philosophical one’ that had a parallel in Huizinga’s The Waning of the Middle Age.68 Jacques Lavalleye applauded Panofsky’s qualities as an ‘exegesist’ rather than a ‘researcher’, and also favourable was Karel Boon’s opinion in Oud Holland.69 Nevertheless there was no shortage of negative critiques. Flemish art scholar Maurice W. Brockwell challenged specifc matters, such as the existence of Hubert van Eyck and the interpretation of the Arnolfni Portrait, which he believed to

61 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 15 January 1954: ‘If my book continues to please you, no other praise is necessary. Even should all the other reviews be more or less unfavourable, I shall die in peace’. 62 Meiss 1954a. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 5 March 1954: ‘If you think I have conveyed a dim idea of the quality of this wonderful book I shall be satisfed’. 63 The painting was the main example Meiss considered in ‘Light as Form and Symbol’; Meiss 1954a. Meiss did not agree on univocally identifying the Virgin with the Church, about which some spoke of ‘excès des explications symbolistes’ (Lejeune 1955, 64). Meiss also found the explanation of the lit candles on the altar as an allusion to the mass in honour of the Virgin not very convincing. 64 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 7 March 1954: ‘What makes me particularly happy is that you came out in favor of my excursions into the dangerous jungle of “connoisseurship” in the cases of the Sibiu portrait, the Philadelphia St. Francis and the Berlin Calvary. […] Whatever others may say will matter very little after this’. 65 Meiss 1954a. The attribution of the Sibiu portrait to Jan van Eyck (today widely accepted) was challenged only by Karl Voll and Erwin Panofsky (Voll 1900, 121–122; Panofsky 1953 I, 199, 437). Cf. Borchert 2000; Borchert 2002, entry no 18, 233. The attribution of the St Francis, too, is today confrmed; see Rishel 1997, 9. The Berlin Crucifxion, in turn, was assigned after a lengthy debate to a follower of Robert Campin; see Thürlemann 2002, entry no. II.3, 294–295 [includes previous bibliography]. 66 Bober 1954; Davies 1954; Held 1955; Winkler 1955; Förster 1955. 67 Held 1955, 212. 68 Godwin 1955, 72: ‘only the understanding of the style can make the specifc use of the symbols understandable’. Daniel Keenan convincingly remarked that a Penguin reprint of The Waning of the Middle Ages came out in 1954 evidencing the popularity of Huizinga’s book. He also analysed Huizinga’s differing opinion on symbolism in Flemish painting; see Keenan 2014, 142 and ff. 69 Lavalleye 1957; Boon 1957. Boon likened Panofsky’s book to the contemporary work Ältere niederländische Malerei by H.W. Löhneysen (Eisenach: Löth, 1956).

The Far Side of the Moon

55

depict the painter’s wedding. Otto Pächt’s articulate appraisal of disguised symbolism traced the origins of the concept back to Meiss and Schapiro, and argued that this theory was grounded on the fallacy that the new exacting naturalism was manifest and the theological meaning merely ‘smuggled in’.71 Jean Squilbeck commented on Panofsky’s publication with a hint of irony, accusing him of specialism and bemoaning a degree of negligence in dealing with Roger van der Weyden’s workshop and an unfair evaluation of Hugo van der Goes.72 The illumination expert and assistant at Brussels Bibliothèque Royale, Léon Delaissé, warned against Panofsky’s symbolic interpretation because the idea that the contemporary beholder was able to understand complex theological meanings concealed in paintings appeared to him too far-fetched.73 Pan wrote a long letter to Delaissé discussing methodological issues and attributions, but did not mention his remarks on symbolism.74 Meiss remarked that the Belgian scholar was an ‘awfully nice man, and good at his trade, but he doesn’t understand that of others’, unbeknown that years later he would have also fallen victim to Delaissé’s sharp pen.75 Regardless, Panofsky invited Delaissé to spend the 1959–1960 academic year at Princeton before the latter would move on to Harvard.76 The ‘delicate balance’ of disguised symbolism began to falter in the following decades as it was faced with extensive investigations of the social, cultural and economic context of Flemish art.77 In the seventies and eighties, the ‘penetrability’ of complex symbolical meanings embedded in Flemish paintings was likened to the positivist art historical canon that was being largely questioned, and so was Pan’s theory, especially when applied by trigger-happy iconologists.78 The introductory chapter of Meaning in the Visual Arts (1955) has often been regarded as the coming of age of Panofsky’s Americanisation, which implied that the scholar discarded more abstract formulations, and by so doing, cut the umbilical cord with German Geistesgeschichte.79 Anglo-Saxon pragmatism – as Krautheimer also noted – made his approach ‘more fexible, less anchored to Kantian categories and rid 70

70 Brockwell 1954b. Also see Renders 1933; Brockwell 1954a, whereas for the Arnolfni Portrait, cf. Brockwell 1952. 71 Pächt 1956a, 275: ‘One would rather have expected to fnd the new realism secretly smuggled in […] than vice versa theology camoufaged […] as completely neutral, secular “reportage”’. 72 Squilbeck 1956. 73 Delaissé 1957, 115: ‘Cette recherche constante du symbole est un plaisir capiteux pour l’esprit; elle est aussi dangereuse que certain critique littéraire, si elle prétend s’immiscer partout’. On Delaissé (1914– 1972), see Boon 1972 and ‘Delaissé, Léon M.J.’, in https://arthistorians.info/delaissel. 74 Panofsky 2008, 154–158 [Erwin Panofsky – Léon M.J. Delaissé, 10 September 1957]. 75 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 11 September 1957. 76 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 17 December 1957: ‘I hope that you will not object to this thus far preliminary arrangement and in fact may have fun with him (as I hope to have) in spite of all divergences of opinion’. Also see Panofsky 2008, 235–236 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 24 March 1958]. 77 Alpers 1983, xxiv. 78 Cf. Benjamin 1976; Alpers 1977; Coo 1981; Purtle 1982; Bedaux 1986; Silver 1986; Lane 1988; Bedaux 1990; Harbison 1989; Harbison 2005. 79 Panosfky 1955, 26–54. Elsner and Lorenz have shown how the assimilation to the American forma mentis had begun in the Studies; see Elsner and Lorenz 2012, 492: ‘They show us not only a trajectory of his art-historical thinking but also a fundamental cultural transformation, the American assimilation of an already outstandingly assimilated German Jew’.

56

The Far Side of the Moon

of the haziness of Hegelianists’.80 This can be seen in how the defnition of intrinsic meaning was now shifting towards a Zeitgeist devoid of any unconscious characterisation.81 By shedding the idealistic connotations of Cassirerian symbolic values, Panofsky developed a more systematic notion of the work of art as cultural symptom in connection to traditional symbolism.82 This acculturation of Pan’s thinking was summed up as a transformation of iconology into iconography, which was no longer a method but a mere ‘technique of research’ – in Gilbert’s words.83 In the preface to the Italian edition of Studies in Iconology (1975), Previtali also observed that Panofsky, whether he was aware of it or not, had successfully brought the Warburgian tradition to the United States but at the cost of losing the specifc character of iconology. 84 Meiss was probably referring to the pitfalls inherent to Pan’s acculturation when he defned meaning as ‘a slippery word’ in his posthumous book The Painter’s Choice (1976). The passage is worth quoting in full: By the slippery word meaning I include what others have called intrinsic signifcance or implications – implications of the whole work of art which the artist and his patron may or may not have intended. Such meanings are disclosed by correlating the work with modes of expression, with contemporary religious or secular thought, or with attitudes shaped by the forms of social life.85 This defnition suggests that Meiss adhered to Panofsky’s early formulation on the artist’s level of consciousness and studied the work of art in correlation to the religious, philosophical and social background. But Meiss subsequently clarifed that style was to play a more prominent role in his own approach, albeit forms emerged ‘to a greater degree from the mysterious recesses of the imagination’.86 Unlike Panofsky, however, Meiss intended to focus on how new styles originate in conjunction with new forms rather than on survivals. This would go to prove how iconology was reshaped in the United States and the Warburgian Nachleben was effectively ‘exorcised’ and historicised, as Didi-Huberman observed.87 The American Panofsky forfeited the unitary consideration of the many facets of the work of art that he developed in his German years, and Meiss’s words belie the intention of going beyond the ‘narrow’ defnition of iconology given by the ‘too modest’ Panofsky.88 As Jakob Rosenberg lamented in the mid-1960s, art history had gone ‘from the monopoly of formalism to the supremacy

80 Krautheimer 1993, xxv. 81 Panofsky 1955b, 30: ‘Those underlying principles which reveal the basic attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion – qualifed by one personality and condensed into one work’ [emphasis added]. 82 Castelnuovo and Ghelardi 19962, xxxi–xxxii. 83 Gilbert 1952, 202. 84 Previtali 1975, xxiv. 85 Meiss 1976, vii–viii [emphasis added]. 86 Ibid., viii. 87 Didi-Huberman 2002, 91–102. 88 Argan 1975, 302–303. In this English translation of the famous editorial La storia dell’arte (1969), Argan described Panofsky as the ‘Saussure of art history’ (ibid., 299), thus inviting a semiotic interpretation of the iconological method that was particularly popular amongst French art historians and with Meyer Schapiro (see the articles cited in: Holly 1984, 181 and ff.). Cf. Cieri Via 1994, 140–141; Cieri Via 2010, 115–134.

The Far Side of the Moon

57

of iconology’, and for this reason, he suggested that art scholarship returned to focussing ‘on form or artistic and stylistic problems’.89 As Colin Eisler regretted ten years later, ‘the converts forgot that the best of such iconographical research assumes or depends upon a balance and understanding of the inter-relationship between form and content’.90 Such an interrelationship between formal analysis and iconographic study was conversely at the heart of Meiss’s methodological approach.

A Casual but Illuminating Conversation In the customs shed the discussion almost immediately turned to the art at the court of the Duc de Berry, a subject to which Meiss brought a thorough knowledge of the trecento. We may say that what started as a casual conversation among two young scholars ripened into the monumental work whose growth and fnal fruition Panofsky was happy to witness.91 This episode, famously recalled in Heckscher’s well-known biographical account of Panofsky, was often evoked by the German professor, who always maintained that Meiss was ‘the only man who could do justice to a feld […] normally cultivated by scholars whose horizon is very much limited by the Alps’.92 Following his advice, in 1933 Meiss indeed applied for a scholarship to research Italian infuences on French art, but failed to obtain it, despite Panofsky’s recommendation.93 The idea of venturing into the feld of French illumination may also have been encouraged by Walter W.S. Cook, the professor Meiss had been working with at the Institute of Fine Arts since 1931. Upon visiting research institutes and museums around Europe in 1924, Cook indeed described it to Morey as a virgin territory for research.94 In Princeton, Morey had started in 1913 one of the frst courses devoted to illumination, the Manuscript Seminar, which attracted specialists from all over the world, and Meiss may have also

89 90 91 92

Rosenberg 1966, 156. Eisler 1976, esp. 67–68: 68. Heckscher 1969, 13–14. AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 22 March 1956: ‘You, with your superior knowledge of Italian Trecento painting, were probably the only man who could do justice to a feld which was and is normally cultivated by scholars whose horizon is very much limited by the Alps. My opinion has not changed since’. 93 Panofsky 2001, 574–580: 579 [Erwin Panofsky – Margareth Barr, 9 March 1933]: ‘He [Meiss] will, however, go to Europe anyway, and I think he would be the right man for the right job, for although the phenomenon as such is rather well-known (at least much talked about), nobody has ever cared for gathering a suffcient amount of substantial evidence, let alone gone into the questions of “Why” and “How”’. 94 Letter from Walter W.S. Cook to Charles R. Morey, 10 July 1924, quoted in: Brush 2005, 336–350: 340: ‘I think it would be much more proftable than anything in Italy. France was the great center, and everyone is held up because French things aren’t published. There is enough material to keep a dozen scholars busy for the next twenty years. The thing to do is to bring these manuscripts out singly, in monograph form, and then to make schools of manuscripts’. Incidentally, Meiss and Cook would work together in the 1950s to expand the photo archive of the Frick Library with pictures of French, Italian and Spanish illuminated manuscripts; see AAA, MMP. Minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Walter W.S. Cook, 24 March 1954; minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Walter W.S. Cook, 14 February 1956; minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Walter W.S. Cook, 29 January 1957.

58

The Far Side of the Moon

been familiar with it as he was studying architecture there.95 In the following decades, the study of illumination gained a footing in the United States as evidenced in extensive cataloguing enterprises like the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada and important exhibitions such as Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages, organised by Dorothy E. Miner at the Walters Art Gallery in Baltimore in 1949.96 Meiss’s frst foray into illumination was an article on the Master of the Grandes Heures of Rohan, the artist who would conclude the last volume of the art at the court of Berry, published in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1935.97 The early correspondence with Panofsky showed that the American scholar would discuss his research on illumination with him, just as the Princeton professor was teaching a course on the Gothic and late-Gothic manuscripts in the Pierpont Morgan Library, which incidentally dealt with the Rohan Master.98 In the late 1930s, Meiss was already regarded as an expert on illumination,99 and in 1938, was asked to review Grace Frank and Dorothy Miner’s edition of the 15th-century Proverbes en rimes for The Art Bulletin.100 In the early 1950s, Meiss was resolved to fnally accomplish his study on French illumination, after putting it off for around ffteen years as he once wrote to Berenson.101 A Fulbright scholarship enabled him to complete the research for the ‘manuscript book’102 and its publication appeared imminent by April 1956.103 The gestation process was not as swift however, and the defnitive version of the frst volume could be fnished, with the help of his assistant Gertrude Coor-Achenbach, only by 1959.104 Panofsky encouraged this frst achievement with enthusiastic words for the art historian

95 Aronberg Lavin 1983, 21, 30–31. Isa Ragusa mentioned that Friend’s monographic study on the portraits of the evangelists in Greek and Latin manuscripts was very popular among students (Ragusa 1998, 220). Morey also created a photo collection devoted to manuscripts (ibid., 244) and invited the illumination scholar Albert M. Friend who would succeed Morey in 1946. On Friend (1894–1956), see DeWald 1956; Forsyth 1957 and ‘Albert Mathias Friend, Jr.’ 1958. 96 De Ricci and Wilson 1935–1940; Miner 1949 (cf. Wormald 1949; Butler 1949). 97 Meiss 1935. 98 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 30 December 1936. Panofsky 1939a. On Pan’s lectures on manuscripts at the Pierpont Morgan Library, refer to Cieri Via 2014. 99 The Frick Library, for instance, asked his ‘expert’ opinion to identify some illuminated leaves; see FARLA, FC, Frick Art Reference Library – Central Correspondence. Unsigned letter [Ethelwyn Manning] to Millard Meiss, 29 September 1938. 100 Frank and Miner 1937; Meiss 1938. Panofsky was probably behind this review as he had strongly supported the book by Frank and Miner, as can be inferred from the letter he sent to the editors of the Magazine of Art dated 22 November 1938; see Panofsky 2003, 166–167 [Erwin Panofsky – Editor of Magazine of Art, 22 November 1938]. H.W. Janson also reviewed the book for Speculum (Janson 1939). 101 BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 3 April 1951; letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 23 February 1953. 102 AAA, MMP. Minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Walter W.S. Cook, 27 February 1956: ‘When do you return to Europe? We are leaving in mid-April, but for a relatively short trip because I must come back to continue writing my manuscript book’. 103 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 22 March 1956: ‘Let me say also how elated I was to hear that your book on French illumination is so near to completion’; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 28 April 1956. The book was to be published by Princeton University Press. 104 Meiss 1967c, vii, x. In 1959, Gertrud Coor-Achenbach (1915–1962) was an assistant researcher at the Institute for Advanced Study and worked with Meiss on the books about illumination; see Lee 1963, 246.

The Far Side of the Moon

59

who was ‘equally at home in Italy and in the Northern countries’. But Meiss was still working on the project in 1966, thanks to the Fund for French Painting from the Institute for Advanced Study, and fnished the frst and second volumes in 1967 and 1968.106 The fnal instalment on the Limbourg Brothers was put together when he was teaching at Harvard and appeared in 1974, although some themes were anticipated in a lecture series at the Pierpont Morgan Library.107 Although he also reviewed Grete Ring’s book on French painting in 1952,108 Meiss was growing tired of being considered an ‘outsider’ by specialists in the feld like Otto Pächt.109 The Austrian scholar was in fact working on the same themes and his studies on illumination at the court of Roi René were certainly a valuable source for Meiss.110 In the course of the 1960s, their research would continue in parallel and the two independently redefned the connections between North and South in French painting by rejecting the traditional idea of a unilateral infuence of Italy on France.111 But back in 1956, Meiss made a name for himself with ‘two fundamental reviews’ that showed that the ‘leadership in the studies of Mediaeval art’ was still in the hands of the United States – as Carl Nordenfalk put it.112 When he was in Paris on a Fulbright grant, Meiss visited the epoch-making exhibition Les manuscrits à peinture en France du XIIIe au XIVe siècle, organised by Jean Porcher.113 Rather than merely chronicling the event, Meiss sketched a stylistic outline of illuminators’ workshops between the 13th and 14th centuries, which was meant as an anticipation of a forthcoming in-depth study.114 Even though Meiss’s was only a review, Carl Nordenfalk gave ample resonance to the article in his own comment of 105

105 Panofsky 2008, 529–530 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 18 September 1959]: ‘I am delighted to hear that you are now starting that opus maius which, if memory serves, we discussed way back in 1931. I then thought, and I still think, that you are the only art historian now living to be equal to this task because you are equally at home in Italy and in the Northern countries’. 106 FARLA, FC, Helen Clay Frick Papers, Series: Alphabetical File. Letter from Millard Meiss to Helen C. Frick, 11 March 1966. The Frick Art Library largely contributed to the fund. 107 Meiss 1968a, ix; Meiss 1974a. 108 Meiss 1952c; cf. Ring 1949. 109 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 28 April 1956: ‘Actually, several things partly the fact that Pächt, whom I met in the exhibition last week, treats me as a complete outsider – have led me to decide to write a review of the exhibition myself, in other words, to throw my own hat in the ring’. On Pächt (1902–1988), refer to Pächt and Rosenauer 2006. 110 For instance, Pächt delivered a paper on the Book of Hours that belonged to René d’Anjou from the British Museum at an important conference on the international infuences on 15th-century French art held at the Collège de France in 1955 (Pächt 1956b). Other relevant papers included one by Jean Porcher on the international trends in French art and one by Delaissé on the artistic centres at the time of Philip the Good. 111 Pächt indeed overturned the traditional idea of unilateral infuence of Italy on France (Pächt 1963a). This may fnd a parallel in what Meiss was writing in the same 1963 on the connections between North and South, when he contributed to the Festschrift in honour of Jean Porcher (Meiss 1963, 163–164). 112 Panofsky 2006, 1072–1073 [Carl Nordenfalk – Erwin Panofsky, 19 November 1956]: ‘Both [his fundamental reviews] prove that the leadership in the studies of late Medieval art vindicated for U.S.A. by your last magnum opus – Early Netherlandish painting – is successfully defended by Millard Meiss’. 113 Porcher 1956. The exhibition was preceded by another show of manuscripts from the 7th to the 12th century as part of the Trésors des bibliothèques de France project (Porcher 1954); cf. also Moly 2008; Avril and Reynaud 1993; Châtelet 1994. On Jean Porcher (1892–1966), see Panofsky 1963; Cain 1963; Concasty 1966 and Morgan 1996. 114 Meiss 1956a.

60

The Far Side of the Moon

the Paris exhibition.115 Apart from the intention of helping the American colleague,116 Nordenfalk signalled his research because he thought a comprehensive study on the subject was still missing, a fact also remarked by Francis Wormald’s comment of the show.117 In fact, Jean Porcher would be the frst scholar to fll this void with the book L’enluminure française (1959) that immediately constituted a touchstone in the historiography of illumination.118 The other Parisian exhibition that Meiss reviewed was De Giotto à Bellini organised by Michel Laclotte.119 This review, too, exceeded the limits of a report on the exhibition as Meiss extensively discussed the Italian infuence on French art, again advancing matters analysed in upcoming studies and ‘reduced chaos to a semblance of order’, according to Panofsky.120 Meiss also addressed Trecento art scholarship and its too trenchant stylistic judgements with regard to the artistic centres outside of Siena and Florence.121 His criticism was mainly directed at Roberto Longhi – whose opinion was the only one that mattered, as he bitterly jibed – and his essay on Umbrian painting, whose publication was announced in the exhibition catalogue.122 Meiss namely took issue with the Italian’s views on the ‘Bolognese cloud’ and his misinterpretation of Francesco Traini, to whom Longhi had recently wrongly attributed a work by Giovanni di Niccolò.123 At the time, Meiss was also dallying with the idea of a book on 15th-century art in Italy and Northern Europe that would feature two extended articles on Mantegna and Bellini.124 The result, Mantegna as Illuminator, in the end only included a study

115 Nordenfalk 1956. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 28 April 1956: ‘I had a nice letter from Nordenfalk offering to refer to my observation. In my reply I told him that while the text of my book essays to prove that the Way to Calvary is a later work by the “Brussels Master”, it concludes, for reasons of size and the presence of donors (or laity) and familial pets, that the “miniature” probably did not belong to the Grandes Heures, but was actually, as I think you suggested, to be put on the wall as an independent object. Further examination here does not lead me to want to alter what I have written’. From 1968 to 1971, Nordenfalk taught at Princeton and was close to Panofsky and Meiss. On Carl Nordenfalk (1907–1992), see Alexander 1993 and Kitzinger, Mütherich and Cahn 1993. 116 In the following year, Meiss would return the favour by reviewing Nordenfalk’s study on the Livre des Deduis du Roi Modus et la Reine Ratio (Nordenfalk 1955); see Meiss 1957c, 595; also cf. Wormald 1957. 117 Wormald 1956. 118 Porcher 1959. The book was indeed soon translated into English, Italian, German and Swedish. 119 Meiss 1956c; Laclotte 1956. Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 28 April 1956: ‘Life is very stimulating in Paris, what with the show in the Nationale, another show of 70 mss. in Chantilly (nothing new of real importance), and the fascinating show of Italian paintings from the Musées de Province (including Ajaccio!) which I saw today before the vernissage. This is full of problems (my head is nodding), and I would like to review it also later on, if I can possibly fnd time’. 120 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 8 February 1957. 121 Meiss 1956c, 146. 122 Ibid., 139: ‘Ce catalogue est en effet un hommage rendu aux méthodes critiques et aux réussites de Longhi. Son opinion, verbale ou écrite, est toujours celle qui l’emporte’. Cf. Longhi 1966a; Longhi 1966b. 123 Meiss 1956c, 148. On the relationship between Longhi and Meiss refer to Cooke 2017. 124 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 21 April 1956: ‘Having on my hands two longish articles, one on Bellini (Giovanni), the other on Mantegna (not yet fnished), it occurred to me that it might be nice though not necessarily practical to put them together in a small book, joining to them 2 or 3 15th century papers more or less related in theme that have already been published in

The Far Side of the Moon

61

on Mantegna and was published in 1957. In the book, Meiss explored the northern infuences on Mantegna’s style, as well as the role the artist played in the revival of the Roman square capital within the humanistic circle of Felice Feliciano.126 More specifcally, Meiss ascribed to Mantegna a group of illustrations in two manuscripts, the Life and Passion of St Maurice from the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris (MS 940; Figure 2.1) and Strabo’s Geographica from the Bibliothèque Rochegude in Albi (MS 4). They both belonged to René d’Anjou, who had received them from the Venetian Jacopo Antonio Marcello as a gift, sealing the pledge of allegiance in the war against the Duchy of Milan. Meiss interpreted the iconography of the illustrations within this specifc cultural and political background and attributed some illuminations to Mantegna and his workshop. Scholars, however, generally overlooked Meiss’s compelling iconographic analysis of the manuscripts and only debated their attribution, until they were fnally ascribed to Giovanni Bellini.127 Despite the years he spent studying mural and panel painting, Meiss’s fascination for illumination was long cultivated, as evidenced in the introductory words to the frst volume of the corpus on the art at the court of Berry, The Late Fourteenth Century and the Patronage of the Duke, which came to fruition in 1967128: 125

I was attracted by the relative spontaneity of illumination, by its fresh color, and its freedom from the alterations, losses and repair that mar most paintings of larger size. Paintings in books more consistently give one a better notion of what their creators wanted. They are often also far more varied in subject, and, given the almost complete loss of large-scale secular painting, they preserve for us something of this rather novel and increasingly important branch of the art of the late Middle Ages.129 Not only did Meiss often seek Panofsky’s advice while conducting the research on French painting, but Early Netherlandish Painting was undisputedly a model for the very layout of his study. The thematic organisation Panofsky used in his corpus was indeed successfully combined by Meiss with the Offnerian catalogue of artistic personalities. Panofsky furnished what Delaissé called the ‘frst satisfactory synthesis on this fascinating subject’, in which he recognised Parisian workshops centre-stage following a theory Meiss expounded in earlier studies like the article on the frescoes in Béziers.130

125 126

127 128 129 130

periodicals, acts, or festschriften’. Panofsky suggested the New York-based German publisher Augustin (letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 25 April 1956). Meiss 1957a. The article on Bellini mentioned by Meiss was probably a study on the St Francis in the Frick Collection that was published a few years later (Meiss 1963d and Meiss 1964a). Meiss 1976, 33. The title closely recalls Fritz Saxl’s ‘Jacopo Bellini and Andrea Mantegna as Antiquarians’ (in: Saxl 1957, I, 150–160). Meiss deepened his analysis of Mantegna’s role in the revival of the Roman square capital in an article that appeared in The Art Bulletin three years later; see Meiss 1960d. Bellosi 2008 [includes previous bibliography]. Panofsky, however, announced its imminent publication already in Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Panofsky 1960, 159–160). Meiss 1967c, I, vii. Quote from Delaissé 1970, 206. Cf. Panofsky 1953, I, 26: ‘Artists of different origin, yet unifed and supported by the solid tradition of their adopted country, engaged in a methodical and – to borrow a happy phrase from Millard Meiss – ‘selective’ assimilation of the various Trecento currents’. For

62

The Far Side of the Moon

Figure 2.1 Giovanni Bellini (attr.), Portrait of Jacopo Antonio Marcello, ca. 1453, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS 940 Passio Mauritii et sotiorum ejus, f. 38 v.

The Far Side of the Moon

63

The artistic milieu Meiss analysed in French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry coincided with the frst chapter in Panofsky’s Early Netherlandish Painting, which explored the 14th-century Franco-Flemish illustration as a means of penetration of Italian Trecento north of the Alps. Panofsky, however, only managed to see the frst volume in his fnal days as the following book on the Boucicaut Master appeared in 1968 and was dedicated to his memory.131 Meiss would disseminate the results of his research on illumination in several articles spanning the 1960s and 1970s, including one featured in the opening issue of André Chastel’s Revue de l’Art.132 According to Julien Cain, Jean Porcher’s pioneering efforts to give French illumination the place it deserved in the history of art were echoed in Meiss’s work.133 Such a consecration within Francophile scholarship found resonance in Meiss’s correspondences with French specialists. Only a year before, the American art historian tellingly wrote to Chastel: It seemed to me that only France knew how to make something basically new and precious of Trecento art, and what it accomplished demanded a comprehensive publication. Out the ‘chaos’ of which Porcher wrote I believed I could make a little order, and I could not see that anyone else was going to attempt the task in the near future.134 Meiss’s examination of the art at the court of the Duke of Berry was however also the object of criticism. ‘Bob’ Delaissé, in particular, attacked the very framework of Meiss’s work in a vitriolic review of the frst volume in The Art Bulletin.135 First, the account of French painting Meiss offered was hardly complete because it only considered illumination, to the detriment of other art forms such as panel painting. Equally disappointing was, to Delaissé’s mind, the geographic scope that failed to account for the provincial situation, so the book should have been titled ‘painting in France’ rather than ‘French painting’. Finally, Meiss made the ‘unconscious prejudice’ of preferring attributed works over anonymous ones. The material was thus ‘artifcially circumscribed’, as well as limited, by the premise that all Parisian illumination could be represented by the patronage of the Duke of Berry alone.136 Delaissé thought Meiss’s

131

132 133 134 135 136

Meiss’s study on the Béziers frescoes; see Meiss 1937. The importance of the new ideas set forth in this article was emphasised by Castelnuovo, even though the latter countered the ‘anti-Avignon’ stance Panofsky and Meiss both shared, also referring to a letter from Longhi dated 1956. Castelnuovo, however, also distinguished between Meiss’s misunderstanding of Avignon style due to an interpretation fltered through Florentine-Sienese standards and Panofsky’s ‘more abstract’ judgement infuenced by his belief in the primacy of Paris (Castelnuovo 19912, xxii–xxiii). Heckscher 1969, 8: ‘In the last hours of his life – his features more than ever resembling those of the aging, owl-eyed Voltaire – he held, with his arms stretched above his head the ponderous plate volume of Millard Meiss’s French Painting in the Time of the Duc de Berry’. Also see AAA, MMP. Letter from Gerda Soergel to Millard Meiss, 16 February 1969: ‘I am sad for both you and Pan that you can no longer talk about it together, but remember with tears in my eyes the moment when you brought the Berry volumes last year to Pan’s bedside’. Meiss 1968c. AAA, MMP. Letter from Julien Cain to Millard Meiss, 2 January 1969. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 12 November 1968. Delaissé 1970. Ibid., 206–207.

64

The Far Side of the Moon

assertiveness stood in glaring contrast to the ‘fallible’ Panofsky, who at least ‘was able to accept his errors, to laugh at them and start again on a new basis’.137 Not only was Meiss overly confdent, but his approach was pigeonholed as ‘aristocratic’, not unlike that of many Italian Renaissance experts whose judgement rested on a preconceived ‘superhuman grandeur and semi-divine origin’ of artistic creation.138 This ‘aristocratic’ attitude could be seen in the high quality of the examples taken into consideration, as well as in the patron’s status, and in the pre-eminence accorded to the Italian infuence over the Flemish component. The reviewer then proceeded to point to several mistakes in dating, due to the assumption that works of lesser quality were copies of a superior original and not previous attempts.139 Delaissé concluded that Meiss’s ‘excessive assurance’ in relying solely on the Italianising trend made his stylistic analysis weak when compared to the study of iconography or the historical background.140 The reactions to this ‘unfair review’, as Janson termed it, were numerous.141 Hugo Buchtal, for instance, stigmatised the ‘neurotic outburst’ that spoke volumes of the ‘blatantly unaristocratic frame of mind of the reviewer’.142 Edward Kaminski, from the Art College of Design in Pasadena, wrote to Meiss that Delaissé had only succeeded in damaging his own reputation.143 The following issue of The Art Bulletin featured an article on Paolo Uccello by Meiss, but not a word was said on the Delaissé affaire. Probably in the light of the other positive reviews, as well as the solidarity expressed across the board, Meiss did not feel that a rejoinder was necessary.144 An unoffcial reply, however, might be inferred from Meiss’s letter exchange with Henk van Os on the dispute described as ‘like that between the carpenters and the bricklayers, or rather the undertakers and the grave diggers’.145 Van Os’s tongue-in-cheek retort was ‘delaissé faire, laisser passer‘, because Meiss should not have felt threatened by a parallel with ‘a non-existing one [book] that ought to be written by the reviewer’.146

137 Ibid., 208: ‘It seems to me that there is a serious confusion here between “proof” and mere argument, between reduction and hypothesis or interpretation’. 138 Ibid., 209: ‘The artistic production of a milieu or epoch is entirely explained by the most important creators of the period, and they, in turn, are explained by each other as if they were transmitting the exclusive gift of artistic creation from one to the other’. 139 Ibid., 210. That the models and prototypes indicated were the result of a rather forced interpretation was also noticed by Ferber (1970), 482. 140 Delaissé 1970, 212. 141 Janson believed it was Delaissé’s reputation at stake rather than Meiss’s (AAA, MMP. Letter from Horst W. Janson to Millard Meiss, 25 July 1970). 142 AAA, MMP. Letter from Hugo Buchtal to Millard Meiss, 7 October 1970. 143 AAA, MMP. Letter from Edward Kaminski to Millard Meiss, 7 September 1970: ‘This sort of review does not damage a great work such as yours undoubtedly is. It does damage the reviewer. Delaissé, whom I happen to know personally, has suffered irremediably in my estimation; I know that many others feel as I do’. 144 The other reviews include Boase 1968; Spear 1968; Verdier 1968; Boase 1969; Armstrong 1969; Spencer 1969; Frinta 1970; Spear 1970; Heinemann 1977 and Eisler 1981. For an overall appraisal of Meiss’s studies, see Avril 1975. 145 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Henk W. van Os, 15 September 1970. 146 AAA, MMP. Letter from Henk W. van Os to Millard Meiss, 4 November 1970.

The Far Side of the Moon

65

The ‘Synthronismus’ In the 1950s, Panofsky was beginning to think of the future of art history at the Institute for Advanced Study and how to secure continuity with his work. While Meiss seemed to be the best choice for a successor, he had however accepted the chair of art history at Harvard in 1953.147 Although hesitant at frst, the American scholar apparently decided on such a career move because he was attracted to the prospect of becoming the curator of paintings at the Fogg Museum.148 Being privy to his qualms, Panofsky approved of Meiss’s fnal decision through gritted teeth and considered it ‘a lounge nel mezzo del cammin’ that was possibly predicted ‘on the assumption of Berenson’s mortality (which has still to be proved)’.149 In September 1956, Meiss invited Pan to deliver a lecture at the university in Massachusetts.150 Vetting tomb sculpture as a possible subject, Panofsky then preferred a theme chosen from the ‘Swedish book’ Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art.151 The German professor intended to address the good ‘old law of disjunction’ and the topic of a lecture held on 10 December 1956, ‘Mithras in Monreale. Some Further Observations on Classical Mythology in Mediaeval Art’, was chosen accordingly.152 Meanwhile, Panofsky had been prompting Meiss to join him in Princeton for the following academic year. This time, the American art historian could not resist the siren’s call: simply that I cannot conceive of refusing forthwith an invitation to carry on, in whatever way I can, a tradition that you have inaugurated, and to represent our discipline at so exceptional an institution. I have thought of the matter long enough to have gotten over the initial excitement at being ‘sounded out’, though I cannot say that I have ceased to be moved by the great honor the Institute does me.153

147 Panofsky also previously taught at Harvard as the prestigious Charles Eliot Norton Chair of Poetry in 1947–1948 and was immediately seduced by the more cosmopolitan and vibrant environment compared to the more conservative Princeton; see Keenan 2014, 133–136. 148 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 9 November 1953: ‘While many people may believe I have made a big mistake, none I think can maintain that my decision was precipitate’. FARLA, FC, Frick Art Reference Library – Central Correspondence. Letter from Millard Meiss to Helen C. Frick, 28 November 1953. 149 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 12 November 1953. 150 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 26 September 1956. Panofsky initially suggested an informal lecture about Poussin (Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 28 September 1956). 151 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 15 October 1956: ‘What about entombing Harvard?’. Panofsky’s studies on tomb sculpture would later become a book, Tomb Sculpture: Its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini (London: Thames and Hudson, 1964). 152 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 17 October 1956; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 23 October 1956: ‘For the college students, and for some of the graduate students too, you are a shining legend’. Panofsky 2006, 1056–1058 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 5 November 1956]; also cf. Beecher 1956. 153 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 8 October 1956.

66

The Far Side of the Moon

On 13 November, Panofsky informed Meiss that the School of Historical Studies had unanimously accepted his appointment.154 Shortly thereafter, Meiss however grew uncertain of his decision, presumably because some of his future colleagues in Princeton were against his employment. Nevertheless, Meiss ultimately resolved that he was able to leave Harvard before when he was a college senior, and he could do so again.155 Coincidentally, Panofsky was offered a chair at Harvard around the same time, but he was too intent upon ensuring ‘the future of the history of art at the Institute’ and would only agree to a visiting professorship after he retired from Princeton.156 Although Meiss, ‘the very best man we could have gotten in this country’, was Pan’s frst choice because of their common research paths and methodology,157 the director of the institute, J. Robert Oppenheimer, decided that Panofsky’s successor was to be selected amongst a roster of three candidates and that the person would have to work alongside Pan for an interim period – which Pan dubbed ‘synthronisation’ or ‘synthronismus’.158 As Carl Nordenfalk wrote to Panofsky, Meiss would have successfully defended ‘the leadership in the studies of late Medieval’.159 But other options were also considered, like Richard Krautheimer, for instance, though he was not prepared to leave the Institute of Fine Arts,160 and Ernst H. Gombrich was also mentioned as an alternative.161 After long weighing his decision, and with a little help from Rensselaer W. Lee,162 Meiss fnally left Harvard: I am visiting you at once, even though I am still a little dazed by the act of resigning from Harvard – a thing tantamount to resigning from Heaven – and I cannot

154 Panofsky 2006, 1066–1067 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 13 November 1956]. 155 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 21 December 1956: ‘Curiously enough, too, Harvard has always attracted me from the time I tried (and nearly succeeded) to transfer there from Princeton when I was a college senior. I did, however, leave Harvard once, and I can do it again’. 156 Panofsky 2006, 1084–1085 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 15 December 1956]. AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 2 January 1957: ‘If after retirement (provided, of course, that I am still alive and more or less in possession of my faculties) Harvard wants me again as a quite ordinary and inconspicuous Visiting Lecturer, that would be quite a different matter’. Quote taken from AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 10 January 1957. 157 Panofsky 2008, 117–118 [Erwin Panofsky – Edward E. Lowinsky, 15 May 1957]. 158 For this reason, Panofsky’s retirement was postponed by two years. 159 Panofsky 2006, 1072–1073 [Carl Nordenfalk – Erwin Panofsky, 19 November 1956]. 160 Panofsky 2008, 59–60 [Erwin Panofsky – Richard Krautheimer, 10 March 1957]: ‘You yourself would have been a most eligible and desirable choice; but in proposing Millard primo loco I had two ideas in mind. First, I knew that you had a short time ago resisted the siren songs of Princeton. Second, and more important, I felt that – even if you should have yielded to the temptations of the Institute where you did not yield to those of the university – it would have been to the disadvantage of our beloved discipline to deprive the Institute of Fine Arts of your presence there. Harvard can and will live on without Millard’. 161 Julius S. Held told Meiss that Erica Tietze-Conrat apparently mentioned Gombrich as ‘the most desirable successor’, but Pan explained in a letter why he preferred Meiss (AAA, MMP. Letter from Julius S. Held to Millard Meiss, 20 October 1974). Although Held reckoned that the letter, probably dated 26 September 1957, was worthy of being included in a future publication of Pan’s correspondence, the missive was not published in the Korrespondenz volumes, and there is no trace of it in Meiss’s papers either. 162 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, early 1957; letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 4 February 1957: ‘He [Rensselaer] is prepared to go to any length to make the agreement concerning your offce as stable as anything can be in this atomic world’.

The Far Side of the Moon

67

deny, Pan, that the choice was a bit diffcult. Still, I would like you to know – as an old friend and the prime mover in this business – and I would like you to know immediately after the offcial act, that I always thought I knew how it would come out; and having reached a frm decision a couple of weeks ago I have constantly felt it was absolutely right. The prospect has made me happier than anything I can remember – and, of course, a little anxious.163 This was obviously music to Panofsky’s ears: I am very confdent that – quite apart from our personal relations and gratitude – your choice was the right one from your point of view; and that means, as I knew from the minute I met you, from the point of view of our beloved history of art as such.164 Meiss was immediately involved in every decision regarding the department, and particularly the appointment of visiting professors. For the academic year of 1958–1959, Panofsky and Meiss shortlisted Florence’s soprintendente Ugo Procacci, the former student of Panofsky Hugo Buchtal from the Warburg Institute, the aforementioned Bob Delaissé, Paul Coremans from Brussels and Greek archaeologist Spyridōn N. Marinatos.165 For 1960–1961, André Chastel and Federico Zeri were considered, but Meiss ruled out the latter for not being affliated to any institute in Italy.166 Whereas for the academic year of 1961–1962, the two Princetonian professors asked some of the participants in the New York’s International Congress to stay on for one or two semesters, including Jean Bony, Willibald Sauerländer, Ludwig Heydenreich, Hans R. Hahnloser and Hans Kauffmann.167 Panofsky offcially retired in 1962, but continued to be part of the life at the institute as an emeritus professor. Meiss would still consult him on several matters, especially on visiting professorships, like for instance upon inviting Ernst Kitzinger and Carl Nordenfalk to the institute.168 By choosing him, Panofsky was sure that he had made the right move, as he reminded Meiss on his sixtieth birthday:

163 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 12 February 1957. 164 Panofsky 2008, 27–28 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 15 February 1957]. 165 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 29 December 1958: ‘I think you will be very interested to learn that we shall have at the Institute next year, in addition to Buchtal of the Warburg Institute, Delaissé of the Bibliothèque Royale, Brussels, two men whose work as conservators is related to yours. They are Paul Coremans, of whom you certainly know, and Marinatos, the superintendent of monuments of the region of Athens’. 166 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959. 167 AAA, MMP. Minute of the letter from Erwin Panofsky and Millard Meiss to John R. Marin, 13 December 1961. 168 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 17 November 1966; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 12 December 1966. Panofsky 2011, 936–937 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 16 December 1966]: ‘Both are distinguished by an almost unique combination of universality with special training and experience, of constructive imagination and command of detail, of wide perspective and an apparently inexhaustible capacity for work’.

68

The Far Side of the Moon Had you decided otherwise, the decision may easily have meant the end of the history of art at the Institute. Now its future is secure; and so is, we hope, the continuance of our friendship.169

‘Von Haus zu Haus’ ‘From house to house’ is a recurring form of salutation in the letters between Panofsky and Meiss. Spanning from 1936 to 1968, their correspondence bears witness to their lifelong friendship based on mutual professional and personal admiration.170 The exchange of missives became more regular between 1953 and 1958, when Meiss was at Harvard and would update Panofsky on his research pursuits and seek his guidance.171 The letters dating back to Panofsky’s late years, when Meiss was busy rescuing the works of art damaged in the Florence food, reveal a more private side of their relationship.172 As can be expected, iconographic matters were central to many conversations as Meiss would proft from Pan’s knowledge in interpreting inscriptions and subjects, namely of Tuscan devotional works. Only a few remarks on questions of method can be found (though pertaining to single case studies), a fact that can be explained by their aversion to abstract speculation.173 Panofsky did not feel very comfortable wearing the connoisseur’s shoes,174 but he praised his successor’s ‘ability to see and analyze visual characteristics (and so eloquently)’, much to his ‘envy and despair’.175 Pan professed to trust his eye completely, perhaps because he considered his colleague as not just a ‘loquacious connoisseur’ nor simply a ‘laconic art historian’.176 For this reason, he often turned to Meiss for advice whenever someone

169 Panofsky 2011, 468 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 25 March 1964]. 170 Heckscher compared Panofsky to Erasmus of Rotterdam for the size of his correspondences: Heckscher 1969, 7. The correspondence reported in the Korrespondenz edited by Wuttke is only partial. 171 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, February 1956: ‘your confdence in my work, responsible in the frst place for my remaining in the feld and now demonstrated once again in a much bigger and even overwhelming way, is the most important thing in my life’. For the reply, see Panofsky 2006, 918 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 11 February 1956]. 172 A particularly touching moment was when Panofsky described how he was feeling like ‘an old rock near the sea shore, wetted every year with a fresh wave of youth so that in the end it is quite incrusted with a thick layer of moss, seaweed and barnacles but never entirely dried up’ (AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 11 April 1967). 173 To avoid taking part in theoretical disputes, Panofsky famously used to quote Abdullah of Jordan’s dictum, ‘The discussion of methods spoils their application’; see Heckscher 1967, 262. 174 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 7 March 1954: ‘You know how uncomfortable I feel in the role of a “Kenner” and how much more I trust your eye than mine. I always try to avoid questions of attribution as much as compatible with my conscience’. This confrms how Białostocki remembered Pan: ‘He [Panofsky] was accused of a lack of interest in form, in art itself. Everybody who knew this exceptional man knows how false such an option is, and that this kind of criticism was altogether unjust. But it is certainly true that his main interest was in meaning, which he saw everywhere and which he knew how to reveal to others’, in: Białostocki 1970, 83. 175 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 20 April 1964: ‘On the other hand, it is a source of satisfaction to me that there is one art historian, and my successor at that, who is able to translate into actuality what has only been a postulate as far as I am concerned’. 176 Panofsky 1967–1976, 9. As is known, ‘laconic art historian’ and ‘loquacious connoisseur’ are defnitions explained in ‘The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline’ (Panofsky 1955b, 20).

The Far Side of the Moon

69

asked him to formulate a stylistic judgement. The ‘verdammte Originale’ was an expression Panofsky employed when forced to resort to stylistic analysis or to refer to the coterie of connoisseurs in general.178 Meiss ironically wrote about being close to the ‘damned originals’ when he was spending a period studying at Berenson’s villino in Settignano between 1964 and 1965, alluding to his own connoisseurial pursuits.179 Pan also always recognised Meiss’s knowledge of techniques and conservation as opposed to his self-professed incompetence of a mere ‘general art historian’.180 Therefore it was only natural that Panofsky would recommend Meiss in 1953 to be part of the committee for the restoration of the Ghent Altarpiece led by the conservator Paul Coremans, which included Julius Held, Martin Davies and Otto Pächt.181 In his tribute to Coremans, Pan praised both the humanistic and the scientifc approach of such ‘art scientists’ like the Belgian scholar and interestingly singled out Meiss’s reconstruction of Piero della Francesca’s St Augustine Altarpiece as an example of how the study of style and iconography can be successfully complemented by the material analysis of an artwork.182 177

The Extent of His Infuence, the Weight of His Authority and the Solidity of His Reign In 1961, Panofsky was presented with a Festschrift for his seventieth birthday that was put together by Meiss, William S. Heckscher, Rensselaer W. Lee, Ernst H. Kantorowicz and Carl Nordenfalk.183 Approximately forty essays about ‘theory, meaning, and iconography’184 by a strict selection of students, colleagues and friends185 paid homage to the ‘modern apologist of iconology’.186 The topics ranged from Italian Renaissance

177 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 6 August 1956; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 9 August 1956; letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 13 August 1956. 178 Cf. Białostocki 1970, 83: ‘When the material of history did not yield to his expectations of intellectual order he complained jokingly but also accusingly of die verdammten Originale’. 179 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, ante 1 March 1965. 180 AAA, MMP. Minute of the letter from Erwin Panofsky to Eric Westbrook, 24 February 1959. 181 Panofsky 2006, 451–452 [Erwin Panofsky – Paul Coremans, 15 June 1953]: ‘If the Ministry does not mind another American, the best man would certainly be Millard Meiss who is now writing the long overdue study on Eyckian infuence in Italy and whose eye and erudition I have the greatest possible confdence’. On Paul Coremans (1906–1965), refer to Deneffe and Vanwijnsberghe 2019. 182 Panofsky 1965; cf. Meiss 1941. In this article, Meiss reconstructed Piero della Francesca’s St Augustine Altarpiece and analysed other late works. The study was prompted by the material analysis on the Crucifxion panel in the Frick Collection. 183 Meiss 1961a. 184 Wedgewood Kennedy 1962, 12. Also see the other reviews: ‘De Artibus Opuscula XL’ 1962; J.R.J. 1963. 185 In fact, Meiss and the other editors had to curtail the number of participants; see Meiss 1961a, I, vi–vii. AAA, MMP. Minute of the letter from Millard Meiss to Wilhelm S. Heckscher, 3 March 1958. 186 Holly 1992, 23.

70

The Far Side of the Moon

art and antiquity,187 to Renaissance and Baroque art and theory,188 architecture,189 literature,190 music191 and art techniques,192 to the connections between politics and art seen through patronage.193 This collection of essays refected the large ‘clan’ of art historians that had formed around Panofsky in the course of his career, attracted by a spirit of ‘Wahlverwandtschaft’ (elective affnity)194 and stood as a testament to ‘the extent of his infuence, the weight of his authority, the solidity of his reign’.195 Unaware of this ‘conspiracy’,196 Pan welcomed what he termed ‘the most opulent Festschrift ever known to man’,197 with both surprise and a certain reluctance, according to Heckscher.198 ‘Amazed, elated and moved’, Panofsky appreciated these studies for their quality and because they were the fruits his method had reaped, but more importantly because they were, in his words, ‘the symbol of what the Institute has done – and, Millardo duce, continues to do – for our beloved discipline’.199 Upon thanking each author and feeling somewhat undeserving,200 Pan professed to be impressed by the high scientifc standard of the Festschrift, in spite of his own opposition to such miscellaneous enterprises.201 Unlike the other editors, Meiss did not feature among the

187 Wedgewood Kennedy 1962, 15. 188 H.W. Janson, ‘The “Image Made by Chance” in Renaissance Thought’; E. Kantorowicz, ‘The Sovereignty of the Artist. A Note on Legal Maxims and Renaissance Theories of Art’; G.B. Ladner, ‘Vegetation Symbolism and the Concept of the Renaissance’ and J.G. van Gelder, ‘Two Aspects of the Dutch Baroque. Reason and Emotion’, all in: Meiss 1961a, 254–266, 267–279, 303–322, 445–453. 189 J. Coolidge, ‘Peter Harrison’s First Design for King’s Chapel, Boston’; G.H. Forsyth, Jr., ‘An Early Byzantine Church at Kanlf Divane in Cilicia’; L.H. Heyndenreich, ‘Die Cappella Rucellai von San Pancrazio in Florenz’ and R. Krautheimer, ‘The Architecture of Sixtus III: A Fifth Century Renascence?’, all in: Meiss 1961a, 64–75, 127–137, 219–229, 291–302. 190 S.C. Chew, ‘The Allegorical Chariot in English Literature of the Renaissance’ and W.S. Heckscher, ‘Recorded From Dark Recollection’, in: Meiss 1961a, 37–54, 187–200. 191 W. Stechow, ‘Johann Sebastian Bach the Younger’, in: Meiss 1961a, 427–436. Stechow would recall Panofsky’s interest in music in his obituary; see Stechow 1969. 192 P. Coremans, ‘La Notation des Couleurs. Essai d’application aux Primitifs famands’, in: Meiss 1961a, 76–81. 193 M. Muraro, ‘La Scala senza Giganti’ and E. Wind, ‘Platonic Tyranny and the Renaissance Fortuna. On Ficino’s Reading of Laws IV, 709A-712A’, in: Meiss 1961a, 350–370, 491–496. 194 Białostocki 1970, 70. 195 Chastel 1980, 109: ‘L’étendue de son infuence, les poids de son autorité, la solidité de son règne’. 196 Meiss 1961a, vii: ‘the person whom we wish to honor disapproves of this form of publication, and has voiced his disapproval to friends and colleagues. I well recall an interesting moment in the spring of 1959, not long before the book went to press, when he spoke with feeling about the bibliographical anomalousness of honorary volumes – a denunciation to which I listened, however, with more satisfaction than dismay because it was certain proof that he was still unaware of the conspiracy’. 197 Panofsky 2008, 589–590 [Erwin Panofsky – William S. Heckscher, 15 December 1959]. 198 Heckscher 1969, 17–18: ‘Presenting them was not an easy task simply because Panofsky refused to put down Georges Wildenstein’s Paintings of Fragonard, which he insisted on reading even after he had ushered me into his living room. The whole procedure was highly embarrassing for both of us. […] Once the ice was broken, his delighted curiosity, especially regarding the “who’s who” of the forty contributors, changed from astonishment to laughter, from laughter to frowning, and back to delighted laughter again’. 199 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to J. Robert Oppenheimer, 9 January 1961. 200 See the letters included in Panofsky 2008, 589 and ff. 201 Panofsky 2008, 813–816 [Erwin Panofsky – Carl Nordenfalk, 12 January 1961]: ‘First, the contributions are very diffcult to fnd and to quote; second they are often not of the same quality as the “unsolicited” productions of the same authors because a scholar faced with the necessity of producing something “in honor of somebody else” is apt either to slam an article together in a hurry […];

The Far Side of the Moon

71

contributors. The text he initially thought of including required too much space and illustrations, and he had already promised it as an article for the Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell’Arte published by the Cini Foundation in Venice.202 Originally conceived as a lecture, Meiss’s note on Bellini’s St Francis in the Frick Collection, as will be seen, was a textbook application of iconological interpretation, which Panofsky particularly appreciated and was disappointed that he had not been able to attend the event. 203 Another homage to the Panofskyan legacy was the 20th International Congress of the History of Art that Meiss organised in New York in 1961. Under the title of Studies in Western Art, the conference constituted the frst stage of a critical reassessment of the iconological method that would come of age in the following meeting in Bonn.204 Panofsky’s recently published Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (1960) certainly served as a model for the sessions, which mostly concerned the theme of revival, both in terms of the survival of the antique and as the borrowing of style and motifs in Central and South American Art from the motherland or pre-Columbian cultures.205 While Warburg’s name was hardly ever mentioned – as a reviewer remarked – the long shadow of the ‘duca, signor, maestro’ Panofsky was cast over the session on the Renaissance and the antique chaired by André Chastel, as well as Anthony Blunt’s on the survival of classical art in the Baroque.206 For the frst time at a CIHA conference, Western art was being considered as a whole. This may be indicative of that broader perspective offered by American art history, as Pan famously recognised, which allowed to see beyond the national borders of European art historiography.207 At the New York conference, surrounded by many ‘old friends’,208 Panofsky gave a closing lecture on the iconological interpretation of Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo.209 Kenneth Clark was the other keynote speaker at the congress and his lecture,

202

203 204

205 206

207

208

209

third, because the size of a Festschrift seems to increase at the inverse square of the importance of the recipients’. PGRI, JHP, Correspondence, Scholars and Artists, box 5, folder 4. Letter from Millard Meiss to Julius S. Held, 23 June 1961: ‘The paper that I had ready at the time – on the Frick Bellini – required more extensive illustration than I thought I ought to allow myself as editor, so I put the article instead in the Journal of the Cini Foundation’. Panofsky 2006, 1056–1059 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 5 November 1956]. Meiss 1963a. For a further examination of the New York conference and its political ramifcations, see J. Cooke, ‘The Post-Classical West and its Connections with World Art: CIHA and the Western Bloc at the International Conference of New York in 1961’, in: Reframing the (Art) World: Commitment, Challenges and Crises of International Art Criticism since 1945, conference proceedings, Rennes, 11–12 October 2018 (in preparation). Panofsky 1960. A. Chastel, ‘Introduction’, in: Meiss 1963a, II, 3. Cf. Neumeyer 1965, 514: ‘While Erwin Panofsky is today’s master in the feld, we should not forget that it was the never-mentioned Aby Warburg who conceived frst of this problem and its multi-layered applications’. Panofsky 1955b, 328–329. This aspect did not escape Białostocki who underscored the internationality of Panofsky’s and Meiss’s iconological studies (Białostocki 1978, vi). The emphasis placed on Western art can also be explained as a refection of the Cold War political climate; see Cooke, ‘The Post-Classical West …’ cit. On CIHA, see Dufrêne 2007 and Cooke 2018. Panofsky 2008, 1033–1035: 1034 [Erwin Panofsky – William S. Heckscher, 18 September 1961]: ‘The Congress was, in a sense, hell because the thermometer never went below 90 and the humidity never below 70. On the other hand, hardship endured in common makes for a certain comradery among wild animals, including art historians, and it was pleasant to see so many old friends again’. This was the subject of a forthcoming book Pan wrote in response to Roberto Longhi, who had dismissed the painted scenes as purely decorative (Panofsky 1961; AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin

72

The Far Side of the Moon

too, had a Panofskyan leaning inasmuch as it dealt with ‘motives’ defned as patterns, in which style and subject are inextricably fused together.210 Panofsky’s death in 1968 shook the art historical world like an ‘earthquake’.211 The scholar’s persona and achievements were evoked in a plethora of obituaries, but none penned by Meiss, perhaps because he was too distressed after losing his friend and mentor. Among them, Białostocki remembered Panofsky both as a man and as a ‘master of art history’;212 Gombrich evoked Pan’s availability towards the many scholars who visited him at his home on Battle Road;213 Rensselaer Lee, too, emphasised the impact of ‘steadfast humanist of the ancient lineage’.214 Meiss did however deliver a eulogy at the memorial the Institute for Advanced Study and New York’s Institute of Fine Arts jointly organised on 21 March 1968.215 Overwhelmed by losing ‘a friend of thirty-seven years’, Meiss spoke of Pan’s arrival in the United States and his frst impressions of American students, up to the sense of humanity the German scholar showed in his fnal days – much like the Humanität he attributed to Immanuel Kant.216 As an example, Meiss recalled a ‘superhuman act’ of stoic behaviour that he personally witnessed: I brought him my two new books that had their frst beginnings long ago in the speak-easy, and I offered them to him – he had to lie fat in bed – with uneasiness about their contents as well as embarrassment for their weight. He held them over his head for an hour, reading voraciously, asking questions, his eyes glowing while his arms trembled. I kept thinking of his description of Immanuel Kant’s last days.217

210

211

212

213 214 215 216

217

Panofsky to Ida Rubin, 20 June 1961). Cf. Longhi 1956, 24–25; also see the objections Popham made and Longhi’s reply: Popham 1958; Longhi 1958. K. Clark, ‘Motives’, in: Meiss 1963a, IV, 189–206. Cf. Neumeyer 1965, 514: ‘This brings us to the general observation of the great rarity of a strictly formgeschichtliche approach. Instead of it the work of art appears – as stated previously – in a feld of interactions, an approach which has immensely broadened historical and aesthetic analysis’. Clark intended to write a book on motives since as early as 1928, and in a 1974 BBC interview, said motives would be ‘pure Warburg’ (quoted in: Stourton 2016, 422 note 29). Kauffmann 1968, 266: ‘Das Hinscheiden von Erwin Panofsky wirkte wie ein Erdbeben, das Ordnungen, in denen man heimisch war, zerbrach un auseinander riss. Ein Leuchtturm, auf steilem Gipfel hoch ragend, so dass viele an ihm ihren Kurs orientierten, schien erloschen. Nein er leuchtet!’ Białostocki 1970, 68 and 87: ‘Universally admired and loved, he reciprocated these feelings with warmth, never leaving a letter unanswered, an offprint without a wise and witty commentary as a certain proof that he had read the text through eagerly’. Meiss appreciated Białostocki’s tribute to Panofsky and suggested that he published it in the Art Bulletin (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Jan Białostocki, 19 October 1970). Gombrich 1968. For a more personal tribute to Pan as a teacher and colleague, refer to McCallister 1968 and Recht 1968. Lee 1968, 370: ‘No colleague was ever more generous, no friend more sympathetic and he was as greatly beloved for his rich and winning humanity as he was venerated for his learning’. The other colleagues who also paid tribute on that occasion were Harold Cherniss, Harry Bober, Hugo Buchtal, David Coffn and John Coolidge. Panofsky’s well-known reference to the anecdote of Kant’s fnal days and how he stoically maintained a sense of civility, or humanity, is contained in ‘The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline’ (in: Panofsky 1955b, 1–25: 1–2); cf. also Emmens and Schwartz 1967–1968. Meiss 1968d, 9–10.

The Far Side of the Moon

73

Panofskyan Pathways Arnolfni’s Hat While Offner was the spiritual guide for the Tuscan Trecento, Meiss’s beacon in the studies on Flemish art was undoubtedly Panofsky – who even impersonated a Vaneyckian character in his oneiric subconscious: You and I, both bound for the Morgan Library, you having just come from Princeton, meet accidentally on the way. I am surprised to fnd you smoking a meerschaum pipe, and still more, to see you the remarkable hat on your head. ‘Just like Arnolfni’s stove-pipe’, I said. ‘And how becoming to you! May I try it on?’ You hand the thing to me, and I look at myself in the store-window behind. ‘Not so good on me’, I remarked, handing it back so that you may again don it. Then down the street we go, you with the high hat, and I bare-headed (like Albergati).218 By giving Arnolfni’s hat to his younger friend, the German professor equally acknowledged that Meiss had become an authority in the feld: I am quite convinced that Arnolfni’s hat would suit you even better than myself, and that, – if it symbolizes a coronation by Jan van Eyck en lieu of the Trinity, – you have frst claim to it. That you refrained from trying the meerschaum pipe, bears witness to your good judgment. This instrument obviously signifes a tendency toward theoretical speculations which the bon sens of the English language quite rightly describes as ‘pipe dreams’.219 Meiss’s frst foray into Flemish art was an article on the chronology of Jan van Eyck’s portraits based on the artist’s stylistic development and the infuence of Italian art. The case of the Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati particularly stood out. Meiss dated the panel between 1433 and 1436 after he compared it with the metal-point preparatory drawing in Dresden, which Van Eyck presumably executed when he met the cardinal in 1431.220 This ‘excellent article’221 would have perfectly beftted the Festschrift for Belle da Costa Greene, where it was meant to feature alongside Pan’s essay on the Detroit St Jerome in His Study – incidentally another painting that belonged to the Cardinal Albergati.222 While in the end, the Festschrift published in its place a study of Piero della Francesca’s Montefeltro Altarpiece; the article appeared in The Burlington Magazine.223 The identifcation of the sitter in the Viennese portrait

218 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 1952. Cf. also Panofsky 2006, 239 [Millard Meiss – Erwin Panofsky, ante 8 December 1951]. Cf. Ventrella 2011. 219 Panofsky 2006, 239–240 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 8 December 1951]. 220 Meiss 1952a. 221 Panofsky 1953, I, 200, 436, note 3. 222 Panofsky 1954. 223 Meiss 1954b. It was the editor of the volume, Dorothy E. Miner, who did not accept Meiss’s essay on Van Eyck’s portraits (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 11 September 1951; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 4 December 1951).

74

The Far Side of the Moon

with Niccolò Albergati supported by Meiss224 was subsequently challenged by the scholar of humanistic and Renaissance literature, Roberto Weiss, who on the contrary believed it to represent William III of Vienna.225 But the better part of scholarship did not concur with Weiss, whom Panofsky had called a ‘philologist rather than an art historian’ endowed with ‘acumen minimum’.226 In a paper for CIHA’s 18th International Congress of 1955 in Venice, Meiss investigated Jan van Eyck’s connections with 15th-century Italian art and how Trecento prototypes had fltered into the lowlands through French illumination.227 The American scholar focussed on the recurrence of a semicircular plan in the composition scheme employed by both Jan van Eyck and Masaccio. Such an unprecedented stylistic device that allowed for a sense of plastic movement in the pictorial space found a parallel in the taste for spherical shapes of the time.228 This ‘plateau type’ composition made of parallel curvilinear planes was later utilised by those Italian painters infuenced by northern art, like Filippo Lippi, Domenico Veneziano and, above all, Piero della Francesca.229 As this compositional principle was most successfully applied in 15thcentury Italian and Flemish Crucifxions, Meiss concluded that it evidenced a ‘dependence of iconography upon the history of form’.230 Another instance was the references to Romanesque architecture present in Flemish paintings that had the same meaning as the survivals of classical antiquity in Italian art.231 Meiss attempted at a more cohesive outline of the relation between Flemish and Italian art in the 15th century in a following article. Returning on the curved plateau, Meiss observed that the Vaneyckian type was later abandoned in Flanders, but continued to thrive in Italy (especially in connection with specifc subjects), showed that subjects had ‘a pre-history in morphology’. Consequently, iconography was a ‘by-product’ of the history of form.232 Drawing from Panofsky’s conclusions in his essay for Belle da Costa Greene, Meiss further examined the iconography of St Jerome in an article that he published in the Gazette des Beaux-Arts in 1963.233 The popularity of the saint’s depiction in the study was related to the image of the humanist intellectual, and this iconography was later

224 The identifcation was frst proposed by James Weale (Weale 1904). 225 Weiss 1955a. On Roberto Weiss (1906–1969): Skutsch 1970; Fahy and Moores 1974. 226 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 24 May 1955. The identifcation of the sitter was once more challenged in the 1990s: Hunter 1993, 207. For the literature on this work, refer to: Hall 1998; Heller and Stodulski 1998. 227 Meiss 1956b. 228 Ibid., 60: ‘The concave plan introduced by our two painters effects a slow, regular movement into space and out again. It permits both plastic compactness and spatial extension, and it imparts a grave serenity to the design’. Also consider Wittkower’s studies on architecture (Wittkower 1949). 229 The expression plateau composition was frst coined by Meiss (Meiss 1946a, 12). It was then taken on by the subsequent literature: Nuttall 2004, 195 and ff.; Aikema 2007, 120–125. 230 Meiss 1956b, 66. 231 These remarks showed Meiss’s indebtedness to the studies of Werner Körte and Erwin Panofsky (Körte 1930; Panofsky 1935). 232 Meiss 1961c [1976], 36: ‘In some instances the creation of new forms seems to have been the condition for the appearance of the new iconography. While a subject represented in Christian art usually depends upon a concept or image described in a text, the impulse to illustrate that text, and sometimes indeed even the possibility of doing so, may be provided by the appearance of new forms. It is diffcult to isolate and to weigh the motives involved, but the broad evolution of forms often does condition or even stimulate the representation of a new religious image’. 233 Meiss 1963c.

The Far Side of the Moon

75

developed into a ‘public’ and a ‘private’ type according to a different setting – from the oratory to the semicircular plan of Renaissance niches.234 Meiss returned to this topic ten years later, but this time analysing the success of the penitent St Jerome in connection to the forms of religion encouraged by Jerosolomitan foundations.235 While the relations between Mediterranean and Nordic fgurative civilisations may nowadays rely on a sizeable literature, Meiss could mainly refer to the works of the Belgian art historian Jacques Mesnil.236 As a matter of fact, the courts of Berry and Lombardy were also the focal point of Mesnil’s investigations on the Flemish infuence on Italian art.237 At the time of Meiss’s studies, however, Italo-Flemish connections in 15th-century art were eliciting a growing interest among scholars. Aside from Pan’s Early Netherlandish Painting, whose impact on Meiss has already been considered, ‘the most relevant crux of the Italo-Flemish friendship’238 was foregrounded in the 1952 exhibition I Fiamminghi e l’Italia (‘Flemish Painters and Italy’).239 Meiss’s theories chimed with the research pursued in those years by Eugenio Battisti and Roberto Weiss.240 The latter, in particular, examined the patronage of Italian bankers in the Flanders, Alfonso V of Aragon’s commissions in Spain and Naples, and found documentary evidence of Van Eyck’s lost St George. He also framed the reception of Flemish art in 15th-century Italian sources like Bartolomeo Facio, Filarete and Giovanni Santi.241 The works of Gombrich,242 John Pope-Hennessy,243 Colin Eisler244 and Charles Sterling245 all exemplify how the topic continued to be investigated in the course of the sixties. Meiss’s views were conversely critically reconsidered in the 1980s, when scholarship tended to rather underscore the dissimilarities between Flemish and Italian art. Liana Castelfranchi Vegas’s early articles in Paragone, later collected in her famous book on 15th-century art, called the parallels both Sterling and Meiss had drawn ‘ambiguous’ and ‘foolhardy’.246 Jeffrey Ruda, in turn, argued that similar iconographies had spread as a result of the religious background, but had no link to the formal innovations, and surmised that there was no Flemish infuence as such on Italian art until the end of the 15th century.247

234 Ibid., 159–160. Panofsky spoke of Meiss’s research to Otto Pächt, who was also studying iconography and had come to similar conclusions. AAA, MMP. Copy of the letter from Erwin Panofsky to Otto Pächt, 2 July 1963. Pächt 1963a; Pächt 1963b. 235 Meiss 1974c. 236 A friend of Aby Warburg, Mesnil was also a pioneer in the studies on perspective and anticipated some of Panofsky’s theses. On Jacques Mesnil (1872–1940), see F. Saxl, ‘Three ‘Florentines’: Herbert Horne, Aby Warburg, Jacques Mesnil’, in: Saxl 1957, I, 342–344; http://www.arthistorians.info/dwelshauve rsj; Hochmann 2019. 237 Mesnil 1911a; cf. also Mesnil 1911b; Mesnil 1922. 238 Longhi 1952, 48: ‘il nodo più rilevante dell’amicizia Italia-Fiandra’. 239 Fierens 1951. In the exhibition catalogue, however, the affnities between these two pictorial schools did not go beyond what was already argued in the art literature. 240 Battisti 1955; Weiss 1956. 241 Weiss 1957. This study anticipated Baxandall’s survey of humanistic art literature on Flemish art, cf. Baxandall 1971. 242 Gombrich 1964. Note that Meiss’s essay is never mentioned despite the overt reference to it in the title. 243 Pope-Hennessy 1966, esp. 59–60. 244 Eisler 1969. 245 Sterling 1976, esp. 31–32. 246 Castelfranchi Vegas 1983, 36–38. On Liana Castelfranchi Vegas, see Negri 2000. 247 Ruda 1984.

76

The Far Side of the Moon

Iconology of Light In the 1945 article ‘Light as Form and Symbol’, Meiss employed light within the same Cassirerian framework of symbolic forms that Panofsky applied to perspective.248 Meiss continued to explore light phenomena as a formal and, above all, as a symbolic motif in his following studies too. His ‘iconology of light’ must not however be mistaken for the pittura di luce (painting of light), the expression Luciano Bellosi used to describe the 15th-century fgurative culture of Domenico Veneziano’s circle, which had a formal connotation. Also, Bellosi excluded Filippo Lippi and Masaccio from this style; they were, instead, key fgures in the luministic turn postulated by Meiss.249 Already in the mid-1950s, Giovanni Bellini’s St Francis in the Frick Collection caught Meiss’s attention, not for the painting’s authorship but for the interpretation of its subject.250 In a lecture delivered in 1956 at the National Gallery of Art in Washington, and later reproposed in New York, Meiss set out to refute the idea that the religious episode was a mere incident in an otherwise naturalistic, detailed representation of the landscape.251 The following scholarship almost unanimously concurred, and the scene was mainly considered as either a stigmatisation or a St Francis in ecstasy, without going any further into the matter.252 Upon analysing the style, Meiss called attention to the asymmetrical composition, revealing the typically Tuscan use of perspective of other works by Bellini, combined with a Flemish imprint in the use of light and colour.253 The iconography, on the other hand, showed that the depiction of the solitary saint in the desert as a symbol of contemplative life, so popular in Venetian painting, was evoked by Bellini only in the skull (a usual element for this scene), and the wilderness had been replaced by a domesticated, pastoral landscape.254 Other traditional attributes were equally missing, like Frate Leone and the chapel, and St Francis was standing instead of kneeling.255 But the painter added – Meiss continued – other

248 Meiss 1945; cf. Panofsky 1927a. 249 Bellosi 1990, 11–12; on Bellosi’s pittura di luce, see Rowley 2007 and Rowley 2010. 250 Henry Clay Frick bought the panel from Duveen in 1915 as a work of Bellini (Bailey 2006, 75). Roger Fry and Tancred Borenius questioned that attribution opting for Marco Basaiti, whereas Berenson thought the panel was begun by Bellini and fnished by Girolamo da Santa Croce: Fry 1912; Crowe and Cavalcaselle 1912, I, 158, note 2; Berenson 1916, 105. On the panel, see Rutherglen and Hale 2015, and for the provenance, refer to A.-M. Eze, ‘From the Grand Canal to Fifth Avenue: The Provenance of Bellini’s St. Francis from 1525 to 1915’, in: ibid., 58–79. 251 Meiss wrote that his frst observations on the painting dated back to 1928, before he further expounded his theories in a lecture delivered at the National Gallery of Art in Washington on 23 March 1956, and later repeated at the Frick Collection. An abridged version of the text was submitted to the journal Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell’Arte in 1959 but was published only in 1963 (Meiss 1963d). Then the lecture appeared in full as the frst volume of the Frick Collection series in 1964 (Meiss 1964a). 252 Cf. Venturi 1931, pl. ccxciv (St Francis, dated circa 1480) [Venturi focussed on style rather than iconography]; Dussler 1935, 137 (Stigmatisation of St Francis); Gamba 1937, 107–108 (Stigmatisation of St Francis); Hendy and Goldscheider 1945, 27 [they described the symbolic use of light and the allegorical vision of landscape in Bellini]; Kimball and Venturi 1948, 58 (St Francis in Ecstasy, circa 1480); Heinemann 1959, I, 65 (St Francis). 253 According to Meiss, Longhi had overlooked the importance of Flemish models for Bellini: Meiss 1964a, 44, note 20; cf. Longhi 1914, 246–249. 254 Meiss 1964a, 20–22. 255 Frederick Hartt had already remarked that some of the traditional attributes were missing in the panel. It was rather a psychological dimension that conjured the stigmatisation wherein nature symbolises the supernatural; see Hartt 1940, 35.

The Far Side of the Moon

77

details mentioned in the scriptures, such as the ass and the hare, along with allusions to Christ (the grapevine, the ivy and the fg tree) and the indestructible virtues symbolised by laurel. All these elements were congruent with the receiving of stigmata. Moreover, closely following sources like the Fioretti and the Considerazioni sulle Sacre Sante Stimmate, Bellini included the rock that miraculously opened behind the saint to protect him from the devil’s attacks and represented the stigmatisation at night in a daylit sky in the presence of shepherds.256 Meiss consequently proceeded to examine the symbolic characterisation of light in the panel, evident in the cast shadows of the saint, the ass and the lectern, which were inconsistent with the light source located on the top left (in an otherwise nocturnal landscape).257 This dissimulation of the supernatural by means of what Meiss called, in Panofskyan terms, ‘embedded symbolism’, was the result of an immanent religiousness that was unusual for the Venetian 15thcentury painting. Not only was such spiritual meaning of light unprecedented but, according to Meiss, it also indicated that Bellini’s practice preceded Marsilio Ficino’s Neoplatonism.258 In a letter to the American scholar, Giles Robertson wrote that his analysis of ‘form and content and their inter-relation’ was much owed to Panofsky.259 This indebtedness would also explain why Meiss would want to publish this study in the Festschrift in honour of the German art historian. Meiss’s rigorous application of iconology was able, according to Pan, to successfully ‘translate into actuality what has only been a postulate’.260 Having Panofsky as a guide when venturing into the ‘deeper intrinsic meanings’ of the artwork, Meiss remained mindful of his admonishments on measure and ‘common sense’ in order to avoid the risks of allegorical overinterpretation.261 The famous passage in Early Netherlandish Painting, urging the use of ‘historical methods tempered, if possible, by common sense’,262 resonated in the American’s own words: It is diffcult to know whether the painter invested the objects in his picture with any of the meanings we have just discussed. Lacking specifcally relevant texts, we can only evaluate the probabilities in the light of late Quattrocento painting in general, and Bellini’s work, especially of this period, in particular. The exercise of these historical methods […] leaves the question undecided.263

256 257 258 259 260

Meiss 1964a, 24–25. Ibid., 27–30. Ibid., 30–32. AAA, MMP. Letter from Giles Robertson to Millard Meiss, 7 May 1964. AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 20 April 1964. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 22 April 1964: ‘Like a loyal old friend you say too many nice things. I cannot deny that I like to read them, and I am delighted that the little book seemed worth reading through. The fne cascade of thoughts that the text released shows what you yourself would have made of the theme’. 261 Meiss 1964a, 48, note 110. 262 Panofsky 1953, I, 142–143: ‘We have to ask ourselves whether or not the symbolical signifcance of a given motif is a matter of established representational tradition […]; whether or not a symbolical interpretation can be justifed by defnite texts or agrees with ideas demonstrably alive in the period and presumably familiar to its artists […]; and to what extent such a symbolical interpretation is in keeping with the historical position and personal tendencies of the individual master’. 263 Meiss 1964a, 24.

78

The Far Side of the Moon

In their correspondence, Meiss and Panofsky discussed at length some specifc elements in Bellini’s St Francis. The saint’s blessing gesture would indicate a Christological identifcation and hence justify a stigmatisation. The hut, on the other hand, would signify solitary life as in the iconography of St Jerome. Finally, the laurel, usually symbolising virginity, could also be interpreted as an omen of something that is about to happen, since it was also an ancient symbol of foretelling.264 Helen Clay Frick found Meiss’s new interpretation of the Bellini panel and his symbolic explanation of light very convincing,265 and so did most reviewers, except for John Steer and Carlo L. Ragghianti’s rather tepid response.266 In the following years, art scholarship would alternatively identify the painting as either a stigmatisation or a St Francis and only occasionally raised a debate on the Panofskyan disguised symbolism implied in Meiss’s thesis.267 John V. Fleming criticised the too esoteric and arcane symbolism Meiss, like many other disciples of Panofsky, had resorted to and countered it with a simpler interpretation that the St Francis in the Desert simply referred to the Franciscan ideals of poverty.268 Unlike Fleming, Meiss considered the subject a historia rather than an imagine, thus following that development from Andachtsbild (devotional image) to the narrative scene that occurred in the 15th century, which both Panofsky and Sixten Ringbom studied.269 More recent interpretations, however, have preferred an intermediate explanation, that Bellini eliminated the more descriptive details in order to achieve a timeless dimension, without however creating an icon.270 ‘Oology May Qualify as a Branch of Iconology’ When Meiss celebrated his seventieth birthday with his friends and colleagues in 1974, he was presented with a collection of studies in his honour and a birthday cake in the shape of an ostrich egg.271 That was just like the one hanging above his desk, adumbrating an ‘obsession’ with the Brera Madonna that lasted some twenty years.272

264 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 20 April 1964. Panofsky’s sole reservation was about the dating of Titian works mentioned in the essay, i.e. the London Holy Family which Panofsky dated after Pesaro Altarpiece. 265 AAA, MMP. Letter from Helen Clay Frick to Millard Meiss, 21 April 1964: ‘I have known and loved it for so many years, but feel that I have become really acquainted with it for the frst time, and am very grateful to you for making this possible’. 266 Ragghianti 1964; Lightbown 1965; Steer 1965 (see the reply by Meiss 1966c); Vermeule 1965. 267 On the debate up to the 1990s, see the bibliography listed in Hirdt 1997 and Wohl 1999. For the following views, see Hammond 2002, 24; Christiansen 2004; Isman 2004; Aikema 2007, 119; Aronberg Lavin 2007; Hammond 2007; Lugli 2009 and Rutherglen and Hale 2015, 81–131. 268 Fleming 1982. 269 Panofsky 1927b; Ringbom 1965; cf. Cooke 2015. 270 Lugli 2009, 24–25. 271 INHA, Fonds Chastel, Correspondence, Correspondence M, Meiss, Millard. Letter from Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 5 April 1974: ‘The huge egg (ostrich?) at the center of the room contained a masked slot from which, after some coaxing, I extracted the handsome prospectus of the publication – an overwhelming (and surprising) culmination of a wonderful event’. 272 Meiss 1975, 116: ‘For twenty years I have had an ostrich egg hanging from a chain. […] It has entertained colleagues and students in my offce in the Fogg Museum and at home. It was given to me by Margaret Scolari Barr, who would not, I think, claim a special expertise in this technique of mounting’.

The Far Side of the Moon

79

After reconstructing the St Augustine Altarpiece in the forties, the American art historian was captivated by the ‘magnetic power’ of the perfect geometry of the egg suspended in the middle of another painting by Piero della Francesca, the Brera Madonna.274 ‘Peculiarly attractive and enigmatic, like the smile of Mona Lisa’, the pre-eminence of the egg was echoed in the spherical shape of the Virgin’s face, the curvature of the vault, the apse and the semicircle of saints and angels.275 To Meiss’s mind, this could not be explained solely by the artist’s love for pure geometric forms, but had to hold an ulterior iconological meaning. Its proportions indicated it was an ostrich egg,276 a recurring symbol in churches and mosques connected to the myth of creation.277 More specifcally, the egg symbolised both the believer’s path, which is like that of an ostrich searching for its eggs guided by a star, and the Immaculate Conception, since the ostrich’s eggs were hatched by the sun’s rays. Moreover, because of its presumed ability to digest metal and hatch eggs with its gaze, Meiss deduced that the bird may have referred to the military virtues of the valiant leader, according to an alternative 15th-century identifcation. This theory found further validation in the fact that the ostrich was the emblem of Federico da Montefeltro, the patron who commissioned the altarpiece.278 Meiss suggested that the purpose of the panel was to commemorate Federico’s late wife, Countess Battista Sforza, who died giving birth to a male heir in 1472, as the sleeping Child in the Virgin’s arms would indicate.279 The motif of the slumbering fgure at the same time pointed to a Venetian connection – a matter that Meiss would have later fully explored.280 Moving away from Tuscan models, in the Brera Madonna Piero della Francesca embraced the perfect balance between religious and private meaning typical of Flemish disguised symbolism.281 Equally reminiscent of Flemish prototypes was the artist’s idea to set the scene in a church interior, which Meiss thought was an accurate description of San Donato’s church, and not of San Bernardino’s for which the altarpiece was presumed to have been painted. Meiss’s identifcation of Piero’s painted architecture would be however contested in the following years, mainly by John Shearman, but also by Eugenio Battisti, Fert Sangiorgi and Alessandro Parronchi.282 273

273 Meiss 1941; Meiss 1947. Cf. Banker 2013. 274 For the literature on the Brera Madonna, also known as Montefeltro Altarpiece, see Maetzke 1998, 264–275. 275 Meiss 1954b [1976], 105–106. Lionello Venturi in a monograph on Piero della Francesca published in the same 1954 spoke of ‘pouvoir visuel d’évocation en tant que perfection formelle’ but did not go beyond a formalistic interpretation of the egg (Venturi 1954, 108–109). 276 Witting 1898, 136; Schmarsow 1912, 120. 277 Cf. Ghisalberti 1946, 27: ‘The shell envelops all like the heaven, seat of fre; the subtle and transparent air is like the skin; the clear water is like the white of the egg; and the central earth is like the yolk in the middle of the egg’. 278 Meiss 1954b [1976], 113–116. 279 Ibid., 117–119. 280 Ibid., 119. Cf. Meiss 1941, 62, 64. 281 According to Meiss, the references in the painting would suggest a dating between 1472 and 1474, i.e. after Guidobaldo was born in 1472 and before Duke Federico’s investiture in 1474, whose insignia he is not wearing (Meiss 1954b [1976], 120–121). 282 Shearman believed that Piero had sacrifced perspective accuracy to the overall aesthetic effect and did not paint an exacting representation of the chapel the altarpiece was commissioned for – which he thought was the chapel of the Immaculate Conception in San Francesco; see Shearman 1968. Supporting Shearman’s thesis were Battisti 1971, I, 275; Sangiorgi 1973 and Parronchi 1973.

80

The Far Side of the Moon

Meiss ironically quipped that his study on Piero’s painting suggested that oology had fnally become a new branch of iconology.283 His perspective largely diverged from the ‘revival of eloquence in criticism’ whereby Piero’s rigid geometry was interpreted in cubist terms,284 from the ‘need for abstraction’ that had undisputedly fostered the fortune of the painter who came to be associated to Cézanne.285 Meiss’s approach was equally distant from the exaltation of pure formal values apparent in Berenson’s contemporary Piero della Francesca or the Ineloquent in Art.286 The idealistic and geometrising view of the artist that Kenneth Clark offered in his monograph (1951) also excluded refection on the meaning of Piero’s works, a point that Meiss did not fail to notice in his review of the book.287 After Meiss’s study, the egg suspended in the middle of the Brera Altarpiece became the object of a series of ‘gratuitous’ iconological hypotheses among scholars who were also intent upon solving the riddle of the Urbino Flagellation.288 Only a few years before Meiss’s ‘Ovum Strutionis’ essay, in a tirade against the excesses of the iconological interpretation, Creighton Gilbert indeed described the Montefeltro Altarpiece as the ‘ideal iconological picture’ but would at the same time contribute to the debate by arguing that the egg was Leda’s.289 Although Meiss replied with a short note on the symbology of many ostrich eggs hanging in church interiors, Gilbert continued to espouse the idea of Leda’s egg, even after Isa Ragusa provided a conclusive piece of evidence to the oological identifcation in 1971.290 A third option came from Costantin Marinescu, who claimed that the mysterious object was a divine pearl, which formed when lightning struck the shell that contained it without breaking it, symbolising the Immaculate Conception.291 But immediately Charles de Tolnay and Berthe Widmer defended the ostrich egg theory.292 Tormented by this ‘lengthy animadversion’, Meiss decided to enquire with a naturalist of the American Museum of Natural History in order to fnd scientifc validation to his hypothesis and write the fnal word on the

283 Meiss 1954b [1976], 121. 284 Gombrich 1952, 177. 285 Venturi 1953, esp. 26: ‘besoin d’abstraction’; cf. Rosenthal 1923, 767; Lhôte 1930, 136. On the fortune of Piero della Francesca in 19th- and 20th-century art historiography, see F. Mazzocca, ‘Da Degas al Realismo Magico. La riscoperta e la consacrazione di Piero della Francesca nella critica e nella pittura tra Otto e Novecento’, in: Paolucci, Benati, Dabell et al. 2016, 51–65. 286 Berenson 1954 [1950], 7: ‘in the long run the most satisfactory creations are those which, like Piero’s and Cézanne’s, remain ineloquent, mute, with no urgent communication to make, and no thought of rousing us with look and gesture’. Berenson sent a copy to Meiss that he accepted rather coldly (BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 3 April 1951). 287 Clark 1951, 48–49, 210; cf. Meiss 1952d, 93–94. On the books on Piero della Francesca by Clark, Berenson and Longhi, see Sciolla 2016 and G.A. Calogero, ‘Piero della Francesca tra Bernard Berenson e Roberto Longhi: la nascita di un mito’, in: Paolucci, Benati, Dabell et al. 2016, 37–49. 288 Ginzburg 1981 [1985], 11: ‘one gratuitous iconological hypothesis is followed at random by another’. 289 Gilbert 1952, 11. A polemic with Mirella Levi d’Ancona ensued as she insisted it was an ostrich egg: Levi d’Ancona 1953; Gilbert 1953. 290 Meiss 1954c; Gilbert 1974. Gilbert published a monograph on Piero, in which he only dealt with chronological matters and did not go into the iconographical problems (Gilbert 1968). Ida Ragusa compared Piero’s altarpiece to the 14th-century fresco in the tomb of Antonio di Fissariga in the Church of San Francesco in Lodi (Ragusa 1971). 291 Marinescu 1958, 200–203. 292 Tolnay 1963, 234–235; Widmer 1963, 315–320.

The Far Side of the Moon

81

matter. Art historians have not questioned the symbolic meaning of the ostrich egg ever since.293 In the 1963 revised edition of his Piero della Francesca, Roberto Longhi surprisingly praised the ‘very learned essay by Meiss whose title was almost mysteriosophic’ and its iconological interpretation of the painting.294 Heartened by Longhi’s imprimatur, Meiss published a synthesis of his contributions on the Montefeltro Altarpiece in the 1971 opening issue of the Quaderni di Brera. On that occasion, he was also able to include evidence on the work’s state of preservation, which revealed that the panel had been resized at an unknown date.295 Upon Meiss’s advice, Brera director Franco Russoli subsequently requested a photographic campaign of the panel, which was only published in the 1997 re-edition of the study.296 Art scholarship saw this protracted oological quarrel as an example of iconologists’ headstrong obstinacy, but behind Meiss’s determination was also a passion for birdwatching – his favourite pastime in late years. His expert eye for iconological ornithology did not escape Panofsky, who immediately consulted Meiss when he was asked about the massive egg hanging over a Madonna and Child that Allan Ludwig showed him in 1959.297 Meissian Slumber Mostly concerned with 14th- and 15th-century art, Meiss dealt with the iconology of secular subject matters only in a few instances.298 As promised, the American scholar delved into the iconography of slumbering fgures – after his liminal intuitions on the Child sleeping in the Virgin’s arms.299 First in a paper delivered at CIHA’s 21st International Congress of Art History in Bonn (1964), and then in an article in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Meiss set out to explore the recurrence of sleeping nude Venuses, nymphs and Ariadnes in non-religious Venetian paintings between the 15th and the 16th centuries.300 Symbolising spiritual love, these

293 Meiss 1975. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Dean Amadon, 8 July 1974; letter from Dean Amadon to Millard Meiss, 30 July 1974. Cf. Brisson 1980. 294 Longhi 19633, 167: ‘Già nel mio libro ricordando quell’oggetto sospeso sul capo della Vergine, avevo parlato di ‘ovo sacro’, ma senza approfondire le implicazioni che quella scelta simbolica poteva indicare nell’argomento stesso del dipinto e nella sua più precisa datazione’. 295 Meiss 1971b. Franco Russoli sent a photograph of the back of the panel to the American scholar: AAA, MMP. Letter from Franco Russoli to Millard Meiss, 14 October 1970; letter from Millard Meiss to Franco Russoli, 26 October 1970. In 1970, Elton M. Davis and Dean Snyder had pointed out that any speculation on the painting’s perspective had to consider the fact that it had been reduced in size (Davis and Snyder 1970, 202–203). 296 Meiss 1997, 11–22. 297 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 30 October 1959; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 4 November 1959; letter from Erwin Panofsky to Allan Ludwig, 6 November 1959. In that case, Meiss did not think it was an ostrich egg. 298 Another exception will be the study on the mechanised shell used in Raphael’s Galatea: Meiss 1974b. 299 In 1942, Gizella Firestone published a study on the iconography of the sleeping Child as a prefguration of the passion, a motif that was developed at the end of the 14th century in the Venetian area and that remained typical of the art of Northern Italy; cf. Firestone 1942. 300 Meiss 1967d; Meiss 1966b; cf. also Cooke 2011b. The essay was also the subject of a lecture held at Harvard on 26 April 1966 and at the Frick Collection on 15 October 1966, AAA, MMP. Letter from Edith W. Kirsch to Katherine C. Lee, 31 March 1966. FARLA, FC, The Frick Collection – Lecture Records. Letter from Franklin Biebel to Millard Meiss, 27 April 1966.

82

The Far Side of the Moon

personifcations were juxtaposed by Meiss to the depictions of young women whose nudity was disclosed by satyrs, conversely alluding to carnal love. Meiss remarked that these classical tropes survived throughout the Middle Ages, when sleep symbolised both moral decay and the moment of divine revelation, and the latter connotation was reinstated by Neoplatonic philosophy. The woodcut Naiad-Venus with Satyrs from the Hypnerotomachia Poliphili that inspired Giorgione for his Venus and numerous other derivations, the Ariadne in Titian’s Bacchanals or Lotto’s Sleeping Apollo were some of the examples Meiss listed to show how this was a quintessentially Venetian theme.301 At the CIHA conference in Bonn, Meiss’s paper featured in the session ‘Style and Iconography’ chaired by Jan Białostocki, which was conceived as a methodological forum on a more complex notion of iconology that went beyond the simple identifcation of subject matter.302 In the same session, William S. Heckscher studied the genesis of the iconological method in Warburg’s work and Otto Pächt exposed the fallacy of attributing the most relevant iconographic solutions to the best artists.303 By comparing images to texts and linking the dissemination of a subject to a philosophical milieu, Meiss, too, offered a textbook application of iconology.304 Some considerations he made in Bonn – and later omitted in the 1966 essay – were aimed at exploring the subtle interaction of form and content. He emphasised how the recurrence of iconographical motifs in specifc periods or schools was determined by a propensity of the dominant style towards that theme.305 The interdependence of subject matter and style was further prompted by the freedom of invenzione that the artist was accorded in the course of the 15th century, which ultimately resulted in the possibility of proposing different interpretations of a theme.306 This emphasis on artist’s intentionality may be interpreted in view of Panofsky’s American turn – from symbolic values unconsciously refected, to a conscious disguised symbolism, to the work of art as a cultural symptom refecting conventional symbolism. Meiss may have therefore chosen to offer a methodological exemplar of a Renaissance problem, precisely because that was when the artist began to have a say in

301 Such a motif, he noted, also penetrated the religious scenes peopled with slumbering shepherds typical of Giovanni Bellini’s works, amongst others; see Meiss 1966b [1976], 226. 302 Panofsky, initially, suggested to Białostocki to include Robert Klein in that session as an intelligent interpreter of his method; see Panofsky 2011, 290–219 [Erwin Panofsky – Jan Białostocki, 4 January 1963]. Klein, in fact, argued, too, that iconology was not only concerned with deciphering subjects; see Klein 1965, 362. On the methodological impact of the session at the Bonn conference, see Cooke 2018. 303 W.S. Heckscher, ‘The Genesis of Iconology and O. Pächt’, ‘Künstlerische Originalität und ikonographische Erneuerung’, in Einem 1967, III, 239–262, 262–271. 304 On this matter, see Klein 1970, 230–231. 305 Meiss 1967d, 279: ‘It may be illuminating sometimes to speculate about the iconographic consequences of “form”. More often we consider the reverse – the form given to a partly preconceived subject. Not infrequently, however, as in the present instance, we can recognize the prior appearance of a style with which a subject, adopted later, seems particularly concordant’. The methodological discourse was less articulate in the following version of the article (1966), probably because the congress was the ideal place for such remarks. 306 Ibid.: ‘Interpretations of the effect of form upon subject are more delicate and riskier than others, because they were rarely made by the artists themselves or their contemporaries, and written evidence therefore is lacking’.

The Far Side of the Moon

83

the elaboration of the iconographic programme, and hence one could speak of artistic intentionality.307 Panofsky was ‘in real admiration’ of ‘Sleep in Venice’,308 perhaps because he was reminded of his own Hercules am Scheidewege, in which the allegorical interpretation of Raphael’s Vision of a Knight was related to Neoplatonic philosophical circles.309 An inescapable reference for Meiss was also the ‘principle of disjunction’ determining the transmission of style and iconography, frst elaborated by Panofsky and Saxl in the famous lecture ‘Classical Mythology in Medieval Art’, but more recently at the heart of Pan’s ‘Swedish book’.310 Another parallelism may be found in Panofsky’s Wrightsman lectures on Titian, which was published posthumously in 1969.311 Meiss could also count on several precedents in the Warburg circle, such as Fritz Saxl, Edgar Wind, Ernst H. Gombrich, Otto Kurz and Rudolf Wittkower.312 The connection between the philosophical background and artistic creation in Venice had been previously explored by Eugenio Battisti, who specifcally linked the more realistic depiction of nature to the waning of Neoplatonism.313 ‘Sleep in Venice’ would in turn stimulate art historians to investigate this classical survival in Venetian art between the 1970s and the 1990s. Among them, Seymour Howard analysed Giorgione’s Venus in the light of Meiss’s considerations at the Granada Congress of 1973, and Phyllis Pray Bober found the origins of this Renaissance trope in contemporary philosophy, whilst Jaynie Anderson argued that the sleeping young women were a creation of the late 15th century and examined their ancient literary and artistic manifestations.314 Dealing with 16th-century Venetian painting meant that Meiss was entering the feld of iconology par excellence, which would also be the gateway to the penetration of this approach in Italy, as exemplifed by Eugenio Battisti’s and Maurizio Calvesi’s research.315 Panofsky’s Hercules and Meiss’s ‘Sleep in Venice’ were mentioned in Francesco Gandolfo’s book on the iconography of dreams in the 16th century, published in 1978.316 But by then, iconology had signifcantly become, in the words of Battisti’s preface, a waning feld that was ‘feeding off of itself’ on both sides of the Atlantic.317

307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317

Meiss 1976, ix. AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 10 November 1966. Panofsky 1930, 142–150. Panofsky 1960, 84. Panofsky 1969, esp. 191, in which Panofsky refers to Meiss’s theories in connection with the Pardo Venus. The same work had been the subject of another study a few years prior; see Hofer 1961. Saxl 1970; Wind 1948, 45–55; Gombrich 1951; Kurz 1953; Wittkower 1963. Battisti 1955. Howard 1978; Bober 1977; Anderson 1980. Further remarks on the matter can be found in Kahr 1966; Murutes 1973; MacDougall 1975; Goffen 1987; Emison 1992 and Hackenbroch 1994. Cf. Gentili 1980, 69; Gentili 1992, 209; Battisti 1957; Calvesi 1962; Calvesi 1969; Calvesi 1970. Gandolfo 1978; cf. also Lovatti 1979. E. Battisti, ‘Prefazione’, in: Gandolfo 1978, 9–14: 12–13: ‘L’iconologia, come ogni disciplina giunta alla decadenza, si nutre di se stessa: negli Stati Uniti di note di precedenti articoli in Art Bulletin, in Italia di continui e confusi riferimenti a fonti secondarie, arrangiate alla meglio, sulla base di suggestioni acritiche’.

84

The Far Side of the Moon

Bibliography Aikema, B., ‘Netherlandish Painting and Early Renaissance Art: Artistic Rapports in a Historiographical Perspective’, in: H. Roodenburg (ed.), Cultural Exchange in Early Modern Europe. Vol. IV Forging European Identities, 1400–1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 100–137. ‘Albert Mathias Friend, Jr. (1894-1956)’, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers XII (1958), 1–2. Alexander, J.J.G., ‘Carl Nordenfalk, 1907–1992’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXXV, 1078 (1993), 38–39. Alpers, S., ‘Is Art History?’ in: Daedalus, CVI, 3 (1977), 1–13. Alpers, S., The Art of Describing. Dutch Art in the Seventeenth Century (Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1983). Anderson, J., ‘Giorgione, Titian and the Sleeping Venus’, in: N. Pozza (ed.), Tiziano e Venezia, conference proceedings, Venice 27 September–1 October 1976 (Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1980), 337–342. Argan, G.C., ‘Ideology and Iconology’, in: Critical Inquiry II, 2 (1975), 297–305. Armstrong, C.A.J., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry. The Late Fourteenth Century and the Patronage of the Duke by Millard Meiss’, in: The English Historical Review LXXXIV, 332 (1969), 577–579. Aronberg Lavin, M., The Eye of the Tiger. The Foundation and Development of the Department of Art and Archaeology, 1883–1923, Princeton University (Princeton NJ: The Art Museum, 1983). Aronberg Lavin, M., ‘The Joy of St. Francis: Bellini’s Panel in the Frick Collection’, in: Artibus et Historiae XXVIII, 56 (2007), 231–256. Avril, F., ‘La peinture française autour de 1400’, in: Revue de l’Art 28 (1975), 40–52. Avril, F. and Reynaud, N. (eds.), Les manuscrits à peintures en France 1440–1520, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Flammarion, 1993). Bacon, M., Pragmatism: An Introduction (Oxford: Polity Press, 2012). Baert, B., Lehmann, A.-S. and Van den Akkerveken, J. (eds.), New Perspectives in Iconology. Visual Studies and Anthropology (Brussels: Academica & Scientifc Publication, 2011). Bailey, C.B., Building The Frick Collection. An Introduction to the House and Its Collections (London: Scala Publishers, 2006). Banker, J.R., ‘Piero della Francesca. The Commission and Completion of the Sant’Agostino Altarpiece’, in: N. Silver (ed.), Piero della Francesca in America: From Sansepolcro to the East Coast, exhibition catalogue (New York: The Frick Collection, 2013), 69–81. Barron, S. and Eckmann, S. (eds.), Exiles + Emigrés: The Flight of European Artists from Hitler, exhibition catalogue (Los Angeles CA: Los Angeles County Museum of Art, 1997). Batterson, S.L., Pursuit of Genius. Flexner, Einstein, and the Early Faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study (Wellesley MA: A K Peters/CRC Press, 2006). Battisti, E., ‘Le arti fgurative nella cultura di Venezia e di Firenze nel Cinquecento’, in: Commentari VI, 4 (1955), 241–253. Battisti, E., ‘Un’antica interpretazione della «Tempesta»’, in: Emporium CXXVI (1957), 195– 201; republ. in: id., Rinascimento e Barocco (Turin: Einaudi, 1960), 146–156. Battisti, E., Piero della Francesca, 2 vols. (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Italiano, 1971). Baxandall, M., Giotto and the Orators. Humanist Observers of Painting in Italy and the Discovery of Pictorial Composition 1350–1450 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971). Bedaux, J.-B., ‘The Reality of Symbols: The Question of Disguised Symbolism in Jan van Eyck’s “Arnolfni Portrait”’, in: Simiolus XVI, 1 (1986), 5–28. Bedaux, J.-B., The Reality of Symbols: Studies in the Iconology of Netherlandish Art 1400– 1800 (‘s-Gravenhage: Schwartz, SDU, 1990). Beecher, J., ‘Panofsky Examines Roman Subjects in Medieval Art’, in: The Harvard Crimson 11 December 1956, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1956/12/11/panofsky-examines-roman -subjects-in-medieval/.

The Far Side of the Moon

85

Beenken, H., ‘The Annunciation of Petrus Christus in the Metropolitan Museum and the Problem of Hubert van Eyck’, in: The Art Bulletin XIX, 2 (1937), 220–241. Bellosi, L. (ed.), Pittura di luce. Giovanni di Francesco e l’arte forentina di metà Quattrocento, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Electa, 1990). Bellosi, L., ‘Entry’, in: G. Agosti and D. Thiébaut (eds.), Mantegna 1431–1506, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Hazan, 2008), 119–123. Belting, H., The Germans and their Art: A Troublesome Relationship (New Haven, CT, London: Yale University Press, 1998); or. ed. id., Die Deutschen und ihre Kunst: ein schwieriges Erbe (Munich: Beck, 1992). Benjamin, L., ‘Disguised Symbolism Exposed and the History of Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Studies in Iconography 2 (1976), 11–24. Berenson, B., Venetian Painting in America: The Fifteenth Century (London: G. Bell and Sons, 1916). Berenson, B., Piero della Francesca or the Ineloquent in Art (New York: Macmillan, 1954); 1st ed. Piero della Francesca o dell’arte non eloquente (Florence: Electa Editrice, 1950). Białostocki, J., ‘Erwin Panofsky (1892–1968): Thinker, Historian, Human Being’, in: Simiolus IV, 2 (1970), 68–89. Białostocki, J., ‘A Plea for Internationality’, in: Art History I, 4 (1978), v–viii. Boase, T.S.R., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts CXVI, 5147 (1968), 949–950. Boase, T.S.R., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts CXVII, 5157 (1969), 683. Bober, H., ‘Jewels of the Floodlands’, in: Saturday Review of Literature (8 May 1954), 38–39. Bober, H., ‘The Gothic Tower and the Stork Club’, in: Arts and Sciences I (1962), 1–8. Bober, P.P., ‘The Coryciana and the Nymph Corycia’, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XL (1977), 223–239. Boon, K.G., ‘Erwin Panofsky’s Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Oud Holland LXXII, 3 (1957), 169. Boon, K.G., ‘L.M.J. Delaissé’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXIV, 829 (1972), 246–247. Borchert, T.-H., L’homme au chaperon bleu de Jan van Eyck (Metz: Serpenoise, 2000). Borchert, T.-H. (ed.), The Age of Van Eyck 1430–1530. The Mediterranean World and Early Netherlandish Painting, exhibition catalogue (London: Thames & Hudson, 2002). Brisson, D.W., ‘Piero della Francesca’s Egg Again’, in: The Art Bulletin LXII, 2 (1980), 284–286. Brockwell, M.W., The Pseudo-Arnolfni Portrait: A Case of Mistaken Identity (London: Chatto & Windus, 1952). Brockwell, M.W., The Van Eyck Problem (London: Chatto & Windus, 1954a). Brockwell, M.W., ‘Maurice W. Brockwell replies to Professor Panofsky’, in: The Connoisseur CXXXIII, 538 (1954b), 266–267. Brush, K., ‘German Kunstwissenschaft and the Practice of Art History in America after World War I. Interrelationships, Exchanges, Contexts’, in: Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft XXVI (1999), 7–36. Brush, K., ‘The Unshaken Tree: Walter W.S. Cook on Kunstwissenschaft in 1924’, in: D. Johnson and D. Ogawa (eds.), Seeing and Beyond: Essays on Eighteenth-to Twenty-First-Century Art in Honor of Kermit S. Champa (New York: Lang, 2005), 329–360. Burkart, L., ‘“Die Träumereien einiger kunstliebender Klosterbrüder …” Zur Situation der Kulturwissenschaftlichen Bibliothek Warburg zwischen 1929 und 1933’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte LXIII (2000), 89–119. Butler, P., ‘Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages and Renaissance’, in: The Library Quarterly XIX, 4 (1949), 298. Cain, J., ‘Jean Porcher Conservateur en chef du Cabinet des Manuscrits’, in: Gazette des BeauxArts s. VI, CV, LXII, 1136 (1963), 171–175. Calvesi, M., ‘La Tempesta di Giorgione come Ritrovamento di Mosé’, in: Commentari XIII, 3–4 (1962), 226–255.

86

The Far Side of the Moon

Calvesi, M., ‘A noir (Melancolia I)’, in: Storia dell’Arte 1–2 (1969), 37–96. Calvesi, M., ‘La ‘morte di bacio’. Saggio sull’ermetismo di Giorgione’, in: Storia dell’Arte 7–8 (1970), 179–233. Castelfranchi Vegas, L., Italia e Fiandra nella pittura del Quattrocento (Milan: Jaca Book, 1983). Castelnuovo, E., Un pittore italiano alla corte di Avignone. Matteo Giovannetti e la pittura in Provenza nel secolo XIV (Turin: Einaudi, 19912; 1st ed. 1962). Castelnuovo, E. and Ghelardi, M., ‘97 Battle Road’, in: E. Panofsky, Il signifcato nelle arti visive (Turin: Einaudi, 19962), xvii–xxxviii. Chastel, A., L’image dans le miroir (Paris: Gallimard, 1980). Chastel, A. (ed.), Pour un temps: Erwin Panofsky (Paris: Centre Georges Pompidou, 1983). Châtelet, A., ‘De Jean Porcher à François Avril et Nicole Reynaud: L’enluminure en France entre 1440 et 1520’, in: Bulletin Monumental CLII, 1 (1994), 215–226. Christiansen, K., ‘Giovanni Bellini e la maniera devota’, in: G. Toscano and F. Valcanover (eds.), Da Bellini a Veronese. Temi di arte veneta (Venice: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004), 123–146. Cieri Via, C., Nei dettagli nascosto: per una storia del pensiero iconologico (Rome: La Nuova Italia, 1994). Cieri Via, C., ‘1933: fra Europa e Stati Uniti’, in: E. Panofsky and F. Saxl, Mitologia classica nell’arte medievale (Turin: Aragno, 2009), v–lviii. Cieri Via, C., ‘Meyer Schapiro ed Erwin Panofsky fra stile e iconologia’, in: L. Bortolotti, C. Cieri Via, M.G. Di Monte, M. Di Monte (eds.), Meyer Schapiro e i metodi della storia dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 22–24 February 2006 (Rome: Mimesis, 2010), 115–134. Cieri Via, C., ‘Una fortuna planetaria. Erwin Panofsky e la Morgan Library’, in: M. Gianandrea, F. Gangemi and C. Costantini (eds.), Il potere dell’arte nel Medioevo. Studi in onore di Mario D’Onofrio (Rome: Campisano, 2014)‚ 839–847. Cieri Via, C., ‘L’iconologia dello stile: un cortocircuito energetico fra Aby Warburg ed Erwin Panofsky’, in: A. Barale, F. Desideri and S. Ferretti (eds.), Energia e rappresentazione. Warburg, Panofsky, Wind (Milan – Udine: Mimesis, 2016), 209–242. Clark, K., Piero della Francesca (London: Phaidon, 1951). Concasty, M.-L., ‘Jean Porcher (1892–1966)’, in: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale IX (1966), 275–277. Coo, J. de, ‘A Medieval Look at the Merode Annunciation‘, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XLIV, 2 (1981), 114–132. Cooke, J., ‘Nota critica’, in: M. Meiss, ‘La luce come forma e simbolo in alcuni dipinti del Quattrocento (1945)’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 7 (2011a), 33–71. Cooke, J., ‘“Sonno a Venezia”. Millard Meiss e l’interpretazione iconologica del mito’, in: Crepuscoli Dottorali I, 1 (2011b), http://crepuscoli.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/%E2%80% 9Csonno-a-venezia%E2%80%9D-millard-meiss-e-l%E2%80%99interpretazione-iconol ogica-del-mito/. Cooke, J., ‘Nota critica’, in: E. Panofsky, ‘Imago Pietatis. Un contributo alla storia tipologica dell’Uomo dei dolori e della Maria Mediatrix (1927)’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 11 (2015), 31–74. Cooke, J., ‘Prospettive critiche tra Italia e Stati Uniti attraverso la corrispondenza epistolare tra Millard Meiss e Roberto Longhi’, in: C. Galassi (ed.), Critica d’arte e tutela in Italia: fgure e protagonisti nel secondo dopoguerra, conference proceedings, Perugia 17–19 November 2015 (Perugia: Aguaplano, 2017), 503–518. Cooke, J., ‘CIHA as the Subject of Art Theory: The Methodological Discourse in the International Congresses of Art History from Post-War Years to the 2000s’, in: RIHA Journal 30 September 2018, https://www.riha-journal.org/articles/2018/0199-cooke. Coser, L.A., Refugee Scholars in America. Their Impact and Their Experiences (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 1984).

The Far Side of the Moon

87

Crowe, J.A. and Cavalcaselle, G.B., A History of Painting in North Italy, ed. by T. Borenius, 3 vols. (New York: John Murray, 1912). ‘De Artibus Opuscula XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky by Millard Meiss’, in: Speculum XXXVII, 1 (1962), 145–146. DaCosta Kaufmann, T., ‘American Voices. Remarks on the Earlier History of Art History in the United States and the Reception of Germanic Art Historians’, in: Journal of Art Historiography 2 (2010), http://arthistoriography.fles.wordpress.com/2011/02/media_152488_en.pdf. Davies, M., ‘Flemish Founding Fathers’, in: Art News LIII, 3 (1954), 25, 57–58. Davis, E.M. and Snyder, D., ‘Piero della Francesca’s Madonna of Urbino. A Further Examination’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, LXXV, 1215 (1970), 193–212. De Ricci, S. and Wilson, W.J. (eds.), Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada, 3 vols. (New York: H.W. Wilson Company, 1935–1940). Delaissé, L.M.J., ‘Enluminure et peinture dans les Pays-Bas. A propos du livre de E. Panofsky Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Scriptorium XI, 1 (1957), 109–118. Delaissé, L.M.J., ‘Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, Part I’, in: The Art Bulletin LII, 2 (1970), 206–212. Della Terza, D., Da Vienna a Baltimora. La diaspora degli intellettuali europei negli Stati Uniti d’America (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 20012). Deneffe, D. and Vanwijnsberghe, D. (eds.), A Man of Vision. Paul Coremans and the Preservation of Cultural Heritage, conference proceedings, Brussels 15–17 June 2015 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2019). DeWald, E.T., F.F.J., ‘Albert Mathias Friend, Jr.’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University XV, 2 (1956), 31. Didi-Huberman, G., L’image survivante. Histoire de l’art et temps de fantômes selon Aby Warburg (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 2002). Dufrêne, T., ‘A Short History of CIHA’, 2007, http://www.esteticas.unam.mx/CIHA/documents /Short_History_of_CIHA.pdf. Dussler, L., Giovanni Bellini (Frankfurt: Prestel, 1935). Eisler, C.T., ‘The Golden Christ of Cortona and the Man of Sorrows in Italy’, in: The Art Bulletin LI, 2 (1969), 107–118; LI, 3 (1969), 233–246. Eisler, C., ‘American Art History, God shed His grace on thee, or, the Good, the True and the Beautiful through the Bicentennial’, in ArtNews LXXV, 5 (1976), 64–73. Eisler, C.T., ‘Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry’, in: The Art Bulletin LXIII, 2 (1981), 328–332. Elsner, J. and Lorenz, K., ‘The Genesis of Iconology’, in: Critical Inquiry XXXVIII, 3 (2012), 483–512. Emison, P., ‘Asleep in the Grass of Arcady: Giulio Campagnola’s Dreamer’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XV, 2 (1992), 271–292. Emmens, J.A. and Schwartz, G., ‘Erwin Panofsky as a Humanist’, in: Simioulus II, 3 (1967– 1968), 109–113. Fahy, C. and Moores, J.D., ‘A list of the publications of Roberto Weiss (1906–1969)’, in: Italian Studies XXIX (1974), 1–11. Ferber, S., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: Speculum XLV, 3 (1970), 481–483. Fermi, L., Illustrious Immigrants: The Intellectual Migration from Europe, 1930–41 (Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1968). Fierens, P. (eds.), I Fiamminghi e l’Italia. Pittori italiani e famminghi dal XV al XVIII secolo, exhibition catalogue (Venice: Casa Editrice Arte Veneta, 1951). Firestone, G., ‘The Sleeping Christ-Child in the Renaissance’, in: Marsyas II (1942), 43–62. Fleckner, U. and Mack, P. (eds.), The Afterlife of the Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek Warburg: The Emigration and the Early Years of the Warburg Institute in London (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015).

88

The Far Side of the Moon

Fleming, D. and Bailyn, B. (eds.), The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America, 1930–1960 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1969). Fleming, J.V., From Bonaventure to Bellini: An Essay in Franciscan Exegesis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982). Förster, O.H., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch XVII (1955), 257. Forsyth, G.H., ‘Albert M. Friend, Jr.’, in: College Art Journal XLI, 4 (1957), 340–341. Frank, G. and Miner, D., Proverbes en rimes. Text and Illustrations of the Fifteenth Century from a French Manuscript in the Walters Art Gallery Baltimore (Baltimore MD: The John Hopkins Press, 1937). Frankfurter, A., ‘In Memory of Walter W.S. Cook’, in: ArtNews LXI, 7 (1962), 27. Frinta, M.S., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: Art Journal XXX, 1 (1970), 106, 110. Fry, R., ‘The Old Masters at Burlington House’, in: The Nation X (20 January 1912), 657. Gamba, C., Giovanni Bellini (Milan: Hoepli, 1937). Gandolfo, F., Il ‘Dolce Tempo’. Mistica, Ermetismo e Sogno nel Cinquecento (Rome: Bulzoni Editore, 1978). Gentili, A., Da Tiziano a Tiziano. Mito e allegoria nella cultura veneziana del Cinquecento (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1980). Gentili, A., ‘Tiziano, Panofsky e l’iconologia in Italia’, in: E. Panofsky, Tiziano: Problemi di iconografa (Venice: Marsilio, 1992), 197–223. Ghisalberti, F., ‘Medieval Biographies of Ovid’, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes IX (1946), 10–59. Gilbert, A.H. and Janson, H.W., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology’, in: The Art Bulletin XXII, 3 (1940), 172–175. Gilbert, C.H., ‘On Subject and Non-Subject’, in: The Art Bulletin XXIV, 3 (1952), 202–216. Gilbert, C., ‘Letter to the Editor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 4 (1953), 329–330. Gilbert, C., Change in Piero della Francesca (Locust Valley NY: J.J. Augustin, 1968). Gilbert, C.H., ‘Renaissance Art and Its Scholars’, in: id. (ed.), Renaissance Art (New York: Harper & Row, 1970), xi–xxi. Gilbert, C., ‘“The Egg Reopened” Again’, in: The Art Bulletin LVI, 2 (1974), 252–258. Ginzburg, C., The Enigma of Piero: Piero della Francesca: The Baptism, The Arezzo Cycle, The Flagellation (London: Verso, 1985); or. ed. id., Indagini su Piero. Il Battesimo, il ciclo di Arezzo, la Flagellazione di Urbino (Turin: Einaudi, 1981). Ginzburg, C., ‘From Aby Warburg to E.H. Gombrich: A Problem of Method, in: id., Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method (Baltimore MD: John Hopkins University Press, 20132), 16–53, 170–194; or. ed. id., ‘Da A. Warburg a E.H. Gombrich. Note su un problema di metodo (1966)’, in: id., Miti emblemi spie (Turin: Einaudi, 1986), 29–106. Godwin, F.G., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: College Art Journal XV, 1 (1955), 70–72. Goebel, E. and Weigel, S. (eds.), ‘Escape to Life’. German Intellectuals in New York: A Compendium on Exile after 1933 (Berlin – Boston MA: De Gruyter, 2013). Goffen, R., ‘Renaissance Dreams’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XL, 4 (1987), 682–706. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Hypnerotomachiana’, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XIV, 1–2 (1951), 119–125. Gombrich, E.H., ‘The Literature of Art. Piero della Francesca’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCIV, 590 (1952), 176–178. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Renaissance Artistic Theory and the Development of Landscape Painting’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, XLII, 95 (1953), 335–360; republ. in: id., Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London: Phaidon, 1966), 107–121. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Light, Form and Texture in Fifteenth-Century Painting North and South of the Alps’, in: Journal of the Royal Society of Arts CXII, 5099 (1964), 826–849; republ. in:

The Far Side of the Moon

89

id., The Heritage of Apelles. Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London: Phaidon, 1976), 19–35. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Erwin Panofsky (30 March 1892–14 March 1968)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CX, 783 (1968), 356–360. Gombrich, E.H., Symbolic Images. Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London: Phaidon, 1972). Gombrich, E.H., Aby Warburg. An Intellectual Biography (Oxford: Phaidon, 19862). Greene, T.M., The Arts and the Art of Criticism (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1940). Hackenbroch, Y., ‘An Early-Renaissance Cameo “Sleep in Venice”’, in: M. Boskovits (ed.), Studi di storia dell’arte in onore di Mina Gregori (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 1994), 92–95. Hagelstein, M., Origine et survivances des symbols: Warburg, Cassirer, Panofsky (Hildesheim – Zürich – New York: Olms, 2014). Hall, E., ‘The Detroit Saint Jerome in Search of Its Painter’, in: Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts LXXII, 1–2 (1998), 10–37. Hammond, N., ‘Bellini’s Ass: A Note on the Frick ‘St. Francis’’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXLIV, 1186 (2002), 24–26. Hammond, N., ‘Bellini’s Birds: Avifauna in the Frick ‘St. Francis’’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXLIX, 1246 (2007), 36–38. Harbison, C., ‘Religious Imagination and Art-Historical Method: A Reply to Barbara Lane’s “Sacred versus Profane”’, in: Simiolus XIX, 3 (1989), 198–205. Harbison, C., ‘Iconography and Iconology’, in: B. Ridderbos (ed.), Early Netherlandish Paintings: Rediscovery, Reception and Research (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2005), 378–406. Hartt, F., ‘Carpaccio’s Meditation on the Passion’, in: The Art Bulletin XXII, 1 (1940), 25–35. Heckscher, W.S., ‘Erwin Panofsky: A Curriculum Vitae’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University XXVIII, 1 (1969), 4–21. Heckscher, W.S., ‘The Genesis of Iconology’, in: H. von Einem (ed.), Stil und Überlieferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes, Acts of the 21st International Congress of the History of Art, Bonn 14–19 September 1964, 3 vols. (Berlin: Mann, 1967), III, 239–262. Heidt, R., Erwin Panofsky. Kunsttheorie und Einzelwerk (Cologne – Vienna: Böhlau, 1977). Heilbut, A., Exiled in Paradise. German Refugee Artists and Intellectuals in America from the 1930s to the Present (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 19972). Heinemann, A., ‘The Limbourgs and their Contemporaries’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXIX, 896 (1977), 777–780. Heinemann, F., Giovanni Bellini e i Belliniani, 2 vols. (Venice: Neri Pozza Editore, 1959). Held, J.S., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting, Its Origin and Character’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVII, 3 (1955), 205–234. Heller, B. and Stodulski, L.P., ‘Saint Jerome in the Laboratory: Scientifc Evidence and the Enigmas of an Eyckian Panel’, in: Bulletin of the Detroit Institute of Arts LXXII, 1–2 (1998), 38–55. Hendel, C.W., ‘Theodore Meyer Greene 1897–1969’, in: Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association XLIV (1970–1971), 214–216. Hendy, P. and Goldscheider, L., Giovanni Bellini (London: Phaidon, 1945). Hirdt, W., Il San Francesco di Giovanni Bellini. Un tentativo di interpretazione del dipinto della Frick Collection (Florence: Polistampa, 1997). Hochmann, M., ‘Jacques Mesnil’s Botticelli’, in: A. Debenedetti and C. Elam (eds.), Botticelli Past and Present (London: UCL Press, 2019), 218–231. Hofer, P., ‘Die Pardo Venus’, in: E.J. Beer, P. Hofer and L. Mojon (eds.), Festschrift für Hans R. Hahnloser zum 60. Geburtstag (Basel – Stuttgart: Birkhäuser, 1961), 341–360. Holly, M.A., Panofsky and the Foundations of Art History (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 1984).

90

The Far Side of the Moon

Holly, M.A., Iconografa e iconologia. Saggio sulla storia intellettuale (Milan: Jaca Book, 1992). Hourihane, C.P., ‘“They stand on his shoulders”: Morey, Iconography, and the Index of Christian Art’, in: id. (ed.), Insights and Interpretations. Studies in Celebration of the Eightyffth Anniversary of the Index of Christian Art (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), 3–16. Hourihane, C.P., ‘Classifying Subject Matter in Mediaeval Art. The Index of Christian Art at Princeton University’, in: Visual Resources XXX, 3 (2014), 255–262. Hourihane, C.P., ‘Charles Rufus Morey and the Index of Christian Art’, in: id. (ed.), The Routledge Companion to Medieval Iconography (London – New York: Routledge, 2017), 123–129. Howard, S., ‘Covert References in the Dresden Venus and its Kin: Observations on the Mutation and Retrieval of Types’, in: X. de Salas (ed.), España entre el Mediterraneo y el Atlantico, Acts of the 23rd International Congress of the History of Art, Granada 3–8 September 1973, 3 vols. (Granada: Universidad de Granada departamento de historia del arte, 1976–1978), III, 1978, 533–551. Hunter, J., ‘Who is Van Eyck’s “Cardinal Niccolò Albergati”?’, in: The Art Bulletin LXXV, 2 (1993), 207–218. Isman, F., ‘Cosa racconta Giovanni Bellini in quel “San Francesco” che è uno dei suoi capolavori alla Frick Collection di New York, un mondo intero in una tavola; intervista ad Augusto Gentili’, in: Venezialtrove 3 (2004), 65–77. J.R.J., ‘De Artibus Opuscula XL: Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky by Millard Meiss’, in: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XXI, 3 (1963), 355–356. Janson, H.W., ‘Grace Frank, Dorothy Miner, Proverbes en rimes’, in: Speculum XIV, 3 (1939), 379–381. Kahr, M.M., ‘Titian, the “Hypnerotomachia Poliphili” Woodcuts, and Antiquity’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, LXVII, 1165 (1966), 119–127. Kauffmann, H., ‘Erwin Panofsky. 30. März 1892–14. März 1968’, in: Kunstchronik XXI, 8 (1968), 260–266. Kimball, F. and Venturi, L., Great Paintings in America (New York: Coward-McCann, 1948). Kitzinger, E., Mütherich, F. and Cahn, W. ‘Carl Nordenfalk‘, in: Speculum LXVIII, 3 (1993), 940–941. Klein, R., ‘Considérations sur les fondaments de l’iconographie’, in: Archivio di Filosofa 1–2 (1963), 419–436; republ. in: id., La forme et l’intelligible (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), 353–374. Klein, R., ‘La méthode iconographique e la sculpture des tombeaux’, in: Mercure de France 353 (1965), 362–367; republ. in: id., La forme et l’intelligible (Paris: Gallimard, 1970), 229–234. Klein, R., La forme et l’intelligible (Paris: Gallimard, 1970). Körte, W., Die Wiederaufnahme romanischer Bauformen in der niederländischen und deutschen Malerei des 15. und 16. Jahrhunderts (Wolfenbüttel: Heckner, 1930). Krautheimer, R., ‘Invece di una prefazione’, in: id. (ed.), Architettura sacra paleocristiana e medievale e altri saggi su Rinascimento e Barocco (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1993), xiii–xliv. Kurz, O., ‘Huius Nympha Loci: A pseudo-classical inscription and a drawing by Dürer’, in: Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XVI, 3–4 (1953), 171–177. Laclotte, M. (ed.), De Giotto à Bellini, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Editions des Musées Nationaux, 1956). Lamoureux, J., ‘La migration d’Erwin Panofsky’, in: Perspective 2 (2014), 157–159. Lane, B.G., ‘Sacred versus Profane in Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Simiolus XVIII, 3 (1988), 106–115. Lavalleye, J., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting. Its Origins and Character’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, XLIX, 1057 (1957), 125–126. Lavin, I. (ed.), Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views from the Outside: A Centennial Commemoration of Erwin Panofsky, Symposium proceedings, Princeton 1–4 October 1993 (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995).

The Far Side of the Moon

91

Lavin, I., ‘The Crisis of “Art History”’, in: The Art Bulletin LXXVIII, 1 (1996), 13–15. Lavin, I., ‘American Panofsky’, in: M.T. Costa and H.C. Hönes (eds.), Migrating Histories of Art: Self-Translations of a Discipline, conference proceedings, Florence 8–9 October 2015 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2019), 91–97. Lavin, I. and Aronberg Lavin, M., ‘Truth and Beauty at the Institute for Advanced Study’, in: The Institute Letter (Fall 2012), https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2012/lavin-truth-and-beauty. Lee, R.W., ‘Charles Rufus Morey: 1877–1955’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXVII, 4 (1955), iii–vii. Lee, R.W., ‘Gertrude Coor-Achenbach, 1915–1962’, in: Art Journal XXII, 4 (1963), 246. Lee, R.W., ‘Erwin Panofsky’, in: Art Journal XXVII, 4 (1968), 368–370. Lejeune, J., ‘Vers une Résurrection des Réalistes. La période liégeoise des Van Eyck’, in: WallrafRichartz Jahrbuch XVII (1955), 62–78. Lepage, C., ‘Gabriel Millet: esprit élégant et moderne’, in: Comptes rendus des séances. Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres III (2005), 1097–1110. Levi d’Ancona, M., ‘Letter to the Editor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 4 (1953), 329. Levine, E.J., Dreamland of Humanists. Warburg, Cassirer, Panofsky, and the Hamburg School (Chicago IL – London: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Lhôte, A., ‘Piero della Francesca’, in: La Nouvelle Revue Française XXXIV, 18 (1930), 135–137. Lightbown, R.W., ‘Giovanni Bellini’s St. Francis in the Frick Collection by Millard Meiss’, in: The Connoisseur CLVIII, 636 (1965), 122–123. Lipman, J., ‘Studies in Iconology by Erwin Panofsky’, in: Art in America XXVIII, 4 (1940), 177–179. Löhneysen, H.W., Ältere niederländische Malerei (Kassel: Roth, 1956). Longhi, R., ‘Piero dei Franceschi e lo sviluppo della pittura veneziana’, in: L’Arte XVII, 31 (1914), 241–256; republ. in: Confronto 12–13 (2008–2009), 5–19. Longhi, R., ‘I Fiamminghi e l’Italia’, in: Paragone III, 25 (1952), 47–50. Longhi, R., Il Correggio e la Camera di San Paolo a Parma (Genoa: Siglaeffe, 1956). Longhi, R., Piero della Francesca 1927 con aggiunte fno al 1962 (Florence: Sansoni, 19633). Longhi, R., ‘Le fasi del Correggio giovine’, in: Paragone IX, 101 (1958), 34–53. Longhi, R., ‘Apertura sui Trecentisti umbri’, in: Paragone XVII, 191 (1966a), 3–17. Longhi, R., ‘Postilla all’Apertura sugli umbri’, in: Paragone XVII, 195 (1966b), 3–8. Lovatti, G., ‘Francesco Gandolfo, Il ‘dolce tempo’: mistica, ermetismo e Sogno nel Cinquecento’, in: Arte Cristiana LXVII (1979), 292. Lugli, E., ‘Between Form and Representation: The Frick St Francis’, in: Art History XXXII, 1 (2009), 21–51. MacDougall, E.B., ‘The Sleeping Nymph: Origins of a Humanist Fountain Type’, in: The Art Bulletin LVII, 3 (1975), 357–365. Maetzke, A.M., Introduzione ai capolavori di Piero della Francesca (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 1998). Marinescu, C., ‘Echos byzantins dans l’œuvre de Piero della Francesca’, in: Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1958), 192–203. Martin, F.-R., ‘La “migration” des idées. Panofsky et Warburg en France’, in: Revue germanique internationale 13 (2000), 239–259. McAllister Johnson, W., ‘Working with Panofsky’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts CX, 1192–1193 (1968), 263–264. McCorkel, C., ‘Sense and Sensibility: An Epistemological Approach to the Philosophy of Art History’, in: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XXXIV, 1 (1975), 35–50. McMahon, A.P., ‘Studies in Iconology by Erwin Panofsky’, in: Parnassus XII, 3 (1940), 45. McMahon, A.P., ‘L’Histoire de la critique d’art et l’étue de l’art dans les universités américaines’, in: Atti del Primo Convegno Internazionale per le Arti Figurative, Florence 20–26 June 1948 (Florence: Edizioni U, 1948), 45–55. Mesnil, J., L’art au nord et au sud des Alpes à l’époque de la Renaissance. Etudes comparatives (Brussels: van Oest, 1911a).

92

The Far Side of the Moon

Mesnil, J., ‘L’infuence famande chez Domenico Ghirlandaio’, in: Revue de l’art ancien et moderne XXIX (1911b), 61–76. Mesnil, J., ‘Les résistances septentrionales à la conception plastique de l’espace due à la Renaissance et l’infuence antiartistique des mystères’, in: A. Venturi (ed.), L’Italia e l’arte straniera, Acts of the 10th International Congress of the History of Art, Rome 16 October 1912 (Rome: Maglione e Strini, 1922), 303–305. Michels, K., Transplantierte Kunstwissenschaft. Deutschsprachige Kunstgeschichte im amerikanischen Exil (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1999). Michels, K., ‘“Pineapple and Mayonnaise – Why Not?” European Art Historians Meet the New World’, in: M.F. Zimmermann (ed.), The Art Historian: National Traditions and Institutional Practices (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 2003), 57–66. Michels, K., Sokrates in Pöseldorf: Erwin Panofskys Hamburger Jahre (Göttingen: Wallstein, 2017). Miner, D. (ed.), Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages and Renaissance, exhibition catalogue (Baltimore MD: The Baltimore Museum of Art, 1949). Moly, F., ‘Jean Porcher e le esposizioni di miniatura alla Bibliothèque Nationale’, in: E. Castelnuovo and A. Monciatti (eds.), Medioevo/Medioevi. Un secolo di esposizioni d’arte medievale (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2008), 237–252. Morey, C.R., ‘An Important Institute of Research, Princeton’s Index of Christian Art’, in: Princeton Alumni Weekly XXXII, 11 (1931), 236. Morgan, N.J., ‘Porcher, Jean’, in: J. Turner (ed.), The Dictionary of Art, 34 vols. (London: Macmillian, 1996), XXV, 248. Murutes, H., ‘Personifcations of Laughter and Drunken Sleep in Titian’s ‘Andrians’’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXV, 845 (1973), 518–525. Nash, S., ‘Erwin Panofsky. Early Netherlandish Painting : Its Origins and Character’, in: R. Shone and J.-P. Stonard (eds.), The Books that Shaped Art History from Gombrich and Greenberg to Alpers and Krauss (London: Thames & Hudson, 2013), 88–101. Negri, A., ‘Premessa’, in: M.G. Balzarini and R. Cassanelli (eds.), Fare storia dell’arte. Studi offerti a Liana Castelfranchi Vegas (Milan: Jaca Book, 2000), 9–10. Neumeyer, A., ‘Acts of the Twentieth International Congress of the History of Art’, in: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XXIII, 4 (1965), 513–514. Nordenfalk, C., Livre des Deduis du Roi Modus et la Reine Ratio: Kung Pratik’s Och Drottning Teoris Jaktbok: Le Livre des Deduis du Roi Modus et la Reine Ratio (Stockholm: Norsted, 1955). Nordenfalk, C., ‘Französische Buchmalerei 1200–1500’, in: Kunstchronik IX, 7 (1956), 179–189. Nuttall, P., From Flanders to Florence. The Impact of Netherlandish Painting, 1400–1500 (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 2004). Pächt, M. and Rosenauer, A. (eds.), ‘Am Anfang war das Auge’: Otto Pächt, proceedings of the Symposium for the centenary of his birth, Vienna 27–28 September 2002 (Vienna: Institut für Kunstgeschichte der Universität, 2006). Pächt, O., ‘Panofsky’s “Early Netherlandish Painting” I and II’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVIII, 637 (1956a), 110–116; XCVIII, 641 (1956), 267–279. Pächt, O., ‘René d’Anjou et les Van Eyck’, in: Cahiers de l’Association Internationale des Etudes Françaises 8 (1956b), 41–67. Pächt, O., ‘The Limbourgs and Pisanello’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, LXII, 1136 (1963a), 109–122. Pächt, O., ‘Zur Entstehung des ‘Hieronymus im Gehäus’’, in: Pantheon XXI, 3 (1963b), 131–142. Panofsky, E., Die Perspektive als symbolische Form (Leipzig: Teubner, 1927a); En. trans. Perspective as Symbolic Form (New York: Zone Books, 1991).

The Far Side of the Moon

93

Panofsky, E., ‘Imago Pietatis’, in: Festschrift für Max J. Friedländer zum 60. Geburtstage (Leipzig: Seemann, 1927b). Panofsky, E., Hercules am Scheidewege: und andere antike Bildstoffe in der neueren Kunst (Leipzig – Berlin: Teubner, 1930), 142–150. Panofsky, E. and Saxl, F., ‘Classical Mythology in Medieval Art’, in: Metropolitan Museum Studies IV, 2 (1933), 228–280. Panofsky, E., ‘Jan van Eyck’s Arnolfni Portrait’, in: The Burlington Magazine LXIV, 372 (1934), 117–127. Panofsky, E., ‘The Friedsam Annunciation’, in: The Art Bulletin XVII, 4 (1935), 433–473. Panofsky, E., ‘Once More the Friedsam Annunciation and the Problem of the Ghent Altarpiece’, in: The Art Bulletin XX, 4 (1938), 419–442. Panofsky, E., ‘Reintegration of a Book of Hours executed in the workshop of the «Maître des Grandes Heures de Rohan»’, in: W.R.W. Kohler (ed.), Mediaeval Studies in the Memory of A. Kingsley Porter, 2 vols. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1939a), II, 479–499. Panofsky, E., Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (New York: Oxford University Press, 1939b). Panofsky, E., ‘Letters to the Editor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXII, 4 (1940), 273. Panofsky, E., ‘Note on a Controversial Passage in Suger’s De consecration ecclesiae Sancti Dionysii’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, XXVI (1944), 95–114. Panofsky, E., Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origins and Character, 2 vols. (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1953). Panofsky, E., ‘A letter to Saint Jerome. A Note on the Relationship between Petrus Christus and Jan van Eyck’, in: D. Miner (ed.), Studies in Art and Literature for Belle da Costa Greene (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1954), 102–108. Panofsky, E., ‘Charles Rufus Morey’, in: Yearbook. American Philosophical Society (1955a), 482–491. Panofsky, E., Meaning in the Visual Arts. Papers in and on Art History (Garden City NY: Doubleday, 1955b). Panofsky, E., Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell/ Gebers Förlag AB, 1960). Panofsky, E., The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo (London: The Warburg Institute, 1961). Panofsky, E., ‘Homage to Jean Porcher’, in: Gazette des Beaux-Arts s. VI, CV, LXII, 1135 (1963), 11–16. Panofsky, E., ‘The Promoter of a New Co-Operation between the Natural Sciences and the History of Art’, in: Hommage à Paul Coremans, in: Bulletin de l’Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique VIII (1965), 62–67. Panofsky, E., ‘Préface à l’édition française’, in: id. (ed.), Essais d’iconologie. Thèmes humanistes dans l’art de la Renaissance (Paris: Gallimard, 1967), 3–5. Panofsky, E., ‘Preface’, in: M.J. Friedländer, Early Netherlandish Painting, 14 vols. (Leyden: Sijthoff, 1967–1976), I, 9–13. Panofsky, E., Problems in Titian Mostly Iconographic (New York: New York University Press, 1969). Panofsky-Soergel, G., Erwin Panofsky von Zehn bis Dreißig und seine jüdischen Wurzlen (Passau: Dietmar Klinger Verlag, 2017). Paolucci, A., Benati, D., Dabell, F. et al. (eds.), Piero della Francesca: Indagine su un mito, exhibition catalogue (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2016). Parronchi, A., ‘L’uovo di Piero’, in: La Nazione (22 September 1973), 15. Petropopulos, J.G., The Faustian Bargain: The Art World in Nazi Germany (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Pope-Hennessy, J., The Portrait in the Renaissance (London – New York: Phaidon, 1966).

94

The Far Side of the Moon

Popham, A.E., ‘Il Correggio e la Camaera di San Paolo a Parma by Roberto Longhi’, in: The Burlington Magazine C, 661 (1958), 135–136. Porcher, J. (ed.), Les manuscrits à peinture en France du VIIe au XIIe siècle, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1954). Porcher, J. (ed.), Les manuscrits à peinture en France du XIIIe au XVe siècle, exhibition catalogue (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1956). Porcher, J., L’enluminure française (Paris: Arts et Métiers Graphiques, 1959). Preiss, B., ‘Eine Wissenschaft wird zur Dienstleistung: Kunstgeschichte im Nationalsozialismus’, in: B. Brock and A. Preiss (eds.), Kunst auf Befehl? Dreiunddreissig bis Fünfundvierzig (Munich: Klinkhart & Biermann, 1990), 41–58. Previtali, G., ‘Introduzione’, in: E. Panofsky, Studi di iconologia. I temi umanistici nell’arte del Rinascimento (Turin: Einaudi, 1975), xix–xxxii. Purtle, C.J., The Marian Paintings of Jan van Eyck (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1982). Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Il San Francesco del Bellini’, in: seleArte XII, 71 (1964), 7–9. Ragusa, I., ‘The Egg Reopened’, in: The Art Bulletin LIII, 4 (1971), 435–443. Ragusa, I., ‘Observations on the History of the Index: In Two Parts’, in: Visual Resources XIII, 3–4 (1998), 215–251. Recht, R., ‘La méthode iconologique d’Erwin Panofsky’, in: Critique 250 (March 1968), 315–323. Recht, R., Warnke, M., Didi-Huberman, G. et al. (eds.), Relire Panofsky, conference proceedings, Paris 19 November–17 December 2001 (Paris: Beaux-Arts de Paris, 2008). Regis, E., Who Got Einstein’s Offce: Eccentricity and Genius at the Institute for Advanced Study (Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1987). Renders, E., Hubert van Eyck. Personnage de legend (Paris: G. van Oest, 1933). Reudenbach, B. (ed.), Erwin Panofsky, Symposium proceedings, Hamburg 30 March–1 April 1992 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1994). Rieber, A., ‘Cassirer et Panofsky: usages iconologiques de la philosophy des formes symboliques’, in: M. Van Vilet (ed.), Ernst Cassirer et l’art comme forme symbolique (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2010), 191–209. Rieber, A., Art, histoire et signifcation. Un essai d’épistémologie d’histoire de l’art autour de l’iconologie d’Erwin Panofsky (Paris: Harmattan, 2012). Ring, G., A Century of French Painting: 1400–1500 (London: Phaidon, 1949). Ringbom, S., Icon to Narrative. The Rise of the Dramatic Close-up in Fifteenth-Century Devotional Painting (Åbo: Åbo Akademi, 1965). Rishel, J.J., ‘The Philadelphia and Turin Paintings: The Literature and Controversy over Attribution’, in: J.R.J. van Asperen de Boer (ed.), Jan van Eyck: Two Paintings of Saint Francis Receiving the Stigmata (Philadelphia PA: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1997), 3–12. Rosenberg, J., ‘Refections of an Old Art Historian’, in: Art Journal XXVI, 2 (1966), 154–157. Rosenthal, L., ‘Piero della Francesca et notre temps’, in: L’amour de l’art IV, 12 (1923), 767–772. Rowley, N., ‘Pittura di luce: genèse d’une notion’, in: Studiolo 5 (2007), 227–248. Rowley, N., Pittura di luce. La manière claire dans la peinture du Quattrocento, diss. (Paris: Université Paris-Sorbonne, 2010), https://www.academia.edu/4219396/Neville_Rowley_Pi ttura_di_luce_la_mani%C3%A8re_claire_dans_la_peinture_du_Quattrocento_PhD_Univer sit%C3%A9_Paris-Sorbonne_2010_. Ruda, J., ‘Flemish Painting and the Early Renaissance in Florence: Questions of Infuence’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XLVII, 2 (1984), 210–236. Rutherglen, S. and Hale, C. (eds.), In a New Light: Giovanni Bellini’s ‘St. Francis in the Desert’ (New York: The Frick Collection, 2015). Samuels, E., Bernard Berenson. The Making of a Legend (Cambridge MA: The Belknap Press, 1987).

The Far Side of the Moon

95

Sangiorgi, F., ‘Ipotesi sulla collocazione originaria della Pala di Brera’, in: Commentari XXIV 3 (1973), 211–216. Saxl, F., Lectures, 2 vols. (London: The Warburg Institute, 1957). Saxl, F., ‘Titian and Pietro Aretino’, in: id., A Heritage of Images: A Selection of Lectures (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1970), 71–87. Schapiro, M., ‘Muscipula diaboli: The Symbolism of the Mérode Altarpiece’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVII, 3 (1945a), 182–187. Schapiro, M., ‘Babel’s Tower. The Dilemma of the Modern Art Museum by F.H. Taylor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVII, 4 (1945b), 272–276. Schmarsow, A. von, Joos van Gent und Melozzo da Forlì in Roma und Urbino (Leipzig: Treubner, 1912). Sciolla, G.C., ‘Nota critica’, in: E. Panofsky, ‘I disegni di Michelangelo, 1922 (con una nota di Gianni Carlo Sciolla)’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 1 (2005), 15–19. Sciolla, G.C., ‘Kenneth Clark, Bernard Berenson e Roberto Longhi: contrappunti per Piero della Francesca’, in: Arte documento 32 (2016), 60–69. Shearman, J., ‘The Logic and Realism of Piero della Francesca’, in: A. Middeldorf Kosegarten and P. Tigler (eds.), Festschrift Ulrich Middeldorf, 2 vols. (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1968), I, 180–186. Silver, L., ‘The State of Research in Northern European Art of the Renaissance Era’, in: The Art Bulletin LXVIII, 4 (1986), 518–535. Sjöqvist, E., ‘Charles Rufus Morey: 1877–1955’, in: E. Billig (ed.), ‘Nobile munus’» Origini e primi sviluppi dell’Unione Internazionale degli Istituti di archeologia storia e storia dell’arte in Roma (1946–1953) (Rome: Unione Internazionale degli Istituti di Archeologia, Storia e Storia dell’arte in Roma, 1996), 141–148. Skutsch, O., ‘Roberto Weiss’, in: Italian Studies XXV (1970), 1–5. Smyth, C.H., ‘Walter W.S. Cook’, in: The Art Journal XXII, 3 (1963), 167. Smyth, C.H., ‘Charles Rufus Morey (1877–1955): Roma, archeologia e storia dell’arte’, in: S. Danesi Squarzina (ed.), Roma, centro ideale della cultura dell’Antico nei secoli XV e XVI. Da Martino V al Sacco di Roma 1417–1527, conference proceedings, Rome 25–30 November 1985 (Milan: Electa, 1989), 14–20. Smyth, C.H. and Lukehart, P.M. (eds.), The Early Years of Art History in the United States. Notes and Essays on Departments, Teaching, and Scholars (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993). Spear, R.E., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: The French Review XLI, 6 (1968), 902–903. Spear, R.E., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: The French Review XLIII, 3 (1970), 536–537. Spencer, E.P., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry by Millard Meiss’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXI, 793 (1969), 226–227. Squilbeck, J., ‘Panofsky, Erwin, Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Revue belge d’archéologie et d’histoire de l’art, XXV, 1–4 (1956), 253–254. Stechow, W., ‘Erwin Panofsky. Studies in Iconology’, in: The Burlington Magazine LXXVIII, 454 (1941), 33. Stechow, W., ‘Erwin Panofsky and Music’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University XXVIII, 1 (1969), 22–25. Steer, J., ‘Saggi e memorie di storia dell’arte’, in: The Burlington Magazine CVII, 751 (1965), 533–534. Sterling, C., ‘Jan van Eyck avant 1432’, in: Revue de l’Art 33 (1976), 7–82. Stourton, J., Kenneth Clark. Life, Art and Civilisation (London: William Collins, 2016). Taylor, F.H., Babel’s Tower: The Dilemma of the Modern Museum (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945). Taylor, F.H., ‘Charles Rufus Morey, 1977–1955’, in: College Art Journal XV, 2 (1955), 139–142.

96

The Far Side of the Moon

Tervarent, G. de, ‘L’iconologie au XXe siècle’, in: Journal des savants 3 (1965), 584–589. Teyssèdre, B., ‘Iconologie: Réfexions sur un concept d’Erwin Panofsky’, in: Revue Philosophique de la France et de l’Étanger 154 (1964), 321–340. Thürlemann, F., Robert Campin. A Monographic Study with Critical Catalogue (Munich – Berlin – London – New York: Prestel, 2002). Tolnay, C. de, ‘Zur Herkunft des Stiles der van Eyck’, in: Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst IX (1932), 320–338. Tolnay, C. de, Le Maître de Flémalle et l.es Frères Van Eyck (Brussels: Editeurs de la Connaissance, 1939). Tolnay, C. de, ‘Conceptions religieuses dans la peinture de Piero della Francesca’, in: Arte Antica e Moderna 23 (1963), 205–241. Toscano, B., ‘Saggio introduttivo’, in: Meiss 1982, xvii–liv. Ventrella, F., ‘Under the Hat of the Art Historian: Panofsky, Berenson, Warburg’, in: Art History XXXIV, 2 (2011), 311–331. Venturi, L., Pitture italiane in America (Milan: Hoepli, 1931). Venturi, L., ‘Piero della Francesca, G. Seurat, J. Gris’, in: Diogène 2 (1953), 25–30. Venturi, L., Piero della Francesca. Etude biographique et critique (Geneva : Skira, 1954). Verdier, P., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry par Millard Meiss’, in: L’Œil 167 (1968), 36–37. Vermeule, C., ‘Giovanni Bellini’s St. Francis in the Frick Collection by Millard Meiss’, in: Speculum XL 3 (1965), 526–527. Voll, K., Die Werke des Jan van Eyck, eine kritische Studie (Strasbourg: Trübner, 1900). Vries, L. de, ‘Iconography and Iconology in Art History: Panofsky’s Prescriptive Defnitions and Some Art-Historical Responses to Them’, in: T.F. Heck (ed.), Picturing Performance. The Iconography of the Performing Arts in Concept and Practice (Rochester NY: University of Rochester Press, 1999), 42–64. Weale W.H.J., ‘Portraits by John van Eyck in the Vienna Gallery’, in: The Burlington Magazine V, 14 (1904), 190–198. Wedgewood Kennedy, R., ‘De Artibus Opuscula XL, Essays in Honor of Erwin Panofsky by Millard Meiss’, in: Renaissance News XV, 1 (1962), 11–15. Wegener, W.J., ‘Panofsky on Art and Art History’, in: R.L. Colella (ed.), Pratum Romanum: Richard Krautheimer zum 100. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1997), 341–362. Weiss, R., ‘Jan van Eyck’s ‘Albergati’ Portrait’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVII, 626 (1955), 145–147. Weiss, R., ‘Jan van Eyck and the Italians’, in: Italian Studies XI (1956), 1–15. Weiss, R., ‘Jan van Eyck and the Italians II’, in: Italian Studies XII (1957), 7–21. Weitzmann, K., Sailing with Byzantium from Europe to America. The Memoirs of an Art Historian (Munich: Edition Maris, 1994). West, C., The American Evasion of Philosophy: A Genealogy of Pragmatism (London: Macmillan, 1989). Widmer, B., ‘Eine Geschichte des Physiologus auf einem Madonnenbild der Brera’, in: Zeitschrift für Religions- und Geistesgeschichte XV, 4 (1963), 313–330. Wind, E., Bellini’s Feast of the Gods. A Study in Venetian Humanism (Harvard MA: Harvard University Press, 1948). Winkler, F., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting’, in: Kunstchronik VIII, 1 (1955), 9–26. Witting, F., Piero dei Franceschi: eine kunsthistorische Studie (Strasbourg: Heitz, 1898). Wittkower, R., Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London: The Warburg Institute, 1949). Wittkower, R., ‘L’Arcadia e il Giorgionismo’, in: V. Branca (ed.), Umanesimo europeo e Umanesimo veneziano (Florence: Sansoni, 1963), 473–484.

The Far Side of the Moon

97

Wohl, H., ‘The Subject of Giovanni Bellini’s St. Francis in the Frick Collection’, in: O. Francisci Osti (ed.), Mosaics of Friendship. Studies in Art and History for Eve Borsook (Florence: Centro Di, 1999), 187–198. Wormald, F., ‘The Walters Art Gallery: Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages and Renaissance’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCI, 558 (1949), 265. Wormald, F., ‘French Illuminated MSS. in Paris’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVIII, 642 (1956), 330–331, 333. Wormald, F., ‘Kund Praktis och Drottning Teoris Jaktbok: An Art-historical Commentary by Carl Nordenfalk’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCIX, 646 (1957), 32–33. Wuttke, D., ‘Einstein der Kunstgeschichte: Erwin Panofsky zum hundertsten Geburtstag (1992)’, in: id. (ed.), Dazwischen: Kulturwissenschaft auf Warburgs Spuren (Baden-Baden: Valentin Koerner, 1996), 617–631. Wuttke, D., ‘Panofsky and the “Warburg serum”’, in: A. Mendes and I. Matos Dias (eds.), Qual o tempo e o movimento de uma elipse? Estudos sobre Aby M. Warburg (Lisbon: Universidade Catolica Editora, 2012), 35–48. Wuttke, D., Fokus Panofsky. Beiträge zu Leben und Werk von Erwin Panofsky: mit Ergänzungen zur Korrespondenz und mit der erneut erweiterten Panofsky-Bibliographie 1914 bis 1969/73 (Baden-Baden: Verlag Valentin Koerner, 2018).

3

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Reviewing Antal Only a few years before Meiss’s Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, in 1948, Frederick Antal published Florentine Painting and Its Social Background. In this book, Antal contended that the varying stylistic trends could be explained with the different social makeup of the patronage and were tied to the economic, political and social history of Florence between the late 13th and the early 15th century.1 Although Antal always maintained that his outlook was ‘sociological’,2 most scholars deemed his views strictly deterministic and likened them to the Marxian theory of historical materialism.3 In a review of Antal’s book for The Art Bulletin, Meiss expressed a positive opinion of its sociological perspective inasmuch as it overcame sensu stricto formalism but was equally critical in stigmatising its ‘monist conception of class as the sole determinant’.4 By explaining art historical phenomena and the intricacies of patronage solely in terms of class struggle, Antal’s interpretation deprived the artist of any freedom in the creative process and reduced art to a passive refection of the socio-political background of its patrons.5 Meiss did allude to adopting himself a similar point of view in a forthcoming book on the art of the late Trecento in Florence and Siena. But he carefully measured his words in clarifying that artistic changes were connected to ‘(among other things) the social movements of the time’.6 Before reading the review, in a letter to Meiss, Antal stressed how ‘their’ approaches, despite some minor differences, were essentially in ‘agreement on the main line and on the method itself’.7 Antal was hoping that American art scholarship would be

1 Antal 1948. On Antal (1887–1954), refer to Klingender 1954; Berger 1954; Krohn 1999; Kókai 2005; Stirton 2006; Hadjinicolaou and Hadjinicolaou 2014 and Cooke 2019. 2 Antal 1948, 9. To György Lukács, however, Antal wrote in 1946: ‘If my books have signifcance, it lies in my having used a much wider range of specialised literature in every branch than had been customary so far, in order to construe the developments in art on a Marxist basis’, quoted in: Wessely 1979, 123. 3 Gronau 1949; Mommsen 1950; Weinberger 1951; cf. also Egbert 1967; Cooke 2011. 4 Meiss 1949, 145. Cf. Cooke 2011. 5 Meiss 1949, 147–148. 6 Ibid., 150. 7 AAA, MMP. Letter from Frederick Antal to Millard Meiss, 22 February 1949. Antal wrote in reply to a previous letter Meiss sent him, probably informing him of the review he had just submitted. Unfortunately, Meiss’s letter has not yet been uncovered.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

99

more open to his method than British conservative intellectuals. In order to precisely establish a common methodological ground for post-Wölffinian art historiography, Antal informed Meiss that he had just written an outline of the historical roots of his method for The Burlington Magazine.9 In ‘Remarks on the Method of Art History’, Antal found the historical precedents of his approach in Taine’s and Comte’s theories of the milieu, the Geistesgeschichte of Riegl (sic.) and Dvořák, and Warburg’s Kulturgeschichte. His survey of practitioners of the history of culture then continued with a plethora of both European and American scholars. This name-dropping included the likes of Herbert Read, Richard Krautheimer,10 Meyer Schapiro, Ernst Gombrich, Anthony Blunt,11 Sigfried Giedion and Millard Meiss.12 An association of such different methods was interpreted as an effort to temper the stigma on his Marxist views and in this way point to a lineage, or a school, he identifed with.13 Referring to the theories on late Trecento art that Meiss adumbrated in a 1946 article on a Czech collection of Italian primitives, Antal surmised that they both had reached the same conclusions, ‘working independently through the same historical sources and the same literature of social history’.14 The timeliness of Antal’s ‘Remarks’ inevitably infuenced the way Meiss’s Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death was received.15 In Italy, for instance, Antal’s article was translated soon afterwards and appeared in the 1954 issue of Società in commemoration of his passing.16 Only three years since the Black Death, the recognition the Hungarian art historian was gaining in Marxist circles reinforced the idea that Meiss and Antal had adopted the same outlook. Following the publication of Antal’s ‘Remarks’ in Italy, the philosopher Valentino Gerratana indeed warned against the risk of appointing ‘honorary Marxists’ – taking Meiss as an example – because the scholars mentioned by Antal only shared an aversion to formalism but had otherwise different points of view.17 The better part of Italian art scholarship did not see through the methodological oversimplifcation and tarred the two art historians with the same brush – as did Carlo L. Ragghianti.18 8

8 Ibid.: ‘In England where the intellectuals are much more conservative than in America, the method we are both using, has far more adversaries than you over there can imagine’. 9 Antal 1949 [1966]. 10 Richard Krautheimer also published a review of Florentine Painting and Its Social Background, arguing a similar point to that of Meiss (Krautheimer 1948). 11 Anthony Blunt was almost designated as Antal’s true successor, but he eventually came under the infuence of Rudolf Wittkower who directed him towards 17th-century art; see Chastel 1983, 547. 12 Enrico Castelnuovo ironically defned them ‘todos caballeros’ and also remarked that Panofsky was signifcantly omitted in the list; see Castelnuovo 1976 [20072], 25. 13 Cf. also Neumeyer 1967–1968; Haskell 1968, 161: ‘The supposition is tempting not only because the scholars whom he evokes as exemplars – Warburg, Saxl, Wind, Gombrich and many others – have never been associated with the methods he had himself applied so strictly, but also because it is in the light of these extremely valuable and suggestive Remarks that his most famous articles, which are dated between 1935 and 1941 and which give their title to the present volume now read disappointingly’. 14 Antal 1949 [1966], 180–184: 181. 15 On this matter, refer to Cooke 2014. 16 Antal 1954. Società was a quarterly cultural magazine founded by archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, closely linked to the Italian Communist Party. 17 Gerratana 1954. On Gerratana (1919–2000), see Forenza and Liguori 2011. 18 Ragghianti 1956. Ragghianti’s critique will be further analysed in the following pages.

100

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

The ‘Pest Book’ and Post-war Scholarship ‘One of the Most Original and Sound Works in the History of Art’ Upon writing in 1944 on the teaching of art history in the academic curriculum, Meiss advocated for a modern discipline that did not concern itself with the ‘appreciation of art’ and ‘principles of design’ but with the ‘contemporary cultural and social pattern’ of artistic phenomena.19 This methodological intent was fulflled in the book that he had just completed, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, which was published, like Antal’s, only after the war in 1951.20 ‘The Pest book’, as Meiss often referred to it, analysed artistic production in Florence and Siena between 1350 and 1375, a period that scholars had mostly dismissed as of decadence and regression after Giotto’s achievements. The American scholar set out to demonstrate that late Trecento art was not the result of decline but was instead a conscious reaction to contemporary Giottism.21 Meiss noted that the ‘new form and new content’ in mid-14th-century works essentially harked back to the style and iconography of Duecento art. This revival was, Meiss argued, ‘coherent and purposeful’ insofar as it expressed ‘contemporary religious sentiment’, ‘literary thought’ and ‘state of mind’.22 The main stylistic shift that the American scholar observed was a reduced sense of spatial depth: fgures tended to be depicted on one frontal plane and set against a golden background and appeared disengaged with one another (and the viewer). The colours were visibly contrasting and emotional expressiveness was enhanced. Light became ‘essential to the drama and mystery of the scene’, and artists returned to draw from Byzantine models.23 Works of art also evidenced a preference for themes that celebrated God and the Church, such as the Trinity, Pentecost and the Presentation of Mary to the Temple. The changes in style and iconography resulted in a development ‘from narrative to ritual’ that favoured monumental, iconic depictions over narrative scenes. Meiss found the reasons for the new form and meaning in the economic-political-social crisis of the 14th century, culminating in the Black Death epidemic of 1348 and the new social groups that consequently rose to power. Unlike Antal, Meiss was more interested in the psychological impact on the mentality of this cataclysmic chain of events rather than its socio-political ramifcations. He noted a twofold response inasmuch as the libertine spirit of Boccaccio’s characters coexisted, with a sense of ‘guilt, penance and religious rapture’ that was epitomised in the mysticism of Jacopo Passavanti, Giovanni delle Celle and St Catherine.24 The latter sentiment permeated, in particular, religious art, and the prime examples he adduced were Andrea da Firenze’s Spanish Chapel in Santa

19 Meiss 1944, 84–85. 20 Meiss 1951a. Signifcantly, Meiss’s book appeared in the same year as Arnold Hauser’s Social History of Art, Pierre Francastel’s Peinture et Réalité and Panofsky’s Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism. For a more detailed analysis of the contents of Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, refer to Cooke 2008–2009, 93–148. 21 Before Meiss, György Gombosi had re-evaluated late Trecento art; see Gombosi 1926; cf. also Procacci 1929. 22 Meiss 1951a, vii. 23 Ibid., 41. 24 Other scholars had previously seen a connection between fgurative creation and the psychological atmosphere following the plague; see Faison 1932; Valentiner 1949.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

101

Maria Novella (Figure 3.1), Orcagna’s Strozzi Altarpiece in Santa Maria Novella and the Triumph of Death in Santa Croce (Figure 3.2) and Barna da Siena’s frescoes in the Collegiata in San Gimignano (Figure 3.3).25 The episodes of mystical rapture experienced by saints while contemplating works of art that were mentioned in contemporary religious texts were connected to the effect art had on 14th-century beholders. The concurrent libertine feeling found expression, Meiss continued, mostly in literature rather than art, and the more relevant sources were analysed in the conclusion of the book. Finally, Meiss proposed again the essay on the Madonna of Humility originally written in 1936, with the purpose of illustrating the subsequent inversion of stylistic and iconographic trends between the 14th and 15th centuries.26 This devotional image in fact expressed a more ‘intimate emotional relationship between the spectator and the sacred fgures’, and was made possible by a sense of tridimensional space that was typical of both the early Trecento and the mid-15th century.27

Figure 3.1 Andrea Bonaiuti (known as Andrea da Firenze), Spanish Chapel, 1366–1368, view of the interior, Florence, Santa Maria Novella [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 16066]. 25 The frescoes depicting the New Testament in San Gimignano’s Collegiata are now assigned to Lippo Memmi; see Freuler 1986; Spannocchi 2009. 26 Meiss 1936b. 27 Meiss 1951a, 145 and ff.

102

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Figure 3.2 Andrea di Cione (known as Orcagna), Triumph of Death (fragment), ca. 1348, fresco, Florence, Santa Croce [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 15089].

The interdisciplinary historical perspective of Meiss’s book warranted that both a historian and a Trecento specialist would review it for The Art Bulletin. The Canadian historian Wallace K. Ferguson, who had previously authored a study on Renaissance historiography,28 did not accuse Meiss of historical materialism or a priori formulations, in spite of his detestation for the oversimplifcations of social history.29 Panofsky had been rather surprised to learn that a scholar like Benjamin Rowland, who ‘does not know anything special about the subject’, would be asked to review the book.30 Rowland penned a rather negative comment on the study, which he defned as a collation of texts with no cohesive structure. The reviewer also pointed to the fact that Meiss’s argument of an alleged mid-century crisis was fawed, because it only accounted for the more archaising aspects of Orcagna’s style and only considered Taddeo Gaddi’s late works. The earlier date of the Pisan Triumph of Death also showed the fallacy of his theory, which Rowland thought would be completely invalidated by the fact that

28 Ferguson 1948. This essay reviewed historians’ reactions to Burckhardt’s idea of a secular and pagan Renaissance as opposed to the Middle Ages. 29 Ferguson 1952. 30 Panofsky 2006, 282–284 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 16 February 1952]: ‘the like of which, as Dürer would say, “has never been in any one’s mind before”, and which can stand a good deal of scrutiny. I can only say: “utinam scripsissem”’.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

103

Figure 3.3 Lippo Memmi, Crucifxion, ca. 1340, fresco, San Gimignano, Collegiata di Santa Maria Assunta [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 21507]. Authorised by the Soprintendenza Archeologia Belle Arti e Paesaggio di Siena Grosseto e Arezzo.

104

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Catalan painting showed a similar development in the 1360s.31 Meiss subsequently defended the attributions Rowland contested and counter-examined the presumed relations between Italian and Catalan art.32 In The Times Literary Supplement, John Pope-Hennessy praised how the American art historian successfully demonstrated the infuence of art in the literary description of mysticism, and particularly applauded his attempt at connecting social events and artistic phenomena.33 Meiss’s challenge to formalism was also hailed by Wolfgang Stechow in The Magazine of Art.34 In his review for The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Ernst H. Gombrich engaged in a methodological debate concerning Meiss’s ‘lucid and scholarly analysis’.35 Gombrich frst questioned the merit of Meiss’s re-evaluation of a neglected period, because his theory implied that any form or style expressed an artistic intention.36 Echoing the debate that Panofsky’s iconological meaning aroused, the concept of artistic intention was central to Meiss’s argument – and his research at large, as we have seen. The American scholar did therefore explain this point in detail in a letter to Gombrich: A ‘falling off of standards’ implies also that the painters who surrounded Giotto or who immediately followed him, such as Pacino, Taddeo Gaddi, Daddi, were stronger masters than Orcagna, Andrea da Firenze, and Giovanni da Milano. I think few would agree that they were. […] Why did you raise the problem of style versus incompetence with regard to Orcagna? Haven’t you loaded the dice by transforming my concepts of disharmony, tension and confict into ‘inconsistency’? Do you believe that the attempt to show that these ‘inconsistencies’ are consistent is unconvincing? Or are you unwilling to admit a disharmonious unity? […] Disharmony seems to me to have no direct relation to quality. And the discernment of quality in an art full of confict seems to me no more problematic than in a serene one.37 In his review, Gombrich suggested that in order to prove the validity of his argument, the author ought to have contemplated other examples outside of Florence and Siena, and perhaps refer to Wilhelm Pinder’s similar conclusions on German 14th-century sculpture.38 The American professor retorted: I did not undertake a discussion of the relationship of Italian and Northern or German painting because the dissimilarities between the styles seem far greater than the likenesses, so that the discussion would inevitably become highly abstract.

31 32 33 34 35

Rowland 1952. Meiss 1953. Pope-Hennessy 1952. Stechow 1952. Gombrich 1953b [1987], 42. His critique followed on from ideas that he had earlier developed in Vienna in relation to the work of Alois Riegl and Max Dvořák. 36 Gombrich 1953b [1987], 43: ‘As a historian of art Professor Meiss is entirely within his right to follow Riegl’s tradition and not only to give the artist the beneft of the doubt but even to accept any shape or form as evidence of aesthetic “intention”’. 37 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ernst H. Gombrich, 29 June 1955. 38 Gombrich 1953b [1987], 43; cf. Pinder 1924.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

105

To deal with this matter would lead one into the rarefed atmosphere of those endless debates about neo-Gothic or late-Gothic-baroque in the Trecento. In short, I think the style of Orcagna or Barna has no signifcant relationship with that of the Rottweil Virgin, and even though Pinder uses some words similar to mine he is describing an essentially different phenomenon.39 Gombrich concluded with an observation pertaining to the ‘methodology of historical explanation’ that was a mantra for the Austrian-born scholar: Granted that events may and must have their effect on art, need art also ‘express’ them? Is not the effect of such a trauma on personality much less predictable than one might expect?40 Meiss now felt compelled to clarify that his discourse was not concerned with the psychological impact on the single individual: I wrote the book to explore the latter question, not the former. Have I really attempted to ‘predict’ the effect of the events on the people that experiences them rather than record what they said they experienced? Do you doubt my hypothesis of the effect of events upon religious sentiment as well as upon art? How is the present matter methodologically different from the problem of David and the French Revolution? 41 With the example of Panofsky to follow, Meiss felt that his explanation was legitimate and that he was on the right track. However, Gombrich’s concerns about his argument were a logical outcome of his 1930s critique of Alois Riegl’s views on late antique art and Max Dvořák’s views on Mannerism. To his mind, although he did not say this outright, Meiss was committing the ‘physiognomic fallacy’.42 Gombrich’s review of Meiss must also be considered against the background of the harsher critiques of the sociology of art that the Viennese wrote in those years in connection with Hauser’s Social History of Art and André Malraux’s The Voices of Silence.43 Meiss was certainly more pleased to read how ‘so faithfully and so attractively’ André Chastel presented the contents and character of the book to the French readers,

39 40 41 42

Millard Meiss to Ernst H. Gombrich, 29 June 1955. Gombrich 1953b [1987], 45. Millard Meiss to Ernst H. Gombrich, 29 June 1955. Gombrich 1957 [1963], 108: ‘Let me call this tendency to see the past in terms of its typical style “the physiognomic fallacy”. It would be a harmless fallacy, if it did not strengthen the illusion that mankind changed as dramatically and thoroughly as did art’. Gombrich had earlier critiqued Panofsky along the same lines in his review of Josef Bodonyi’s Entstehung und Bedeutung des Goldgrundes in der spätantiken Bildkomposition (Gombrich 1932–1933). On this matter, refer to Woodfeld 1994. The more recent literature on Gombrich (1909–2001) includes Fabbri and Migliore 2011; Taylor 2014 and Moser Ernst 2018. 43 Gombrich 1953a; Gombrich 1954. Gombrich’s criticism would culminate in the lecture ‘In Search of Cultural History’ (1967). On Gombrich’s critique of Hauser and his views on the social history of art, see Berryman 2017.

106

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

as the former gratefully wrote to his friend.44 Chastel wholeheartedly commended an approach that harmoniously combined formal and iconological analysis – following the example of Panofsky.45 The only ‘soft criticism’46 Chastel raised was that his argument would have been stronger had he also surveyed contemporary architecture and sculpture.47 Meiss’s response is worth quoting, especially for the fnal statement: Unlike the usual form of history, most of the statements in ‘horizontal’ studies require familiarity not only with the better monuments, but with every one of the periods preceding and following as well as the one studied. And now I wish to divert myself with other things – and other methods.48 By dealing with a study of the socio-political-religious context of 14th-century Tuscany, Meiss had entered the territory of sociological interpretations like Antal’s ‘rigid mechanism’ of class struggle, but Chastel hastened to add how the American had a more comprehensive and multi-faceted view.49 The French art historian would again compare Meiss and Antal in an outline of contemporary art history published a year later, in which he also criticised the Marxist framework for its ‘battles of abstractions’.50 Over a decade later, Chastel would still remember the Pest book as ‘one of the most original and sound works’.51 The Black Death would in fact serve as a model for his own research on the Sack of Rome and the consequences of a traumatic event on collective consciousness and artistic production – which also committed the physiognomic fallacy.52

44 INHA, Fonds Chastel, Correspondence, Correspondence LOTZ-MUR, Meiss, Millard. Letter from Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 8 November 1952. On André Chastel (1912–1990), see Revue de l’Art 1991; Rabreau 1990; Frommel, Hochmann and Sénéchal 2015 and De Fuccia and Renzulli 2019. 45 Chastel 1952, 903: ‘L’élégance du dessin d’ensemble, l’art d’insérer les analyses iconographiques et formelles à la bonne place et même certains plis de style le rattachent à la meilleure école d’E. Panofsky’. 46 Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 8 November 1952. 47 Chastel 1952, 904. 48 Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 8 November 1952. 49 Chastel 1952, 906: ‘M. Meiss indique nettement cette propagande perpétuelle que seraient obligées d’exercer les classes supérieures avec le concours des artistes pour “mystifer” et dominer les classes populaires. […] Millard Meiss n’est donc pas moins bien défendu contre les aberrations nouvelles que contre les simplifcations anciennes. Les délimitations strictes de l’enquête dans l’espace et dans le temps en expliquent l’effcacité, mais elles ne sont que la bordure de perspectives dans lesquelles cette mise au point devra fnalement rentrer’. 50 Chastel 1953, 106: ‘La méthode employee ne peut amener qu’à traiter le style comme une entité en rapport avec une autre notion abstraite, celle du comportement-type d’une certaine classe, et les explications obtenues ne sont que de grandes batailles d’abstractions’. Upon reviewing Chastel’s Art et Humanisme à Florence au temps de Laurent le Magnifque (Paris: Presses universitaires, 1959), Carlo L. Ragghianti referred to Chastel’s sceptical views on contextual art history implying a criticism to Meiss; see Ragghianti 1961, 4: ‘Il Chastel afferma giustamente che la spiegazione dell’arte mediante i confitti economici o le forme politico-civili è sommaria e grossolana; essa perciò non può venire limitata né confutata sostituendo all’economia altri fattori determinanti esterni, come avviene nel Meiss e in altri studiosi’. 51 Chastel 1966. 52 Chastel 1983, 17: ‘This study, like the fne work by our much lamented friend, Millard Meiss, is intended to serve art history, but also to be a history of art that does not leave history as history untouched’. Chastel even drew a parallel between 1527 Rome and 1348 Tuscany (ibid., 169).

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

107

In his review, Thomas S.R. Boase was also careful in stressing the difference between Antal’s Marxist theory and Meiss’s study of artistic change as an expression of the cultural milieu.53 Clearly familiar with the social history of art, a year earlier, the British historian reviewed Hauser’s Social History of Art that was credited with being ‘the defnitive statement of a point of view current in the mid-twentieth century’.54 Robert Oertel, too, believed that Meiss’s stylistic-iconographic survey, combined with the study of the spiritual and material environment, did not incur the pitfalls of Antal’s unilateral vision.55 But others, like Harald Keller, chided the American art historian precisely because such connections did not seem convincing.56 The better part of Anglo-Saxon scholarship perceived the distance between Meiss’s theories and Marxist or sociological interpretations. James S. Ackerman’s enthusiastic appreciation is palpable in the letter he wrote to Meiss immediately after he fnished reading the Pest book, which in his words, ‘beats the Marxists at their own game without weakening the tradition of connoisseurship’.57 Ackerman, in particular, commended Meiss for providing another compelling argument to overturn Wölffinian cycles and posited that ‘art doesn’t move in cycles or grow like a plant, but reacts constantly to impulses, and often does more revolting than developing’.58 An attentive observer of the methodological debate, Ackerman believed this broad perspective on artistic phenomena made Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death an exemplar for a modern-day art scholarship.59 To his mind, Meiss’s outlook successfully overcame the style vs. context dichotomy and fnally ‘liberated artists from a relentless progression of their own production by showing that each successive work may be directed by the impulse of external stimulus as well as by an internal continuity of style’.60 The Black Death book was again mentioned, in a historiographical outline of Western art history that Ackerman wrote in 1963, for its ‘more comprehensive approach that no longer interfered with a penetrating criticism of works of art’ that positioned it both within the new connoisseurship and the social history of art.61 Ten years later, it was probably with Meiss in mind that Ackerman urged American scholars to think of the methodological foundations of the art history in order to fnd a way to no longer separate form and content.62

53 Boase 1953, 98: ‘In the one case the general Marxist thesis is stated and the data ftted into it: in the other the problem of a marked stylistic change is defned, and is then discussed in the light of contemporary writings and movements’. Meiss’s Black Death would later be the starting point for Boase’s essay on mortality in the Middle Ages (Boase 1972). 54 Boase 1952, 299. On the response of Anglo-American scholarship to Hauser’s theories, see Orwicz 1985. 55 Oertel 1954, 195. Oertel however had a negative opinion of late Trecento art; see Oertel 1953, 168–173. 56 Keller 1958. 57 AAA, MMP. Letter from James S. Ackerman to Millard Meiss, 20 October [1951]. On Ackerman (1919–2016), refer to Caccavale and Palmer 1988–1989; Ruffnière du Prey 1993; Cohen 2014 and Howard 2017. 58 James S. Ackerman to Millard Meiss, 20 October [1951]. 59 Ackerman 1958. 60 Ackerman 1960, 262. Ackerman also cited Friedländer’s Caravaggio Studies and Krautheimer’s Lorenzo Ghiberti as two other art historical beacons. Krautheimer mentioned Meiss for having had an important infuence on his work (Krautheimer 1956, VI). 61 Ackerman 1963, 224. 62 Ackerman 1973.

108

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

The Historian’s View: Yves Renouard, Hans Baron and Roberto S. Lopez Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death elicited the interest of historians, as well. ‘A perfect illustration of the interdisciplinary approach’, the book was awarded by the Medieval Academy with the Charles Haskins Medal in 1954.63 Being an investigation of a period of crisis, the subject matter also appeared as particularly relevant in the early forties and ffties because it chimed with the sense of collective fear in the post-atomic scenario. Meiss, too, did not fail to notice such correspondence as he spoke of ‘sights not unfamiliar to modern eyes’.64 By studying the psychological impact of a historical event, Meiss employed a contextual vision that was indebted to the concept of outillage mental (mental toolkit) developed with the Annales School of historical studies – as Chastel remarked.65 The Black Death was a subject that also captured the attention of some scholars of the Annales School. Lucien Febvre, for instance, studied the effects of the plague on mentality but cautioned to be prudent in assessing the effective impact of the epidemic, mainly because the numbers cited in the sources were unreliable.66 A year earlier, in 1948, Yves Renouard wrote an article on the consequences of the plague observing how the socio-economic crisis brought about a sense of fear of death, and a more superstitious and mystical form of religion that explained the popularity of macabre themes in art.67 Upon reviewing Antal’s Florentine Painting and Its Social Background in 1950, Renouard claimed that the artistic regression in the late 14th century was due to lack of prominent artistic personalities.68 Incidentally, Longhi would also espouse this view when in 1959 he argued that the falling off of standards was the result of artists turning to a mass-produced art.69 While Renouard reproached Antal for a too rigid schematism, he on the contrary praised Meiss’s ‘more nuanced’ (though in some ways ‘more traditional’) perspective in a review of the Black Death penned in 1952. Less convincing to him was, on the other hand, the analogy between Florence and Siena, two towns whose different social structures, Renouard thought, produced two quintessentially different styles that were exemplifed in the distance between the two masters Giotto and Duccio.70 In a letter to Renouard, Meiss clarifed that the old distinction between these two trecento schools in terms of ‘progressiveness or modernity’ is not really valid. The distinction goes back to the early Florentine

63 AAA, MMP. Typewritten comment by Roger S. Loomis, Charles R. Morey and Joseph R. Strayer when Meiss was awarded the Charles Haskins Medal, 12 May 1954: ‘The author has succeeded in producing a unique factual demonstration of the infuence on art of economic, political and social change. […] the book is a perfect illustration of the interdisciplinary approach which forms the strength of the Mediaeval Academy’. 64 Meiss 1951a, 65. Valentiner had also remarked in his article on Orcagna and the Black Death: ‘There could be expected as little help against the plague at that early period as there can now be against the atomic bomb’ (Valentiner 1949, 62). 65 Chastel 1966. A classic source on the Annales School is Burke 20152. The same author outlined the connections between history and art history, in: Burke 19742, 15–36. 66 Febvre 1949. This would be a remark that some critics will refer to Meiss. On Lucien Febvre (1878– 1956), see Mann 1971 and Müller 2003. 67 Renouard 1948, 465. On Yves Renouard (1908–1965), see Braunstein 1969 and Herlihy 1971. 68 Renouard 1950, 365. Renouard also criticised Antal for his too rigid schematism. 69 Longhi 1959, 4. Cf. Boskovits 1975, 9 [Boskovits however confused Renouard with Renaudet]. 70 Renouard 1952.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

109

writers themselves particularly Vasari and is echoed even at the present day as in the book of Antal. All I am trying to suggest is that the Sienese school from Duccio through the Lorenzetti is profoundly revolutionary also and however different from the Florentine, takes its place alongside that school as a major source of all later evolution.71 When Renouard later analysed the notion of ‘generation’, he referred to Meiss’s book as a model for further historiographical studies on how the different generations reacted to the Black Death.72 In the post-war years, 14th- and 15th-century Italian civilisation was a popular subject with American historiography, because such period was believed to have a ‘biological link’ with the nature of American society.73 A case in point was the studies of the German-born émigré historian Hans Baron, which constituted an important precedent for Meiss’s book,74 namely, Baron’s research on the religious and philosophical atmosphere, dominated by pauperism and stoicism in the aftermath of the 1348 epidemic, were very infuential, especially for the sociological interpretation of the early Florentine Renaissance.75 In 1953, after reading Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, Baron wrote to Meiss that his book ‘entirely fts’ into his own ‘picture of the period’ and that he regretted not seeing it before completing the manuscript of The Crisis of the Italian Renaissance.76 Baron’s monograph – written when he was in Princeton under the auspices of Panofsky – postulated the concept of Bürgerhumanismus, i.e. a civic-political humanism that Florentine intellectuals developed in defence of their freedom threatened by tyranny of the Visconti.77 In his own words, Meiss’s Black Death would have provided ‘a better understanding of the change which took place from the 1390s onward’.78 In 1952, Meiss attended a symposium held at the Metropolitan Museum on the momentous theme of the Renaissance, which gathered both historians and art historians. Panofsky also participated with a paper on the role of the artist at the dawn of the Renaissance that left Meiss ‘spell-bound’.79 Another speaker was the émigré historian

71 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Yves Renouard, 18 March 1953. 72 Renouard 1953, 21: ‘Ces recherches montreraient si les conséquences de tout ordre, en particulier les conséquences intellectuelles et morales de la Peste Noire, sont aussi importantes et profondes que bien les historiens le pensent’. As is known, Wilhelm Pinder was the principal proponent of the concept of generation in the development of artistic forms; see Halbertsma 2003. 73 On this matter, refer to Molho 1981 and Fantoni 2000, 45. 74 Cf. Meiss 1951a, 74. On Hans Baron (1900–1988), see Hay 1971 and Garin 1971; Molho 2008 and Gehl 2018. 75 Baron 1938; Baron 1939. 76 AAA, MMP. Letter from Hans Baron to Millard Meiss, 17 January 1953: ‘Your book […] entirely fts into my own picture of the period, and I only wish I had known it by last early summer when I fnished the manuscript of my book on the subsequent Florentine generation’. 77 Baron 1955. Cf. Ferguson 1958, 21; Eisler 1969, 613; Bassani 2006. Keenan showed that Panofsky went to considerable lengths to secure a position for Baron at the Institute for Advanced Study (Keenan 2014, 74). 78 Hans Baron to Millard Meiss, 17 January 1953. 79 E. Panofsky, ‘Artist, Scientist, Genius: Notes on the Renaissance Dämmerung’, in: The Renaissance 1953, 77–93. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 12 February 1952: ‘I sat literally spell-bound throughout the lecture. You managed, as usual, to make even the most abstract concepts vivid – indeed you seem less to be talking than shaping some extraordinary image that, at the

110

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

of economics, Roberto S. Lopez, who moved to the United States after Mussolini’s Race Laws and taught at Columbia and Harvard.80 A specialist in mediaeval and Renaissance European civilisation, Lopez’s paper was concerned with the economic recession in Europe between the 14th and 15th centuries. In particular, he argued that the cultural fowering of the Renaissance was a product of the crisis the continent plunged into. Although Lopez did not intend to draw too deterministic a parallel, historical evidence showed that the mercantile class invested more resources in culture during the times of economic recession.81 Meiss and Lopez possibly became acquainted when they were colleagues at Columbia University, and they both took part in the lecture series Voice of America.82 In a letter he sent to the art historian in September 1970, Lopez professed to be a ‘fan’ of the Black Death book and his words were rife with admiration: Economic historians have so much to learn from art historians like you.83 The Habitus Does Not Make the Art Bishop: Berenson and Panofsky In the 1950s, Meiss and Berenson corresponded regularly and would often send each other their publications. While he positively welcomed Meiss’s connoisseurial studies, ‘the art bishop of Florence’84 was rather displeased with the Pest book and invited the colleague to discuss their different views further.85 Upon accepting to explain his methodological stance, Meiss was rather disappointed with his negative judgement and cleverly retorted that Berenson had shown a ‘not too dissimilar curiosity’ when he analysed the consequences of the Council of Trent on architectural style in ‘A Word for Renaissance Churches’.86 In that article from 1893, one of his few studies devoted to architecture, Berenson outlined a ‘national’ principle in Italian construction that could be discerned from ancient Roman buildings to Bramante’s spatial conception in St Peter’s Basilica, but that was disregarded in Gothic cathedrals and once again under the infuence of the Council of Trent.87 Meiss’s reference was not coincidental,

80

81

82 83 84 85

86

87

end of the hour, stands brightly in all its complexity before the audience. Your own work thus seems to me in a sense a living illustration of your conception of the accomplishment of the Renaissance’. Lopez (1910–1986) taught for many years in the United States, frst at Columbia University then at Yale. For an outline of his life and work, see G. Lopez, ‘Roberto S. Lopez. Nota biografca’, in: Airaldi 1989, 9–12 and Lopez 1993. Lopez 1952; R.S. Lopez, ‘Hard Times and Investment in Culture’, in: The Renaissance 1953, 19–34: 28: ‘What we look for is not the direct image of economic facts, but the indirect repercussions of these facts on the development of ideas’. Cf. also Burke 19742, 31–32, 315–316. R.S. Lopez, ‘Studi sul Medioevo in Italia e in America’, in: Airaldi 1989, 107–116: 111. Cf. Meiss 1960c. AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto S. Lopez to Millard Meiss, 6 September 1970. As mentioned in Chapter 1, this was how Panofsky dubbed Berenson; see Heckscher 1969, 16. BB, BMBP. Letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 24 August 1952: ‘I regret that I see you not at all I am convinced of the intellectual integrity of all your publications and am therefore persuaded that we proftably could discuss differences of method and conclusions’. BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 23 February 1953: ‘I am disappointed and will say only that I was victimized by a curiosity not dissimilar from the one that occasionally moved you in your own volume (for instance, speculation on the infuence of the Council of Trent on Church architecture) and, judging from the reception the book has had, seems itself to be epidemic’. Berenson 1893 [1902]. The essay, and Berenson’s ideas on architecture in general, did not elicit much attention in later criticism, except for Gurrieri 1969. In a 1932 lecture on mural painting, Meiss

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

111

because BB had mentioned the article in his recently published wartime diary, which the American scholar had obviously just read.88 In his reply, Berenson however ignored the reference and only mentioned the Council of Trent in connection to the book by Emile Mâle.89 Despite Meiss’s effort to fnd common ground, Berenson warned the young scholar against the perils of pursuing such methods as iconology and history of culture: This kind of work should be left to Warburgers […] We should stick to the […] atively specifc, the vivida vis in the work of art. & let the adepts of metafussics, icononsense and superanalysis do the rest. There is so much you could and should do in my (and your feld) I devour ‘history’ & never write without all the information I can get about the ‘historical’ ambience of the work I am writing about. But I never let that come to the fore & become the subject of a big monograph.90 Berenson’s judgement of Meiss’s work evidenced that the old connoisseur unequivocally stood by his own methodological formulations, whereby Warburgian art history solely focussed on the ‘illustrative values’ of artworks.91 Employing the categories of his constructive art criticism, BB thought that Warburg’s – or Meiss’s – ‘icononsense’ did not engage with the ‘tactile values’ or the painter’s ability to conjure the illusion of a sensory-enhanced reality (the true goal of art to Berenson’s mind), but was instead fxed on a mere accidental factor like subject matter.92 The connoisseur’s acerbic words testifed to the fact that the animosity towards his ‘absolute opposite’, Aby Warburg, was still strong, though the route of reconciliation was tried a few times.93 Meiss’s reply has not been uncovered, but he must have been rather upset by Berenson’s harsh critique since he probably took the matter to Panofsky (the other nemesis of Berenson). Pan in turn wrote to Eric M. Warburg about it:

88

89

90

91 92 93

interestingly spoke of the quintessentially Italian ‘sense of architectonic structure’ as a key factor in the success of fresco painting compared to other countries (AAA, MMP. Typescript of Millard Meiss’s lecture ‘Italian Mural Painting’, 1932). Berenson 1950 [1952], 83–84. In a note (10 February 1942), Berenson remarked how the Council of Trent infuenced the arrangement of church interiors, namely increasing the allotted space for the clergy and reducing that for laity. This was the result of the Church’s tendency to ‘monasticize’ itself, seeing churches as places for continuous prayer while the presence of laity was perceived as a mere intrusion. BB then recalled ‘A Plea for Renaissance Churches’ [sic] written ffty years earlier, in which he argued that the Renaissance had a different sense of space compared to the Gothic, whose cathedrals Berenson thought were not conceived in relation to space. Cf. Mâle 1932. In a note in his diaries from 5 March 1957, Berenson wrote on Mâle: ‘The great master of showing the connection between painting particularly, and celebration of events and propaganda for them, was Emile Mâle’, in: Berenson 1963, 471. BB, BMBP. Letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 7 March 1953 [the diffcult interpretation of Berenson’s handwriting was only partially overcome by comparing the document to the transcription of the letter published in Panofsky 2011, 824]. The principles of Berenson’s New Criticism or Constructive Art Criticism were fully outlined in Lorenzo Lotto: An Essay in Constructive Criticism (London: Putnam, 1894), cf. Trotta 2006. For a clear picture of connoisseurship in the United States, see Saisselin 1985, 135–168: 144. Berenson met Warburg when, in 1927, he visited the Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek in Hamburg. Since that encounter, Warburg called him a Stilschnüffer (Style-sniffer). See Wedepohl 2014, 145.

112

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art? As things are now, the term ‘Warburgian’ has been accepted, among art historians, much as the terms ‘Kantian’ or ‘Hegelian’ have been among philosophers. I remember with pleasure and amusement that Bernard Berenson (the greatest surviving representative of ‘appreciationism’ and connoisseurship) wrote to Professor Millard Meiss of Harvard in response to a book which had received the greatest distinction the humanities in this country can bestow, the Haskins medal: ‘You have become a Warburger’. And I myself have had the honor of being referred to as ‘Warburgian’ in more than one account of my own efforts.94

Over ten years later, in 1966, Panofsky asked Meiss for a photostatic copy of the letter from 1953, which left the German professor ‘interested and amused’ by the ‘selfrevelations of an important mind’.95 When he frst received a copy of the Black Death book, Panofsky was ‘overwhelmed’ and ‘touched’,96 and in ‘the famous affair Meiss vs. Benjamin Rowland’, he would obviously take Meiss’s side.97 The reason for his estimation of the ‘excellent work’ – as Pan explained in a letter to Brian Meeson from Cornell University – was that Meiss’s approach did not conform to the modern tendency of attributing stylistic changes solely to socio-economic factors, but rather followed a more complex principle of ‘multiple causation’.98 In the preface to the French edition of the Pest book, Georges Didi-Huberman claimed that Panofsky’s response was on the contrary unenthusiastic, which explained why the German art historian hardly ever cited the book in his publications.99 Admittedly, Renaissance and Renascences contained only a feeting mention of the book that ‘has taught us to perceive as well as to understand’ the mid-14thcentury stylistic regression.100 In the following Tomb Sculpture, Panofsky analysed the consequences of the plague in the depiction of the dead, but omitted any reference to Meiss’s Black Death, whose second edition incidentally came out in the same 1964.101 Panofsky constituted an undisputed model for Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. By considering the stylistic changes in late Trecento art as an expression of the ‘intention to magnify the realm of the divine while reducing that of the human’, Meiss showed his indebtedness to Panofsky’s enquiry into the devotional image of Imago Pietatis.102 Also, Meiss’s examination of religious and secular literature aimed at fnding a connection between images and words was reminiscent of Panofsky’s study of Abbot Suger’s philosophical thinking and its transposition into St Denis’s lavish decoration.103

94 Panofsky 2006, 747 [Erwin Panofsky – Eric M. Warburg, 10 May 1955]. 95 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 15 April 1966: ‘It is always pleasant to read the self-revelations of an important mind even if one disagrees with every word he says’. 96 AAA, MMP. Letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 1951: ‘I am overwhelmed and, for the time being, can only thank you from the bottom of my heart – especially also for the dedication which would have made me fush had it not touched me so deeply that the fush was delayed’. 97 Panofsky 2006, 784 [Erwin Panofsky – Julius S. Held, 27 June 1955]. 98 Panofsky 2008, 46–47 [Erwin Panofsky – Brian Meeson, 8 March 1957]. 99 Didi-Huberman 1994, xix. 100 Panofsky 1960, 155. 101 Panofsky 1964, 63–64. Didi-Huberman also noted that coincidentally in the second edition Meiss signifcantly reduced the impact the epidemic had on the artistic mind; cf. Meiss 1964d, x. 102 Meiss 1951a, 38; cf. Panofsky 1927. 103 Panofsky 1946; but also, Schapiro 1947.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

113

While Pan never focussed on the social composition of patronage, the exploration of the underlying infuences of philosophy and culture on art was however central to his approach.105 This was perhaps best epitomised in Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism (also published in 1951), in which the building principles of mediaeval cathedrals were identifed in the tenets of Scholastic philosophy, i.e. manifestatio and concordantia.106 Panofsky’s study was not based on ‘assorted factors of supposed cultural parallelism’107 but rather intended to demonstrate that philosophical teachings had a bearing on the architect’s ‘mental habitus’.108 Panofsky’s theory of a correspondence between architecture and philosophy offered a compelling explanation to the problem of artistic intention, which constituted a principal point of investigation since his early survey of Riegl’s Kunstwollen.109 When formulating the concept of mental habit, Panofsky also borrowed from the notion of Mentalität as it was frst developed by Karl Lamprecht and was subsequently adopted by Pan’s teacher, Wilhelm Vöge.110 In Die Anfänge des monumentalen Stiles im Mittelalter (1894), Vöge indeed analysed the development of the monumental style in mediaeval architecture as a refection of the artist’s philosophical and spiritual background.111 Because of this methodological kinship, Panofsky wrote to his old mentor about Meiss’s Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, which Vöge commended as a model of ‘Stilkritik’.112 More recently, scholarship also emphasised the role that Charles S. Peirce’s analysis of the relationship between Gothic architecture and philosophy played in shaping Panofsky’s theories.113 In some ways, the reception of Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism incurred a similar methodological bias as Meiss’s Black Death. By describing it as ‘the last notable essay of a wider cultural interpretation of stylistic change’, whose faw was to consider philosophy, and not social composition, as a factor in artistic development, 104

104 Cf. Gaston 1998, 621: ‘One of the serious shortcomings of Panofsky’s approach to images was his unwillingness to explore the social matrices in which they were produced and used’. 105 Upon reviewing Renaissance and Renascences, Giovanni Previtali termed Pan’s approach as ‘culturalistico’ (culturalistic), implying the sense encapsulated by the German defnition ‘kulturgeschichtlich’, but quickly clarifed that he rejected such line of research; Previtali 1972. 106 Panofsky 1951. 107 Bober 1953, 310. 108 Panofsky 1951 [1957], 20: ‘we may observe, it seems to me, a connection between Gothic art and Scholasticism which is more concrete than a mere “parallelism” and yet more general than those individual (and very important) “infuences” which are inevitably exerted on painters, sculptors, or architects by erudite advisers. In contrast to a mere parallelism, the connection which I have in mind is genuine cause-and-effect relation’. 109 Panofsky 1920 [1981]; cf. Neher 2004. 110 Brush 1993, 160: ‘Panofsky, who also worked with Aby Warburg, can be considered both an art historian and a cultural historian. Without elaborating the ramifcations of the intellectual links between Vöge, Warburg, and Panofsky, it appears that the vital momentum generated by Lamprecht was manifested by later developments of the discipline, in particular by one of the most infuential fgures in twentieth-century humanities scholarship, Erwin Panofsky’. On Lamprecht (1856–1915), see Chickering 1993; Brush 1993 and Brush 1996, 35–45. 111 Vöge 1894. On Wilhelm Vöge (1868–1952), see Panofsky and Hassold 1968 and Hubert 2010. 112 Panofsky 2006, 325 [Wilhelm Vöge – Erwin Panofsky, 20 August 1952]. Also see Brush 1996, 76 and ff., 128. 113 Boler 2004, 58–86; Wagner 2012; Viola 2014.

114

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Hauser clearly framed Panofsky’s book outside the realm of the social history of art.114 Ernst Gall, too, invoked Kulturgeschichte as a corrective to Pan’s theories, and Enrico Castelnuovo would describe Gothic Architecture as a successful attempt at ‘subverting sociology’.115 Yet, Pierre Bourdieu presented the book to the French readership as ‘one of the best challenges ever launched against positivism’ and associated his ideas to Mauss, Durkheim and Chomsky, thus furthering a sociological interpretation of this study.116 To dispel any misinterpretation, Białostocki later countered that Panofsky did not imbue art history with a ‘different history of culture’ but remained on the ‘solid ground of the history of art’, which he maintained to be ‘an independent and well-grounded discipline’.117 ‘The very explicit synchronic connections between two spheres of activity’ made Pan’s Gothic Architecture very infuential, but at the same time, his perspective was open to the risk of being labelled as sociological.118 Rather than being unimpressed with the Pest book as Didi-Huberman surmised, Panofsky may have not openly commended the Pest book in his works because he feared that sweeping generalisations would have associated him, too, with the sociology of art.119 Ragghianti’s Attack and the Italian Response At the prospect of an Italian translation of the Black Death, Henk Van Os’s words in a friendly letter to Meiss embody the methodological divide between international and Italian scholarship: Perhaps the Italian translation of your ‘1348’ will at the end push Italian art historians to something else than intuition.120 As will be discussed, the Italian translation of the Pest book would however materialise, after a long gestation, only in 1982, when many of the theories Meiss expounded had been already superseded. Paola Barocchi mentioned that, when it frst came out, the Black Death raised a few eyebrows in Longhi’s circle because of Meiss’s devaluating opinions of some artists.121 Meiss’s reappraisal of the late 14th century had also

114 Hauser 1958 [1963], 260. 115 Gall 1953, 44; Castelnuovo 1976 [20072], 44. 116 Bourdieu 1967, 135, 147–148: ‘un des plus beaux défs qui ait jamais été lancé au positivisme’. Bourdieu’s student, Nathalie Heinich, too, shared this opinion; see Heinich 2001, 12–13. Cf. also Danko 2008. 117 Białostocki 1981, 43: ‘Panofsky non opta per immergere la storia dell’arte in una difforme storia della cultura, ma rimane sul suolo sicuro della storia dell’arte, che considera una disciplina autonoma e ben fondata’. 118 Kelley 1995, 119. In a letter to Louis Grodecki, Panofsky referred to the French translation edited by Bourdieu and called Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism a ‘controversial piece’, in: Panofsky 2011, 993 [Erwin Panofsky – Louis Grodecki, 4 April 1967]. 119 When Panofsky was asked to review André Chastel’s Art et Humanisme à Florence, for instance, he replied: ‘I am – I am ashamed to admit it – really terribly limited, […] too unfamiliar with sociological and generally kulturgeschichtliche methods to write about Chastel’, in: Panofsky 2008, 726 [Erwin Panofsky – Jean Adhémar, 29 July 1960]. 120 AAA, MMP. Letter from Henk W. Van Os to Millard Meiss, 8 September 1970. 121 Barocchi 2012, 4: ‘proprio per simili giudizi il libro non era piaciuto a qualche compagno di studi, a Firenze’. Barocchi, in particular, referred to the case of Benedetto da Camogli.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

115

to contend with the prejudice of being a period of regression with no notable artistic personalities, as Pietro Toesca maintained in his concurrent monograph, Il Trecento (1951).122 Viewed from the outside, such an ‘underestimation’ was seen as the result of the conservative ideas of a country that had only recently come out of the cultural marginalisation of the war years.123 Whether for the aesthetic judgements it contained, or its general outlook, how Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death would fare in Italy seemed obvious from the indifference, if not outright hostility, that it was met with. The frst negative opinion of Pest book was voiced in Luigi Coletti’s survey of the studies on Trecento art published in 1953, in which the mediaeval art scholar rebuked Meiss for subordinating formal values to Kultur and artistic personality to society.124 From a similar point of view, Giampaolo Gandolfo decried Meiss’s ‘formalistic-sociological constructs’ for being too abstract and conventional in a 1956 article on the fortune of Taddeo Gaddi.125 In the same year, Carlo L. Ragghianti wrote a methodological outline of the social history of art or ‘historical psychology’, as he called it.126 Solidly rooted in the precepts of Crocean philosophy, Ragghianti challenged the idea that society is deterministically mirrored in the artist’s work, starting from Hegel historicism and Geistesgeschichte. After opposing Croce’s ‘open history’ to Johan Huizinga’s ‘closed history’, Ragghianti moved on to Antal’s ‘sociological historiography’.127 The Hungarian’s Marxian Florentine Painting was then compared to Meiss’s non-Marxian Black Death and their methods carefully scrutinised.128 According to the Italian scholars, Meiss and Antal shared the same modus operandi: Both contribute to a purpose, or rather a premise, and combine subjective impressions, naturalistic-psychological immediacies, iconological interpretations and cultural conjectures, abstract formalistic elements, making the latter a symbol of the former, which are in turn visible symbols of a certain content.129 They both explained artistic phenomena with their social background, and both arbitrarily forced everything into typologies. However, Meiss’s ‘ascertaining and nonproblematic tone’ produced an ‘unsatisfactory’ theory of a ‘general and simplistic

122 123 124 125 126

127 128 129

Toesca 1951, 596. This point was remarked by Wilhelm Valentiner; see Valentiner 1952, 158. Coletti 1953, 40–42. On Luigi Coletti (1886–1961), see Diano 1999. Gandolfo 1956, 53: ‘In queste costruzioni formalistico-sociologiche invece non è possibile parlare di una critica fgurativa’. Ragghianti 1956. On Ragghianti (1910–1987), we shall only refer to the more recent literature: A. Caleca, ‘Per un proflo biografco di Carlo L. Ragghianti’, in: Scotini 2000, 52–66; Bruno 2004; Pellegrini 2010; Varese 2010; Filieri 2010; Gurrieri 2016; M. Nezzo, ‘Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti: l’alterità come esperienza inclusiva’, in: Galassi 2017, 249–261; Pellegrini 2018. Ragghianti 1956, 65. Ibid., 60 and ff. Ibid., 78–79: ‘Concorrono tutte ad un fne, che è poi una premessa, ed aggregano impressioni soggettive, immediatezze naturalistico-psicologiche, interpretazioni iconologiche e illazioni culturali, elementi formalistici astratti, rendendo questi simboli dei primi, che poi sono per loro parte simboli visibili di un certo contenuto’.

116

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

nature’.130 The misconception that a unifed Giottesque style existed was, according to Ragghianti, born out of Meiss’s tendency to oversimplify, as was the fact that he had conveniently singled out only the stylistic traits that validated his own preconceived thesis. Compared to ‘Meiss’s schematism’, Antal’s more pluralistic view of divergent coexisting styles at least showed ‘more maturity and penetration’.131 Albeit recognising that Antal’s Marxism was better than Meiss’s monist ‘sociologism’, Ragghianti remained faithful to his Crocean credo whereby works of art were, frst and foremost, self-explanatory and self-suffcient ‘spiritual acts’.132 As a matter of fact, when the idea of translating Antal’s Florentine Painting began to circulate in Einaudi back in 1949, Ragghianti, who was then the editor of the series Biblioteca d’Arte, adamantly prevented its publication.133 Another Crocean art historian Roberto Salvini would also condemn the direct dependence of artworks on socio-economic conditions and its consequent underestimation of quality and artistic personality that Antal’s determinism implied.134 The Italian art historian later argued that the limits of a social history of art could be overcome only if sociology was to be combined with formalism with the purpose of eliminating the divide between style and context.135 In the laudatio delivered for the appointment of an honorary degree to Meiss by the University of Florence, Salvini applauded Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death for being an ‘eminent example of interdisciplinary research’, in which the author weaved a complex tapestry of interconnections between artistic phenomena and cultural milieu, whence the usefulness of the book not only for art historians, but also for the enthusiasts of those different histories that have fared for over a century under the name of Kulturgeschichte.136

130 Ibid., 68–72. ‘tono constatativo e aproblematico’; ‘sommarietà e semplifcazioni di molti ordini’; ‘insoddisfacente per la sua genericità e per il suo eccessivo semplicismo’. 131 Ibid., 84: ‘maggiore maturità e penetrazione dell’Antal rispetto allo schematismo del Meiss’. 132 Ibid., 87: ‘Atti spirituali, le opere d’arte hanno prima di tutto in se stesse le loro ragioni etiche ed intellettuali e pratiche: e perché mai le vogliamo riempire dall’esterno, e per analogia, e con forzatura e violenza, di questo contenuto, invece di appurare quello che è ogni volta loro proprio ed autentico?’. On the infuence of Crocean philosophy on Ragghianti, see Stella 2005, 441–487 and Garrone 2017. 133 Munari 2011, 81 [Editorial meeting of 23 November 1949]. Giulio Bollati would approve its publication in the Saggi series; see ibid., 93 [Editorial meeting of 21 December 1949], 117 [Editorial meeting of 13 April 1950]. Enrico Castelnuovo recalled: ‘Ragghianti, crociano convinto, non aveva d’altra parte voluto pubblicare nella collana da lui diretta l’importante libro di Frederick Antal aperto verso una storia sociale dell’arte […], suscitando a questo punto la proposta di Felice Balbo di iniziare una nuova collezione di saggi d’arte proprio con l’Antal’ (E. Castelnuovo, ‘La storia dell’arte’, in: Soddu 2015, 335–342: 337). The authors Ragghianti suggested included Cesare Gnudi, Enzo Carli, Aldo Bertini, Roberto Pane, Sergio Donadoni and Federico Zeri; see Cesari 1991, 151; cf. also C. Pavese, ‘Il periodo di commissariamento della Casa Editrice Einaudi (1943–1945)’, in: Soddu 2015, 141–188. 134 Salvini expressed these views in the review of Antal’s ‘Remarks on the Method of Art History’ for Commentari (Salvini 1950). 135 ‘The Meaning and Limits of a Social History of Art’ was the title of the paper Salvini delivered in 1969 at the CIHA conference in Budapest; see Salvini 1972. 136 AAA, MMP. Typewritten laudation delivered by Roberto Salvini for the honorary degree awarded by the University of Florence to Millard Meiss, 16 May 1968: ‘donde l’utilità del libro non soltanto per gli storici dell’arte, ma anche per i cultori di quelle diverse storie la cui sintesi ha nome da più di un secolo Kulturgeschichte’.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

117

Salvini found that fortunate balance between sociology and connoisseurship in Meiss’s approach. The German art historians of the Ulmer Verein had a similar opinion of Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death. Horst Bredekamp recalled that the book was seen in the 1970s ‘as a way of not giving up the social history of art in Marxist terms and yet avoiding any mechanistic affliation between style and social groups and classes’.137 Perhaps off the back of the popularity enjoyed with a part of German scholarship, Meiss was actually contemplating in those years a German edition published by Propyläen Verlag from Berlin, but nothing came out of that and the book would appear in German only in the late 1990s.138

‘A Book That Ought to Have Been Known in Italy Not Only by Scholars Alone’: The Complications of a Translation Procacci’s words convey the exasperation and regret for the protracted business that was the Italian translation of Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death.139 Though Meiss frst envisaged translating the book already in the early 1960s, the Italian translation was published only in 1982 by Einaudi, after the initial involvement of Neri Pozza fell through.140 The frst contact that Meiss had with the Turin-based publishing house Einaudi was through Lamberto Vitali.141 An art historian specialised in 19th- and 20th-century art, an avid collector and expert on photography, Vitali also had ties with the American art world and in 1949 curated alongside Alfred Barr, Jr. and James Thrall Soby the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) exhibition Twentieth-Century Italian Art.142 Since 1950, Vitali also worked with the publisher Einaudi, both as an author and as an adviser for the history and criticism of art and photography.143 He soon became a trusted friend of the three main fgures in Einaudi, i.e. Giulio Einaudi, Giulio Bollati and Roberto Cerati, and would often have a say in what books were being

137 Wood 2012, 518. 138 Meiss 1998. Meiss mentioned contacts being made for the German translation in the correspondence pertaining to the negotiations for the Italian translation: AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Alessandro Bettagno, 31 July 1969; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 29 October 1969; letter from Millard Meiss to Hanna Kiel, 19 July 1971. 139 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 18 February 1974. 140 The publishing house Einaudi expressed an interest in Meiss’s book already in January 1961 as emerged in a letter dated 27 November 1967 from the Agenzia Letteraria Internazionale to Giulio Einaudi, concerning the end of the publisher’s option on Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death: Fondazione Arnoldo e Alberto Mondadori, Milan, Agenzia Letteraria Internazionale – Erich Linder, Serie annuale 1967, B. 9, folder no 1 (Einaudi). Einaudi, 14472 (October 1–December 31), 1967 October 1–1967 December 31, Classifcation: 27, Pressmark: 9/1. 141 For a history of Einaudi publishing house, see Turi 1990; Ferrero 2005; Munari 1983; Mangoni 1999 and Soddu 2015. The unfolding of events that led to the Einaudi translation of the Pest book was studied on the Giulio Einaudi Papers at the State Archives in Turin (Archivio di Stato di Torino), thanks to the kind cooperation of the late Roberto Cerati. 142 On Lamberto Vitali (1896–1992), refer to Arrigoni 2001 and Paoli 2004. 143 Vitali authored Lettere dei Macchiaioli (Turin: Einaudi, 1953) and Giorgio Morandi: Opera Grafca (Turin: Einaudi, 1957); he also curated E. Delacroix, Diario 3 vols. (Turin: Einaudi, 1954).

118

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

translated.144 Meiss frst met Vitali in 1963, when he visited the Carpaccio exhibition in Venice together with Leonetto Tintori.145 On that occasion, Meiss and Tintori proposed to Vitali the translation of their essay on the Assisi frescoes, and the latter immediately passed on the proposal to Giulio Einaudi.146 Negotiations for a translation of the Black Death must have also been underway, since when the American professor learnt that neither Einaudi nor Edizioni di Comunità147 was interested, he thought Vitali was referring to the Pest book and not the Assisi one.148 Meiss’s piqued reply to Vitali, when he was under the impression the rejection regarded Painting in Florence and Siena, showed how upset he was, and also concerned that his approach may have been tarred with the same brush as Antal’s: Einaudi published a few years ago an Italian edition of a book by Antal of which almost a half is devoted to the same art. Antal reads the art from a rigid Marxist point of view, rather different from the interpretation offered in my book, which originally followed Antal’s two years later. What is at stake transcends the interests of specialists – it is historical outlook and method. The English edition of the book has in fact sold out; a paperback edition, much cheaper but with poor reproductions, will be issued by another publisher soon.149 Meiss’s remark on the fact that Florentine Painting in Its Social Background, whose point of view was even more rigidly Marxist, had been translated already in 1960, touched on a key factor in the less fortunate reception of the Black Death.150 Meiss had rightly called it a question of ‘historical outlook and method’, because Antal’s strict Marxism had earned the Hungarian at least the sympathy of left-wing intellectuals – as the timely translation of his ‘Remarks’ in the Communist periodical Società would indicate.151 Another more markedly sociological book that was published in the same year as Meiss’s was Pierre Francastel’s Peinture et société, which was promptly

144 For instance, Vitali endorsed the translation of Max J. Friedländer’s Von Kunst und Kennerschaft (Turin: Einaudi, 1955). 145 ASTo, Sezione Corte, Giulio Einaudi Editore, box. no 220, Corrispondenza con autori e collaboratori italiani, folder no 3094/2, Vitali Lamberto 11/11/1962-21/08/1979, f. 245. Letter from Lamberto Vitali to Giulio Bollati, 26 June 1963. 146 Lamberto Vitali to Giulio Bollati, 26 June 1963. 147 Edizioni di Comunità was a publishing house founded by Adriano Olivetti in 1946 known for its cutting-edge, multidisciplinary spectrum of publications; see Liguori Carino 2008. 148 The proposal to translate Meiss and Tintori’s The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi will be discussed in Chapter 4. 149 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Lamberto Vitali, 18 March 1964. 150 Antal’s book appeared as the frst volume of the series Saggi: La pittura forentina e il suo ambiente sociale nel Trecento e nel primo Quattrocento (Turin: Einaudi, 1960). 151 Antal 1954. It was the art scholar Corrado Maltese who promoted the translation of Antal’s article, which appeared alongside the obituary penned by Francis Klingender (1954). Maltese also previously reviewed Antal’s book placing it within the tradition of English empiricism rather than aligning him with historical materialism (Maltese 1950). On Maltese (1921–2001), see Marconi 1997; Marconi 2017 and M.C. Galassi and S. Rinaldi, ‘Corrado Maltese e “la storia dell’arte come scienza”. Il ruolo della tecnica esecutiva’, in: Galassi 2017, 133–147. For a compelling outline of the Italian reception of the social history of art, see Sciolla 2013. For a comparison with how Italy reacted to the history of culture, refer to Arcangeli 2008.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

119

translated by Einaudi in 1957. This fact did not go unnoticed by Giovanni Previtali, who commented that in Italy leftist publishers were ‘avid for art sociology’.153 Vitali was quick in clarifying the misunderstanding, but also added that he feared that the publication of the Black Death might also encounter diffculties – though not for the same reasons – as the book on Assisi.154 During a trip to the United States, in spring 1964, Giulio Einaudi met with several art historians, such as Panofsky, Wittkower, Schapiro and Meiss, and on that occasion probably discussed the matter further.155 Negotiations with Einaudi must have come to a stalemate and, in 1967, Meiss tried to promote the Pest book with other Italian publishers and involved Alessandro Bettagno from the Cini Foundation, who was also meant to be its translator.156 But it was Lamberto Vitali who eventually secured a deal for with the Venetian publisher Neri Pozza.157 In the meantime, probably through Bettagno’s agency, Sansoni from Florence and Alferi in Venice also expressed an interest, until Neri Pozza fnally made a formal offer in April 1968.158 The translator chosen for this task was Emma Cantimori Mezzomonti – Delio Cantimori’s charismatic wife who had previously translated Aby Warburg and the Communist Manifesto159 – but her health took a turn for the worst, and she died shortly after sending the frst pages in November 1967.160 In early 1969, the remaining part of the book was subsequently given to Maria Bosi Cirmeni, who also translated other texts and lectures by Meiss and worked with Panofsky.161 At that time, Meiss was beginning his second directorship at I Tatti, so he could follow her work more closely, and the manuscript was completed by October 1970 – not without some pressure from both Neri Pozza and Meiss.162 Although the book was by then ready to go to 152

152 Francastel 1951; Francastel 1957. On Francastel (1900–1970), see Dufrêne 2010; Cieri Via 2014 and Dufrêne, ‘Chastel et Francastel’, in: Frommel, Hochmann and Sénéchal 2015, 137–150. 153 Previtali 1961, esp. 49; cf. also Venturi 1953; Nicodemi 1958. 154 AAA, MMP. Letter from Lamberto Vitali to Millard Meiss, 24 March 1964. 155 ASTo, Sezione Corte, Giulio Einaudi Editore, box no 74/1, Corrispondenza con autori e collaboratori italiani, folder no. 118/3, f. 1064. 156 Meiss consequently requested Princeton University Press to release the rights to the book. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Harriet Anderson, 30 October 1967. On Alessandro Bettagno (1919– 2004), see Rylands 2005; Crosera 2005; Azzi Visentini 2008; Kowalczyk 2015. 157 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Lamberto Vitali, 27 August 1969: ‘You may be interested to know, because of your friendly efforts a few years ago, that Neri Pozza will publish an Italian edition of my Pest’. 158 AAA, MMP. Letter from Alessandro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 19 February 1969; letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 16 December 1969; letter from Emma Brown to Millard Meiss, 7 February 1969; letters from Millard Meiss to Emma Brown, 26 March 1969 and 12 May 1969; letter from Millard Meiss to Alessandro Bettagno, 17 January 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Vittore Branca, 21 December 1973. 159 Emma Cantimori Mezzomonti was known to have played a strong part in her husband’s political choices; see Hobsbawm 2002, 350; Perini 2004, 78–79. 160 AAA, MMP. Letter from Emma Cantimori to Millard Meiss, 6 November and 29 November 1967; letters from Millard Meiss to Emma Cantimori, 13 December 1967 and 26 January 1968; letter from Emma Cantimori to Millard Meiss, 13 November 1968. 161 Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 3 May 1961. In 1963, Bosi Cirmeni translated into Italian Hugh Honour’s Chinoiserie: The Vision of Cathay for Sansoni. 162 AAA, MMP. Letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 1 February 1970; letter from Millard Meiss to Maria Bosi Cirmeni, 10 February 1970; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 22 July 1970; letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 8 October 1970.

120

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

press, Neri Pozza would systematically put off printing it for the next three years, frst blaming strikes and riots, then claiming the mediocre translation required a careful revision, until Meiss demanded their agreement to be revoked.163 Bettagno consequently contacted Sansoni, but the proofs of the book were being withheld by Agenzia Letteraria Internazionale in Milan for copyright reasons.164 In 1974, Pozza intended to resume the project and promised a lavish edition, but this idea, too, never saw the light, and in March 1974, Bettagno fnally returned the book’s typescript to Meiss.165 In 1974, however, the idea of an Einaudi translation was beginning to take shape with Enrico Castelnuovo.166 A student of Longhi, Castelnuovo joined the team of Casa Einaudi in 1960 and became the new editor of the series Biblioteca di Storia dell’Arte – which frst began in 1941 with Ragghianti, and was later edited by Giulio C. Argan.167 When Castelnuovo took over, he brought a wind of change to Einaudi’s art historical publications.168 To broaden the horizons of Italian art historiography, he launched the series Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi, which was to include many international titles that shone for innovative methodological point of view and content.169 The long list of books endorsed by Castelnuovo included such fgures as Chastel, Wittkower, Focillon, Kauffmann, Lazarev and Hauser.170 Those names were indicative of a more propitious attitude, and indeed, Castelnuovo shortlisted Meiss’s book, too, as emerged in a letter he sent to Guido Davico that has recently come to light: the book is very good and methodologically relevant. It could go both in the art history series and in the paperbacks.171

163 AAA, MMP. Letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 5 November 1971; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 17 December 1971; letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 16 January 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Alessandro Bettagno, 17 January 1972; letter from Alessandro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 1 February 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 22 September 1972; letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 5 October 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 4 December 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Hannah Kiel, 1 June 1973; letter from Millard Meiss to Neri Pozza, 30 June 1973; letter from Millard Meiss to Hannah Kiel, 2 August 1973. 164 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Vittore Branca, 21 December 1973; letter from Vittore Branca to Millard Meiss, 7 January 1974; letter from Alessandro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 26 January 1974. 165 AAA, MMP. Letter from Alessandro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 29 November 1973; letter from Neri Pozza to Millard Meiss, 24 May 1974; letter from Hanna Kiel to Millard Meiss, 31 December 1973; letter from Millard Meiss to Alessandro Bettagno, 11 March 1974. 166 On Castelnuovo (1929–2014), see Romano 2014; Laclotte 2014; Piccinini 2014; Tomasi 2015; Bacci and Monciatti 2013; Romano and Tomasi 2017 and Pinelli and Rossi Pinelli 2017. Cf. also the symposium Enrico Castelnuovo. Journée d’hommage organised at the Institut National d’Histoire de l’Art (Paris, 9 January 2015). 167 Argan was the one who had introduced Lamberto Vitali to Einaudi. On Argan’s work for Einaudi, see Mangoni 1999, 742–749 and Nicoletti 2018. 168 Cf. Romano 2014; L.P. Nicoletti, ‘Enrico Castelnuovo consulente Einaudi, fra gli anni Sessanta e Settanta’, in: Pinelli and Rossi Pinelli 2017, 15–27; Castelnuovo, ‘La storia dell’arte’ cit. 169 Cesari 1991, 152; Munari 1983, 564, 614–624. 170 Castelnuovo 2000, 389–390. 171 Nicoletti, ‘Enrico Castelnuovo…’ cit., 24: ‘Il testo è assai bello e metodologicamente interessante. Potrebbe andare sia per la collana di storia dell’arte sia per i paperbacks’. Guido Davico worked in Einaudi between 1961 and 1978; cf. Davico Bonino 2003.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

121

At the end of 1974, Bettagno saluted the imminent publication of the book with an enthusiastic ‘Hurrah!’.172 In 1975, a new translation was in progress, but Meiss’s health was rapidly deteriorating, and he died in June that year. Although his wife Margaret continued to oversee everything, the project came to a standstill by the end of 1975.173 The reasons must have been, at this point, economical and organisational, rather than methodological. Castelnuovo was paving the way for a critical reconsideration of the social history of art with two seminal articles that appeared in Paragone in 1976.174 The Italian scholar did indeed mention Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, praising Meiss’s connection between style and religious sentiment for being ‘far less irritating’ than Antal’s theory.175 Upon Castelnuovo’s endorsement, Einaudi published in 1978 Michael Baxandall’s Painting and Experience in FifteenthCentury Italy, whose penetrating analysis of the socio-cultural background and notion of period eye proposed a similar outlook to Meiss’s.176 While Castelnuovo was smoothing over the methodological scepticism towards the social/cultural history of art, Meiss’s interpretation of painting after the Black Death was being challenged in what was termed ‘the most thorough-going revision’.177 In Pittura Fiorentina alla vigilia del Rinascimento (1975), Miklós Boskovits demonstrated that the stylistic crisis described by Meiss reached its zenith in 1370–1380, instead, and that it was the result of artists’ choices rather than some form of collective artistic will.178 In the 1979 monograph on Sienese painting by Cristina De Benedictis, not only was Meiss’s ‘sociological framework’ – to her mind, not dissimilar to Antal’s and Hauser’s – attacked, but the very idea that the plague had any effect on Trecento painting in Siena was denied.179 The debate on late Trecento, reignited by Boskovits’s book, fltered into the volumes of another editorial enterprise published by Einaudi, the Storia dell’arte italiana edited by Giovanni Previtali and Federico Zeri.180 Meiss’s theory on the spiritual and artistic mid-century crisis, in particular, caught the attention of three contributors from Longhi’s orbit. Bruno Toscano, a scholar of mediaeval art, commended the ‘careful way of proceeding’ of the American colleague in establishing a connection between art and the ‘religious ideal as a key element in the transformation that leads to the

172 AAA, MMP. Letter from Alessandro Bettagno to Millard Meiss, 27 August 1974; letter from Nora H. Bangs to Millard Meiss, 30 December 1974; letter from Millard Meiss to Nora H. Bangs, 17 January 1975; letter from Millard Meiss to Hanna Kiel, 4 February 1975. 173 AAA, MMP. Letter from Johanna M. Cornelissen to Marie Louise Zarmanian, 5 December 1975. 174 Castelnuovo 1976 [20072]. On Castelnuovo and the social history of art, refer to Giovannini Luca and Pierobon 2014. 175 Castelnuovo 1976 [20072], 40: ‘il rapporto proposto tra stile e sentimento religioso era infnitamente meno urtante di quello proposto da Antal’. 176 Baxandall 1978 [the edition edited by Maria Pia and Giorgio Dragone did not however include a critical introduction]. Castelnuovo would later remark that Baxandall’s views were generally not understood by Italian scholarship: ‘A livello italiano questo tipo di rifessione alla Michael Baxandall non solo non è avvenuto, ma in realtà non è stato neanche compreso bene ciò che lui aveva detto nei suoi primi studi e ancora meno in quelli successivi’, in: Giovannini Luca and Pierobon 2014, 168. 177 Cohn 1992, 273–274. 178 Boskovits 1975; also cf. Boskovits 1971. 179 De Benedictis 1979, 35. 180 The twelve volumes of Einaudi’s Storia dell’arte italiana were published between 1979 and 1983.

122

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Renaissance’ – and thus avoiding the pitfalls of stylistic determinism.181 According to Toscano, the understanding of ‘the full spectrum of man’s ways of being and his ways of being part of society’ could however be convincing only when applied to a specifc context over a limited time span.182 Based on such exemplary works as the Black Death, but also Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism, the sociology of religious art could prove to be a valid interpretative tool as long as it was combined with a modicum of connoisseurship, i.e. the ‘fundamental philological act which consists in verifying the attribution, in dating and placing the work in a given area of artistic activity’.183 Giovanni Previtali expressed a more critical opinion of the research conducted by Antal, Meiss and Boskovits. By arguing that the late 14th century constituted a moment of stylistic stasis and crystallisation, rather than regression, for Tuscan art, and that it was conversely a time of economic growth and artistic fowering in Northern Italy, Previtali did not sway from the position Longhi had on the matter.184 Faithful to his mentor’s teachings was also ‘le Siennois’ Carlo Volpe,185 who accused Meiss of having fallen ‘victim to anticipated evaluations suggested by a too rigid and generalising framework’, which was unsuitable for explaining ‘the cultural situation of a vast historical area also quite unstable and problematic’.186 This period of critical revisionism preceded the publication of Pittura a Firenze e Siena dopo la Morte Nera, which appeared, translated by Laura Lovisetti Fuà and Mirko Tavoni, in Castelnuovo’s series Piccola Biblioteca Einaudi in 1982.187 After his positive reappraisal of Meiss’s book, Bruno Toscano was tasked with writing its preface. Toscano’s detailed introduction framed the book within its critical context and outlined a cultural biography of Millard Meiss.188 Toscano positioned the American scholar within a ‘post-Wölffinian’ trend that included scholars, like Rensselaer W. Lee and Meyer Schapiro, intent upon going beyond a narrowly formalistic interpretation of the work of art.189 Overtly marking the differences with Antal, Meiss’s methodological contribution was described as: A dense frst-hand reconnaissance work […] aimed at constantly examining great works of art but also the minor masters; a sensitivity honed by his daily research

181 Toscano 1979, 276–277: ‘cauto modo di procedere’; ‘tema dell’ideale religioso come fattore essenziale della trasformazione che conduce al Rinascimento’. 182 Ibid., 298–299: ‘l’intero quadro dei modi d’essere dell’uomo e del suo stare nella società’. 183 Ibid., 316–317: ‘quel fondamentale atto flologico che consiste nella verifca dell’attribuzione, della cronologia e della collocazione dell’opera in un determinato ambito dell’attività artistica’. 184 Previtali 1979, 25. Cf. also Norman 1995, I, 7–27. 185 On Carlo Volpe (1926–1984), see Gregori 2012 and Cobuzzi 2018. ‘Le Siennois’ was how Michel Laclotte called Volpe (‘Rencontres siennoises avec Carlo Volpe’, in: Gregori 2012, 21–24: 21). 186 Volpe 1983, 242–243: ‘vittima delle anticipate valutazioni suggerite da uno schema troppo rigido e generalizzante’; ‘la realtà culturale di una vasta area storica ancora affatto mobile e problematica’. 187 In the same year, Einaudi also published Cesare Gnudi’s L’arte gotica in Francia e in Italia and Meyer Schapiro’s Romanesque Art. 188 ASTo, Giulio Einaudi Editore, box no. 209, Corrispondenza con autori e collaboratori italiani, folder no. 2954, Toscano Bruno 20/7/1973-25/7/1974: this collection only includes the correspondence between Toscano and Paolo Fossati pertaining to Einaudi’s Storia dell’arte italiana Einaudi. 189 Toscano 1982, xviii.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

123

made of enthusiasm, second thoughts, disappointment; a solidly founded interest in art considered as ‘fact’, as work and material process.190 Per contra, Toscano did not agree with Meiss’s thesis that religious fervour and millenarianism were the predominant psychological reactions to the plague and indicated the opposite dissolute merriment epitomised in Boccaccio’s Decameron. Being a specialist of Umbrian painting, Toscano also compellingly countered that in other cities equally affected by the epidemic, like Orvieto, art did not display the same stylistic and iconographic shift.191 Italian art journals did not acknowledge Einaudi’s translation of the Black Death, which was only mentioned in a few newspapers.192 This oversight was probably the consequence of a book that was being introduced to Italian readership thirty years too late, when Meiss’s theories on the late Trecento had lost their currency. In fact, only a few months after Pittura a Firenze e Siena dopo la Morte Nera came out, Meiss’s thesis was being thoroughly challenged in the exhibition Il Gotico a Siena organised by Giulietta Chelazzi Dini and Giovanni Previtali. Albeit recognising Meiss with the merit of studying a period that previous art scholarship had completely overlooked, the two art historians demonstrated that works of art following the Black Death did not break with artistic tradition, but were rather in continuity with it. By doing so, they invalidated the very tenet of Meiss’s argument.193

‘The Holes in the Meissian Model Have Grown Larger with Each Passing Year’ Ever since Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death was frst published, scholars tried to establish whether there had been a change in style after the Black Death and if this could be attributed to reasons other than the crisis ensuing the epidemic.194 In the 1960s, historians were particularly concerned with this latter aspect. Elisabeth Carpentier contended that the plague did have an impact on collective psychology, but that it was only one of many catastrophic events.195 William M. Bowsky, too, came to the same conclusion after studying the economic and political situation of Siena.196 Meiss timely tackled these criticisms in the second paperback edition of the Black Death that was published in 1964. Although a cataclysmic occurrence, Meiss was now explaining that it was only one of the many that led to a crisis that had begun a couple of decades before.197 The corollary to this statement was that his theory would hold even if the works he considered were to be backdated. In fact, many schol190 Ibid., xxxi. 191 Ibid., xxxix and ff. Behind these remarks was Longhi’s precedent (Longhi 1962b). 192 Cf. Giulio Einaudi Editore, box no. 224, ‘Recensioni’, folder no. 3151, ‘Meiss, Millard Pittura a Firenze e Siena dopo la Morte Nera’: D’Amico 1982; Bon 1982; Micacchi 1982. 193 G. Previtali, ‘Ragioni e limiti di una mostra’, in: Chelazzi Dini 1982, 13–17: 15; G. Chelazzi Dini, ‘La crisi di metà secolo’, in: ibid., 219–221: 220–221. This exhibition also went on display in Avignon a year later (Chelazzi Dini 1983). 194 Dale 1989, 34 [whence the quote in the title]; Norman 1995, I, 179. 195 Carpentier 1962. 196 Bowsky 1964. 197 Meiss 1964d, x: ‘The title places painting in a “historical” context by reference to a contemporary event – an event well known, defnitely datable, and cataclysmic, but only one of many brought into

124

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

ars, especially in Italy, thought that by redating the Camposanto frescoes to the 1330s, Joseph Polzer undermined the very premise of Meiss’s thesis, regardless of the fact that Pisan cycle was not used as an example for the stylistic crisis.198 A decade later, in the Festschrift offered to Meiss, Alastair Smart would also reiterate that the historical context outlined in the Pest book did in fact rest on more than that single event.199 Likewise, Hayden B.J. Maginnis clarifed that Meiss had focussed ‘on the prevalence of attitudes, of certain stylistic characteristics and iconographic themes rather than upon their being entirely unique to that period’.200 In 1981, Henk W. van Os’s appraisal in Art History marked the beginning of a renewed interest in Meiss’s Black Death.201 Thirty years on, the book still held its relevance, Van Os opined, provided that some ‘corrective criticism’ be applied to some dating problems.202 The principal merit of Painting in Florence and Siena was that the author combined Wölffin’s stylistic categories with the study of the historical context, in order to analyse the concept of taste from a different viewpoint from Antal’s.203 What had not stood the test of time, according to Van Os, was the over spiritualisation of late Trecento painting, which was infuenced by the re-emergence of the religious dimension in the post-war art of Barnett Newman, Ad Reinhard and Mark Rothko.204 In other words, Meiss’s mistake was to have devised his vocabulary of stylistic concepts based on the contemporary eye of his time and he thus ‘extrapolated from twentieth-century stylistic features and came up with attributes of a spiritual attitude on the part of the fourteenth-century Sienese’.205 Van Os concluded that the Pest book could still be valid in modern times only if Meiss’s theories were corrected by a thorough examination of patronage and the material organisation of artistic production.206 Subsequent research did pursue those lines and new elements were added to the stylistic interpretation Meiss proposed.207 The evidence that art historians were compiling in the course of the decade did indeed question the Black Death, while Meiss’s conclusions were still accepted among most historians, as it emerged in the reassessment of the book during the 22nd International Congress on Medieval Studies at the University of Michigan in 1987.208 An exception was the French historian Jérôme Baschet, who spoke at a conference of historical studies on the Black Death in Spoleto

198 199 200 201

202 203 204

205 206 207 208

relation with the art of the time’. Perhaps that is also why the different font used in the cover design of this second edition now reduced ‘After the Black Death’ to a subtitle. Polzer 1964; cf. Meiss 1951a, 171. Smart 1977, 408. Maginnis 1977, 301; cf. also H.B.J. Maginnis, ‘Introduction’, in: Meiss 1983, xii–xxiv: xxi. Henk Van Os was a Dutch scholar of mediaeval art, who spent a research period in Princeton in 1969–1970; the two corresponded through the years. On Henk Van Os (1938– ), refer to: Quené 1996; http://arthistorians.info/osh; Grasman 2016. Van Os 1981. Ibid., 241–242. Ibid., 239–240. Agnes Mongan, too, pointed out that the book was closely linked to contemporary times (Mongan 1952). Mark Rothko, on the other hand, was an artist that Meiss particularly liked and owned some of his works. Ad Reinhard analysed the relationship between artist and art historian in a review of George Kubler’s The Shape of Time (Reinhard 1966). Van Os 1981, 247. Ibid. Cf. Knapp Fengler 1981; Rash Fabbri and Rutenburg 1981; Cole 1983. ‘Reassessing Meiss’ Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death’, in: 22nd International Congress on Medieval Studies, 7–10 May 1987, http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi? article=1027&context=medieval_cong_archive

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

125

in 1993. His argument was that the decline in quality was due to a lack of important commissions – like Longhi – and that the works of the time did not show an exclusive preference for any particular subject matter. Even if an economic crisis were mirrored in artistic production, Meiss failed to provide a complex model of long-term stylistic trends and merely insisted on the ludicrous coincidence of dates.209 Baschet’s paper was delivered one year before La Peste Noire was published in France. Upon prefacing the French edition, Didi-Huberman positively acknowledged Meiss’s effort to open art history to the ‘deadly breath of the Black Death’ and in that way offer an oblique perspective of the Renaissance myth.210 He also noted that the American art historian had failed to account for the specifc purpose of images and took them as a mere refection of a historical background, but Didi-Huberman did not label his approach as sociological. According to the French scholar, Meiss’s theory was fawed inasmuch as it relied on the same teleological principle as Panofsky’s iconology – an opinion that probably stemmed also from the critical re-examination of Pan’s method.211 The debate on Meiss’s work thinned out in the past two decades. The historian Samuel K. Cohn, Jr. devoted most of his research to the Black Death, questioning its catastrophic import.212 Meiss’s formulations on Trecento art have also been reinterpreted in the light of post-war cultural and political background. Julian Gardner, for instance, likened the Manicheism underlying Meiss’s vision of late 14th-century Tuscany to the ‘good vs. evil’ rhetoric of the Cold War. Also due to the political atmosphere of his time was probably Meiss’s vehemence in distancing his outlook from Antal’s as a way to dispel any suspicion of Marxism.213 The Pest book was once more evoked in the study Judith B. Steinhoff dedicated to Sienese painting after the Black Death in 2007. In a chapter on Meiss, Steinhoff traced the precedents of his Black Death and analysed the methodological difference from Antal, as well as the convergence with Panofsky. She also drew a connection between Meiss’s predominantly spiritualising vision and Abstract Expressionism in the writings of Clement Greenberg.214

The History of Culture after the Black Death While connoisseurship and iconology constituted the methodological bedrock of Meiss’s research, the psychological and social tapestry offered in Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death was unmatched in his subsequent work, as was evident in his words to André Chastel: And now I wish to divert myself with other things – and other methods.215

209 Baschet 1994. 210 Didi-Huberman 1994, xvii: ‘souffe mortifère de la peste noire’. 211 Ibid., xli: ‘Je parle d’un idéal téléologique (qui suppose un sens orienté de l’histoire) et d’un idéal référentiel (qui suppose un sens orienté de la représentation), dans la mesure où Meiss a voulu faire de la peste ce qu’elle n’était pas exactement: à savoir une cause historique orientant l’histoire de la peinture, ainsi qu’un objet référentiel pour toute une iconographie, notamment de la mort et du Jugement dernier’. 212 Cohn 2002a; Cohn 2002b. Cf. also Chantoury-Lacombe 2010, 89–94, 97. 213 Gardner 2007. 214 Steinhoff 2007, 14–16. Cf. also Gardner 2008. Steinhoff wrote her dissertation at Princeton on another Meissian subject, Bartolomeo Bulgarini; see Steinhoff 1990. 215 Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 8 November 1952.

126

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Around six years later, in fact, when he wrote Mantegna as Illuminator, Meiss’s focus shifted from studying a historical context to analysing the choices of patronage (Figure 2.1).216 This change in perspective did not go unnoticed, and his all-encompassing point of view, for instance, earned the praise of an anonymous reviewer in L’Arte.217 The intricate relations between politics and patronage woven in this later book closely recalled the Black Death, as Thomas Boase remarked.218 But at the same time, Mantegna as Illuminator anticipated the full-fedged study of court patronage that Meiss was then undertaking for the volumes on the Duke of Berry. Despite its penetrating analysis of the political background, scholars mostly reckoned with the Mantegna booklet only to challenge the attributions therein suggested. 219 An arc of Meiss’s kulturgeschichtlich approach can be traced from the Black Death to French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry.220 Meiss outlined another cultural milieu and socio-political fabric, that of Berry, overturned by another traumatic event; except it was not an epidemic but the English invasion and the civil war between Burgundians and Armagnacs.221 Colin Eisler made the same comparison in his review of the French Painting volumes for The Art Bulletin, which was written incidentally just as the Black Death was having a surge in popularity.222 Another reviewer also suggested a parallelism with Antal for the social distribution of illumination, which, according to Meiss, was preferred in aristocratic courts, while panel painting was prevalent in mercantile burgher societies.223 Antalian reminiscences aside, Meiss sketched a much more multi-layered context in French Painting, in that he included aspects like the organisation of workshops and guilds, the role of women illuminators and the impact of the glass and spectacles invented in the early 14th century. This cultural background would then serve as a premise for the stylistic study of the taste of one patron, Jean de Berry, thus avoiding the broader generalisations of the Pest book.224 The similarities with the Pest book are however more prevalent in other parts of French Painting, like, for instance, where the expressionist style of the Rohan Hours refects the traumatised reaction to the fall of Paris in 1420.225 Another correspondence may be found in the paragraph ‘New Texts and Images’, in which the analysis of new iconographic motifs and a change in style reminded of paragraph ‘New Form and New Content’ in the Black Death.226 In the introduction to the last instalment of the Berry volumes, Meiss mentioned Johan Huizinga’s Waning in the Middle Ages as a ‘dramatic and somewhat sentimental

216 217 218 219

220 221 222 223 224 225 226

Meiss 1957a. Millard Meiss … 1957. Boase 1958. APEB. Letter from Horst W. Janson to Eugenio Battisti, 2 December 1961: ‘As for Millard Meiss’ Mantegna attributions, I am just as skeptical as you; in fact, I have hardly met anybody on either side of the Atlantic who accepts them. Nevertheless, it’s an interesting booklet – Meiss would have been better advised to publish it as an article, it seems to me’. Bruno Toscano, too, saw this convergence; see Toscano 1982, xxix. Toscano 1982, xxxix–xxxi. Eisler 1981, 328. Armstrong 1969, 577–578. Meiss 1967c, I, 3–13. Markham Schulz 1977, 53. Meiss 1967c, I, 13–18.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

127

book […] written to condemn rather than to celebrate Northern culture’. The Dutch historian was often called into question as a possible precedent for both the Black Death and French Painting, but Meiss’s opinion of the ‘Groeningen Burckhardt’ wavered between ‘admiration and antagonism or at least frustration’. This is what he wrote in a letter to Henk Van Os in 1971, when he was invited to speak at a conference that was being organised to commemorate Huizinga.228 The momentous symposium, held in Groeningen in 1972, was attended, among others, by Gombrich, whose critical views of Huizinga’s historicism appeared tempered in the paper he delivered on Homo Ludens.229 Similarly, one may speculate that Meiss, who did not participate because of his academic engagements,230 would have also addressed a point of discord like Huizinga’s prejudiced judgement of the Burgundian court and the style of Jan van Eyck: 227

As a Dutch republican Huizinga was hostile to all aspects of courtly life, but he failed to recognize that much of the ‘simple, pure’ Italian art he admired was produced at or for courts also.231

227 Meiss 1974a, I, 5. On Huizinga (1872–1945), see Haskell 1993, 431–495; Peters and Simons 1999; Strupp 2000; Cerrini 2003; Dalmas 2017 and Ferreira Lopes 2017. For a recent critical appraisal of The Waning of the Middle Ages, see Arnade, Howell and Van der Lem 2019. 228 AAA, MMP. Letter from Henk W. Van Os to Millard Meiss, 23 December 1971: ‘I think you are the only art historian who can answer this question in a relevant way, which means on the basis of personal experience with the art historical material of that period as well as with cultural history’. Cf. also letter from Millard Meiss to Henk W. Van Os, 24 January 1972. 229 Koops, Kossman and Van der Plaat 1973. Cf. also E.H. Gombrich, ‘Huizinga’s Homo Ludens’, in: ibid., 275–296. Gombrich still managed to emphasise Huizinga’s criticism of Karl Lamprecht’s Kulturgeschichte. 230 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Henk W. Van Os, 24 January 1972. 231 Meiss 1974a, I, 5. Huizinga’s interpretation of the Van Eyck brothers was also criticised by Gombrich, who thought the Dutch historian misinterpreted their style to ft his idea of waning late Gothic; see Gombrich 1967 [1979], 45.

128

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Bibliography Ackerman, J.S., ‘On American Scholarship in the Arts’, in: College Art Journal XVII, 4 (1958), 357–362. Ackerman, J.S., ‘Art History and the Problem of Art Criticism’, in: Daedalus LXXXIX 1 (1960), 253–263. Ackerman, J.S., ‘Western Art History’, in: id. and R. Carpenter (eds.), Art and Archaeology (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1963), 123–231. Ackerman, J.S., ‘Toward a New Social Theory of Art’, in: New Literary History IV, 2 (1973), 315–330. Airaldi, G. (ed.), Il Medioevo degli orizzonti aperti, conference proceedings, Genoa 9 June 1987 (Genoa: Comune di Genova, 1989). Antal, F., Florentine Painting and Its Social Background: The Bourgeois Republic before Cosimo de’ Medici’s Advent to Power; XIV and Early XV Centuries (London: Kegan Paul, 1948). Antal, F., ‘Remarks on the Method of Art History’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCI, 551–552 (1949), 49–52, 73–75; republ. in: id., Classicism and Romanticism with other studies in art history (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1966), 175–189. Antal, F., ‘Osservazioni sul metodo della storia dell’arte’, in: Società X, 5 (1954), 749–762. Arcangeli, A., ‘L’histoire culturelle en Italie’, in: P. Poirrier (ed.), L’Histoire culturelle: un ‘tournant mondial’ dans l’historiographie? (Dijon: Editions Universitaires de Dijon, 2008), 41–50. Armstrong, C.A.J., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry. The Late Fourteenth Century and the Patronage of the Duke by Millard Meiss’, in: The English Historical Review LXXXIV, 332 (1969), 577–579. Arnade, P., Howell, M. and Van der Lem, A. (eds.), Rereading Huizinga. Autumn of the Middle Ages, a Century Later (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019). Arrigoni, L. (ed.), Un milanese che parlava toscano: Lamberto Vitali e la sua collezione, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Electa, 2001). Azzi Visentini, M., ‘Alessandro Bettagno, un ricordo’, in: P. Agelini (ed.), La cultura architettonica italiana in Russia da Caterina II a Alessandro I, conference proceedings, Ascona 7–8 April 2000, Venice 20–21 April 2001 (Mendrisio: Mendrisio Academy Press, 2008), xv–xxiii. Bacci, M. and Monciatti, A., ‘Enrico Castelnuovo (Roma, 1929–Torino, 2014)’, in: Opera Nomina Historiae 8 (2013), 331–341. Barocchi, P., ‘1953–2012’, in: M.M. Donato and M. Ferretti (eds.), ‘Conosco un ottimo storico dell’arte …’ Per Enrico Castelnuovo: scritti di allievi e amici pisani (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 2012), 1–4. Baron, H., ‘Franciscan Poverty and Civic Wealth as Factors in the Rise of Humanistic Thought’, in: Speculum XIII, 1 (1938), 1–37. Baron, H., ‘A Sociological Interpretation of the Early Renaissance in Florence’, in: South Atlantic Quarterly XXXVIII, 4 (1939), 427–448. Baron, H., The Crisis of the Early Italian Renaissance. Civic Humanism and Republican Liberty in an Age of Classicism and Tyranny (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955). Baschet, J., ‘Image et événement: l’art sans la peste (c. 1348–c. 1400)?’, in: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo (ed.), La Peste Nera: dati di una realtà ed elementi di una interpretazione, conference proceedings, Todi 10–13 October 1993 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1994), 25–47. Bassani, L.M., ‘Bürgerhumanismus e repubblicanesimo: il Machiavelli di Hans Baron e John Pocock’, in: id. and C. Vivanti (eds.), Machiavelli nella storiografa e nel pensiero politico del XX secolo, conference proceedings, Milan 16–17 May 2003 (Milan: Giuffrè, 2006), 299–327. Baxandall, M., Pittura ed esperienze sociali nell’Italia del Quattrocento (Turin: Einaudi, 1978).

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

129

Berenson, B., ‘A Word for Renaissance Churches’, in: The Free Review 2 (1893), 178–189; republ. in: id., The Study of Criticism of Italian Art. Second Series (London: George Bell & Sons, 1902), 62–76. Berenson, B., Rumor and Refection (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952); or. ed. id., Echi e rifessioni (diario 1941–1944) (Milan: Mondadori, 1950). Berenson, B., Sunset and Twilight. From the Diaries of 1947–1958, ed. by N. Mariano (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963). Berger, J., ‘Frederick Antal: A Personal Tribute’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVI, 617 (1954), 259–260. Berryman, J., ‘Gombrich’s critique of Hauser’s Social History of Art’, in: History of Ideas XLIII, 5 (2017), 494–506. Białostocki, J., ‘Panofsky: iconologia o semiologia’, in: Lettere italiane XXXIII, 1 (1981), 38–54. Boase, T.S.R., ‘The Social History of Art by Arnold Hauser’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCIV, 595 (1952), 299. Boase, T.S.R., ‘Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death, by Millard Meiss’, in: The English Historical Review LXVIII, 266 (1953), 97–99. Boase, T.S.R., ‘Short Notices’, in: The English Historical Review LXXIII, 287 (1958), 345. Boase, T.S.R., Death in the Middle Ages: Mortality, Judgment and Remembrance (London: Thames & Hudson, 1972). Bober, H., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 2 (1953), 310–312. Boler, J.F., ‘Peirce and Medieval Thought’, in: C. Misak (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 58–86. Bon, A., ‘Peste pittori e santi’, in: Gazzetta di Parma (5 May 1982). Boskovits, M., Orcagna in 1357 – and in Other Times, in: The Burlington Magazine CXIII, 818 (1971), 239–251. Boskovits, M., Pittura forentina alla vigilia del Rinascimento 1370–1400 (Florence: EDAM, 1975). Bourdieu, P., ‘Postface’, in: E. Panofsky, Architecture gothique et pensée scolastique (Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1967), 135–167. Bowsky, W.M., ‘The Impact of the Black Death Upon Sienese Government and Society’, in: Speculum XXXIX 1 (1964), 1–34. Braunstein, P., ‘L’œuvre historique d’Yves Renouard’, in: Annales XXIV, 5 (1969), 1183–1186. Bruno, R. (ed.), Ragghianti critico e politico, conference proceedings, Cassino 21–23 October 2002 (Milan: Franco Angeli, 2004). Brush, K., ‘The Cultural Historian Karl Lamprecht: Practitioner and Progenitor of Art History’, in: Central European History XXVI, 2 (1993), 139–164. Brush, K., The Shaping of Art History. Wilhelm Vöge, Adolph Goldschmidt, and the Study of Medieval Art (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996). Burke, P., Tradition and Innovation in Renaissance Italy. A Sociological Approach (London: Fontana/ Collins, 19742). Burke, P., The French Historical Revolution. The «Annales» School, 1929–2014 (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 20152); 1st ed. The French Historical Revolution. The «Annales» School, 1929–89 (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990). Caccavale, R.W. and Palmer, A.L., ‘An Interview with James S. Ackerman’, in: The Rutgers Art Review 9–10 (1988–1989), 69–81. Carpentier, E., ‘Autour de la Peste Noire: Famines et épidémies dans l’histoire du XIVe siècle’, in: Annales XVII 6 (1962), 1062–1092. Castelnuovo, E., ‘Per una storia sociale dell’arte I’, in: Paragone 313 (1976), 3–30; republ. in: id., Arte, industria, rivoluzioni. Temi di storia sociale dell’arte (Pisa: Edizioni della Normale, 20072; 1st ed. Turin: Einaudi, 1985), 23–49.

130

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Castelnuovo, E., ‘Postfazione. Le acque del rio Sal Silvestro’, in: id. (ed.), La cattedrale tascabile: scritti di storia dell’arte (Livorno: Sillabe, 2000), 387–393. Cerrini, C., ‘Johan Huizinga: l’arte come fonte storica’, in: Archivio Storico Italiano CLXI, 595 (2003), 105–139. Cesari, S., Colloquio con Giulio Einaudi (Turin: Einaudi, 1991). Chantoury-Lacombe, F., Peindre les maux. Arts visuels et pathologie XIVe-XVIIe siècle (Paris: Hermann Editeurs, 2010). Chastel, A., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: Critique: revue générale des publications françaises et etrangères 65 (1952), 902–906. Chastel, A., ‘Problèmes actuels de l’histoire de l’art’, in: Diogène 4 (1953), 94–120. Chastel, A., ‘La peste et nous’, in: Le Monde (12 August 1966). Chastel, A., ‘Anthony Blunt, art historian (1907–1983)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXXV, 966 (1983), 546–549. Chelazzi Dini, G. (ed.), Il gotico a Siena. Miniature pitture orefcerie oggetti d’arte, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Centro Di, 1982). Chelazzi Dini, G. (ed.), L’art gothique siennois: enluminure, peinture, orfèvrerie, sculpture, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Centro Di, 1983). Chickering, R., Karl Lamprecht. A German Academic Life (1856–1915) (Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press International, 1993). Cieri Via, C., ‘Pierre Francastel e la tradizione di studi della Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliothek Warburg’, in: A. Cipriani, V. Curzi and P. Picardi (eds.), Storia dell’arte come impegno civile: scritti in onore di Maria Dalai Emiliani (Rome: Campisano, 2014), 381–391. Cobuzzi, M., ‘Un capolavoro complesso e inattuale. La pittura riminese del Trecento di Carlo Volpe’, in: Storia della critica d’arte 1 (2018), 453–469. Cohen, M.A., ‘Proportional Systems in the History of Architecture: A Conversation with James S. Ackerman’, in: Architectural Histories II, 1 (2014), https://journal.eahn.org/articles/10 .5334/ah.bk/. Cohn, S.K. Jr., The Cult of Remembrance and the Black Death. Six Renaissance Cities in Central Italy (Baltimore MD – London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1992). Cohn, S.K. Jr., ‘The Black Death: End of a Paradigm’, in: American Historical Review CVII, 3 (2002a), 703–738. Cohn, S.K. Jr., The Black Death Transformed Disease and Culture in Early Renaissance Europe (London: Arnold, 2002b). Cole, B., ‘Some Thoughts on Orcagna and the Black Death Style’, in: Antichità Viva XXII, 2 (1983), 27–37. Coletti, L., ‘Gli studi sul Trecento pittorico italiano’, in: Atti del Seminario di Storia dell’arte, Pisa – Viareggio 1–15 July 1953 (Pisa: Vallecchi, 1953), 33–46. Cooke, J., Millard Meiss: i primi scritti e la cultura artistica del Trecento, diss., supervisor G.C. Sciolla, (Università degli Studi di Torino, a.y. 2008–2009). Cooke, J., ‘Storia sociale dell’arte o Kulturgeschichte? Millard Meiss e la recensione ad Antal’, in: Crepuscoli dottorali II (2011), 81–91. http://crepuscoli.wordpress.com/2011/10/28/st oria-sociale-dell%E2%80%99arte-o-kulturgeschichte-millard-meiss-e-la-recensione-a-fre derick-antal/. Cooke, J., ‘«This kind of work should be left to Warburgers». La Kulturgeschichte e l’interdisciplinarità nella storia dell’arte in un diffcile confronto metodologico tra Italia e Stati Uniti’, in: Storia delle idee e interdisciplinarità. Giovani studiosi a confronto, Gruppo Interdisciplinare Storia delle Idee, Turin 26 March 2014 (Università degli Studi di Torino), http://www.gisi.unito.it/fles/docs/GISI%202014%20Incontro%20Metodologico%20Cook e.pdf. Cooke, J., ‘Frederick Antal or a Connoisseur Turned Social Historian of Art’, in: M.T. Costa and H.C. Hönes (eds.), Migrating Histories of Art: Self-Translation of a Discipline, Proceedings of the symposium, Florence 8–9 October 2015 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018), 99–110.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

131

Crosera, C., ‘In memoriam: Alessandro Bettagno’, in: Arte Veneta 62 (2005), 250–253. D’Amico, F., ‘La Morte Nera contro Giotto’, in: Repubblica (8 September 1982). Dale, S., ‘Contextual Art History: The Illusion of Precision’, in: Source: Notes in the History of Art VIII, 3 (1989), 32–36. Damas, N., ‘A história da cultura e a temporalidade das formas culturais: Johan Huizinga e Aby Warburg’, in: Figura: Studies on the Classical Tradition V, 1 (2017), 197–216. Danko, D., ‘Nathalie Heinich’s Sociology of Art – and Sociology from Art’, in: Cultural Sociology II, 2 (2008), 242–255. Davico Bonino, G., Alfabeto Einaudi: scrittori e libri (Milan: Garzanti, 2003). De Benedictis, C., La pittura senese 1330–1370 (Florence: Salimbeni, 1979). De Fuccia, L. and Renzulli, E. (eds.), André Chastel et l’Italie 1947-1990: lettres choisies et annotées (Rome: Campisano, 2019). Diano, A. (ed.), Luigi Coletti, conference proceedings, Treviso 19–30 April 1998 (Treviso: Canova, 1999). Didi-Huberman, G., ‘Feux d’images. Un malaise dans la représentation au XIVe siècle’, in: Meiss 1994, ix–il. Dufrêne, T. (ed.), Pierre Francastel, l’hypothèse même de l’art, exhibition catalogue (Paris: INHA, 2010). Egbert, D.D., ‘English Art Critics and Modern Social Radicalism’, in: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XXVI, 1 (1967), 29–46. Eisler, C.T., ‘Kunstgeschichte American Style: A Study in Migration’, in: D. Fleming and B. Bailyn (eds.), The Intellectual Migration. Europe and America, 1930–1960 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1969), 544–629. Eisler, C.T., ‘Millard Meiss, French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry. The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries’, in: The Art Bulletin LXIII, 2 (1981), 328–332. Fabbri, P. and Migliore, T. (eds.), ‘I saperi di Ernst Gombrich: Teoria del visibile e analisi dell’arte, conference proceedings, Venice 5–6 March 2009’, in: Journal of Art Historiography 5 (2011), https://arthistoriography.wordpress.com/number-5-december-2011/. Faison, S.L. Jr., ‘Barna and Bartolo di Fredi’, in: The Art Bulletin XIV, 4 (1932), 285–315. Fantoni, M., ‘Renaissance Republics and Principalities in Anglo-American Historiography’, in: id. (ed.), Gli angloamericani a Firenze. Idea e costruzione del Rinascimento, conference proceedings, Fiesole 19–20 June 1997 (Rome: Bulzoni, 2000), 35–53. Febvre, L., ‘Maladies et civilisations: La peste noire en 1348’, in: Annales IV, 1 (1949), 102–103. Ferguson, W.K., The Renaissance in Historical Thought (Cambridge MA: Houghton Miffin Company, 1948). Ferguson, W.K., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXIV, 4 (1952), 317–319. Ferguson, W.K., ‘The Interpretation of Italian Humanism: The Contribution of Hans Baron’, in: Journal of the History of Ideas XIX, 1 (1958), 14–25. Ferreira Lopes, R., ‘O elemento estético das representações históricas: Johan Huizinga e as imagens na história da cultura’, in: Figura: Studies on the Classical Tradition V, 1 (2017), 217–233. Ferrero, E., I migliori anni della nostra vita (Milan: Feltrinelli, 2005). Filieri, M.T. (ed.), Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti pensiero e azione, conference proceedings, Luca – Pisa 21–22 May 2010, in: Luk 16 (2010). Forenza, E. and Liguori, G., Valentino Gerratana flosofo democratico (Rome: Carocci, 2011). Francastel, P., Peinture et société (Lyon: Audin, 1951). Francastel, P., Lo spazio fgurativo dal Rinascimento al cubismo (Turin: Einaudi, 1957). Freuler, G., ‘Lippo Memmi’s New Testament Cycle in the Collegiata in San Gimignano’, in: Arte Cristiana 74 (1986), 93–102. Friedländer, W.F., Caravaggio Studies (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955).

132

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Frommel, S., Hochmann, M. and Sénéchal, P. (eds.), André Chastel: méthodes et combats d’un historien de l’art, conference proceedings, Paris 29 November–1 December 2012 (Paris: Picard, 2015). Galassi, C. (ed.), Critica d’arte e tutela in Italia, conference proceedings, Perugia 17–19 November 2015 (Passignano: Aguaplano, 2017). Gall, E., ‘Erwin Panofsky, Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism’, in: Kunstchronik VI, 2 (1953), 42–49. Gandolfo, G., ‘Per Taddeo Gaddi. Storia del problema critico’, in: Critica d’Arte III, 13–14 (1956), 32–55. Gardner, J., ‘Painting in Florence and Siena after the Cold War’, in: A.C. Quintavalle (ed.), Medioevo: arte e storia, conference proceedings, Parma 18–22 September 2007 (Milan: Electa, 2008), 662–668. Gardner, J., ‘J.B. Steinhoff, Sienese Painting After the Black Death’, in: Speculum LXXXIII 3 (2008), 763–764. Garin, E., ‘Le prime ricerche di Hans Baron sul “400”’, in: A. Molho and J.A. Tedeschi (eds.), Renaissance Studies in Honour of Hans Baron (Florence: Sansoni, 1971), lxi–lxx. Garrone, E., ‘Il rapporto tra Croce e Ragghianti’, in: Luk 23 (2017), 74–82. Gaston, R.W., ‘Erwin Panofsky and the Classical Tradition. Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views from the Outside’, in: International Journal of the Classical Tradition IV, 4 (1998), 613–623. Gehl, P.F., ‘A Scholar–Librarian Collects: Hans Baron at the Newberry Library’, in: G. Proot, D. McKitterick, A. Nuovo et al. (eds.), Lux Librorum. Essays on books and history for Chris Coppens (Mechelen: Flanders Book Historical Society, 2018), 213–228. Gerratana, V., ‘Marxisti onorari’, in: Il Contemporaneo I, 35 (1954), 1. Giovannini Luca, A. and Pierobon, A., ‘Per una storia sociale dell’arte: bilanci, esperienze, prospettive. Intervista a Enrico Castelnuovo’, in: Contesti. Rivista di microstoria 1 (2014), 159–178. Gnudi, C., L’arte gotica in Francia e in Italia (Turin: Einaudi, 1982). Gombosi, G., Spinello Aretino. Eine stilgeschichtliche Studie über die forentinische Malerei des ausgehenden XIV: Jahrhunderts (Budapest: Selbstverlag, 1926). Gombrich, E.H., ‘J. Bodonyi, Entstehung und Bedeutung des Goldgrundes in der spätantiken Bildkomposition’, in: Kritische Berichte V (1932–1933), 65–75. Gombrich, E.H., ‘André Malraux and the Crisis of Expressionism’, in: The Burlington Magazine XCVI, 621 (1954), 374–378; republ. in: id., Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art (London: Phaidon, 1963), 78–85. Gombrich, E.H., ‘The Social History of Art by Arnold Hauser’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXV, 1 (1953a), 73–84; republ. in: id., Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art (London: Phaidon, 1963), 86–94. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Review of Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism XI, 4 (1953b), 414–416; republ. as ‘The Impact of the Black Death’, in: id., Refections on the History of Art: Views and Reviews (Oxford: Phaidon, 1987), 42–45. Gombrich, E.H., Art and Scholarship: An Inaugural Lecture Delivered at University College London, 14 February 1957 (London: Lewis & Co., 1957); republ. as ‘Art and Scholarship’, in: id., Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art (London: Phaidon, 1963), 106–119. Gombrich, E.H., ‘In Search of Cultural History’ (1967), in: id. (ed.), Ideals and Idols: Essays on Values in History and in Art (Oxford: Phaidon, 1979), 24–59. Grasman, E., Henk van Os: van kunst naar cultuur (Houten: Terra, 2016). Gregori, M. (ed.), ‘In ricordo di Carlo Volpe’, in: Paragone LXII, 101–102 (2012). Gronau, H.D., ‘Florentine Painting and Its Social Background’, in: The Burlington Magazine XC, 547 (1948), 297–298.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

133

Gurrieri, F., ‘Bernard Berenson e l’architettura’, in: Antichità Viva VIII, 6 (1969), 26–36. Gurrieri, F., ‘Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, un magnete culturale internazionale’, in: Luk 22 (2016), 67–72. Hadjinicolaou, N. and Hadjinicolaou, Y., ‘Form als Ausdruck von Geschmack’, in: F. Antal (ed.), Klassizismus, Romantik, Realismus (Zürich - Berlin: Diaphanes, 2014), 191–229. Halbertsma, M., ‘Wilhelm Pinder und das Problem der Generation in der Kunstgeschichte Europas’, in: C. Drude and H. Kohle (eds.), 200 Jahre Kunstgeschichte in München. Positionen, Perspektiven, Polemik. 1780–1980 (Munich: Münchener Universitätsschriften des Instituts für Kunstgeschichte, 2003), 139–145. Haskell, F., ‘Classicism and Romanticism, With Other Studies in art History’, in: The Burlington Magazine CX, 780 (1968), 161–621. Haskell, F., History and Its Images: Art and the Interpretation of the Past (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993). Hauser, A., The Social History of Art, 2 vols. (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1951). Hauser, A., The Philosophy of Art History (Cleveland – New York: The World Publishing Company, 1963); or. ed. id., Philosophie der Kunstgeschichte (Munich: Beck, 1958). Hay, D., ‘The Place of Hans Baron in Renaissance Historiography’, in: A. Molho and J.A. Tedeschi (eds.), Renaissance Studies in Honour of Hans Baron (Florence: Sansoni, 1971), xi–xxix. Heckscher, W.S., ‘Erwin Panofsky: A Curriculum Vitae’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University XXVIII, 1 (1969), 4–21. Heinich, N., La sociologie de l’art (Paris: La Découverte, 2001). Herlihy, D., ‘Yves Renouard and the Economic History of the Middle Ages’, in: The American Historical Review LXXVI, 1 (1971), 127–131. Hobsbawm, E., Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life (London: Allen Lane, 2002). Howard, D., ‘James S. Ackerman (1919–2016)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CLIX, 1375 (2017), 820–821. Hubert, H.W., Wilhelm Vöge und das Freiburger Münster zur Gründung des Kunstgeschichtlichen Instituts vor 100 Jahren (Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach, 2010). Keenan, D., Kultur and acculturation: Erwin Panofsky in the United States of America, PhD Thesis (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2014). Keller, H., ‘Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death by Millard Meiss’, in: Historische Zeitschrift CLXXXVI, 3 (1958), 616–618. Kelley, D.R., ‘Something Happened: Panofsky and Cultural History’, in: I. Lavin (ed.), Meaning in the Visual Arts: Views from the Outside: A Centennial Commemoration of Erwin Panofsky, symposium proceedings, Princeton 1–4 October 1993 (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), 113–122. Klingender, F.D., ‘Frederick Antal (1887–1954)’, in: Società X, 5 (1954), 763. Knapp Fengler, C., ‘Bartolo di Fredi’s Old Testament Frescoes in S. Gimignano’, in: The Art Bulletin LXIII, 3 (1981), 374–383. Kókai, K., ‘Impulse der Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschichte im Werk von Frederick Antal’, in: M. Theisen (ed.), Wiener Schule. Erinnerung und Perspektiven (Vienna – Cologne – Weimar: Böhlaus, 2005), 109–119. Koops, W.R.H., Kossman, E.H. and Van der Plaat, G. (eds.), Johan Huizinga 1872–1972, conference proceedings, Groeningen 11–15 December 1972 (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1973). Kowalczyk, B.A. (ed.), Venezia Settecento: studi in memoria di Alessandro Bettagno (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2015). Krautheimer, R., ‘Antal, Florentine Painting and its Social Background’, in: Magazine of Art XLI, 8 (1948), 318. Krautheimer, R., Lorenzo Ghiberti (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1956). Krohn, D.L., ‘Antal and His Critics: A Forgotten Chapter in the Historiography of the Italian Renaissance in the Twentieth Century’, in: W. Reinink and J. Stumpel (eds.), Memory and

134

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Oblivion, Proceedings of the 29th International Congress of the History of Art, Amsterdam 1–7 September 1996 (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1999), 95–99. Laclotte, M., ‘Enrico Castelnuovo (1929–2014)’, in: Revue de l’Art CLXXXV, 3 (2014), 69. Liguori Carino, B. de (ed.), ‘Adriano Olivetti e le Edizioni di Comunità (1946–1960)’, in: I Quaderni della Fondazione Adriano Olivetti 57 (2008). Longhi, R., ‘Qualità e industria in Taddeo Gaddi ed altri II’, in: Paragone IX, 111 (1959), 3–12. Longhi, R., ‘In memoriam, Pietro Toesca (14 luglio 1877 – 8 marzo 1962)’, in: Paragone XIII, 147 (1962a), 69–70. Longhi, R., ‘Tracciato orvietano’, in: Paragone XIII, 149 (1962b), 3–14. Lopez, G., ‘Testo e iconografa in “Naissance de l’Europe”. Dal carteggio di Roberto S. Lopez, Fernand Braudel e Annie Elissabide (1957–1962)’, in: Arte Lombarda 105–107 (1993), 163–167. Lopez, R.S., ‘Economie et architecture médiévales: Cela aurait-il tué ceci?’, in: Annales VII, 4 (1952), 433–438. Maginnis, H.B.J., ‘The Literature of Sienese Trecento Painting 1945–1975’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte XL, 3–4 (1977), 276–309. Mâle, E., L’art religieux après le Concile de Trente: étude sur l’iconographie de la fn du XVIe siècle, du XVIIe, du XVIIIe siècle; Italie, France, Espagne, Flandres (Paris: Colin, 1932). Maltese, C., ‘F. Antal, Florentine Painting and Its Social Background’, in: Emporium LVI, 662 (1950), 93–94. Mangoni, L., Pensare i libri. La casa editrice Einaudi dagli anni trenta agli anni sessanta (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1999). Mann, H.-D., Lucien Febvre: la pensée vivante d’un historien (Paris: Colin, 1971). Marconi, S. (ed.), Scritti e immagini in onore di Corrado Maltese (Rome: Quasar, 1997). Marconi, S., ‘Corrado Maltese, maestro dal poliedrico ingegno’, in: M. Barrese, R. Gandolf and M. Onori (eds.), Storie dell’arte alla Sapienza: linee di ricerca, docenti e didattica del Dipartimento di storia dell’arte dalla fondazione a oggi (Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura, 2017), 49–55. Markham Schulz, A., ‘French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry: The Limbourgs and Their Contemporaries, by Millard Meiss’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XXX, 1 (1977), 51–53. Micacchi, D., ‘La pittura che sconfsse la Peste Nera’, in: L’Unità (7 August 1982), 3. ‘Millard Meiss, Andrea Mantegna as Illuminator’, in: L’Arte (1957), 204–205. Molho, A., ‘Italian History in American Universities’, in: A. Bartole and A. Dell’Omodarme (eds.), Italia e Stati Uniti. Concordanze e dissonanze, conference proceedings, Rome 11–12 February 1980 (Rome: Il Veltro, 1981), 201–224. Molho, A., ‘Hans Baron’s Crisis’, in: D.S. Peterson (ed.), Florence and Beyond: Culture, Society and Politics in Renaissance Italy. Essays in Honour of John M. Najemy (Toronto: Centre for Reformation and Renaissance Studies, 2008), 61–90. Mommsen, T.E., ‘Antal’s Florentine Painting’, in: Journal of the History of Ideas XI, 3 (1950), 369–379. Mongan, A., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena After the Black Death’, in: Renaissance News V, 1 (1952), 13–15. Moser-Ernst, S. (ed.), Art and the Mind – Ernst H. Gombrich. Mit dem Steckenpferd unterwegs (Göttingen: V&R unipress, 2018). Müller, B., Lucien Febvre, lecteur et critique (Paris: Albin Michel, 2003). Munari, T., Cinquant’anni di un editore. Le edizioni Einaudi negli anni 1933–1983 (Turin: Einaudi, 1983). Munari, T., I verbali del mercoledì. Riunioni editoriali Einaudi 1943–1952 (Turin: Einaudi, 2011). Neher, A., ‘The Concept of Kunstwollen, Neo-Kantianism, and Erwin Panofsky’s Early Art Theoretical Essays’, in: Word & Image XX, 1 (2004), 41–51.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

135

Neumeyer, A., ‘Frederick Antal, Classicism and Romanticism, with Other Studies in Art History’, in: Art Journal XXVII, 2 (1967–1968), 226–227. Nicodemi, G., ‘Pierre Francastel, Lo spazio fgurativo dal Rinascimento al cubismo’, in: L’Arte LVII, 23 (1958), 95–96. Nicoletti, L.P., Argan e l’Einaudi. La storia dell’arte in casa editrice (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2018). Norman, D., Siena, Florence and Padua. Art Society and Religion 1280–1400, 2 vols. (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 1995). Oertel, R., Die Frühzeit der italienischen Malerei (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1953). Oertel, R., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: Kunstchronik VII, 7 (1954), 194–198. Orwicz, M.R., ‘Critical Discourse in the Formation of a Social History of Art: Anglo-American Response to Arnold Hauser’, in: The Oxford Art Journal VIII, 2 (1985), 52–62. Panofsky, E. and Hassold, E.C., ‘Wilhelm Vöge: A Biographical Memoir (1958)’, in: Art Journal XXVIII, 1 (1968), 27–37. Panofsky, E., ‘Der Begriff des Kunstwollens’, in: Zeitschrift für Asthetik und allgemeine Kunstwissenschaft XIV (1920), 321–339; En. transl. id., ‘The Concept of Artistic Volition’, in: Critical Inquiry VIII, 1 (1981), 17–33. Panofsky, E., ‘Imago Pietatis‘, in: Festschrift für Max J. Friedländer zum 60. Geburtstage (Leipzig: Seemann, 1927), 261–308. Panofsky, E., Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St. Denis and its Art Treasures (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1946). Panofsky, E., Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism (Latrobe PA: The Archabbey Press, 1951). Panofsky, E., Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiskell/ Gebers Förlag AB, 1960). Panofsky, E., Tomb Sculpture. Its Changing Aspects from Ancient Egypt to Bernini, ed. by H. W. Janson (London: Thames and Hudson, 1964). Paoli, S. (ed.), Lamberto Vitali e la fotografa (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2004). Pellegrini, E., ‘Pollaiolo e il berretto degli alpini: Cronaca di cent’anni di solitudine’, in: Predella 28 (2010), http://www.predella.it/archivio/index7439.html?option=com_content&view =article&id=121&catid=60&Itemid=88. Perini, L., Delio Cantimori: un proflo (Rome: Edizioni di storia e letteratura, 2004). Peters, E. and Simons, W.P., ‘The New Huizinga and the Old Middle Ages’, in: Speculum LXXIV, 3 (1999), 587–620. Piccinini, C., ‘Enrico Castelnuovo (1929–2014)’, in: Cahiers de civilisation médiévale 57 (2014), 327–329. Pinder, W., Die deutsche Plastik vom ausgehenden Mittelalter bis zum Ende der Renaissance, 2 vols. (Wildpark-Postdam: Athenaion, 1924). Pinelli, A. and Rossi Pinelli, O. (eds.), ‘Per una storia dell’arte a tutto campo: attualità di Enrico Castelnuovo’, in: Ricerche di storia dell’arte 123 (2017). Polzer, J., ‘Aristotle, Mohammed and Nicholas V in Hell’, in: The Art Bulletin XLVI, 4 (1964), 457–469. Pope-Hennessy, J., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: The Times Literary Supplement (23 May 1952), 340. Previtali, G., ‘Lo spazio fgurativo dal Rinascimento al cubismo di Pierre Francastel’, in: Paragone XII, 141 (1961), 48–52. Previtali, G., ‘Il ruolo dell’antichità nel Rinascimento’, in: L’Unità (15 January 1972), 6. Previtali, G., ‘La periodizzazione della storia dell’arte italiana’, in: id. (ed.), Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1979), I, 5–95. Procacci, U., ‘Recensione di Gombosi, Spinello Aretino’, in: Rivista d’Arte XI, 2 (1929), 273–287.

136

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

Quené, T., ‘On the Departure of Professor H.W. van Os, Director General of the Rijksmusem, 18 September 1989–1 December 1996’, in: Bulletin van het Rijksmuseum XLIV, 4 (1996), 283–287. Rabreau, D., ‘André Chastel (1912–1990)’, in: Histoire de l’Art 12 (1990), 5–6. Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Artisti e “civiltà”’, in: id. (ed.), Il pungolo dell’arte (Venice: Neri Pozza, 1956), 56–90. Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Arte e umanesimo a Firenze’, in: seleArte 49 (1961), 2–11. Rash Fabbri, N. and Rutenburg, N., ‘The Tabernacle of Orsanmichele in Context’, in: The Art Bulletin LXIII, 3 (1981), 385–405. Reinhard, A., ‘Art vs. History’, in: ArtNews LXIV, 9 (1966), 19, 61–62. Renouard, Y., ‘Conséquences et intérêt démographiques de la Peste noire de 1348’, in: Annales III, 3 (1948), 459–466. Renouard, Y., ‘L’artiste ou le client?’ in: Annales V, 3 (1950), 361–365. Renouard, Y., ‘Aux sources de l’inspiration artistique’, in: Annales VII, 4 (1952), 475–480. Renouard, Y., ‘La notion de génération en histoire’, in: Revue Historique CCIX, 1 (1953), 1–23. Revue de l’Art XCIII, 3 (1991) [monographic issue on André Chastel]. Romano, G., ‘Dalle cattedrali ad Asterix. Un ricordo di Enrico Castelnuovo’, in: L’indice dei libri del mese 31 (2014), 2. Romano, S. and Tomasi, M. (eds.), Per Enrico Castelnuovo: da Losanna, le vie della storia dell’arte (Rome: Viella, 2017). Rowland, B. Jr., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: The Art Bulletin XXXIV, 4 (1952), 319–322. Ruffnière Du Prey, P. de la, ‘The Writings of James S. Ackerman’, in: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians LII, 1 (1993), 91–94. Rylands, P., ‘Alessandro Bettagno (1919–2004)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXLVII, 1225 (2005), 258. Saisselin, R.G., Bricabracomania: The Bourgeois and the Bibelot (London: Thames and Hudson, 1985). Salvini, R., ‘F. Antal, Remarks on the Method of Art History’, in: Commentari I, 2 (1950), 132–133. Salvini, R., ‘Signifcato e limiti di una storia sociale dell’arte’, in: L. Vayer (ed.), Evolution générale et développements régionaux en histoire de l’art. Actes du XXIIe Congrès International d’Histoire de l’Art, Budapest 1969, 3 vols. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972), II, 491–503. Schapiro, M., ‘On the Aesthetic Attitude in Romanesque Art’, in: K. Bharatha Iyer (ed.), Art and Thought: Issued in Honor of Dr. Ananda K. Coomaraswamy on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday (London: Luzac and Company, 1947), 130–150. Schapiro, M., Arte romanica (Turin: Einaudi, 1982). Sciolla, G.C., ‘“Paura del nuovo”. La ricezione della storia sociale dell’arte nell’Italia del dopoguerra’, in: M. Nezzo and G. Tomasella (eds.), Sotto la superfcie visibile. Scritti in onore di Franco Bernabei (Treviso: Canova, 2013), 429–437. Scotini, M. (ed.), Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti e il carattere cinematografco della visione, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Charta, 2000). Smart, A., ‘Taddeo Gaddi, Orcagna, and the Eclipses of 1333 and 1339’, in: I. Lavin and J. Plummer (eds.), Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, 2 vols. (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 403–414. Soddu, P. (ed.), Giulio Einaudi nell’editoria di cultura del Novecento italiano, conference proceedings, Turin 25–26 October 2012 (Florence: Olschki, 2015). Spannocchi, S., ‘Lippo e Tederigo Memmi’, in: A. Bagnoli (ed.), La Collegiata di San Gimignano. L’architettura, i cicli pittorici murali e i loro restauri (Siena: Fondazione Monte dei Paschi, 2009), 445–458. Stechow, W., ‘Millard Meiss, Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death’, in: Magazine of Art XLV, 6 (1952), 283–284.

Kulturgeschichte or Social History of Art?

137

Steinhoff, J.B., Bartolomeo Bulgarini and Sienese Painting of the Mid-Fourteenth Century, Phil. Diss. (Princeton University, 1990). Steinhoff, J.B., Sienese Painting After the Black Death. Artistic Pluralism, Politics, and the New Art Market (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007). Stella, V., Il giudizio dell’arte. La critica storico-estetica in Croce e nei crociani (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2005). Stirton, P., ‘Frederick Antal’, in: A. Hemingway (ed.), Marxism and the History of Art. From William Morris to the New Left (London: Pluto Press, 2006), 45–66. Strupp, C., Johan Huizinga: Geschichtswissenschaft als Kulturgeschichte (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000). Taylor, P. (ed.), Meditations on a Heritage: Papers on the Work and Legacy of Sir Ernst Gombrich (London: Holberton, 2014). The Renaissance, symposium proceedings, New York 8–10 February 1952 (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1953). Toesca, P., Il Trecento (Turin: UTET, 1951). Tomasi, M., ‘Enrico Castelnuovo (Rome, 1929 – Turin, 2014)’, in: Bulletin monumental CLXXIII, 1 (2015), 3–4. Toscano, B., ‘Storia dell’arte e forme della vita religiosa’, in: G. Previtali (ed.), Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1979), III, 273–318. Toscano, B., ‘Saggio introduttivo’, in: Meiss 1982, xvii–liv. Trotta, A., Berenson e Lotto: problemi di metodo e di storia dell’arte (Naples: Città del Sole, 2006). Turi, G., Casa Einaudi, Libri uomini idee oltre il fascismo (Bologna: Il Mulino, 1990). Valentiner, W.R., ‘Orcagna and the Black Death of 1348’, in: The Art Quarterly XII (1949), 8–73, 113–128. Valentiner, W.R., ‘Pietro Toesca’s “Il Trecento” – A Critical Study’, in: The Art Quarterly XV, 2 (1952), 151–160. Van Os, H.W., ‘The Black Death and Sienese Painting: A Problem of Interpretation’, in: Art History IV, 3 (1981), 237–249. Varese, R. (ed.), Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti. ‘Un uomo cosciente’, conference proceedings, Ferrara 29 October 2009, in: Critica d’Arte s. VIII, LXXII (2010), 41–42. Venturi, L., ‘Pierre Francastel, Peinture et société’, in: Commentari IV, 1 (1953), 75–76. Viola, T., ‘“Ein geistvoller Amerikaner”. The Relevance of Charles S. Peirce to Debates on the Iconological Method’, in: S. Marienberg and J. Trabant (eds.), Bildakt at the Warburg Institute (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014), 117–136. Vöge, W., Die Anfänge des monumentalen Stiles im Mittelalter. Eine Untersuchung über die erste Blütezeit französischer Plastik (Strassbourg: Heitz, 1894). Volpe, C., ‘Il lungo percorso del «dipingere dolcissimo e tanto unito»’, in: F. Zeri (ed.), Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1983), V, 232–304. Wagner, D., ‘Peirce, Panofsky, and the Gothic’, in: Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society XLVIII, 4 (2012), 436–455. Wedepohl, C., ‘Bernard Berenson and Aby Warburg. Absolute Opposites’, in: J. Connors and L.A. Waldman (eds.), Bernard Berenson: Formation and Heritage (Harvard MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 143–169. Weinberger, M., ‘Frederick Antal, Florentine Painting and its Social Background’, in: College Art Journal X, 2 (1951), 199–202. Wessely, A., ‘Antal and Lukács – The Marxist Approach to the History of Art’, in: The New Hungarian Quarterly XX, 73 (1979), 114–125. Wood, C.S., ‘Iconoclasts and Iconophiles: Horst Bredekamp in Conversation with Christopher S. Wood’, in: The Art Bulletin XCIV, 4 (2012), 515–527. Woodfeld, R., ‘Gombrich, Formalism and the Description of Works of Art’, in: The British Journal of Aesthetics XXXIV, 2 (1994), 134–145.

4

The Technical Study of Art

Harvard’s Art Laboratory Panofsky always admired Meiss’s knowledge of conservation, though it was not a result of his own infuence. While attention to the technical-structural aspects of artworks may have stemmed from his early training as an architect, it was instead the years spent at Harvard that steered Meiss towards the technical history of art.1 The study of materials and techniques played a major role in the art curriculum of the Harvard Graduate School that Edward W. Forbes and Arthur Pope devised in the early 12th century.2 Forbes introduced courses such as ‘Methods and Processes of Italian Painting’ and ‘Problems in Attribution in Light of Recent Developments in the Technical Studies of Paintings’ that provided students with an in-depth knowledge of old masters techniques and helped shape their aesthetic judgement of connoisseurs.3 Famously dubbed the ‘egg and plaster course’, in that former students learned how to make protein-based colours, prime panels, paint frescoes and realise silverpoint drawings following the instructions of Cennino Cennini’s manual and other sources in art literature.4 Alongside this workshop was a theory course analysing the optical and colour principles based on Arthur Pope’s Fine Arts Outline of Lecture (1924). A copy of this syllabus in Meiss’s papers contains his handwritten notes which shed light on how formal and technical remarks coalesced into the connoisseur’s stylistic discourse.5 The teachings received in Harvard were clear in the lecture on Italian mural painting that Meiss delivered in 1932. After describing the propensity for monumental

1 Lee 1976, 96: ‘For two years he worked in a construction company and he was once heard to remark that this experience induced the respect for sound and precise method which later stood him in good stead when he came to learn that knowledge of a work of art in every detail of technique, iconography, and style was the indispensable foundation on which to build’. On the defnition of ‘technical art history’, see Ainsworth 2005. 2 On the technical art studies developed at Harvard: Mongan 1993, 49–50; Lie, Bewer and Spronk 2000; Bewer 2010. On Edward W. Forbes (1873–1969), see Muir Whitehill 1969 and Mongan 1971. On Arthur Pope (1880–1974), see Carpenter 1974. 3 Burroughs 1938, xii. 4 Alfred H. Barr recalled in a letter: ‘[This] is genuinely an overall course plaster in your hair and paint in your eyes. We fresco walls, prepare gesso panels, grind colours, analyze fakes, read [Cennino Cennini] and have a glorious time of it’, quoted in Roob 1987, 6 and Gordon Kantor 2002, 51. Cf. also Lie, Bewer and Spronk 2000, 22; Bewer 2010, 57. 5 AAA, MMP. The artists mentioned in the notes include Mantegna, Andrea del Sarto and Schongauer for relief compared to Rubens, Van Dyck and Ingres for colour. Interestingly, they are followed by examples from Indian, Japanese, Persian, Egyptian and Greek painting.

The Technical Study of Art

139

mural painting of the Italian people, due to ‘an idealism, an objectivity, and a sense of architectonic structure’, the scholar discussed both tempera and fresco in great detail and, more importantly, the impact methods and techniques had on style and iconography, as well as on the organisation of workshops.6 In the early 1930s, Meiss appeared to be practising technical art history combined with a stylistic, iconographic and socio-historical analysis. His frst-hand experience on fresco painting in the following decades would further develop this integrated approach to the work of art.

‘America as Guardian of the World’s Art Treasures’: The American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments These words were spoken by Edward W. Forbes just after the Great War to exhort American art historians and conservators to fnd ways to protect artworks and monuments against the threat of war destruction – on the emotional wave of Reims cathedral bombarded by the barbaric ‘Hun’.7 Two years after this appeal, the Washington Conference laid the foundations for the international agreement on the protection of artistic heritage from war shelling, which was later ratifed in The Hague Codifcation Conference (1922–1923). America’s role as guardian of the world’s art treasures returned to the fore in the wake of the Second World War. Following the Pearl Harbor attack on 7 December 1941, museum directors convened in Washington and formulated conservation measures that would protect the national monuments and artworks from air bombing.8 As the United States notably entered the confict shortly thereafter, a plan for preventive conservation in war areas was also elaborated. Paul J. Sachs headed a task force of art and architecture scholars, called the ‘Harvard Group’, charged with drafting lists of the most relevant landmarks and works of art that risked being destroyed.9 As events unfolded, the Committee for the Protection of Cultural Materials in War Areas was subsequently created on 29 January 1943, including a number of volunteers led by William Dinsmoor, Charles R. Morey, Paul J. Sachs, Francis H. Taylor and David Finley.10 In view of the allied invasion of Sicily, President Roosevelt provided these initiatives with an institutional framework and established the Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas (known as the Roberts Commission), whose purpose was to train soldiers to rescue artworks and

6 AAA, MMP. Typescript of the lecture ‘Italian Mural Painting’, 1932: ‘Fresco is a more fuid and elastic method than tempera, and it was, then, suited to the mural painting of the period because the representations on the wall of the churches did not possess the formal quality of the altarpiece, but portrayed historical scenes, scenes from the Passion of Christ, or of the life of the Virgin and various Saints’. 7 Forbes’s words are mentioned in Bewer 2010, 272, note 5. Cf. Brooks 1918. On the American reactions to the destruction of Reims cathedral, see Emery 2009. 8 Muller 2000, 5. 9 On the composition of the American Defence – Harvard Group (AD-HG) see: http://www.monuments menfoundation.org/the-heroes/the-harvard-group. The art conservator George L. Stout (1897–1978) organised a conference on conservation: Emergency Protection of Works of Art 1942; also see Stout 1942; Cohn 1978. Cf. https://www.metmuseum.org/blogs/now-at-the-met/2014/in-the-footsteps-of-the -monuments-men. 10 The committee was created with the support of the American Council of Learned Societies: http://www .monumentsmenfoundation.org/the-heroes/american-council-of-learned-societies.

140

The Technical Study of Art

recover the art looted by the Nazis once the war was over.11 Some of these university professors and scholars took part in the invasion as offcers and were responsible for securing and recovering artworks, which earned them the sobriquet of ‘Venus fxers’.12 Perhaps the most famous among these Monuments Men was Frederick Hartt, a scholar of Renaissance art who left a detailed account of the damage Florentine art incurred.13 Notwithstanding the Harvard lists, monuments were not spared in the armed confict. Fascist propaganda reported that Italian art had been left to ‘the fercest ignorance of aviators’ and outlined a counter-list of damaged works, in which the images of such irreparable losses as Mantegna’s frescoes in the Church of the Eremitani were dramatically crossed off.14 During the war, Meiss served on the New York Company War Price and Rationing Board in the state of New York until the end of 1943. More importantly, as a voluntary assistant in the American Council of Learned Societies, he was in charge of selecting the works of art to be included in the lists as well as the art historians to be recruited for the Roberts Commission.15 When the Roberts Commission ceased its activity in December 1945, Meiss was intent upon organising a fundraising committee for the repair of damaged monuments and used his connections with the Venus fxers to create a network of scholars committed to the cause. Although already active in 1946, the American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments (ACRIM) was formally established on 16 February 1947 and headquartered at the Metropolitan Museum in New York.16 The American Committee closely collaborated with an Italian partner, the National Association for the Restoration of War-Damaged Monuments, which was founded by Emilio Lavagnino and Umberto Zanotti Bianco in the summer of 1944.17 In tandem, the two organisations singled out ffty damaged monuments based on the criteria of ‘artistic and historic importance’ and ‘considerations of geographical distributions, American interest, and urgency of repair’.18 Each 11 Cuno 1995, 59. On the composition of the Roberts Commission: http://www.monumentsmenfoundat ion.org/the-heroes/the-roberts-commission. Also see the Records of the American Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas (The Roberts Commission), 1943–1946 (Washington DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 2007), http://www.arch ives.gov/iwg/declassifed-records/rg-239-monuments-salvage-commission/; Dagnini Brey 2015. 12 Cf. Dagnini Brey 2009; Edsel 2009. 13 Hartt 1949. Frederick Hartt (1914–1999) participated in the committee chaired by Meiss and was later involved in the rescue of artworks after the Florence food in 1966. Cf. http://www.dictionaryofarthist orians.org/harttf.htm. Other accounts include La Farge 1946 [with a foreword by Ernest T. DeWald]; Rorimer 1950; Lavagnino 1947; Molajoli 1948 (cf. Ragghianti 1949) and Lavagnino 1974. 14 La guerra contro l’arte 1944, 6–7. On the rhetoric of the enemy’s cultural barbarianism, see Morgante 2019. The literature on war damages is extensive and includes Boi 1986; Debenedetti 1993; Nicholas 1994; Bucarelli 1997; Di Prospero 1999; Baldriga 1999; Giannella and Mandelli 1999; Lattes 2001; Lavagnino 2002, 400–415; Franchi 2006; Lavagnino 2006; Coccoli 2011; Fortino and Paolini 2011 and Coccoli 2018. 15 AAA, MMP. Letter from R.H. Potter to Millard Meiss, 16 April 1943; letter from Lewis Collins to Millard Meiss, 1 November 1943; letter from William B. Dinsmoor to Millard Meiss, 21 February 1944. 16 ACRIM papers are included in Millard Meiss Papers at the Archives of American Art. The papers are divided into four folders also containing the photographic documentation of the damaged monuments selected for funding. 17 Ciancabilla 2008. For the Associazione Nazionale per i Monumenti Danneggiati dalla Guerra, refer to Esposito 2011. 18 BB, BMBP. ACRIM, Report to the Members, 15 December 1946. The monuments committee included Sachs, William G. Constable, Perry B. Cott, Sumner Crosby, Ernest DeWald, Frederick Hartt, Richard

The Technical Study of Art

141

restoration project would be subsidised by ACRIM for an estimated total cost of 1.5 million dollars, while the Italian government pledged to cover any exceeding expenses. The archaeologist Doro Levi acted as a representative of ACRIM in Italy and reported on the progress of works and liaised with local authorities.19 His name was suggested by Berenson – to whom Meiss had initially offered the position – who had helped Levi, a Jew, emigrate to the United States.20 After he joined the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, Doro Levi held a similar position as mediator within the Roberts Commission.21 In order to raise funds for the restoration work, the American Committee launched a programme of lectures and events across the United States.22 While sources mention that a flm was being made,23 ACRIM promoted the screening of four documentaries by Luciano Emmer: Racconto da un affresco (1938), on Giotto’s Scrovegni Chapel; Paradiso Terrestre (1939), on Bosch’s Garden of Earthly Delights; Il Cantico delle Creature (1943), on the Assisi cycle; Guerrieri (1943), with battle scenes by Simone Martini, Paolo Uccello, Piero della Francesca, Domenico Morone and Spinello Aretino.24 Deeply infuenced by Lionello Venturi’s ideas on art, the documentaries that Emmer realised in collaboration with Enrico Gras and Lauro Venturi (Lionello’s son) were described as ‘empathic’ for the dramatic juxtaposition of details.25 Despite being slated by both Longhi and Ragghianti,26 Emmer’s art flms were at the height of international acclaim in the 1940s – especially in France, where they were positively reviewed by André Bazin and inspired Alain Resnais’s flm Van Gogh.27 By showing

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26

27

Krautheimer and Robert Lehman. The list of these monuments was published in an illustrated atlas in both Italian and English versions (Lavagnino 1946). On Doro Levi (1898–1991), see Laviosa 1993 and D’Agata 2017. BB, BMBP. Letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 1 April 1947: ‘You surely would do better to appoint Professor Morey […] If Professor Morey’s time is already too much taken up […] I would propose Professor Doro Levi whose technical competence is considerable’. Berenson also helped another famous Jewish Italian scholar, Gaetano Salvemini; see Cohen 2013, 226–227. Lattes 2001, 78. BB, BMBP. ACRIM, Report to the Members, 15 December 1946. H.R.H. 1947, 213–214. Cf. Scremin 2010. On Luciano Emmer (1918–2009) and his art documentaries, see Scremin 2000 and Francia di Celle and Ghezzi 2004. Scremin 2000, 150. L. Venturi, ‘Una visione parallela dell’arte’, in: Francia di Celle and Ghezzi 2004, 119–131: 120: ‘Io, mio padre e mia madre lo amavamo. I musei e l’UNESCO lo amavano’. Longhi and Ragghianti thought his documentaries were not suited for educational purposes; see Longhi 1950, 3: ‘I documentari del Signor Emmer su Giotto, Bosch, ecc., sembrano abominevoli proprio per l’assurda pretesa di fare da “starters” o da “ciacchisti” a fgure dipinte. […] Il parlato dei documentari in questione andava fabulando con un estetismo di bassa lega, tra misticoide e decadentismo, da snobbetti di provincia europea’; Ragghianti 1975, 228: ‘Il problema di questi flm documentari non è già quello di porsi e di risolvere con mezzi adeguati l’interpretazione aderente dell’espressione o fantasia dell’artista, ma quello di esprimere la propria sensibilità estetica, o la propria esigenza espressiva, col mezzo di immagini tratte dalla pittura o dalla scultura o dall’architettura’. Between the 1930s and 1960s, art documentaries became a form of popularisation employed by several Italian art historians prompting a lively debate; see Casini 2005. P. Scremin, ‘Luciano Emmer. Racconti sull’arte’, in: Francia di Celle and Ghezzi 2004, 105–114: 107– 108; Venturi, ‘Una visione parallela dell’arte’ cit., 119; cf. also Casini 2005, 437 and ff.

142

The Technical Study of Art

these documentaries in cinemas across the country, ACRIM certainly contributed to the popularity of Emmer’s art flms in the United States in early post-war years.28 ACRIM’s fundraising activity culminated in the travelling photo exhibition War’s Toll of Italian Art that opened at the Metropolitan Museum in autumn 1946.29 Approximately seventy pictures captured the damage Italian art heritage had suffered as well as the preventive conservation measures arrayed. Dramatic shots of the more severely struck monuments, like the Church of Santa Chiara in Naples or San Lorenzo fuori le Mura in Rome, were showcased alongside images of sites that were saved from destruction, such as the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, Trajan’s Arch in Benevento and the refectory of Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan.30 At the closing of the exhibition, the Italian government also lent a few recently repaired pieces such as Luca della Robbia’s reliefs for the church in Impruneta,31 a fragment of Lorenzo da Viterbo’s frescoes in Santa Maria della Verità,32 a Crucifxion by the School of Masolino from Arezzo and a fragment of Mantegna’s Ovetari Chapel.33 This moving display offered an ‘unvarnished picture of one of the greatest tragedies of the War’ that was clearly aimed at prompting people’s donations.34 Animated by the same purposes, the Italian committee, in turn, organised the show Mostra d’arte italiana a Palazzo Venezia (1945), featuring artworks spanning between the 16th and the 18th centuries from both private and public collections.35 The looted works of art recovered from the Nazis were also displayed in Rome by Rodolfo Siviero, the (in)famous director of the Offce for the Recovery of Artworks.36 In Florence, the soprintendente Ugo Procacci organised two exhibitions in 1946 and 1947 with some of the recently restored works that constituted an important precedent for the popularisation of conservation techniques in the following decades.37

28 A Harvard graduate, Lauro Venturi described to American readers the essence of their flmic storytelling: ‘The flms in this group, then, narrate the legends, fables, or events that the painter himself has illustrated in his paintings, by using camera movements to point out details, by using editing rhythm to impart action to the static actors, and by working very closely with the musical score and the commentary, to create an emotional atmosphere in which the unique qualities of the work of art may come to the surface’, in: Venturi 1953, 388. 29 On the use of photography to depict the damages of war, see Russo Krauss 2017. 30 War’s Toll of Italian Art. An Exhibition Sponsored by the American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments, exhibition catalogue (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1946); Meiss 1946b, 241; Francis 1947. For a detailed account of the exhibition, refer to Morgante 2013. 31 Part of this work was also exhibited at the second Florentine show of 1947; see Procacci 1947, 17–18; Hartt 1949, 57–61. 32 On the restoration of the frescoes, see Brandi 1946, 6–10. 33 On the destruction of the Ovetari Chapel, see Spiazzi 2006 and Spiazzi, Fassina and Magani 2009. 34 Francis 1947, 72. The ‘rhetorical amplifcation’ is analysed in Morgante 2013, specifcally with regard to the twin exhibition Fine Arts under Fire. From Cassino to Cologne. 35 Associazione nazionale per il restauro dei monumenti danneggiati dalla guerra 1945. This exhibition was the target of controversy over some works that turned out to be fake, which led to Pietro Toesca resigning as its scientifc director: Barbanera 2003, 211, 230 note 53. 36 Banti 1947; Siviero 1950. On Rodolfo Siviero (1911–1983) and his involvement in recovering stolen works of art, see Rovati 2005; Bottari 2013; Ballini 2015 and Coccolo 2019. 37 Procacci 1946; Procacci 1947. Cf. Paolucci 1986, 59, 62.

The Technical Study of Art

143

ACRIM’s Projects of Restoration ACRIM successfully raised funds towards several damaged monuments, such as Bramante’s portico in Sant’Ambrogio in Milan, the Palladian arcades of Vicenza Basilica, a Roman house in Pompeii, Falconieri Villa in Frascati, Santa Trinita Bridge in Florence and the pottery collection in Faenza Museum.38 Among the projects covered by ACRIM was also the Camposanto in Pisa, whose mural paintings caught fre after an attack of the Anglo-American artillery on 27 July 1944.39 Particularly important to him, Meiss closely followed the repair of the Traini/ Buffalmacco frescoes and was kept abreast of every progress made by the local soprintendente Piero Sanpaolesi.40 The detachment of the paintings was entrusted to Leonetto Tintori, a restorer who would over the years collaborate with Meiss and become a lifelong friend. Tintori proceeded to remove Traini’s Triumph of Death (Figure 1.4) and the Thebaid, as well as Benozzo Gozzoli’s Adoration of the Magi.41 This procedure revealed underlying drawings (sinopie) traced on the intonaco which Meiss hailed as an example ‘of the early Italian draftsmanship and technique’, though this was only an anticipation of a captivation that became palpable in the next decades.42 The most notable monument restored under the aegis of Meiss and his committee was the Tempio Malatestiano in Rimini.43 Rimini was the target of a series of air strikes between 28 December 1943 and 29 January 1944 that reduced Alberti’s church to rubble.44 The apse and roof were the most damaged parts, and the façade was bent forward; fortunately, Piero della Francesca’s fresco had already been removed by Arturo Raffaldini and brought to safety in Mantua’s Palazzo Ducale.45 Thanks to a joint endowment by the Ministry of Education and the American Committee, the repair work assigned to Costantino Ecchia and supervised by soprintendente Corrado Capezzuoli started in 1946. By the following year, the entire structure of the Tempio Malatestiano was reinforced, the apse, façade and roof were rebuilt, the new window fxtures and electric system were installed. Then the external wall surface was taken down and replaced from October 1947 to December 1949, with an overall cost of over 5 million dollars.46 While the

38 ‘Projects & European News’ 1948, 34–35. 39 Cf. Franchi 2006; Hoeninger 2018. 40 AAA, MMP. Letter from Piero Sanpaolesi to Millard Meiss, 23 June 1949; letter from Millard Meiss to Piero Sanpaolesi, 8 May 1950; letter from Piero Sanpaolesi to Millard Meiss, 3 March 1951; letter from Piero Sanpaolesi to Millard Meiss, 31 March 1951. On Piero Sanpaolesi (1904–1980), see Tampone, Gurrieri and Giorgi 2012 and Guarisco 2013. 41 The removal of Benozzo Gozzoli’s fresco was not funded by ACRIM. 42 Meiss 1948a, 200; cf. also Tintori 1995. 43 Rimini was an outpost in the German defence line and was heavily bombed by the Anglo-Americans. On the repair of the Tempio Malatestiano, see Biff 1996; Turchini 1998; Iannucci 2007; Ceriani Sebregondi 2008 and Pascolutti 2011. 44 Cf. Works of Art in Italy. Losses and Survivals in the War. Part I – South of Bologna, compiled from War Offce Reports of the British Committee on the Preservation and Restitution of Works of Art, Archives and Other Material in Enemy Hands, London 1945 http://www.engramma.it/pdf/WORKS%20OF%20 ART%20IN%20ITALY.pdf, 27. 45 Cf. Nonfarmale 1984. 46 The overall costs covered by ACRIM amounted to 50,000 dollars, while the Samuel H. Kress Foundation donated 15,000 dollars and the Italian Government allocated 5 million dollars. The papers regarding the restoration work (including the progress reports) are published in: Turchini 2000, 835–870.

144

The Technical Study of Art

original Albertian Tempio was restored, Italian conservators and ACRIM agreed on not rebuilding the Franciscan convent adjacent to the church.47 This choice was met with widespread discontent by the local council, and works were halted in November 1947 and could only be resumed after a government commission approved the intervention as legitimate.48 The polemical reaction of the general public was not an isolated instance, as Piero Sanpaolesi also reported some controversy over the decision to remove the paintings in the Camposanto.49 The restoration of the Tempio Malatestiano exemplifed the much debated anastylosis, which consisted in reconstructing a monument as it was by reassembling its original elements. Although rejected in the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments (1931), such a practice was the course of action adopted for many iconic landmarks destroyed during the war. Another instance was Santa Trinita Bridge in Florence, whose repair stirred a contention between art historians. While Bernard Berenson championed its returning to ‘how and where it used to be’, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, on the other hand, argued the more modernist point of view that new architectures should be built in the place of destroyed buildings.50 In a book on the history of the bridge, Carlo L. Ragghianti opined that, given the extant parts (i.e. the pillars) and the extensive documentation, the bridge ought to be reconstructed, though only if traditional materials and building methods were employed – and not reinforced concrete.51 This was the stance embraced by the American Committee as conveyed by Meiss’s words to the mayor of Florence, Giorgio La Pira: Duplication of the original method of construction – provided engineering factors permit it – was favored by the Committee from the outset, and our satisfaction in the fnal adoption of this method is shared by Dr. Max Ascoli, the generous donor to the Committee of a large sum for the purposes of rebuilding.52 Imitative restoration was indeed the line espoused by ACRIM when subsidising the repair of highly prominent historic sites.53 Especially since Italy was included in the Marshall Plan in July 1948, the Italian government could not but acquiesce to the decisions

47 Biff 1996, 46; Turchini 2000, 851 note 13, 856–858, 861–862. 48 See the report by Guglielmo de Angelis d’Ossat dated March 1950 quoted in Turchini 2000, 868 note 66. Morgante spoke of a paradox among Italian conservators who justifed restoration practices banned by the current legislation on conservation, by appealing to a notion of ‘identity’ expressing the will of the people; see Morgante 2010, esp. 461. 49 Sanpaolesi 1948, 158: ‘V’era ragione di dubitare fno dall’inizio della riuscita di questo tentativo: ma anche qui bisognava tener conto dell’opinione pubblica che chiedeva che le pitture restassero al loro posto. In un campo così squisitamente specialistico ogni chiarimento dato in buona fede a persone non abituate ai problemi del restauro poteva prendere l’aspetto di un pretesto o di un sofsma’. This paper was delivered at the Primo Convegno Internazionale per le Arti Figurative in Florence organised by Carlo L. Ragghianti and Meiss featured among the attendees. 50 Berenson 1945; Bianchi Bandinelli 1945; cf. Bonelli 1959, 42–43. 51 Ragghianti 1948, 50–53; cf. also Cecconi and Nastasi 2018. 52 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Giorgio La Pira, 9 December 1952. 53 The relevant artistic and symbolic value of these monuments often induced to make an exception to conservation practices, even by those who enforced the Athens Charter; see, for instance, Giovannoni 1945.

The Technical Study of Art

145

of the American Committee. These post-war interventions on damaged monuments were addressed during UNESCO’s 5th General Conference in 1950. Architectural historian Roberto Pane conceded that conservation guidelines could be disregarded when faced with exceptional cases.55 The ‘brave’ anastylosis of the Tempio Malatestiano was one of those instances, whose aim was to recover the ‘geometric pureness of the relations between outlines and masses’ and ‘sharp, perfect execution’.56 Conservators had thus operated on the assumption that while classical and mediaeval monuments could be left as ruins, Renaissance and Baroque buildings should be restored to their original state.57 In the 1960s and 1970s, however, the principles that inspired ACRIM’s ‘intense activity’58 of preservation and repair were largely reconsidered in the light of a more philological approach to art conservation. At the CIHA conference on the art historian’s responsibility held in Venice in 1967 – and promoted by Meiss – the same Roberto Pane looked back to the extensive post-war reconstructions in regret.59 The motion CIHA approved at the end of the meeting was particularly signifcant because it decried the ‘fallacious pretext of a return to the unity of style or the original simplicity of architecture’, which had led to arbitrary restorations.60 54

The Involvement of Bernard Berenson Though certainly not the only connoisseur to take a stand in the conservation debate, Bernard Berenson showed a concern for how monuments should be repaired since the Great War, when he visited the damaged French cathedrals in the company of Arthur K. Porter.61 Once more after the Second World War, BB was resolved to personally

54 Ceriani Sebregondi 2008: ‘Per quanto ci riguarda, allora, la situazione politico-economica dell’Italia intorno all’estate del 1947, che non poteva permettersi di rifutare l’offerta americana, farà sì che, nonostante le grosse diffcoltà tecniche e simboliche (lasciare memoria di quanto accaduto), i lavori siano avviati senza esitazioni’. Cf. also Morgante 2010. 55 R. Pane, ‘Prefazione’, in: Direzione generale delle antichità e belle arti 1950, 9–12. On Roberto Pane (1897–1987), see Anzani and Guglielmi 2017. 56 Direzione generale delle antichità e belle arti 1950, 95, 101: ‘coraggiosa’; ‘purezza geometrica dei rapporti fra linee e masse’; ‘cristallina perfetta esecuzione’. 57 Even those who were opposed to imitative restoration, like Renato Bonelli, thought that Rimini’s church was an exception (Bonelli 1959, 48); cf. also Lavagnino 1947, esp. 153. 58 Meiss 1948a, 199. 59 Meiss was then part of CIHA’s executive committee; see also AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to André Chastel, 27 February 1967: ‘Given the recent events in Italy the choice of the theme is certainly timely. The entire city in which we meet is, as you know, threatened, and the least that can emerge from our deliberations is an appeal about this emergency. I am pleased that you decided to take up this theme – it was in fact I that proposed the introduction of it into the congress in New York’. Cf. CIHA 1967; esp. R. Pane, ‘La responsabilità della cultura artistica per le sorti del patrimonio d’arte e d’ambiente’, in: ibid., 4–5. 60 INHA, CIHA. Colloques du CIHA, Colloque de Venise, Italie (1967) – Préparation et tenue du colloque, 051, 097, 06. Procès verbal des reunions du Bureau tenue lors du Colloque de Venise les 18 et 20 juin 1967: ‘L’erreur grave commise, en particulier dans les édifces religieux de nos pays, […] sous le prétexte fallacieux de retour à l’unité de style ou à la simplicité originelle de l’architecture […]. Ces restauration arbitraries, en Italie, sont proprement anti-historiques, elles n’ont aucune justifcation scientifque, ni culturelle’. 61 Porter was then an adviser to the Commission des Monuments Historiques; see K. Brush, ‘Bernard Berenson and Arthur Kingsley Porter. Pilgrimage Roads to I Tatti’, in: Connors and Waldman 2014, 249–268: 260–261.

146

The Technical Study of Art

inspect the state of Italian artistic patrimony and ‘draw up a detailed report’ as he feared that the extent of losses might have been overestimated by fascist propaganda.62 The varying judgements that he expressed, from defending the restoration of Santa Trinita Bridge to justifying the destruction of the Ovetari Chapel, indicated that his opinions were mostly dictated by his own personal taste rather than methodology.63 An early sponsor of ACRIM, Berenson did not approve of the committee’s main concern for high-profle sites alone, instead of the multitude of small towns and villages and its excessively clamorous fundraising campaign.64 Perhaps also because of his dissent, when Meiss asked Berenson to represent ACRIM in Italy, the connoisseur refused the offer blaming old age and his poor ‘technical knowledge’.65 Despite his initial remonstrance, Berenson did check on the repair works in Rimini and paid an offcial visit to the Tempio Malatestiano on 23 September 1947.66 Berenson’s proverbial lack of expertise in ‘questions of technique […] ancillary to the aesthetic experience’ – which he facetiously referred to as ‘the cookery of art’67 – transpired when he visited the mosaics in Ravenna with Capezzuoli and was as transfxed by their beauty as he was oblivious of their state of preservation.68 A few years later, when Meiss asked him what he thought of the recently completed repair of the Camposanto, ‘too old, too tired, and too despairing’, Berenson wryly replied: I no longer follow what happens to Sorgenkinder like Pisa.69

62 Berenson 1950 [1952], 264 [9 March 1944]: ‘As soon as I am free and have a car, I mean to visit the towns above mentioned, see what really happened, and draw up a detailed report. My expectation is that much will have been lost but nothing like what the Fascists claim’. 63 Cf. Gurrieri 1969, 30–33; Lamberini 2006. On Mantegna’s frescoes, he wrote [16 March 1944]: ‘They were not oversuitable for the space they covered and their coloring was not harmonious. The best in them can be enjoyed in the highly satisfactory photographs of them that now exist, with an abundance of detail’, in: Berenson 1950 [1952], 270. 64 Berenson 1963, 5 [12 January 1947]: ‘I have a distaste for “drives” and the publicity and pumped-up enthusiasm that go with them. […] What seemed more urgent was to take steps to see that the hundreds of ruined villages and scores of small towns were not being hastily rebuilt […] in the shoddiest, ugliest, most utilitarian yet showiest way possible. […] It is that which makes me relatively indifferent to the drive for restoring the historical buildings. They will take care of themselves’. 65 BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 24 March 1947; letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 1 April 1947. Berenson suggested Charles R. Morey or Doro Levi as an alternative. 66 BB, BMBP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 22 April 1947. Berenson 1963, 38 [23 September 1947]; also see Berenson 1958 [1960], 165–166 [20 September 1955]. 67 These quotes are taken from the preface Berenson wrote to Daniel Thompson’s The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting (Berenson 1936, 7). This introduction was discovered to be an idea of the publisher who collated excerpts from Berenson’s correspondence with Thomson; see T. Burns, ‘“The Cookery of Art” Bernard Berenson and Daniel Varney Thompson Jr.’, in: Connors and Waldman 2014, 283–307. 68 Berenson 1963, 38 [24 September 1947]: ‘We see San Vitale, where he tries to explain the cupola and other technical matters which interest me little […] Rather bored and even exasperated because I cannot always distinguish between what has been and what has not been restored’. 69 BB, BMBP. Letter from Bernard Berenson to Millard Meiss, 24 August 1952; cf. letter from Millard Meiss to Bernard Berenson, 14 November 1949: ‘I wonder if you have had a chance to see the fresco of the Triumph of Death in Pisa remounted? I have just received photographs of the fresco made after completion of the work and they seem to show that the painting had come out much better than might have been hoped’.

The Technical Study of Art

147

Meiss’s Studies on Mural Paintings The Trigger-Happy Detachment of Frescoes Mindful of the destruction of masterpieces like the Ovetari Chapel, in early post-war years, art historians and conservators began to consider the opportunity of detaching mural paintings as a possible preventive measure.70 In the pages of Piero Calamandrei’s periodical Il Ponte, Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, Lionello Venturi and Roberto Longhi were unanimously urging the precautionary removal of fresco cycles in 1950.71 Similarly, Cesare Brandi and Roberto Carità from the Istituto Centrale del Restauro endorsed a campaign of preventive ‘extractivism’ (in Italian, estrattismo) that culminated in the removal of the frescoes in Mezzaratta.72 This conservation imperative also happened to respond to the dominant Crocean interpretation of the work of art as pure aesthetic object isolated from its context as did the contemporary museum displays by Carlo Scarpa and Franco Albini. In the ffties and sixties, Florence came to be known as the capital of the detachment of mural paintings. Leading the way in this season of ‘trigger-happy removal’ of frescoes were Ugo Procacci and Leonetto Tintori, who together perfected the most advanced techniques in the feld.73 To further justify this practice was the wide appeal the detached wall paintings had when they were exhibited to the general public, who was beguiled by the ferment surrounding their recovery. In 1954, Mario Salmi paved the way for these shows with Mostra di quattro maestri del Primo Rinascimento, featuring frescoes by Paolo Uccello, Andrea del Castagno and Piero della Francesca that had all been removed by Leonetto Tintori.74 The following three consecutive editions of the Mostra degli affreschi staccati, organised by Ugo Procacci between 1957 and 1959, marked the consecration of the expositions of wall paintings – in the vein of the previous post-war displays of restored works.75 The lunettes from the Chiostro Verde by Paolo Uccello, the fragments of the frescoes by Domenico Veneziano and Piero della Francesca from the Chiostro di Sant’Egidio, the Holy Sepulchre by Piero della Francesca and the Life of St Benedict by Giovanni di Consalvo (then known as the Master of the Chiostro degli Aranci) in the Florentine Badia were some of the pieces displayed in the frst exhibition of 1957.76 An even more impressive collection of frescoes from all over Tuscany was arranged in 1958, in which the works appeared next to their underdrawings, the so-called sinopie, causing quite a stir among art scholars

70 On the detachment of frescoes in the previous centuries, see Ciancabilla 2009; Ciancabilla 2013 and Ciancabilla and Spadoni 2014. For the debate on the removal of frescoes in post-war years, refer to Conti 1981, 101–108; Danti, Matteini and Moles 1990; Rinaldi 2006 and Metelli 2012. 71 Bianchi Bandinelli, Venturi and Longhi 1950. 72 Brandi 1958 [2005], 98: ‘To put it bluntly, if ancient paintings are to be saved, they will have to be detached from site more extensively’; Carità 1958, 150. The frescoes in the church of Sant’Apollonia in Mezzaratta were detached between 1947 and 1950 with both Longhi’s and Brandi’s approval; see Ciancabilla 2005. 73 Conti 1981, 106; Paolucci 1986, 105. 74 Paolucci 1986, 65. Cf. Salmi 1954. 75 For the catalogues and material pertaining the exhibitions, see http://www.affreschistaccati.benicultur ali.it/. 76 Baldini and Berti 1957; cf. S.P. 1957.

148

The Technical Study of Art

and laymen alike.77 Following this success, another exhibition was organised in 1959 with an addition of approximately seventy works.78 Berenson was among the visitors of the 1957 edition and he commented that, despite the opportunity to see the paintings from a closer view, murals were better left in their original context.79 While his would be the dominant opinion in the following decades, Berenson’s remark was rather signifcant at a time when other connoisseurs like Longhi conversely approved of the removal of frescoes and recommended such practice for many more cycles.80 In the introduction to the exhibition catalogue, Ugo Procacci claimed that detachment was the only way to preserve the frescoes for future generations, and he would explain this argument to international scholarship in the pages of The Connoisseur in 1958.81 A year later, Meiss also gave resonance to the matter in an article in ArtNews, in which he contended that the removal was made necessary by the precarious state of preservation, all the more since detachment techniques had been greatly perfected and risks minimised.82 Meiss also mentioned Procacci’s project of a ‘Museum of Frescoes’ to be created in Florence, which was a rumoured idea that was constantly put off until it was fnally discarded once the opposite notion of in situ preservation took root.83 A museum of wall paintings and their underdrawings was, on the other hand, set up in the Camposanto in Pisa in 1960.84 In the same year, the Cini Foundation and the Smithsonian Institution organised a photographic exhibition on mural paintings and their techniques in Venice and Washington.85 The growing fascination with sinopie and the ‘mysterious, esoteric’ wonderment that their discovery aroused were palpable in Giuseppe Fiocco’s introduction to the catalogue, which would resonate in Meiss’s passionate words for the exhibition of frescoes he organised eight years later.86 The fourth Mostra degli affreschi staccati to be held in Florence in 1966 should have surpassed all expectations, but was cancelled shortly

77 Baldini and Berti 1958; cf. Chiarelli 1959. In the catalogue, Mario Salmi was credited with being the frst to have drawn the attention to these underdrawings (Salmi 1919). 78 Baldini and Berti 1959. 79 See the paragraph dated 29 September 1957 omitted in the English edition (Berenson 1963) which can only be found in the later Italian translation: B. Berenson, Tramonto e crepuscolo. Ultimi diari 1947–1958 (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1966), 444: ‘Io non so più godere di questi affreschi in quanto opere d’arte come facevo quando ancora si trovavano al loro posto originale’. 80 Longhi 1957, 3: ‘E non vi sarà, credo, visitatore che, dagli splendidi risultati, non abbia ricavato la salda convinzione sulla bontà della singolare operazione tecnica e sulla necessità di estenderla a tante altre cose, già da tempo in pericolo di morte, del nostro grande patrimonio murale’. 81 Baldini and Berti 1957, 1–17; Procacci 1958a, 156: ‘The fnal crisis and consequent collapse may occur at any time, and so swiftly as to seem almost instantaneous’. 82 Meiss 1959, 46: ‘It is frightening to contemplate sheets of painted plaster scaled off a presumably solid wall and rolled up like cannelloni. […] The procedure is costly, and until recently it entailed the risk of some loss to the surface during the process of transfer. […] like surgeons who are forced by wartime stress to devise new techniques and are permitted to run abnormal risks in testing them, a few conservators in Italy carried the techniques of detaching and remounting to such a degree of perfection that, in proper hands, the risk of loss has been reduced to slight proportions’. 83 Bonsanti 1982, 222–224; Paolucci 1986, 108. 84 Bucci and Bertolini 1960; cf. Montrobbio 1961. Another museum of detached frescoes was opened in Prato, Tintori’s hometown; see Gurrieri 1974. 85 Muraro 1960. The exhibition also went to the United States and constituted a precedent for Meiss’s spectacular show of 1968. 86 Ibid., 12–14. Cf. also Ferretti 1980, 3.

The Technical Study of Art

149

after its opening because of the food. When Tintori wrote to Meiss in September 1966, he referred to the chaotic organisation of the show in a city that was full of contradictions.88 The two reviews of the event penned by Bellosi and Previtali evidenced that the removal of frescoes was beginning to be questioned, especially because of the additional resources that preserving these paintings in a museum required.89 Only a few months later, the extensive damage that the devastating food in Florence left behind apparently confrmed the belief that the transfer of frescoes was the best option, even though the debate on conservation was now limiting such practice to a last resort intervention. Despite Meiss’s insistence, CIHA’s New York conference addressed the integration of paintings on canvas and panel instead of frescoes, because they were deemed of lesser relevance outside of Italy.90 The Council of the International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works convened in Rome on the same in 1961, on the other hand, extensively discussed the removal of murals with Leonetto Tintori and Paolo Mora illustrating the different types of procedures – from the peeling method or strappo to the bodily removal of the fresco with the preparatory intonaco or stacco.91 Only a few years, however, a more cautious approach to removal was beginning to assert itself, as testifed by the more tentative stance emerged in ICOM’s conference held in New York and Washington in 1965.92 Alongside the refections on conservation, the ffties and sixties also saw a new fowering of studies on fresco technique since the pioneering work of Robert Oertel on 87

87 For an idea of the works displayed, see Kiel 1966. The exhibition was erroneously referred to as the third, instead of the fourth, Mostra degli affreschi staccati. Leonetto Tintori mentioned the exhibition to Meiss (AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 30 May 1966): ‘In questi giorni abbiamo un enorme [sic] quantità di lavoro per la Mostra degli affreschi staccati. Speriamo di poterla inaugurare i primi di luglio’. (‘These days we have an enormous amount of work for the Exhibition of detached frescoes. We are hoping to open it by the early days of July’.) 88 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 16 September 1966: ‘Qui a Firenze è sempre la solita vibrante attività in un caos di contraddizioni. La mostra degli affreschi staccati ne è una buona dimostrazione. Però uno che sappia leggere al disotto delle cose più evidenti può vedere come sarebbe possibile ottenere assai di più con una migliore organizzazione’. (‘Here in Florence it’s the usual vibrant activity amid a chaos of contradictions. The exhibition of detached frescoes is a good example. But one who can read between the lines will see how so much more would be achieved with a better organisation’.) 89 Bellosi 1966; Previtali 1966. 90 This was as a result of Craig H. Smyth’s decision as chairman of the section on art preservation. Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Eve Borsook, 30 June 1961: ‘Quite confdentially I add that the speakers in Smyth’s session are being informed that inasmuch as the problems of mural painting are of far less interest outside of Italy the session should concern itself primarily with painting on canvas and wood’. 91 Tintori 1963; Mora 1963. Tintori was resolved to show the validity of the procedure as he wrote to Meiss (AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 23 October 1961): ‘Poiché i problemi che mi stavano a cuore per gli affreschi non li ritengo per nulla chiariti mi sono impegnato a mandare a New York a Londra a Bruxelles e a Roma dei piccoli modelli di trasporti con vari sistemi. Ogni sistema sarà illustrato da esempi in tutte le fasi del lavoro e da esatte relative descrizioni e critiche. Spero risulti un iniziativa [sic] utile’. (‘Since I don’t think the problems that were close to my heart concerning the frescoes have been at all clarifed, I have endeavoured to send to New York to London to Brussels and to Rome some small models of transfer with various systems. Each system will be illustrated by examples of all the stages and by exact relative descriptions and criticisms. I hope this will be a useful initiative’.) 92 Philippot and Mora 1965.

150

The Technical Study of Art

Masaccio and the introduction of cartoons.93 In conjunction with the second Mostra degli affreschi staccati, Ugo Procacci published a book on the technical history of mural painting, followed in 1960 by the popular Sinopie e Affreschi, in which he analysed the use of sinopie in workshop practice and mapped the main mural cycles in Italian art.94 In the same 1960, Eve Borsook published The Mural Painters of Tuscany, which popularised fresco painting amongst the wider Anglophone readership with examples ranging from Cimabue to Andrea del Sarto.95 In his review of Procacci’s book for The Burlington Magazine, Andrew Martindale eloquently framed the vogue of studies on sinopie as a key to understanding 13th- and 14th-century art with the impression that ‘almost anything is possible and indeed permissible under the smooth surface of the intonaco’.96 The Giornate in Assisi with Leonetto Tintori Leonetto Tintori was one of the key fgures in the extensive campaign to detach mural paintings, having practised the stacco technique since his early training and in the restoration of his hometown cathedral in Prato (1932–1939). Meiss frst met the Tuscan restorer in Pisa in 1947, when he was supervising the conservation work in the Camposanto and the Tuscan restorer undertook the removal of frescoes. Between the ffties and seventies, together with Ugo Procacci, Tintori worked on the cleaning of all the main mural cycles in Italy, from Giotto’s paintings in the Bardi (1959) and Peruzzi (1960–1961) Chapels in Santa Croce in Florence, in the Upper Church in Assisi (1961, 1962–1965) and in the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua (1961–1963), to Piero della Francesca’s Legend of the True Cross in Arezzo (1961–1965).97 In the company of Tintori and Procacci, Meiss visited all of these sites and inspected the painted surface from only a few feet away. This proved an ‘unforgettable’ experience as he described it to Panofsky, who saluted this new form of connoisseurship ‘partly by touch and partly by sight’.98 At the same time, Meiss helped Tintori become a consulting fellow in the recently opened Conservation Center that Craig H. Smyth and Sheldon Keck founded at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York.99 The Conservation Center was destined to replace Harvard as the leading American institute for conservation, whose methodological advance Tintori greatly contributed to. Smyth and Keck’s centre, in return,

93 94 95 96 97

Oertel 1933; Oertel 1934; Oertel 1940. Procacci 1958b; Procacci 1960. Borsook 1960. On Eve Borsook (1929–), see Smyth 1999. Martindale 1962, 436; cf. also Puppi 1962; Muraro 1963. On Tintori (1908–2000), see Tintori 1986; Tintori 1989; Billi 1997; Centauro 2001; Prato: Storia e Arte 2009 and Salvagnoni 2012. 98 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959: ‘we were able, after all these years of discussion, to prove absolutely that the frst fresco in the cycle of St. Francis (by the St. Cecilia Master) was painted after the second (the gift of the cloak) and thus the whole chronology of the cycle is established. […] Tintori has just been called to Padua to present his opinion to a commission of the government about the state of the Arena frescoes. For his study of the surface before the meeting a “Castello” will be erected in the chapel, and he has invited me to join him for two days, so that I will have had by next Sunday the probably unique opportunity of scanning both major cycles from a very short distance – an opportunity previously enjoyed probably only by the painters themselves’. 99 On the Conservation Center, see Baer 1989 (and particularly the essay by Craig H. Smyth, 7–16).

The Technical Study of Art

151

sponsored his research on synthetic resins and provided the equipment to analyse the pictorial flm of the Assisi cycle.100 Tintori and Meiss amply discussed all the fndings revealed during the conservation campaign as documented in a sizeable correspondence.101 Out of this fruitful partnership came the book on Giotto’s Life of St Francis in Assisi published in 1962. In this outline of ‘mural topography’, technical remarks served ‘as instruments for the renewed study of problems of authorship’.102 Like Procacci’s and Borsook’s studies, the frst chapter dealt with the history of fresco technique from Roman wall painting – based on Tintori’s fndings in the Villa dei Misteri in Pompeii –103 to the development of buon fresco, focussing in particular on the transition from sinopie to cartoons.104 By mapping the sutures visible on the plaster, Meiss and Tintori were able to determine that the 28 scenes of the Life of St Francis were painted in 272 giornate, equivalent to a period of approximately one year, and also traced the sequence of their execution.105 The hands of three different masters and relative workshops were recognised, but the authors preferred not to venture into any specifc identifcation. Technical observation showed that both the Legend of St Francis and the Life of Isaac were painted employing the more modern system of giornate, while small preliminary sketches (modelli) were used in the remaining cycle. This difference in methods seemed to support Giotto’s authorship, even though Meiss formally refused to address ‘problems

100 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 10 July 1961. 101 The letters between Tintori and Meiss, relative to the years when they were writing the book, can be found in the AAA, MMP, containing mostly the missives from Tintori, whereas for the following years, their correspondence can be traced also at the Leonetto Tintori Archive at the Laboratorio per Affresco Elena e Leonetto Tintori in Figline (Prato). 102 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, xii. 103 The correspondence between Tintori and Meiss mentions some of the restorer’s observations on Pompeii and the Roman fresco; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 December 1960: ‘Risultato delle ricerche: sono più convinto di prima che l’esecuzione veniva realizzata su intonaco fresco non escludendo la possibilità che nel colore usassero impastare del glutine organico’. (Research result: I am more convinced than I ever was that the execution was carried out on wet plaster, not excluding the possibility that they used to mix some organic gluten in the paint’.) Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 8 February 1962: ‘Non ho elementi da far presentare come sicura la mia ricostruzione del procedimento seguito dai pittori romani ma è pressappoco questa: su arriccio di grande spessore e discretamente umido veniva stesa una zona di intonaco; su questo come prima cosa erano spalmati i fondi rossi o neri e abbozzata la fgura coinvolta, quando questa non era rimandata ad un altro tassello, a momento opportuno il fondo veniva levigato con ferro caldo indi fnita la fgura’. (‘I don’t have any elements that would show as certain my reconstruction of the procedure followed by Roman painters, but it is roughly this: on a thick and reasonably damp arriccio, a patch of plaster was lain; on this frst the red or black backgrounds were painted and then the fgure involved was sketched out, when this did not belong to another piece, when the time was right the background was smoothed over with a hot iron and the fgure was subsequently completed’.) 104 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, 8. Tintori expressed the idea of going back to these matters in a following publication; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 27 January 1962: ‘Mi sembra perciò che sarebbe più ragionevole rimandarne la pubblicazione a quando l’argomento fosse corredato da più convincenti documentazioni. Magari potrebbe per ora accennare all’argomento ed avanzare riserve su le altrui interpretazioni’. (‘I think that it would be more reasonable to postpone the publication to when the argument is bolstered by more convincing evidence. Maybe we could at this stage only mention the topic and question other interpretations’.) 105 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, 53. Pietro Toesca, on the other hand, believed the cycle was entirely painted a secco (Toesca 1947, 13).

152

The Technical Study of Art

of attribution’.106 The American art historian was instead interested in proving that Giotto only painted the Life of Isaac, and not the Legend. To that end, he comparatively examined the technique in those cycles that were safely ascribed to the painter, like the Scrovegni Chapel – a mine of information, according to Tintori, that could ‘clarify many doubts and rectify many incorrect interpretations’.107 The main argument, excluding that Giotto was the author of the Life of St Francis, was the use of lead white (a colour largely employed by Cimabue), which was absent in the Isaac scenes as well as in other Giottesque works.108 The problem of colour composition in the Assisi frescoes would be reopened a decade later, when Meiss sent his PhD student Hayden B.J. Maginnis to assist Tintori.109 Another important (as well as debated) discovery of Meiss’s and Tintori’s research was the use of cartoons already at the end of the 13th century.110 Most scholars, in fact, believed there were no preparatory drawings before the 15th century, like Robert Oertel, who at CIHA’s New York conference had once more expounded his theories.111 Meiss was convinced that these new results would settle the question, but he failed to change Oertel’s mind.112 This controversy resurfaced in Meiss’s Festschrift where Umberto Baldini argued there were no cartoons before the Quattrocento and Ugo Procacci defended Meiss and Tintori’s thesis.113 The use of preparatory drawings was confrmed in the examination that Bruno Zanardi conducted upon restoring the Assisi cycle between 1974 and 1983, but the giornate were recalculated to 546, that is twice the number that Meiss and Tintori estimated.114 Meiss felt that The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi was ‘uneven and immature’ and lacked a ‘suffciently strict differentiation between certainty and

106 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 18 November 1960. 107 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, 159–165. AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 3 March 1961: ‘chiarire tanti dubbi e correggere tante interpretazioni errate’. 108 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, 56–57. Tintori had carefully examined the presence of lead white in Padua but found only calcium carbonate (AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 6 March 1961): ‘Ad Assisi in Cimbaue e in molte volte si nota tanta biacca scurita e assai anche nelle scene di S. Francesco. In Isacco invece quasi niente! Perché?!!’. (‘In Assisi in Cimabue and in many vaults you can see plenty of darkened lead white and a lot also in the St Francis scenes. In Isaac almost none! Why?!!’) 109 LAELT. Letter from Millard Meiss to Leonetto Tintori, 17 March 1971. AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 6 June 1973. LAELT. Letter from Millard Meiss to Leonetto Tintori, 23 March 1975. Tintori would return on the matter of white lead in his contribution to the Studies offered to Meiss (L. Tintori, ‘Il Bianco di piombo nelle pitture murali della Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi’, in: Lavin and Plummer 1977, I, 437–444). 110 Meiss and Tintori 1962a, 232–234, 239–240. 111 R. Oertel, ‘Perspective and Imagination’, in: Meiss 1963a, II, 146–159. 112 AAA, MMP. Letter from Robert Oertel to Millard Meiss, 28 August 1961; letter from Millard Meiss to Robert Oertel, 15 October 1962: ‘Tintori hopes before long to obtain authorization for the removal of a part of one or more of the large lost areas to see whether the arriccio is still visible underneath. This will then settle the question’; letter from Millard Meiss to Robert Oertel, 20 February 1967: ‘Our disagreement about the drawings in the fourteenth century is, I recognize, entirely objective and I respect your opinion in this matter as in all others’. 113 U. Baldini, ‘Dalla sinopia al cartone’ and U. Procacci, ‘Disegni per esercitazione degli allievi e disegni preparatori per le opere d’arte nella testimonianza del Cennini’, in: Lavin and Plummer 1977, I, 43–47 and 352–367. 114 Zanardi 1996; Zanardi 2002, 28.

The Technical Study of Art

153

probability’. Art scholarship was however less harsh in judging the book. Giovanni Previtali thought that the two authors successfully tackled a ‘rancid’ matter with a technically and philologically sound approach, though he was less convinced of the three anonymous masters they ascribed the frescoes to.116 Previtali, however, refrained from delving into the prickly issue that was now being dragged from the ‘slumber of academic compilations’.117 Less reluctant to resuming the Assisi problem was a champion of the separatisti like Alastair Smart who instead welcomed the technical evidence bolstering the anti-Giottesque cause.118 John White’s ‘informed and intelligent’119 review focussed on the fortunate collaboration between restorer and art historian, but deemed unfounded the stylistic (viz. attributionist) conclusions drawn upon the inconsistent use of pigments.120 Meiss intended to publish an Italian edition of the book on the Assisi frescoes, and this idea was frst envisaged when Tintori introduced him to Einaudi’s adviser Lamberto Vitali.121 Notwithstanding Vitali’s efforts, Einaudi turned down the offer because the publication had just appeared in English and its specialist subject fell outside of their editorial scope.122 Vitali subsequently tested the waters with Adriano Olivetti’s Edizioni di Comunità, but it was all to no avail.123 In the meantime, New 115

115 This is what Meiss wrote to Eve Borsook when he sent her the manuscript to have her opinion about it; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Eve Borsook, 3 March 1961: ‘Perhaps that is inevitable in a collaboration of this kind, when the questions discussed are not at the center of the activity of either author. I sense that at some points there is not a suffciently strict differentiation between certainty and probability but some of this is beyond control’. 116 Previtali 1963, 71–72. 117 Ibid., 80: ‘Un libro vivo sa risvegliare, strappandole al sonno delle compilazioni accademiche, anche le questioni più dibattute’. Cf. also Ragghianti 1963. 118 Smart 1963. 119 Meiss described the review to Tintori as follows (LAELT. Letter from Millard Meiss to Leonetto Tintori, 3 February 1964): ‘Molto favorevole, e il più consapevole e intelligente di tutti. Scritto da uno storico inglese, bravo, che scrive in questi anni un libro sul Trecento Italiano’. (‘Very favourable, and the most informed and intelligent of all. Written by a good English historian who has been writing a book on Italian Trecento’.) 120 White 1963. Cf. also Vermeule 1964. 121 On Lamberto Vitali and on Giulio Einaudi, refer to Chapter 3. 122 This is what emerged from the correspondences in Einaudi archives. ASTo, Sezione Corte, Fondo Giulio Einaudi Editore, box no. 220, ‘Corrispondenza con autori e collaboratori italiani’, folder no. 3094/2, ‘Vitali Lamberto 11/11/1962-21/08/1979’, f. 245. Letter from Lamberto Vitali to Giulio Bollati, 26 June 1963. A letter to Giulio Einaudi dated 2 September read: ‘ti prego di rispondermi comunque per il libro sugli affreschi di Assisi’. (‘please answer to me anyway about the book on the frescoes in Assisi’.) And on 18 September: ‘Ti ricordo che hai sempre presso di te il volume di Meiss-Tintori sugli affreschi giotteschi di Assisi. Ti prego di dirmi che cosa avete deciso e di rimandarmi il volume, che non vorrei passasse in cavalleria’, (‘Let me remind you that you still have the book by Meiss-Tintori on the Giottesque frescoes in Assisi. Please let me know what you have decided and send the book back to me, because I would not want this to pass into oblivion’.), in: ASTo, Sezione Corte, Fondo Giulio Einaudi Editore, box no. 220, ‘Corrispondenza con autori e collaboratori italiani’, folder no. 3094/2, ‘Vitali Lamberto 11/11/1962-21/08/1979’, ff. 247–248. 123 AAA, MMP. Letter from Lamberto Vitali to Millard Meiss, 14 November 1963: ‘qu’il s’agit d’un livre destiné à des spécialistes et que per conséquent ne rentre pas dans l’activité normale de sa Maison, qui a un public beaucoup étendu’ (‘that it is a book for specialists and that consequently does not fall within the normal activity of his House, which has a much wider public’); letter from Millard Meiss to Lamberto Vitali, 6 January 1964; letter from Lamberto Vitali to Millard Meiss, 15 February 1964: ‘Mi dispiace dirle che i miei sondaggi con Einaudi ed anche con le Edizioni di Comunità hanno avuto

154

The Technical Study of Art

York’s Norton Library Press printed in 1967 a paperback edition comprising Meiss’s study on Giotto and Assisi, the book he co-authored with Tintori and an article on mural painting that the two wrote together for The Art Bulletin in 1964.124 A Book on the History of Art Techniques ‘Additional Observations on Italian Mural Technique’ that Meiss and Tintori published in The Art Bulletin in 1964 was meant as an anticipation of a forthcoming ‘book on technique’, which the two had been discussing since 1961.125 Meiss contemplated involving Eve Borsook, too, since she was working in those years alongside Tintori on the Giotto frescoes in Florence.126 This project, however, never came to fruition, initially because they could not fnd a publisher, and then both Tintori and Meiss would be too occupied with the rescue of Florentine works of art. Supported by both Italian and American institutions, Meiss and Tintori were resolved to compile a history of mural painting from antiquity to the contemporary with the scientifc contribution of chemists and physicists.127 The book would be largely based on Tintori’s established experience on frescoes that ranged from Roman and Mayan examples to the contemporary wall paintings by José Clemente Orozco and Diego Rivera.128 As evidenced in their correspondence, the Italian conservator discussed his technical observations with Meiss.129 Of particular interest was the Roman technique of secco su fresco, which consisted in retouching the painting with an organic-medium based paint when the plaster was still wet. Tintori had in fact found conclusive evidence that frst Giotto and then Piero della Francesca had revived this method: All the marble panels in the decorative bands, and the scenes as well, were heat polished, that is in a very similar way to the backgrounds in Pompeii. When Giotto

124 125

126

127

128

129

un esito negativo. Si tratta di un libro troppo per specialisti e quindi di diffcile vendita; d’altra parte è probabile che gli interessati lo possiedano di già nell’edizione originale’. (‘I am sorry to inform you that my survey with Einaudi and also with Edizioni di Comunità was a negative one. The book is too much for specialists and therefore diffcult to sell; after all, those interested probably already have it in the original edition’). Meiss 19672b; Meiss and Tintori 19672e; cf. Meiss and Tintori 1964e. AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 10 July 1961. Cf. Meiss and Tintori 1964e. The article was partly taken from a lecture Tintori delivered in a symposium at the Institute of Fine Arts in New York in 1962. AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 November 1963. Borsook would assist Tintori in the cleaning of the Peruzzi Chapel between 1958 and 1961, and out of this collaboration came a book (Tintori and Borsook 1965). AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 26 January 1962; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 25 August 1963. The institutions considered were the Cini Foundation in Venice, New York University and the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. In the aforementioned 1932 lecture on mural painting, Meiss reckoned contemporary muralists showed many affnities with 14th-century painting; see Typescript of the lecture ‘Italian Mural Painting’, 1932: ‘No painter since that time, and certainly not the nineteenth century Englishmen, who imitated preRaphaelesque work, have ever shown so many resemblances with Giotto as does for example the painting of the contemporary Mexican, Diego Rivera’. AAA, MMP, Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 7 November 1962; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 November 1963; letter from Millard Meiss to Lamberto Vitali, 6 January 1964.

The Technical Study of Art

155

ironed out the marbles the colour was still wet and it was smudged in many places. It would be interesting to analyse the colour of the marbles and see if, in order to polish them better, he added to the paint some wax or saponifed grease.130 In collaboration with the Conservation Center in New York, Tintori worked on the cleaning of Piero della Francesca’s Legend of the True Cross in Arezzo between 1961 and 1965. Alongside the book on technique, Meiss and Tintori were also exploring the idea of another publication on the technical aspects of Piero della Francesca’s mural painting.131 Fearing other scholars might precede him in this, Tintori asked the American art historian if Borsook and Procacci could be included in the project.132 Claudio Emmer (Luciano’s cousin) would have carried out the photoshoot and arrangements were made with the publisher Rizzoli, but in May 1964, Tintori seemed to have abandoned the project of what was now being described as ‘Meiss’s’ book on Piero.133 The situation precipitated when Mario Salmi took over the direction of the conservation works in Arezzo and imposed a ‘reserved exclusivity’ (even journalists were denied access) until Salmi himself eventually published a book on the paintings in Arezzo.134 In 1966 Meiss was still searching for a publisher for his book on Piero’s technique containing the information emerged in the course of Tintori’s cleaning.135 The Italian conservator, however, was now more invested in defending his professional reputation, after Longhi severely attacked his work in Arezzo in the ‘bitter and rather unfair’

130 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 12 March 1962: ‘Tutte le formelle con marmi nelle fascie [sic] decorative e anche nelle scene sono state lucidate a caldo e cioè in una maniera molto simile ai fondi di Pompei. Quando Giotto ha stirati i marmi il colore era ancora fresco e in diversi luoghi si è mosso sfumandosi. Sarebbe interessante analizzare il colore dei marmi e cercare di sapere se per lucidarli meglio ha introdotto nella tinta qualche cera o grasso saponifcato’. Cf. Meiss and Tintori 1964e, 378–379. 131 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 11 January 1963; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 9 March 1963. 132 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 11 January 1963; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 November 1963. LAELT. Letter from Millard Meiss to Leonetto Tintori, 3 February 1964. The Meiss–Procacci correspondence in the years 1964–65 is missing, but Procacci is likely to have refused because of his many engagements (AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 30 July 1963; letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 3 September 1963). On Tintori’s work in Arezzo, see Centauro 1990, 259–276. 133 Claudio Emmer worked as a photographer for Skira since the end of the war; his projects included books on Lascaux and Egyptian art (see Venturi, ‘Una visione parallela dell’arte’ cit., 130). Paolo Lecaldano and Lamberto Vitali were also mentioned in connection with the volume on Piero della Francesca; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 20 January 1964; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 1 May 1964. 134 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 16 May 1964: ‘esclusività riservata’; cf. Salmi 1965. 135 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 30 May 1966: ‘Siamo molto contenti del vostro prolungato soggiorno ai Tatti nel 67. Spero in quell’occasione di poter fare qualcosa per il libro di Piero della Francesca. Emmer scriveva segnalando una casa editrice molto interessata alla pubblicazione, ma il nodo è sempre Salmi. Spero troveremo il modo di superarlo’. (‘We are very pleased of your prolonged stay in I Tatti in 1967. On that occasion I hope I can do something for the book on Piero della Francesca. Emmer wrote recommending a publishing house that was very interested in the publication, but Salmi is always the problem. I hope we will fnd a way to overcome it’.)

156

The Technical Study of Art

television programme L’Approdo on 12 July 1966.136 Longhi accused the restorer of excessively cleaning the frescoes, and as a result, the night in The Dream of Constantine had become a daylit sky.137 On this matter Tintori wrote to Meiss: The night, according to him, would have become day with an absurd starry sky; thus, destroying the most celebrated night, celebrated also by Vasari, and with it the meaning of the scene. I am able to provide all the technical explanations on the restoration and prove how the depth of the much-regretted sky was made of a layer of Prussian blue painted over the stars, or at least a part of them; how the shadow on the warrior’s helmet on the right was not a mass of dirt and overpaint, and how after removing them, I preferred not to replace them with new retouchings and I did not add the rest of the tempera lost over time.138 Tintori’s ‘business’ was also being exposed by Giovanni Previtali for the ‘legal or illegal’ monopoly over the main conservation sites, which were often delegated to his assistants with very poor results. This was, according to Previtali, a fact that the general public should be made aware of.139 Tintori asked Meiss to defend his work in an article that could have been an ‘advance of the planned book’.140 The food of 4 November was however approaching, and in the following months, both Tintori and Meiss would have directed their efforts to salvaging Florentine works of art. In the face of emergency, Longhi and Previtali, too, ceased their polemical comments and even praised Tintori’s efforts.141 Another plan that Tintori and Meiss frst considered in 1964 proved to be prophetic in the light of the events, which was an Italo-American conservation institute based at I Tatti that would be part of an international exchange programme for conservators.142

136 Mauro Pelliccioli, Ugo Procacci and Tintori himself also took part in that programme. On L’Approdo, see Dolf and Papini 2006; Baldini, Spignoli and Dolf 2007 and Perna 2018. 137 On Longhi’s collaboration with L’Approdo, see Zanoli 2003. 138 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 20 August 1966: ‘La notte, secondo lui, sarebbe diventato giorno con l’assurdo di un cielo stellato; distruggendo così il più celebrato notturno celebrato anche dal Vasari e con esso il signifcato della scena. Sono in grado di dare tutte le spiegazioni tecniche sul restauro e dimostrare come la profondità del cielo tanto rimpianto fosse costituito da uno strato di blu di prussia sovrapposto anche alle stelle, o almeno su una parte di esse; come l’ombra dell’elmo del guerriero a destra non fosse un ammasso di sporcizia e di ridipinture e come dopo tolte avevo preferito non sostituire da nuovi ritocchi come non ho rimesse le altre tempere perse nel tempo’. 139 G. Previtali, ‘Attenzione ai restauri’, in: L’Unità (6 July 1966) and ‘A quando la pianifcazione dei lavori di restauro?’, in: L’Unità (26 July 1966); republ. in: Previtali 1999, 83–86, 89–91. 140 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 16 September 1966: ‘anticipo del libro progettato’. 141 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 December 1966: ‘In questi giorni Longhi, Previtali e altri si sono fatti vivi anche da noi ed ho avuto l’impressione che hanno apprezzato le nostre iniziative anche se queste qualche volta contrastano con la volontà centrale’. (‘In these past days, Longhi, Previtali and others also came to see us and I had the impression that they appreciated our initiatives even if those sometimes go against the government’s intentions’.) 142 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 5 August 1964: ‘Presto sarà a Firenze il Prof. Smith [sic] e sentirò se ritiene possibile un accordo fra la Soprintendenza e varie università americane per installare, magari ai Tatti, un piccolo laboratorio di studio e di ricerche che permettesse agli studenti americani un approfondimento della materia a diretto contatto con i problemi più importanti (con mezzi idonei) e di restauratori italiani potrebbe fornire un costante controllo delle proprie operazioni’. (‘Prof. Smyth will soon be in Florence and I will see, if he thinks it is possible, to an agreement

The Technical Study of Art

157

The network of conservation specialists that Meiss intended to build would materialise in the course of the operations to salvage the monuments and works of art damaged by the food. The American scholar played a prominent part in enabling this international cooperation and at the same time consolidated his technical knowledge of painting techniques, working side by side with Tintori in the conservation campaign.143

American Aid after the Flood ‘An Acute Case of CRIAmania’ The water, now drained away, has reached four metres, forcefully penetrating from windows and sewers. The violence of the frst impact has swept over equipment and paintings swallowing everything into a chaos of mud and tar. Walls and ceilings are all still stained with black draining marks and oozing dirty water. The panels we managed to recover are saturated with water and what remains of the paint washed off and faking. […] The most serious damage will be on the Cimabue Crucifx in the Museum of S. Croce, which was swept over and knocked into the sludge. We are still unable to determine what can be salvaged. […] My heart clenches when I think of all the inescapable worries to save what is salvageable like in the times of the Camposanto in Pisa. Anyway, coraggio.144 On 7 November 1966, Tintori gave Meiss a vivid account of the food that, three days earlier, once more threatened Florence’s artistic heritage. When the water withdrew, it left a sea of mud and fuel oil behind that covered everything. The dramatic images circulating around the world urged European neighbouring countries and the United States to mobilise and promptly offer their economic as well as human aid – the famous ‘Mud Angels’.145 ‘Like in the times of the Camposanto in Pisa’, Meiss

between the Soprintendenza and several American universities to install, perhaps at I Tatti, a small laboratory for study and research that would allow American students to further study the matter, approaching the most important problems (with the right tools) and with Italian restorers who could offer a close observation of their operations’.) This conservation laboratory would not come to fruition, but in 1974, Smyth set up a fund specifc for the study of mural painting (see letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 30 July 1974). 143 Meiss’s extensive experience on mural paintings would then emerge in the atlas of frescoes published in 1970; see Meiss 1970a. 144 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 7 November 1966: ‘L’acqua, ora defuita, ha raggiunto quattro metri penetrando con forza dalle fnestre e dalle fognature. La violenza del primo urto ha travolto attrezzature e dipinti sommergendo tutto in un caos di fango e di catrame. Pareti e volte sono ancora tutte macchiate di scolature nere e stillanti acqua sporca. Le tavole recuperate sono impregnate di acqua con quanto rimane di pittura dilavato e sbollante. […] La più grave conseguenza si avrà sul Crocifsso di Cimabue del Museo di S. Croce, che è stato travolto e schiantato a terra nella melma. Ancora non possiamo giudicare quanto sarà recuperabile. […] Ora si stringe il cuore a pensare a tutte le ansie inevitabili per salvare il salvabile quasi come ai tempi del Camposanto di Pisa. Comunque coraggio’. 145 Apart from the monographic issues of Critica d’Arte XIII, 82–84 (1966), Antichità Viva V (1966), Paragone XVIII, 203/23 (1967) and Kunstchronik XX (1967), refer to Bonsanti 1982, 213–227; Paoletti and Carniani 1985; Bietti 1996; Ciatti, Frosinini and Rossi Scarzanella 2006; Borrows 2006; Scudieri, Vaccari, Fiorelli Malesci 2006; Spande 2009; Giannini 2010–2012; Rotondi 2013; Acidini Luchinat, Capretti, Ciatti et al. 2016; Acidini Luchinat, Coco and Sartoni 2016 and Mariani and Lattanzi 2016.

158

The Technical Study of Art

responded to the emergency by creating an American Committee to raise funds and, unlike post-war ACRIM, directly coordinate conservation work and collaboration between Italian and international restorers. Everything began with a small group from the Art History Department at Brown University in Rhode Island, which included Fred Licht, his wife Margaret and Bates Lowry. Two days later, Licht and Frederick Hartt frst surveyed the devastation in Florence together with Procacci146 and, when they returned, presented a report on damaged works of art at a press conference.147 By 9 November, the Committee to Rescue Italian Art (CRIA) was offcially formed with the purpose of raising 2.5 million dollars for the restoration of artworks, books and monuments, both in Florence and Venice.148 American academics welcomed this initiative and many historians of art and architecture joined the committee – several of whom being ACRIM veterans – such as Sidney J. Freedberg, James S. Ackerman, Rudolf Wittkower, Paul O. Kristeller, Horst W. Janson, Felix Gilbert and Myron P. Gilmore. Edward Warburg provided his fnancial support to open an offce frst in Providence, then in New York, where Lowry coordinated the fundraising campaign. CRIA’s Italian headquarters were based in Villa I Tatti with an offce in Palazzo Pitti (operating until 1971).149 I Tatti’s acting director was tasked with liaising with local authorities, and this role was initially taken on by Myron P. Gilmore, followed by Meiss in January 1967.150 The frst six-month progress report of CRIA’s activity illustrated the dire situation in Florence and Venice: The frst quick estimate of the effects of the high water of November 4 were rather optimistic. However, the salts rose slowly in the walls, staining frescoes and canvases and even decomposing the materials themselves. Sculpture and veneer have also suffered from this saline bath. It should also be added that Venetian monuments and works of art have not been as well tended during the past half century as those of Florence, and the recent food augmented earlier diffculties.151

146 Meiss wrote to Procacci that he was planning to create a committee; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 7 November 1966. 147 F. Licht, ‘Building a Network of Support for Conservation: The Committee to Rescue Italian Art’, in: Spande 2009, 152–154: 154–155. Curiously, Licht never mentioned Meiss in connection with CRIA, despite being its founder and president, and likewise Peter Mallory, who only recalled Hartt, Licht and Lowry; see P. Mallory, ‘The Experience of an American Mud Angel’, in: Spande 2009, 164–167: 164. 148 CRIA papers are at the Biblioteca Berenson, Villa I Tatti – The Harvard Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, where they are organised in two collections: Committee to Rescue Italian Art, Papers: Villa I Tatti [CRIA VIT] and Palazzo Pitti Offce [PITTI]. Meiss’s cable is in BB, PITTI, Corrispondenza, Cables, I, folder 7, f. 378. Cf. Meiss 1967a (this report included a full list of the damaged works which were mostly covered by CRIA’s allocations). 149 CRIA’s organisation is described in BB, G. Capelli, I. Della Monica, L’archivio del Committee to Rescue Italian Art, Uffcio Palazzo Pitti (1966–1973), 6–8 [henceforth cited as Capelli and Della Monica, Archivio CRIA]. 150 Their collaborators included Eve Borsook, Myron Laskin, Curtis Shell and Juergen Schulz. The offce in Palazzo Pitti was coordinated by Judith Munat. Notwithstanding the events, Meiss was always meant to become the director of I Tatti from February to the end of June. Cf. PGRI, JHP, Correspondence, Scholars and Artists, box 5, folder 4. Letter from Millard Meiss to Julius S. Held, 2 June 1966; BB, CRIA, VIT, General Correspondence 1966–1970, Allocations, 1968–1969, folder 3, ff. 429–433 [henceforth referred to as ‘CRIA Six Month Progress Report’]. 151 ‘CRIA Six Month Progress Report’.

The Technical Study of Art

159

At frst, CRIA’s aid was supposed to focus on more overlooked projects rather than major sites, whose visibility was likely to easily attract private funding – as though in reply to Berenson’s criticism towards ACRIM.152 When compared with John Shearman’s list of damaged monuments published in The Times, Myron Gilmore’s report however showed that CRIA was covering all the principal sites in Florence.153 The most severely damaged places that were repaired with the committee’s funds included Santa Croce, Santa Maria Novella, Ognissanti, Santissima Annunziata, Santa Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi and, outside of Florence, Sant’Andrea in Brozzi. Paid per square metre of restored surface,154 Italian conservators expeditiously removed approximately 2,000 square metres of wall paintings by the summer of 1967, in what Meiss defned ‘the highest level of activity in this procedure since the beginning of the campaign after the Second World War’.155 CRIA’s endowment also comprised the Museo Archeologico and the Museo della Storia della Scienza, the manuscripts and printed books from the Biblioteca Nazionale, the Archivio di Stato, the Gabinetto Vieusseux, the Accademia and the Conservatorio Cherubini.156 The preliminary operations overseen by the committee consisted in a summary cleaning of artworks and application of paper on pictorial flm to prevent its detachment.157 As the paintings were being rescued, they were frst placed in the Limonaia in Boboli Gardens, where they could dry in a controlled environment. They were subsequently taken to the rooms in Palazzo Pitti or to Fortezza da Basso where Procacci and Baldini organised a centre for the conservation of paintings. The feld laboratories that were set up effectively brought together the best professionals worldwide, who devised innovative procedures and signifcantly developed conservation practices and methodology.158 One month after the food, Tintori was reporting to Meiss: Without the water that has seeped through the walls, or without the countless moulds multiplying at great speed, notwithstanding the provisions to destroy them, it would be a diffcult task but one with hope of being reasonably solved. But with all these complications, we are losing sleep over fnding a solution that is useful now and not harmful in the future. […] Anyway, a hard-working activity is underway for the frescoes and despite the complications we are already seeing some good results. The same cannot be said for the panel paintings. For this

152 Licht, ‘Building a Network …’ cit., 154–155. This intent almost refects Berenson’s criticism of ACRIM’s activities. 153 Gilmore 1967; Shearman 1966. 154 Gilmore 1967, 97: ‘In this way, the CRIA committee knows exactly where the American contribution has gone, and in a certain sense two birds are killed with one stone as employment is given to Italian workmen’. 155 Meiss 1969, 88. 156 After a frst emergency intervention, this material was catalogued and taken to the laboratory for the conservation of paper that had been set up in the Forte del Belvedere; see Gilmore 1967, 102–103. Cf. Garroni and Maltese 1976; A. Cains, ‘The Work of the Restoration Centre in the Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze 1967-1971’, C. Clarkson, ‘Training in Book Conservation after the Flood’ and D.E. Petersen, ‘Improvements in the Treatment of Individual Books as a Result of the Flood: A Personal Review’, in: Spande 2009, 29–70, 71–84, 89–96. 157 Cf. Parolini 1972. 158 Paolucci 1986, 136; A. Paolucci, in: Bietti 1996, 4–5. An accurate description of the procedures adopted can be found in the essays in the issue of Antichità Viva V, 6 (1966).

160

The Technical Study of Art we are still collecting them. The ‘limonaia’ is ready and a third of the paintings is located there, but it will be weeks before we can discuss and provide for their well-being.159

The severe foods of November 1966 also affected Venice and resulted in the highest recorded tide of the century.160 There CRIA worked in tandem with the two soprintendenti Francesco Valcanover and Giorgio Padoan to recover the photographic archive of the Cini Foundation and the books from the Querini Stampalia Foundation – the latter brought to the Abbey of Praglia.161 The restorers and roofers repaired the damage to Venetian churches, while panel paintings were taken to a laboratory under Valcanover’s supervision in the former church of San Gregorio.162 Despite the resistance to the concept of ‘universal access’ that Meiss observed among the locals, CRIA subsidised a photographic campaign of the works of art and books to make them available to international scholarship.163 Already at the 1961 CIHA’s conference in New York, Meiss in fact advocated the creation of an international photographic archive at a time when the preservation of works of art was endangered by manmade as well as natural factors.164 Following Meiss’s concern for photographic documentation, CIHA formed a committee chaired by Muir Ozinga to produce a survey of photographic archives.165 On another front, CRIA was active in the recruitment of international specialists coordinated by the Conservation Center in New York, aimed at developing new conservation practices and promoting the dissemination of results within the scientifc community.166 To further encourage ‘the scientifc study of the conservation of works

159 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 10 December 1966: ‘Senza l’acqua che ha permeato i muri, o senza la presenza delle innumerevoli muffe che si moltiplicano con estrema rapidità, malgrado i provvedimenti per distruggerle, sarebbe un compito diffcile ma con speranza di risolverlo passabilmente. Però con tutte queste complicazioni non si dorme nell’assillo di escogitare un provvedimento utile ora e non dannoso per l’avvenire. […] Comunque per gli affreschi un’alacre attività è in moto e malgrado le complicazioni si vedono già alcuni ottimi risultati. Non si può dire altrettanto per i dipinti su tavola. Per questo siamo ancora in fase di raduno. La “limonaia” è pronta e un terzo dei dipinti vi è alloggiato, ma occorreranno settimane ancora prima di discutere e provvedere alla loro salute’. 160 The Venice Committee of the International Fund for Monuments, also known as Save Venice Inc., was established in response to the events; see https://www.savevenice.org/about/history-mission. 161 BB, PITTI, Fondo Venezia Progetti Finanziati, Venezia Fondazione Giorgio Cini 1966–1970, folders 1–2. 162 Meiss 1968b, 108. BB, PITTI, Fondo Venezia Progetti Finanziati, Venezia Laboratorio di Restauro S. Gregorio, folders 1–3. Meiss visited Venice in June 1968, mostly to check on the progress in San Gregorio; see BB, CRIA VIT, Financial, 1966–1972, Donations, 1966–1969, folder 4, ff. 261–262 (letter from Maurice E. Cope to Bates Lowry, 4 June 1968). Joseph Polzer was CRIA representative for Venice in 1968, ibid., f. 256 (letter from Curtis Shell to Joseph Polzer, 16 May 1968). 163 Meiss 1968b, 107–108. 164 On that occasion, the media misconstrued Meiss’s words as a call for shelters of photographs in the event of a nuclear war; see Panofsky 2008, 1031–1033: 1032 [Erwin Panofsky – Wilbur H. Ferry, 18 September 1961]. 165 INHA, CIHA. Secrétariat Scientifque, Bureau du Comité International – Bureau, réunion du 30 juin 1962 à Paris [051, 106, 30]. Rapport concernant le Comité de Documentation, 30 June 1962. 166 BB, CRIA VIT, Personnel, 1966–1973, folders 1–10; ‘CRIA Six Month Progress Report’; cf. Meiss 1968b, 109. CRIA members were tasked with selecting the conservation experts needed in Florence, whose resumés were carefully examined. Approximately thirty students from the New York Center volunteered in the Tuscan city in the summer of 1967.

The Technical Study of Art

161

of art, the aesthetic and psychological implications of restoration’, Meiss also promoted the creation of the Center for Advanced Study in the Fine Arts in Washington, DC, but nothing came of it and the idea was fnally discarded in September that year.167 CRIA however succeeded in favouring the creation of the Centre for the Conservation of Sculpture and Decorative Arts in Palazzo Davanzati.168 Coordinated by William Young from the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, Palazzo Davanzati became a prime example of international cooperation, particularly for a feld such as sculpture in which Italian conservators were less experienced.169 In 1969, two years into CRIA’s work, Meiss’s progress report signalled that the conservation hazards caused by humidity were still many, especially for books. While the repair of woodwork had proved rather successful, the deterioration of paintings had been contained and the works at the Museo della Storia della Scienza and the Museo Archeologico completed, as was the case for interventions in Venice.170 In 1971, once many of the projects were completed, CRIA disbanded the New York offce, followed by the headquarters in Florence in 1973.171 More than a full-time occupation, Meiss spoke of his work with the committee as ‘CRIAmania’.172 Not only did he personally oversee all the major projects, but he used his experience with ACRIM to devise a large-scale fundraising machine, comprising gala events, Hollywood flm premieres, auctions, lectures, concerts and guided tours of museums and conservation laboratories in Florence.173 The dramatic symbols of the Florentine food, Cimabue’s Crucifx and Donatello’s Magdalene were featured in CRIA’s appeals on all major periodicals.174 Senator Robert Kennedy pled for donations to CRIA in the touching documentary by Franco Zeffrelli, Florence. Days of Destruction, which was broadcast in Italy and also in 300 American towns.175 Richard Burton famously commentated on the moving images of the calamitous deluge, which

167 In this project, Meiss involved Nathan M. Pusey, James S. Ackerman and John Walker. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Nathan M. Pusey, 17 April 1967; letter from Millard Meiss to John Walker, 29 May 1967; letter from James S. Ackerman to Millard Meiss, 21 August 1967; letter from J. Carter Brown to Millard Meiss, 2 August 1967; letter from Nathan M. Pusey to Millard Meiss, 11 September 1967. 168 CRIA allocated $10,000 for its creation; see ‘CRIA Six Month Progress Report’. 169 The famous restoration of Donatello’s Magdalene was conducted in Palazzo Davanzati by William Young and Kenneth Hempel (V&A); cf. Piacenti Aschengreen 1967; K. Aschengreen Piacenti, ‘The Flood and the Palazzo Davanzati laboratories’, in: Spande 2009, 134–140. 170 Meiss 1969, 89–90. 171 Capelli and Della Monica, Archivio CRIA, 8. The equipment used by CRIA was acquired by the soprintendenza; cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Giuseppe Marchini to Millard Meiss, 9 March 1973. 172 APEB. Letter from Millard Meiss to Eugenio Battisti, 13 January 1967; cf. also Meiss 1968b, 103: ‘Many of you, I know, worked hard during the emergency, having been taken with what I called, during the wild days of last winter, CRIAmania’. 173 Licht, ‘Building a Network …’ cit., 154; ‘CRIA Six Month Progress Report’; BB, PITTI, Attività parallele, Mostre, folder 9, ff. 627–630. 174 Paolucci 1986, 135. On the restoration of the Crucifx, see U. Baldini, ‘Il restauro del Crocifsso di Cimabue’, in: Giusti 1981, I, 67–71 and Jacobs 1988. For this reason, Eugenio Battisti dedicated his book on Cimabue’s work to Meiss (Battisti 1967); cf. APEB. Letter from Eugenio Battisti to Millard Meiss, 3 April 1968. 175 Directed by Franco Zeffrelli; narrated by Richard Burton; screenplay by Furio Colombo; music score by Ennio Morricone; music composition by Roman Vlad; produced by RAI/Istituto Luce; 55 minutes; Italy 1966.

162

The Technical Study of Art

were interspersed with interviews of art historians and conservators, including Frederick Hartt, James S. Ackerman, Paul Oskar Kristeller and Leonetto Tintori.176 CRIA also produced a trilogy of award-winning documentaries directed by Folco Quilici between 1967 and 1971.177ʹʹ Titled Firenze 1000 Giorni, the three flms illustrated the projects funded by CRIA grants through interviews to experts like Ugo Procacci, Umberto Baldini, Myron P. Gilmore, Leonetto Tintori and probably Meiss.178 Finally, another important event organised by CRIA was The Italian Heritage (17 May–29 August 1967) exhibition at Wildenstein Gallery in New York, which included an impressive body of seventy-four Italian paintings and sculptures spanning the 14th and 17th centuries from American private collections and museums.179 However unprecedented it may have been, this show would have been upstaged just a year later by a colossal (and controversial) display of Tuscan mural paintings in the Metropolitan Museum. Ugo Procacci, Tintori’s Brigata and Italian ‘Stubborn Rivalries’ CRIA’s ‘provident and well-organised intervention’ was immediately faced with ‘stubborn rivalries’ among Italian art historians.180 In this tense atmosphere, Tintori bemoaned that ideas on how to intervene were far from ‘logical and realistic’ and so hoped that Meiss would be the person to restore the balance in the litigious situation.181 In the aftermath of the food, Meiss closely collaborated with his friend Ugo Procacci, who was the local soprintendente between 1962 and 1970.182 The conserva176 On this documentary and the following one by Folco Quilici, see Mariani and Lattanzi 2016, 157–162. 177 Directed by Folco Quilici; narrated by Antonio Mordini; scientifc adviser: Umberto Baldini; photography by Riccardo Grassetti, Vittorio Dragonetti and Bruno Vespasiani; edited by Ettore Salvi; produced by Moana for Rai-1; 3 episodes of 60ʹ each; Italy 1967–1970. The three episodes were La città ferita, Odissea del restauro, L’albero della vita. A flm was made from this series titled Firenze Odissea then re-edited into a 30ʹ version and distributed in the United Stated with the title Florence and Its Heritage as part of the series Adventures, Journeys and Archives (1992). On Folco Quilici (1930–2018), see Caputi 2000. In 1991 Quilici would also make a documentary on the restoration of the Brancacci Chapel produced by Olivetti, once more with the help of Umberto Baldini (Caputi 2000, 235). 178 Other interviewees were Guido Morozzi, Guglielmo Maetzke, Emanuele Casamassima, Sergio Camerani and Dino Dini. Cf. AAA, MMP. Letter from Steve Krantz Productions, Inc. to Millard Meiss, 26 February 1971. The original trilogy could not be recovered but only the cut version Firenze Odissea, which did not feature Meiss. Cf. LAELT. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 28 September 1969: ‘Alle Nazioni Unite a New York, dove siamo andati ieri […] ho visto un flm su Firenze nel quale ho partecipato nella primavera. Si tratta dell’alluvione e del restauro, e abbiamo avuto il piacere di vederti, e anche Procacci, Baldini, e Rosi’. (‘At the United Nations where we went yesterday […] I saw a flm on Florence in which I took part last spring. It is about the food and restoration, and we had the pleasure of seeing you, and also Procacci, Baldini, and Rosi’.) 179 Seymour Jr. 1967; cf. Stubblebine 1967. 180 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 10 December 1966: ‘un provvido e ben distribuito intervento’; ‘tenaci antagonismi’. 181 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 December 1966: ‘L’attività intorno alle opere d’arte alluvionate si normalizza ma sempre con idee molto vaghe e confuse e quel che è più grave senza un ordinamento logico e realistico. Spero molto nella tua presenza a Firenze, tu sei in possesso di tutti i requisiti per fare una solida opera di equilibrio’. (‘The activity around the fooded works of art is now normalised but always with very vague and confused ideas and, what is worse, without a logical and realistic order. I truly hope in your presence in Florence, you have what it takes for a steady work of balance’.) 182 On Procacci (1905–1991), refer to Ciatti and Frosinini 2006; C. Giannini, ‘Procacci e Baldini. Critica d’arte come critica della materia’, in: Galassi 2017, 353–365 and Simari and Romagnoli 2017.

The Technical Study of Art

163

tion of damaged artworks was undertaken by Tintori and his ‘brigata’ (as his group of collaborators were often called).183 In the early 1930s, Procacci created the Gabinetto di Restauri in the Vecchia Posta near the Uffzi, a laboratory that was the hotbed of a new concept of conservation as a ‘critical action closely linked to the preservation of artworks’.184 This happened years before Cesare Brandi established the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome in 1939, which might have caused a feeling of rivalry that prompted Brandi’s criticism of the Florentine laboratory.185 Procacci and Tintori’s extensive detachment of mural paintings throughout Tuscany had already ignited animadversion with Longhi and Previtali, but their post-calamity response instead elicited reproof mainly from Cesare Brandi. The conservation centre in Fortezza da Basso was indeed severely attacked for using vinyl and acrylic resins to stop the transformation of calcium carbonate into calcium sulphate, following a method that Tintori had perfected in New York laboratories in the 1960s.186 Only months before the food, Tintori was also unimpressed with the organisation of Brandi’s institute, as he wrote to Meiss.187 This may have infuenced the decision to repair fooded works in situ rather than at the Istituto Centrale in Rome.188 The state of emergency did therefore little in the way of assuaging these tensions, as Procacci told Meiss as early as December 1966: It is getting worse every day, also for the constant problems coming from every side, and especially from our friend R. who is always up to something; so everything

183 This group also included Alfo Del Serra and Giuseppe Rosi. 184 M. Ciatti, ‘Il Gabinetto di Restauro e la pulitura’, in: Ciatti and Frosinini 2006, 153–172: 155. On Procacci’s laboratory, also see Paolucci 1986, 33–38 and Thau 2017. 185 S. Damianelli, ‘Ugo Procacci, vita e opere’, in: Ciatti and Frosinini 2006, 25–84: 38–39. According to Caterina Bon Valsassina, the alleged ‘historic’ rivalry between Rome and Florence is only a myth as the two conservation institutes often worked together (Bon Valsassina 2006, 31). On Brandi (1906–1988): Carboni 1992; Basile 2007; Basile and Cecchini 2011; Sani 2017. Laurence Kantner, on the other hand, argued that the limited reception of Brandi’s theories in the United States was due to his disagreement with infuential fgures as Meiss and Offner; see L. Kantner, ‘The Reception and Non-Reception of Cesare Brandi in America’, in: Basile and Cecchini 2011, 91–100: 94. 186 Brandi, however, already attacked Tintori for the same reason when he restored the Scrovegni Chapel; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 12 September 1958; letter from Craig H. Smyth to Millard Meiss, 20 December 1960; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 20 January 1964; letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 15 December 1966. Cf. Borsook, ‘Leonetto Tintori …’ cit., 88–89. As Tintori informed Meiss, Brandi had also opposed to the creation of a conservation centre in Naples, where the former was supposed to teach; see AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 3 January 1961. 187 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 20 April 1966: ‘sono rimasto un po’ deluso di vedere gli scarsi risultati loro, la grande depressione e malgrado i mezzi a disposizione il vuoto dietro l’importante organizzazione’. (‘I was a bit disappointed to see their poor results, the great depression and, despite the means at their disposal, the void behind the important organisation’.) 188 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 20 January 1968: ‘Brandi è ora contro di me per la mia indipendenza dall’Istituto del Restauro di Roma; e ha trovato così da polemizzare anche per le porte del Battistero, che egli avrebbe voluto dare appunto all’Istituto. E ce l’ha ora, in particolare, con Tintori’. (‘Brandi is now against me because of my independence from the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome; and so he thought of picking a fght also for the Baptistry doors, which he would have wanted for the Institute. And now he is, in particular, mad at Tintori’.)

164

The Technical Study of Art becomes more complicated and diffcult, and we need to waste an awful lot of time to prevent irreparable contrasts and disagreements.189

‘Our friend R.’ referred to another detractor of the work of the Florentine soprin­ tendenza, Carlo L. Ragghianti. As the founder of the Fondo Internazionale per Firenze, a committee tasked with managing grants from international organisations, Ragghianti was a direct interlocutor of CRIA.190 Together with Rodolfo Pallucchini, Ragghianti also co-chaired another government committee in charge of allocating international funds for Florence and Venice.191 In order to promote the Fondo Internazionale, Ragghianti appeared in the aforementioned Zeffrelli documentary and called it an ‘international committee’, which, as Procacci remarked, risked being mistaken for CRIA.192 Meiss and other CRIA members were in fact concerned that the multiplying number of organisations would result in a waste of resources, especially after Longhi and Rodolfo Siviero proposed yet another Italo-American partnership.193 Another affaire that embroiled the CRIA equally exemplifed how the hostilities did not cease during this emergency. The age-long feud between Longhi and Ragghianti escalated when Giovanni Previtali openly attacked Ragghianti’s work with the Fondo Internazionale in the issue of Paragone devoted to the Florentine food.194 Previtali famously accused Ragghianti of embezzling subsidies for the Fondo Internazionale and also implied that he had stolen CRIA’s project for a museum of contemporary art, with works donated by living artists to Florence.195 With regard to the latter allegation, Previtali mentioned the Appello agli Artisti (Appeal to Artists) that Ragghianti supposedly sent on 15 November 1966, asking artists to devote a work for a museum of contemporary art, which read: An American initiative, of an international nature, has just been presented to me, which can be described as follows: in order to prove to Florence, so badly affected in its artistic and cultural purpose, the sympathy of the whole world, collectors and artists, under certain conditions, would donate important and signifcant works to form an international Museum of Modern Art in Florence. […]

189 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 20 December 1966: ‘è sempre peggio, anche per diffcoltà continue che vengono da ogni parte, e specialmente dell’amico R. che una ne fa e una ne pensa; così tutto si complica e diviene più diffcile, e occorre perdere una quantità di tempo perché non succedano contrasti e dissensi irreparabili’. 190 Ugo Procacci was also a member of Fondo Internazionale per Firenze. Cf. B. Nozzoli, ‘L’alluvione e il patrimonio artistico: gli appelli e le iniziative di Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti’, in: Nozzoli and Rossi 2016, 31–42; Gurrieri 2016. 191 The Comitato centrale per il recupero e il restauro del patrimonio artistico e bibliografco e per la reintegrazione del patrimonio scientifco e didattico danneggiato dalla recente alluvione was created on 23 December 1966. 192 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 20 December 1966. 193 BB, CRIA VIT, Financial, 1966–1972, General Correspondence Administration, 1966–1971, folder 2, f. 71. Letter from Millard Meiss to Bates Lowry, 5 March 1967. The committee apparently had the support of Robert Kennedy, Lucius Clay and Robert Lehman. Also cf. Meiss 1970b; Meiss 1971f, 121. 194 For an assessment of the troubled relationship between Longhi and Ragghianti, see La Salvia 2007; Pellegrini 2014 and Pellegrini 2019. 195 Previtali 1967a, 45–46, 48–49, 55 note 6. Cf. Galansino 2013, 98-99. This was yet another ramifcation of the ‘Cold War’ between Ragghianti and Longhi; see Pellegrini 2018, 203–204: 203.

The Technical Study of Art

165

I would like to avoid the precedence and the probably determining character of the American initiative.196 The whole matter was settled in court in favour of Ragghianti, and Previtali was sentenced to write a retraction of his article.197 Amongst the evidence submitted in court was also a statement by Meiss certifying that CRIA had never endorsed a museum of contemporary art.198 The idea of creating a collection of contemporary art in Florence had actually been circulating for years, and to that end, Ragghianti organised two exhibitions in 1967, Gli artisti per Firenze and Arte moderna in Italia 1915–1935.199 The Italian art historian also contacted collectors who pledged their collections for the future museum, but his plans did not come to fruition as he failed to obtain all the donations.200 In the meantime, CRIA was also grappling with further controversy within the ranks of the Florentine soprintendenza when Umberto Baldini replaced Procacci in January 1968.201 Under Baldini’s directorship, the conservation centre now renamed Opifcio delle Pietre Dure (OPD) was reformed.202 Previously a collaborator of Procacci, Baldini and Meiss had a rather strained relationship which did not improve when the former became the director of OPD.203 Unlike his predecessor, Baldini concentrated the efforts of the conservation centre on repairing panel and canvas paintings instead of frescoes.204 He also marginalised Tintori’s brigata on the grounds that they were

196 Recently quoted in: Gurrieri 2016, 70: ‘Mi viene ora presentata una iniziativa americana, di sfondo internazionale, avente questo carattere: per provare a Firenze così duramente colpita nella sua funzione artistica e culturale l’interesse di tutto il mondo, collezionisti e artisti, sotto certe condizioni, donerebbero opere importanti e signifcative per la costituzione di un Museo internazionale d’arte moderna degno di Firenze. […] Vorrei evitare la precedenza e per essa il carattere probabilmente determinante dell’iniziativa americana’. 197 Previtali’s serious allegations led other Italian scholars to express their solidarity with Ragghianti: cf. Ragghianti 1966, 129; ‘Un gesto incivile’, in: L’Astrolabio 19 (7 May 1967), 31; ‘Solidarietà a Ragghianti’, in: L’Astrolabio 20 (14 May 1967), 28; Previtali 1967b. See also Galansino 2013, 235–236. 198 BB, CRIA VIT, General Correspondence 1966–1970, Miscellaneous, folder 6, ff. 298–299. Letter from Carlo L. Ragghianti to Millard Meiss, 28 March 1967; letter from Millard Meiss to Carlo L. Ragghianti, 6 April 1967. 199 Cf. Massagli 2010; Gioli 2010; Massa and Pontelli 2018, esp. 267–269. 200 The collectors contacted by Ragghianti included Gianni Mattioli, Emilio Jesi, Riccardo Jucker, Edita Broglio, Eugene Berman and Alberto Della Ragione (see Toti 2014; Toti 2015). For a documented account of the Galleria Moderna di Firenze, see: ‘Museo d’arte contemporanea di Firenze I’, in: seleArte 16 (1992), 3–16; ‘Museo d’arte contemporanea di Firenze II’, in: seleArte 17 (1993), 13–32; R. Monti, ‘Cronaca di una occasione perduta’, in: Monti 1993, unpaged. A museum of contemporary art in Florence would see the light only in 2014 with the Museo del Novecento. 201 Baldini directed the OPD until 1983, when he moved on to the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome. On Umberto Baldini (1921–2006), refer to Numero speciale dedicato a Umberto Baldini 2007 and Ciatti and Martusciello 2013, esp. M. Ciatti, ‘Umberto Baldini nella storia del restauro’, 117–140. 202 On the OPD, in particular, see C. Acidini Luchinat, ‘Umberto Baldini, il restauro, l’Opifcio’, in: Numero speciale dedicato a Umberto Baldini 2007, 37–40: 38; A. Giusti, ‘Il rifondatore dell’antico Opifcio delle Pietre Dure’, in: ibid., 48–54 and Ead., ‘Il rifondatore dell’antico Opifcio delle Pietre Dure’, in: Ciatti and Martusciello 2013, 83–88. 203 Procacci often had to mediate between Baldini and Meiss. 204 M. Ciatti, ‘Per Umberto Baldini’, in: Numero speciale dedicato a Umberto Baldini 2007, 41–47: 42.

166

The Technical Study of Art

not formally part of the soprintendenza personnel.205 Tensions consequently led to the forming of two counterposed groups, ‘Fortezza’ and ‘Pitti’, which not even Baldini’s successor, Luciano Berti, was able to reconcile in the following decade.206 From The Great Age of Fresco to Firenze Restaura Birnam Wood has come to Dusinane. What was rooted in Florence, what was bound to the walls of churches and town halls, has been freed by newly refned techniques and brought to New York for display in the galleries of the Metropolitan Museum.207 Meiss’s enthusiastic words introduced the famous and controversial The Great Age of Fresco. From Giotto to Pontormo: An Exhibition of Mural Paintings and Monumental Drawings, which opened at the Metropolitan Museum in New York on 28 September 1968.208 The unprecedented travelling exhibition showcased around seventy detached frescoes by the most celebrated Tuscan artists. Some of the notable works included Giotto’s Head of a Shepherd from the Florentine Badia, the fragments of Andrea di Cione’s Last Judgement, the San Galgano Annunciation by the Lorenzetti Brothers, Beato Angelico’s scenes from San Marco Friary, the Trinity and Saints by Andrea del Castagno in Santissima Annunziata, Piero della Francesca’s St Julian, Andrea del Sarto’s paintings in the cloister of the Compagnia dello Scalzo and Pontormo’s Annunciation in the Capponi Chapel. Intended as a token of gratitude to the United States and Europe for their aid in the rescue of Florence’s damaged cultural patrimony, the exhibition organised by Meiss, Procacci and Baldini encountered a few obstacles. When he frst proposed this ‘helluva exhibition’, Meiss had just been appointed honorary trustee of the Metropolitan Museum.209 The director Thomas P.H. Hoving recalled the opposition of a few American art historians and, more importantly, of two Italian offcials within the Higher Council of the Ministry of Education, Mario Salmi and Cesare Brandi.210 Their qualms crumbled under political as well as fnancial pressure, since the exhibition’s main sponsor, Olivetti-Underwood, had the upper hand in the negotiations and the members of the Higher Council had to eventually lift their veto on the export of the

205 E. Borsook, ‘Leonetto Tintori: vitalità artistica e conoscenza delle materie’, in: Prato: Storia e Arte 106 (2009), 85–93: 91: ‘Per questo non furono mai più affdati a Tintori lavori nel territorio forentino: questo fu per lui motivo di amarezza, dopo aver lavorato per decenni con Procacci’. 206 AAA, MMP. Letter from Leonetto Tintori to Millard Meiss, 3 October 1974: ‘Nell’attuale momento di crisi generale si acuisce di nuovo la resistenza della Fortezza nei confronti del gruppo Pitti. E non so ancora se Berti il nuovo e sembra defnitivo soprintendente vorrà scomodarsi a difenderci’. (‘In the current general crisis, the resistance of Fortezza towards Pitti group is once more ignited. And I don’t know yet if Berti, the new and probably permanent soprintendente, will be bothered to defend us’.) 207 M. Meiss, ‘Preface’, in: Meiss, Procacci and Baldini, 15. 208 Other cities the show travelled to were Amsterdam (Rijksmuseum), London (Hayward Gallery), Munich (Haus der Kunst), Brussels (Palais des Beaux-Arts), Stockholm (National Museet), Copenhagen (Lynby Park Kapel), Lugano (Padiglione Conza), Paris (Petit Palais) and Milan (Palazzo Reale). 209 This is how Meiss referred to The Great Age of Fresco, in: Hoving 1993, 146: ‘I’m going to call all my Italian debts to pay you back for this, and I have one helluva exhibition in mind’. 210 Hoving 1993, 146. Cf. also Glueck 1968, 114.

The Technical Study of Art

167

paintings. The raison d’état did not however stop Brandi from voicing his criticism in the press, questioning the scientifc purpose of a show that was too high a price to pay for the international aid.212 To his mind, The Great Age of Fresco was an ‘indecent exhibition’, meant as a way of defraying a debt that the country need not have paid.213 Procacci would attribute Brandi’s hostility to an old grudge against Florence brought on by academic issues – Salvini was chosen in Brandi’s place for the chair of art history – and by the fact that the damaged works were not taken to the Istituto Centrale del Restauro.214 For the sake of avoiding further attacks, Procacci preferred not to take part in the opening at the Metropolitan.215 But a fortnight later, he enquired with Meiss on what had been the public’s response: 211

And how’s the exhibition going? How many people attend it? Are they interested in the sinopie? And what are the frescoes the public likes the most?216 The highly publicised show did in fact attract many visitors – the highest attendance in the history of the Met at the time.217 The knowledge that seeing these mural paintings was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity – what Haskell notably referred to as the ‘Cinderella effect’ – made The Great Age of Fresco a blockbuster show.218 Mel Bochner noted how this exhibition was an ‘eye-opening experience’ for the artists who visited it and effectively infuenced the development towards muralism of contemporary American art.219 To the organisers’ mind, however, this collection of Florentine frescoes was not to be appreciated for its aesthetic value alone, but also insofar as it illustrated the technical aspects of wall painting to non-specialists. To that end the organisers arranged a programme of lectures and demonstrations of removal methods:

211 Olivetti-Underwood sponsored the exhibition to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Camillo Olivetti’s birth. Also see Schwarz 1970. 212 Brandi 1968 [2001], 397. 213 Brandi 1970, 83. 214 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 25 July 1968: ‘V’è in lui [Brandi] livore contro Firenze, più e più volte manifestato: è un livore che ha avuto inizio con il fatto che alla cattedra di storia dell’arte venne chiamato Salvini invece di lui e che poi si è enormemente sviluppato dopo l’alluvione per il contratto Roma-Firenze circa i restauri’. (‘In him [Brandi] there is rancour against Florence, which he more than once expressed: it is a rancour that began with the fact that Salvini was called to the chair of art history instead of him and then grew worse after the food for the Rome-Florence agreement on conservation work’.) 215 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 25 July 1968; letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 21 August 1968; letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 9 September 1968: ‘Ho deciso di non essere presente all’inaugurazione. È cosa che mi dispiace in particolare modo, ma ritengo che sia opportuno che faccia così. Infatti non è per nulla da escludere, nei prossimi mesi, un attacco del buon Brandi’. (‘I have decided not to come to the opening. I am particularly sorry about this, but I think I ought to do so. In fact, in the coming months, an attack of the good Brandi is to be expected’.) 216 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 14 October 1968: ‘E come va la Mostra? Quante persone la visitano? Interessano le sinopie? E quali sono gli affreschi che più piacciono al pubblico?’ 217 Hoving 2005; Glueck 1968, 108: ‘The short-term, extremely well-publicized show racked up the highest attendance fgures for any group exhibition in Met history – 377,171 paid admissions ($1), with 35,451 catalogues sold ($5)’. On the phenomenon of blockbuster exhibitions, see Lüddemann 2011. 218 Cf. Haskell 2000, 7. 219 Equally infuential were Warhol’s Cow Wallpaper (1966) and the graffti in Paris of May 1968; see Bochner 2009, 137–138.

168

The Technical Study of Art The frst on the technique of mural paintings and their detachment (I left out their restoration because it would have made the text too long) and the second on the technique and restoration of the paintings on panel and canvas.220

The sinopie, i.e. the preparatory drawings on the under plaster that emerged once paintings were detached, greatly captivated the public’s attention, as can be inferred from the sensationalistic tone of Meiss’s words in the catalogue: one of the greatest additions ever made to our artistic heritage. They have brought to light a corpus of monumental drawings from a crucial period in Western painting. For the frst part of this period, furthermore, we previously possessed very few drawings of any kind.221 Meiss and Procacci both encouraged a sense of fascination with the sinopie, which was described as the undiluted expression of artistic genius inasmuch as they were free from the formal constraints of the fnished work.222 These underlying frst thoughts would in certain cases uncover useful information on a more daring composition or an unconventional iconographic motif that had been changed in the fnal version, like in Pietro and Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Annuciation in Montesiepi, present in the exhibition.223 A more negative consequence of this ‘sinopia rush’224 was that some conservators would go as far as to retouch an underdrawing to make its trace more visible, as happened with Masolino’s Crucifxion in Santo Stefano degli Agostiniani in Empoli.225 Thanks to the New York exhibition, Meiss wishfully announced that ‘sinopia is now a much more familiar word than Garibaldi’.226 Other art historians were not as thrilled. Ernst H. Gombrich and Henk Van Os, for instance, thought that the importance given to these drawings was exaggerated since they were only workshop material that was not meant to be seen. Such a misleading view, they continued, stemmed from the performative element typical of contemporary art which could not be applied

220 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 18 March 1968: ‘La prima sulla tecnica delle pitture murali e sul loro distacco (ho tralasciato il restauro perché altrimenti il testo veniva troppo lungo) e la seconda sulla tecnica e restauro delle pitture su tavola e su tela’. Cf. Hoving 1993, 155: ‘Harry Parker had come up with a stunning educational device – young interns in his department recreated the process of the removal and reattachment of a fresco’. 221 Meiss, ‘Preface’ cit., 16. Meiss was fostering the idea of an exhibition of sinopie in Palazzo Pitti already in 1966 (see Meiss 1968b, 105). 222 U. Procacci, ‘Introduction’, in: Meiss, Procacci and Baldini 1968e, 26: ‘the sinopia allows one to see the purest expression of the artist, where he is not compelled to follow the designs and formulas of the period as he does when he makes the fnished painting. Because they are so absolutely free, sinopie sometimes seem completely alien to the period in which they were created’. 223 The enthusiasm for this discovery can be seen in Juergen Schulz and Anne Markham’s review (1969), to which Eve Borsook (1969) replied with further remarks on the iconography. Borsook had recently published a book on this work together with Leonetto Tintori (1969). The frescoes in the San Galgano Chapel were later attributed to Ambrogio Lorenzetti alone; see Bartalini 2015. 224 Conti 1993, 317: ‘corsa alla sinopia’. 225 Procacci discovered this fresco cycle in 1943: Lazzaroni 1957–1959; Procacci 1961, 61, 227; cf. also Bellosi 1980 [2000], 207, fg. 293 226 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Giuseppe Marchini, 14 October 1969. Marchini, too, organised an exhibition of detached frescoes (Marchini 1969; cf. Freemantle 1970).

The Technical Study of Art

169

to ages in which only the fnished work mattered. Even more favourable reviewers admitted that the decontextualised frescoes were stripped of the ‘powerful associative impact’ that the initial ‘unifying architectural space’ provided.228 Although The Great Age of Fresco was praised for popularising the studies on the technical aspects of fresco painting,229 in the late sixties, the notion that detaching mural paintings destroyed the intimate connection with their original ambience was beginning to spread.230 While most of the works on display had actually been detached during post-war repairs as the conservation work on the ones damaged by the food was still underway, The Great Age of Fresco marked a watershed in the practice of fresco removal in that it was thereafter largely questioned.231 When the travelling frescoes fnally returned home in 1971, Florence decided to celebrate the history of the Gabinetto di Restauri and its founder Ugo Procacci with an exhibition that was described as a milestone in Italian and international conservation.232 Jointly organised by Umberto Baldini and CRIA, Firenze Restaura (18 March–4 June 1972) gathered approximately 250 pieces, between detached frescoes, panels, canvases, sculptures and furniture, exemplifying the work of Ugo Procacci and his brainchild, the Gabinetto di Restauri, in Florence.233 In the last room was an account of Procacci’s accomplishments penned by Meiss that sounded like a response to those who criticised him for a lack of methodological rigour and disregard for preventive conservation.234 Procacci wrote to Meiss on the day when Firenze Restaura opened and mentioned that Brandi, as a member of the Higher Council, had attempted to prevent the exhibition but was outnumbered. Meaning to review the show for Il Corriere della Sera, Brandi asked Procacci to accompany him when he visited the exhibition. According to Procacci, ‘all had gone really well’: 227

Brandi was all praises and congratulations. So, I think that the article will not be one of his usual ones, full of venom; but you never know.235

227 228 229 230 231

232 233

234 235

Gombrich 1969; Van Os 1970, 6. Canaday 1968, D31. Smart 1969; Chastel 1974. Cf. Demus 1968; Oechslin 1974, 3–4. Basile 1989, 25–26. Among the works actually detached with CRIA’s funds: Andrea del Castagno, Holy Trinity with St Jerome and Two Saints (Santissima Annunziata); Andrea del Sarto, scenes from the Chiostro dello Scalzo; Pontormo, Madonna and Child with Saints (Santissima Annunziata) and Annunciation (Santa Felicita); Alessandro Allori, Holy Trinity (Santissima Annunziata). Acidini Luchinat, ‘Umberto Baldini …’ cit., 38. Baldini and Dal Poggetto 1972; cf. also Dal Poggetto 2008. At the time, the scientifc catalogue was not published but only a guide to the exhibition, which was recently reprinted (Baldini, Dal Poggetto and Ciatti 2013). Meiss’s tribute was also printed in The Burlington Magazine (Meiss 1973). Ciatti, ‘Per Umberto Baldini’ cit., 42. AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 19 March 1972: ‘tutto è andato benissimo. Brandi non ha avuto che lodi e ha fatto grandi congratulazioni. Penso quindi che l’articolo non sarà uno dei suoi soliti, pieno di veleno; però non si sa mai’.

170

The Technical Study of Art

Procacci’s wariness turned out to be justifed, as Brandi’s review slated Firenze Restaura for being ‘a display of clothes hanging inside out’, a posthumous celebration of solutions that were either misleading or belated at best.236 While sinopie were still the cause of enchantment among visitors,237 a new course of preservation was being charted in the 1970s. After what turned out to be poor choices of supports or techniques (e.g. the synthetic resins employed by Tintori), the development of new techniques of consolidation and chemical regeneration now enabled in situ conservation.238 The recently appointed director of the Istituto Centrale del Restauro in Rome, Giovanni Urbani, was indeed championing preventive conservation and the importance of that unique connection between a work of art and its ambience in his seminal book Problemi di conservazione.239 Such views would culminate in the creation of the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage in 1974.240 In the paper Baldini delivered at a conference in 1976, recapitulating the history of conservation in Florence, the removal of frescoes was mentioned as a thing of the past that was now being replaced by the chemical treatment of pictorial flm: Let us remember that they told us we had a trigger-happy approach to detachment!241

236 Brandi 1972 [2005]; cf. also Conti 1981, 101. 237 Pilon 1972, 309. 238 The OPD developed the use of barium hydrate to chemically regenerate the painted surface, a method later abandoned because it was non-reversible, and presented this technique at the ICOM conference in Amsterdam in 1969. Cf. Baldini 1982; Matteini 1979; M. Matteini and A. Moles, ‘Aspetti critici del trattamento fondato sull’impiego di idrato di bario’, in: Danti, Matteini and Moles 1990, 297–302. 239 Urbani 1973. The preface was written by Urbani’s predecessor, Pasquale Rotondi, who also had a cautious approach towards the removal of frescoes; see P. Rotondi, ‘Prefazione’, in: Urbani 1973, ix–x. 240 Cf. Bon Valsassina 2006, 99–144; Zanardi and Settis 2009; Bruno 2011; Cecchini 2011. 241 U. Baldini, ‘Firenze 10 anni dopo’, in: Giusti 1981, I, 17–22: 18. In 1982, Baldini organised the exhibition Metodo e Scienza, which was meant as a response to the criticisms raised against the methodology followed by the Procacci’s Gabinetto dei Restauri and the lack of preventive conservation; see Baldini 1982.

The Technical Study of Art

171

Bibliography Acidini Luchinat, C., Capretti, E., Ciatti, M. et al. (eds.), Firenze 1966–2016 – la bellezza salvata (Livorno: Sillabe, 2016). Acidini Luchinat, C., Coco, G. and Sartoni, E. (eds.), ‘Da Cimabue in qua’: l’Accademia e i professori del disegno nell’alluvione del 1966 (Florence: Polistampa, 2016). Ainsworth, M.W., ‘From Connoisseurship to Technical Art History: The Evolution of the Interdisciplinary Study of Art’, in: Getty Conservation Newsletter 20, 1 (2005), 5–10. Anzani, A. and Guglielmi, E. (eds.), Memoria, bellezza e transdisciplinarità: rifessioni sull’attualità di Roberto Pane (Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli editore, 2017). Association of Art Museum Directors (eds.), Emergency Protection of Works of Art, notes to the conference, Harvard 9–21 March 1942 (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1942). Associazione nazionale per il restauro dei monumenti danneggiati dalla guerra, Mostra d’arte italiana a Palazzo Venezia, exhibition catalogue (Rome: Danesi, 1945). Baer, N.S. (ed.), Training in Conservation, symposium proceedings, New York 1 October 1983 (New York: Institute of Fine Arts, 1989), http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/fneart/pdfs/con servation/Training_in_Conservation.pdf. Baldini, M., Spignoli, T. and Dolf, A. (eds.), L’Approdo: copioni, lettere, indici (Florence: University Press, 2007). Baldini, U. and Berti, L. (eds.), Mostra di affreschi staccati, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Tipografa Giuntina, 1957). Baldini, U. and Berti, L. (eds.), II Mostra di affreschi staccati, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Tipografa Giuntina, 1958). Baldini, U. and Berti, L. (eds.), III Mostra di affreschi staccati. Aggiunte al catalogo della II Mostra del 1958, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Tipografa Giuntina, 1959). Baldini, U. (ed.), Metodo e scienza. Operatività e ricerca nel restauro, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Sansoni, 1982). Baldini, U. and Dal Poggetto, P. (eds.), Firenze restaura. Il laboratorio nel suo quarantennio, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Sansoni, 1972). Baldini, U., Dal Poggetto, P. and Ciatti, M. (eds.), Firenze restaura. Il Laboratorio nel suo quarantennio. Guida alla mostra, new edition (Florence: Edifr, 2013). Baldriga, I., ‘Contributo alla storia dei danni di guerra: l’opera della Allied Commission for Monuments Fine Arts and Archives (M.F.A.A.)’, in: Ricerche di Storia dell’arte 68 (1999), 87–93. Ballini, P.L., ‘L’opera di Rodolfo Siviero’, in: B.W. Meijer and L. Zangheri (eds.), Accademia delle arti del disegno. Studi, fonti e interpretazioni di 450 anni di storia, 2 vols. (Florence: Olschki, 2015), I, 445–454. Banti, L. (ed.), Mostra delle opere d’arte recuperate in Germania, exhibition catalogue (Rome: Libreria dello Stato, 1947). Barbanera, M., Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli. Biografa ed epistolario di un grande archeologo (Milan: Skira, 2003). Bartalini, R., ‘Ambrogio Lorenzetti a Montesiepi. Sulla committenza e la cronologia degli affreschi della cappella di San Galgano’, in: Prospettiva 157–158 (2015), 2–18. Basile, G., ‘Considerazioni sul problema dello “stacco”, oggi’, in: Maria Andaloro, Alessandra Ghidoli, Antonio Iacobini et al. (eds.), Fragmenta Picta, exhibition catalogue (Rome: Argos, 1989), 25–32. Basile, G., ‘Cesare Brandi’, in: M.G. Bernardini (ed.), Dizionario biografco dei Soprintendenti Storici dell’Arte (1904–1974) (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2007), 114–119. Basile, G. and Cecchini, S. (eds.), Cesare Brandi and the Development of Modern Conservation Theory, symposium proceedings, New York 4 October 2006 (Saonara: Il Prato, 2011). Bellosi, L., ‘La Mostra di affreschi staccati, al Forte Belvedere’, in: Paragone XVII, 201 (1966), 73–79; republ. in: id., Come un prato forito: studi sull’arte tardogotica (Milan: Jaca Book, 2000), 95–99.

172

The Technical Study of Art

Bellosi, L., ‘A proposito del disegno all’Albertina (dal Ghiberti a Masolino)’, in: R. Krautheimer, G. Brunetti, H. Keutner et al. (eds.), Lorenzo Ghiberti nel suo tempo, conference proceedings, Florence 18–21 October 1978, 2 vols. (Florence: Olschki, 1980), I, 135–146; republ. in: id., Come un prato forito. Studi sull’arte tardogotica (Milan: Jaca Book, 2000), 205–207. Berenson, B., ‘Come ricostruire la Firenze demolita’, in: Il Ponte I, 1 (1945), 33–38. Berenson, B., Rumor and Refection (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1952); or. ed. id., Echi e rifessioni (diario 1941–1944) (Milan: Mondadori, 1950). Berenson, B., ‘Foreword’, in: D.V. Thompson (ed.), The Materials and Techniques of Medieval Painting (New York: Dover Publications, 1956; 1st ed. New York 1936), 7. Berenson, B., The Passionate Sightseer. From the Diaries, 1947 to 1956 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960). Berenson, B., Sunset and Twilight. From the Diaries of 1947–1958, ed. by N. Mariano (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1963). Bewer, F.G., A Laboratory for Art. Harvard’s Fogg Museum and the Emergence of Conservation in America, 1900–1950 (Cambridge MA: Harvard Art Museum, 2010). Bianchi Bandinelli, R., ‘Come non ricostruire la Firenze demolita’, in: Il Ponte I, 2 (1945), 114–118. Bianchi Bandinelli, R., Venturi, L. and Longhi, R., ‘Per la salvezza del nostro patrimonio artistico’, in: Il Ponte VI, 11 (1950), 1402–1407. Bietti, M. (ed.), Salvate dalle acque. Opere d’arte restaurate e da restaurare a trent’anni dall’alluvione, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Centro Di, 1996). Biff, M., ‘Alberti e il suo doppio: il restauro postbellico del Malatestiano (1945–1950)’, in: Anagkē 15 (1996), 38–51. Billi, G., ‘Intervista a Leonetto Tintori’, in: M.P. Mannini (ed.), Arrigo del Rigo e gli artisti pratesi, exhibition catalogue (Siena: Maschietto & Musolino, 1997), 101–109. Bochner, M., ‘Why Would Anyone Want to Draw on the Wall?’, in: October 130 (2009), 135–140. Boi, M.M., Guerra e beni culturali (1940–1945) (Pisa: Giardini Editori e Stampatori, 1986). Bon Valsassina, C., Restauro Made in Italy (Milan: Electa, 2006). Bonelli, R., Architettura e restauro (Venice: Neri Pozza Editore, 1959). Bonsanti, G., ‘Per una politica del restauro a Firenze’, in: F. Borsi (ed.), La città degli Uffzi, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Sansoni, 1982), 213–241. Borrows, R. (ed.), David Lees for Life. Triumph from Tragedy. I giorni dell’alluvione, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Polistampa, 2006). Borsook, E., The Mural Painters of Tuscany. From Cimabue to Andrea del Sarto (London: Phaidon, 1960). Borsook, E., ‘Letters. The Great Age of Fresco’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXI, 794 (1969), 303–304. Borsook, E. and Tintori, L., Gli affreschi di Montesiepi con annotazioni tecniche di Leonetto Tintori (Florence: Edam, 1969). Bottari, F., Rodolfo Siviero: avventure e recuperi del più grande agente segreto dell’arte (Rome: Castelvecchi, 2013). Brandi, C. (ed.), Mostra dei frammenti ricostruiti di Lorenzo da Viterbo, exhibition catalogue (Rome: Istituto Grafco Tiberino, 1946). Brandi, C., ‘Il restauro della pittura antica, in: Bollettino dell’Istituto Centrale del Restauro 33 (1958), 3–8; republ. in: id., Teoria del restauro (Turin: Einaudi, 1977), 81–88; Engl. transl.: id., ‘Restoration of Ancient Paintings, in: id., Theory of Restoration (Florence: Nardini, 2005), 96–100. Brandi, C., ‘Queste mostre’, in: Il Corriere della Sera (19 August 1968); republ. in: id., Il patrimonio insidiato (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2001), 394–397. Brandi, C., ‘Museografa, mostre e restauro’, in: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (ed.), Problemi della tutela del patrimonio artistico, storico, bibliografco e paesistico, conference proceedings, Rome 6–7 March 1969 (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1970), 77–92.

The Technical Study of Art

173

Brandi, C., ‘Le gemme lavate dal fango’, in: Il Corriere della Sera (21 March 1972); republ. in: id., Il restauro. Teoria e pratica 1939–1986 (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 2005; 1st edition 1994), 271–273. Brooks, A.M., ‘Robbery and Restitution of Works of Art in the Present War’, in: The Bulletin of the College Art Association of America I, 4 (1918), 37–43. Bruno, I., La nascita del Ministero per i Beni Culturali e Ambientali. Il dibattito sulla tutela (Milan: LED Edizioni Universitarie, 2011). Bucarelli, P., 1944. Cronaca di sei mesi, ed. by L. Cantatore (Rome: De Luca, 1997). Bucci, M. and Bertolini, L. (eds.), Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa. Mostra Nazionale degli Affreschi e delle Sinopie, exhibition catalogue (Pisa: Opera della Primaziale Pisana, 1960). Burroughs, A., Art Criticism from a Laboratory (Boston MA: Little Brown and Company, 1938). Canaday, J., ‘A Great Exhibition’, in: The New York Times (28 September 1968), D31. Caputi, I., Il cinema di Folco Quilici con un inedito di Italo Calvino (Venice: Marsilio, 2000). Carboni, M., Cesare Brandi: teoria e esperienza d’arte (Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1992). Carità, R., ‘Supporti per gli affreschi rimossi’, in: Bollettino dell’Istituto Centrale del Restauro 36 (1958), 149–190. Carpenter, J.M. (ed.), Color in Art: A Tribute to Arthur Pope, exhibition catalogue (Cambridge MA, 1974). Casini, T., ‘Critica d’arte e flm sull’arte: una convergenza diffcile’, in: Annali di critica d’arte 1 (2005), 331–457. Cecchini, S., ‘L’“apertura al futuro” della teoria del restauro. La lezione di Brandi letta da Giovanni Urbani’, in: M.I. Catalano and P. Mania (eds.), Arte e memoria dell’arte, conference proceedings, Viterbo 1–2 July 2009 (Pistoia: Gli Ori, 2011), 235–248. Cecconi, A. and Nastasi, M. (eds.), Firenze ferita e il ponte di Santa Trinita nel diario di Maria Fossi e negli scatti di Paola Barocchi (Florence: SPES, 2018). Centauro, G., Dipinti murali di Piero della Francesca. La Basilica di S. Francesco ad Arezzo: indagini su sette secoli (Milan: Electa, 1990). Centauro, G.A. (ed.), Leonetto Tintori. L’arte attraverso, exhibition catalogue (Poggibonsi: Lalli, 2001). Ceriani Sebregondi, G., ‘La ricostruzione del Tempio. Il restauro post-bellico del Tempio Malatestiano di Rimini’, in: Engramma 61 (2008), http://www.engramma.it/eOS/index.ph p?id_articolo=204. Chastel, A., ‘Editorial. Les expositions’, in: Revue de l’Art 26 (1974), 7. Chiarelli, R., ‘La seconda mostra di affreschi staccati a Firenze’, in: Emporium CXXIX, 773 (1959), 209–213. Ciancabilla, L., ‘Appendice. Vicende conservative. Gli affreschi nel Novecento’, in: A. Volpe (ed.), Mezzaratta. Vitale e altri pittori per una confraternita bolognese (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2005), 139–153. Ciancabilla, L., ‘La guerra contro l’arte. Dall’Associazione Nazionale per il Restauro dei Monumenti Danneggiati dalla Guerra alla ricostruzione del patrimonio artistico in Italia’, in: Engramma 61 (2008), http://www.engramma.it/eOS/index.php?id_articolo=210. Ciancabilla, L., Stacchi e strappi di affreschi tra settecento e ottocento (Florence: Edifr, 2009). Ciancabilla, L., ‘Per un’indagine sulla fortuna collezionistica degli affreschi italiani (strappati e staccati) in Europa e negli Stati Uniti’, in: M.B. Failla, S.A. Meyer, C. Piva et al. (eds.), La cultura del restauro (Rome: Campisano, 2013), 237–247. Ciancabilla, L. and Spadoni, C. (eds.), L’incanto dell’affresco: capolavori strappati, exhibition catalogue, 2 vols. (Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2014). Ciatti, M. and Frosinini, C. (eds.), Ugo Procacci a cento anni dalla nascita (1905–2005), symposium proceedings, Florence 31 March 2005 (Florence: Edifr, 2006). Ciatti, M., Frosinini, C. and Rossi Scarzanella, C. (eds.), Angeli, santi e demoni: otto capolavori restaurati. Santa Croce quaranta anni dopo (1966–2006), exhibition catalogue (Florence: Edifr, 2006).

174

The Technical Study of Art

Ciatti, M. and Martusciello, F. (eds.), Il ruolo di Umberto Baldini per la conservazione del patrimonio culturale: una prospettiva storica, conference proceedings, Florence 14 December 2011 (Florence: Edifr, 2013). CIHA (ed.), ‘Colloque de Venise. Les responsabilités de l’historien de l’art dans la conservation et la restauration des monuments et œuvre d’art’, in: Bulletin du CIHA II (1967). Coccoli, C., ‘First aid and repairs. Il ruolo degli alleati nella salvaguardia dei monumenti italiani’, in: Anagkē 62 (2011), 13–23. Coccoli, C., Monumenti violati. Danni bellici e riparazioni in Italia nel 1943–1945: il ruolo degli Alleati (Florence: Nardini, 2018). Coccolo, F., ‘Rodolfo Siviero between Fascism and the Cold War: Negotiating Art Restitution and “Exceptional Returns” to Italy After Second World War’, in: Studi di Memofonte 22 (2019), 198–209. Cohen, R., Bernard Berenson: A Life in the Picture Trade (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 2013). Cohn, M.B., ‘George Stout’s Legacy’, in: Journal of the American Institute for Conservation XVIII, 1 (1978), 8–9. Connors, J. and Waldman, L.A. (eds.), Bernard Berenson. Formation and Heritage (Cambridge MA: The Harvard University Center for Italian Renaissance Studies, 2014). Conti, A., ‘Vicende e cultura del restauro’, in: Storia dell’arte italiana (Turin: Einaudi, 1981), X, 39–112. Conti, A., ‘Sinopia’, in: R. Cassanelli, A. Conti, M.A. Holly et al. (eds.), L’Arte (critica e conservazione) (Milan: Jaca Book, 1993), 316–317. Cuno, J., ‘The Fogg Art Museum and the Spoils of War’, in: C.P. Schneider, W.W. Robinson and A.I. Davies (eds.), Shop Talk. Studies in Honor of Seymour Slive (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Art Museums, 1995), 59–63. D’Agata, A.L., Doro Levi: stile intellettuale e inclinazioni letterarie di un archeologo triestino del Novecento (Trieste: Società di Minerva, 2017). Dagnini Brey, I., The Venus Fixers. The Remarkable Story of the Allied Soldiers who Saved Italy’s Art during World War II (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2009). Dagnini Brey, I., ‘La Roberts Commission e la formazione dei monuments offcers negli Stati Uniti’, in: P. Dragoni and C. Paparello (eds.), In difesa dell’arte: la protezione del patrimonio artistico delle Marche e dell’Umbria durante la Seconda guerra mondiale (Florence: Edifr, 2015), 311–324. Dal Poggetto, P., ‘Quando eravamo tanto giovani. In memoria di Umberto Baldini’, in: Critica d’Arte LXIX, 35–36 (2008), 125–128. Danti, C., Matteini, M. and Moles, A. (eds.), Le pitture murali: tecniche, problemi, conservazione, (Florence: Centro Di, 1990). Debenedetti, G., 16 ottobre 1943 (Palermo: Sellerio, 1993). Demus, O., Romanische Wandmalerei (Munich: Hirmer Verlag, 1968). Di Prospero, G., Viterbo, 29 luglio 1943 (Viterbo: Sette Città, 1999). Direzione generale delle antichità e belle arti (ed.), La ricostruzione del patrimonio artistico italiano (Rome: La Libreria dello Stato, 1950). Dolf, A. and Papini, M.C., «L’Approdo». Storia di un’avventura mediatica (Rome: Bulzoni, 2006). Dragoni, P., ‘Patrimonio culturale nazionale e nazionalista: le conseguenze della Prima guerra mondiale nel dibattito sulla protezione del patrimonio artistico italiano e internazionale’, in: S. Costa and M. Pizzo (eds.), Les musées blessés 1914–1918. Photographies historiques et perception du patrimoine (Grenoble: Ellug, 2014), 225–240. Edsel, R.M., Monuments Men. Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History (London: Preface, 2009). Emery, E., ‘The Martyred Cathedral: American Attitudes Toward Notre-Dame de Reims during the First World War’, in: J.T. Marquandt and A.A. Jordan (eds.), Medieval Art and

The Technical Study of Art

175

Architecture After the Middle Ages (Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars, 2009), 312–339. Esposito, D., ‘L’Associazione nazionale per i monumenti danneggiati dalla guerra’, in: L. De Stefani and C. Coccoli (eds.), Guerra, Monumenti, Ricostruzione. Architetture e centri storici italiani nel secondo confitto mondiale (Venice: Marsilio, 2011), 245–248. Ferretti, M., ‘Sinopie (e affreschi?) a proposito del nuovo museo di Pisa’, in: Prospettiva 20 (1980), 2–6. Fortino, F. and Paolini, C., Firenze 1940–1943: la protezione del patrimonio artistico dalle offese della guerra aerea (Florence: Polistampa, 2011). Franchi, E., Arte in assetto di guerra. Protezione e distruzione del patrimonio artistico a Pisa durante la seconda guerra mondiale (Pisa: ETS, 2006). Franchi, E., I viaggi dell’Assunta: la protezione del patrimonio artistico veneziano durante i confitti mondiali (Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2010). Francia di Celle, S. and Ghezzi, E. (eds.), mister(o) Emmer: l’attenta distrazione (Turin: Torino Film Festival, 2004). Francis, H.R., ‘War’s Toll of Italian Art’, in: The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art XXXIV, 4 (1947), 71–72. Freemantle, R., ‘Frescoes in Prato’, in: Art Journal XXX, 1 (1970), 41–44. Galansino, A., ‘Giovanni Previtali storico dell’arte militante’, in: Prospettiva 149–152 (2013). Galassi, C. (ed.), Critica d’arte e tutela in Italia: fgure e protagonisti nel secondo dopoguerra, conference proceedings, Perugia 17–19 November 2015 (Perugia: Aguaplano, 2017). Garroni, M.L. and Maltese, D. (eds.), La Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale di Firenze dieci anni dopo, exhibition catalogue (Sancasciano: Offcine Grafche Fratelli Stianti, 1976). Giannella, S. and Mandelli, P.D., L’arca dell’arte (Cassina de’ Pecchi: Editoriale DELFI, 1999). Giannini, C., ‘I giorni dell’alluvione al Kunsthistorisches Institut dalla corrispondenza di Alexander Kreutner e Hans Martin von Erffa’, in: Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz LIV, 1 (2010–2012), 196–206. Gilmore, M.P., ‘Progress of Restoration in Florence’, in: Renaissance Quarterly XX, 1 (1967), 96–105. Gioli, A., ‘Ragghianti, i musei e la museologia’, in: Predella 28 (2010), http://predella.arte.unip i.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=108&catid=60&Itemid=88. Giovannoni, G., Il restauro dei monumenti (Rome: Cremonese, 1945). Giusti, A. (ed.), Atti del Convegno sul restauro delle opere d’arte, conference proceedings, Florence 2–7 November 1976, 2 vols. (Florence: Polistampa, 1981). Glueck, G., ‘The Total Involvement of Thomas Hoving’, in: The New York Times Magazine (8 December 1968), 45–122. Gombrich, E.H., ‘Art Transplant. The Great Age of Fresco: Giotto to Pontormo’, in: The New York Review of Books (19 June 1969), 8–14. Gordon Kantor, S., Alfred H. Barr, Jr., and the intellectual origins of the Museum of Modern Art (Cambridge MA – London: MIT Press, 2002). Guarisco, G., ‘Piero Sanpaolesi: la via della conservazione nel Novecento’, in: Anagkē 69 (2013), 159–160. Gurrieri, F., ‘Bernard Berenson e l’architettura’, in: Antichità Viva VIII, 6 (1969), 26–36. Gurrieri, F., ‘Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, un magnete culturale internazionale’, in: Luk 22 (2016), 67–72. H.R.H., ‘Motion Pictures for the History of Art’, in: College Art Journal VI, 3 (1947), 207–214. Hartt, F., Florentine Art Under Fire (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949). Haskell, F., The Ephemeral Museum. Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art Exhibition (New Haven CT – London: Yale University Press, 2000). Hoeninger, C.S., ‘The Camposanto of Pisa in the wake of World War Two: loss and discovery’, in: H. Flora and S.S. Wilkins (eds.), Art and Experience in Trecento Italy, conference proceedings, New Orleans 10–12 November 2016 (Turnhout: Brepols, 2018), 313–328.

176

The Technical Study of Art

Hoving, T.P.F., Making the Mummies Dance (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993). Iannucci, A.M., ‘Cento anni di restauri al Tempio Malatestiano’, in: A. Calzona, J. Connors, F.P. Fiore and C. Vasoli (eds.) Leon Battista Alberti: architetture e committenti, conference proceedings, Mantua 12–16 October 2004, 2 vols. (Florence: Olschki, 2009), II, 457–486. Iannucci, A.M., ‘Tre restauri del Tempio Malatestiano nel XX secolo’, in: C. Muscolino and F. Canali, Il Tempio della meraviglia. Gli interventi di restauro al Tempio Malatestiano per il Giubileo (1990–2000) (Florence: Alinea Editrice, 2007), 25–28. Jacobs, D., ‘Restaurierung und Zeitgeschmack: der Kruzifxus von Cimabue nach der Restaurierung von Umberto Baldini’, in: Zeitschrift für Kunsttechnologie und Konservierung II, 1 (1988), 53–67. Kiel, H., ‘Capolavori in affresco di quattro secoli’, in: Pantheon XXIV, 5 (1966), 338–342. La Farge, H., Lost Treasures of Europe (New York: Pantheon Books, 1946). La guerra contro l’arte (Milan: Editoriale Domus, 1944). La Salvia, V., ‘Roberto Longhi & Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti: l’affare Maccari’, in: Luk 10/11 (2007), 72–77. Lamberini, D., ‘Gli Angloamericani a Firenze e il restauro architettonico, da Ruskin a Berenson’, in: ead. (ed.), L’eredità di John Ruskin nella cultura italiana del Novecento (Florence: Nardini, 2006), 160–169. Lattes, W., … e Hitler ordinò: «Distruggete Firenze». Breve storia dell’arte in guerra (1943– 1948) (Florence: Sansoni, 2001). Lavagnino, A., Le bibliotecarie di Alessandria (Palermo: Sellerio, 2002). Lavagnino, A., Un inverno 1943–1944. Testimonianze e ricordi sulle operazioni per la salvaguardia delle opere d’arte italiane durante la Seconda Guerra Mondiale (Palermo: Sellerio, 2006). Lavagnino, E. (ed.), Fifty War-Damaged Monuments of Italy (Rome: Istituto Poligrafco dello Stato, 1946). Lavagnino, E., ‘Offese di guerra e restauri al patrimonio artistico italiano’, in: Ulisse I, 2 (1947), 127–228. Lavagnino, E., ‘Diario di un salvataggio artistico’, in: Nuova Antologia CIX, DXXI, 2084 (1974), 509–547. Lavin, I. and Plummer, J. (eds.), Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, 2 vols. (New York: New York University Press, 1977). Laviosa, C., ‘Doro Levi, 1898–1991’, in: American Journal of Archaeology XCVII, 1 (1993), 165–166. Lazzaroni, I., ‘Le sinopie degli affreschi di Masolino nella Cappella della Croce in Santo Stefano degli Agostiniani’, in: Bullettino storico empolese I-III (1957–1959), 141–154. Lee, R.W., ‘Millard Meiss 1904–1975’, in: Yearbook. American Philosophical Society (1976), 95–100. Lie, H., Bewer, F. and Spronk, R., ‘A Brief History of Conservation Training at the Fogg Art Museum/ Straus Center for Conservation, in: I. Brückle (ed.), Harvard University Art Museums, North American Graduate Programs in the Conservation of Cultural Property (Buffalo NY: Association of North American Graduate Programs in the Conservation of Cultural Property, 2000), 21–28. Longhi, R., ‘Editoriale. Documentari artistici’, in: Paragone I, 1 (1950), 3–5. Longhi, R., ‘Per una mostra storica degli astrattisti’, in: Paragone VIII, 91 (1957), 3–8. Lüddemann, S., Blockbuster: Besichtigung eines Austellungsformats (Ostfldern: Hatje Cantz, 2011). Marchini, G. (ed.), Due secoli di pittura murale a Prato: mostra di affreschi, sinopie e graffti dei secoli XIV e XV, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Azienda Autonoma di Turismo di Prato, 1969). Mariani, F. and Lattanzi, M. (eds.), Firenze 1966, l’alluvione. Risorgere dal fango: testimonianze, documenti, memorie di una città offesa (Florence: Giunti, 2016).

The Technical Study of Art

177

Martindale, A., ‘Sinopia Painting’, in: The Burlington Magazine CIV, 715 (1962), 436–437. Massa, S. and Pontelli, E. (eds.), «Mostre permanenti». Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti in un secolo di esposizioni (Lucca: Edizioni Fondazione Ragghianti Studi sull’arte Lucca, 2018). Massagli, G., ‘La mostra Arte moderna in Italia: 1915–1935’, in: Luk 16 (2010), 215–223. Matteini, M., ‘Il metodo del bario nel restauro degli affreschi’, in: Critica d’Arte XLIV, 166–168 (1979), 182–184. Metelli, C., La rimozione della pittura murale. Parabola degli stacchi negli anni Cinquanta e Sessanta del XX secolo (s.l.: s.n., 2012). Molajoli, B., Musei e opere d’arte di Napoli attraverso la guerra (Naples: Montanino, 1948). Mongan, A. (ed.), Edward Waldo Forbes, A Yankee Visionary, exhibition catalogue (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1971). Mongan, A., ‘Harvard and the Fogg’, in: C.H. Smyth and P.M. Lukehart (eds.), The Early Years of Art History in the United States: Notes and Essays on Departments, Teaching, and Scholars (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993), 47–50. Monti, R. (ed.), Il Novecento italiano nelle collezioni comunali: raccolta d’arte contemporanea Alberto Della Ragione; 1967, gli artisti per Firenze; donazione Corrado Cagli; donazione Mirko; legato Alberto Magnelli; donazione Sepo; donazione Bruno Saetti; donazione Aldo Salvadori, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Comune di Firenze, 1993). Montrobbio, L., ‘Pisa: Mostra di affreschi e sinopie del Camposanto monumentale’, in: Emporium LXVII, 1 (1961), 12–13. Mora, P., ‘Some Observations on Mural Paintings’, in: G. Thomson (ed.), Recent Advances in Conservation. Contributions to the IIC Rome Conference, 1961 (London: Butterworths, 1963), 123–124. Morgante, M., ‘La solitudine del soprintendente. Speranze e disillusioni della tutela, tra la ricostruzione e l’età del centro-sinistra’, in: Città e Storia V, 2 (2010), 449–465. Morgante, M., ‘War’s Toll, i monumenti italiani negli USA (1946–47). Una strategia per immagini’, in: Ricerche storiche XLIII, 2 (2013), 223–240, 365–366. Morgante, M., ‘«They Are Still a Bunch of Huns». La rappresentazione dei monumenti italiani bombardati durante la seconda guerra mondiale e la tesi della barbarie culturale del nemico’, in: I. Graziani and M.V. Spissu (eds.), Il mito del nemico. Identità, alterità e loro rappresentazioni (Bologna: Minerva, 2019), 453–459. Muir Whitehill, W., ‘Edward Waldo Forbes, 1873–1969’, in: Boston Museum Bulletin LXVII, 348 (1969), 93–96. Muller, N., ‘Slowing the Clock: Art Conservation at the Art Museum’, in: Record of the Art Museum. Princeton University LIX, 1–2 (2000), 2–15. Muraro, M. (ed.), Pitture murali nel Veneto e tecnica dell’affresco, exhibition catalogue (Venice: Neri Pozza, 1960). Muraro, M., ‘Ugo Procacci, Sinopie e affreschi’, in: The Art Bulletin XLV, 2 (1963), 154–157. Nicholas, L.H., The Rape of Europa. The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War (London: Macmillan, 1994). Nonfarmale, O., ‘Il restauro dell’affresco di Piero della Francesca’, in: M. Aronberg Lavin (ed.), Piero della Francesca a Rimini: l’affresco nel Tempio Malatestiano (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1984), 153–155. Nozzoli, B. and Rossi, R. (eds.), Firenze e il suo fume a 50 anni dall’alluvione (Florence: Angelo Pontecorboli Editore, 2016). ‘Numero speciale dedicato a Umberto Baldini’, in: Critica d’Arte LXIX, 32 (2007). Oechslin, W., ‘Il Laocoonte – o del restauro delle statue antiche’, in: Paragone 287 (1974), 3–29. Oertel, R., ‘Die Frühwerke des Masaccio’, in: Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft VII (1933), 191–289. Oertel, R., ‘Masaccio und die Geschichte der Freskotechnik’, in: Jahrbuch der Preussischen Kunstsammlungen LV (1934), 229–240.

178

The Technical Study of Art

Oertel, R., ‘Wandmalerei und Zeichnung in Italien. Die Anfänge der Entwurfszeichnung und ihre monumentalen Vorstufen‘, in: Mitteilung des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 4–5 (1940), 217–234. Paoletti, P. and Carniani, M., Firenze guerra & alluvione. 4 agosto 1944/ 4 novembre 1966 (Florence: Becocci Editore, 1985). Paolucci, A., Il laboratorio del restauro a Firenze (Turin: Istituto Bancario San Paolo, 1986). Parolini, G., ‘Aspetti scientifci dei trattamenti eseguiti sulle opere d’arte danneggiate dall’alluvione’, in: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche (ed.), Ricerche relative al recupero dei dipinti danneggiati dall’alluvione di Firenze nel 1966 (Rome: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, 1972), 9–14. Pascolutti, F., ‘Gli attori della ricostruzione del Tempio Malatestiano di Rimini’, in: Opus incertvm 6–7 (2011), 138–145. Pellegrini, E., ‘Ragghianti e Longhi in una lettera a Paola Barocchi’, in: Predella. Journal of the Visual Arts 36 (2014), 105–121. Pellegrini, E., Storico dell’arte e uomo politico. Proflo biografco di Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2018). Pellegrini, E., Longhi e Ragghianti. Quel che resta di un dialogo: lettere, 1935–1953 (Milan: Offcina Libraria, 2019). Perna, R., ‘L’Approdo televisivo e l’arte del Novecento’, in: piano b. Arti e culture visive III, 2 (2018), 16–39. https://pianob.unibo.it/article/view/9221/9056. Philippot, P. and Mora, P. (eds.), Technique et conservation des peintures murales, conference proceedings, New York–Washington 17–25 September 1965 (Washington DC – New York: ICOM, 1965). Piacenti Aschengreen, C., ‘Il centro di restauro di Palazzo Davanzati’, in: L. Berti (ed.), Mostra di restauri a sculture e oggetti di arte minore, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Museo Nazionale del Bargello, 1967), 5–7. Pilon, V., ‘Firenze Restaura’, in: Arte Cristiana LX, 596 (1972), 309–327. Prato: Storia e Arte 106 (2009) [monographic issue on Leonetto Tintori]. Previtali, G., ‘The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi, di L. Tintori e M. Meiss’, in: Paragone XIV, 165 (1963), 71–80. Previtali, G., ‘Capolavori in affresco al Forte del Belvedere’, in: L’Unità (2 August 1966); republ. in: id., Recensioni, interventi, questioni di metodo: scritti da quotidiani e periodici 1962– 1988 (Naples: Paparo Edizioni, 1999), 93–94. Previtali, G., ‘Le Belle Arti a Firenze sotto il diluvio’, in: Paragone XVIII, 203 (1967a), 41–56. Previtali, G., ‘Ragghianti e il diluvio’, in: L’Astrolabio 22 (28 May 1967b), 10. Previtali, G., Recensioni, interventi, questioni di metodo. Scritti da quotidiani e periodici 1962– 1988 (Naples: Paparo Edizioni, 1999). Procacci, U. (ed.), Mostra di opere d’arte restaurate, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Tipografa Giuntina, 1946). Procacci, U. (ed.), Mostra di opere d’arte trasportate a Firenze durante la guerra e di opere d’arte restaurate, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Tipografa Giuntina, 1947). Procacci, U., ‘Fresco Crisis’, in: The Connoisseur CXLII, 573 (1958a), 154–158. Procacci, U., La tecnica degli antichi affreschi e il loro distacco e restauro (Florence: Giunti, 1958b). Procacci, U., Sinopie e affreschi (Milan: Electa, 1961). ‘Projects & European News’, in: Renaissance News I, 2 (1948), 37–36. Puppi, L., ‘Ugo Procacci, Sinopie e affreschi’, in: Arte Lombarda VII, 2 (1962), 174–175. Ragghianti, C.L., Ponte a Santa Trinita (Florence: Vallecchi, 1948). Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Bruno Molajoli, Musei ed opere d’arte di Napoli attraverso la Guerra’, in: La Critica d’Arte VIII, XXVIII 2 (1949), 175. Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Leonetto Tintori – Millard Meiss, The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi’, in: seleArte XI, 62 (1963), 19–21.

The Technical Study of Art

179

Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Firenze dopo l’inondazione. Presente e futuro’, in: Critica d’Arte XIII, 82–84 (1966), 121–130. Rinaldi, S., ‘Roberto Longhi e la teoria del restauro di Cesare Brandi’, in: M. Andaloro (ed.), La teoria del restauro nel Novecento da Riegl a Brandi, conference proceedings, Viterbo 12–15 November 2003 (Florence: Nardini Editore, 2006), 101–115. Roob, R., ‘Alfred Barr, Jr.: A Chronicle of the Years 1902–1929’, in: The New Criterion V, 11 (1987), 1–19. Rorimer, J.J., Survival: The Salvage and Protection of Art in War (New York: Abelard Press, 1950). Rotondi, P., Firenze 1966: appunti di diario sull’alluvione (Lugano: Edizioni San Lorenzo, 2013). Rovati, F., ‘Italia 1945: il recupero delle opere trafugate dai tedeschi’, in: Acme LVIII, 3 (2005), 265–292. Russo, K., Giovanna, ‘Il ruolo della fotografa alleata nella ricostruzione postbellica italiana: dall’Allied Military Government all’American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments’, in: Eikonocity II, 2 (2017), 41–55. S.P., ‘Note e commenti: mostra di affreschi staccati nel restaurato Forte di Belvedere di Firenze’, in: Emporium CXXVI, 754 (1957), 161–168. Salmi, M., ‘Gli affreschi del Palazzo Trinci a Foligno’, in: Bollettino d’Arte XIII, 12 (1919), 139–180. Salmi, M. (ed.), Mostra di quattro maestri del Primo Rinascimento, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Giunti, 1954). Salmi, M., Piero della Francesca: le storie della Croce (Florence: Sansoni, 1965). Salvagnoni, A., Leonetto Tintori e il restauro della pittura murale (Ospedaletto: Felici, 2012). Sani, B., Cesare Brandi e la Regia Pinacoteca di Siena. Museologia e storia dell’arte negli anni Trenta (Rome: Carocci, 2017). Sanpaolesi, P., ‘Il Camposanto di Pisa e i suoi problemi di restauro, in: Atti del Primo Convegno Internazionale per le Arti Figurative, conference proceedings, Florence 20–26 June 1948 (Florence: Edizioni U, 1948), 153–159. Schulz, J. and Markham, A., ‘The Great Age of Fresco in New York’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXI, 790 (1969), 50–53, 55. Schwarz, J., ‘Olivetti to Become the Museum’s First Corporate Benefactor’, in: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin XXIX, 3 (1970), 163–164. Scremin, P., ‘Viatico nel mondo dei documentari sull’arte. Il critoflm e la cinematografa sull’arte fra gli anni Quaranta e Sessanta’, in: M. Scotini (ed.), Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti e il carattere cinematografco della visione, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Charta, 2000), 150–152. Scremin, P. (ed.), Parole dipinte. Il cinema sull’arte di Luciano Emmer, 2 dvd’s (Bologna: Cineteca di Bologna, 2010). Scudieri, M., Vaccari, M.G., Fiorelli Malesci, F. (eds.), Piccoli grandi tesori alluvionati: un patrimonio da non dimenticare, exhibition catalogue (Livorno: Sillabe, 2006). Seymour Jr., C. (ed.), The Italian Heritage. An Exhibition of Works of Art Lent from American Collections for the Beneft of the Committee to Rescue Italian Art, exhibition catalogue (New York: Huxley House Ltd., 1967). Shearman, J., ‘The Ruins of Florentine Art: What the Floods Have Cost Civilization’, in: The Times (23 November 1966), 16. Simari, M.M. and Romagnoli, G. (eds.), Gli Uffzi, la città e l’Arno: Ugo Procacci, Giuseppe Marchini e la Soprintendenza forentina nel 1966 (Livorno: Sillabe, 2017). Siviero, R. (ed.), Seconda mostra nazionale delle opere d’arte recuperate in Germania, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Sansoni, 1950). Smart, A., ‘The St Francis Cycle at Assisi’, in: The Burlington Magazine CV, 725 (1963), 371– 373, 375.

180

The Technical Study of Art

Smart, A., ‘Giotto to Pontormo: The Great Age of Fresco’, in: Apollo LXXXIX, 86 (1969), 256–263. Smyth, C.H., ‘Preface’, in: O. Francisci Osti (ed.), Mosaics of Friendship. Studies in Art and History for Eve Borsook (Florence: Centro Di, 1999), 7–10. Spande, H. (ed.), Conservation Legacies of the Florence Flood of 1966, symposium proceedings, New York 10–11 November 2006 (London: Archetype Publications, 2009). Spiazzi, A.M., ‘La cappella Ovetari. 11 marzo 1944, eventi e recuperi’, in: D. Banzato, A. De Nicolò Salmazo, A.M. Spiazzi (eds.), Mantegna e Padova. 1445–1460, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Skira, 2006), 120–131. Spiazzi, A.M., Fassina, V. and Magani, F. (eds.), La Cappella Ovetari. Artisti, tecniche, materiali, conference proceedings, Padua 17–18 November 2006 (Milan: Skira, 2009). Stout, G.L., ‘Preservation of Paintings in War-Time’, in: Technical Studies X, 3 (1942), 161–172. Stubblebine, J.H., ‘The Italian Heritage’, in: The Burlington Magazine CIX, 773 (1967), 484–486. Tampone, G., Gurrieri, F. and Giorgi, L. (eds.), Piero Sanpaolesi: restauro e metodo, conference proceedings, Florence 18 April 2005 (Florence: Nardini, 2012). Thau, M.V., Fra Longhi e Procacci. Restauro a Firenze nella prima metà del Novecento (Florence: Edifr, 2017). Tintori, L. and Borsook, E., Giotto. La Cappella Peruzzi (Turin: Edizione d’Arte Fratelli Pozzo, 1965). Tintori, L., ‘Methods Used in Italy for Detaching Murals’, in: G. Thomson (ed.), Recent Advances in Conservation. Contributions to the IIC Rome Conference, 1961 (London: Butterworths, 1963), 118–122. Tintori, L., Autoritratto (Florence: Giorgi & Gambi, 1986). Tintori, L., Antichi colori sul muro (Florence: Opus Libri, 1989). Tintori, L., ‘Note sulla tecnica, i restauri, la conservazione del “Trionfo della Morte” e di altri affreschi dello stesso ciclo nel Camposanto Monumentale di Pisa’, in: Critica d’Arte LVIII, 2 (1995), 41–52. Toesca, P., Gli affreschi della Vita di San Francesco nella Chiesa Superiore del Santuario di Assisi (Florence: Bencini & Sansoni, 1947). Toti, C., ‘Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti, collezionisti e collezioni alle origini del Museo del Novecento di Firenze (1967–1970), in: Luk 20 (2014), 37–43. Toti, C., ‘La raccolta Alberto Della Ragione: una donazione per la città di Firenze’, in: Luk 21 (2015), 76–80. Turchini, A., Il tempio distrutto. Distruzione, restauro, anastilosi del Tempio Malatestiano, Rimini 1943–1950 (Cesena: Il Ponte Vecchio, 1998). Turchini, A., Il Tempio Malatestiano, Sigismondo Malatesta e Leon Battista Alberti (Cesena: Il Ponte Vecchio, 2000). Urbani, G., Problemi di conservazione (Bologna: Compositori, 1973). Van Os, H., ‘Marginal Notes on The Great Age of Fresco’, in: Simioulus IV, 1 (1970), 6–12. Venturi, L., ‘Films on Art: An Attempt at Classifcation’, in: The Quarterly of Film Radio and Television VII, 4 (1953), 385–391. Vermeule, C., ‘Leonetto Tintori and Millard Meiss, The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi’, in: Speculum XXXIX, 4 (1964), 755–756. War’s Toll of Italian Art. An Exhibition Sponsored by the American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments, exhibition catalogue (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1946). White, J., ‘Leonetto Tintori and Millard Meiss, The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi’, in: The Art Bulletin XLV, 4 (1963), 383–385.

The Technical Study of Art

181

Zanardi, B., Il cantiere di Giotto. Le storie di san Francesco ad Assisi (Milan: Skira, 1996). Zanardi, B., Giotto e Pietro Cavallini. La questione di Assisi e il cantiere medievale della pittura a fresco (Milan: Skira, 2002). Zanardi, B. and Settis, S., Il restauro. Giovanni Urbani e Cesare Brandi, due teorie a confronto (Milan: Skira, 2009). Zanoli, A., ‘“Sinopia per l’arte fgurativa”. Longhi a “L’Approdo” radiofonico, letterario e anche televisivo’, in: C. Spadoni (ed.), Da Renoir a De Staël. Roberto Longhi e il moderno, exhibition catalogue (Milan: Mazzotta, 2003), 185–192.

5

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

A Connoisseur’s Early Impressions of Italy Meiss frst visited Italy in 1928 when he was researching Sienese and Pisan primitives.1 In Tuscany, not only did the young scholar become acquainted with the local AngloAmerican community that was spread out between Siena and Florence, but he was able to befriend its most illustrious member, Bernard Berenson.2 The investigation of archive documents and the physical examination of paintings also brought Meiss into contact with several museum keepers and government offcials, or soprintendenti.3 These initial connections were later cemented when Meiss worked alongside some of them in the repair of damaged monuments, both after the war and following the 1966 food.4 Another merit of Meiss’s studies was the re-evaluation of those extra-Florentine artistic centres like Siena and Pisa, thus making an important contribution to the rediscovery of these ‘peripheral’ schools that Enzo Carli and other colleagues were undertaking.5 Siena’s soprintendente between 1952 and 1973, Carli was a scholar of mediaeval art and his book on the stone carvings of the Duomo in Orvieto (1947) was positively reviewed by Meiss, precisely for his critical reconsideration of the Pisan

1 In the 1920s, Offner would often spend time in his Florentine home at Borgo degli Albizzi until he moved there more permanently in the course of the following decades. Meiss remembered: ‘Egli visse lungo tempo in questa piazza, dove giunse verso il 1925, alcuni anni prima che io, suo allievo, arrivassi’. (‘He lived on this square [Santo Spirito] for a long time, where he came in around 1925, some years before I, his student, arrived’.), in: AAA, MMP. Millard Meiss’s eulogy of Richard Offner, undated, probably read at his funeral in Santo Spirito in Florence. 2 On the Anglo-American colony in Tuscany between the 19th and the 20th centuries, refer to Fantoni 2000; Ciacci and Gobbi Sica 2004; Bardazzi and Sisi 2012 and Paolini 2013. 3 Italian soprintendenze were government offces for the preservation of artistic patrimony located throughout the country that were frst instituted in 1907; see Bernardini 2007. 4 Procacci 1975, 53. The American scholar’s services for the preservation of Italian artistic heritage were publicly acknowledged on both occasions, as he was awarded the Stella della Solidarietà in 1949 by the president of the Italian Republic and appointed Grande Uffciale della Repubblica Italiana in 1968; see https://www.quirinale.it/onorifcenze/insigniti/21955; AAA, MMP. Letter from Bruno Molajoli to Millard Meiss, 14 October 1967. 5 On Enzo Carli (1910–1999), refer to the monographic issue of Bulletino senese di storia patria CVI (1999) and to Ghisetti Giavarina 2000; Testi Cristiani 2000; Torchio 2004, 18–19; Barzanti 2006; B. Santi, in: Bernardini 2007, 154–157; Pierini 2010 and Caleca 2013.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

183

school. In the post-war years, between the two scholars fourished a ‘committed and affectionate friendship’ that was not however without disagreement.7 ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’ was probably the main point of discord, since Carli did not concur with Meiss’s identifcation of the painter with the Ovile Master and Bartolomeo Bulgarini.8 Another cause for disagreement was Francesco Traini, whom Carli would not distinguish from the Master of the Triumph of St Thomas.9 The dispute over Francesco Traini as the author of the Camposanto frescoes, on the other hand, set the young American art historian on a collision course with Roberto Longhi.10 Albeit more untenable, Longhi’s theory that the author of the Triumph of Death (Figure 1.4) was a northern artist and not a Pisan was espoused by Italian scholarship until Bellosi disproved it in the 1970s. But it was mostly after Offner’s antiGiottesque tirade following the 1937 exhibition that relations with Italian scholars, and Longhi in particular, became more strained. A refection of this may be seen in the harsher tones of the later debates that Meiss was involved in, such as the attribution of the Frick Flagellation (Figure 1.6) and the Assisi problem.11 After joining forces in the anti-fascist militancy and the preservation of artworks during the war, the fckle truce between Italian art historians came to an end in the ffties. Their different temperaments and methodological orientations soon exacerbated a ‘cold war’ atmosphere of ‘divergent critical convergences’ that Meiss had to 6

6 Carli 1947; Meiss 1948b. The Pisan school was indeed the topic of the frst letter of their long correspondence. 7 AAA, MMP. Letter from Enzo Carli to Millard Meiss, 25 September 1960: ‘Ma Ella sa […] come la disparità di vedute che ho manifestato nei confronti di certe Sue conclusioni non sia mai andata disgiunta dell’altissimo conto e pregio in cui ho tenuto le Sue ricerche, e dalla profonda e schietta ammirazione che ho sempre provato per il Suo lavoro, sempre così acuto, geniale e costruttivo. Alla quale ammirazione mi consenta di aggiungere anche la mia più viva simpatia e il sentimento di una amicizia devota ed affettuosa’. (‘But You know […] how the differing views that I have expressed towards some of Your conclusions was never without the highest esteem and praise in which I have held Your research, and the profound and straightforward admiration that I have always felt for Your work, always so shrewd, brilliant and constructive. To this admiration let me add my deepest sympathy and the sentiment of a committed and affectionate friendship’.) The correspondence between Meiss and Carli was studied both in the Archives of American Art (MMP) and in the Enzo Carli papers at the Biblioteca di Lettere e Filosofa dell’Università degli Studi di Siena. Their letters were also mentioned in B. Sani, ‘Dialoghi di pittura e scultura senese con storici dell’arte europei e americani dal carteggio di Enzo Carli’, in: Caleca 2013, 77–78. 8 Carli frst expounded his views in the catalogue of the exhibition of the Tavolette di Biccherna (which Meiss attributed to Bartolomeo Bulgarini); see Carli 1950. Years later, his stance remained unchanged; see Carli 1981, 221–224. 9 UNISI, BLF, Fondo Enzo Carli. Letter from Millard Meiss to Enzo Carli, 11 September 1971: ‘E [sic] vero, come Lei dice, che non siamo d’accordo sul problema di Traini e di questo periodo pisano, ma sono molto lieto, e riconoscente, che questo disaccordo non ha mai disturbato la nostra vecchia sincera amicizia’. (‘It is true, how You say, that we disagree on the Traini problem and the Pisan period, but I am very glad, and thankful, that this disagreement has never come in the way of our old, honest friendship’.) Meiss’s argument was largely accepted by other Italian Trecento specialists. According to Bellosi, having excluded the Triumph of St Thomas from Traini’s corpus was a ‘great step forward’ in understanding the Pisan painter; see Bellosi 1991 [2006], 394: ‘un grande passo avanti compiuto dal Meiss per la chiarifcazione del problema del pittore pisano’. 10 See Chapter 1; cf. also J. Cooke, ‘Prospettive critiche tra Italia e Stati Uniti attraverso la corrispondenza epistolare tra Millard Meiss e Roberto Longhi’, in: Galassi 2017, 503–518. 11 See Chapter 1.

184

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

grapple with.12 The pugnacity of Italian art historians was a known fact that was being denounced in those years by Lionello Venturi and Enzo Carli, among others.13 Not only were the old squabbles between Longhi and Ragghianti or between Venturi and Longhi not tempered, but new feuds were now arising between Longhi and Salmi and Marangoni and Salmi, as well as their respective supporters.14 Though divided on different fronts, Italian art historians shared the same Crocean methodological allegiance.15 Their proclivity towards style and form, attribution and chronology, rather than iconography and interpretation, along with the parochialism and locality of their scope, were in fact stigmatised in Meiss’s report to the College Art Association in 1948.16 Meiss’s was not a lone voice, but refected the widespread aversion to Crocean thinking among Deweynian, pragmatist American academics.17 Such a ‘transatlantic’ philosophical divide was apparent in the polemic that Venturi’s Art Criticism Now raised in the pages of The Art Bulletin only a few years earlier.18 But even more blatantly so was the reaction of American art scholars to Longhi’s ‘Giudizio sul Duecento’ and its ramifcations in the discussion of individual works of art, like the Frick Flagellation.19

An American Panofsky and a Candid Iconologist Because of their unshakeable Crocean convictions, supported by the rigour of pure visibility, Italian art historians were rather sceptical, if not hostile, towards any iconological or historical-cultural theory. As a result, Panofsky’s approach had little resonance

12 See Gamba 2010. For an overview of Italian scholarship in the 1950s and 1960s, see Pinelli 2010 and G.C. Sciolla, ‘Critica d’arte nell’Italia della Ricostruzione. Alcune rifessioni’, in: Galassi 2017, 17–32. 13 APEB, Letter from Enzo Carli to Eugenio Battisti, 26 November 1957: ‘gli italiani […] non sono affatto solidali tra loro, sogliono mordersi e punzecchiarsi, o, nel miglior dei casi, s’ignorano. Ma almeno, quando vogliono mordersi e punzecchiarsi’. (‘Italians […] are not at all supportive of one another, they are busy either biting and teasing each other or, at best, they ignore one another’.) In 1954, Lionello Venturi described the atmosphere amongst Italian art scholars as unbearable and called for ‘a oneyear truce’; see Venturi 1954: ‘Naturalmente le discussioni sui fatti e sulle idee debbono continuare. Ma se per un anno si mettessero da parte gl’insulti personali, l’animo più calmo e il cervello schiarito polemizzerebbero in un modo più decente’. 14 Cf. Pace 2014. 15 On the infuence of Croce’s aesthetics, see Ercoli 1987; Stella 2005 and the more recent F. Bernabei, ‘Motivazioni estetiche nella critica d’arte italiana uscita dall’idealismo’, in: Galassi 2017, 33–52. 16 Meiss 1948a. 17 On the reception of Croce outside of Italy, refer to Paris 1975. On the American context, see Roberts 1995. 18 In the last year of Meiss’s editorship, The Art Bulletin featured a review by John Alford that challenged Venturi’s concept of taste and his oversight of the ‘social-cultural signifcance’ of works of art (Alford 1942). This resulted in an exchange of open letters on the journal (Venturi and Alford 1943; Greene and Venturi 1943), concluded by Venturi’s article ‘Art and Taste’ (Venturi 1944). Alfred Neumeyer’s review had been more positive insofar as he appreciated Venturi’s historical solidity despite his Crocean views; see Neumeyer 1942. On this matter as well as Venturi’s American years, see C.E. Gilbert, ‘Lionello Venturi e l’America’ and C. Cieri Via, ‘Lionello Venturi e le Lezioni americane’, in: Valeri 2002, 11–14, 41–46; Golan 2006; Torchiani 2010 and Perillo Marcone 2010. 19 See the response of Edward B. Garrison and Charles R. Morey and the ensuing debate analysed in Chapter 1.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

185

until the mid-sixties when his main works started to be translated. To a large extent, Meiss’s critical fortune in Italy was closely linked to that of his mentor, though being also a practitioner of connoisseurship put him in a more favourable position than Panofsky. The ambivalent relationship that Meiss entertained with Longhi and his acolytes was, in fact, principally based on the American’s reputation as a connoisseur. This was manifest when he participated in the Festschrift for Longhi’s seventieth birthday with an essay on the cultural connections between Lombard and French courts.21 Panofsky, too, had been asked to contribute to the project but was unable to comply ‘for want of both time and ideas’.22 This invitation had actually left Panofsky quite surprised, especially because he was about to publish Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo in response to Longhi’s attack against ‘pedantic’ iconographic interpretations launched in monograph on the same subject.23 Panofsky’s presence in the Festschrift would have been even more ill-timed in the light of the severe criticism of ‘the abstraction of iconographic inventories’ that was voiced in Stefano Bottari’s preface.24 Panofsky’s lack of interest ‘in defning style, or in comparing the styles of two objects with the purpose of ascertaining authorship or tracing an evolution in stylistic handwriting’, was, in turn, the reason why only one Italian art historian, Michelangelo Muraro, was featured among the contributors to the studies in honour of Pan.25 The post-war Italian art historical context was however too complex to be subsumed under the bi-polar rubric of iconology vs. connoisseurship. Even within the Longhian camp, for instance, there was room for different ways of thinking. When Meaning 20

20 Apart from Idea, whose translation appeared in 1952, most of Panofsky’s books were published in the course of the sixties and seventies: Perspective as Symbolic Form (1961), Meaning in the Visual Arts (1962), Albrecht Dürer (1967), Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (1971), Studies in Iconology (1975). On the critical reception of iconology in Italy, see Mamino 1982; Agosti 1985; Cieri Via 1994, 194–199 and Gentili 1997. 21 Meiss 1961b. In a conversation with the writer, Castelnuovo remembered that Meiss’s was the essay that Longhi appreciated the most. Cf. also AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 9 June 1962: ‘Le sono vivamente grato di averlo voluto pubblicare in quella speciale occasione e vorrei pregarLa di accogliere i sensi del mio più sentito apprezzamento’. (‘I am truly grateful that you decided to publish it on that special occasion and please accept my most heartfelt appreciation’.) 22 Panofsky 2008, 860 [Erwin Panofsky – Millard Meiss, 3 February 1961]: ‘It might also amuse you to hear that I, too, was asked to contribute an article to the Longhi Festschrift, which is all the funnier as I make some mild fun of him in the little Correggio book which has just received my imprimatur. Of course, I should be unable to comply, even if I wanted to, for want of both time and ideas’. Before even having any contact with Longhi, Panofsky recognised he was a great expert in Baroque painting, but on a more personal level, ‘he is said to be rather egoistic and peculiar about his discoveries’ [Erwin Panofsky – Margaret Barr, 2 August 1932], in Panofsky 2001, 514. 23 Panofsky 1961. In his book, Longhi argued that Correggio’s painted scenes solely fulflled formal needs of display and rhythm. Longhi 1956, 25: ‘Ma Dio ci guardi ancora dalla pessima specie d’immaginazione che è quella dei pedanti; sempre pronti ad addossare agli artisti, e persino i più svagati e incolpevoli, le some della loro erudizione superogatoria’. Panofsky’s text later appeared in an Italian edition that also comprised Longhi’s book as well as Ireneo Affò’s comments on the fresco cycle; see Barocelli 1988. 24 Bottari took issue not only with those concerned with the subject matter of artworks, but also with other ‘new’ [sic!] approaches, such as sociology, ‘the pseudo-science of the anonymous and anonymity’ and the history of culture. Bottari 1961, 11–12 (‘l’astrazione degli inventari iconografci’; ‘la pseudoscienza dell’anonimo e dell’anonimato’). On Stefano Bottari (1907–1967), see Volpe 1966; Gnudi 1965–1968; Agnello 1968; Anceschi 1988 and Nicolini 2013. 25 Gilbert 1961, 63.

186

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

in the Visual Arts was translated by Einaudi in 1962, Arturo C. Quintavalle praised Panofsky’s historical-cultural perspective, while Giovanni Previtali chided Italian art historians for having overlooked ‘one of the foremost historians and methodologians of art’.26 A regular reviewer of his translated works, Previtali found in Panofsky’s approach a new perspective that could potentially set art historians free from the ‘shackles’ of Crocean historiography and ‘pseudo-stylistic criticism’.27 The translation of Meaning in the Visual Arts was frst suggested to Einaudi in 1955 by another proponent of Pan’s ideas, Giulio C. Argan, who would also invite the Princeton professor to contribute to the Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte.28 Argan was also the only art historian who reviewed Panofsky’s Correggio book and defended iconology ‘against all misunderstandings’.29 It was also thanks to Argan’s endorsement that Pan was awarded an honorary degree by Rome’s La Sapienza University two years later.30 His indebtedness was perhaps best professed in the opening editorial of Storia dell’Arte, in which Argan hailed Panofsky as one of his two masters next to Lionello Venturi.31 The Italian art historian, on the other hand, seemed much less impressed with how Panofsky’s legacy was being upheld by his American students who had turned iconology into a ‘science for few initiates’.32 26 Quintavalle 1963 and Previtali 1963, 68 (‘uno dei massimi storici e metodologi dell’arte’). According to Previtali, Italian art historians had instead preferred a lesser scholar like Schlosser simply because he was a ‘super-Crocean’. 27 Cf. Previtali 1961; Previtali 1972. The quote is taken from Previtali 1975, xix (‘critica pseudostilistica’). Giovanni Previtali belonged to the ‘Longhian left’, that is a group of students of Longhi, whose scholarship combined a formalist approach with a cultural historical view deriving from their Marxist leanings. On Previtali (1934–1988), see Scritti in ricordo di Giovanni Previtali 1988–1989; Romano 1998; Galansino 2009 and Galansino 2013. 28 By prompting the translation of his works, Argan intended to support the ‘Panofsky line’ in Italy; see letter from Giulio C. Argan to Giulio Einaudi, dated 18 November 1955, quoted in Mangoni 1999, 745 note 495. Argan asked Panofsky to join the group of scholars of the Enciclopedia a year later; cf. Panofsky 2006, 964–965 [Erwin Panofsky – Giulio C. Argan, 26 April 1956]. On the relationship between Argan and Panofsky, see C. Cieri Via, ‘Giulio Carlo Argan e l’eredità del Warburg Institute fra Europa e Stati Uniti’ and ‘Documenti inediti su Giulio Carlo Argan e il Warburg Institute’, in: Gamba 2012, 117–128, 194–203. On Argan (1909–1992), refer to Valeri 2005 and Gamba 2012. Signifcantly, Stefano Bottari openly criticised the Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte insofar as it refected the disarray and confusion caused by the different orientations coexisting in Italy, i.e. referring to iconological orientations; see Bottari 1960, 323. 29 Argan 1961. Cf. Panofsky 2008, 232–233: 232 [Erwin Panofsky – Giulio C. Argan, 4 June 1962]: ‘It [the review] beautifully clarifes the very essence of the method which I have been trying to follow in most of my studies and which is so often misunderstood as a kind of purely philological exercise. More than anyone before […] your review defends what I call iconology against all misunderstandings, and I was particularly delighted by your pointing out a fact which had never been quite clear to myself, namely, that my old study in perspective is, in a sense, just as much a “study in iconology” as the little book which you were kind enough to recommend to the Italian public’. In 1961, Enrico Castelnuovo suggested a translation of the book to Einaudi, as can be seen in a meeting’s minutes: ‘Molto interessante ma è breve e piuttosto diffcile e analitico. (Sì)’, in: Munari 2013, 516. 30 Argan’s presentation speech is transcribed in Cieri Via, ‘Documenti inediti su Giulio Carlo Argan …’ cit., 203. In 1965, Salmi and Argan would propose Charles de Tolnay for a second honorary degree; see Maria C. Mascia, ‘Argan professore alla Sapienza attraverso i Verbali della Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofa (1959–67)’, in: Gamba 2012, 409–417: 411–412. 31 Argan 1969. An English version of this editorial was published in Critical Inquiry with the signifcant title ‘Ideology and Iconology’ (Argan 1975). 32 Argan 1969, 28: ‘Per molti aspetti, dunque, il metodo iconologico instaurato dal Panofsky, benché per programma rigidamente flologico, si qualifca come il più moderno ed effcace dei metodi storiografci: suscettibile inoltre di grandi sviluppi che per la verità non ha avuti, anche perché gli stessi seguaci del

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

187

Whether or not Argan was referring to Meiss, in 1963, the latter offcially ascended the ‘throne’ in Princeton and effectively became the ‘American Panofsky’.33 This identifcation was all the more reinforced by the translations of Meiss’s more iconological studies that were then being published.34 More orthodox Crocean art historians, however, continued to dispute the iconological method, which they believed to be, if not pernicious, merely auxiliary to formal analysis.35 The most critical view was expressed by Ragghianti, who had already taken issue with the sociological framework of the Black Death.36 In the pages of Critica d’Arte, he contemptuously called Meiss a ‘candid iconologist’ and the most illustrious representative of an iconological tradition born out of an ‘anachronistic’ Germanic Kultur transplanted into the United States.37

Meiss’s Associates Longhi and Salmi The frst epistolary contact between Meiss and Longhi was in connection with the Frick Flagellation (Figure 1.6).38 Although they disagreed on its attribution, respectively ascribed to Duccio and to Cimabue, they both considered their differences to be only on a professional level and parted on good terms.39 Probably expecting a more sympathetic response, seven years later, in 1959, Meiss asked Longhi to publish on Paragone a rejoinder that he had written in reply to Giuseppe Fiocco’s scathing review of Mantegna as Illuminator.40 Fiocco had dismissed the book as ‘a very erudite

33 34

35

36 37

38

39 40

Panofsky ne hanno ridotto la portata, facendone una scienza di pochi iniziati, quasi esoterica, fornendo così un argomento agli storici ideal-formalisti, che la considerano ancora una metodologia eterodossa’. Previtali 1976, xi. Meiss’s studies on Giovanni Bellini’s St Francis and on Piero della Francesca’s Sacra Conversazione were published in 1963 and 1971 and appeared in Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell’Arte and Quaderni della Pinacoteca di Brera, respectively. See, for instance, Brandi 1966, 181: ‘Le indagini iconologiche non rappresentano il grado supremo della critica d’arte, ma appartengono alla recezione dell’opera d’arte, e non rendono più scientifca la critica d’arte, ma solo costituiscono un tentativo di avvicinamento antropologico invece che estetico all’opera d’arte’ and Negri Arnoldi 1971, 234: ‘Opera d’arte e artista vengono a perdere inevitabilmente il loro ruolo di protagonisti, di testimonianza primaria e determinante, per scadere a quello di ‘medium’ utile soltanto alla rievocazione di un particolare periodo storico e ambito culturale, di cui essi verrebbero a rappresentare non più che il veicolo inconscio, o quanto meno delle manifestazioni generiche e secondarie. Il riferire poi i risultati di siffatta indagine a problemi più specifcatamente artistici segnerebbe la chiusura di un circolo vizioso assolutamente privo di utilità e comunque arbitrario’. See Chapter 3. On Ragghianti and iconology, see Cooke 2010 and Targia 2010. Ragghianti 1987, 3–4: ‘candido iconologo’; ‘l’iconologia non ha nulla a che vedere con gli orientamenti pragmatici e scientifci americani, è un’immissione nel mondo accademico americano di un aspetto anacronistico della Kultur germanica, che si è prodotta con l’emigrazione di cattedratici tedeschi negli Stati Uniti verso il 1940. Non meravigliano la predilezione per l’iconologia, lavoro di erudizione che non impegna il pensiero critico dell’arte’. See Chapter 1. In consideration of the extensive literature on Roberto Longhi (1890–1970), we shall here refer to the more recent works: Bandera Viani 2017; Bertelli 2017; Ambrosini Massari, Bacchi and Benati 2017; Roberto Longhi. Frammenti di maschere 2014. On the relationship between Longhi and Meiss, also cf. Cooke, ‘Prospettive critiche tra Italia e Stati Uniti …’ cit. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Longhi, 4 March 1952: ‘I too regard the difference between us as professional (critical) rather than personal’. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Longhi, 9 November 1959. Attached was the open letter of response to be published in Paragone: ‘readers of Paragone can themselves judge which attributions are closer to the truth – whether the miniatures in the Strabo in Albi are by Zoppo, as Professor

188

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

enterprise but without meaning’.41 Meiss’s attribution of the miniatures to Mantegna and his school was rejected in favour of Marco Zoppo for Albi’s Strabo and Leonardo Bellini for Paris’s Life and Passion of St Maurice.42 Despite having in the past criticised Fiocco’s book on Mantegna (1927), Longhi preferred not to accede to Meiss’s request.43 Meiss thought that attributions proposed by ‘Siocco’ were ‘preposterous’ and was rather disgruntled for not being able to publish his rebuttal to Fiocco.44 However, Meiss’s relationship with Longhi irrevocably deteriorated after another connoisseurial incident. In 1961, Longhi published the so-called Stella Altarpiece in the Ephrussi collection as a work of the Cesi Master (Figure 5.1),45 but the same authorship had already been advanced by Meiss in an essay included in a miscellany for Mario Salmi.46 The American professor was deeply disappointed and accused the colleague of having been forewarned by Federico Zeri. Longhi in turn insisted that he had independently reached the same conclusion and promised to publicly explain the misunderstanding.47 Ever since the ‘bad experience’ of the Cesi Master,48 the exchanges between the two scholars became scarce and the tone cordial yet detached.49

41

42 43

44

45 46 47

48 49

Fiocco says or by an as yet unidentifed assistant of Mantegna, as I proposed; and whether the majestic miniatures in the Arsenal manuscript are closer, as Professor Fiocco claims, to Leonardo Bellini (poverino) then [sic] to Mantegna’. Fiocco 1958, 58: ‘In tal modo i doni che Millard Meiss voleva recare al genio del Mantegna, mi dispiace di doverlo decisamente constatare, si riducono a una petizione di principio e, quel che è peggio, a un’impresa eruditissima ma senza costrutto’. On Giuseppe Fiocco (1884–1972), see Il magistero di Giuseppe Fiocco 2007 and Del Puppo 2016. For the relationship between Longhi and Fiocco, refer to F. Bernabei, ‘Il laboratorio critico di Giuseppe Fiocco’, in: Il magistero di Giuseppe Fiocco 2007, 225–241. Fiocco 1958. Leonardo Bellini was the subject of the article that followed Fiocco’s review penned by his student Lino Moretti; see Moretti 1958. Fiocco’s monograph on Mantegna (1927) was republished a year after the review; see Fiocco 19592. On the Mantegna polemic with Longhi, see Mazzocca 1980; Pinna 1996; Bernabei 1999; Gallo 2010, 124–134 and De Nicolò Salmazo 2013. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 6 October 1958: ‘My own ascriptions may not be right, but they are certainly nearer the truth than the preposterous attributions that he himself proposes. […] When you are here in the U.S. I will show you a fake Madonna in the Boston Museum that Siocco attributed to Mantegna himself’. ‘Siocco’ was a play on words based on the term for ‘silly’ in Venetian dialect. Longhi 1961. On the Stella Altarpiece, see Aronberg Lavin 2001. Meiss 1962b. Although Meiss’s essay was published in 1962, he had submitted it to Lionello Venturi for publication in December 1958. AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 9 June 1962: ‘Tengo a dirLe che non fu lo Zeri ad avvertirmi di quel dipinto, ma furono amici di Nizza a farmelo vedere e a fornirmene fotografe, senza dirmi, perché evidentemente non lo sapevano, ch’Ella se ne stava occupando. Anch’io ne ero perfettamente ignaro’. (‘I wish to tell you that it was not Zeri who told me about that painting, but it was some friends from Nice who showed it to me and provided me with pictures, without telling me, obviously because they did not know, that You were studying it. I, too, was perfectly unaware’.) AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard Meiss, 15 May 1963: ‘Come Lei potrà immaginare, data la mancanza di ogni canale di comunicazione fra me e il gruppo Salmi (che risulta anche dalla mia assenza nel Festschrift), io non ebbi alcuna notizia del Suo articolo fno a jeri quando ho comperato i tre volumi della miscellanea in onore del Salmi stesso’. (‘How you will imagine, given the lack of any channel of communication between me and Salmi’s group (which also results in my absence in the Festschrift), I had no knowledge of Your article until yesterday when I bought the three volumes of collected essays in honour of Salmi’.) The paternity of the attribution was rightfully given back to Meiss only in more recent years; Aronberg Lavin 2001, 9, 15. AAA, MMP. Letter from Miklós Boskovits to Millard Meiss, 17 February 1971. In the last letter, Longhi expressed his disagreement with Meiss’s attribution of the Yates Thompson Dante to Priamo della Quercia (cf. Meiss 1964c). AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Longhi to Millard

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

189

Figure 5.1 Cesi Master, Assumption of the Virgin (central panel of the Stella Altarpiece), 1308, tempera on wood, 191 × 175.5 cm, St.-Jean-Cap-Ferrat, Villa & Gardens Ephrussi de Rothschild [Bologna, Fototeca Federico Zeri, inv. no. 30907].

190

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

Being an American, Meiss was probably above the litigious factions that Italian art scholarship was fragmented into. Although he established connections across the board, the Princeton professor seemed to have had a friendlier rapport with Mario Salmi, and his school. A government offcial, Salmi played an active part in defence of monuments during the war. He was also a champion of unwavering commitment to the preservation of artistic heritage not to be disjoined from purely academic research.50 Salmi was also intent upon facilitating international collaboration among scholars and, in this spirit, invited Meiss to participate in the advisory board of the editorial project Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte in 1956.51 In turn, Meiss offered to publicise Commentari – the journal Salmi and Venturi Jr. co-founded in 1950 – in the United States.52 When Paragone did not publish his note addressing Fiocco’s comments, Meiss decided to turn to Salmi, Longhi’s nemesis, for a rectifcation.53 Even though he bemoaned Fiocco’s ‘absolute lack of urbanity’, Commentari never featured the review that Salmi promised.54 Neither did Salmi deliver on another review that he intended to write of the ‘magnifcent book’ on the painting at the Court of Berry.55 Illumination and Piero della Francesca may have provided a fruitful common ground to the two scholars, but their correspondence mostly regarded their respective institutional roles in CIHA.56 In 1967, Salmi invited Meiss as a speaker at the Congresso Giottesco, thirty years since the historic congress, when the Italian scholar encountered Meiss’s mentor, Richard Offner.57 Finally, Salmi endorsed the appointment of the Princeton professor as international correspondent of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei in

50

51

52

53

54 55 56

57

Meiss, 8 November 1964: ‘Quando c’incontreremo – e mi auguro che sia presto – le esporrò le ragioni per cui pensavo ad un altro nome per quella collaborazione; sempre un senese, ben s’intende’. (‘When we meet again – which I hope will be soon – I will explain to you the reasons why I was thinking of another name for that collaboration; always a Sienese, of course’.) Between 1930 and 1971, Salmi served on the board of the Higher Council for Antiquities and the Fine Arts of the Ministry of Education. Cf. Argan 1991, 30: ‘Aborriva dalla separazione, che prendeva talvolta l’odioso aspetto di differenza gerarchica, tra gli studiosi che facevano pura ricerca e insegnamento universitario e quelli che, operando nell’amministrazione governativa, avevano in consegna le opere’. AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 3 March 1956; letter from Millard Meiss to Mario Salmi, 3 April 1956. Meiss offered to write the entry on Francesco Traini, but in the end his role, like Panofsky’s, in the Enciclopedia Universale was merely advisory. AAA, MMP. Letters from Millard Meiss to Mario Salmi, 12 January and 19 February 1957; letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 11 March 1957; letter from Millard Meiss to Mario Salmi, 23 April 1957. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Mario Salmi, 20 February 1957. Meiss, however, never contributed to the journal. On Commentari, see A. Condorelli, ‘Mario Salmi e Commentari’, in: Argan 1991, 41–43; Sciolla 2016. The hostility between Salmi and Longhi began when Salmi was chosen to succeed Adolfo Venturi at the chair of art history in Rome’s La Sapienza University in 1950. On Mario Salmi (1899–1980), see Argan 1991 and Ciardi Dupré dal Poggetto 1993. AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 26 March 1959: ‘assoluta mancanza di urbanità’. AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 16 February 1968: ‘magnifco libro’. Salmi was a prominent member of the Italian section of CIHA and should have chaired a session on the relations between French and Italian Gothic at the International Congress of Art History in New York (1961) but had to leave his place to Cesare Gnudi because of poor health. AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 19 January 1961. AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 28 January 1967. Salmi had frst met Richard Offner in the previous Congresso Giottesco of 1937.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

191

1974. Among the ‘Salmisti’, several developed a close relationship with Meiss in the post-war years, like Cesare Gnudi, Enzo Carli and Roberto Salvini. 58

The Soprintendenti’s Circle Ever since he began his studies on Tuscan painters, Meiss was able to count on the collaboration of several soprintendenti from Central Italy. After the war, Meiss worked to rebuild and repair damaged monuments in tandem with a roster of conservators, like Enzo Carli, Ugo Procacci, Roberto Salvini, Cesare Gnudi, Giuseppe Marchini and Giovanni Paccagnini – many of whom had been militant members of the resistance.59 The passionate protection of artworks and attention for the technical aspects of conservation that Meiss shared with these Italian ‘monuments men’ was later reignited when they had to face a new emergency in Florence and Venice after the 1966 food.60 From a methodological standpoint, these conservators adopted a philological approach that was based on the technical analysis of artworks and the study of archive and literary sources, without overlooking the iconographic and narrative content of the work of art.61 Referring to Procacci, Meiss once wrote that their tasks required Italian soprintendenti to be ‘polymaths’, and it was precisely their contextual vision of the work of art that made these art historians more receptive towards Meiss’s interdisciplinary outlook: Italian soprintendenti, in charge of, shall we say, gigantic museums that encompass large cities, have an awesome responsibility. They need to be, among other things, polymaths.62 Ugo Procacci was in Meiss’s words ‘the best soprintendente in history, and a wonderful man’.63 Their enduring friendship began in the 1930s, when Meiss was scouring the archives in search of ‘Ugolino Lorenzetti’s’ identity.64 Archive research was

58 AAA, MMP. Letter from Mario Salmi to Millard Meiss, 3 August 1974. Salmi’s motion was approved by a signifcant majority together with the appointment of Ugo Procacci. 59 These men were militants close to the ‘gruppo Ragghianti’; see Bulgarelli 2006, 70 note 17; Bulgarelli 2010, 202–204; Pellegrini 2018, 47–56. 60 Meiss mentioned some of them in the acknowledgements of his book on frescoes (Meiss 1970a, 10). 61 This attention for the study of documents descended from Adolfo Venturi, whose Scuola di Perfezionamento in Rome trained generations of Italian art historians, museum directors and conservators; see Levi 2013; S. Valeri, ‘Storia e critica dell’arte nell’università italiana. Adolfo e Lionello Venturi’ and S. Ventra, ‘La Sapienza della tutela. Funzionari docenti nella Scuola di Perfezionamento’, in: Barrese, Gandolf, Onori 2017, 11–23; 159–168. 62 Meiss’s words were written on the panel commemorating Procacci’s career in the exhibition Firenze Restaura: ‘Italian soprintendenti, in charge of, shall we say, gigantic museums that encompass large cities, have an awesome responsibility. They need to be, among other things, polymaths’. http://www.fre nzerestaura1972.beniculturali.it/index.php?it/168/sala-lxi-omaggio-a-ugo-procacci. 63 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959: ‘Though not a great art historian he is a great archaeologist, the best soprintendente in history and a wonderful man’. For the literature on Procacci, see Chapter 4. 64 Meiss’s identifcation with Bartolomeo Bulgarini was published in Rivista d’Arte, a periodical edited by Procacci (Meiss 1936a). On Rivista d’Arte, see Galassi 2016. Meiss probably made Procacci’s acquaintance through Offner, whose Corpus of Florentine Painting was later enthusiastically reviewed by the Italian scholar (Procacci 1958).

192

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

a fundamental part of Procacci’s training under the historian Gaetano Salvemini, owing him the reputation of ‘one of the greatest chartists’.65 What set Procacci apart from other Italian art historians and earned him the appreciation of international scholars was however the attention accorded to the artist’s cultural, economic and political context.66 This was best exemplifed in his studies on the Florentine Catasto, which not only proved to be a useful chronological aid to date works of art, but more importantly shed light on the organisation of artistic workshops.67 Procacci’s thorough archival research greatly benefted Meiss’s work, as can be seen in his analysis of Masaccio’s Tribute Money whose meaning was interpreted as a reference to the recently introduced tax on property in Florence.68 Procacci was considered to be the only scholar ‘who is potentially most capable of making a serious advance in the study of Florentine painting’69 and Panofsky, too, greatly admired his expertise in the technical examination of frescoes.70 In order to encourage his research, Meiss offered a position as visiting lecturer in Princeton to the Italian conservator in 1958, but he refused because he could not escape his obligations in Florence.71 His relentless dedication to art conservation was, after all, the greatest quality that Meiss recognised in a tribute celebrating the soprintendente’s legacy that was showcased in the exhibition Firenze Restaura.72 Procacci was deeply moved and simply explained: I have tried to do what I could, and I have always loved, above anything else, our monuments and our works of art.73 The correspondence between the two art historians testifed to a close personal friendship that endured until the last days of the Princeton professor.74 When Meiss passed

65 It was Longhi who called Procacci ‘uno dei più grandi cartisti’, quoted in: U. Baldini, ‘Ricordo di Ugo Procacci’, in: Ciatti and Frosinini 2006, 256. 66 J. Gardner, ‘The Infuence of Ugo Procacci as a Scholar outside Italy’, in: Ciatti and Frosinini 2006, 231: ‘It demonstrates the methodological pragmatism and profound understanding of the early Renaissance artist’s milieu together with an acknowledgement that wider considerations of economic environment and political climate needed also to be addressed’. 67 Procacci 1960. Procacci’s studies on the Catasto (i.e. a graduated income and property tax introduced in 1427) dated back to the 1950s but were only later published in full: Procacci 1981; Procacci 1996. 68 Meiss 1963b. Meiss observed that the scene had an unusual prominence in the cycle that Felice Brancacci commissioned to Masaccio and hypothesised that it may have refected this contemporary event. 69 AAA, MMP. Letter from John Pope-Hennessy to Millard Meiss, 10 April 1956. 70 Panofsky 2008, 321 [Erwin Panofsky – Ugo Procacci, 2 October 1958]: ‘I have read your lucid exposition with the greatest interest and admiration for both the work you have done and the admirable way in which you explained it to your colleagues’. 71 See infra. 72 The tribute was later published in The Burlington Magazine (Meiss 1973). On Firenze Restaura, see Chapter 4. 73 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 13 February 1973: ‘Io ho cercato di fare quello che ho potuto, e ho sempre amato, sopra ogni altra cosa, i nostri monumenti e le nostre opere d’arte’. 74 AAA, MMP. Letter from Ugo Procacci to Millard Meiss, 6 April 1975: ‘Carissimo Millard e carissima Meg, […] voi siete i più cari amici che io abbia e con voi, sempre, è il pensiero mio e della Lucia’ (‘Dearest Millard and dearest Meg, […] you are the closest friends I have and with you, always, are my thoughts and Lucia’s’).

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

193

away, Procacci wrote a poignant obituary that celebrated his friend’s scholarly achievements.75 He spoke of Meiss as a kindred spirit who put research at the service of the preservation of artworks and studied artists, not like abstract artistic personalities but as embedded in a cultural, political and economic background.76 Meiss made the acquaintance of the recently appointed soprintendente in Bologna, Cesare Gnudi, when he was working with ACRIM to reconstruct and repair Italian monuments.77 An expert in 14th- and 15th-century Tuscan and Bolognese art, Gnudi strenuously defended Giotto’s authorship of the Life of St Francis just as Meiss set out to challenge that attribution.78 Putting aside their differences in the Assisi problem, which constituted ‘the bone of contention and the token (or better, one of the tokens) of this friendship’, the two art historians mainly collaborated within the Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art.79 Gnudi had in fact replaced Salmi in the Italian section of CIHA and chaired a session of the New York conference on the transition of the Gothic style from France to Tuscany and Rome in the 13th and the 14th centuries.80 The same broad perspective on artworks as products of cross-cultural stylistic fertilisation that became synonymous with Gnudi’s research was evidenced in the papers that he presented in CIHA conferences and informed the Bologna congress that he organised in 1979.81 Meiss’s network of Italian soprintendenti would not be complete without mentioning Giuseppe Marchini and Giovanni Paccagnini.82 Marchini was a collaborator of Procacci and shone for his efforts, both during the war and after the Florentine food.83 Meiss and Marchini corresponded at length about Piero della Francesca, a subject they both investigated, particularly with regard to the Brera Altarpiece and its ‘oological’ matter.84 Thanks to Meiss’s mediation, Marchini spent some time 75 Procacci 1975. Julian Gardner described it as ‘one of the most moving of all Ugo Procacci’s writings’ (Gardner, ‘The infuence of Ugo Procacci …’ cit., 238). 76 Procacci 1975, 53. 77 Cesare Gnudi was the soprintendente of Bologna from 1952 to 1971. Gnudi was in turn a close friend of Enzo Carli and Ugo Procacci. On Cesare Gnudi (1910–1981), see De Luca 1993; Emiliani 2001; A. Emliani, ‘Cesare Gnudi’, in: Bernardini 2007, 292–298; Cesare Gnudi 2004 and L. Ciancabilla, ‘Cesare Gnudi e la salvaguardia degli affreschi: “stacchi e strappi” a Bologna fra allestimenti permanenti, restauri e mostre temporanee’, in: Galassi 2017, 323–338. 78 Gnudi 1958. On the debate on the Assisi frescoes, refer to Chapter 1. 79 AAA, MMP. Letter from Cesare Gnudi to Millard Meiss, 23 August 1971: ‘il pomo della discordia e il pegno (o meglio, uno dei pegni) dell’amicizia’. 80 C. Gnudi, ‘Introduction’, in: Meiss 1963a, I, 161–167; republ. as ‘La scultura francese e la scultura italiana’, in: Gnudi 1982, 3–8. Gnudi would then lead CIHA’s Italian committee together with Anna Maria Brizio, which was constituted on 4 July 1966; cf. CIHA 1967, 6. 81 Meiss, for instance, complimented him on ‘the Hungaro-Italian axis’ that he explored in the Budapest conference; see APCG. Letter from Millard Meiss to Cesare Gnudi, 29 September [1969]. Cf. Gnudi 1972. In Bologna, in a session on East-West relations in the 13th century, Gnudi’s paper dealt with the Byzantine and French infuences in 13th-century Italy and effectively challenged the stumbling block of Longhi’s ‘Giudizio’; see C. Gnudi, ‘Il ruolo dell’Italia nel Duecento’; republ. in: Gnudi 1982, 152–161. 82 On Marchini (1914–1986) and Paccagnini (1910–1977), refer to A. Marchi, ‘Giuseppe Marchini’ and M. Ragozzino, ‘Giovanni Paccagnini’, both in: Bernardini 2007, 345–347, 430–433. 83 Hartt 1949, 62. Between 1970 and 1973, Marchini was Soprintendente alle Gallerie di Firenze e Pistoia. 84 Cf. Marchini 1958 and Meiss 1966a, 204 note 21: ‘I am I am thankful to Professor Giuseppe Marchini, in 1965 Soprintendente in Urbino, for discussing these questions with me’. The dialogue on Piero della

194

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

in Princeton as a temporary member and was later involved in the CIHA project Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi.85 Meiss probably met Giovanni Paccagnini in Pisa when he was overseeing the restoration of the Pisan Camposanto fresco, and the latter was a conservator in the local soprintendenza.86 Not unlike the approach of other art historians orbiting around Meiss, the examination of techniques and materials combined with an in-depth knowledge of archive sources were at the foundation of Paccagnini’s studies.87 The American professor was particularly interested in Paccagnini’s fndings on the use of a mixed technique in Mantegna’s Camera degli Sposi.88 But Meiss was mostly captivated by Paccagnini’s discovery of a fresco by Pisanello in Mantua’s Palazzo Ducale in 1967.89 Two years later, the American scholar inspected the painted chivalric scenes in person, which he hoped to publish in The Great Age of Fresco, and continued to discuss the technical aspects of wall painting with Paccagnini in the following years.90 A True Gentleman from the 19th Century During the war, the Tuscan art historian Roberto Salvini was one of the Italian monuments men and an anti-fascist militant, along with Procacci, Carli, Gnudi and Ragghianti.91 Meiss would make his acquaintance only in the early 1960s, when the Italian scholar was a speaker at the New York CIHA conference and the two met again between Florence and Pistoia in 1964.92 Late Trecento art and a similar way of examining artistic phenomena probably drew Meiss to Salvini, whom he considered a ‘true gentleman from the 19th century’.93 Although he read Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death only in 1964, Salvini found in Meiss’s stylistic outline of the period many similarities with his own interpretation of Andrea di Cione’s art,

85

86 87

88 89 90 91

92 93

Francesca continued in the seventies, when Marchini would signal to Meiss the more recent studies on the perspective construction of the Brera Altarpiece. Marchini was the author of a monograph on Italian stained glass windows (Marchini 1956). CIHA’s Corpus vitrearum Medii Aevi was coordinated by Hans Hahnloser, and the Italian section was chaired by Mario Salmi and included Marchini and Edoardo Arslan; cf. Marchini 1973. Gnudi 1977, 309. Ibid., 309: ‘Le forme stilistiche sono sempre viste e interpretate dal Paccagnini in stretta connessione non solo con i contenuti iconografci e narrativi, ma anche con le tecniche grafche e pittoriche, il cui studio è qui reso particolarmente interessante dalla incompiutezza dell’opera’. In 1949, Paccagnini published some important documentary evidence on the Triumph of St Thomas and the Life of St Dominic ascribed to Francesco Traini – referencing to Meiss’s ‘clever study’ (Paccagnini 1949, 192). Meiss referred to Paccagnini’s study on Mantegna’s technique (Paccagnini 1961–1962) in the article on mural painting that he wrote with Leonetto Tintori (Meiss and Tintori 1964e). Cf. Paccagnini 1967; Paccagnini 1972. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Giovanni Paccagnini, 28 August 1969; letters from Giovanni Paccagnini to Millard Meiss, 15 November 1969 and 22 December 1974. Salvini worked in the soprintendenze of Trento, Palermo and Modena; see Salvini 1986. On Salvini (1912–1985), refer to Walcher Casotti 1987; Bulgarelli 2007; S. Cavicchioli, ‘Roberto Salvini’, in: Bernardini 2007, 571–574 and Greco 2011. Salvini was recently the object of the conference Roberto Salvini (Firenze, 1912–1985): la Storia dell’arte, Firenze, l’Europa (Florence, 31 May–1 June 2018). AAA, MMP. Letter from Cesare Gnudi to Millard Meiss, 18 February 1961; letter from Millard Meiss to Cesare Gnudi, 11 April 1961; letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 4 March 1964. LAELT. Letter from Millard Meiss to Leonetto Tintori, 5 January 1974: ‘un vero gentiluomo del ottocento [sic]’.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

195

formulated almost thirty years earlier. Salvini’s international education completed in Florence, Munich, Berlin and Hamburg allowed him to develop an approach that combined a Crocean framework with pure visibility and the history of culture.95 In his outlines of Romanesque sculpture and Italian and Flemish 15th-century art, Salvini was able to compellingly illustrate a pattern of fgurative infuences that refected dynamic economic and cultural exchanges.96 Another sphere of activity the Italian art historian had in common with Meiss was the protection of Italian monuments, which became apparent in the seventies in their collaboration after the Florentine food.97 But it was Meiss’s research on Flemish painting and its interconnections with Italian art that exerted the strongest infuence on Salvini.98 When he was giving a course on 15thcentury Flemish naturalistic painting at the art institute in Florence in the seventies, the art historian wrote to Meiss: 94

Your name, alongside Panofsky’s, is evoked every week during in my lecture theatre, because I am holding a course on Jan van Eyck and the Flémalle Master, with an introduction and references to French and Franco-Flemish illumination and painting around the Duke of Berry, and your fve volumes are among those my students consult the most often.99 His solid philosophical background made Salvini particularly versed in discussing methodological problems as was refected in his penetrating observations on Meiss’s method.100 The occasion was offered by the laudatio that Salvini delivered when the

94 AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 4 March 1964: ‘Sto anche leggendo, proprio adesso (e mi vergogno di farlo soltanto ora) il suo importantissimo e così intelligente saggio sulla Pittura forentina e senese dopo la peste, e ho notato che Ella condivide la mia interpretazione dell’arte dell’Orcagna. Questa confrontazione mi fa molto molto piacere naturalmente, trovandovi una conferma che non avrei potuto desiderare più autorevole’. (‘I am also reading, at the moment (and I am ashamed to be doing so only now) your very important and so clever essay on Florentine and Sienese painting after the plague, and I have noticed that You share my interpretation of Orcagna’s art. I am obviously very pleased of this exchange, as I have found a verifcation that I could not have wished a more distinguished one’.) Like Meiss, Salvini argued that the tension between the plastic treatment of fgures and fat surfaces in late Trecento art was the expression of a deeply religious view of the world; cf. Salvini 1937, 35–38. 95 On the infuence of Croce on Salvini, see Greco 2011. Cf. also Salvini 1977. 96 Bulgarelli 2007, 20; cf. Salvini 1956; Salvini 1958. 97 Salvini showed an interest in Meiss’s research on mural painting and appreciated his atlas The Great Age of Fresco (Meiss 1970a). AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 30 September 1972: ‘tanto interessante sia per l’approfondito studio della tecnica della pittura murale in funzione dei suoi valori espressivi, nell’introduzione, sia per le non poche osservazioni originali contenute nel commento delle tavole’. (‘So interesting both for the in-depth study of the technique of mural painting in connection with its expressive values, in the introduction, and for the few new remarks contained in the plates descriptions’.) 98 Cf. Salvini 1958; Salvini 1984. 99 AAA, MMP. Letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 5 March 1975: ‘Il tuo nome, accanto a quello di Panofsky, risuona ogni settimana nell’aula delle mie lezioni, perché sto facendo un corso su Jan van Eyck e il Maestro di Flémalle, con introduzione e riferimenti alla miniatura e pittura francese e franco-famminga intorno al Duca di Berry, e i tuoi cinque volumi sono fra quelli più spesso consultati dai miei studenti’. 100 Benedetto Croce praised Salvini’s particular propensity for methodological debate upon commenting on his Guida dell’arte moderna (1949); see Greco 2011.

196

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

University of Florence awarded Meiss with an honorary degree in 1968.101 Trained under Offner’s ‘rigorous formalistic method’, the American scholar developed a ‘profound sensitivity […] for the aesthetic meaning of forms’, set against ‘a broad historical vision with a European scope’.102 Even his attributionist studies – forming most of his work, Salvini clarifed – revealed ‘deep iconographic and iconological interests’, combined with a formal interpretation of culture. Meiss’s notion of art history, continued Salvini, encompassed the history of thinking, of culture and, ‘if necessary’ (a due specifcation), of political events: with measure, however, and with a complex articulation and fne nuance that lead to avoid the schematism in which at times scholars had fallen, even the great ones like, for instance, Jakob Burckhardt and Max Dvořák, and even more so, the scholars, equally serious and respected, with a sociological orientation like Frederick Antal.103 Perhaps in response to the narrow-minded interpretation of the Black Death book prevalent amongst Italian scholarship, Salvini underscored how Meiss focussed on stylistic and formal development and that the analysis of the cultural, political and economic background contributed to the explanation of works of art without any preconceived determinism.104 Furthermore, unlike the ‘illustrious school of London’ (i.e. the Warburg Institute), Meiss’s historical and iconological research never lost sight of the expressive values of artworks.105 The elucidation of the role played by meaning in Meiss’s art historical investigation clearly showed Salvini’s intent to distance his approach from a more traditional iconology: The meaning, subtly investigated, of the iconographic theme with all its cultural and ideological implications, is signifcantly linked to the results of a renewed and deep interpretation of the artwork in its formal aspects.106 The complexity of Meiss’s wide-reaching interests was epitomised, according to the Italian professor, by French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry, in which the American successfully wove a thick fabric of stylistic connections,

101 Salvini succeeded Longhi at the university’s chair of art history in 1963 until 1982. 102 AAA, MMP. Account of the Scholarly Record of Millard Meiss delivered by Professor Roberto Salvini of the University of Florence at the convocation held for the award of Honorary Litt. D. May 16, 1968 [henceforth mentioned as ‘Account by Roberto Salvini’]. 103 Ibid.: ‘con una misura, tuttavia, e con una complessità di articolazioni e fnezza di sfumature, che portano ad evitare quegli schematismi nei quali erano talvolta incorsi studiosi, anche grandi come, poniamo, un Jakob Burckhardt e un Max Dvořák, e più ancora studiosi, pure assai seri e rispettabili, di orientamento sociologico come Frederick Antal’. 104 In the methodological session of the CIHA congress in Budapest (1969), Salvini signifcantly delivered a paper on the meaning and limits of a social history of art; see Salvini 1972. 105 Note that Salvini completed a fellowship at the Warburg Institute in 1953; see Bulgarelli 2007, 34. 106 ‘Account by Roberto Salvini’: ‘Il signifcato, sottilmente indagato, del tema iconografco con le tutte le sue implicazioni culturali e ideologiche è messo in signifcante rapporto con i risultati di una rinnovata ed approfondita lettura dell’opera nei suoi aspetti formali’. In the 1960s, Panofsky and the iconological school were still the object of controversial opinions among Italian art historians.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

197

masterfully drawing on the results of historical and sociological, iconographical and stylistic research within the framework of a shrewd recreation of the cultural milieu with a view to defning the more strictly artistic values of the works of art.107 Contrary to the ‘refned, but ultimately sterile philologism’ of contemporary studies, Meiss’s overarching perspective had earned him a place in 19th- and early 20thcentury art scholarship.108 The great admiration for Meiss was also palpable in a witty, yet more playful, poem that Salvini wrote for his seventieth birthday. Gathered with his friends and colleagues in Princeton, the Italian art historian spoke of grateful Florentine stones cleansed from mud and bucolic encounters in the Tuscan countryside of merry youths out of the Decameron: Coming back next week to Florence | I shall greet the cupolone | Santo Spirito and Saint-Laurence … | What I bitterly shall miss | Will be the company of Millard Meiss | Yet, as an optimist, I think | There is a remedy for every thing.| Shall stroll around in that old town | Listening to a secret sound. | Every stone, every ancient piece | Whispers the name of Millard Meiss: | ‘Though we are old, to him we owe | That we are alive at least for now, | That our wounds after the food | Were probed and dressed and cleansed from mud’. | Then I shall leave the city walls | Following the appeal of the other calls. Nearing a villa in the countryside | I see a phantom of a horse astride: | A noble phantom, and a merry one, | Yet looking abashed and somewhat won: | ‘Inside this garden and in that room | With youths and girls the black death’s gloom | With songs and tales was overcome. | And my Decameron was done. | And my description of the plague | In all its horror, and mean vague, | Counts as a world masterpiece | (The obvious rhyme for Millard Meiss) | What I did not understand – | Until the end it tortured me – | Was what the end result would be. | But, though I haven’t got it quite | I think I have now some insight. | But I need not write another piece | That has been done by Millard Meiss!’109 The Champion of Iconology and History of Culture, or Our Man in Italy Eugenio Battisti occupied an eccentric position in the Italian art historical world ever since his philosophical training that had been geared to break with Crocean aesthetic tradition.110 Meiss frst crossed paths with Battisti in the mid-ffties, when they were both collaborating to the Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte.111 In 1958, the Italian

107 Ibid.: ‘mettendo magistralmente a frutto i risultati di ricerche storiche e sociologiche, iconografche e stilistiche nel quadro di un’acutissima ricostruzione del clima culturale, in vista della defnizione dei valori più propriamente artistici delle opere d’arte’. 108 Ibid.: ‘raffnato, ma alla fne arido flologismo’. 109 AAA, MMP. Undated poem on unstamped paper with ‘Salvini’ written in black pencil [1974?]. 110 Eugenio Battisti (1924–1989) studied philosophy in Turin with Augusto Guzzo and Luigi Payerson. In contrast to Croce’s Neo-idealism, Battisti’s thesis investigated artistic creation as a material act. On Battisti, see Gatti Perrer 1994; Saccaro Del Buffa 2005; Piva and Galliani 2009; Saccaro Del Buffa 2012; Marinho 2015; Battisti 2015 and Saccaro Del Buffa 2018. 111 Battisti was one of the editors of the enterprise coordinated by Mario Salmi, and Meiss was part of the scientifc committee.

198

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

scholar sought Meiss’s and Panofsky’s approval to become a temporary member in Princeton, but his application was ultimately rejected because of his too disparate research interests.112 Because he professed ‘an interest in history of culture and in iconography’, Meiss thought that Battisti would have been more useful in Italy than in Princeton.113 Only a few years after that prophetical statement, Battisti earned his reputation as a champion of iconology by defending the Panofskyan method from the attack that Stefano Bottari launched in the introduction to Longhi’s Festschrift.114 In an editorial in his journal Marcatré, Battisti appealed to the representatives of a cultural avant-garde, urging them to ‘besiege’ the attributionism of a ‘university professor inspired by divine wisdom’ and shake a ‘tardy Italy’.115 These words were also aimed at Carlo Volpe, who had openly criticised Battisti’s interdisciplinary perspective in a stinging review of his book on Cimabue. According to Volpe, Battisti’s contextual outlook obscured artistic personality and invariably led to Stuffng the mind with the indiscriminate jumble of information with an erudition which, after killing even the elementary notion of history of art, no longer distinguishes between the domains of different disciplines.116 Battisti should have instead relied on the only tool of the trade – the ‘enlightenment of the eye’.117 Volpe’s critique was perceived as more than just professional and represented the culmination of Battisti’s frustration with Italian art historians. Shortly afterwards, Battisti decided to move to the United States and accepted a teaching position at Penn University.118 Fascinated by the new academic environment, Battisti wrote to Meiss about his frst impressions:

112 Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959: ‘I have, however, talked with him [Procacci] here, and the gist of his comments is that E.B. is clever and ambitious, but hasn’t found a place for himself and doesn’t seem to know what he wants to do (as I rather suspect from the number of notes about so great a variety of subjects in his bibliography). He does not speak warmly about E.B., partly no doubt because of the difference of interests but partly, it was evident, because E.B. is always putting himself forward – “B. mette subito tutto sulla tavola”’; letter from Erwin Panofsky to Millard Meiss, 20 May 1959: ‘I am just as reluctant to encourage him as you are; but there does not seem to be any way of preventing him from making an application if he wants to’. 113 Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959. 114 Cf. Bottari 1961. 115 Battisti 1965, 334: ‘Una “nouvelle vague” come la defniva con disprezzo un dotto professore universitario introducendo (1961) ai saggi in onore di un altro professore universitario ispirato dalla divinasapienza. Una avanguardia che guarda soprattutto a quanto si fa fuori dell’attardante Italia senza rifutare la tradizione dei nostri studi’. 116 Volpe 1964, 69–70: ‘un imbottimento del cervello con l’indiscriminato coacervo dei dati di una erudizione che, dopo aver ucciso anche la nozione elementare di una storia dell’arte, non distingue più fra gli statuti operativi delle diverse discipline’. Cf. Battisti 1963. 117 Volpe 1964, 74: ‘lume degli occhi’. 118 Cf. M. Dezzi Bardeschi, ‘Eugenio Battisti, storico delle idee, poligrafo, eccezionale maestro’ and R. Plunz, ‘Refections on “From Penn State to San Leucio and Back”’, in: Piva and Galliani 2009, 127– 135, 51–52.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

199

The level of studies is very high in comparison and the presence of the historical school You represent with such great intelligence provides them with a wide cultural background.119 As he was commuting between the two sides of the Atlantic, Battisti continued to bolster American scholarship in Italy. He celebrated Meiss as the ‘great taskmaster and ringleader’ and supported the translation of his books on the painting at the Court of Berry.120 He urged Enio Sindona to publish Meiss’s articles in L’Arte as the new series was broadening its horizons to include architecture, design, contemporary art and ‘new’ iconological and socio-cultural orientations.121 When Panofsky died, Battisti remembered his ‘spiritual father’ that he defended from Longhi’s dictatorship at a great personal cost: The scholars of Caravaggio are used to the same treatment, but there is plenty of them. Instead, no one ever wrote a word that was not an offense or insult, on the Cimabue, so I have to conclude that either I am completely wrong, or they hold the dictatorship in the feld.122 As Battisti was completing a monograph on Piero della Francesca in the early seventies, he would confer with Meiss, though he was reluctant to show the manuscript to the Princeton professor, as he self-consciously feared that it would be full of mistakes.123 To pursue his mission to further iconology, sociology and Marxist art history in Italy, in 1974 Battisti founded the journal Psicon.124 The constant battle with other

119 APEB. Letter from Eugenio Battisti to Millard Meiss, November 1965: ‘Il livello degli studi è altissimo, in paragone, e la presenza della scuola storica che Lei rappresenta con tanta intelligenza dà loro un ampissimo background culturale’. 120 APEB. Letter from Eugenio Battisti to Enio Sindona, March 1966: ‘grande capomastro e capobanda’. 121 The new series of L’Arte began in 1968 and lasted until 1972. The scientifc board signifcantly included James S. Ackerman, Pierre Francastel, Rudolf Wittkower and Bruno Zevi. Cf. Sindona 1968: ‘La nuova rivista si apre alle più attuali problematiche e intende promuoverne il dibattito e l’incontro nel modo più ampio, in adesione al fatto che l’opera d’arte – e non soltanto il fenomeno esteticoteoretico in generale – viene oggi sempre più riguardata, al fne di una più approfondita “conoscenza”, sotto l’aspetto dei molteplici fattori culturali in essa contenuti e dei nessi tra l’artista e la civiltà che lo condiziona in parte e che egli stesso condiziona; nessi che coinvolgo, oltre agli elementi meramente tecnico-formali, anche condizioni storico-sociali, e fattori etici, iconologici, economici, ecc’. 122 APEB. Letter from Eugenio Battisti to Millard Meiss, 3 April 1968: ‘Gli studiosi di Caravaggio sono abituati allo stesso trattamento, ma sono molti. Invece mai nessuno ha scritto una riga, che non fosse di offesa e d’insulto, sul Cimabue, per cui devo dire, o io ho completamente torto, o essi hanno la preponderante dittatura nel campo’. Battisti also asked Meiss if he could favourably review the English edition of his Cimabue (Battisti 1967). Meiss did not comply, and the only other review was not a positive one; see Gardner 1970. 123 Battisti 1971–1972. AAA, MMP. Letter from Eugenio Battisti to Millard Meiss, 20 March 1974: ‘Ma mi sento colpevole di non aver potuto inviarLe in omaggio una copia del Piero, che l’editore non ha distribuito, credo per principio, a nessun recensore e tanto meno a dei nominativi illustri. Ma forse è meglio che Lei non lo vegga’. (‘But I feel guilty for not being able to send You a free copy of Piero, which the publisher did not distribute, I think, out of principle, to no reviewer and much less to illustrious names. But perhaps it is better that You do not see it’.); letter from Millard Meiss to Eugenio Battisti, 23 August 1974: ‘Eager as I was to read your book on Piero, about which we had exchanged notes, I was continuously frustrated because Marquand Library proved entirely unable to obtain the book’. 124 Agosti 1985, 43; cf. Dezzi Bardeschi 2014.

200

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

Italian scholars that this ‘champion of iconology’ endured was acknowledged in the last letter that Meiss wrote to him: I cannot believe that a man who has contributed as much as you to our discipline will feel dissatisfed or frustrated for very long about the nature of his accomplishments and the prospects in the coming years.125

When Princeton Mostly Spoke Italian Ever since he worked alongside Walter W.S. Cook to create the ‘University of Exile’, trying to secure funding for the placement of émigré art historians, Meiss understood the importance of promoting the collaboration between scholars as a key element in the progress of the discipline.126 His efforts in the preservation of artistic heritage after the Second World War marked a watershed in international cooperation, breaking the cultural isolation of wartime years.127 Prompting relations among art historians was also at the heart of Meiss’s work in the Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art. This especially transpired in the numerous cataloguing projects that he supported, like the Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi or the Dictionnaire d’esthétique, as well as the Bulletin du CIHA which he created, alongside André Chastel, to foster communication within the community of art scholars.128 Because of the object of his studies, Meiss forged a special relationship with several art historians, restorers and conservators in Italy and built a network with American research centres. In contrast to Panofsky’s years, when the community of scholars was mostly made up of Germans and Anglo-Americans,129 the period in which Meiss taught at the Institute for Advanced Study was remembered as the time when ‘Princeton mostly spoke Italian’.130 Already during the ‘synthronismus’, Meiss had suggested to Panofsky a list of Italian temporary members to invite to the institute. For the academic year of 1959–1960, Meiss and Panofsky tried to persuade Procacci to leave the soprintendenza for a semester but did not succeed.131 Another friend of Meiss, Giuseppe Marchini, completed his research on stained glass windows in Princeton in

125 Millard Meiss to Eugenio Battisti, 23 August 1974. 126 Meiss and Panofsky, for instance, personally mobilised to obtain the funding necessary for Walter Friedländer to continue to teach in the United States in 1950. 127 Particularly as concerns the elaboration of shared conservation practices. 128 The Bulletin du CIHA was a short-lived endeavour as it was published only between 1965 and 1969. Meiss worked in tandem with André Chastel – who served as CIHA secretary between 1961 and 1969 – and together they promoted an internationalisation and modernisation of the Comité. Meiss’s experience within CIHA falls outside the purview of this book and will be the object of a future publication. 129 An exception was Michelangelo Muraro, whom Panofsky met in Brussels in 1954 and offered him a fellowship in Princeton for the year 1956–1957. On Muraro (1913–1991), see Rosand 1991; Pilo 1991 and Puppi 1993. 130 Ottani Cavina 1996: ‘I mitici anni di Millard Meiss quando a Princeton si parlava quasi solo italiano’. 131 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 8 July 1958. Panofsky 2008, 321 [Erwin Panofsky – Ugo Procacci, 2 October 1958]: ‘I hear from our common friend Millard Meiss that we may hope to greet you here in Princeton next year and since I never had the pleasure of your personal acquaintance, I am looking forward to this occasion with particular anticipation’. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Ugo Procacci, 29 December 1958; letter from Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 5 April 1959.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

201

1963. Finally, in 1965, Meiss asked Roberto Salvini to join him in Princeton, though the Italian scholar would accept his offer only in 1973–1974.133 Panofsky and Meiss vetted other applicants who did not however have their approval, like Battisti. Another prospective candidate was Federico Zeri, whom Meiss considered ‘probably the best man of his generation in Italy’,134 though his methodological orientation and close ties with the art market probably did not make him a viable choice.135 The same insurmountable difference of approach motivated the absence of Longhi’s clan of connoisseurs. Carlo Volpe, for instance, expressed to Meiss his desire for a visiting fellowship in Princeton in 1969.136 The American scholar did not comment on that, but one can assume that Volpe’s overt aversion for iconology and history of culture, not to mention his uncompromising criticism of Meiss’s Black Death, would have not exactly made him persona grata in Princeton.137 132

A Three-Faced Man Salvini described Meiss as a ‘most acute investigator of the history of specifc iconographic and stylistic motifs’, committed to penetrating ‘the broader historical connections and the innermost substance of the work’.138 The better part of post-war Italian scholarship, however, tended to separate the study of style from the iconographical analysis and the history of culture. By not integrating these three methodological components, Meiss was perceived as a man with split identities, caught in a contrived partition that underpinned his critical misfortune. Albeit his skills as a connoisseur were not directly questioned, Meiss often argued for the losing side in the heated attributionist debates, viz. the Francesco Traini/ Buonamico Buffalmacco and Cimabue/Duccio affaires or the Assisi quandary.139 His

132 A fruit of the American sojourn was a book on Italian windows in American collections (Marchini 1966). 133 Salvini’s hesitation was mainly due to family commitments. AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Salvini, 21 July 1965; letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 31 July 1965; letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Salvini, 19 September 1966; letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 24 October 1966; letter from Roberto Salvini to Millard Meiss, 30 September 1972; letter from Millard Meiss to Roberto Salvini, 11 December 1972. 134 Millard Meiss to Erwin Panofsky, 14 May 1959. 135 AAA, MMP. Letter from Millard Meiss to Richard Offner, 3 December 1962: ‘I think you would probably agree with me that while his abilities are beyond question the pattern established in America by the National Gallery and then followed by the Metropolitan Museum of having catalogues done by foreign scholars who have quite a different view than we do of the relationship between scholarship and the market, and who do not employ the methods that we believe are fundamental to the discipline is not entirely healthy’. Interestingly, Federico Zeri mentioned both Offner and Meiss as an example of honest art critics, especially the latter who did not give any expertise; see Bona Castellotti 1988, 42. 136 Volpe mentioned his ‘hope to come one day to America’, but in his reply, Meiss glossed over the matter. AAA, MMP. Letter from Carlo Volpe to Millard Meiss, 15 July 1969: ‘una mia speranza di venire un giorno in America’; letter from Millard Meiss to Carlo Volpe, 26 August 1969. 137 Volpe made no mystery of his criticism towards iconology and Kulturgeschichte, and in a posthumously published 1977 lecture on the frescoes in Palazzo Schifanoia, the Italian art historian exhorted to ignore the interpretation offered by a ‘German scholar’ (viz. Warburg) and only refer to Longhi and Adolfo Venturi; see Volpe 1985–1987, 15. 138 R. Salvini, ‘Paralipomena su Leonardo e Dürer’, in: Lavin and Plummer 1977, I, 377–391: 377. 139 In his obituary of Luciano Bellosi, for instance, Strehlke emphasised how Meiss’s theories on such matters were completely disproven by the Tuscan art historian. Incidentally, the author of the obituary

202

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

reputation as an iconologist did not fare much better, not only because of the Italian resistance to such approach, but equally in the eyes of the supporters of iconology who saw that its American derivative had almost become an obscure ‘science for a few initiates’.140 The reactions to Meiss’s Black Death showed that his enquiry into the cultural milieu was basically equated with Antal’s sociological analysis, which meant that the Princeton professor shared the same fate of the practitioners of social history of art or Kulturgeschichte.141 The fact that Meiss did not engage in methodological speculation, being just as sceptical of abstract theories as Panofsky was, did not make him more congenial to Italian scholars, who at the time were particularly receptive to the discussion of methods. Also, Meiss’s studies on single works or artistic milieus or stylistic and iconographic motifs were at odds with an Italian art historical context dominated by monographic books.142 For the same reason, had he tied his name to a catalogue raisonné, the reception of the American scholar would have probably been different.143 Other factors that may have affected this ‘Meiss-fortune’ may be gleaned from a comparison with the Italian response to Meyer Schapiro.144 Neither Schapiro nor Meiss was concerned with the High Renaissance and the Baroque, which were both very topical in Italian art historiography. While Italian scholarship was dominated by charismatic fgures and their schools, neither Schapiro nor Meiss cultivated a cohort of combative supporters who would ensure their legacy and interpret their method.145 The exegesis of their work was, consequently, more exposed to the arbitrary judgement of (Italian) commentators. Schapiro’s research was, for instance, differently interpreted according to two opposite views in Italy. By focussing on essays like ‘Style’, Longhi’s coterie considered the American scholar as a formalist. Argan’s Roman orbit instead re-evaluated Schapiro within Panofsky’s lineage by emphasising his iconological studies.146 A similar separation befell Meiss, except that, in his case, the iconological approach took precedence over the investigation of formal values, building a reputation of ‘candid iconologist’. Conversely, Schapiro’s formalist ideas,

140 141 142 143 144

145 146

perpetuates the misconception that the new attribution of the Camposanto frescoes ‘decimated’ Meiss’s book on the Black Death, in which, as previously mentioned, that cycle was not taken as evidence to the author’s argument; see Strehlke 2011, 480. His waning reputation in the Italian connoisseurial fray was recently exemplifed in defning the contention with Longhi over the Frick Flagellation ‘a good moral payback’; see A. De Marchi, ‘Perché vale ancora la pena di fare i conti col Giudizio sul Duecento’, in: Ambrosini Massari, Bacchi, Benati et al. 2017, 25–45: 44. Argan 1969, 31. Signifcantly, this part was not omitted in the English version published in Critical Inquiry; see Argan 1975, 304. Detractors often confated social history of art and Kulturgeschichte. As argued in Chapter 3, Meiss’s study was not sociological enough to attract the attention of leftist art historians who supported Antal. Even Meiss’s corpus on French painting is basically structured like a collection of essays. Meiss had in mind of writing a monograph on Francesco Traini, but his project did not come to fruition; see Chapter 1. This comparison is drawn from Giovanna Perini’s introduction to the Italian edition of Schapiro’s semiotic essays; see Perini 2002, 58–59. It is not the writer’s intention to oversimplify the reception of Schapiro in Italy but merely to draw a parallel with the elements that affected that of Meiss too. For Schapiro’s changing fortune and his relationship with Focillon, see Perini 2007 and the more recent Thomas 2017. Longhi on the other hand formed a school of acolytes; see Previtali 1967; Briganti 1975. Perini 2002, 7–8; cf. Schapiro 1953.

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

203

on the one hand, drew him closer to Venturi’s pure visibility and, on the other, led him to question Panofsky’s theories in the ffties and to embrace a timely semiotic turn in the seventies.148 Despite the many friends that Meiss had made, the debate in Italy was left in the hands of his detractors. Enzo Carli did praise his exemplary critical morality; Leonetto Tintori and Roberto Salvini expressed their admiration countless times, but only in their private correspondence or at close quarters and to the like-minded. After Meiss passed away, only one obituary penned by Procacci appeared in Italy, sealing a damnatio memoriae that art historiography would redress years later. In the mid-1990s, Claudia Cieri Via mentioned Meiss in connection with the American development of iconological studies and described his research as informed by stylistic as well as iconographic considerations and a technical study of the work of art.149 A year later, Gianni C. Sciolla’s seminal book on the history of art criticism positioned Meiss within the art scholarship of his time and also rightfully spoke of his approach as multifaceted.150 More recently, Orietta Rossi Pinelli framed his method as a confation of connoisseurship, iconology and history of ideas, dissipating the prejudice that shaped this critical Meiss-fortune.151 147

147 Incidentally, Schapiro was the only American art historian who contributed to the Festschrift for Venturi (Schapiro 1956). 148 Cf. Rosand 1982; C. Segre, ‘Meyer Schapiro tra flologia e semiotica’ and J.-C. Lebenszteijn, ‘Su alcuni problemi di semiotica dell’arte visiva’, in: Bortolotti, Cieri Via, Di Monte and Di Monte 2010, 9–20, 43–54. 149 Cieri Via 1994, 143–144. 150 Sciolla 1995, 303–306. 151 Rossi Pinelli 2014, 406. Rossi Pinelli’s account of Meiss’s life and work, however, failed to mention his studies on French painting at the Court of Berry.

204

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

Bibliography Agnello, L.S., ‘Studiosi siciliani recentemente scomparsi: Stefano Bottari’, in: Palladio XVIII (1968), 216–217. Agosti, G., ‘Qualche voce italiana della fortuna storica di Aby Warburg’, in: Quaderni Storici 58 (1985), 39–50. Alford, J., ‘Lionello Venturi, Art Criticism Now’, in: The Art Bulletin XXIV, 4, 1942, 403–405. Ambrosini Massari, A.M., Bacchi, A., Benati, D. et al. (eds.), Il mestiere del conoscitore: Roberto Longhi (Bologna: Fondazione Federico Zeri, 2017). Anceschi, L., ‘Ricordo di Stefano Bottari’, in: S. Bottari (ed.), Schegge di varia umanità: scritti di arte, cultura, politica, apparsi su ‘Il Mondo’, La Nazione e La Sicilia negli anni dal 1945 al 1961 (Rimini: Maggioli, 1988), 169–172. Argan, G.C., ‘Erwin Panofsky, The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo’, in: L’Arte XXVI, 4 (1961), 342–343. Argan, G.C., ‘La storia dell’arte’, in: Storia dell’arte 1–2 (1969), 5–36. Argan, G.C., ‘Ideology and Iconology’, in: Critical Inquiry II, 2 (1975), 297–305. Argan, G.C. (ed.), Mario Salmi: storico dell’arte e umanista, conference proceedings, Rome 30 November 1990 (Spoleto: Centro Italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medioevo, 1991). Aronberg Lavin, M., ‘The “Stella Altarpiece”. Magnum Opus of the Cesi Master’, in: Artibus et Historiae XXII, 44 (2001), 9–22. Bandera Viani, M.C., Nel segno di Longhi. Piero della Francesca e Caravaggio (Venice: Marsilio, 2017). Bardazzi, F. and Sisi, C. (eds.), Americani a Firenze. Sargent e gli impressionisti del nuovo mondo, exhibition catalogue (Venice: Marsilio, 2012). Barocelli, F. (ed.), Il Correggio e la Camera di San Paolo. La vicenda storiografca (Milan: Electa, 1988). Barrese, M., Gandolf, R. and Onori, M. (eds.), Storie dell’arte alla Sapienza. Linee di ricerca, docenti e didattica del Dipartimento di Storia dell’arte dalla fondazione ad oggi (Rome: Edizioni Nuova Cultura, 2017). Barzanti, R., ‘Enzo Carli che torna a Pisa’, in: Bullettino senese di storia patria 112 (2006), 626–630. Battisti, E., Cimabue (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Italiano, 1963); En. transl. id., Cimabue (Philadelphia PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1967). Battisti, E., ‘Editoriale’, in: Marcatré 11–13 (1965), 334. Battisti, E., Piero della Francesca, 2 vols. (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Italiano, 1971–1972). Battisti, E., ‘Giovinezza (inedita)’, in: Anagkē 75 (2015), 146–157. Bellosi, L., ‘Su Francesco Traini’ (1991), in: id. (ed.), ‘I vivi parean vivi’. Scritti di storia dell’arte italiana del Duecento e del Trecento (Florence: Centro Di, 2006), 388–398. Bernabei, F., ‘Itinerari ottocenteschi dello Squarcione’, in: A. De Nicolò Salmazo (ed.), Francesco Squarcione ‘Pictorum gymnasiarcha singularis’, conference proceedings, Padua 10–11 February 1998 (Padua: Il Poligrafo, 1999), 37–52. Bernardini, M.G. (ed.), Dizionario biografco dei Soprintendenti Storici dell’Arte (1904–1974) (Bologna: Bononia University Press, 2007). Bertelli, M., ‘Romanziere lucidissimo: critica d’arte e narratività nella scrittura di Roberto Longhi’, in: Studi di Memofonte 18 (2017), 230–242. Bona Castellotti, M., Conversazioni con Federico Zeri (Parma: Guanda, 1988). Bortolotti, L., Cieri Via, C., Di Monte, M.G. et al. (eds.), Meyer Schapiro e i metodi della storia dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 22–24 February 2006 (Milan: Mimesis, 2010). Bottari, S., ‘L’Enciclopedia dell’Arte’, in: Arte antica e moderna III, 11 (1960), 322–323. Bottari, S., ‘Premessa’, in: id. (ed.), Raccolta di saggi dedicati a Roberto Longhi in occasione del suo settantesimo compleanno, in: Arte antica e moderna IV (1961), 11–12. Brandi, C., Le due vie (Bari: Laterza, 1966).

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

205

Briganti, G., ‘Roberto Longhi e noi’, in: Prospettiva 1 (1975), 4–5. Bulgarelli, S., ‘Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti e Cesare Gnudi. Roma, Bologna, Firenze, 1933– 1946’, in: Luk 8–9 (2006), 63–71. Bulgarelli, S., ‘Per Roberto Salvini’, in: Paragone LVIII, 74 (2007), 15–40. Bulgarelli, S., ‘Un ritratto di Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti nella corrispondenza con Cesare Gnudi’, in: Luk 16 (2010), 197–206. Bullettino senese di storia patria CVI (1999) [monographic issue on Enzo Carli]. Caleca, A. (ed.), Lo storico dell’arte ben temperato. Studi in memoria di Enzo Carli (Ospedaletto: Pacini, 2013). Carli, E., Le sculture del Duomo di Orvieto (Bergamo: Istituto Italiano d’Arti Grafche, 1947). Carli, E. (ed.), Le tavolette di Biccherna e di altri uffci dello Stato di Siena, exhibition catalogue (Florence: Electa, 1950). Carli, E., La pittura senese del Trecento (Milan: Electa, 1981). Cesare Gnudi: l’impegno nelle Belle Arti, conference proceedings, Bologna 30 November–1 December 2001 (Bologna: Edizioni Provincia di Bologna, 2004). Ciacci, M. and Gobbi Sica, G. (eds.), I giardini delle regine: il mito di Firenze nell’ambiente preraffaellita e nella cultura angloamericana fra Ottocento e Novecento, exhibition catalogue (Livorno: Sillabe, 2004). Ciardi Dupré Dal Poggetto, M.G. (ed.), Studi di storia dell’arte sul Medioevo e il Rinascimento nel centenario della nascita di Mario Salmi, conference proceedings, Arezzo – Florence 16–19 November 1989, 2 vols. (Florence: Polistampa, 1993). Ciatti, M. and Frosinini, C. (eds.), Ugo Procacci a cento anni dalla nascita (1905–2005), symposium proceedings, Florence 31 March 2005 (Florence: Edifr, 2006). Cieri Via, C., Nei dettagli nascosto. Per una storia del pensiero iconologico (Rome: La Nuova Italia, 1994). CIHA (ed.), ‘Comités nationaux’, in: Bulletin du CIHA II (1967), 6–7. Cooke, J., ‘Uno scambio epistolare tra Carlo L. Ragghianti e Fritz Saxl con una nota critica’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 6 (2010), 547–572. De Luca, E. (ed.), Il Classicismo: Medioevo Rinascimento Barocco: atti del colloquio Cesare Gnudi, conference proceedings, Bologna 3–5 April 1986 (Bologna: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1993). De Nicolò Salmazo, A., ‘Dalle malefatte di Francesco Squarcione al vero maestro di Andrea Mantegna. Giuseppe Fiocco e la formazione del Rinascimento veneto’, in: M. Nezzo and G. Tomasella (eds.), Sotto la superfcie visibile. Scritti in onore di Franco Bernabei (Treviso: Canova, 2013), 129–141. Del Puppo, A., ‘Reframing Formalism in 1930 Italy. Giuseppe Fiocco, Rodolfo Pallucchini and Roberto Longhi’, in: H. Aurenhammer and R. Prange (eds.), Das Problem der Form (Berlin: Mann, 2016), 163–170. Dezzi Bardeschi, M., ‘Quell’ingegnoso (e fecondo) tempo di Psicon’, in: V. Cazzato, S. Roberto and M. Bevilacqua (eds.), Le festa delle arti: scritti in onore di Marcello Fagiolo per cinquant’anni di studi, 2 vols. (Rome: Gangemi, 2014), I, 20–27. Emiliani, V., ‘Quando Gnudi ballò il valzer’, in: M. Scolaro and F.P. Di Teodoro, (eds.), L’intelligenza della passione. Scritti per Andrea Emiliani (Bologna: Minerva, 2001), 217–226. Ercoli, G., ‘La critica italiana tra crocianesimo e pura visibilità’, in: Antichità Viva XXVI, 5–6 (1987), 5–11. Fantoni, M. (ed.), Gli angloamericani a Firenze. Idea e costruzione del Rinascimento, conference proceedings, Fiesole 19–20 June 1997 (Rome: Bulzoni, 2000). Fiocco, G., ‘Andrea Mantegna as Illuminator’, in: Paragone IX, 99 (1958), 55–58. Fiocco, G., L’arte di Andrea Mantegna (Venice: Neri Pozza Editore, 19592). Galansino, A., ‘Giovanni Previtali: l’eredità di Longhi tra marxismo e “connoisseurship”’, in: A. Masi (ed.), L’occhio del critico: storia dell’arte in Italia tra Otto e Novecento (Florence: Vallecchi, 2009), 173–184.

206

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

Galansino, A., ‘Giovanni Previtali, storico dell’arte militante’, in: Prospettiva 149–152 (2013). Galassi, C., ‘La prima serie di Rivista d’arte (1904-1917/18) dal triumvirato di Igino Benvenuto Supino, Corrado Ricci e Giovanni Poggi alla direzione unica di Giovanni Poggi’, in: Annali di critica d’arte 12 (2016), 285–342. Galassi, C. (ed.), Critica d’arte e tutela in Italia: fgure e protagonisti nel secondo dopoguerra, conference proceedings, Perugia 17–19 November 2015 (Perugia: Aguaplano, 2017). Gallo, L., «Vita Artistica» e «Pinacotheca» (1926–1932) (Poggio a Caiano: CB Edizioni, 2010). Gamba, C., ‘Convergenze critiche divergenti: la generazione degli storici dell’arte nati nei primi tre lustri del Novecento’, in: Predella 28 (2010), http://www.predella.it/archivio/indexc877 .html?option=com_content&view=article&id=104&catid=60&Itemid=88. Gamba, C. (ed.), Giulio Carlo Argan. Intellettuale e storico dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 19 November 2009 and 9–11 December 2010 (Milan: Electa, 2012). Gardner, J., ‘Battisti’s Cimabue’, in: The Burlington Magazine CXII, 802 (1970), 52–53. Garrison, E.B., ‘The Role of Criticism in the Historiography of Painting’, in: College Art Journal X, 2 (1951), 110–120. Gatti Perrer, M.L. (ed.), Metodologia della ricerca. Orientamenti attuali, conference proceedings, Milan 27–31 May 1991, 2 vols., in: Arte Lombarda 105–107 (1993); 110–111 (1994) (Cinisello Balsamo: Pizzi, 1994). Gentili, A., ‘Tiziano, Panofsky e l’iconologia in Italia’, in: E. Panofsky (ed.), Tiziano. Problemi di iconografa (Venice: Marsilio, 1992), xv–xli. Ghisetti Giavarina, A., ‘Enzo Carli e l’Abruzzo’, in: Rivista abruzzese LIII, 1 (2000), 44–46. Gilbert, C., ‘The Man Who Asks about Ideas’, in: Arts Magazine XXVI, 1 (1961), 62–63. Gnudi, C., Giotto (Milan: Aldo Martello, 1958). Gnudi, C., ‘Stefano Bottari’, in: Atti e memorie. Deputazione di Storia Patria per le Province di Romagna 17–19 (1965–1968), 39–60. Gnudi, C., ‘La bibbia di Demeter Nekcsei-Lipócz, il “Leggendario” angioino e i rapporti fra la miniatura bolognese e l’arte d’Oriente’, in: L. Vayer (ed.), Evolution générale et développements régionaux en histoire de l’art, conference proceedings, Budapest 14–20 September 1969, 3 vols. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972), I, 569–581. Gnudi, C., ‘In memoriam Giovanni Paccagnini’, in: Arte Veneta XXXI (1977), 308–309. Gnudi, C., L’arte gotica in Francia e in Italia (Turin: Einaudi, 1982). Golan, R., ‘The Critical Moment: Lionello Venturi in America’, in: C.E.G. Benfey and K. Remmler (eds.), Artists, Intellectuals, and World War II. The Pontigny Encounters at Mount Holyoke College, 1942–1944 (Amherst MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006), 122–132. Greco, E., ‘La Guida all’arte moderna del 1949 di Roberto Salvini: un tentativo di interpretazione crociana dell’arte contemporanea’, in: Annali di critica d’arte 7 (2011), 313–333. Greene, T.M. and Venturi, L., ‘Letters to the Editor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXV, 4 (1943), 366–368. Hartt, F., Florentine Art Under Fire (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1949). Il magistero di Giuseppe Fiocco, conference proceedings, Padua 6 June 2005, in: Saggi e Memorie di Storia dell’Arte XXVII (2007). Lavin, I. and Plummer, J. (eds.), Studies in Late Medieval and Renaissance Painting in Honor of Millard Meiss, 2 vols. (New York: New York University Press, 1977). Levi, D., ‘L’affermazione di una fgura professionale: lo storico dell’arte fra tutela e insegnamento’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 9 (2013), II, 15–29. Longhi, R., Il Correggio e la Camera di San Paolo a Parma (Genoa: Siglaeffe, 1956). Longhi, R., ‘Un dossale italiano a St. Jean-Cap-Ferrat’, in: Paragone XII, 141 (1961), 11–19. Mamino, S., ‘Il metodo iconologico in alcuni contributi recenti’, in: Rivista di Estetica XXII, 10 (1982), 118–132. Mangoni, L., Pensare i libri. La casa editrice Einaudi dagli anni trenta agli anni sessanta (Turin: Bollati Boringhieri, 1999).

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

207

Marchini, G., Le vetrate italiane (Milan: Electa, 1956). Marchini, G., ‘Palazzo Ducale di Urbino’, in: Rinascimento IX, 1 (1958), 43–78. Marchini, G., ‘Vetri italiani in America’, in: G. Mansuelli, V. Martinelli, M. Mirabella Roberti et al. (eds.), Arte in Europa: scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Edoardo Arslan, 2 vols. (Milan: Tipografa Artipo, 1966), I, 431–436. Marchini, G. (ed.), Corpus Vitrearum Medii Aevi, Italia, vol. I, Le vetrate dell’Umbria (Rome: De Luca, 1973). Marinho, F., ‘The Anthology of Mannerism and the Rhetoric Category of Eugenio Battisti’s L’Antirinascimento’, in: Figura 3 (2015), 201–225. Mazzocca, F., ‘Antirinascimento ferrarese: l’Offcina di Longhi e il mito di Funi’, in: B. Cinelli, F. Mazzocca and M.C. Tonelli (eds.), Artisti e cultura visiva del Novecento, exhibition catalogue (Pistoia: Comune di Pistoia, 1980), 65–67. Moretti, L., ‘Di Leonardo Bellini, pittore e miniatore’, in: Paragone IX, 99 (1958), 58–66. Morey, C.R., ‘Art and the History of Art in Italy’, in: College Art Journal X, 3 (1951), 219–222. Munari, T., I verbali del mercoledì. Riunioni editoriali Einaudi 1953–1963 (Turin: Einaudi, 2013). Negri Arnoldi, F., ‘Iconografa e iconologia’, in: G. Previtali (ed.), Enciclopedia Feltrinelli Fischer, Arte 2, 2 vols. (Milan: Feltrinelli, 1971), I, 227–238. Neumeyer, A., ‘Art Criticism Now by Lionello Venturi’, in: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism II, 5 (1942), 53–54. Nicolini, S., ‘Stefano Bottari e l’insegnamento della storia dell’arte nella scuola italiana (con un’appendice di tre lettere di Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti)’, in: Predella 41–42 (2013), http:// www.predella.it/index.php/component/content/article/49-issue33/180-33-1-8.html. Ottani Cavina, A., ‘Il rifuto della retorica ecco l’Italia di Corot’, in: La Repubblica (26 June 1996), 32. Paccagnini, G., ‘Il problema documentario di Francesco Traini’, in: La Critica d’Arte VIII, 3 (1949), 191–201. Paccagnini, G., ‘Appunti sulla tecnica della “camera picta” di Andrea Mantegna’, in: G. de Francovich, A. Marabottini, V. Martinelli et al. (eds.), Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Mario Salmi, 3 vols. (Rome: De Luca, 1961–1962), II, 395–403. Paccagnini, G., ‘Il ritrovamento del Pisanello nel Palazzo Ducale di Mantova’, in: Bollettino d’Arte LII, 1 (1967), 17–19. Paccagnini, G., Pisanello e il ciclo cavalleresco di Mantova (Milan: Electa, 1972). Pace, V., ‘Politica e accademia. Lionello Venturi, Roberto Longhi e la successione a Pietro Toesca nell’ateneo romano’, in: G. Bordi (ed.), L’offcina dello sguardo: scritti in onore di Maria Andaloro. Vol. 2: Immagine, memoria, materia (Rome: Gangemi, 2014), 347–352. Panofsky, E., The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo (London: The Warburg Institute, 1961). Paolini, C., A sentimental journey. Inglesi e americani a Firenze tra Otto e Novecento. I luoghi, le case, gli alberghi (Florence: Polistampa, 2013). Paris, R., ‘L’Italia fuori d’Italia’, in: R. Romano, C. Vivanti and R. Paris (eds.), Storia d’Italia (Turin: Einaudi, 1975), IV, 716–736. Pellegrini, E., Storico dell’arte e uomo politico: proflo biografco di Carlo Ludovico Ragghianti (Pisa: Edizioni ETS, 2018). Perillo Marcone, M., ‘L’esilio americano di Lionello Venturi’, in: L. Venturi, Art Criticism Now, ed. by M. Perillo Marcone (Turin: Nino Aragno, 2010), xv–xcii. Perini, G., ‘Meyer Schapiro: incunaboli di una lettura semiotica dell’arte fgurativa’, in: M. Schapiro, Per una semiotica del linguaggio visivo (Rome: Meltemi, 2002), 7–77. Pierini, M., ‘Per i cento anni dalla nascita di Enzo Carli’, in: Bullettino senese di storia patria 117 (2010), 656–658. Pilo, G.M., ‘Michelangelo Muraro’, in: Arte documento 5 (1991), 288.

208

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

Pinelli, A., ‘Postfazione’, in: S. Settis (ed.), Artisti e committenti tra Quattrocento e Cinquecento (Turin: Einaudi, 2010), 213–219. Pinna, G., ‘Per una critica della critica. Un Carpaccio “nazionale” tra Giuseppe Fiocco e Roberto Longhi’, in: Studi di Storia dell’Arte 7 (1996), 333–345. Piva, A. and Galliani, P. (eds.), Eugenio Battisti. Storia, critica, progetto nella continuità della ricerca, conference proceedings, Milan 4 May 2009 (Rome: Gangemi Editore, 2009). Previtali, G., ‘La prospettiva come forma simbolica di E. Panofsky’, in: Paragone XII, 141 (1961), 52–58. Previtali, G., ‘Il signifcato nelle arti visive di Erwin Panofsky’, in: Paragone XIV, 161 (1963), 68–72. Previtali, G., ‘La scuola di Longhi’, in: Rinascita XXIV, 50 (1967), 20. Previtali, G., ‘Il ruolo dell’antichità nel Rinascimento’, in: L’Unità (15 January 1972); republ. in: id., Recensioni, interventi, questioni di metodo. Scritti da quotidiani e periodici 1962–1988 (Naples: Paparo Edizioni, 1999), 125–127. Previtali, G., ‘Introduzione’, in: E. Panofsky, Studi di iconologia. i temi umanistici nell’arte del Rinascimento (Turin: Einaudi, 1975), ixx–xxxii. Previtali, G., ‘Introduzione’, in: G. Kubler, La forma del tempo (Turin: Einaudi, 1976), vii–xxxii. Procacci, U., ‘Richard Offner, Corpus of Florentine Painting’, in: Rivista d’Arte XXXIII, 8 (1958), 121–139. Procacci, U., ‘Di Jacopo di Antonio e delle “compagnie” di pittori del Corso degli Adimari nel XV secolo’, in: Rivista d’Arte XXXV, 10 (1960), 3–70. Procacci, U., ‘Millard Meiss. In Memoriam’, in: Prospettiva 2 (1975), 53–54. Procacci, U., ‘Le Catasto forentin de 1427’, in: Revue de l’Art 54 (1981), 7–14. Procacci, U., Studio sul Catasto forentino (Florence: Olschki, 1996). Puppi, L., ‘Ricordo di Michelangelo Muraro’, in: Arte Veneta 44 (1993), 104–105. Quintavalle, A.C., ‘E. Panofsky. Il signifcato nelle arti visive’, in: Arte Antica e Moderna 21 (1963), 93–95. Ragghianti, C.L., ‘Domande risposte’, in: Critica d’Arte LII, 13 (1987), 3–4. ‘Roberto Longhi. Frammenti di maschere’, in: Predella 10 (2014), http://www.predella.it/index .php/cerca/2014-05-20-06-07-38/52-issue-36/311-36-index.html. Roberts, D.D., ‘Croce in America: Infuence, Misunderstanding, and Neglect’, in: Humanitas VIII, 2 (1995), 3–34. Romano, G., ‘Giovanni Previtali e la Storia dell’Arte (1993)’, in: id., Storie dell’arte. Toesca, Longhi, Wittkower, Previtali (Rome: Donzelli, 1998), 93–107. Rosand, D., ‘Semiotics and the Critical Sensibility: Observations on the Example of Meyer Schapiro’, in: Artibus et Historiae III, 5 (1982), 9–15. Rosand, D., ‘Michelangelo Muraro (1913–1991)’, in: The Burlington Magazine 133 (1991), 517–518. Rossi Pinelli, O., ‘Diaspore e rinascite intorno al 1945’, in: ead. (ed.), La storia delle storie dell’arte (Turin: Einaudi, 2014), 398–451. Saccaro Del Buffa, G., ‘Prefazione’, in: G. Battisti, L’antirinascimento (Turin: Aragno, 2005), xiii–xxi. Saccaro Del Buffa Battisti, G., ‘L’Antirinascimento di Eugenio Battisti, 50 anni dopo’, in: Anagkē 67 (2012), 138–141. Saccaro Del Buffa, G., Eugenio Battisti a Torino 1924–1950 (Florence: Olschki, 2018). Salvini, R., ‘La Pala Strozzi in Santa Maria Novella’, in: L’Arte VIII, 1 (1937), 16–45. Salvini, R., La scultura romanica in Europa (Milan: Garzanti, 1956). Salvini, R., La pittura famminga (Milan: Garzanti, 1958). Salvini, R., ‘Signifcato e limiti di una storia sociale dell’arte’, in: L. Vayer (ed.), Evolution générale et développements régionaux en histoire de l’art. Actes du XXIIe Congrès International d’Histoire de l’Art, Budapest 1969, 3 vols. (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972), II, 491–503. Salvini, R., La critica d’arte della pura visibilità e del formalismo (Milan: Garzanti, 1977).

Italian Meiss-Fortunes

209

Salvini, R., Banchieri forentini e pittori di Fiandra (Modena: Artioli, 1984). Salvini, R., ‘Autobiografa politica di un giovane degli anni Trenta’, in: Rassegna di storia dell’Istituto Storico della Resistenza in Modena e Provincia VI (1986), 143–173. Schapiro, M., ‘Style’, in: A.L. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today. An Encyclopedic Inventory (Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1953), 287–312. Schapiro, M., ‘On an Italian Painting of the Flagellation of Christ in the Frick Collection’, in: M. Salmi (ed.), Scritti di storia dell’arte in onore di Lionello Venturi, 2 vols. (Rome: De Luca, 1956), I, 29–53. Sciolla, G.C., La critica d’arte del Novecento (Turin: Utet, 1995). Sciolla, G.C., ‘Commentari 1950–1960. Una scheda’, in: Annali di Critica d’Arte 12 (2016), 255–283. ‘Scritti in ricordo di Giovanni Previtali, 2 vols.’, in: Prospettiva 53–56 (1988–1989); 57–60 (1989–1990) (Florence: Centro Di, 1988–1989). Sindona, E., ‘Editoriale’, in: L’Arte 1 (1968), unpaged. Stella, V., Il giudizio dell’arte. La critica storico-estetica in Croce e nei crociani (Macerata: Quodlibet, 2005). Strehlke, C.B., ‘Luciano Bellosi (1936–2011)’, in: The Burlington Magazine CLIII, 1300 (2011), 479–480. Targia, G., ‘Ragghianti e l’iconologia: testimonianze e frammenti di un dialogo mancato’, in: Predella, 28 (2010), http://predella.arte.unipi.it/index.php?option=com_content&view =article&id=116&catid=60&Itemid=88. Testi Cristiani, M.L., ‘Enzo Carli critico d’arte e maestro’, in: Critica d’Arte LXII, 6 (2000), 66–73. Thomas, K., ‘Expressive Things: Art Theories of Henri Focillon and Meyer Schapiro Reconsidered’, in: S. van Tuinen (ed.), Speculative Art Histories: Analysis at the Limits. Philosophy, Art, Cinema, Dance, Architecture, Speculation, Realism, Art History, Ontology (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2017), 113–129. Torchiani, F., ‘Lionello Venturi e un invito alla “casa italiana” della Columbia University’, in: Rivista Storica Italiana CXXII, 3 (2010), 1235–1243. Torchio, F., Memorie in bianco e nero. Testimonianze di tutela e dispersioni del patrimonio artistico di Siena e Pitigliano attraverso il fondo storico dell’archivio fotografco della Soprintendenza di Siena e Grosseto (Asciano: ali edizioni, 2004). Valeri, S. (ed.), Lionello Venturi e i nuovi orizzonti di ricerca della storia dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 10–12 March 1999, in: Storia dell’arte 101 (2002) (Rome: CAM Editrice, 2002). Valeri, S. (ed.), Giulio Carlo Argan. Progetto e destino dell’arte, conference proceedings, Rome 26–28 February 2003, in: Storia dell’arte 112 (2005) (Rome: CAM, 2005). Venturi, L. and Alford, J., ‘Letters to the Editor’, in: The Art Bulletin XXV, 3 (1943), 269–272, 366–368. Venturi, L., ‘Art and Taste’, in: The Art Bulletin XXVI, 4 (1944), 271–273. Venturi, L., ‘Si propone una tregua’, in: Commentari V, 3 (1954), 167. Volpe, C., ‘Cimabue, di Eugenio Battisti’, in: Paragone XV, 173 (1964), 61–74. Volpe, C., ‘In memoriam Stefano Bottari’, in: Arte Antica e Moderna 34–36 (1966), 105–107. Volpe, C., ‘Palazzo Schifanoia: gli affreschi’, in: Musei Ferraresi XV (1985–1987), 9–28. Walcher Casotti, M., ‘Roberto Salvini: spunti per una rifessione’, in: R. Salvini, Medioevo nordico e Medioevo mediterraneo. Raccolta di scritti (1934–1985) 2 vols. (Florence: SPES, 1987), I, 13–17.

Index

Note: Page numbers in italics refer to fgure Ackerman, J.S. 158, 161n167, 162; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 107 ACRIM see American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments Agenzia Letteraria Internazionale 117n140, 120 Alberti, G.B. 143–144 Albini, F. 147 Alesso di Andrea 30 Alferi 119 Alford, J. 184n18 American Committee for the Restoration of Italian Monuments (ACRIM) 3, 140–146, 158–159, 161, 193 American Council of Learned Societies 140 Anderson, J. 83 Andrea da Firenze (Andrea Bonaiuti): Spanish Chapel 100–101, 101 Andrea del Castagno 147; Trinity and Saints (Florence, Santissima Annunziata) 166 Andrea del Sarto 138n5, 150, 166 Angelico (Fra Giovanni da Fiesole) 166 Annales School 108 Antal, F. 2, 5, 33n218, 98–100, 106–108, 115–116, 118, 121–122, 124–126, 196, 202; Meiss’s review 98–99 Antonio Veneziano 17n74 Arezzo 142, 150, 155 Argan, G.C. 56n88, 120, 186–187, 202 Arnolfo di Cambio (Arnolfo di Lapo) 32, 34 Arte moderna in Italia 165 Associazione Nazionale per i Monumenti Danneggiati dalla Guerra 140 Baldass, L. von 5n4 Baldini, U. 152, 159, 162, 165–166, 169–170 Barna da Siena 101; see also Memmi, L. Barocchi, P. 114 Baron, H. 109 Barr, A.H. Jr. 117, 138n4

Basaiti, M. 76n250 Baschet, J. 124–125 Battisti, E. 75, 79, 83, 197–201; on the Frick Flagellation 26; on Giotto in Assisi 32; and iconology 83, 197–200 Bauch, K. 28 Baxandall, M. 75n241, 121 Bazin, A. 141 Bellini, G. 60; Life and Passion of St Maurice 60–61, 62, 188; St Francis 71, 76–78 Bellini, L. 188 Bellosi, L. 11n61, 76, 149; on the Camposanto frescoes 16–17, 183, 201–202n139; on the Frick Flagellation 26; on Giotto in Assisi 28n171, 29, 34 Benedetto da Camogli 114n121 Benesch, O. 5n4 Benevento: Trajan’s Arch 142 Berenson, B. 6, 10, 34, 58, 69, 76n250, 80, 182; and ACRIM 141, 144–146, 148, 159; on the Frick Flagellation 7, 19, 19n84, 20n92; and iconology 6–7, 48n13, 65, 111–112; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 7, 110–112; on Ugolino Lorenzetti 10 Berlin 54, 117, 195; Kaiser Friedrich Museum 7 Berti, L. 166 Bertini, A. 116n133 Bettagno, A. 34–35, 119–121 Bettini, S. 21n103, 30n188 Béziers 34n222, 61 Białostocki, J. 49n21, 68n174, 71n207, 72, 82, 114 Bianchi Bandinelli, R. 144, 147 Black Death 17, 100, 108–109, 121, 123–125, 197 Blunt, A. 71, 99 Boase, T.S.R. 107, 126 Bober, H. 54, 72n215 Bober, P.P. 83

212

Index

Boccaccio 100, 123 Bochner, M. 167 Bollati, G. 116n133, 117 Bologna 33 Bologna, F. 22n114, 25, 33, 193 Bonaventure 32 Bonelli, R. 145n57 Bony, J. 67 Boon, K. 54 Borenius, T. 76n250 Borsook, E. 150–151, 154–155, 158n150, 168n223 Bosch, H. 141 Bosi Cirmeni, M. 119 Boskovits, M. 6n7, 26, 121–122 Bottari, S. 185, 186n28, 198 Bourdieu, P. 51n41, 114 Bowsky, W.M. 123 Bramante (Donato di Angelo di Pastuccio) 110, 143 Brandi, C. 24, 30n188, 147; and Procacci 163, 166–167, 169–170 Bredekamp, H. 117 Brizio, A.M. 193n80 Broch, H. 48 Brockwell, M.W. 54 Buchtal, H. 64, 67, 72n215 Bulgarini, B. 10, 183; Tavolette di Biccherna 183n8 Buonamico Buffalmacco: Camposanto frescoes (Triumph of Death; Last Judgement; Thebaid; Hell) 5, 11–17, 15, 31, 102–103, 124, 143–144, 146, 148, 150, 157, 183, 194, 201; St George and the Dragon (Parma, Baptistry) 11, 16; Saints (Ripa d’Arno, Church of San Paolo) 11, 17n72 Burckhardt, J. 127, 196 Burton, R. 161 Cain, J. 63 Calamandrei, P. 147 Calvesi, M. 83 Camerani, S. 162n178 Cantimori, D. 119 Cantimori Mezzomonti, E. 119 Capezzuoli, C. 143, 146 Carità, R. 147 Carli, E. 37n76, 116n133, 182–183, 184, 191, 194, 203; on Francesco Traini 35n64; on the Frick Flagellation 24–26; on Ugolino Lorenzetti 183 Carpentier, E. 123 Carrà, C. 32n203 Casamassima, E. 162n178 Cassirer, E. 48, 52–53, 56, 76 Castelfranchi Vegas, L. 75

Castelnuovo, E. 63n130, 185n21; Einaudi adviser 120–122, 206n29; and the social history of art 99n12, 114, 116n133, 121 Castelseprio 22 Cavalcaselle, G.B. 29, 34–5 Cavallini, P. 29, 31–32, 33n216, 34n222 Cecchi, E. 8 Cerati, R. 117 Cesi Master: Stella Altarpiece 188, 189 Cézanne, P. 80 Chastel, A. 3, 24, 63, 67, 71, 114n119, 120, 200; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 105–106, 106n50, 108, 125 Chelazzi Dini, G. 123 Cherniss, H. 72n215 Chicago 5 Chomsky, N. 114 Cieri Via, C. 203 CIHA see Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art Cimabue (Cenni di Pepo) 19–21, 23, 29, 150, 152, 198, 201; Crucifx (Florence, Santa Croce) 23, 161; Frick Flagellation 3, 7, 17–20, 18, 22–26, 183–184, 187, 201; Madonna and Child (London, National Gallery) 26 Cincinnati 1 Clapp, F.M. 19n82 Clark, K. 19n84, 71–72, 80 Clay Frick, Helen 17, 78 Clay Frick, Henry 76n250 Clay, L. 164n193 Coffn, D. 72n215 Cohn, S.K. Jr. 125 Coletti, L. 115 Columbia University 2, 30n183, 110 Comité International d’Histoire de l’Art (CIHA) 3, 162, 190, 193–194, 200; 18th International Congress (Venice, 1955) 74; 20th International Congress of the History of Art (New York, 1961) 3, 9, 67, 71–72, 149, 152, 160, 193–194; 21st International Congress of Art History (Bonn, 1964) 34n224, 81–82; 22nd International Congress of Art History (Budapest, 1969) 116n135, 193n81, 196n104; the art historian’s responsibility conference (Venice, 1967) 145; 23rd International Congress of the History of Art (Granada, 1973) 83; 24th International Congress of the History of Art (Bologna, 1979) 193 Commission for the Protection and Salvage of Artistic and Historic Monuments in War Areas see Roberts Commission Committee for the Protection of Cultural Materials in War Areas 139

Index Committee to Rescue Italian Art (CRIA) 3, 157–166, 169 Comte, A. 99 connoisseurship 2, 5–10, 26–27, 31–32, 34–35, 51, 54, 68–69, 107, 110–111, 117, 122, 125, 138, 145, 148, 150, 185, 201, 203; see also Offner, R. conservation 3, 9n43, 31–32, 69, 138–170, 191–192; anastylosis 144–145; cartoon 28, 150–152; detachment of frescoes 147–150, 167–169, 170; giornata 31, 151–2; sinopia 143, 147–148, 150–151, 167–168, 170; synthetic/vinyl resins 151, 163, 170 Constable, W.G. 140–141n18 Cook, W.W.S. 47–48, 49n19, 57, 200 Coolidge, J. 72n215 Coor-Achenbach, G. 58 Coppo di Marcovaldo 21n98, 24 Coremans, P. 67, 69 Correggio (Antonio degli Allegri): Camera di San Paolo 71, 185–186 Cott, P.B. 140–141n18 CRIA see Committee to Rescue Italian Art Croce, B. 21–22, 115–116, 147, 184, 186–187, 195, 197 Crosby, S. 140–141n18 Crucifxion Master 11n56; see also Traini, F. Daddi, B. 6 Davico, G. 120 Davies, M. 54, 69 Davis, E.M. 81n295 Davis, H.M. 30n183 De Benedictis, C. 121 Delaissé, L. 59n110, 61, 67; the Delaissé affaire 55, 63–64 Del Serra, A. 163n183 DeWald, E.T. 10, 140–141n18 Didi-Huberman, G. 56, 112, 114, 125 Dini, D. 162n178 Dinsmoor, W.B. 139 Domenico Veneziano 74, 76, 147 Donadoni, S. 116n133 Donatello: Magdalene 161 Duccio di Buoninsegna 19–21, 23–26, 108, 201; Crevole Madonna 20n88; Madonna and Child (Turin, Galleria Sabauda) 24; Maestà 20n88; Rucellai Madonna 20n88, 21, 24, 24n124; see also Cimabue Durkheim, E. 114 Duveen, J. 6n14 Dvořák, M. 5, 99, 104n35, 105, 196 Ecchia, C. 143 Edizioni di Comunità 118, 153 Einaudi (publishing house) 116–123, 153, 186

213

Einaudi, G. 117–119 Einstein, A. 48 Eisler, C. 57, 75, 126 Emmer, C. 155 Emmer, L. 141–142 Enciclopedia Universale dell’Arte 186, 190, 197 Ephrussi 188, 189 Febvre, L. 108 Ferguson, W.K. 102 Finley, D. 139 Fiocco, G. 27, 35, 148; review of Mantegna as Illuminator 187–188, 190 Firenze Restaura 166, 169–170, 191n62, 192 Firestone, G. 81n299 Fisher, M.R. 30 Fleming, J.V. 78 Flexner, A. 48 Florence 3, 6, 19, 24–25, 30–31, 60, 67, 98, 100, 104, 108, 110, 119, 144, 147–148, 154, 161, 169–170, 182, 192, 194–195; Accademia 159; Archivio di Stato 159; Biblioteca Nazionale 159; Boboli Gardens 159; Centre for the Conservation of Sculpture and Decorative Arts 161; Chiostro di Sant’Egidio 147; Chiostro Verde 147; Compagnia dello Scalzo 166; Conservatorio Cherubini 159; food of 1966 3, 68, 140n13, 142, 149, 156–167, 169, 182, 191, 193–195, 197; Florentine Badia 147, 166; Fortezza da Basso 159, 163, 166; Gabinetto di Restauri 163, 169; Gabinetto Vieusseux 159; Limonaia 159–160; Museo Archeologico 159, 161; Museo della Storia della Scienza 159, 161; Ognissanti 159, 166; Opifcio delle Pietre Dure (OPD) 165; Palazzo Davanzati 161; Palazzo Pitti 158–159, 166, 168n221; San Marco 166; Santa Croce 23, 101, 102, 150, 159; Santa Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi 159; Santa Maria Novella 27, 101, 101, 159; Santa Trinita Bridge 143–144, 146; Santissima Annunziata 159; Santo Spirito 10, 197; Uffzi 11, 163 Focillon, H. 48, 120 Forbes, E.W. 138–139 Förster, O.H. 54 Francastel, P. 100n20, 118, 199n121 Frank, G. 58 Frascati: Villa Falconieri 143 Freedberg, S.J. 158 French Painting in the Time of Jean de Berry 2–3, 58–59, 61–64, 126–127, 190, 196, 199, 203n151 Friedländer, M.J. 118n144 Friedländer, W. 48, 107n60, 200n126

214

Index

Friend, A.M. 58n95 Fry, R. 76n250 Gabrielli, M. 32–33 Gaddi, G. di Zanobi 29 Gaddi, T. 102, 115 Gall, E. 114 Gandolfo, F. 83 Gandolfo, G. 115 Gardner, J. 125, 193n75 Garrison, E.B. 21–22 Geistesgeschichte 5, 55, 99, 115 Gerratana, V. 99 Giedion, S. 99 Gilbert, A.H. 51 Gilbert, C.E. 51, 53, 56, 80 Gilbert, F. 158 Gilmore, M.P 158–159, 162 Giorgione (Giorgio da Castelfranco): Venus 82–83 Gioseff, D. 33 De Giotto à Bellini 60 Giotto and Assisi 29–30, 32–33, 154 Giotto di Bondone 20, 100, 108; Bardi Chapel and Peruzzi Chapel 150, 154; Crucifx (Florence, Santa Maria Novella) 27; Head of a Shepherd (Florence, Florentine Badia) 166; Lamentation (Assisi, Upper Church) 29; Life of Isaac (Assisi, Upper Church) 29–34, 151–152; Life of St Francis or Legend of St Francis (Assisi, Upper Church) 3, 6, 27–34, 141, 150–152, 193, 201; Scrovegni Chapel 27–34, 141–142, 150 Giovanni Bellini’s St Francis in the Frick Collection 71, 76–78 Giovanni di Consalvo (Master of the Chiostro degli Aranci): Life of St Benedict 147 Giovanni di Niccolò 60 Girolamo da Santa Croce 76n250 Gli artisti per Firenze 165 Gnudi, C. 30n188, 33, 122n187, 190n56, 191, 193–194; on Giotto in Assisi 32, 193 Godwin, F.G. 54 Goes, H. van der 55 Gombosi, G. 100n21 Gombrich, E.H. 66, 72, 75, 83, 99; and the concept of physiognomic fallacy 105–106; on The Great Age of Fresco 168–169; and historicism 127; and iconology 49–51; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 104–105 Il Gotico a Siena 123 Gozzoli, B.: Adoration of the Magi 143 Gras, E. 141

The Great Age of Fresco 166–169, 194 Greenberg, C. 125 Greene, B. da Costa 73–74 Greene, T.E. 49 Guido da Siena 24, 26n149 Guido di Graziano: St Peter Altarpiece 26n149 Hahnloser, H.R. 67 Hamburg 47–48, 195 Hartt, F. 76n255, 140, 158, 162 Harvard University 1–2, 5–6, 27, 30n184, 49, 55, 59, 65–66, 68, 110, 138–140, 142n28, 150; ‘egg and plaster course’ 138; Fogg Museum 2, 65; Harvard Group 139; I Tatti 6–7, 10, 119, 156, 158; Museum Course 2n6 Haskell, F. 167 Hauser, A. 2, 100n20, 105, 107, 114, 120–121 Heckscher, W.S. 69–70, 82 Hegel, G.V.F. 56, 115 Held, J.S. 2, 48, 52n46, 53–54, 66n161, 69 Hempel, K. 161n169 Henschel, C.R. 19n82 Heydenreich, L. 67 Honour, H. 119n161 Hoving, T.P.H. 166 Howard, S. 83 Huizinga, J. 54, 115, 126–127 Hymnal Master 11n56; see also Traini, F. Hypnerotomachia Poliphili 82 iconology 35, 49–57, 69, 77, 82–83, 111, 125, 185–186, 196, 198–203; disguised symbolism 52–55, 78–79, 82; embedded symbolism 77; transfgured reality 52; see also Panofsky, E. Illuminated Books of the Middle Ages 58 Isaac Master 29–34; see also Giotto The Italian Heritage 162 Janson, H.W. 51, 58n100, 64, 158 Kaftal, G. 9 Kaminski, E. 64 Kant, I. 55, 72 Kantorowicz, E.H. 69 Kauffmann, H. 67, 120 Keck, S. 150 Keller, H. 107 Kennedy, R. 161, 164n193 Kitzinger, E. 67 Klein, R. 51n41, 82n302 Klingender, F.D. 118n151 Knoedler Gallery 17

Index Körte, W. 74n231 Krautheimer, R. 48, 55, 66, 99, 107n60, 140–141n18 Kristeller, P.O. 158, 162 Kulturgeschichte 51, 99, 111, 113n105, 114, 116, 125–126, 195, 198, 201, 203 Kurz, O. 83 Laclotte, M. 35, 60, 122n185 Lamprecht, K. 113, 127n229 La Pira, G. 144 Laskin, M. 158n150 Lavagnino, E. 140 Lavalleye, J. 54 Lazarev, V. 120 Lecaldano, P. 155n133 Lee, R.W. 2, 66, 69, 72, 122 Lehman, R. 140–141n18, 164n193 Lehmann, K. 19n87, 48 Levi, D. 141, 146n65 Levi d’Ancona, M. 80n289 Licht, F. 158 Limbourg Brothers 59 Lipman, J. 51 Lippi, F. 74, 76 Lippo Dalmasio 11 Livorno 10 Longhi, R. 7n19, 9n43, 30n188, 76n253, 81, 120, 141, 147–148, 155–156, 163–164, 184–185, 187–188, 190, 192n65, 196n101, 199, 201–202; on the Camposanto frescoes 11, 15–17, 33, 60, 183; Festschrift 185, 198; on the Frick Flagellation 19, 22–26, 183, 187; on Giotto in Assisi 33, 183; ‘Giudizio sul Duecento’ 20–22, 24, 184, 193n81; and iconology 71n209, 185, 198–199; on Trecento art 60, 108, 114, 121–122, 125 Lopez, R.S. 109–110 Lorenzetti, A.: Annunciation (Montesiepi, San Galgano) 166, 168 Lorenzetti, P. 10, 11n55, 166, 168 Lorenzo da Viterbo: Santa Maria della Verità 142 Lotto, L. 7n20; Sleeping Apollo 82 Lovisetti Fuà, L. 122 Lowry, B. 158 Luca della Robbia 142 Ludwig, A. 81 McMahon, P.A. 47n7, 50 Maetzke, G. 162n178 Maginnis, H.B.J. 152; on the Camposanto frescoes 17n75; on Giotto in Assisi 31; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 124

215

Mâle, E. 20, 49, 111 Malraux, A. 105 Maltese, C. 118n151 Mann, T. 48 Mantegna, A. 60–61, 138n5, 188; Camera degli Sposi 194; Life and Passion of St Maurice see Bellini, G.; Ovetari Chapel (Padua, Church of the Eremitani) 140, 142, 146–147 Mantegna as Illuminator 60–61, 126, 187–188 Les manuscrits à peinture en France du XIIIe au XIVe siècle 59 Marangoni, M. 184 Marchini, G. 168n226, 193–194, 200 Marinatos, S.N. 67 Marinescu, C. 80 Markham, A. 168n223 Marle, R. van 20 Marquand, A. 1 Martindale, A. 150 Martini, S. 141 Masaccio (Tommaso di ser Giovanni di Mone Cassai) 74, 76, 150; Tribute Money 192 Masolino da Panicale 142; Crucifxion (Empoli, Santo Stefano degli Agostiniani) 168 Master of San Martino della Palma 7n20 Master of St Francis 31; see also Giotto Master of the Grandes Heures de Rohan 58; Rohan Hours 126 Master of the Obsequies of St Francis 31; see also Giotto Master of the Ovile Madonna or Ovile Master 10, 183; see also Bulgarini, B. Master of the Rucellai Madonna 24; see also Duccio Master of the Triumph of Death 16–17; see also Buffalmacco, B. Master of the Triumph of St Thomas 183; see also Memmi, L. Mather, F.H.J. Jr. 28–29 Mauss, M. 114 Meeson, B. 112 Meiss, M.: academic achievements 33, 65–66, 116, 119, 158, 166, 182n4, 196–197; The Art Bulletin editorship 2, 51, 184n18; on the Camposanto frescoes 5, 11–17, 33, 102–103, 124, 143–144, 146, 150, 157, 183, 194, 201; early life and training 1–2, 5, 138–139, 182–183; Festschrift and tributes 78, 108, 112, 124, 152, 190–191, 193, 197, 203; Flemish painting studies 2, 53–54, 73–76, 79, 195; fresco studies 28, 110–111n87, 138–139, 154–157, 194; on the Frick Flagellation

216

Index

3, 7, 19–20, 22–26, 183–184, 187, 201; illumination studies 2, 53, 57–64, 74, 126, 190; on light symbolism 53, 76–77; and Offner 2–3, 7, 10, 19n87, 20, 26–27, 32, 61, 73, 196; on ostrich egg symbolism 3, 78–81; and Panofsky 56–73, 81, 83; Piero della Francesca studies 3, 69, 73, 78–81; on slumbering fgures symbolism 3, 79, 81–83; translation of his works 114, 117–122, 125, 153–154, 199 Meiss, Margaret 121 Memmi, L. (Lippo di Memmo di Filippuccio): Glorifcation of St Thomas Aquinas 11n53, 14, 183n9, 194n87, 203n9; New Testament frescoes (San Gimignano, Collegiata) 101, 103 Mesnil, J. 75 Mezzaratta 147 Milan 61, 120; Santa Maria delle Grazie 142; Sant’Ambrogio 143 Millet, G. 49 Miner, D.E. 58, 73n223 Molajoli, B. 30n188 Montanari, A. 34 Monuments Men 140, 191, 194 Mora, P. 149 More, P.E. 49 Morey, C.R. 20–22, 47–49, 57, 58n95, 139, 146n64 Morone, D. 141 Morozzi, G. 162n178 Mostra d’arte italiana a Palazzo Venezia 142 Mostra degli affreschi staccati 147–150 Mostra di quattro maestri del Primo Rinascimento 147 Mostra giottesca 6, 20, 27 Munat, J. 158n150 Muraro, M. 185, 200n129 Murray, P. 32n205 Naples 75, 163n186; Santa Chiara 142 Neumeyer, A. 184n18 Newman, B. 124 New York 1, 5–6, 47, 76, 140, 158, 161; Frick Collection 18, 19, 26, 69n182, 71, 76; ICOM conference (1965) 149; Metropolitan Museum of Art 9, 48, 51, 109, 140, 142, 162, 166–167; Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) 117; Pierpont Morgan Library 58–59; Samuel H. Kress Foundation 143n46; Wildenstein Gallery 162; New York University 47, 154n127; Conservation Center 150–151, 155, 160, 163; Institute of Fine Arts 2, 5, 9, 29, 47–48, 57, 66, 72, 154n125 Nicholson, A. 28

Nicola Pisano 20, 25 Nordenfalk, C. 35, 59–60, 66–67, 69 Norton, C.E. 6, 49, 65n147 Norton Library Press 154 Noszlopy, G.T. 30 Oertel, R. 28, 30, 107, 149–150, 152 Offner, R. 17n74, 21, 22n114, 24, 32, 163n185, 201n135; academic training and achievements 5–9, 182n1; and connoisseurship 5, 8–9, 26–27; Corpus of Florentine Painting 6, 10, 191n64; ‘Giotto, Non-Giotto’ 6, 27–29, 30, 32, 34, 183, 190; and the Institute of Fine Arts 2, 9, 47–48; and Meiss 2–3, 7, 10, 19n87, 20, 26–27, 32, 61, 73, 196; Studies in Florentine Painting 5n6, 7–8 Olivetti, A. 118n147, 153, 162n177 Opere d’arte restaurate 142 Oppenheimer, J.R. 66 Orcagna (Andrea di Cione) 11n55, 102, 194; Last Judgement (Florence, Santa Croce) 166; Strozzi Altarpiece 101; Triumph of Death (Florence, Santa Croce) 101, 102 Orozco, J.C. 154 Ozinga, M. 160 Paccagnini, G. 191, 193–194 Pächt, O. 69; and iconology 52–53, 55, 82; and illumination studies 59, 75n234 Padoan, G. 160 Padua 27–31, 33, 142, 150 Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 2, 7, 17, 98–127, 194, 196, 201–202; reviews 102–109, 123; translations 112, 117–123 The Painting of the Life of St. Francis in Assisi 118, 151–154 Pallucchini, R. 30n188, 164 Pane, R. 116n133, 145 Panofsky, E. 6, 26, 47, 60, 81, 109, 119, 200, 202–203; ‘Classical Mythology in Medieval Art’ 49–50, 83; and the concept of mental habit 52, 113; and the concept of Typus 20, 50; and conservation 31–32, 138, 150, 192; Correggio’s Camera di San Paolo 71, 185–186; Early Netherlandish Painting 52–55, 61, 63–64, 75, 77; Festschrift and tributes 69–72, 77, 185–186, 199; Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism 52, 100n20, 113–114, 122;and the iconological method 34, 49–57, 77, 104, 125, 184–185, 198, 202–203; ‘Imago Pietatis’ 20, 112; and the Institute for Advanced Study 2, 48–49, 65–68, 70, 72, 109n77, 200; and the Institute of Fine Arts 9, 47–48; Meaning in

Index the Visual Arts 55–56, 185–6; and Meiss 2–3, 9, 20, 35, 49, 56–59, 61, 65–68, 73–78, 82–83, 105–106, 187, 200, 202; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 102, 112–114; Renaissance and Renascences 32, 65, 71, 112, 113n105; Studies in Iconology 50–52, 56; Tomb sculpture 65, 112; Paolo Uccello (Paolo di Dono) 64, 141, 147 Paris 3, 17, 35, 49n19, 59–61, 62, 63, 126, 167n219, 188 Parronchi, A. 79 Peirce, C.S. 113 Pelliccioli, M. 156n136 Perkins, M. 28 Piero della Francesca 74, 141, 143, 147, 190, 193, 199; Flagellation 80; Holy Sepulchre 147; Legend of the True Cross 150, 154–155; Montefeltro Altarpiece (Brera Altarpiece) 3, 73, 78–81, 193; St Augustine Altarpiece 69, 79; St Julian 166 Pinder, W. 104, 109n72 Pisa 10, 15, 17, 19, 33, 148, 150, 182, 194; Church of Santa Caterina d’Alessandria 14; Museo Nazionale di San Matteo 10–11, 12 Pisanello (Antonio Pisano) 194 Polzer, J. 15, 17n75, 124, 160n162 Pompeii: Villa dei Misteri 143, 151 Pontormo (Jacopo Carucci): Annunciation (Florence, Santa Felicita) 166; Madonna and Child with Saints (Florence, Santissima Annunziata) 169n231 Pope, A. 138 Pope-Hennessy, J. 1, 6, 8, 75; on the Frick Flagellation 24–25; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 104 Porcher, J. 59–60, 63 Porter, A.K. 145 Pozza, N. 117, 119–120 Previtali, G. 56, 113n105, 119, 149, 156, 164–165, 186; on Giotto in Assisi 30, 33, 153; and Trecento art 121–123 Priamo della Quercia: Yates Thompson Dante 188–189n49 Princeton University 3, 9, 22, 30n183, 35, 57, 109, 125n214, 197, 200–201; Department of Philosophical Studies 49; Index of Christian Art 49; Institute for Advanced Study 2, 48–49, 65–67, 141, 187; School of Architecture 1; University Art Museum 11, 13; visiting professorships 55, 67, 124n201, 192, 194, 198, 200–201 Procacci, U. 15, 30n188, 67, 117, 156, 191–194, 200, 203; and Brandi 163, 166–167, 169–170; and the food of 1966 158–159, 162–166; on fresco technique

217

and conservation 3, 31, 142, 147–148, 150–152, 155, 168–169 Propyläen Verlag 117 Puccio Capanna 32 Pusey, N.M. 161n167 Quilici, F. 162 Quintavalle, A.C. 186 Raffaldini, A. 143 Ragghianti, C.L. 21n103, 35n228, 78, 120, 141, 144, 184, 187, 194; Fondo Internazionale per Firenze 163–165; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 99, 106n50, 114–116 Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio): Galatea 81n298; Vision of a Knight 83 Read, H. 99 Reinhard, A. 124 René d’Anjou 59, 61, 63, 126 Renouard, Y. 108–109 Resnais, A. 141 Riccobaldo Ferrarese 32 Riegl, A. 99, 104n36, 105, 113 Rimini 33; Tempio Malatestiano 143–146 Ring, G. 59 Ringbom, S. 78 Rintelen, F. 27–28 Rivera, D. 154 Rizzoli 155 Roberts Commission 139–141 Robertson, G. 77 Romanini, A.M. 34 Rome 28, 30, 32, 34, 106, 142, 149, 193; Istituto Centrale del Restauro 31, 147, 163, 165n201, 167, 170; San Lorenzo fuori le Mura 142 Roosevelt, F.D. 139 Rosenberg, J. 56 Rosi, G. 163n183 Rossi Pinelli, O. 203 Rothko, M. 124 Rotondi, P. 170n239 Rowland, B. 102, 104, 112 Ruda, J. 75 Russoli, F. 81 Sachs, P.J. 2, 139, 140–141n18 St Cecilia Master 28, 30n183, 31, 32n203 St Francis 76–78 St Jerome 74–75, 78 St Peter Master 26; see also Guido di Graziano Salmi, M. 29–30, 147, 148n77, 155, 166, 184, 186n30, 188, 190–191, 193 Salvemini, G. 141n20, 192 Salvini, R. 21n103, 30n188, 116, 167, 191, 194–197, 201, 203; on Giotto in Assisi

218

Index

30n181, 33; laudatio for Meiss’s honorary degree 33, 116, 195–197; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 116–117, 194–196 Sandberg-Vavalà, E. 20, 24 Sangiorgi, F. 79 Sanpaolesi, P. 143–144 Sansoni 119–120 Sauerländer, W. 67 Saxl, F. 5n4, 61n126, 83; ‘Classical Mythology in Medieval Art’ 49, 83 Scarpa, C. 147 Schapiro, M. 2, 51n38, 53, 55, 99, 119, 122, 202–203; on the Frick Flagellation 24–26 Schlosser, J. von 186n26 Schöne, W. 28 Schulz, J. 158n150, 168n223 Sciolla, G.C. 203 Shearman, J. 79, 159 Shell, C. 158n150 Siena 3, 20, 24, 26, 60, 98, 100, 104, 108, 121, 123, 182 Sindona, E. 199 Sirén, O. 27 Siviero, R. 142, 164 Smart, A. 30–31, 124, 153 Smyth, C.H. 9, 34, 149n90, 150 Snyder, D. 81n295 Soby, J.T. 117 social history of art 2, 98–99, 102, 105–107, 109, 113–119, 121–122, 125, 187, 199, 202 Spinello Aretino 11n55; 141 Squilbeck, J. 55 Stechow, W. 51, 104 Steer, J. 78 Steinhoff, J.B. 125 Sterling, C. 75 Strabo 61, 188 Strehlke, B. 17, 201–202n139 Stubblebine, J.S. 24n125, 26 Suger of St Denis 53, 112 Suhr, W.H. 23n116 Supino, I.B. 11 synthronismus 35, 49, 65–68, 187, 200 Taine, H. 99 Tavoni, M. 122 Taylor, F.H. 51, 139 Tervarent, G. de 51n41 Teyssèdre, B. 51n41 Thode, H. 29 Tintori, L. 3, 118, 147, 149, 154–156, 159, 203; and the Camposanto frescoes 143, 150, 157; and the food of 1966 156–157, 159, 162–163, 165, 170; and the Giotto

frescoes 31, 118, 150–154; and Piero della Francesca frescoes 150, 154–156 Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) 83; Bacchanals 82 Toesca, P. 24, 31, 115, 142n35, 151n105 Tolnay, C. de 52n46, 80, 186n30 Toscano, B. 23n116, 121–123, 126n220 Traini, F. 5, 10, 15–17, 31, 33, 60, 183, 190n51, 201; Bishop Saint 11; Camposanto frescoes see Buffalmacco, B.; Crucifxion (Pisa, Camposanto) 17; Madonna (Pisa, San Giusto in Canicci) 15; Madonna and Child with St Anne 11, 13; Triptych of St Dominic 10, 12, 194n87 Tselos, D. 48 Ugolino di Nerio 10 Ugolino Lorenzetti see Bulgarini, B. University of Florence 33, 116, 196 Urbani, G. 170 Valcanover, F. 160 Valentiner, W. 108n64, 115n123 Van Eyck, H. 54 Van Eyck, J. 5, 73–74, 127; Arnolfni Portrait 52–55; Ghent Altarpiece 54; Madonna in the Church (Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) 54; Portrait of a Man with a Blue Chaperon (Sibiu, Brukenthal National Museum) 54; Portrait of Cardinal Niccolò Albergati 73; St Francis (Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art) 54; St George 75 Van Eyck, workshop of: Crucifxion (Berlin, Gemäldegalerie) 54; St Jerome in His Study (Detroit, Detroit Institute of Arts) 73 Van Os, H.W. 64, 114, 124, 127, 168 Vasari, G. 11n55, 28n166 Venice 3, 83, 118–119; Cini Foundation 35, 71, 148; food of 1966 158, 160–161, 164, 191; Marciana Library 35; Praglia Abbey 160; Querini Stampalia Foundation 160; San Gregorio 160 Venturi, A. 11, 190n53, 191n61, 201n137 Venturi, Lauro 141, 142n28 Venturi, Lionello 21, 24, 79n 275, 141, 147, 184, 184n18, 186, 188n46, 190, 203 Verrocchio (Andrea di Michele Cioni) 6–7 Vicenza: Palladian Basilica 143 Vigni, G. 30n188 Vitale da Bologna 11 Vitali, L. 117–119, 153, 155n133 Vöge, W. 113 Voll, K. 54n65 Volpe, C. 11n61, 201; on the Frick Flagellation 24; on Giotto in Assisi 33–34; and iconology 198, 201; on Painting in Florence and Siena after the Black Death 122

Index Walker, J. 161n167 Warburg, A. 7, 49–50, 52, 56, 71, 72n210, 75n236, 82–83, 99, 111–112, 119, 201n137 Warburg, Edward M. 158 Warburg, Eric M. 111 Warburg, P. 48 Warburg Institute/Library 48, 49n24, 67, 196 Warhol, A.: Cow Wallpaper 167n219 War’s Toll of Italian Art 142 Washington 139; Center for Advanced Study in the Fine Arts 161; ICOM conference (1965) 149; National Gallery of Art 7n16, 76; Smithsonian Institution 148 Weigelt, C.H. 23–24 Weiss, R. 74–75 Weisstein, U. 30 Weyden, R. van der 55; Mérode Altarpiece 53 White, J. 30–31, 153

Wickhoff, F. 24n124 Widmer, B. 80 Wilde, J. 5n4 Wind, E. 83 Winkler, F. 54 Wittkower, R. 83, 99n11, 119, 120, 158, 199n121 Wölffin, H. 99, 107, 122, 124 Wormald, F. 60 Young, W. 161 Zanardi, B. 152 Zanotti Bianco, E. 140 Zeffrelli, F. 161, 164 Zeri, F. 67, 116n133, 121, 188, 201 Zevi, B. 199n121 Zoppo, M. (Marco di Antonio di Ruggero) 188

219