Interventions:Toward a New Model of Renaissance AnachronismAlexander Nagel and Christopher S. Wood

The Venetian paiTitcr Vittore Carpaccio picttired Saint Ati-gustine seated at a table in a roomy study, pausing, his penraised from the paper. Augustine is writing a letter to SaintJerome asking the older man for advice and at that vcr>moment, in distant Bethlehem, Jerome dies, .\ugiistine looksup from his desk, as his room fills with light and an ineffablefragrance, and he hears the voice of Jeiome. Carpacciopainted the picture about 1503 for the Confraternity of S.Ciiorgio degli Schiavoni in Venice, where it still hangs today(Fig. 1). It is a historical picture, re-creating an incidentsupposedly nai rated by Augustine himself in a spurious letterfrequently published in late-fifteenth-centiir\ Venice as a siip-plenieut to biographies of Saint Jerome.' The flutteringpages ofthe open codices, the fall ofthe shadows, the alerteddog, the poised pen all suggest the inomentariness of thatmoment, the evening hour of compline, as Augustine tells us.This is secular time, the time of lived experience, whose eachmoment repeats but differs from the previous moment. Thesaecuhim is measured out against a completely different tem-porality, the time frame of peifect understanding. Augustinehad been planning a treatise on the joys ofthe blessed andwas writing lo |erome lor gtiidance on the topic. However, hisletter was badly placed in secular time and would never reachits addre.ssee. Instead, at the moment he put the salutationdown on pa[)er, Augustine reports, Jerome's voice came tohim from that place of the blessed to chastise him for hishubris in attempting to reason about what was beyond his(omprehension. "By what measure." Jerome asked, "will youmeasure the immense?"

The ai tifacts and the furnishings described by this picture,occupants of mundane, "fallen" time, are all tied to histoiy bytheir foi-nis. btit in differcnl ways and with differing degreesof cfi'titudo. It seems at first that eveiything is Tntich as itniiglit ha\e been in an Italian scholar's well-appoiuted studvof about lnOO. Al the left is an elegant red <haii with clothfringe and brass rivets and a tiny lectern. A door at the backopens onto a smaller room with a table supporting piles ofbooks and a rotating book stand. Carpaccio portrays writingimplemenis, penholders, scieiitiHc instnuiieiUs, an hourglass,and. on a shelf riuuiing along the left wall, under a shelf olbooks, slill inoie bric-a-brac of the sort tbat scholars like tocollect: old pots, statuettes, even prehistoric flint artifacts,misundeistood by the painter and his contemporaries aspetrified lightning^ Some of these objects clash anachronis-ticallv with the picture's subject matter. One of the smallstatues is a representation of Venus, an object that a modernclergyman, a man of taste and liberal views capable of distin-guishing a shelf from an altar table, might havr pri/ed, butthat Saint Atigustine wotild not have owned.* Augustine wasvehement in his condemnation of pagan statuaiT, as any ofhis Renaissance readers would have known.' On tfic rcai" wallis a kind of private chapel, a wall niche framed by pilasters

and faced with spandrels with inlaid vegetal ornament, whichsfielters an altar. The altar looks as if it is in use: the curtainis pushed aside and the doors on the front are open, reveal-ing ecclesiastical equipment. Augustine has placed his bish-op's miter on the altar table and propped his crosier and acenser on either side. They are the apptirtenances that amodern bishop might have owned. Even so, those modernartifacts, and a modern chapel with its fashionable frame, allhad an aU'antica flavor that connected them with the Romanpast, with Augustine's historical world, more or less. Suchartifacts, given a virtual life inside a paiuted fiction, enteredinto poetic play with eac h other, orchestrated by tbe painter-atuhor.

A Clash of TemporalitiesMany fifteenth-ccntuiy painters mingled historical and con-temporarv" references in their works. Fven Carpaccio's Augus-tine, it is argued by some scholars, was a screen for a modernportrait, a papal official in one accotint, in another. CardinalBessarion.' Such deliberate anachronisms, juxtapositions ofhistorically distinct styles in a single picture and stagings ofhistorical events in contemporaiy settings, fed back into thesymbolic machinery of the picttues. Fifteenth-century Flem-ish painters, for instance, embedded samples of medievalaixliilectuial .styles as au icoiiographic device: the rotmd-arched or "Romanesque" style as the signifier of the oldcovenant, "Gothic" pointed arches as the signifier of thenew.'' Rogicr van dcr Wcydcn attached an anachronistic cru-cifix to the central pier of a ruinous Nativity shed, site ofmaximum condensatioTi and redtindancy of epochal time.^Sandro Botticelli dressed the characteis of his Frimavna Inthe costumes of contemporaiy festival pageantr}, a blend ofthe still fashionable and slightly out-of-date, creating a deli-cious tension with the literaiT premise of a primordialtlic'ophany. the invitation to the first spring of all timc.' Thestaged collision between the \isuaily familiar and the unfa-miliar was one of the ways that modern paintings, to bcjrnjwa phrase from Alfred Acres, "customized the terms of theirown perception.""' Such works dared to make reference to a"here" and a "now" relative to a historical beholder, throtighperspective or modern costumes or hidden contemporaryportraits. The "custonii/ed," contingent aspect of the woikcould be folded hack into the work's primary, usually nonlo-cal aims. The internal dissonance between universal andcontingent then generated a whole new layer of meanings.

Thf condition of possibility for such complex feedbackeffects was the idea that form wotild be legible to the be-holder as the trace of an epoch, a ctilttue, a world—as a"style," in other words. Behiud the idea of historical st\lestands a tlieoi'\' about the origins of formed artifacts. Accord-ing to this theoiy, the circumstances of an artifact's fabrica-tion, its original^' context, are registered in its physical fea-

404 \ R I HI I . l . V r i X S K I ' l ^ . \ l H ^ k ^ I \ O L L \ t t L W W I l N L ' M I U K

1 \'ittote C^atpaccio, 1 lu \ isum of Saint Auguslim\ 15(VJ-.J. \ i. iiut', S. Giorgio degli Schia\oni (plioto: Ei-ich Lessing/Art Resource,

Uiit\s. A chi.sh ot tfiriporalitics of the sort we litid in C^arpacciocomes about when patrons and artist LIIUI beholders all agreeto see the artifacts "cited" in the painting, the biiilditigs orstatues or co.stunies, as traces of historical tiiomeiits. One cancharacleri/e this theory ofthe origin ofthe artifact—which iseqitally a theor\' of the origin of the artwork—as performative.The artifact or the work, according to this theoiy. was theproduct of a singular historical performance. Any sttbseqtientrepetitions of that perlbrmatice, for example, copies of thework, will be alienated from the original scene of making.

This theor\' of origins came into especially sharp focus overthe cour.se of the fifteenth century. An artist was now con-ceived for the first titne as an author, an auctorov founder, alegitimate point of origin for a painting or sculpture, or evena huilditig. The author, mote generally the etitire context offabrication, leaves traces in the fabric oi the work. By thethird quarter of the Hfteetith centur\', the image of the stylttsor pen, the writing instrument that both in ancient rhetoricaltreatises and in modern Petrarch had come to stand symbol-ically for the itidividual atithor's peculiar, itialienable wayof putting things into words, was carried over into the con-teniporary discourse on paintitig. The Floretitine AntonioFilarete, in his Tmilise on Arrhilerltiie (1461-64), wrote that"the paititer is known by the manner of his figin^es. and ine\eiy <lis(i[3line one is known by his style." ' A chararler in

Baldassare (^a.stigliotie's dialogue 'The (Courtier {\52S) says ofLeonardo da Vinci. Andtca Matitegna, Raphael, Michelan-gelo, atid (iiorgione that "each is recognized to be perfect inhis owti style."" Since the late fifteenth centur)- sotne versionof this theory of otigitis is insctibed into every Europeanpainting.'"

('arpaccio's painting draniati/es tlie clash between tempo-ralities. At the heart ofthe picttire, inside the wall niche, thesystem of anachronistic citations reaches a crescetido andthen collapses in ttpoti itself. On Augustine's private altarstands a statue (3t the resiurected (-hrist. Here Carpaccio hasimagined an Early Christian altar, adorned tiot by a carvedand painted retable but by a freestanditig bronze. Of course,no such work would have stood on a fifth-century altar.Carpaccio in fact was describitig a modern work, a bronzestatue today in the Mtiseo Poldi Pezzoli iti Milati (Eig. 2). Thework was made in the Veneto in the early I49(ls atid cotild befound, at the time Carpaccio painted his picture, on an altarin the Venetian church of S. Maiia della C arita in Venice.'"' Itwas conitiiissioned. together with an elabotate c hapel. by thewealthyjeweler and antiquarian Dotnenico di Piero." At .^4%inches (138 centitneters). it is significantly larger than astatuette, though utider life-size.''

Since the Christ figittT on the altar was a modetn work, itseems lo tnatch the other anachronistns in the room, the

I M t ;K\ 'F\TIONS: A NKW MOIIFl, OF RtN A [ SSA N DK ANACHRONISM 4Q5

modern finnittire and the bound codices. But this statue is[iiesented as an ancient work. Of course, nt) such artifact hadsuivived from Kaih (Christian times. Ihe literaiy tradition,however, mentions an ancient bronze statue of C^hrist. Tbeearh-foiuth-centun chtircli historian Eusebitis had describeda bronze statue group in Paueas (present-day Baniyas, northof the Sea of (ialilee) that showed a woman kneeling insupplication before a man with a cloak draped over hisshoulder and with his arm outstretched to her."' Eusebius'saccount was retold and embroidered throughout the MiddlfAges and in the thirteenth centtiiy made it into the pages ofthe Golden Leireiid, one of tbe most widely read devotionaltexts of the later Middle Ages. In the Golden Legend thetwo-figiue group had become a single statue of Christ. ' Theston' was frequently invoked by iconophiles during the six-teenth<entury image controversy as an example o( the use ofimages in archaic Chri.stian times.

We will argue that the bronze C liiist cited in tlu- paintingwas not merely, for ('arpaccio, a modern work lunc tioning asan ingenious hypothesis of a lost ancient work. The bronze(Christ did not just "stand for" or refer poetically to antiquity.Rather, for him ihe statue was an antique work.

SubstitutionTo make sense of this claim about the statue we will need tointroduce a new model of the relation of artifacts to time.The thesis proposed here and in the research project itintroduces is iluu all ai tifacts—not ju.st statues but also chairs,[)anel paintings, even churches—were luidcrstood in (he pre-niodfrn pci'iod to ha\e a double historicity: one might liiiowthat they were fabricated in the present or in the recent pastbut at the same time value them and use them rt.s //they were\v\') old thiugs. This was not a matter of sell-dclusiou orindolence but a Iniution of an entire way of thinking aboutthe liistoricity of artifacts repeatedly misunderstood by theniocU'rn distipline ot art histoiT.

Images and buildings, as a general rule, were tuidcrstoodas tokens of types. t\'pes associated witli m\thi< al, diml\- per-cei\cd (origins and enfoi'cing gcnt'i'al strtu tuial or categoi'icalcontinuit) across sequences of tokens. One token or replicaeffectively substituted for another; classes of artifacts weregrasped as chains of substitutablc replicas stietchiug outacross time and spate. L'nder this conception ofthe tcmpoiallife of artifacts, which we will call the piinciplc of sulntitittion,modern copies of painted icons weie undei stood as eflectivfsurrogates for lost originals, and new buildiugs were tmdcr-stood as reinstantiations, thi-ough typological association, ofprior structtncs. The literal circumstances and the historicalmoment of an artifact's material execution were not routinelytaken as components of its meaning or fimction; such factsabotit an artifact were seen as accidental rather than asconstitutive feattires. Instead, the artifact functioned bv align-ing itself with a diachronic chain of replications. It substi-tuted for the absent artifacts that preceded it within thechain. Richard Kjautheimer, in his seminal article "Introduc-tion to an Iconographv of Vk'difval Architectnre," of 1942.made this point about medieval building.s.''' lie held that theground plans of many early and high medieval churches weregoverned not so much by structuial, formal, oi" liturgicalconcerns as by a desire to comply with a set of simple design

2 Ri'.suni'rlt'd Christ. Milan, Toldi I'e/zoli Museum

principles embodird in a few prestigious and symbolicallyweighty early models. Krautheinier carefully declined to pushhis thesis bevond a limited group of centrally plannedchurches dating IVoni the ninth to the twelfth centmifs. Ineffect, we are tiying to extend the Krautbeimer thesis, beyond

406 SEI'I EMiiF.R y \()1 L M |i I .XXWII XCMRFR :l

3 Hpsurrerti'd Chnst, detail of ftxn and plinth (plioio: AlexanderNagel)

its original brief, to the painting and tlie sciiipturr of theRenaissance.

The bronze Christ once in Venice and now in Milan didnot actually belong to a chain. It appears to have been aphilologically sensitive replica of the historical statue de-scribed by Eusebius and others through to the dolden Legend.The modern statue preserves a peculiar detail ofthe legend.According to the texts, exotic plants tluit grew beneath thestatue and came into contact with the sculpted hem ofChrist's cloak took on niiraciilotis powers and were used toheal illnesses of all kinds."" (Luke 8:44 and Matthew 9:20specifically say that the heniorrhaging woman was healed bytouching the hem of Chiist's garment.) On the bron/e statuenow in Milan, the veiy work C^arpaccio used as his model, tliepedestal cariies a dense motif of foliage, and the hem ofChrist's pallitim drops down sharply below the le\el ot his feet(Fig. 3). The motif is strange and emphatic: the cloth poolstip lo the side of the pedestal as if to insist on the idea that ithas come into physical contact with the gi-ound. The vegetalornament and the overflowing hem show iluii the pation ofthe hron/e stattie, Domenico di Piero. deliberately under-stood it as a I'cplica of the original ancient statue of Chri.strecorded by Eusebius."'

In the literature on the ancient and uiedic\al use of sjiolia,that is, elements of early montmients retised in later times,some conceptual space has been cleared for artifacts like this.In her book Venice and Antiquit\, Patricia Fortini Brown iden-tifies a "level of copying—the deliberate faking of an anticj-uity—in which the present virtually becomes the past.""" Fol-lowing a distinction drawn hy Richard Brilliant, she describessuch works as the thirteenth-cen(ui-\' telief Hercules with theCerynean Hiiitl and the l.entean Hsdra on the facade of S. Marcoor the thii teenth-t eutuiT ducal tombs as "conccpttial spolia":artifacts filling gaps in the monumental record and made tolook as if they might have been spolia.''' Our model amplifiesand radicalizes this argtmient. Not just a few but a vast rangeof works can be understood as virtual spolia or fabricatedantiqtiittes, whether they closely resemble real antiquities, toour eyes, or not. The rare examples that sticceed in simulat-ing the look of antiqtiity serve as signposts that help us tnapout the full reach of the model.

The simple presence of an artifact like the \'enetiau Clhristcarried enormous validating power. Reflexively placing itwithin a substitutional mode of production, contemporary'viewers looked past the local circumstances of its fabricationand instead concentrated on the referential target. Even aprotot}'pe otherwise unknown was in effect "retroactivated"by such a work. In the presence of the actual statue—espe-cially one in hronze. a rare sight in churches at this time—thelegend of an antique original immediately gained compellingcon ere ten ess.

The substitutional, retroactive power ofthe bronze (Christexplains why the statue, which appeared in Venice in the149()s, had such an extraordinary and immediate impact onVenetian art of the period, .^though anthorless and virtuallyunknown today, about 1500 the figtire carried great aiitiior-ity, as if it were understood to be more than an imaginativefiction. It was often copied. In S. Maria della Carita in Venice,where the bronze originally stood, the Christ in the Resur-rection relief from the Barbarigo Tomb, finished by 1501. isch)sely based on the statue. Freer emulations of the statueabounded: Al\ise Vivarini's Hesurrected Christ of 1497 iu S.(Giovanni in Bragora, Cima da Conegliano's figiue of Christin his Dotditiiig of .Saint Thomasof 1504, the statue of Christ inmarble by Ciiambattista Bregno in the de Rossi Chapel in theTreviso Duomo of l')01-;?. Its powerful effect on Fra Bar-tolommeo, who visited Venice in 1508, can be seen in theFlorenthic altarpiece he painted for- Salvator e Billi in 1516(now in the Palazzo Pitti). And Carpaccio, as we have seen,copied it closely.'^ This reception histon re\eals that theChrist statue had come close to attaining the status of a truelikeness.

Let us return to the Carpaccio painting, moving outwardfrom the statue. The mosaic in the apse behind the stattieunmistakably renders an actttal mosaic of a seraph from theCreation cupola ofthe atrium of S. Marco in Venice."^" Madein tlie thirteenth centuiy, the mosaic is only a few hundredyears distant from Carpaccio's painting. Augustine never sawit or anything like it. Perhaps ('arpaccio simply did not know-how to date the mosaic: and in citing it acttially meant toinvoke the remote time of Christian antiquity, the time oftheChurch Fathers. To put it in these terms, howe\er, to speak ofa "misdating," is to misunderstand the mechanism of the

[ \ r i R \ ' K \ I I O N S : A \ !• W M O D I I ( ) [ K E. \ \ I S S A N C . F A N A f: EI R O N I S M 4 ( ) 7

substittilioiial mode. C.Lirpaccio knew thai S. Marco and theiiiosiiic were postantique; at the same time, lie consideredthem substitutions for lost autiquities. Nothing was moreiiatuial than the liypothesis of a chain ofrejjlicas liiikinj^ tlu-mosaic in S. Marco back to an origin, lt has been shown thatthese mosaics trom the S. Marco atrium were, in fact, mod-eled especially raiefntly and thorouiisliK on illustiations (jftlic type ot the fifth-centur\' Cotton Genesis.''' Tlie principle ofsub.stittition was powerful enough to make the S. Marco mo-saic an antiquity."'

To perceive an artifact in suljstitutiona! terms was to ini-derstand it as belongitig to more than one historical momentsimultaneously. The artifact was connected to its tinknowahlepoint of origin by an unreconstructible chain of replicas.That chain could not be perceived; its links did not diminishin stattire as they receded into the depths of time. Rather, thechain created an instiint and ideally effective link to anatithoritative source and an instant identity for tlie artitaci. Ittmder the performative theory of origins a given seqtieiu e ofworks is seen pcrspectivally, each one with a different appeal-ance, tmder the substittitional theor\' different objects stackup one on top of another without recession and withoutalteration. The dominant metaphor is that ofthe impress orthe cast, allowing for repetition without difference, e\enacross heterogeneous objects and materials. Striking affirma-tions of the idea emerged in Byzantium in the wake of theiconoclastic controversy. The ninth-centuiy theologian SaintTheodore the Studite, for example, compared the relation ofimage to prototype to the impress of a seal on differentmaterials at ditferent times: "The same applies." he wrote, "tothe likeness of Christ iiuespective ofthe material upon whichit is represented.""'^

It is not enough to see the jiainting as a virtuoso manipu-latiou of historical styles. Nor can it be described as anincompleteh perltn-mative picttire. wilh its historical \ision ofthe past not yet tjuite in locus. Its interlocking anachronismscannot he explained away as fancies of the artist oi thepeciiliai preocctipations of the Venetians. Within tlie substi-tutional mode, anachronism was neithei- an aberration nor amere rhetorical device, btit a strticitiral condition ol artifacts.

Carpaccio's jiaiiiting stages (he statue's subsuiuiion modeagainst a context of performati\ity. and in so doing diagiamsa clash between two different versions of the time-artifactrelation. From one point of \iew, the ()ainted statue is the lostand absent original, ihc nonexistent original, thai lhe mod-ern Italian statue reinsiantiates. From another point of \ iew,the statue is simply an anae hronisin. a citation of a modernwoi k. The painting thus becomes something like an anatom-ical model, re\ealing lhe inner workings of picture making attliis historical moment, 'Lhe painting proposes as ihe resolu-tion of the predicament a new, or at least newly institution-alized, ftmction for pictures: the staging operation itself.Pit ttires like Carpaccio's become places wlieie competiti\emodels of the historicitv of form can be jtixtaposed, places ofimpossibility, of critical reflection and noniesolution. I hisstaging operation is itself noncoinpetiti\'e wilh lhe siibstitii-tional and performati\e modes. That is, a picttire like Cai-paccio's can itself maintain a particular stibstitutional lela-ti(jn to the past, or a peitoiniati\e lelation to the past, or acombination of the two. and at the same time function as a

diagram of the concepttial inteiference between the twomtjdes. And that siTniiltaneity of operations becomes an es-sential feature ofthe work of art in lhe modern period.

This project lias three aims: to outline twtj theories ofthehisioriciiy of form that competed in the Renaissance, theperformative and [he siibstitutional; to suggest that the pat-tern of dialectical interference between tlie two theories soclearly diagrammed by Car|:)ac(io's painting was constittitiveof all European ai't in this period; and to argue that thehistoriogiaphy of Renaissance ait. and of art historical dis-courses generally, is strticturally compelled to misrecognizethat pattern.

Good and Bad AnachronismThe snhstitutional mode of artifact |)roduction hides behindthe idea of style. The idea that the look of a painting or abtiilding registers the mind of a historical artist, or even anentire historical period, in the way ihat a pen responds to theworkings of the mind ot an author is, according lo thepowerful model established by Envin Panofsky and neversince challenged, the dctining achievement of Renaissanceart. According to this celebrated thesis, the Renaissance arlistsaw historical art in perspective. One thinks of lhe range ofDonatello's interpretations of Roman sculpture, from impec-cable pastiche to poetic imilatio,^''* or of Mantegna's fine-grained antiquarian reconstructions of Roman architccttu'eor weaponn."^" The insight into the relativity of style was theprecondition for a rebirth of antique art, tor nol until onecould perceive ancient art as a corpus of works united by acommon period style, clearly distinct from all the works madein the inleiTening "middle" period, could that corpus be-come the basis for a revival of the arts. The idea that apertbimative or relativist conception of style was the precon-dition for the Renaissance itself has for a long time been thebasic premise of historical scholarship in that field, but it isalst) the loundiug myth of the discipline of art history, forwere nol Renaissance artists, in their ability to match tiphistorical styles with historical epochs, themselves the first arthistorians?

The performative mode of artifact production brings theart of painting into aligumeni with the ari of poein. Delib-erate aua( hrouism was the (atalyst of poetic creation in theRenaissance. To imitate an ancient lileran model was loextract it from a historical matrix and ieacti\atc it in thepresent. When fifteenth- and sixteenih-ccntiu^ architects.sculptois. and painters tirst saw themselves as creative au-thors, thev. too, began to provoke what Thomas M. (ireenecalled "miniature anachronistic crises" in their works, l h escholarly study of earh model n \isuai culture recognizes thecategon of "good," or artisticalK produclive, anachronism.Leonard Balkan, in some wa\s building on Greene, has re-cently shown how Renaissaiu e art haeology became a frame-work for poetic stontelling about objects and origins. InBiirkan's analysis, the fictions and projeciions wilh whichRenaissance writers and artists responded to ihese anachro-nic irrtiptions ofthe material past became paradigmatic torRenaissance fiction making and aesihetics generally,'"'

It has proved much harder to make historical sense oftheperiod's many "bad" anachronisms: misidentifications andwild misdatings ol old buildings and sctilptuies, iconographic

408 'Ti-;\iiu.R L'

solecisms, deliberate forgeries. Modern scholars, for exam-ple, have tried to inventoiy all the works of ancient art knownin the Renaissance.''^ But this inventoiy—a colossal and in-valtiable undertaking—is distorted by a massive historicalmisperception: it includes only works of art that modernscholarship judges to be antiquities. It excludes eveiythingelse that for Renaissance beholders carried the atitborit\'of antiquity: "medieval" sculpture thought to be Roman,Early Christian icons and mosaics of variotis periods, a wholerange of buildings, from Carolingian to Gothic, celebratedin the Renaissance as models of ancient architecture—that is.the vast corpus of artifacts governed by what we have calledthe principle of substiuuion. Wiien it comes to the problemofthe historicity of form, art historians still proceed as ii thebest observers of the period—artists and architects aud acutepatrons—saw buildings or picttires more or less as we do.

This essay pnjposes that thinking about historical artifactsin the late medieval and early modern period, and even theproduction of images and bitildings were btiilt on the follow-ing paradox: the possibilit\ that a material sample of the pastcotild somehow be both an especially powerful testimony to adistant world and, at the same time, very likely an ersatz forsome earlier, now absent artifact. The interpretation of arti-facts rested on two logically incompatible convictions, neitherof which could be easily abandoned: on the one hand, thatmaterial e\idence was the best sort of evidence; on the otlieihand, that it was ver\' likely that at some point materialartifacts had been Teplaced. Instead of allowing one convic-tion to pre\ail, people thought "doubly" about artifacts. Theydid not think dotihk about Itoly lelics. A pig's bone was notan acceptable substittite for the bone of a saint. The falsifi-cation of relics was plainly seen to be wrong. Nor did theythink doubly about nondoctmientan \erbal texts, which wereobviously substittitable. handed down thr<iugh time from onematerial vehicle to uTiother withotit loss of atithenticity. Theforce of an old poem did not de|)end on the liteial antitjtiityof the page it was written on.

A political document like a chai tei" oi a deed, or a materialartifact like an image. mo\ed between these two poles, be-tween the nonsubstitutability of the bone and the pei"fe(tstibstitntabillty ofthe lingtiistic text. I'uder the stibsiiiuiionaltheoiy of artifact production, the foj-geries of doctunents soconnnon in the Middle Ages can be luiderstood as the legit-imate reproduction of accidentally misplaced facts.'*' Thou-sands of docimients were fabricated and planted in archivesby later scholars, monastic or courtly, between the eleventhand the fifteenth centtiries. Sncli documents were used toshore up tbe claims to antiquity or legitimacy of a motiasticfoundation or a bishopric or a dncal house. Tbey attested toorigins. If the crucial document did not exist, it was invented."Dotible think"' meant that a document—or, in our case, animage—was at the same time thought of as something like arelic and as something iike a poem. In the stattie of C^hrist althe center of his picture, C^arpaccio captured such an artifact,half relic and half fiction.

The claim put fonvard here is that all these kinds ofanachronism, good and bad, were grounded in a couunonway of thinking about artifacts and have to he dealt withtogether. Renaissance beholders itnderstood medieval oreven modern works as antique not becatise they were con-

fused about dates but because they were preocctipied withthe relation of artifacts to prototypes. In contrast to modernart historians, they focused on the referential authority of thework, its transmission of atithoritative content, rather thanthose context-reflexive elements that advertise the momentof the artifact's production. The enabling premise of thediscipline of art histoty—that style is an index of histon—hasacttially disabled our efforts to understand premodern visualculture.

Figure and DiscourseThe model of lineai" and measiuabie time was by no meansforeign to the Western liistorical imagination fjefbre themodern period, as many medieval chronicles attest. But totell a ston from year to veai\ from event to event, was simplyone way of organizing time. Artifa( ts and motniments con-figtired time differently. They stitchefl throtigh time, pitllingtogether different points in the tempoial fabric until theymet. Bv means of artifacts, the past participated in tliepresent. A pritnaiy ftinction of art tinder the substitutionsystem was prcciseK to collapse temporal distance. Stich tem-poralities had something in common with tbe typologicalthinking of biblical exegetes, according to which sacrede\ents, tliotigh embedded in histoiy, also contained whattheologians called a mysteiy, figure, or sacrament—a spiritualmeaning that lifted the event out of the flow of liistoiy. The•V)mnitemporiir' scheme of history prestipposed by figuralihinking constituted an effort to adopt God's point of view,which grasps histoiy all at once, topologicallv, not in a linearsequence.

This way of thinking was not limited to the educated elite:figtna! structures were embedded in eveiy Mass ceremonyand in \ irtiially eveiy sermon.'" There is a mystical dimensionto the substitutional approach to artifacts, a conviction of thereal, and not merely symbolic, link between artifact andartifact. Visual artifacts by their veiy nature were well suited tothe representation of the figural dimension of histoiy. Tliejtixtapositions, stackings. displacements, and cyclic configu-rations found in cotmtless tnedieval church facades and al-tarpieces presupposed the beholder's competence for think-ing throitgh time in flexible and associative ways.

Visual artifacts collapsed past and pi esent with a force notpossessed by texts. They pioposed an titnnediated, present-tense, somatic encounter with the people and the things ofthe past. Artifacts enacted a breaking through time and araising from the dead. The Greek stliolar Manttel Chiysolo-tas, who taught in Italy fcjr several years aiound the ttirn ofthe fifteetuh centuiy, vividly expressed the contiast whenconfronted with the material remains of ancient sculpture inRome in 1411:

Herodotns and the other historians are thought to havedone something of great value when they describe thesethings; but in these sculptures one can see all that existedin those days among the different races, and thtis this[image-based] history is complete and acctttate: or better,if I may say so, it is not histoiy, so much as the direct andpersonal observation [autopsia] and the living presence[parousia] of all the things tbat happened then,"'

tNTERVENTIONS: A NEW MOtJKI. OF REN Al SSAN CF, A \ AtlH R(» M SM 4 0 9

Thf anachrotiistic force of images atid other artifacts wasgrotitided in assutnptioiis about thf straightfoi"\vardncss andinstatit inteiligibility of ligural represetitation.

Here and elsewhete the direct and tinie-collapsiiig powtrof the image is compared favorably with the cotifusiiig ftltcrof discutsive representation. Discourse or linguistic sigiiitigptocecds linearly into the futtire and thus involves a perma-nent fallitig away from the event. The real event is renderedin conventional signs whose deciphering is not a simpletnatter but an ongoitig, dynatnic process. The itnage, bycotitnist, had a way of betiding the litiear sequence of eventsback oti itself, as if exertitig a ptill oti time. This followed asa psvchological fact frotn the capacity' ol tbe figure to etnbodyinati'iiall\' its outi sigtiified.

F.rich Atterbiub itisistcd thai the figural or typologicaltelation was not allegotical btit leal. The Old Teslatnetit typedid tiot tiierfly stand for the New Tcstatiietit antit\pe: bothwere equally real events in the flow of histoty. The contiec-tioti between the two evetits, itideed, the idciili/y of the twoe%'ents, was petx eptible to an exfgete, wbo did not see tbt'in.as a tiioderti obsener tnigbt, in historical petspcctive, fore-shortened, but itistead saw their symtiietrical sitbordinationU) a bighei. ultimate trntb. That idetitity across time wasstistained by suhstittttiott, atid it is disrupted bv modern his-toricistii.

The figntal altertiative to disctirsi\e atid catisal tempoi-a!ityis a permanent lure, a rhetotical, poetical, atid political oc-casion. Figiiiality played a major role in twentieth-centiitTefforts to adjust the tx'lation between histoiy aud tnetnoii: inSigmiuid Freud's isolatioti of the psychic operations of con-detisatioti atid displacement; in the art historian Aby Wat-burg's paratactic memoiy atlas diagramtning the coil.s oftranshistotical pictotial reference; or in Walter Benjamin'sadaptation ofthe principle of montage to histot .' writing. ForBenjatnin, the "constellatioti" or cotifigttratioti of imageslicid a critical power, the capacity to shatter the order ofthings.'' He saw in Surrealism the promise of the tigitralirruption or "ilhimination." Indeed, Louis Aragon had spo-ken ofthe critical productiWty of stylistic clashes, violations ofthe historical logic of style: such "asyuchronisms of desire"would reveal the cotitradictiotis of tiiodcrnity . '

In two recent books Georges Didi-Hubermati luis pointedlyconlt onted the modern discipline of art history with its ownchronographic complacency. In Dex>ant le temps (2000), heidetitifies two modern modes of dialectical and prodtictivelyatiachronistic thinking abottt images, tnontage atid syniptotn,associated iti multiple ways with Benjamin and Car! Einsteiti.Iti I.'imagf suivivanit'; Histoire de I'ari et temps des fanlomes(2002), he takes Aby Warburg as his guide and unravels theobsolete cvoltitiotiar\' tempotal schetnas that have stritcturedtlie historical study ol Western att. As an alternative to adf\elopmental, "biomorphic" conception of history, War-burg offered a discontinttous, folded bistoiy in which time istedisttibuted in stiata, networks, and defetials. Above all,Didi-Hubermati bt itigs Warbtirg's model of the Nachleben, orsitnival of antique pathos fortmilas, into alignment witb thepsychoatialytic tiiec hatiism of Xachtraglirhlifil, or "delayed ac-tivation."'" Our own project responds to Warburg's provoca-tion, amplified in Didi-Hubertnan's exegesis, by attemptingto draw a notievt)kttiotiai'y "mctapborics" of time from the

historical works theniseive.s, a tenipotalit> in sLructutal ini.s-aligtimetit with, and therefore systematically misrecognizedby. art historical scholarship. We want to work by a process ofreverse engineering frotn the attworks back to a lost chrono-tt)pt)iog\' of art making.

The idea of a nonlitiear, nonpc rspectival, "attistic" titneplays no role in the most influential interpretation of Renai.s-siince historical attitudes, that of Erwin Panofsky. For Panof-sky, a lucid sense of historical distance was the basis of whathe called the "factuality" of the Renaissance as a periodconcept.'" He atgued that the Retiaissance distinguisheditself from the Middle Ages by its sense of "an intellectualdistance bet\vccn the present and the pa.st." ' Medieval art,for Panofsky. had been iticapable of joitiitig historical subjecttnattet wiih its ptoper historical form: Eve was portrayed inthe pose of a Vevus pudica. for example, and the Trcijan priestLaocoon tonsured like a motik. Patiofsky tnaintaitied thatfifteenth- atid sixteenth-centttiy Italian scholars and artistsreactivated the power of classical ctilttux* tbroitgh an accitratcrealignment ofclassical sttbject matter with its projjer classi-cal fbmi: literally, the representation of ancietit Greek andaticient Rotiian gods and heroes with their correct costtitnes,physiogtUHiiies. atid attributes, rendered in ancietit Greekand Romati style. Retiaissance citlttire was essentially a "sta-bilizing of the attitude toward atitiquity."*'*^ a dispelling oftemporal confusion and the blind clash of c tilt tires.

Panofsky drew ati explicit analog)' between the Renaissancehistorical imagination atid Retiaissance pets}>ective:

Iti the Italian Renaissatice the classical past began to belooked upon ftoin a ftxed distatice, quite comjjatable tothe "distance between the eye atid the object" iti that tiiostchatacteristic inventioti of this ver\' Renaissance, focusedpetspective. As in focttsed petspccti\e. this distance pro-hibited direct contact—owing to tbe interpositioti of anideal "projection plane"—but permitted a total and ratio-nalized view. Sucb a distance was absent from both medi-eval renascences [that is. the "iticotnplete" revivals of an-tiquity tbat occutred in tbe Carolingian era and thenagain iti the tw elfth

The tiew "cogtiitive distance" frotn the past, crucially,brought the freedom to choose between stylistic tnodels.Freely chosen anachronism, Panofsky contended, was goodanachronistn. Panofsky showed how cognitive distance couldgenerate not only the appto\ed tieoclassicism of the HighRenaissance—basically a rejection of local and prevailingartistic cttstom in favor of antique style—btit also the accurateeniulatioti of obsolete medieval stymies, if desited. Panofskydemotistratcd this in his atticle "The Fitst Page of Vasari'sLibto"" (1930), the earliest formulation of his cognitive-

distance thesis." In this article, Panofsky pointed out that thelogical complement of Giorgio Vasari's neoclassicism was hisability to emulate with his drawing pen late medieval formalvocabularies, the very same styles that he was elsewhere atpaitis to discredit with his writing pen. According to Panofsky,iti Vasati's albttm of drawings by the gteat Italian masters,which he called his Libro, Vasari drew architectural framesaroutid the motinted drawitigs in the style of the period ofthe drawing. The frames around the drawings that Vasari

410 ART B l ! ] . l , F l t N S E f T E M t l F R LNKir, t X X X V t l Nt MtU K

attributed to tbe eaily Floretitine artist Gitnabue, for in-stance, used finials and gables characteristic of that veryGothic style, or maviera tedesca, that he so \iolently disparagedin his histor\ of Italian art. Vasari was tints, in Patiofsky's view,capable of perceiving and replicating Gothic ottiatiientalsr\'ie "oti its own tertns." For Panofsky that w as the \ety coreof historicistii.

Bad aiuichi-onism. the bliticl disjitnctioti of medieval art,was by cotitrast luifrce, a sitiiple incapacity to peiceive histor-ical style on its own terms, t nlikc his contempotat ies Ren-jatnin and At-ag(jn, Panofskv bad little faith in the distuptivepower of the figure. Atid be did tiot share Warbitrg's coticep-tion of a histoiy of images earning petsistent figural chargesthat coturetizcd clctiietital ittipulses and aversiotis. Art in hisview did not really enter into its full historical role, its civiliz-ing potential, ittitil the figutal atid sub,sti(tttiotial folding oftime bad fitially beeti stiaightened out.

The blind spot in Panofsky's powetfttl schema emergesclearly at the end of his book Renaissance and Reiinsferues, ashis accottnt converges on the so-talled High Rcnaissatice.Panofsky treats the antiquarian art of the late fifteenth cen-tury as ftindatiietitally recotistrtictivc and even pedatitic inspirit. Nt)t until Raphael, he sttggesLs, does the ptc>ject ofreunititig classical form with classical content transcetid tiierephilological accuracy and generate real art. Raphael, hepoints out, was able to put a modern lira da braccio iti thehatids of his Apollo and, in effect, get away with it. ButPanofsky does not acttially spell ont what Raphael did toescape the logic of historicism. He never explaitis the telatiotibetween cognitive distance from the past—the critetion ofthe historical period as a whole—and the aesthetic achieve-ment of Renaissance art, whatever that tiiigbt be. It is amoment comparable to the closing page of Panofsky's opusmagnum Early Nethniandish Painting (1953), where he bringshis account face to face with, but then declines lo commentoti. the tnystcriotts art of Hierotiymus Bosch.

Anachronic RenaissanceKarly tiioderti tioti<ins of the past wete in fact tiowhcre lesspet-spectival thati in tbe realm of artifacts, of pictm^es andstatues and buildings. No otte in the (iftcetith atid sixteenthcenturies was entit ely clear abotit which urtifac ts wet e antiqtieatid which were tiot; abottt wben thitigs had been made:abottt what it meant to speak of the age or the date of animage or a bttilding. E\en hittiianist scholars atid the mostthoughtful artists were uiitiiodern in their itidifference to orvagttcncss about the bistoricit\' of art. Leotiardo da Vinci, foritistauce, wrote a great deal about how to tiiake art atid whatgood att might be, btit he tiever ottce discussed historical artor the relation of moderti t(.) histotical art.' ' Leonardo wasinterested in architectttral types and made matiy drawittgs ofcetittally planned cbtnches sitiiilar to S. Lorenzo iti Milan.whose core dated to late atitic[uity."' Otie gets the setise thatthe exemplatiiy of S. Lorenzo for hitn was a tnattet of its planand not of its antiquity per se. S. Lorenzo held for hitn theauthority of ati example and it did not occur to hitn to askovcrprecise questions abotit when it was built. There is tioevidence to indicate that the keetiest critics of ancietit art,such as Miclielatigclo, e\'er concerned themselves with theprecise datitig of ancietit objects. For Micbclangelo it was all

the Imon andco; if he made any distitictions. they were distinc-tions of category and motif. Wheti the Paduati hutimnistNiccolo Leotiico Tomeo was presetitecl with a bust of Socratesfor potential putchase his tnain pteoccupation was with theacctiracy of the likeness. Iti his extended i ttmination he didttot ask whether the work was Roman or Greek nor speculateon its date.'' Sucb indiffeiente to the perfotinative ditnen-sion of tbe artifact is typical for their period.

Raphael's famous letter to Pope Leo X on the preseivationatid recording of the teinaitis of ancietit Rorne, written witbthe help of Baldassaie C^astiglionc, has often been taken astbe first clear statement of a historical understanding of art.Yet even here, the histoiy is vety t ottgh. The letter asserts that"thete ate only three kinds of architectute iti Rome": thatptoduced by the ancients, that produced "during the timethat Rotne was domitiated by tbe Goths, and one hutulredyeais after that," and finally, the architecture of the periodcxtetiditig from that obscure moment ttntil the present. *^The blurted coordinates of that middle period remind ns oftbe Holy Rotiian Emperor Maxitnilian's similarly vague ap-proach to chronolog)' when he antiounced in these sameyeats that he would reward humanist scholars for discoveriesof any "treatises or documents" written "tnore than five hun-dred years earlier."''

C:hrc)nology is sketchy in the Raphael letter because stricthistorical accuracv and clatity were not the letter's mainptirpose. Wliile he distitignished between the Gonstatitinianand the Trajanic, Hadrianic, and Antonine sculptural ele-tnents on the Arch of (~.onstantine, tbe point was not to assigtieven po.ssiblc style to a historical moment but tather todetnonstrate that aticietit architecttue remained consistetitlygood: "Let no one harbor donbt that among ancietit bitikl-ings the less atuieni wete less beautiful, or less well undct-stood, because they w^re all made according to the satnc-principles [perche liitti nano d'una mggiorit']."'" The letteraitiied to teveal these principles, to tnake ancient atchitec-titrc int<i a coheretit corptts, a catioti, atid it is, in fact, the firstdocument iti the histoty of architecture to tiotatc the varietiesof classical colitmns as orders. Agaiti. what tiiattercd above allto the Renaissance attist attd c ritic was the exemplaiy model,not the vicissititdc's of histoi ical st\les. This is why later con-stritctiotis thottght to embody the best antique principleswere given the atithoiity ofthe antique.

The itiipot tance of typological over chronological thinkingis at the basis of the spectacttlai" tTiisdatiiig of the eieventh-centutv Baptisteiy in Florence, thotight by knowledgeableRenaissance artists atid scboUirs to be an ancient temple.Some tnodcMtt historians propose that the Florentines cotildtiot really have believed that tiieit Baptisteiy was built byRotiiatis but tiierely thought it a VCIT old stritctitre. However,Filippo Villatii iti \3'Mi asserted tbat it had begttti its existencein antiqtiity as a temple of Mars, as did (-oluccio Sahttati.Vasari proposed with great architectural sophistication thatthe Romatiesque S. Miniato emtilated "I'ordinc buon antico"fotttid in the "atitichissiino tempio" of S. Giovanni al Monte(that is, the Baptisteiy). Only in the later sixteenth centnr)'was the building's atitiquity sericjusly challenged, in the care-fully reasoned treatise of Girolatiio Mei,"'

In ottr view, the misdating of the Baptistety was not just ablind spot in ati othet-wise htcid vision of the past, a break-

IN 1 KK\ FN T I O \ S : NKW MODl-t, OF RFNAtSSANCE AN AC It KO S t S \1 411

dowti of tatiotiality explained by local patriotism and ri\ahywith Rotne's atitiqtiity. It is instead a crticiul clue to the wayscholats atid artists thought about old btiildings all the time.This way of thinking was madc explicit otily wheti critics sttchas \'iticen/(» Borghini were pttt oti tlieit tnettle to defend theBaptistety's antiqttity. There atv many titore "ertors" of thissort, which wete not ertois at all. any mote than ptemoderticopies were forgeries. They only seetii so to tts becattse thevdo ttol conform to a tiiodern. stbolarly conc:eption of bttilcl-itigs as authored artifacts anchored in historical titne and tootir cotiviction that this anchoring tnust be legible iti style.

Patiofsky had to ignore or explaiti away these errors inorder to keep bis thesis of cogtiitive distance intact. He didnot discuss Leonatdo's interest in centrally planned chttrchesat all. He explained the alarmingly inaccurate phrase "ati-clioia C^euto anni di poi" in the Raphael letter as a way ofsaying "an itidefinite period of considetable length."''^ Heabsorbed the misdatitigs of the Florentine Baptisteiy bypointing out simply that Filippo Btunelleschi was infliteticedby various Romanesque and pre-Romanesque btiildings.'^Panofsky tnaintained that the artists and writers of the Re-naissance were able to imitate the classical style becattse theybad achieved histcjrical perspective on antiqttitv. We contendthat architects were able to pick out a historical antique styleonly insofar as it exetnplified some tiortiiative cotueption ofarchitecttue.

Renaissatice artists and scholars could refer to no estal>lished chronology of artifacts, nor did anyone make much ofati attetnpt to establish such a chronology. The full system ofhistorical chrotiolog\, oti which Panofsky's cognitive distaticethesis and the vciy idea of a iitiity of titne depend, was thelaborious cottstruction of later sixteenth-, sevctiteenth-, andeighteetuh-cetitLti-\' scholarship. Histotical chronulcjgy as thechronographers bitilt it was a sequence of et'nits, and it wasnot at all clear that artifacts wete to be understood as events.When people iti the Renaissance did nieasitre out a "cogni-tive distance" to a histot ical work of art or btiitding, it tut nsout to be a |)eculiar. contrived aspect of the period's histor-ical itiiagitiation, tiot ttiore essential to the petiod than otheraspects. Histoticiil Ittcidity was scarce iti the Renaissance.That has seemed clear etiongh to historians such as ElizabethKisetistein, w'ho wrote of the "amorphous spaiio-tetiipotalcontext" (»f fifteenth- and sixttfeiith-centtitA httmanist schol-arship, atid Liicien Febvre, who describecl the mttltiple tem-poralities that strticttiied life iti sixteenih-centttty Etirope.''The researches of Frank Borchardt, Walter Stephens, Ati-thotiy Grafton, atid others force ns to take seriously the\'itality atid persistence of old stories aboitt races of giatitslocked in combat with Egyptian gods iti the valleys of aticietitEurope.•'•' Fantastic trtyths of tiational origins were protiiul-gated w'ell into tbe seventeenth cenltiiy.''^ Yet in Patiofsky'smodel, a historical chtonology of artifacts, medieval atidancietit alike, stiaps sitddenly into perfect focus.

Today it is easy to agree that "artistic" titne—folded, mis-rcmcmbered—is mote ititeresting than tiierely linear histor-ical time. The titodern scholar willingly sttbniits to what Jot geLtiis Borgcs called tbe "plebeian pleasure of aiiachiotiism." "The princijjle of substitutioti generates the effect of an atti-fact that seems to dottble ot c rinip titne over on itself. Thetime of att, with its detisities, irittptions, jtixtapositiotis, atid

tecoveries, comes to resemble the topolog\' of tiietnotT itself,which etnetged in the twetitieth centnty in ail its tatiglednessas a primordial and powerful model of historical understand-ing, a threat to the cettainties of eitipitical historical science,hi the siibstitLitional tnode, however, tio liumati snbject isinvoked. Stibstitution resembles the modcrti topology oftiietnoty. but there is no phire iti it for an acttial woikingmemor\. It is a metiioiy effecl generated by the stthstiiiitiotialmachine.

It may acttiallv have proven convenient to tiioderti theoristsof menu)ty-based time to pteset-\e the image of a prosaicallyhistoricist Retiaissatice. sotiiething like Panofsky's Renais-sance. Fot them, modernity can be seett to emetge out of tinsdelusion of Ittcidity with its own mote flttid. sophisticated,and complicated notioti of titne atid histoiy. Tbere may be anincentive to o\errate the dai il\ ol Retiaissance and Etilight-etniietit thotight so that a delit ions twentieth- and tweiity-first-centuty modernity can stand ottt itt relief

And for those who wish to believe in the hiciditv of theRetiaissance, either as the fouiiclatiotial tnoment of their ownhtcid modernity or as the foil for their owti obscure moder-tiity, it ma) be equally convenietit to stress the cotifttsion andirrationalism of medieval thought. In tbe 19f>l postscript tohis well-knowti article on the iconography of medieval archi-tecture, Kiatttheimer spoke of the "medieval pattet n of 'dott-ble-think,' or, better, 'multi-think,'" and said that multiplecontiotations and images "all 'vibrated' simultaneottsly in thetiiind of educated Early Christian and medieval men.""^Kratttheimer had been careful to explain in the article itselfthat all this "\ibtation" .settled down as tbe Middle .A.gcs cameto a close and the archaeological vision of the artistic pastcame into focus. By the time of tbe Renaissance, "multi-think" was over. Etom that moment oti, apparently, peoplewere careful to think only one thought at a titne. Ktauthei-mer maititained this distinctioti in all his writings, as Mar\inTiachteiihetg poitited otit. Kratitbeimei's Middle Ages wereendlessly complicated and self-con trad ictoty. The Italian Re-naissance, by contrast, temaincd for Kiatitheitiier an ideal-ized "never-nt'ver latid" itistthited "from the cotiiplexities offacture and chtotiology, from the messy realities of Renais-sance practice, and from . . . social context."'"

fhe same schetiia is at work iti the writings of Didi-Htibei-tti.itt, althottgh with the valties reversed: here, the "delirious"Middle Ages are prized over a rationalist modcrnit\' lattnchediti the Renaissance. In imposing a tnimeiic ftttiction oti theitiiage. the Renai.ssance introdttced a "tyranny of the visible,"sup|>ressing an indexical conception of the image that pre-vailed iti the Middle .A.ges. Itt cotitrast to the Retiaissancerhetotic of niastety, adequation, and ititelligibilit\, the medi-eval itnage, iti Didi-Htibermati's bistories, presents ati opac-ity, a disriiptioti of the coded opetations of the sigu, a dis-jitnctive openness by which the itnage is opened onto adizzying series of figurative associatiotis well bevond the logicof "sitiiple icasoti." It is an ntiderstanditig ofthe itnage bettersetTcd by the Fieitdiati concepts of the symptom and ofdreamwork than by the procedtites of iconology developedb\ the Riintian inheritors of Retiaissance httmaiiism, in pat-ticular. Panofsky.''"

In the etid. all parties agree that the Italian Renaissanceimposed the conttivance of cognitive distance oti the flttid,

B l ' t t E T l N S F I ' I i : \ U S K R L M ) ( ) . - i \ O L I ' \ t F t . W W I l N l N t t i t R .1

iTiL'moiy-based tnodels of histotical time that prevailed in theMiddle Ages. The only point of difference is that Panofskyprized cognitive distance as one ofthe foutiding intellectualachievements of European civilization, whereas his many Iat-er-twcntieth-centtny ct itics repttdiate the historical objectivityof the Renaissance and the succeeding "classical" epoch as agtand lie that needed to be tinlearned in the twentiethcenttir)'.

To continue the debate in these tertns is pointless. Panof-sky ktiew veiy well that cogtiiti\e distance was a ctilttiralcotitrivance that overcame the subjective, "interested" distoi-tiotis of memory. The tension betweeti tititncasurable metn-oiy and tiieasurcd historical cbronolog) was implied, forPancjfsky, in the system of linear petspective developed b\' thefifteenth-cetitur\ painters: "the historv' of peispective," hehad explaitied in his 1927 essay Perspective as SymboHc Fonii."tnay be titiderstood witb equal justice as a triutnph of thedistancing and objectifying sense of the real, atid as a tri-umph ofthe distance<lenying htitnan struggle for control."'''To contintte discLissitig the Retiaissance vision of bistoiy as acontest between, on the one hatid, an itivested and interestedfigural itnaginatioti and. oti the otber, the cotitrivance ofdisititerested cognitive distatice is to repeat the error of thosehistorians and critics of moderti art who struggled intertni-nablv to overcome the legacy of ( .lemetit Greeiiberg by re-futing hitn iti terms tbat were already dialectically present inGreenberg's cnvn wiititig. For both the formalist atid thepolitical or ciitical reading of modern art are containedwithin Greenberg's avant-gardism.

InterferenceIn seeking to transcend this diletnma we might ask: Howwas the question of origins addressed by the work oj art}Panofsky actually pointed to the answer, in the essayscollected in Studies in Icoriology (1939), trackings of theartistic fortunes of icotiographic motifs such as "FatherTime" or "Blind Caipid." Here, he telaxed the historicalsc:hetna implied by the "principle of disjunction." crossingthe threshold ofthe sixteenth centtny atid looking directlyat the fully developed Renaissance artwork, supposedlypurged of temporal conftision, in a way that later, in theclosing pages of Renaissance and Renascences, he was tillableto do. In Studies in fconology. he conceded that medievalattributes and features ftequently "chuig" to the new, at-chaeologically correct image of the Renaissance.''" Tocharacterize such persistences of the medieval mismatchbetween historical form and historical content, Panofskyborrowed a term from Oswald Spengler (without actuallynaming Spengler): pseudomorphnsis, a term that Spetigler inturn had adapted from mineralogy.''* Spengler had used itin his Decline of Ihe WesI to detiote the unwilling conformityof a new and dynamic ciiltute to the fortns atid formulas ofan older culture, for exatnple, when the early Christiansadopted the pagan foi in of the basilica. Tbe basilica "em-ploys the tneaiis of the Classical to express the oppositethereof, and is unable to free itself from tlu)se means—thatis the essence atid the tragech' of the 'PseLtdotnorphosis.'"'''

Although Panofsky did not dwell further oti tin- idea ofpseudomorphosis,'*'' his ptactical icotiological readitigs canbe utideistood as demonstrations of the "titiwilling" atid in-

complete character of the early modern artwork. Silvia Fer-retti has argued that Patiofsky's artwork was temporally "an-tinomic." that is, it occupied two incotnpatible time schemesat otice. On the one hand, the artwork was fixed withinhistorical or absoltite titne, and on the other, it inhabited anideal or itnmatietit titne strttctttred b\ an artistic problem.**''One could tnake the case—in defetise of Panofsky—thatalthough this antinotny slips througii the mesh of the pcri-odization schema entailed b\ the principle of clisjitnction, it isbrotiglit ottt by the jjr;tctical hermeneutic of iconologicalanalysis.

Ottr own angle of approach to Fertetti's atitinomic artworkis wiiat we ha\e been calling tbe snbstittiticjnal ptiticiple,which held that an itnage or a bttilditig was a token of a type,invoking and peipettiating an originaiy authority throughpatticipation in a seqnetice of sitnilar toketis. The priticipleof sttbstittition created concliticjns of real identit)- betweenone token and another, something like a magical bond. It istieither an absoltite, historical conception of titne nor atiidealist, exttahistorical time, but anotber temporality alto-gether.

We are not proposing simply that substitution was a tnedi-eval way of thinking about artifacts that persisted but wasfinally vanquished in the Renaissance. Modern understand-ing ofthe Renaissance is already govetned by a vetsion of thisschema: for did not Vasari say that in tbe Middle Ages artistswere content to copy one another and only with Giottostopped copving and began attending to nature?'" Sincethen, basically, we have heard nothing but versions of thisaccount. It is true that in many medieval images we find anattempt to make tbeir contents present by downplaying theirhistorical fabrication and instead claiming tnagical, handlessptodttction. Renais.sance images, by contrast, wete morelikely put forth as aittbored and anchored in this world, inthe saeculum. Under the theorv' of artifacts as singular petfot-mances emerging out of unique historical circtitnstances,associated with the historical rise of artist-authors in thefifteenth centuiy, copies can be seen only as repetitiotis, tiotsitbstittitions. But the interference between the suhstitutiotialprinciple of origins and the authorial or performative prin-ciple of artifact prodttction was dynamic. Although two com-pletely diffeietit theories of origins, stibstitution and pet f'oi-mance each had its uses. In every case, it must be asked whichconception of origins was in effect. \'eiy often both conce[>tions wete iti effect at otice.

The author-based theor)' of artifact prodtiction was neithera historical inevitability nor an enlightentnent; it was tiotmote true than the other theoiy. Nor can it cleanly becoordinated with other "progtessive" developments, like therise of pictorial naturalism or the revival of antiquit). Itideed,it is possible to argtte that tbe tieoclassicism of the earlysixteenth centur\\ prized by Panofsky as the prcjduct of seif-consciotis historical distancing, ma\' equally reflect just theopposite trend, a deliberate rcapplicatiott ofthe stibstitutionptinciple in tbe face of an emergitig ctiltute of artistic per-formance. Likewise, the sytntnetiical case can be made thatnew conceptions of artistic authotship atose within atidagainst the highly substitutional tradition of paitited icons—thitik of the emergence of Jan van Eyck's authotial self-consciousness against the model ofthe Byzantine icoti. The

t N T F R V E N T t O N S : A \ t W MOIUM, nl R E N A I S S A N C E A N A ( . t I R O \ t S M 413

disetigagetnent of a few prestigious artifacts from tbeir tradi-tional fiitictiotis and the establishtitettt of noti-labot-basedand non-material-based criteria c f value—the etneigence, inolher woi'ds, of the work of art—developed iti a dialecticaltelatioti with the sttbstitutiotial priticiple of artifact prodttc-tion.

Tbe ititeiference between the substitutional atid tbe autho-rial principles had as one of its effects the emergetu e of thecategoiy "art forgeiy." The art forger)' was a historical noveltyofthe Renaissance. L'ntil the late fifteenth centuiy. wheti thetnarket for art began to link \'altte to deniotistrable aittbor-sbip, no otie had been accused of "forging" an artwork. Thiscritnitiali/ation of stibstitiitioti catne abottt otily wbeti the twotiiodes of production we bave been outlining enteted intotheir dialectic. What is an att fotgeiy if not a substittttioncruelly ttnmasked as a mere perfoiiviance?'"'

Archaism, aesthetic ptimiti\ism, pseudoinotphic imitation,typology, forgery, misdating, citation, the deliberately "style-less" mode, ideal classicism: each of tbese tetnporal distur-bances of the Renaissance image was an effect generated byconflict between the two theories of origins. The friction oftnutttal intetference only btought otit the contotirs of thecotnpeting theories with greater conceptual clarity. By 1500the two principles, performative and substitutional, neededone another. No sooner had the performative mode emergedthan artists began to reinforce and restage the sttbstittttionalmode in compensation. Many ofthe archaizing teticlencies inRenaissatice art, inchiding the revival of ancient art, can beseen ncjt simply as exercises iti formal imitatioti but as qtiasi-theoretical efforts to reinstate the substitutional approacb toartifact piodtiction. In works of art, like Gatpaccio's picture,the principle of substitution was tnobilized deliberately, andits workings revealed. A painting might do such a thing foratiy tmmber of teasotis: to bend the expectations of a be-holder, for instance, atid so genetate a peculiarly aestheticeffect, or to comment negatively on the competing, petfot-mative theory of origins.

Over the cottrse ofthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, asprints sent pictorial ideas circulatitig all over Europe, and aspttblished treatises and dialogues and ephemeral cotiversa-tions created ati independent cttltnte of art, the dialecticbetweeti the two theories <jf production accelerated and thecycles of response and cottntet-t espouse became brielei' andbtiefer. Artistic autbotship itself, which emerged iti ihe earlyfifteenth centuty as a ptirely perfortnative mode, laterleartied to tiianipulate substitution. Already b)' the beginningof the sixteetith centur\\ otie can altnost define artistic au-tborship as the capacity to maniptilate the two modes withitithe confines of ati aesthetic field. It is jttst such a dvnamichistorical tnodel. involvitig contintial interaction betweetistibstittition, theories of at tistic authorship, atid self-coti-scioits re\ivalisin tiiotivated by propagandistic or doctritialprinciples, that has the best chatice of tnaking setise of thestratige density of the brotize (ihtist at the center of Garpac-cio's atiachrotiistir kaleidoscope.

Alexander Nagelis Canada Research Chair in the (imdiinte Depart-ment of Ihe History of Art al L'niversit^ of Toronto. He is citnenltyAndrexv W. Mellon Piofessor at Ihe Center for Advanced Study in the

Visual Arts. National Callety of Art. Washington. D.C. fCenter forAdvanced Study in the Visual Arts, National GalUiy of Art, Roomh:B-527, 2000B South Club Drive, l.andover, MD 20785,a-nagel@nga.gov j .

Christopher Wood is professot of history of ati al Yale University. Heis the recipient of a junior fetlori'ship at Ihe Society of Felbnos,Haniard University; a John Simon (iuggenheim Fellowship; an NEHRome Prize Fellowship, American Academy in Rome; und the EllenMaria C-onissen Eellowshifi. American Academy in Berlin (Defjarl-m.enl of History of A)1, Yale University. P.O. Box 20H272, NeiuHaven. CJ' 06520. christofihn.wood@yale.edu].

Notes1. The .subject was identified by Helen I. Roberts, "St. Augnsilne in 'St.

Jfromc's Sliidy': Carpaccio's Pninlinj; and Its LefTendarv' Source," Ar/' 28.1-97.

2. .A.lain Sitni^ipp. IM om:juH,- ilii /wW (Paris: Cant', \W?'). :11S-U), :V!fi--17.

3. On ihf Venus and otlitr iieiiis in the picture, see Zygnitiiii Wazbinski."I'oraait d"tin amateur d'art de la Reiiai.ssancf," Arie Vi'it/'la '2]> (t9(iS):•2]-2\).

4. St'c Kait'l Svuboda. L't-^lliPltqiK- Hi' Suhil Aiif^i.sliii ri \r\ \iiin'i-\ (Brrn>: \'y-dava Filosoficka Fakulta, 19;18), 144, l.'iii.

5. The idt'Tilificatinii of the fif;urc AS Rcssitrion was firs! sugfrcstt'd by(luidd PerociLo. "La Sciiola di San (iioif^iii dej li S< hiavoni." in VrMitiii eVV.uicpn: Alii iM XX'lil Coii^i'ssn Inltinazumali' di Sliiiiii drU'Arli'. Wniif.12-IS SHti'mlnv 1955 (Venice: Arte Veneta. lO.'ili), 2'^. Vittoie Branca,"Erniolao barbaro e I'tJnianesiino Vene/iann," in l'm'inf\imii Eurtifiro >•Ummifsimo Vmnirino (Florence: Sansoni, I'.ffi4), ]5:V2l!i, ai 211 pro-posed that the seal in the toregiotind coutd be that of ihe cardinal.AufTtisio C'.entili. "Carpaccio e Bessaiione." in liessnriojif P I'Vmaiii-simi}.ed, Gianfranco Fiaccadori (Napte.s: Vivarium. 1994), 297-.^02, arguedeiiiupetliiiglv against basing tbe identification on either the seat or thelikenevs. However. Pairicia Fmtini Brown. "Sant'Agostino uelio sttittiudi Carpaccio: t'n ritratto nel rinatio?" in Hrsmri/ine e rL'mnni'\ii»ii, 3113-19, strongly reafhriiied ibe ideniificaiion on the basis of a close exanii-naiion ol ihe patronal lonU'xi and ihe divergences between the prejia-ratory drawing in Vienna and the final painting.

6. Fnvin Panofsky, Early Nethi-iimuhsh fninling (Cambridge. Mass.: HaiTardl.'niversitv Press, 19.f>3). 131-48.

7. Allied Acres, "Tbe Columba Altarpiece and the Time ol ihe World,'"Art liullftm Hi) (I'jyH): 422-51, esp. 424-25. 432-34.

8. (Charles Dempsey, The Portmtnl nf !.<n>e: BoUiielli's "Primavi'm" and Hu-manist C.uhuri' til thf Time of Ijirenzo Ihe Ma}^nifiie)it (Trinreion: PrineeionUniversity Press, 1992), 65-7R.

9. Acres, "The Coltimba Altaqiiece," 4!i2.

10. Filarete, Treatisf on Airhiti-ilurr, trans, and efi.John K. Spencer (NewHaven: Yale University' Press. 19(1. }). vol. I. 12; Filarete, Trattatn rii ar-ihitHlurii. book I, fill. 5v. ed, Anna Maiia Finoli and Liliana Grassi (Mi-lan: II Polifilo, 1972). 28: "cosi coliii che <!ipigne la sua maniera dellefigiue si c<)gnosce. e cosi d'ogni faculta si cugtioste !o stile di ciasche-dunu.. . ."

11. Balda.ssare tlastiglione. // Uhm del cm-ifgiano, ed. Vittorio (!ian (Florence:Sansoni. 1947), 93: ". . . si conosce ciascun nel suo stil essere perietiis-simo."

12. For a clear statemeni of the pertbrtiiative principle, see Leonardo, "On(be Iniitable Sciences." chap. 8 in Fanignne, ptirte f/rima, where he says"pairuing alone . . . honors it.s author": Claire ). Farago, ed., tj'onardo da\'inri\ "I'nrtigonf": .4 I'.ritiial Intnpretalinn wilh a Xnv Ediiiiin of thtt Text intlw -Codfx ^/rAina(''{l^iden: Brill, 1992). 186-90.

13. Marcantonio Michiel, Shilizin d'ufjife di di',ei^ii. ed, Gustavo Fri/?oni (Rit-logna. 1884), 2'IL noted a "statua de 'I (.risto, de bronzo, sopra I'altar"in rhe "capella del Salvatore" in the chtirch of ihe Carita in Venice,and it is virtually certain that the s(atiLe corresponds lo the one in Mi-lan. For ibe extremely active receptit>n of the stalue among \ enetianartists besides Carpaccio. see below.

t4. The chapel was gutted, together with the resi of the chnrcli, in 1807.Francesco Sansovino, Vmi'tia littfi nfiliilLwima ft sinffilarr. desirittii in Xlllllifni. . . . (Venice, 1.58!), 94v. declared tbe chapel "notabilissima fraliitte della citta. edificata da domenico di Pietio gioielliero ricchissimo.& antiquariu, con marmi. con porfifii, & con serpentini mollo alia

414 A R T B I I . I . K I I N S i . ) ' l l M l l F R V O l . L M l , I, \ X \ \ ' 1 1

grande." Toinmaso Teinan^a, Vilr fifi fiiu iflehri iirchilHti e Midum vimeiX-ani (Venice: Palt'se, 177S). 9fi, desciibed ii as "cich in iiiiirbles, por-phyry, and serpfntint', as was coiiiiiinn in ihnse tiitics," Siinie sense ofDomt'Tiito di Picro'.s tasLes can be gained fiom ihe facade of theScuola di S. Marco, commissioned from the l.ombardi at hi.s behesiand undtT his direction during his tenure as guardian gtnndi' of ilicScuola; sec Philip Solim. 't'hi- Siuiil/i (Wiindf ili San Marco H37~l'>''<l: theArchileduTf of a Venetian Lay Con/rnlemity (NewVork: (iarland. 1982).118-22. A L • 8 ducnment states tbal the chapel was tinished in \4H9:see Pit'tro Paoletti. I.'nrchhettuta e la .^(ulturii drl Riiiasdmfiilii in Vrnnin:Riarrhf tliiriiiHiriislith/', vol. I (Venice: Ongania-Naya, 1893), 184. A re-cently disci)\eied docmnetu sliows that in .\piil 1491 the chapel wasstili "almost tinisbed"; see Rosella Lauber. "'"Oinamenio lodevole' e•onialissima di pietre': Marcantonio Miclnel della cbie.su vene^ iana diSanta Maria della Cariia." Arlr Vnifiii 5."' O5>99): 147. Nonetheless, itw'An siilficiently fiitishcd in 1493 to bf jioted by the diarisi Maiin Sa-nudo among die itotablc ihings in VcneUan churches. See Wetidy Sied-mati Sheaid. "Sanudo's List of Notable Things in Venetian Chiircbesand tile Date of the \'endramin TiHiib." Yah' hniian Sludii's !. no. '^(1977): 256.

15. Tbe statne bas not been clearly connected to an atithor. Tbe I'okli IV/-7oli catalogue, ,V/«.ifiy Foldi Ftnz'ili: leMuli—S/ullitri'—Melalli i-^liimiri (Mi-lan: Electa, 1987), cat. no. ^4, oilers an iinconvincinjj aUribution loSevero da Ravenna.

16. Ettsebius, Historin iTik.sia.sHm, 7.18, cd. Pbilip ScbafF, tratis. ,\rthiir(Aislnnan Mctliffert (NewVork: Christian Liierattire. 1S90). quoted iitC^biistian Classics F.ihereal l.ibraiy, http://w\s'w.ccel.org/ccel/scbaff/npnr20l.iii.xii.xix.html: "Since 1 bave mentioned this cit\' [Paneas] I donot tliitik it proper l<» oniil an account which is worthy of record fnrposterity. For tbey say tbat the woman with an isstte of blood, who. aswe learn from the sacred (iospcl. received frotn (Hii Saviiiuj" deliver-ance Irom her atlliction. catiie from thi.s place, art*! tbat her botise isshown in the city, and thai remarkable memorials of ibe kindness oftlu- Saviour to ber tetnaln there, for tbere stands upon an elevatedsione. by the gales of her house, a bronze image of a woman kneeling,with ber hands stretched out, as if she were prating. Opposite this isanother ttpright itnage of a man, made of the same material, cloiheddecently iti a donble cloak, and extending his hand towaid the wornari,Al his feel, beside the statuf itself, is a certain stratige plant, vvbichclimbs up to tbe hem of tite btunze cloak, and is a rettiedv for allkinds of diseases.

"They say ibai this statue is ati itnage of |esns. It has remained lo ourday, so that we ourselves also saw it when we were .staving in ibe city.Nor is it strange tbat those of tbe (iendle.s who, of old, were betiefiiedby onr Saviotir, should have done sttch things, since we have learnedalso that ibe likenesses of his apostles Pavil and Peter, and of C'.bristhimself, ate presetted in paintings, tbe aitciettt;, being atctistorned, asit is likely, according lo a habit of the Cicniik's, to pay tbis kind ofhotior indiscriminately to ibose regiirded by tbem as deliverers,"

The double cloak here is the diplois, tbe palliiitii, (lonbled in length,worn withoiil the nnderlying timic or any other itndergarment by ascet-ics and (.ynic philosophers. Wiien Eusebins says ibe figure of Cbiistwas clothed decently {kosmiiis: decorotisly) in ihe diplois, be is perhaps.specifying that unlike other cortvention-bashing ascetics and pbilo.so-phers wbo liked to go withotit imdergannenis, this figuie wore il willi-oiil looking balf naked and indecent. In tbe statne now iti Milan (Fig.2). C brist is shown iiiodestlv wealing an aiTiple diplois in ibe specificform of an exomis, without a fibula, leaving the right shoulder free.

17. The a.ssociation of the work with tbe hemorrhaging woman persisted,however, and sbe came to be identified with Saint Martha. Jacobus deVoragine, [.egendri aurt-a: Vutffj huUiria Lombardica dicta and optimorumUbrnrum ftdem, ed. Theodor Graes.sc, (Leipzig: Arnold, 1846), 445, Lifeof Saint Martha: "Refert Etisebins in libro liysioriae ecclesiasiicaequinto, quod mulier Emorioissa, posiqtiam sanaia fuil. in curia siveviridario sno statuam fc'cit ad imaginem (]hrisii cum vesie et litnbria,sicul ipsum videiat, et eam phirimnm reverebatur. herbae vero sub iliastatua crescentes, qiiae ante millins erant virlntis, cmn fitnbriam aiting-erent, tatitac virtntis erant, nt mulli infnmi inde sanaretitiir" (Etisebitislells in book :i of ibe Historia Ecclesiastica that the bemorrbagingwoman, after she was bealed, made in her cotirt or gardeti a staine inibe likeness of Christ, with cloth and hem, just as be had looked, andit was most revered. In fact the herbs that grew under ibe statue, whichearlier were without virtue, when they came into contact wilb tfie (stat-ue's] hem, became so powerful ihat many sick people were therebyhealed).

18. .As. verv' likely, was tbe small bronze Ventis on the shell. It, too, depictsa modern work, now in the Knnsthistorisclies Musetim in \ienna, byJacopo Bonacoisi, railed .Aniico, a.s noted fjy Wa/binski. "Portrait d'unamateur d'art," 2b-tiS. Tbis small bronze was itself a miniatiue copy ofan antique marble Ventis, ibc socalled I'c-iiw felix, winch had been re-cently discovered and .set up iti tbe Vatican. Ibtts, (iarpaccio qtiotes amodern work bnt noi «s a modern work.

19. Ricbard Krautheimer, "Introdnciion to an Iconography of MedievalAicliitecUiie," journal ofthi' Waiiiurg and (JnirlauM /nMtiUtli-s 5 (19421:l - H : l .

20. See tbe accotmts In Ensebius. tlisloria mifsiasliia, and Jabobus de \\yragine. Lfff'nda unren. quoted above,

21. it IS true tbat the modern statue represents the resurrected Cliristrather tluui ibe Christ wbo healed the betnort haging woman (as statediti )acobtis de \oragitie, Legnida aurfa; see n. 17 above). The siattteshows tbe wouitds attd origittally would have beld a banner, as we see ilitt Carpacrio's painting. It is possible lliat this is an instance of typologyprevailing over iconogtaphy; the tiiumphani (~lnist was by fin the mostcontttion way ol presenting the standing fignre of |esus it! late medievaliconography. It is also tine tbal the antique statue form itself carriedstrong associations of triumpb and apoiheosis, which would have beenbest embodied in the figure of the resttnected Cltrist.

22. Patricia Eorlini Brown, Vfriiie find .Anliijuily (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, I99fi), T^-T^.

2$. Richard Brilliant, "f piedistalli del (iiaidino di Hoboli; Spolia in .se. spo-lia in re," frusprlliva 'M (1982): 2-17. Salvatore Settis develops the con-cept in "flontintiiia, distan/a, conoscenza: Tie usi deH'antico," in Memo-ria di-irunt/iii ndl'iiTte ilnlinnu. vol. 3 (Tuiin: [jiiatidi, 1986). :i7:i-486.esp. 399—410. Eor more on "virtual spolia." see Dale Kiniiey, "S/iolia:Damnatio and Fienovatio Mcmiiriof." Mcmmrs of llti> Ammniti .•Krndrmy int{i»nf-i2 (1997): 117-48.

24. He missed, bowever. the telling detail of tbe dropping hem. The stattieclearly carried atilbority for him withoiii the support of''philologicar'clues such as ibis.

25. See Otto Demiis, 't'lie Moitiics (if San Marco in Venice, 2 vols. in 4 (C fii-cagci: University of Chii ag() Press, 19H4), vol. 2, pt. 2, coloipl. 'Sb. Themosaic angels in the pendentives ofthe Cieation ctipola are blue andare clearly identified by the inscription as chertibim. Carpaccio i.solatedtbe ligtire in ihe center of his little apse and tnade it red. thus promot-ing il to the level of serapb.

26. Kuri Weit/matm, "The Genesis Mosaics of .San Marcc) and ihe Cotton(ifnnis Miniaiures," in Denitis, Mmtik\ nf San Marcti, vol. 2, 105-42.

27. In this sense t'arpaccio and his contemporaries were continuing a well-known By/antine lendency to regard images of later centuries as ati-cietit, Robert Grigg, "Byzantine Credtility as an bnpecliment lo Aitti-qtiarianism," Gesla 2.5-2(1 (1987): :V9, explains ihe cluonologicalconfusions tbal abound in By/.antine writings ;is the restilt of By/.aiuine"credtility." with the resull thai people were "deceived into thinkingthere was no difference between ancient and By/antine art" (7). Tbesiibstittition model explains these plienomena without the need tospeak of deception or c'rror; ibe By/anlines knew that their imagescame later and at ihe satne time granted them antique status on ibebasis of their reference to ancieni prototypes.

28. Saint Theodore the Sitidite, quoted in <Aril Mango, The Ari of the Byz-anline Empire. 312-1453: .Sourif.s unit Dm nments (Englewood Clilfs. N.].:Prentice-Hall, 1972), 174,

29. Ulrich Pfisterer builds the strongest case imaginable for tbe early emer-gence of the concepts of historical, local, and personal style in the|>ro\imiiy of Oonatello, in Donalflh und die Entdirkiuig drr .Stile 1430-1-145 (Munich; Hiriner, WU'i).

30. See also Jack M. Greensteiii's close reading of tbe marks of titne in ibeview of Jerusalem, a "diacbronic urban faf»ric," in the background oiMantegna's Aguny in the (iardrn from (be S. Zeno altarpiece, Manle^iaand fainting a.s Iliitoriral Nairalivi' (Cbicago: Uni\'ersity of ChicagoPress. 1992). 64-70, and generally chap. X

31. 1 homas M. Greene, Thf Light in 'I'rny: Imilalion and Disiovery in Renais-sance Pijelry (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982), 42,

32. Leonard Barkaii, Unearthing the Past: Arrhai'ijliigy and .Aesthetics in tlieMaking iij Renaissance Culture (New Haven: Y'ale University Press, 1999).

33. See ibe preliminary volume by Phyllis Bober and Ruib Rtibittstein, withconiribntions by Susan Woodfotd, Renaissance AiHsts ami .Xntiijue Sculp-turi>: A ttnndbiiiik iij Siiurres (London: HatTey Miller. 1986). The projecthas been expanded in the digital "fk'tisus of Aniiqtie Woiks of Art andArchitecture Known in the Renaissance" maintained by tbe Kunstge-schichtlicbes Seminar der Htimboldt-L'niversitat in Berlin, at http://www.censtis.de.

34. Eor positions close to this within tbe well-devehjped debate about me-dieval forgery, see Giles Constable, "Eorgen and Plagiarism in ibe Mid-dle Ages," Archil' fur Diplmnatik 29 (1983): 1-41; Horst Fnhrmann, "DieKalsclumgen im Milielalter," Hi.slarisdie Zcilschri/t 197 (1963): 529-54;and idem, "Mundns \nli decepi," Hi\t<in\(he /j'lischrift 241 (]98ri)' Seegenerally P. Herde and A. Gowiik, "Falschungen," in Lexikim des Mitlrl-alteis. by Robert Auty el al,. v<)l. 4 (Munich: Artemis, 1988), col. 24tiff.;and Inlsckungen im MittHalter: Intemationaler Kongress dn Mdiiurrinita Cier-maniae Ilisliirira, 1986. tj vois. (Hannover: Habnscbe Bucbhandlimg,1988-90).

tN 1 t R V t . \ t KINS: A \ f-V\ M d l l t f . OF RE N A I SS A N (.: E ,\ N ACK U () \ t SM415

3 5 . Erich Auerbach, "Figura," in Scmei from the Drama of Euriif>ran Literature(New Yotk: Meridian Books, n)56), 11-76; and Henri de Ltibac, lixegesemPtlihiali-: Ln quatre .sen.\ de I'hriture. 2 vols, (Paris: .\nbier, 1959-64).

36. Maittiel Cbrysolora.s, qtioted in Michael Baxandall, (iiollo and the Oratitn(Oxford: Clarendon, 1971), 81. app. 6, 148-49; translation modiiiedwith the help uf that of Settis, in Memoria deU'anlici. vol. 3, 456.

37. See Susan Bnck-Morss, Lhi' Dialeitiis nJ Seeing: Wnltrr lirnjatnin and tileArcades hnjeit (Cambridge. Mast,: Harvard University Press, 1989), 71 -74, ;il7-27.

38. See Hal Foster. Ciimpuhive ISeauty ((.ianibridge. Mass.: MIT Press, 199:1),172-74.

39. tieorges Didi-Huberman, Dei'ant le tempi: Histoiw de Vart et anaihnmismede\ images (Paris: Minuit, 2000); and idem, t.'iinagc siinnvanti': Histiiire eleI'lirl H temjis di'\ jiiiitiunes vliiii Miy Wiahiirg (Paris: Minnil, 2002).

40. I'imii f',uiofsk\. Rfniiiwaiiir and tienascences in We.stem Art (Stockllolni:.\lmqvist mid Wikseis. (.iebeis Eoiiag, 19G0), 38. Panofsky olfered theclearest and most economical account of this argument in "Renais-sance and Renascence," Kenyon Reineio 6 (1944); 201-3(i, as a responseto a symposium publisbed in tbe American Historical Revinv on tfie valid-ity ofthe Renaissance as a period concept,

41. Knvin Panofsky, introduction to Studies in /ciniology: lliimani\tic 'Ihemi'sin the .\rt <i/ llw Ren/iissancr (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19.39), 28;lepiinted as "fconogtaphy and Iconology: An Introduction to ihe Smdvof Iialian Renaissance .^ri," in Meaning in thi> Visual Arts (Garden Ciiv,N.Y.: Douidedav Press, 195,^), 51.

42. Panofskv. licuaissnncc and Reiiasrenies, 202.

43. Ibid., 108,

44. El-win Panofsky, "Ilic Fitst Page of Vasari's 'Libro': A Study on tbeGothic Style in tfie |udgineiit ofthe Italian Renaissance" (1930). inMeaning in the Visual Arts. H>9-235.

45. On Leonardo's only two references t<) antiquity, see Aby Waibtng,•',Sandro Botticelli's Hirth of Venus and Sfmng," in The Hfiiewat of PaganAntiquity (Los Angeles: Giniy Researcb Institute. 1999), 140.

46. On the church designs, .see James Ackerman, Origins. Imitatiim. Ciinven-tiiirn: Re/nTsentatiim in the Visual .\>1\ (Cambridge, Mass.: Mil" Press.2002), l>7-93.

47. Andrew tliegoiT, "Aspects of Collecting in Renaissance Padna: A Btistof .Socrates for Niccolo Leonico ffunei)," Journal oj the Warburg andCouiiauld Imlitutes 58 (1995): 252-65.

48. We cite the transcripiion of ib<' Munich maniiscripi by Ingrid Rowland."Raphael, Aiigelo Golocci, and tlie Genesis of tbe Architectural Or-ders." An HullHiii 76 (1994): 100-103; translations arc onrs,

49. Reported by BeatiLS Rbenanus, Rnum germ a ni'a mm lihri ties (Basel,1.5: 1), vol. 2, 107-8.

50. "Mie three known versions of ihe letter agree in ihis wording; see JohnShearman, Raphael in Early Modem Sources (14H3-IM)2) (New Haven:Yale Universitv Press, 2003). vol. I, .50.3, .'ill, .^20. Here is ibe text fromtbe first redaction in Mantua (503): "E percfie ad alcfnmo potrebbeparer che difficil fosse el conoscere li edificii antichi dalli ntoderni, o lipill atttichi dalli meno antichi, per non lassare dubbio alchuno nelhimentf de chi voi ta baver qnesta cognitione, dico die questo conpo(ba laiicha far si po. Perche de ire soiii di aedilicii in Ronia sola-niente si tiovano, delle quali la una si e tutii li anticbi et antichissimi liqiialt duroino lino al ieinp<) che Roma fu luinaia e guasta dalli Cloitiet altii Ijarbaii, raltro lanto che Roma fii dominata da" (iotti et ancorcenio anni dippoi. I'altro da qiiello fino alii tempi liostri." Later in tbeletter die lime frame is even less defined: Raphael and Castiglione dis-tingtiish between tbe good ancient aichitecttire and lb<)se btiildings"cbe loriio al tempo deli Golti, el ancbor molti anni di poi" (505).This suggests tbat the expression "cento anni" of the earlier sentence isnot a reference to a specific number of years h\\\ ratlier a plaichoiderfor a substantial period of time.

51. Robert VViiliatns, "Vincen/.o Borgbini and Vasaii's Lives" (PhD (iiss.,Princeton University, 1988). 96-99: and Zygmtmt Wazbinski, "Le pi)-lemicbf intoino al baitistero fiorentino nel '.^00," in l-'ilippo lirunelles'hi,la siia ojiera e il suo tempo. Alti del Convegno di Sttidi, 2 vols. (Elorence;Geiiiro Di, 1980). vol. 2, 93:i-5().

52. Panofsky, tiniaissance and Renascenies. 2-i u. I.

53. Ibid., 40,

54. Eli/abeth Kisenstein, 'I he Printing Press a.s an Agent of Change (Cam-bridge: Cambridge Univeristy Press, 1979), 187, and generally on Pa-nofsky's disjunction thesis, 181—22.5. Lucien Febvre, The Problem of Unbe-iirj in the Sixteenth Centuiy: The lieligion oJ Rabelais (1942; reprint, Gaiii-bridge, Ma.ss.; Hanard University Press.' 1982), :(9:)-100,

55. Erank L. Borcbardt. Cerman Aniiqnily in Renaissance Myth (Baltimore:|ohns Hopkins Press, 1971); Walter Stephens, "Berosus (^haldeiis:Coiniierfeit and Eiciive Editiirs ol die Early Sixteenib t^entuiT" (PbDdiss., Cornell University, 1979); idem, (Hants i?> Ihose Da\i: Eolklore, An-cient History, and Sationalisin (Linc()lii: Univeisity of Nebraska Press,1989); Antbony Graflon, Forgers and Critics: C.reatixnty and l>uplnit\ inWestern Sihiilarship (Princeton: Princeton University Press, f990); andidem, "Ttaditions of Itivention and Inventions of Tradition in Renais-sance ltalv; Annitis of Viterbo," in Defender, of the Text: The Traditions ojScholarship in an Age of Srienie, t45()~IH()() (Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversitv Press, 1991), 76-1(13.

56. See William j . Bouwsnia, //('• Waning of thf Renaissance 155(1-1640 (NewHaven; Yale L nivei sity Press, 2000), chap, 1:1, who can see this only asa regrettable falling off (roni the clarity of tbe early sixteenth century.

57. [orge l.tiis Borges, I'iiTre Menard, Author oj tIte Qiiixote. in Labyrinths, ed,Donald A. \'ates and James K. Irby (New \'ork; Now Direciions. 1964).:i9.

,58. Ricbard Krautheimer, postscript to "Innodnction to an lconogiapby of.Medie\al Arcbitecture," in .Studies in Early Chnslian. Mediival. and tie-naissance Art (New Yoik: New York Universitv Press; London: L'niversityol London Press, 1969), 149-:">().

59. Mai^in Traclnenberg, fort-word (1995) to Rome: Pnijile of a City, 312-130N. In Richard Kiautbeimer (Princeton: Princetoti I'niversity Press,2000), xix-xx.

60. Crt-oiges Didi-Huberman. Dnmnt l'image: (>tie\tion posee aux fins 'leThistoire de I'ati (Paris; Editions du Minuit. 1990). Tbe schema is drama-tized at tbe historical jtmcture of tbe early Renaissance in idem. EraAngelica: Dissemliliince et jiguration (Paris; Elammarion. 1990).

61. Envin Panttfskv, Perspective as Symbolic Toiiri (New York: Zone Books,1991), Ii7.

62. Panofsky, Studies in Iconology. 70-71.

63. Even the 1982 Supplement to The Oxjord English Dictionaiy lisLs only min-eralogical usages of the term. Webster's Third Inlernational (1903), h<)W-ever, quotes Lewis Mtnnford on "the concept of the ctiltural pseiidt)-morph,"

64. Osn.iid Spengler, Decline oj the \\e\t (1918-22; reptitit. New York; AlfredA. Knopf, 1957), vol. I, 209; see also vol. 2, 189-90.

65. Thomas Greene picked up on it, though; see the tJght m 'I'n/y, 42. InI'fTrct, (ireene was using Panofsky againsi the Spenglerian "tragic" view,wbereas in fact Panofsky's view may have been closer to Spengler'stlian to Greene's.

66. Siivia Ferretti, Cassirer, Panof\h. and Warburg: S'^mlml. Ail. and History(New Haven; Yale University Press, 1989), 207-20.

67. (iioigio \'asari. Vite de' jiiii eciellenti pittori scultori e architettori. ed, Ro-sanna Beitarini (Elorence: Sansoni, 1966—), vol. 2, 96; "Onde andandoml gioriio Ciiiiabue per sue bisogne da Eioren/a a Vespignano, irovoGiotto che, mentre le sue pecore pascevano. sopra una lastia piana eptilita con un sasso un poco aptintato ritraeva tina pecora di nanirale.senza aver imparato mod<» nesstnio di cio fare da altri che dalla na-ttira,"

68. There is no indisputable example of an art IbtgeiT, that is, a stylisticanachronism condemned by society as deceitful, before tfie late fif-teenth centuiT. The intentions behind many ol tbe earliest allegedcases are ambiguous, including tbe Cupid bv Michelangelo sold to Raf-faele Riaii<) as an antiqtiity, Eor this and oilier cases, see Paul F^ber-hard, "Ealsii'icazioni di anticbica dal Rinascimenlo al X\'1II .secolo,"Memoria dell'antico nell'aiie italiana. ed. Salvatore Seltis. vol. 2 (Turin:Kinattdi, 1985), 4i:i-39,