Date post: | 02-Jun-2018 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | lesabendio7 |
View: | 223 times |
Download: | 0 times |
of 14
8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
1/14
Meanings of Baroque
Author(s): Bernard C. HeylSource: The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Spring, 1961), pp. 275-287Published by: Wileyon behalf of The American Society for AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428070.
Accessed: 12/12/2014 06:51
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Wileyand The American Society for Aestheticsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428070?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/428070?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=tasfahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
2/14
BERNARD
C.
HEYL
Meanings
o aroque
I
PERUSALS
of
recent
literature on the
Ba-
roque in either the fine arts, in literature and
music,
in
history
and
philosophy,
or
in
cul-
ture
in
general,
will show
anyone
that
vari-
ous
kinds
of
confusion
prevail.
Thus
an-
other effort to
explain
and
clarify
some
of
the
basic
issues
may
be
welcome.
A
re-think-
ing
and
sorting
out of
some
of the
major
problems
of
the
Baroque
should
provide
a
helpful
foundation
for future
investigations
of
a
more
detailed
kind.
In
attempting
to
do
this,
I
shall
concen-
trate
upon
the
troublesome
problems
that
cluster around the idea of the Baroque as
the
style
of
the
period extending, roughly,
from
1590-1700.
Thus
the
concept
of the Ba-
roque
as a
recurrent
type
or
phase
of other
styles-e.g.,
Hellenistic
Baroque,
Gothic Ba-
roque,
or
nineteenth
century
Baroque-is
excluded
from
this
discussion.
Nor
is
it
neces-
sary,
for
my
limited
aim,
to
consider the com-
plex
and
difficult
problem
of
determining
the
extension
of
Baroque
art,
as
specified
here,
into the
eighteenth
century.
The
cen-
tral
issue
is
to
find a
satisfactory meaning
or
referent
for
the
style
of
seventeenth-century
art.
What
pervading
quality
or
what
several
qualities,
scholars
ask
again
and
again,
does
one find
in
the
Baroque period?
Do
these
qualities
pertain
to
everything
that
concerns
the
Baroque
era or do
they
vary
according
to
the
field
of
investigation
and
according
to
time and
place?
Are the
questions
that
arise
concerning
Baroque
style
verbal or
real
ones?
Should
the
word
"Baroque"
be
used
in
a
narrow or
wide
sense?
Are
there
degrees
of
Baroque?
Consideration
of
four
approaches
to
the
problem
of
the
Baroque,
all of
which
seem
unsatisfactory,
will
clear the
ground
for
an-
other
solution.
The first
and
most
complex
of
these
is
included
in
the broader
problem
which
concerns the
justification,
or
lack of
it,
for
believing
in a
unified or
pervasive
period
style.
Does
an
artistic,
or
in
broader
terms,
a
general
cultural
Zeitgeist
exist? Was
Hegel
right
in
his
claim
that
politics, religion,
art,
and philosophy are all manifestations of an
identical
"spirit"
or
"essence"
in
a
period?
Many
scholars
appear
to
believe
in
the va-
lidity
of
this
unifying
concept. They
recog-
nize
complexities
within
the
Baroque pe-
riod,
yet
nonetheless
cling
to the
view that
a
pervasive,
unifying
quality,
or
group
of
closely
related
qualities,
characterizes
the
age
as a
whole
as
well as
each
separate
field
of
investigation
within
it.
This
widespread
assumption
of
the
intrinsic
unity
of
the
Baroque period
needs to be
questioned
more
than it
has
been.
Although
my
main
concern
is
with
the fine
arts,
a
summary
of a
cele-
brated
attempt
to
characterize
this
unity
in
another
field
will
illuminate
the
problem.
Rene
Wellek,
like
many
literary
scholars,
supports-in
theory
at
least-the
concept
of
a
unified
Baroque style.
He
opposes
the
"ex-
treme and
false
nominalism"
which
denies
that
"such
concepts
as
the
baroque
are or-
gans
of
real
historical
knowledge."
He
as-
serts that
the
Baroque
is "a
general
Euro-
pean movement whose conventions and
literary
style
can
be
described
fairly
con-
BERNARD
C.
HEYL,
professor of
art
at
Wellesley
Col-
lege,
is the
author
of
New
Bearings
in
Esthetics
and
Art
Criticism
(1943).
His
article
"The
Critic's
Rea-
sons"
appeared
in the December
1957
issue
of
this
Journal.
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
3/14
276
BERNARD
C.
HEYL
cretely."'
His
account
of the
problem
is
especially appealing
because it
frankly recog-
nizes
the
many
obstacles
which
oppose
a
satisfactory
solution.
He
faithfully
presents,
to
begin
with,
a
summary
of
divergent
sty-
listic ideas that have been held
concerning
Baroque
literature.2
Further on
he
avows:
"individual
stylistic
devices
can,
however,
be
defined
fairly
clearly
at
least
for some
baroque
authors
or schools."
The
weakness
of
this
idea
as a
support
of
the
concept
of
stylistic
unity
appears
in
the
words
"fairly"
and
"some."
This
weakness
is later
admitted
by
the
author,
who,
after
a
discussion
of
the
metaphysical
and of
Baroque
prose
style,
reaches
the
following skeptical
conclusion:
"It is probably necessary to abandon at-
tempts
to
define
baroque
in
purely
stylistic
terms."
This
conclusion
leads
Wellek
to
three
other
means
by
which
he
hopes
to arrive
at the
unified
concept
he
has assumed.
First,
he
suggests
that
the
presence
of
stylistic
de-
vices
"is
only
important
if
it
can
be
con-
sidered
as
symptomatic
of
a
specific
state
of
mind,
if
it
expresses
a
'baroque
soul.'"
But
he
abandons
this
suggestion
because
he is
impressed,
for
example,
by
the
contrasting
attitudes or states of mind revealed in a
Catholic
and Protestant
Baroque.
Second,
he avers
that
"much better
chances
of
success
attend
the
attempts
at
defining
baroque
in
more
general
terms
of
a
philosophy..."
But
the
chances
of success
must
indeed
be
slim
because
Wellek
himself,
after
citing
numer-
ous
attempts
which
have been
made
to
define
Baroque
in
this
way,
condemns
them
all
Third,
he
asserts
that
"the
most
promising
way
of
arriving
at
a more
closely
fitting
description of the baroque is to aim at analy-
ses
which
would
correlate
stylistic
and
ideo-
logical
criteria."
The
discussion
of this
"most
promising
way"
seems
astonishing,
and comi-
cal
too,
because
again
the author
opposes
the
many
solutions
he summarizes.
Nor
does
he
have
any
solution
of
his
own
to
offer.
He
thus
is
"unconvinced
that we can
de-
fine
baroque
either
in terms
of
stylistic
de-
vices
or
a
peculiar
world-view
or even
a
peculiar
relationship
of
style
and
belief . .
."
Though
Wellek,
at
the end
of his
article,
reaffirms his belief in the attainment of a
unified
concept
of
Baroque
literature,
the
cumulative
effect
of
his
analysis
shows
that
he has
refuted
his
basic
postulate.
In
the
fine
arts,
Wylie
Sypher
has
made
a
comparable
attempt
to define
unified
con-
ceptions
of
period
syles.3
In his book
Four
Stages
of
Renaissance
Style,
Sypher
defines
four
stylistic
units
in art and
literature
be-
tween
1400 and
1700:
Renaissance,
Manner-
ism,
Baroque,
and Late
Baroque.
Comment
upon
his
analysis
of
the
first of
these
will
most
clearly
indicate
the kind of
difficulties
historians of art
encounter
when
they
strive
for
a unified
period
concept.
Later
on,
I
shall
refer to
aspects
of his discussion
of
the
Baroque.
In
the
"Renaissance"
stage,4
Sypher
rightly emphasizes the new conception of
a
universe
that
is
"closed,
intelligible,"
of
an
architecture
which
has,
in Alberti's
phrase,
"a
certain
and
regular
order,"
of
"a new coherent
space
and
perspective,"
of
beauty
which
stresses
harmony
and
pro-
portion,
of
"the
sanctity
of
the mathematical
ratio."
As
examples
of these
important
Ren-
aissance characteristics
Sypher appropriately
refers
to the Pazzi
Chapel,
Santo
Spirito,
and
Masaccio's
Trinity.
Inevitably
the
argu-
ment in favor
of a
unified
style
is
weakened,
however, when the author recognizes dif-
ferent
characteristics. These
are
discussed
in a
section
entitled
"Interferences
and
Transformations."
No
one
questions
the
existence
of these
other traits.
But
Sypher
misrepresents
their
significance
as
elements
of
Renaissance
style.
Because
he,
too,
is
searching
for the
basic
stylistic
unity
of a
period,
he considers
only
the
first
group
of
characteristics as
the
proper,
correct,
or
right
criteria
of
Renaissance
art.
The
diver-
gent traits
are
disposed
of
in
summary
fashion.
Thus
Sypher
criticizes
the
facade
of San
Francesco
at
Rimini as
being
unsatisfactory
because
"ambiguous."
He
finds
"a dramatic
disharmony,"
"a
dramatic
tension"
in
Ren-
aissance
sculpture
because
of conflicts
in
the
use
of
both
deep
and shallow
space
and
in
the
"opposing
techniques"
of
carving
and
molding
stone.
Venetian
painting
of the six-
teenth
century,
which is
quite
generally
accepted
as
an
important
manifestation
of
High Renaissance art, is included in the
"Interferences
and
Transformations."
Even
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
4/14
Meanings
of
Baroque
277
Raphael's
School
of
Athens-a
monument
that
is
for
most art historians
a
paradigm
of
High
Renaissance
style-is
included
by
Sypher
among
the
exceptional examples
of
Renaissance
style
because the
great
vaults
in
the
painting
"do not, in a sense, define
architectural
space
in
firm
ratios
but
give
it
an
acoustical
quality,
a momentum
that
seems to
vibrate
off
into free
energy."
And
Pollaiuolo's
engraving,
The
Battle
of
the
Nudes,
we
are
told,
"already
has
the tor-
tured
energy
of
mannerist line."
These and
other
examples
will
bewilder
anyone
who
has a
broad,
flexible
conception
of
Renais-
sance
style,
who is
impressed by
its
stylistic
diversity
as well
as
by
its common
stylistic
traits. Sypher, I believe, misrepresents the
complexity
of
the
period
in
order to em-
phasize
a
unified
concept
of
style.
But
the
unity
claimed
for the
style
is
contradicted
by
the
evidence.
Indeed,
he
refutes
his
con-
victions
by
his own
words:
"The
renaissance
humanists
brought
their
world
into a
single
focus,
though
it is hard
to
say
whether
the
focus was
scientific,
platonic,
or
Christian."
Challenges
to
this
postulate
of
the
sty-
listic
unity
of
artistic
periods
have
of
course
been
made
by
scholars
who find
it
illusory.
As Walter Friedlaender has said: "In
spite
of
the short
span
of
barely
twenty years
in
which
it ran
its
course,
the
particularly
intensive
epoch
of
the
High
Renaissance
had
no
unified
character.
The
very
fact
that
Michelangelo's
art
cannot
possibly
be
counted in
with
the
"classic"
art of
Leo-
nardo,
Raphael,
Fra
Bartolommeo,
and
Andrea
del
Sarto
destroys
any
unity."5
Some
styles,
to
be
sure,
are
more
organic
and
homogeneous
than
others.
In
"archaic"
pe-
riods,
for
example, when artists do not have
a
choice
of
styles,
the
total
artistic
output
has
more
unity.
But
in
the
case of
the
"de-
veloped"
periods
that
are
here
discussed
we
must
reject,
as
an
illusion,
the
concept
of a
pervasive
or
unified
period
style.
Three
alternative
approaches
to
the
prob-
lem
of
finding
a
satisfactory
meaning
for
"Baroque
style"
may
be
mentioned. Two
of
these
show a
sharp
reaction
against
the
view
challenged
in
the
foregoing
pages.
Recogniz-
ing
the
insurmountable
difficulties
inherent
in the concept of a unified period style,
some
writers
seem
to
advocate-or
at
least
to
yearn
for-the
wholesale
elimination
of
such
large
stylistic
concepts
as
Renaissance
and
Baroque,
classic and
romantic.
Instead
of
attempting
to
find
satisfactory
referents
for
these
terms,
one
should
analyze only
specific
trends and
characterize,
say,
decades
rather than
centuries. Let
us
settle
the
mat-
ter
by
ceasing
to
use
words
which,
because
they
mean
so
many
different
things
to
dif-
ferent
people,
have,
in
fact,
come
to
mean
nothing.
While
this
radical
remedy
to
our
problem
is
tempting
in
that it
avoids
the
pitfalls
of
the
periodizers,
it
is
too
drastic
to
be
adopted.
"Big"
words-words
which
nor-
mally
have
a
wide and
varied
significance-
cannot
be
abolished
with
impunity.
They
retain a breadth of meaning, however vague
and
complex,
which
one
is
reluctant to
lose.
As
teachers
and
as
ordinary
mortals,
we
need
them.
The
other
approach
which
reacts
against
the
concept
of a
homogeneous
style
restricts
the
meaning
of
"Baroque"
to
a
single
fea-
ture
or to
a
specific
time
span.
W.
Fleming,
for
example,
confines
the
meaning
of
"Ba-
roque"
largely
to
movement.6
Others
would
restrict
its
meaning
to
"heroic
sweep,"
"opu-
lence,"
"magnificence,"
"pomp,"
"extrava-
gance," and the like.7 Walter Friedlaender
believes
it
would
be
best if
such
terms as
Gothic,
Renaissance,
and
Baroque
were
used
only
"when
they
meant
something
very
definite
and
circumscribed...
a
period
should
always
be
restricted
to
one
or
two
generations,
and
not
used
to
include
com-
pletely
different
trends
under
a
common
denominator
like
'The
Art
of
the
Ba-
roque.'
"8
Now
these and
other
attempts
to
restrict
the
meaning
of
"Baroque"
have
the
same sorts of appeal as has the suggestion,
mentioned
above,
to
abolish
the
term:
they
avoid
the
inconsistencies of
the
unified
ap-
proaches;
and
they
seem
to
clarify
and
simplify
the
whole
problem
by
eliminating
much
of
its
complexity.
Yet
all
such
solu-
tions,
I
maintain,
are
both
untenable
and
undesirable.
They
are
untenable
because
critics
and
scholars
will
not
be
persuaded
to
agree
about
a
preferred
meaning.
Pro-
posals
to
restrict
the
sense
to
a
relatively
simple
and
clearly
defined
meaning
offer
an
irresistible starting-point for further con-
troversy.
They
are
undesirable
because
they
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
5/14
278
BERNARD
C.
HEYL
deliberately
restrict
the
meaning
of a
big
word and
thus
fail
to
satisfy
those
who
choose
to conceive
of
the
Baroque-or
of
Gothic
or Renaissance-in
a
broader,
more
inclusive
way.
To cite a
specific,
important
example:
in
circumscribed
meanings
of
Baroque
style
it
is
usually
asserted
that
Caravaggio
is
not
a
Baroque
painter-the
view maintained
by
Berenson,
Golzio,
and
others.
Because
his
art,
they say,
does not reveal
the
opulence,
or
the
sweep,
or other
traits
which for them
typify Baroque
style,
Caravaggio
should
be
excluded.
Most students
of the
Baroque,
however,
consider
Caravaggio
an
important
founder
of
that
style. Breaking
sharply
with
Mannerism, he introduced stylistic qualities
that
are
of
major
significance
for much sev-
enteenth-century
art:
notably
his new
"re-
alism"
and
his novel use
of chiaroscuro.
It
seems
illogical
and
capricious,
then,
to
de-
fine
"Baroque
style"
in a
way
that
excludes
Caravaggio.
The
fourth
and
last
approach
to our
prob-
lem
that
seems
unsatisfactory
is
exemplified
chiefly by
Italian critics.
Its
novelty
lies
in
the
emphasis
placed
upon
evaluations:
either
perjorative
or
laudatory
meanings
are
given
to the word
"Baroque."
Because of
these
meanings,
stylistic
traits
and
artists
of
the seventeenth
century
are related
to the
Baroque
primarily
on the
basis
of
aesthetic
implications.
Brief
illustration
of
this criti-
cal attitude
will reveal
its weakness.
Having
condemned
the
Baroque
as
antiestetico
and
as
"il brutto
relative
al
secolo
XVII,"9
Giuseppe
Delogu attempts
to
salvage
from
abuse most
Italian
painting
of the
seven-
teenth
century.
Not
only
are
Caravaggio
and
the Carracci excluded from his concept of
the
Baroque;
the
majority
of later
Seicento
painters
also,
he
claims,
are free
of
the
sty-
listic
vices
of that
style
Nearly
all of
the
sculpture
and
architecture, however,
are
condemned
as
Baroque,
with the
notable
exception
of
those
monuments
that
funda-
mentally
express
classical
principles.
By
contrast,
Luigi
Grassi
asserts
that
the
Ba-
roque
has
a
concrete
and
spiritual
value-
"un
valore
concreto e
spirituale."10
For
this
critic,
then,
favorable,
rather
than
de-
rogatory values are the crucial criteria for
Baroque
style.
To
separate
the
good
from
the bad
artists
and currents of the
seven-
teenth
century,
he
makes the
distinction be-
tween "barocco"
and
"barocchismo,"
be-
tween
"Seicento" and "Seicentismo."
This
disagreement
between
Delogu
and
Grassi
inevitably
leads to confusion. Is it
not
apparent
that the basic cause
of
this
confusion
is
the
misguided application
of
value
judgments
to
the
concept
of
Baroque
style?
Comparable
judgments
unfortunately
occur in
critical
writings
of various kinds.
Important
terms
which
normally
have
no
implications
of
value
are
given
favorable
or
hostile connotations. As
two
literary
critics
have
recently
pointed
out:
"Classical
means
either
artistically
perfect
or
coldy
artificial;
romantic means either warmly and truly ex-
pressive
or
sentimental
and uncontrolled.""
Thus,
"I
call the classic
healthy,
the
ro-
mantic
sickly,"12
asserted
Goethe;
and T.
S.
Eliot writes
of
"the
classicist,
or
adult
mind."
Such
evaluative
uses,
though
often
effective
as
polemical
devices,
introduce
highly subjective
attitudes
into critical
problems.
By
so
doing,
they
make clear
and
intelligible
solutions to
the
problems
impossible.13
For various
reasons,
then,
no
satisfactory
meaning
for the term
"Baroque"
seems to
have resulted
from
the
four
suggestions pre-
viously
discussed:
(1)
that the
word
"Ba-
roque"
can
properly
and
usefully
signify
a
unified
style
pervading
a
cultural
period;
(2)
that the
word
has been
damaged
beyond
salvaging
as
a
term
in art
history;
(3)
that
the word
can
and
should be
given
some
rather
narrowly
defined
meaning;
and
(4)
that the
word
should be
regarded
as
prop-
erly
connoting
an evaluation
of the
objects
to which it is applied.
What alternative
solution
seems
promis-
ing?
The
answer
is
suggested,
I
think,
when
flexibility
and
breadth
of connotation
are
seen
to
be both
inevitable
and desirable.
Style,
as
I
conceive
of
it,
is
a
function
of
the work of art as
a
whole-that
is,
of its
medium,
form,
and content.
And
a
historic
style,
as
Thomas
Munro
very
well
puts
it,
"is
to be described
or defined
not
in terms
of
any
single type
or
characteristic,
but as
a
combination
of
several...
it
is well
to
think
of styles as dynamic, complex trends."14 Big
words retain their
meaningfulness
in
spite
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
6/14
Meanings
of
Baroque
279
of-or
perhaps
because
of-multiplicity
of
meanings.
The
proposal
here
made, then,
stresses the fact
that
we
should
understand
the
Baroque
as
a
varied
style,
wide in
scope.
Before
explaining
this
view
further,
I
must insist that it in no
way
compels
one
to
accept
an
extreme "nominalism"
which
considers
artistic
periods
merely
as
sections
of
time.
They
are
that,
undoubtedly,
and
one should
not minimize
the usefulness
of
time
concepts
in
that
they
enable us
to
make
rough
chronological
distinctions
be-
tween,
for
example,
the
Baroque
and
the
preceding
Mannerism
and
the
ensuing
Ro-
coco. But
the
concept
of
Baroque
style
here
set forth
is
at
once much
more
complex
and
much more valuable than a period concept.
Moreover,
it
does
not,
as
some
writers
have
mistakenly
argued,
sanction
in
any
way
a
skepticism
that,
in
the
end,
abandons
the
problem
of
Baroque
style.
Multiple
mean-
ings
for
that
style
do not
deny
a
certain
kind
of
stylistic
unity.
The
recognition
by
all
critics of
telling
stylistic
differences
be-
tween the
art of the
Baroque
period
and
of
any
other
proves
this.
Thus
why
would
one
discard
the
idea of
Baroque
style?
The
absence
of
a
precise
and
simple
referent
for
the style, though bothersome, is inevitable.
Imprecision
and
complexity
are
inherent
in
the
only
concept
of
Baroque
style
that
is
useful and
meaningful.
This
conception
is
meaningful
in
a
man-
ner
similar
to our
conception
of
Gothic
art:
that
is to
say,
we
may
recognize
in
Baroque
art,
as
we
do
in
Gothic or
in
Renaissance
art,
many
different
stylistic
qualities.
All
these
are
implied
by
the
general
terms.
The
importance
of
each
quality
will
vary
con-
siderably because of differences in artists,
times,
and
places.
Some
qualities
will
be
present
and
some
may
not.
But
together
they
form
composite
images
which
make
up
the
broad
stylistic
concept.
At
this
point
a
critical
opponent
may
ask:
isn't
the view
you
advocate
comparable
to,
or
perhaps
even
identical
with,
the
view
you
have
attacked
of a
pervasive
or
unified
style?
Isn't
the word
"general"
applicable
both
to
your
own
approach
and
to
the
first
of
the
approaches
you
reject?
How,
if
this
is
so,
are
they always and clearly distinguishable? To
this
objection
I
would
reply
as
follows.
The
view
I
reject
is
that an
objective
referent
for
"Baroque"
of
a
generalized
sort
exists-
a
referent that
includes,
at
most,
a
group
of
closely
related
qualities.
The
view I
cham-
pion
is
that whereas
no such
general
ob-
jective
referent exists, it is convenient
and
intelligible
to
employ
"Baroque"
with
an
inclusive
(and
in
this sense
"general")
scope
of
reference,
though
the
referents
embraced
within
the
scope
of
this
reference
may
them-
selves
be
quite
varied.
The
point
in
group-
ing
them
together
is
that
they
exhibit
various,
and
sometimes
intricate,
sorts
of
in-
ter-connectedness.
Whereas
"Baroque"
con-
ceived
as
a
pervasive
period style
has
as
a
referent
a
single
characteristic,
or
one
uni-
fied group of characteristics, the meaning
of
"Baroque"
proposed
here
has
as
a
ref-
erent
all,
or
nearly
all,
of
the
stylistic
traits
found
within
the
Baroque period.
The
ex-
ceptions
to
this
inclusive
concept
of
Ba-
roque
style
are
of
two
minor
kinds:
first,
those
artists and
monuments that
are
nota-
bly
reactionary
or
retardataire-e.g.,
paint-
ings
of
Sassoferrato
and
Cerrini,
or
the
classicistic
buildings
of
seventeenth-century
Holland;
second,
late
Mannerist
artists
who
continue to
create in
the
seventeenth
cen-
tury-e.g.,
El Greco.
Further
elucidation
of
this
concept
of
Baroque
style
could
be
made with
reference
to
Arnold
Hauser's
recent
analysis
of
the
nature
of
artistic
style
in
his
book,
The
Philosophy
of
Art
History.
His
stimulating
discussion
of
this
basic
concept
includes
ideas
that
support
the
conception
of
Ba-
roque
style
recommended
in
this
essay.
But
there
are
differences
as
well.
Among
these
is
the
emphasis
Hauser
places
on
"ideal"
and
"abstract"bases of style that lead one away
from
the
specific
problems
of
a
period
style
considered
later
in
this
essay.
His
concept,
moreover,
opposes
the
view
of
Baroque,
here
defended,
that
includes
nearly
all
of the
stylistic
traits
of
the
period.
For
Hauser,
on
the
contrary,
"when
we
coin
a
concept
like
the
'baroque,'
we
ipso
facto
leave
out of
account a
great
many
traits
of
the
works
of
art
referred
to
by
this
concept.'15
The
referent
for
"Baroque
style"
here
proposed
even
exceeds
in
its
breadth
and
generality the connotations
normally
given
to
Renaissance
art.
Although
the
Renais-
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
7/14
280
BERNARD C.
HEYL
sance
period
in
art,
that is to
say,
is
usually
considered
as
extending
in
Italy throughout
the
sixteenth
century,
Italian
Renaissance
style
does
not
include all
of
the
character-
istics of this
century.
We
now
recognizethe
importance
of the
"stylistic
crisis" of
about
1520
and
the three
divergent styles
that
followed:
Late
Renaissance,
Manner-
ism,
and
Proto-Baroque.
Although
the
sty-
listic
traits
of
Mannerism
and of Proto-Ba-
roque
are
not
yet fully
formulated,
they
are
sufficiently
differentiated
from
each other
and from
the continuation
of
the
High
Renaissance
to
be classified
by
separate
broad
words.16
In
the
Baroque
period,
to
be
sure,
marked
changes
also occur.
We
now employ the term "rococo" to character-
ize a
great
deal of
eighteenth-century
art
that
was
formerly
included
within
the
Ba-
roque
style.
Moreover,
there seems to
be
a
geographic split
in
style
in
the
seventeenth
century
in
that
the
stylistic
solutions,
say,
of
Italy
and of
the Netherlands
in
their
break with
Mannerist ties
are
quite
differ-
ent.
However,
no broad and
useful termi-
nology,
that is clear and
intelligible,
has
as
yet
been
accepted,
or
even
suggested,
to
illuminate these
diverse solutions.
And
at
the
present
time it seems unwise to
try
to
coin
other
big
words. Even
so,
qualifications
in
terminology,
as we
shall
see,
will
connote
important
stylistic
distinctions
within
the
inclusive
concept
of
Baroque
that is recom-
mended.
IF ONE
accepts
the
very
broad
concept
of
Baroque
style
proposed,
it will
be
under-
stood
why
no art historian has
yet
produced
a
satisfactory,
comprehensive
analysis
of
the
style, and why such an analysis, though theo-
retically
possible,
would
be
an
almost
super-
human task.
Recognizing
the manifold
trends within the
Baroque,
art historians
have
investigated
a
limited number
of
its
component
elements:
for
example,
Wolf-
flin's
analysis
of
the
formal
elements
of Ba-
roque
style
in
his
five famous
categories;17
and Male's
very
different
study
of
Baroque
iconography
and
iconology.18
Neither
writer
attempts
an
all-embracing
account of Ba-
roque style; yet neither tries, as the perio-
dizers
do,
to
reduce
the
concept
of the Ba-
roque
to
a
single
major
experience.
Their
material
is
notably
rich in
its
variety.
Such
analyses
increase
enormously
our
understanding
of
the
Baroque.
But
other
knotty
and
complex problems
remain. Some
of
these,
to
be
sure,
are less
vexing
than
one
might
at
first
suppose
because
they
are es-
sentially
verbal in
nature.
We
should ask
first,
then,
whether
disagreements
among
critics
are,
au
fond,
real or verbal. Do writ-
ers on
Baroque
art,
that
is,
differ
basically
in
their
stylistic
analysis
of
Baroque
monu-
ments,
or do
they
find
the
same
qualities
but
choose
different
terms
to
describe
them?
Though
verbal and
real
questions
are
closely
interrelated,
we
should
know
with
which kind of problem we are basically deal-
ing.
Semantic
disputes
occur,
for
example,
in
regard
to
the
style
of
the
period
in
Italy
around
1600.
Walter
Friedlaender's dis-
cussion
of
the
problem
charmingly
shows
its
complexity
in
that,
on
a
single page,
he
suggests
such
different
terminologies
for
this
style
as
"neo-classical or
neo-Renais-
sance" and
"early,
or
rather
pre-Baroque."19
Though
comprehensible,
the
terms "neo-
classical" and
"neo-Renaissance"
encourage
confusion
by
separating
this art from the
Baroque;
and
"pre-Baroque"
is
unfortu-
nate
in
that
it tends to
identify
the
style
of
this
particular
period
with
those
char-
acteristics of
the
sixteenth
century
that
an-
ticipate
the
Baroque:
namely,
the
Proto-
Baroque
elements
in
Correggio,
Michel-
angelo,
and
Tintoretto. But
the
epithet
"Early-Baroque"
seems
entirely
satisfactory
as
applied
to
artists
of
this
period.
It
has
the
merits of
including
these
artists within
the broad concept of Baroque style and of
differentiating
them both from
the late
Mannerism
which
they
reacted
against
and
from the
more
developed phases
of
the
Baroque-i.e.,
the
Full
Baroque
and
the
Late
Baroque.
Moreover,
although
the
styles
of
the
artists active
at
this time differ
in
many ways-one
need
mention
only
Cara-
vaggio
and Annibale
Carracci-they
are
nonetheless related
in
a
general tendency
toward
a
"reform
moving
in
the direction of
the
actual,
the
normative
and
reasonable,
the human and the inward."20Thus one in-
clusive
epithet
is
clearly
desirable.
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
8/14
8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
9/14
282
BERNARD
C. HEYL
of
his
Baroque chapter
entitled
"Baroque
and
Academic,"
is
at
pains
to illustrate the
"mighty
decorum,"
and
the
"august
equi-
librium"
of
Baroque
style.
In
so
doing
he
cites Paradise
Lost
and
Borromini's
facade
of Sant'
Agnese
as "'tectonic'
structures,"
and
refers to
the
"grand
simplified planes"
of
Italian
Baroque
art.
This
analysis
plainly
contradicts
two of
Wolfflin's
categories
of
Baroque
style: namely,
the "a-tectonic" and
"recession."
Thirdly,
Sypher
believes that "the in-
strument
of
baroque
imagination
is the
will."
"A
triumphant
release of the will"
expresses
the
energy,
the
"dynamic
fulfill-
ment" of
the
Baroque.
Famous
previous
discussions of Baroque style have insisted,
on
the other
hand,
that the will
in
Baroque
art
does not
dominate but
is
in
conflict
with
or
actually
ruled
by
feeling
and
sensa-
tion.
Riegl again
and
again
stresses
the con-
flict. For
example:
"Das Neue
ist,
dass
nun
die
Empfindung
sich
emanzipiert,
in
Kampf
tritt
mit
dem Willen."26
Wittkower,
agree-
ing
with
Riegl,
remarks
that "a
la Renais-
sance,
c'est
la
volonte
qui
domine la sensa-
tion.
La
volonte est
egoiste,
isolante,
tactile.
Dans
le
baroque,
c'est
la
sensation
qui
do-
mine la volonte.... ,"27
How
may
we account for these
and other
comparable
disagreements?
Surely they
are
not
primarily
verbal.
Sypher's
meaning
of
"tactile,"
of
"tectonic,"
and of "will"
is
clearly
not so different
from the
meanings
which
Wolfflin,
Riegl,
and Wittkower
give
these words
as
to
account
for the differences
in
opinion.
Although
we
may readily grant
that different shades
of
meanings
for
these
terms exist
and
that these
are
not
easy
to
unravel, nonetheless it seems clear that the
disagreements
are
in
some
sense basic.
An
attempt
to
determine
in
precisely
what sense
they
are
basic
suggests
an
im-
portant
distinction.
Do the
differing
analy-
ses
indicate that
the
writers
actually
perceive
and therefore
interpret
differently?
Are the
opposed
analyses,
that is to
say,
the re-
sult
of
basically
different
perceptive
sensi-
bilities?
Or are
the differences
rather the
re-
sult
of different
emphases?
That
is,
may
they
best
be
explained
by
the
fact
that the
writers are analyzing different works of art,
or
different
aspects
of
the same
work,
because
they
stress
different
stylistic
qualities?
This
distinction
may
be
illustrated
by
reference
to
the
three
disagreements
cited above.
In
the
case of
the
contradictory
opinions
concerning
tactility
in
Baroque
art,
I
be-
lieve that
they
frequently
reflect a
difference
in
basic
responses.
From
the
varied
experi-
ences of
hundreds of
students
who
have
worked
with
me
at
this
problem,
as
well
as
from
the
contrasting
experiences
of
Sypher
and
W6lfflin,
I
conclude
that,
in
regard
to
tactile
effects,
work
of
Baroque
art
may
pro-
duce
reactions which
are
irreconcilable.
The
same
sculptures
of
Bernini,
for
example,
frequently
arouse
tactile
sensations,
yet
fre-
quently
repel
any
feeling
of
tactility.
At
times an aesthetic experience of Bernini's
S.
Teresa
includes
a
wish
to touch
and
feel
the
intricate
carving;
at
other
times,
this
experience
excludes
any
such
desire.
Thus
the
conclusions
of
both
Sypher
and
Wolfflin
are
substantiated.
We
are
dealing
with
aesthetic
responses
which,
on
empirical
evi-
dence,
fundamentally
differ.
They
are
psy-
chologically
relative
to
differing
tempera-
ments.
This
diversity
of
perceptions
will doubt-
less be
repudiated,
or at
least
questioned,
by
many
critics-notably by
absolutists.
Proof
of
competent
diversity
is,
to
be
sure,
difficult to
prove.
But
there is
substantial
evidence for it in
the
notorious fluctuation
of
value
judgments,
in
the
kind
of
evidence
given
in
the
foregoing
paragraph
and later
on
in
the
discussion
of the
Farnese
Gallery,
and in
the
testimony,
for
example,
of
W6lf-
flin,
Walter
Abell,
Arnold
Hauser,
and
Andre
Malraux.28
Consider
now
the
other
two
disagree-
ments cited above between Wolfflin and
Sypher: namely,
the formal
problem
in
Ba-
roque
art
of
"tectonic" vs.
"a-tectonic,"
and
the
psychological
problem
of
the
relative
significance
in
Baroque
art of "will"
and of
"feeling."
In
these
cases,
too,
it is
possible
that
disagreements
result from
differing
responses
which
are basic
and
irreconcilable.
But
another
solution
to
the
difficulty-one
that
in
all
likelihood is often
combined
with
the
type just
considered-seems more
proba-
ble:
namely,
that
because the writers
in
question stress different elements of Ba-
roque
style
as
basic,
they
analyze
different
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
10/14
AMeanings
of
Baroque
283
monuments,
or
emphasize
different
quali-
ties of the
same
monument,
to
support
their
claim.
In
his
discussion
of
Academic and
Ba-
roque
art,
Sypher
selects
the facade
of
Sant'
Agnese
to
point up
the existence of
"'tec-
tonic'
structures,
having
a
mighty
deco-
rum."''2
He
has
deliberately
chosen
an
ex-
ample
of
Italian
Baroque
architecture
which is
notably
"systematic,"
balanced,
and
symmetrical.
The
central
dome
and
the
endl
towers
produce
an
effect
of
order and
of
regularity
which
Sypher justifiably
de-
scribes as
"tectonic."
W6lfflin,
discussing
dif-
ferent
aspects
of
the same
monument,
as-
serts that
"the
inexhaustibility
of the
possible pictures" and the "variation in the
mode
of
appearance"
which this
facade
presents,
produce
an
effect
which
is
"paint-
erly."
3
By
selecting,
moreover,
such
ex-
amples
of Roman
Baroque
architecture as
S.
Andrea
della
Valle and
the Trevi Foun-
tain for
analysis,
he discusses
those monu-
ments
that
best illustrate
the characteristics
which
for him
comprise
the
essence
of
Ba-
roque
art:
namely,
"painterliness,"
"reces-
sion,"
"open
form,"
"unity,"
and
"unclear-
ness."
Both
writers consider
those
monu-
ments, or
aspects
of monuments, which best
exemplify
their
different
stylistic
criteria.
The
diverse
conclusions result
from
the
fact
that the
writers
are
dwelling
on
different
aspects
of
a
remarkably
varied
style.
In
somewhat
the
same
way,
the
predomi-
nance
given
either
to "will"
or
to
"feeling"
(or
to
a
conflict
between
them)
as a
psycho-
logical
factor in
Baroque
art
seems to in-
fluence
the selection
of
works
that
are
ana-
lyzed.
Conversely,
of
course,
one
may
argue
that
the
study
of
the monuments determines
the
criteria.
The
interrelationship
between
the criteria
and
the
works of art
is
indubi-
tably
complex
and
reciprocal.
We need
not
argue
the
question
of
priority.
One should
realize,
however,
that
an
important
connec-
tion
exists,
say,
between
Sypher's
emphasis
upon
the "will"
and
his
emphasis
upon
Paradise
Lost.
Milton's
"baroque
bodies
and
action
are
an
idiom
of
incorrigible
will.""3
Even
if
we
cdo
not
accept
Milton
as
a
key
Baroque
figure,
the
presence
of
"will"
in Baroque art can hardly be denied; a
powerful
will is
expressed,
for
example,
in
Rubens' heroic
figures.
In most kinds
of
Baroque
art,
however,
feeling
or
sensation
is
no
doubt
dominant;
Van
Dyck's
religious
pictures
are
obvious
examples.
Whether
the
will
or sensation
expressed
is
inherent
in
the attitude of the artist or in the
figures
he
has
created,
or
in
both,
seems irrelevant
to
the
argument.
In
any
case,
both
will
and
sensation should
be
recognized
as
elements
of
Baroque
style. Attempts
to
interpret
Ba-
roque
content
solely
in
terms of
one or the
other are too
restrictive
in
that
they
fail
to
recognize
sufficiently
the
diversity
of
the
Ba-
roque.
THE PROBLEM of
the
degree
to which
any
seventeenth-century artist is Baroque is com-
plex
and
important. Disputes concerning
it
largely
hinge
upon
the three kinds of
disa-
greement
I
have
considered:
they
may
be
verbal;
they
may
result
from
different
but
equally
sensitive
perceptions;
and
they may
arise from
the amount and kind
of
emphasis
given
to
the various
elements
of
the
style.
All
three
kinds
may
be involved and
will,
of
course,
vary
in
importance
according
to
the
type
of
stylistic
analysis.
The
nature of
this
problem may
be indicated with
refer-
ence to a familiar
question:
to what extent
is
the art
of
Annibale
Carracci
Baroque?
And
this
question
may
most
concretely
be
considered with
reference
to
the
well-known
debate between
Rensselaer
W.
Lee and
Denis
Mahon
about
the
style
of
Annibale.32
Lee
considers
Annibale an
eclectic
artist;
Mahon
does not.
This
disagreement
is to
some
extent a verbal
one. As Mahon
him-
self
says:
the
desirability
of
describing
"cer-
tain
paintings
as eclectic in
the
sense that
it provides an essential key to understand-
ing
them
.
.
involves
semantic
problems
of
considerable
complexity."
For
example,
Mahon
rejects
the
significance
that
Lee at-
taches
to
the term
"eclectic,"
and
refers
to
it
as
"that
veritable
masterpiece
of
concise
meaninglessness."
Moreover,
Lee's state-
ment that
the Farnese
Gallery
has a
"pat-
ently
eclectic
character,
essential
to
its classi-
cism"
means
to
Mahon
that
Lee
equates
classicism with
eclecticism.
May
not,
how-
ever,
the
phrase
"essential
to
its
classicism"
refer only to the particular brand of classi-
cism that
Lee
finds
in
the
Gallery?
In
any
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
11/14
284
BERNARD
C.
HEYL
case,
it
seems
clear
that
verbal differences
have
played
a
role
in
this
dispute.
The
question
of
the
presence
or absence
of
eclecticism
in
the
style
of
Annibale
leads
to
issues more
vital than semantic ones.
One
crucial
disagreement
in the
present
argu-
ment
concerns
the
artistic value
of
the
Farnese
Gallery. According
to
Lee,
it
re-
mains "a
composite
in which
individual
parts
tend
to assert their own
artistic
par-
entage
at
the
expense
of the
kind
of
unity
that
is
the
mark
of
great
genius." Mahon,
to
the
contrary,
expresses
amazement
"that,
at
the
present
time,
such
an
approach
should be
made to
a work of the
quality
of
the
Galleria,
which,
on
any
balanced esti-
mate, is one of the outstanding monuments
of
European
painting."
This
disparity
in
expert
judgments concerning
a
famous mon-
ument
again
points
to
differences
in
basic
perceptions. Similarly,
the
fact
that
Lee
finds the
art
of
Caravaggio
and
Annibale
far more
divergent
than
does
Mahon,
both
in
respect
to
stylistic
traits
and to
artistic
value,
reveals a
disagreement
which must in
large
measure
result
from
fundamentally
different
responses.
Each writer
claims that
his
response
is
the
valid
or
correct
one.
But
relativist criticism is
willing
to
accept
the
judgment
of each as
expert.
It
rightly
teaches
that different
analyses
and
evalua-
tions are
frequently
based,
to some
extent
at
least,
upon
temperaments radically
dif-
ferent,
though
equally
acute and
sensitive.
The
dispute
in
question
also involves the
the third
kind
of
disagreement
referred to:
namely,
the
varying emphases
that
each
writer
places
upon
the
multiple stylistic
traits
of
the
Farnese
Gallery.
Lee
stresses
the "retrospective" and "eclectic" elements
which
seem
to
him
to
link
it
basically
and
inextricably
with
the
art
of
the
past.
Mahon
minimizes
the
importance
of
these deriva-
tive
traits
and
stresses
the
naturalism
and
energy,
the
painterly
and
"baroque"
char-
acter of
Annibale's
style.
He
finds
Lee's
con-
clusions
a "remarkable
example
of
allowing
the
sight
of
some
of
the trees to
blind
one
to the
shape
of
the wood." To
which
Lee
might
respond,
if
the
argument
is con-
tinued,
that the
appearance
of the
wood
is
essentially formed by the shape of many of
the trees.
The
problem
under
discussion
concerning
the
degree
to which
a
seventeenth-century
artist
is
Baroque
of
course
depends
upon
the
connotation
one
accepts
for
the
term
"Baroque."
Even
the broad and
inclusive
interpretation
advocated in
this
essay
im-
plies
some
norm
or
group
of
traits which re-
ceive
special
emphasis
in
this
period:
for
example,
the
categories
of
Wolfflin,
the
iconography
as
explained by
Male,
and
such
prevalent
stylistic
features as
energy
and
movement,
pomp
and
splendor.
General
agreement
about
the
prominence
of
these
and
other
characteristics
in
seventeenth-
century
art
enables
one to
affirm,
for
ex-
ample,
that the
early
works
of
Guercino
are
more Baroque than his late works, and
that
Rembrandt
between
1630
and 1640
is
more
Baroque
than
Rembrandt
after
1650.
The
qualifying
expression
"classic-baroque"
is
clearly
applicable only
to
the
late
styles
of
these
artists. But
the
problem
of
the
de-
gree
of
Baroqueness
becomes more
difficult
and
more
intricate
in
the
case
of
those
artists
whose
style
does not
so
clearly
reveal the
more
prevalent
traits
of
the
period.
Mere
mention
of
Vermeer
or of
Vouet
suggests
the
complexities
which
discussions
of
this
kind entail. Two main ideas
concerning
the
solution
of
such
problems may
be
indicated
by
a
consideration of
some
aspects
of
the
style
of
Poussin.
The
crucial
meaning
of
the
question:
is
Poussin
Baroque?
was
clearly
posed by
Wolfgang
Stechow. If
Poussin
is
a
Baroque
artist,
he
wrote,
"we
should be
able to
prove
that... a
work
by
Poussin
is
basically
more
closely
related to
one
by
Rubens or
Rem-
brandt
than to
one
by
Raphael
or
David,
and
this not only with regard to form but
also
with
regard
to
content."33
I
suggest,
first,
that
attempts
to
make this
proof
will
depend,
to a
degree,
upon
which of
Pous-
sin's
paintings
are
selected
for
analysis
and
upon
which
of
his
stylistic
qualities
are
stressed-that
is,
the
problem
of
emphasis,
discussed
above,
is crucial.
Second,
I
suggest
that the
complexity
of
the
question
is such
that
any
definitive
or
precise
answer is un-
obtainable;
only
a
flexible
and
imprecise
solution can be
given
to
the
problem
of
the
degree to which Poussin's art is Baroque.
If
one selects
for
analysis
The
Martyrdom
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
12/14
Meanings
of
Baroque
285
of
S.
Erasmus,
the
Neptune
and
Amphitrite,
and The Dance
of
the
Seasons,
one
can
point
to
striking
differences
between
these
works and the
art
of
Raphael
and
David,
both in
form
and content. The
grander
pro-
portions
and
gestures,
the curves
and di-
agonals
in
plane
and
depth,
the
greater
ani-
mation and
exuberance,
the
sense
of
power,
pomp,
and
physical
strength,
the heroic
and
ideal
grandeur
of these
and other
paintings
by
Poussin
will be
rightly
interpreted
as
notably
Baroque qualities.
These
qualities
relate Poussin more
directly
to
Rubens
than
to
Raphael.
One
may
also
note
the
respec-
tive
emphasis
in
the three
paintings
men-
tioned
upon
three
qualities
that have been
characterized as Baroque by Male, Wolfflin,
and
Panofsky: namely,
the
emphasis upon
cruelty
in
the
S.
Erasmus,
upon
"Becoming"
in
the
Neptune
and
Amphitrite,
and
upon
Time in
the
Dance
of
the
Seasons.
If
these
qualities
are
stressed,
Poussin
will
be con-
sidered
a
distinctly
Baroque painter.
But
some
critics
may
well assert that
the
Louvre
Et in
Arcadia
Ego
and
Rebecca
at
the
Well
are
more
typical
examples
of
Pous-
sin's art.
They
will then
reach a
different
conclusion.
They
will
point
to
the
figures
parallel
to the
picture
plane,
to the
clear,
linear,
and
static
character of
the
forms,
to
the metrical and
regular
intervals,
and
to
a
tectonic
design
which
accepts
as
important
the
limits
of
the
picture
frame.
Above
all,
perhaps,
they
will
observe in
these
and
other
comparable
works a
style
which
does not re-
veal
the
painterly (or
non-linear)
visual
level
of
perception
that
is
emphasized
in
all
of
Wolfflin's
Baroque categories
and
that
one finds
preeminently
expressed
in
the
art
of Rubens and Rembrandt. They may even
argue
that none of
Poussin's
paintings
re-
veal
this visual
level.
If
this
quality
is
for
them the
dominant
feature
of
Baroque
style,
they
will
hold
that at
no
time
is
Poussin
significantly
Baroque
and
may
thus
prefer
to
call
him
"classical."
For
reasons
already
given,
however,
this
epithet
seems
mislead-
ing.
The
large
majority
of
Poussin's
paintings
are,
of
course,
neither
so
predominantly
Ba-
roque
as
the
S.
Erasmus
nor
so
classical
as
the Et in Arcadia Ego. They reveal a com-
plex,
yet
wholly
unified,
mixture
of
varied
traits
about which
critics
largely agree.
Now
how are we to
weigh
these traits-some
emphatically
Baroque,
some
emphatically
classical-in
relation to
each other?
I
do not
see
how we
can
satisfactorily
do
so.
If
we
compare
Poussin's
Neptune
and
Amphlitrite
with
Raphael's
Galatea,
on
the one
hand,
and
with
Rubens'
Quos
Ego,
on
the
other,
we
observe
in
both
comparisons
notable
similarities and
differences.
Most
observers
would
probably
agree
that,
if we
analyze
the
three
works
according
to
Wolfflin's
cate-
gories,
Poussin
is
in
this case closer to
Ra-
phael
and
the
High
Renaissance.
Unde-
niably,
however,
the
Neptune
and
Amphi-
trite
reveals
more
"recession"
and
is more
"a-tectonic" than the Galatea; it indicates
an
interest in
space
and
breaks into
the
pic-
ture
plane
in
a
way
that is
more
typical
of
seventeenth-century
style.
The
light
is
more
effulgent
than
in
Raphael,
less
dynamic
than
in
Rubens. In
content,
the
Poussin
ex-
presses
a
mood
that
lies
somewhere
between
the
restrained
idealism of
the
High
Renais-
sance
and
the
subjective
emotionalism
of
the
intensely
Baroque.
How can
one
hope
to
determine
with
pre-
cision
the
degree
to
which
the
style
of
Pous-
sin in this
painting
agrees
with that
of
Raphael
or
of
Rubens?
The
most
objective
observer
imaginable
would be
unable,
I
believe,
to
balance the
many
classical
quali-
ties
against
the
many
Baroque
ones.
We
should
thus
decide,
reluctantly
perhaps,
that we
are
dealing
with
a
complex
prob-
lem which
involves
incommensurables. Ste-
chow's
demand for
proof
that
Poussin's
style
is more
closely
related
basically
to that
of
Rubens or of
Raphael
will
not
be
found.
We should thus agree to discontinue a pur-
suit
for
preciseness
where none
exists.
The
suggestion,
already
made,
to
consider
the
style
of
Poussin
Classic-Baroque
is
intended
to
escape
the
dilemma.
"Classic-Baroque"
connotes
something
broad
and
flexible
and
avoids
the irksome
question:
is
Poussin
pri-
marily
classic or
Baroque?
"We
gain
much
more,"
in
the
words
of
William
James,
"by
a
broad
than
by
a
narrow
conception
of
our
subject.
At a
certain
stage
in
the
de-
velopment
of
every
science
a
degree
of
vagueness is what best consists with fer-
tility."34
This content downloaded from 194.214.29.29 on Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:51:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Meanings of Baroque
13/14
286
BERNARD
C. HEYL
From
the
several
foregoing
considerations
about
the
Baroque,
I
should
like,
in
con-
clusion,
to
underscore
two main
points.
First,
the
many
complexities
of
Baroque
style
should
be
accepted
and
explored,
not
oversimplified
or denied.
Varieties,
even
polarities,
in
points
of
view,
hence
in
artistic
form and
content,
are
inevitable
if
one ac-
cepts
the
ambivalent
facets
of
cultures.
Witness
the
fact,
for
example,
that the
two
chief
emotional
attitudes of the
Victorian
era
were
optimism
and
anxiety 35
Within
the far
broader
scope,
both
chronologically
and
geographically,
of
the
Baroque
era,
should
not one
naturally
expect
to find
re-
markable
diversity
of
varying
kinds?
Second: a broad, flexible view does not,
it
seems
necessary
to
reaffirm,
reduce the
concept
of
Baroque
style
to
something
so
vague
that
it
is useless.
Baroque
should not
be
considered
merely
as
a
period
of
time.
The
plain
fact
that one can
distinguish
works of art
of
the seventeenth
century
from
those
of
the sixteenth and
eighteenth
shows
that
the
concept
of
Baroque
style,
though
highly
complex,
is
meaningful.
Perhaps,
as
already
suggested,
by
learning
to
use
the
word
"Baroque"
in
the
plural-by
con-
sciously
recognizing
the varieties of
style,
that
is to
say,
within
the
larger
concept-
we
shall
find
the
meanings
of
this
large
con-
cept
both
comprehensible
and
salutary.
1"The
Concept
of
Baroque
in
Literary
Scholar-
ship,"
JAAC
(December
1946).
The
quotations
of
Wellek that follow
all
come from
this article
which
has
recently
been described
by
Leo
O.
Forkey
as
"perhaps
the best
generalization
of the
application
of the term
'baroque'
to
literature,
and one
in
which
Buffum and other scholars who have done con-
siderable work
in this area
agree"
(JAAC
[September
1959],
p.
80).
Two books that
attempt,
without
suc-
cess
I
believe,
to
apply
this unified
concept
of
the
Baroque
to other
fields
are Carl
J.
Friedrich's,
The
Age
of
the
Baroque (New
York,
1952),
and
Manfred
F.
Bukofzer's,
Music in the
Baroque
Era
(New
York,
1947).
2
In
addition
to the
array
of
contradictory
views
cited
by
Wellek about
Baroque
style
in
literature,
I
add
the
following.
Whereas Grierson
finds the
early
Milton
Baroque,
Wylie
Sypher
considers Comus
Renaissance
and
Lycidas
Mannerist.
Hobbes
epito-
mizes
the
Baroque
for
Friedrich,
but
Sypher
urges
that his "inert materialism" and his failure to believe
firmly
"in
the
efficacy
of
the
will"
prevent
his achiev-
ing
"the
baroque
resolution
in
exultant
power.
Corneille
is considered
Baroque by
Hatzfeld
and
by
Rousset;
Borgerhoff
classifies him
as
Mannerist.
Cervantes is a
Baroque
ideal,
according
to
Hatzfeld,
but is
expressly
excluded
from
the
Baroque by
Pfandl;
while
Sypher
considers
him,
"like
Parmi-
gianino or
Velazquez"
Manneristl Tasso
represents,
according
to
Hatzfeld
"the first
great
and
moderate
but
realistic
baroque,"
but
according
to
Sypher,
he
lacks
"the full
baroque
energy"
and
remains
sty-
listically
in
the
early
Renaissance
stage.
3
All
students
of the
fine arts are
cognizant
of
such
important
German
studies
of the
Baroque
as
those of
Riegl,
Wolfflin,
Voss, Weisbach,
and
others.
Although
mention of
Wolfflin's
Principles
of
Art
History