TheBirthofLateAntiquity:RieglandStrzygowskiin1901Jas ElsnerIntroduction1901sawthepublicationof twoground-breakingbooks whichbetweenthemestablishedthehistoryoflateantiqueartasanacademicdiscipline. TheywereAlois Riegl's fundamental contribution to art history, Spa tro mische Kunst-industrie,orLateRomanArtIndustry(perhapsbettertranslatedasLateRomanArts and Crafts) and Josef Strzygowski's Orient oder Rom. Together, these bookssetupthecategoriesandmethodsbywhichthedevelopmentofRomanartandthe rise of medieval art would be studied for almost the rest of the century. Indeed,RieglhasbeencreditedashavingintroducedthetermSpa tantike(`lateantique')intoarchaeological studies.1Thetwobooks together andthefiercepolemicbetweentheirauthorsintheyearsthat followedwereeffectivelythespring-boardfor the moderndiscipline of late-antique art history.2One might say,however,thatdespiteitsinfluence, Riegl'sbookespeciallyresemblesChekhov'splayThe Cherry Orchard. This was the first great masterpiece of twentieth-centurytheatre,butitisreallytheworkofanineteenth-centurythinker,whosemostimportantbookforourpurposeshappenstohavestrayedacrossthelinepast1900.2001 sawthe death of Ernst Gombrich (b. 1909), the greatest survivingrepresentative of pre-World WarII Austro-German Kunstgeschichte, a man who(like Riegl) really belonged to the century before that in which he died. GombrichwasbornafterRiegl'sdeathin1905,buthis workwasprofoundlyinformedbytheneedtonegotiatetheaftermathoftheart-historicalcontributionsof1901not just the specific importance of late-antique art,3but also the methodologicalproblems of Riegl's theoretical concept of Kunstwollen.4Indeed, one ofGombrich's first seminars as a student inVienna turnedinto an attack onRiegl's first book, Stilfragen,5whilesomeof his first publishedworkcut hiscritical teeth against Spa tro mische Kunstindustrie and its followers inauguratingwhat wouldbealife-longandyet partlyaffectionatebattlewiththelegacy ofRiegl.6LikeotherswithwhomIshallbeconcerned(notably ErnstKitzinger),Gombrichhimself,RieglandStrzygowskiwereallnativesofViennaor practised their art history there. If this paper is a genuflection to a significantArtHistory ISSN0141-6790 Vol.25 No.3 June2002 pp.358379358 AssociationofArtHistorians2002.PublishedbyBlackwellPublishers,108CowleyRoad,OxfordOX41JF,UKand350MainStreet,Malden,MA02148,USA.centenaryfor lateantiquity, it is equallyasalutetothepassingof themostmagisterial, indeeddominant, art-historical voice of the thirdquarter of thetwentiethcentury.In weighing down my introduction with so venerable a series of anniversariesandGreatNames,Iwanttoemphasizesomethingaboutarthistoryasawholewhich this cluster of Viennese still has to offer. Theirs is, in every case, acommittedempiricismacutelycentredonthediscussionof objects, but alwaysdirectedbeyondthe small questions. The minor issues of specific patronage,execution, significanceorinterpretationinanyoneobject orgroupof objects,whilenot neglectedorignored, arealways(rightlyinmyview) subordinatetomuchlargerproblemsaboutthecultural meaningofartitself, groundedinanddirectedbya(moreorless)rigorouslyworked-outphilosophicalthesis.Itistheidealism but also the dangers in the conviction that the analysis of objects canlead us to large-scale cultural understandings of a non-trivial kind that is a qualitywellworthrememberingtoday.RieglandStrzygowskiComparingRieglandStrzygowskiisdifficult,notleastbecausetheformer(nowmuch studied in his own right) is in every sense an art-historical hero,7while thelatterhasbeencondemnedbeyondsimplyajudgementofhisscholarshiptothat grim circle of the Inferno inhabited by outspoken adherents of the 1000 YearReich. Riegl's hero status in art history rests on several foundations.8First he was(and remains) an early and magisterial champion of the decorative arts as a majorhistoricalfieldwithinarthistory.9HisworksonOrientalcarpets10(ofwhichhewas for twelve years the curator in the Austrian Museum of Art and Industry, theHapsburgequivalentoftheV&A)engagedwiththeArtsandCraftsMovementandwiththeseminalcontributions(bothinGermanyandbrieflyinEngland)ofGottfried Semper, with whom Riegl regularly disagreed in print.11Thesepublicationsattemptedtotietheornamentation oftextilestoagreatcontinuoustraditiondescended fromGraeco-Roman antiquity.12His Stilfragen, orProblemsofStyle, publishedin1893,wasafundamental developmentandrestatementofthisthemedemonstratingthecontinuityoftraditionsofornamentthroughoutantiquityandthemiddleages(goingbacktoAncientEgyptianlotusmotifs)andprovidingamodelfordiachronicornamentaltransformation.Secondly, in addition to his championship of late-antique and early medievalart against thegeneral viewof decline(towhichweshall comelater), Rieglformulated initially in Stilfragen but most maturely and influentially inSpa tro mische Kunstindustrie13 what would become one of the most importantand controversial concepts in twentieth-century German art history, namely theidea of Kunstwollen. This termhas been frequently translated, frequentlydiscussedandfrequentlycriticized. OttoPacht, inanacuteandsympatheticdiscussion of Riegl (who was, with Franz Wickhoff, one of the twin founders ofthe great Vienna School of stylistic art history,14from which Pacht was himselfbanished by the Nazis in 1933 and to which he returned from England a rareemigre reinstated, in 1963) tries the following: `Shall we say artistic will, form-RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 359will,orasGombrichsuggests``will-to-form''?'Hehimselfprefers`thatwhichwillsart' andcallsit `thecipherforthegeneratingandcontrollingfactorinartistic creation . . . applied by Riegl equally to an individual work of art, to anindividualartist, toanhistoricalperiod, toanethnicgrouportoanation'.15Otto Brendel, another (though non-Jewish) mid-century exile from German arthistory,16in his Prolegomena to the Study of Roman Art, which constitutes themajor critical discussioninEnglishof Riegl's specific contributiontolate-antique art history, rejected`the literal translation, ``artistic volition'' ' andpreferred`stylisticintent'.17EdgarWind, athirdrefugeeof thesameperiod,offered`autonomousformalimpulse'.18Indeed,bythe1920stherewereNeo-Kantian and Neo-Hegelian interpretations of Kunstwollen. The former(espoused, for instance, by Panofsky and Wind) sawit as an immanentmeaningwherebyeachworkof art invokesthewholeculturefromwhichitcomesthroughitsstyle;thelatter(expressed,forinstance,byHansSedlmayr)believed it to be a central and informing principle of creativity, a kind of `deepstructure'.19Astheseattemptsshow,Riegl'sarthistoryhasalwaysbeenbothdifficult and controversial. It certainly stood at the determinist end of historicalevolutionism, and was implicated in what later became called Geistesgeschichteuniversalhistoryofthehumanspirit.Itispreciselytothisandtothefactthat no one could provide an adequate (non-mystical ) account of Kunstwollenthat GombrichobjectedwhenheattackedRiegl andhislegacyinArt andIllusion.20The explicit teleology of Riegl's historicism has caused problems, particularlyfor thoseweddedtoaGombrichianmaking-and-matchingkindof art history(itself indebtedtoPopper's philosophyof scientific experimentation).21At thesametimeRiegl'sconsistentdevotiontoacultural(ratherthanasocial)contextfor the production of art, as opposed to notions of artistic genius or incompetence,seemsstrikinglymodern. Riegl arguedthat: `Sincetheworkofartisnotmadewithourtasteinmind, wecanextractitstruecontentonlybyreferencetothepremisesonwhichitwasmade.'22He was effectively a pioneer not only of the study of the viewing of art,23butalso in the relativismof reception in different periods and in the specificdifferentiation of our own responses as art historians and viewers from those of anobject'sintendedorlikelyaudience.InitsVienneseculturalcontext,thiswasanattempt to write an objective art history which could nonetheless incorporate theproblemofsubjectivityascientificapproachparallelwithcontemporaryworkinthesamecitybythelikesofHusserlandFreud.24Thirdly, in his roles as editor of the journal of the Central Commission for theResearch and Preservation of Austrian Monuments (from 1902) and asConservator General of Austrian Monuments (from1903),25Riegl became apioneerinissuesofconservationandthepreservationofcondemnedbuildings.26Moreover, all this activity (in which he was in the vanguard for his time) was tiedto a genuinely multicultural politics in the context of late Hapsburg imperialism,whichset himfirmly apart fromthe pan-Germannationalismandethnicallypurist art history which developed rapidly at precisely this time and would so soondescendintoNazism.27He was, ineffect, onall fronts agenuine intellectualhero,28whoseattitudesaresodangerouslyclosetothekindswemightwishtoRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901360 AssociationofArtHistorians2002emulateastomakehimworryinglyappropriableas`ourcontemporary' (touseJanKott'sfamousphraseaboutShakespeare).29Thismakeshisworkdifficulttoassessforpreciselytheoppositereasonstothose that give us problems with Strzygowski (18621941). The latter's art historyispatentlyracistandtaintedbyhissympathywithwhatwewouldnowseeasadespicable regime. It might be said, however, that nothing in Strzygowski'sexperience, up to his death in 1941, would remotely have given him the hint thathewasonwhatissoobviouslytousthewrongsideofeveryethical debatetoaffectthehumanities.Strzygowski'scareer,asanoutsidertotraditionalAustro-German academic life both on account of his origins on the outer reaches of theAustrianempire inmainlyPolishSilesiaandas aclothmanufacturer's sonisaclassic case ofmaking one's name by assaultingthe establishment.30Possessed inadditiontohisflairfor`knockingcopy'withwhatSuzanneMarchanddescribesas an `odious personality',31nonetheless in part on account of his wide travels intheeast,remarkablefirst-handknowledgeofobjectsandextraordinarilyprolificpublications Strzygowski made it, first to the Chair at Graz and finally, in 1909,to Wickhoff's Chair at the centre of the establishment inVienna where thepersonal patronage of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand (who also held pan-Germanicviews)seemstohaveprevailedagainstsignificantopposition.32Beforewemove specificallytothedebate with Riegl, itisworthstressing Strzygowski'slong-term contributions to art history, since he has frequently been excluded fromhistories of art-historical thought,33presumably not only on account of his politicsbut alsohis personal character.34Strzygowski attackedthelargelyphilologicalClassical humanist establishment on several fronts. First he made great play of theOrientaloriginsoflate-antiqueandmedievalart,whichheultimatelylocatedinIranandlinkedtoAryanandNordic tendencies, as opposedtothose of theMediterranean.35Stripped of its proto-Nazi politics, the influence of this approachhasbeenfundamental totheestablishment of thehistoryof Islamicart, tothestudy of image production on the eastern peripheries of the Roman empire, with aviewtoresistingRomano-centrism; and,mostironically, tothestudyofJewishart, in which Strzygowski has been hailed as a pioneer.36Moreover, his insistenceonWorldArtastheproperfieldforarthistory(ratherthanEuropeanart)hasnumerous modern ramifications in the discipline's recent turn in that direction.37Methodologically, and anticipating a debate still current in art history,Strzygowksi attacked the literary domination of Classical art history byemphasizingavast andspecializedknowledgeof artefacts.38Ineffect, heis aprecursorofthehighlylaudableattempttolettheobjectspeakforitselfagainstthe textual bias of the historian, to fight the battle of the image against the word.Despitehis direpolitical views, if weupholdanyaspects of theseintellectualpositions,weremainStrzygowski'schildren.Spa tro mischeKunstindustrieandRiegl'slateRomanmethodThe Spa tro mische Kunstindustrie opens by putting all the most radical andrevisionist cards in Riegl's hand firmly on the table.39He begins by stating that thevolume before the reader (the first part of what he there says would be a two-partRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 361project,althoughthishadalreadybeendistilleddownfromacollaborativefive-partenterprise)40willaddress`thefunctionofthefineartsduringthefiveandahalfcenturiesbetweenConstantinetheGreatandCharlemagne' bydiscovering`theconnectingthreadswhichleadbacktopastantiquity'(p.3).Thisisalreadyinnovativeasheexplicitlyproceedsbylookingback(teleologically)ratherthanpretendingtowriteachronological history, asismorenormal. Hestateswithsome exaggeration (but also some justification) that the `fine arts of the end of theRoman empire' are `a completely unresearched field' (p. 6). Within four pages ofthe Introduction, he is attackingnot onlythe `unbridgeable gapbetweenlateRoman art and the art of preceding Classical antiquity', which had generally beentaken for granted, but also the assumption of decline, stating that `everyone agreesthat late Romanart didnot constitute progress but merelydecay.' (p. 8) Heannouncesthat`todestroythisprejudiceistheprincipalobjectofallthestudiescontained in this book.' (p. 8) To do this he invokes his own earlier Stilfragen andthe demonstration there of a continuity between the ornamental tendrildecorationoftheByzantinesandSaracensandthatofClassicalantiquity(p.9).After a brief attack on Semper as representing a mechanistic and scientific theoryofartwhichoverstressedtheimportanceofmaterials,helaunchesthenotionofKunstwollen (as first invoked in the Stilfragen) on the unsuspecting reader.Kunstwollenisdefinedasfollows:AteleologicalapproachaccordingtowhichIsawintheworkofarttheresultofaspecificandconsciouslypurposefulartisticwill(Kunstwollen)thatcomesthroughinabattleagainstfunction,rawmaterialandtechnique.Inthistheory,thelatterthreefactorsnolongerhavethepositivecreativerolethattheso-calledSemperiantheorygavethem,butratheralimiting,negativeone.Theyconstitute,asitwere,theco-efficientsoffrictionwithinthewhole.(p.9)Crucial toRiegl's attempt to deny decline was the work ofhis fellowstudentandthenacademic colleague, Franz Wickhoff (18531909). Drawing his owninspiration from Riegl's Stilfragen (published in 1893), Wickhoff had argued in abookpublishedin1895ontheViennaGenesis(agreat illuminatedmanuscriptnow dated to the sixth century, but then thought to be from the fourth or fifth)41that late-antique forms were far froma decline but rather developeda newopticality within the traditions of Roman art.42Wickhoff suggested that aspects ofRomanimperial, includinglate-antique, artresembledtheworkofseventeenth-century painters, such as Velazquez or Rembrandt, and the contemporaryImpressionists.43Riegl disagreed with such transhistoricism, arguing that itrobbedlateRomanart of adefinitionspecial andspecifictoit, andreflectedsimply the subjectivity of modern taste (pp. 1011, cf. 701). But what heborrowed from Wickhoff was the positive evaluation of Roman and late-antiqueartandthenotionofitscontinuitywith(althoughitstransformationfrom)theimage-makingof theprecedingera(anideaWickhoffhadinturnextrapolatedfromStilfragenandturnedtouseinlate-antiquestudies).44Riegl now proposed to subject the totality of the arts and crafts in his chosenperiod including architecture, sculpture, painting, mosaics and all the minor andRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901362 AssociationofArtHistorians2002decorative arts toarigorous stylistic analysis inorder toextrapolate theircollective Kunstwollen.45He thus presupposedasharedandessential urge tocreativitywithintheperiod;indeed,itisonthebasisofthisassumptionthattheperiod could be defined as an historically meaningful era. Methodologically, it isinteresting that he regardedthe materials of his analysis (what he calledthe`function, raw material and technique' of objects) as not significant in themselves.That is, theobject of Riegl's formal analysis was styleitself,46whiletherawmaterials (such as wood and stone), the functions of objects (for instance, use as afibula, holder of remains and so forth) and the technique of their working(carving, casting, weaving etc) were just the `co-efficient of friction' to be writtenoutoftheequation.Itwasthestylethatexistedindependentlyofthewaysthatobjects were worked that could reveal the nature of the `Late RomanKunstwollen' asawhole(whichisthetitleofhisconcludingchapter, pp. 22334).What isambiguous iswhether stylistic analysisis tobe employed initsownright,orforsuchmundanemattersasdatingandtheidentificationofartists;orwhether its true purpose lies in aid of the much grander project of pinpointing thetraces of an historically identifiable and definable collective subjectivity (asimpliedinthe last chapter of Spa tro mische Kunstindustrie). Inpart, it is thegrandeurandambitionof thisvisionof art historyasawholewhichhaswonRiegl somanyadmirers, thoughthe palpable impossibilityof the project hasequallyattractednumerouscritics.Itisimpossible,inashortspace,todojusticetothewonderfulindividualanalyses of objects, carefullydescribedinamodel of stylistic art-historicalwriting to lead incrementally to the definition of the late Roman Kunstwollen.47The specific nature of Riegl's definitions are perhaps less important today, overa century after their formulation, than the fact that they effectively created theformalistic language that wouldlater come todefine late-antiqueart (I amthinkingofissueslikesymmetry, frontality, rigidity, opticality, symbolizationandsoforth). ButabrieflistoftherangeofwhatRiegl sawastherelevantempirical materials is perhaps in order. He moves from architecture (comparingbuildings like the Pantheon and Sta Costanza, or the oblong hall of the Baths ofCaracalla and the Basilica of Maxentius) to its particular constituents such asthe capitals of Diocletian's Mausoleumat Split andthose of SanVitale inRavenna. In sculpture he assesses pagan and Christian sarcophagi fromRavennaandRome,statereliefsinthecityofRome,portraitsandivories,aswell assomeCopticreliefs. UnderpaintingheexplorestheearlymosaicsofRome andthose of Ravenna andthe late-antique manuscripts (paganandChristian); intheminoranddecorativearts, all mannerofbrooches, fibulae,gemsandglassvessels.Whatthislistrevealsisremarkablecatholicismabouttherangeof objectstobeincluded(thoughonewonderswhat happenedtosilver plate) but equally a profoundly narrow focus around the productions andremains of late Roman Italy (with the exception of the decorative arts, many ofwhichwerearchaeological findsfromwithintheAustro-Hungarianempire).While Riegl was, remarkablyfor his time, never racial inhis ascriptionofKunstwollen(unlikesomeof hissuccessors, likeSedlmayr)theRomanfocuswasfromtheperspectiveoflateHapsburgViennaverymuchaprojectontheoriginsanddevelopmentofHolyRome.48RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 363To take one example, we could do worse than look at the Arch of Constantine(constructed 3125) with which Riegl opens his account of sculpture (chap. 2) andtowhichhistextregularlyreturns (plate29).49This isakeymonument because,since the Renaissance, its pointed juxtaposition of late-antique and second-century sculpted reliefs had occasioned polemical disparagement of theConstantinianwork. Raphael, c. 1519, inalettercomposedbyCastiglioneandsenttothePope,hadwrittenofthefourth-centurycarvingsonthearchas`veryfeebleanddestituteof all art andgooddesign' bycontrast withtheTrajanic,Hadrianic and Antonine work which he called `extremely fine and done in perfectstyle'. Vasari agreed. In the programmatic preface to his Lives 5 (1568), hemournedthedeclineof theartsexemplifiedbytheArchof Constantineusingwordslike`rude',`crude'and`poor'todescribethefourth-centuryfriezes.50Noone had contested these judgements, and indeed referring briefly to theConstantiniansculpturesontheArchofConstantineinhisearlierworkRiegltoo had called them`crude and awkward' and `weak'.51In Spa tro mischeKunstindustrie all this changed. Riegl subjected the so-called largitio orcongiariumrelief onthe northface of the Archof Constantine, showingtheemperordistributinglargessetothepopulaceofRome(plates30and31),tothemost rigorous analysis it hadyet received(pp. 524). Here, for the sake ofsamplingRiegl'sstyleofargumentclose-at-handisasubstantial segmentofhisdiscussion.29 TheArchofConstantine,northface,AD3125.Rome.Photo:GermanArchaeologicalInstituteinRomeRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901364 AssociationofArtHistorians2002Abrieflookatthereliefshowsthattheartistsawhisresponsiblitytobethemakingofanindividualunitwithacentralizedcompositionontheplane;herewehavestillanancientplanecompositionandnotamodernspacecomposition.Thesymmetricalcentralization,whichcanonlybeachievedontheplane,appearsherebroughttoitspeak.Theenthronedfigureoftheemperorinthecentreattractstheviewimmediately;indeed,thefirstsuperficialimpression,priortoalldetailedanalysisshowsconvincinglythattheentirecompositionwaspainstakinglydesignedtobringthebeholder'sattentiontothecentre.Theemperorwhoappearshereenthronedonahighsocleandturnedenfacetothebeholder,assumesthusthemostfavouredpositionforasymmetricalviewofthewholehumanbody;historso(andprobablyalsothehead,unfortunatelycutoff),remainsinaperpendicularposition,. . .armsandfeetdivergingslightlytotheoutside.Thisstrictlysymmetricalcompositionpresentsthecentralfigureasanimageofrigidunchangeablemobility.Thedomineeringpositionisfurthermoreemphasizedthroughthefactthatitoccupiestheentireheightofthereliefthankstotheimposingfigureoftheemperorandthehighsocleunderthethrone,whiletheotherfiguresaredistributedovertwolevelsinsymmetricalcorrespondence.Differingfromthecentralfigure(withtheexceptionofsomefiguresstandingatadistanceontheright-handside),alltheotherfiguresareabouttomakedefinitemovementstowardsthecentrebyturningtheheadaswellastheraisedarminacclamationtotheemperorwhiletheartistwasatleastabletoaddsomevarietytotheuniformgestures.Acertainexceptionisfoundinthetwogroupsoffourfigureseach,whichareintheupperregisternearthecorners;theydonottakepartintheacclamationandconstituteinthemselvesasymmetricalcomposition.Theyare,however,atthesametimestandinginstrictcorrespondencewithoneanotherandthus,again,broughtintodependenceontheall-domineeringcentralfigureoftheemperor.Whiletheentityappearstobeprojectedononeplanewithpainstakingprecision,theindividualfiguresstrivetowardsspatialisolationfromthecommonplane.Theoutlinesofthefiguresarealldeeplyundercutsothattheyappearnowherevisiblyconnectedwiththeground.Intheupperranktherearetworowsoffiguresarrangedbehindoneanotherandisolated30 LargitiorelieffromtheArchofConstantine,northface,AD3125.Photo:AfterRiegl,Spa tro mischeKunstindustrie,figure7.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 365fromoneanotheratleastassharply.ThisisadecisivepointwhereintheConstantiniandifferfromancientOrientalandClassicalreliefs;duringtheearlierEmpireitwasstillaninviablelawforanyrelieftomaintainanobvioustactileconnection,whetherdirectlyorthroughintermediatefigures.Thecommonplaneconsequentlynowlosesitsformaltactileconnectionandfallsapartintoaseriesoflightfiguresanddarkspatialshadowsinbetweenthem,whichalltogetherevokeacolouristicimpressionthroughtheirirregularchange.Yettheimpressioncontinuestobeoneofasymmetricallydesignedplane;butnowitisnolongeratactileplane,whichiseitherentirelyinterruptedorjustslightlyobscuredthroughhalfshadows,butratheranopticalplaneliketheonewhereallobjectsappeartooureyefromthelongview.Betweenthevisibleforegroundplaneofthefiguresand31 Page46ofRiegl,Spa tro mischeKunstindustrie.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901366 AssociationofArtHistorians2002thegroundisafreesphereofspace,sotosay,aniche,insertedjustdeepenoughtoletthefiguresappearinit.Theyarespace-fillingandsurroundedbyspaceand,forthatreason,stillclosetotheplane.Exactlythesamerelationasbetweentheentirereliefandthefigureissoughttoexistbetweenawholefigureanditsparts(thiscanbetheextremitiesoralsothedrapery).Yetastrictcentralizationwaspossiblejustforthecentralfigure;inalltheotherfiguresitwouldcomecloseandwasexpressedasmuchaspossiblewithsimple,straight,inarticulatedandunrhythmichenceharshyetclearoutlinesoffiguresspreadbroadlyontheplane.However,theindividualpartsofthefiguresareseparatedfromoneanotherthroughgroovescastingdeepshadows,whichisveryobviousinthetreatmentofhairanddrapery.Asthefigurestothewhole,soalsotheextremitiesandthedraperiesdonothaveatactileconnectionwiththefigures,butareopticallyisolatedfromoneanother. . .TheanalysisoftheConstantinianreliefsrepresentsconsequentlyfullproofthatreliefsculptureatthebeginningofthelateRomanperiodfollowedexactlythesameleadinglawasweestablishedforthedevelopmentofcontemporaryarchitecture.AmongtheotherreliefsfromthetriumphalarchunderdiscussiontherepresentationofConstantineaddressingthepeoplecomesclosest;thesubjectoftheotherreliefs(mostlywarscenes)demandedthatthefiguresmoveinoneway;astrictcentralization,aswehaveobservedit,wasnotpossiblehere.Therefore,symmetrywasinsuchcasespredominantlysoughtthroughaseries,eventhoughonecannotfailtorecognizealsoatendencytowardacentralizedcondensationintothesymmetryofthecontrast.(pp.524)From a modern perspective, one might worry about how much work one poorsegmentofRomanstonewasbeingaskedtodointhisruthlessanalysis. Inanearly example of modern art-historical method, Riegl published his account withtheimageinsertedintothetext(plate31)andindeedprefacedhisdescriptionwithanapologyof howthe photographfromwhichhe was writingslightlyabbreviated the actual relief (p. 52). Like other kinds of programmaticdescriptions of art (I amthinking, for instance, of Foucault's Las Meninas orLacan'sAmbassadors),52Riegl'sdiscussioniseffectivelyatransmutationof theobjectintohisown code andametamorphosis ofittowards thespecific endshehasinmind.Inhiscase,empiricalobservationistranslatedthroughdescriptioninto a pervasive formalism (which was, in fact, to establish all the major stylisticcriteria for late-antique art such as centralized composition on the plane;symmetry,`here. . .broughttoitspeak';imperialelevation;frontality;thedeepundercuttingoffigures). Butthekeymethodological pointisunstatedandonlyenacted. This one relief will stand for all the others (a point which the wriggling ofthelastparagraphquotedaboveisintendedtoenforce), and`exactlythesamerelationasbetweentheentirereliefandthefiguresissoughttoexistbetweenawhole figure andits parts.' It is onthe basis that one canmake the jumpsnecessarytograspthis`deepstructure',thatRieglcanthensmoothlyarguethatreliefsculpture`followedexactlythesameleadinglaw'ashehadestablishedforarchitecture. This principle, that there is a single volition expressed through styleRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 367and form which is the same, whatever is being analysed, not just within a work ofart but within all the works of art in a given epoch, is an unproven andunprovableaxiomonwhichrests boththegrandeur andthefollyof RieglianKunstwollen. But what matters here is that we can see it at work in the very smallscale of Riegl's individual discussions (and here Kunstwollen as an abstractconcepthasnotbeennamed)aswellasinhisgrandconclusions.At this point in the argument, before he had actually come to makegeneralizations about the Constantinian Kunstwollen but it had already effectivelybeenpostulatedastheaprioribasisoftheargument,Rieglturnedtodecline.TheaestheticevaluationoftheConstantinianreliefwasgenerallynotdisputed,becauseitwasuniversallyagreedthatthesereliefswereaprimewitnessforthedeepestdeclineofart.AmongthemostlenientapologieswerethattheArchofConstantinehadbeenbuiltingreathasteasevidentbythere-useofparticularreliefsfromearliermonuments.Themainproponentsofthisopinion[i.e.theadherentsofdecline]willbesurprisedtoseethatindifferentworksveryparticularandpositiveprinciplesofstyle,asjustdemonstrated,arefollowedmeticulously.YettheseprinciplesofstylearenottheonesofClassicalart;andbecauseuntilnowthereliefshavebeenassessedbytheyardstickofclassicalantiquity,theyhavebeenfoundwanting. . .TheConstantinianreliefshavealwaysbeenconsideredtolackpreciselywhatwasessentialtotheClassicalreliefs.Thatis,beautifulanimation.Thefiguresseemeduglyontheonehand,andclumsyandmotionlessontheother.Itseemedjustifiabletodeclarethemifnottheveryhandiworkofbarbariansthenatleasttheproductsofbarbarizedcraftsmen.Asfarasbeautygoes,wedoindeedmisstheproportionswhichcompareeverypartaccordingtosizeandmotionwithotherpartsandwiththewhole;butinitsplace,wehavefoundanotherformofbeautywhichisexpressedinthestrictestsymmetricalconceptionandwhichwemightcallcrystallinebecauseitconstitutesthefirstandeternalprincipalformfortheinanimatedrawmaterialandbecauseitcomescomparativelyclosesttoabsolutebeauty(materialindividuality).Thishowevercanonlybeimagined.BarbarianswouldhaverepresentedtheproportionalprincipleofthebeautycomingdownfromClassicalartwithmisunderstoodandcruderexpressions.ThecreatorsoftheConstantinianreliefshavereplaceditthroughanotherandhavethusdemonstratedindependentKunstwollen. . .(pp.545).Quite apart from the attack on decline, and the discursive choice to raise thistothehighestlevel withall thetalkofbeauty, eternal principles, evenabsolutebeauty, Riegl chosepreciselythissforzandoof rhetorical effusiontointroduceKunstwollen. It appears hereas theindependent Constantinianproduct of theanalyticallyobservedqualitiesof thelargitiorelief, somethingbothhistoricallytrue in its own time and analytically true of Riegl's own objectivizing formalisticdescription. But as we have seen, Kunstwollen was also the methodologicalpremise for getting to where we have arrived. It is perhaps best seen as a kind ofaesthetichomology, wherebythequalitiesof therelationsof thepartstoeachRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901368 AssociationofArtHistorians2002other reflect those of the part to the whole and of the whole to all the other art oftheperiod.ItmaybethatwecanalwaysreplacethetermKunstwolleninRieglwithstyle, ChristopherWoodsuggests,53butthiswouldbetodepriveitoftheaesthetic, instinctive, perceptual andpre-conceptual qualities withwhichRieglwants to imbue it. By the time Riegl had reached the end of Spa tro mischeKunstindustrie,hewasinaposition(effectivelyarhetoricalposition,dependenton all the discussion that had gone before) to generalize about the characteristicsof the late RomanKunstwollenas if they hadanindependent andobjectiveexistenceoutsidehis discussion: aesthetichomologies, practisedontheminutescale within monuments and on the larger scale across monuments, could result ina generalization whose truth-value lay in its revealing history. Effectively, objects analysed purely from a formal point of view and compared could be made torenderhistoryaseffectivelyasdocumentarysources. Theinvocationoftextualsources the Neoplatonists and especially St Augustine in the last chapter of thebook(entitled, `TheMainCharacteristicsof theLateRomanKunstwollen') isRiegl'swayofsignallingthisfeat.Havingestablishedhis independent ConstantinianKunstwollen, Riegl gavebirth to the independence of late antiquity as a specific period of historical study.Twokeyquestionsremained. First, intermsof theArchof Constantine, howcouldworks of art derivedfromdifferent Kunstwollens (namelysecond- andfourth-century) be juxtaposed? In part because of his conviction that one was thenatural development of the other (though radically different from it), this questionwas not a problem for Riegl; indeed the very existence of the Arch of Constantinewas empirical proof that there was not a problem here (pp. 101102). Second, in akey question which would remain a resounding challenge to the whole of GermanClassical art historyforthenext twogenerations, Riegl asked: `Howwasthischangemadepossible?DoesanybridgeleadbackfromConstantinetoClassicalart?' (p. 57) Riegl'sattempt tosketchananswer(pp. 5783) extendingbackthroughEgyptian andGreek art concluded thata `necessary precondition' wasan`exactinsight' intotheartsofthe`middleEmpire' (p. 78). Hehimselfmadeonly a few stabs at discussing late Antonine and Severan images, but commentedthat `whoever has the opportunity to look at an almost complete series of Romanimperial portraits in marble will have gained the impression that Marcus Aureliusconstitutesadeepdivision.'(p.79)This was to be prophetic or perhaps, more in keeping with Rieglianteleology it was to sketch the outlines of what Riegl's successors would colour inasadetailedimageoflateAntonineart,whichwasspecificallygiventheroleofanticipatingthe Archof Constantine.54Large parts of the careers of some ofRiegl's major successors in the north German tradition especially Max WegnerandGerhartRodenwaldtweretobedevotedtodescribingthe`lateAntonineStilwandel' (or transformation of styles).55Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli (himself amajorstudent of thisgreat German tradition) described late Antonine art as `thebeginning of a wholly new concept, something destined to culminate in a genuinebreakwithtradition. . . theorigins of theso-calledSpa tantike, theart of lateantiquityinitspre-medievalphase'.56Indeed,theracetofindtheoriginsoflateantiquityledaseriesofgreatarthistoriansonaneverearlierhuntforthekeytransformativemonument (anevolutionarymissinglink). Bymid-century, KarlRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 369LehmannhadproposedtheColumnof Trajan,57Rodenwaldt thecircus relieffromOstia,58CharlesRufusMoreytheArchofTitus.59This brief sketch of the reception of Riegl's work demonstrates its success inestablishing the independence of late-antique (as opposed to specificallyChristian) art within the German art-historical tradition. Moreover, by directingscholarly attention to the internal development of Roman art, Riegl implied thatit was unnecessary to look elsewhere for instance, outside the Roman world for a causal explanation of change. Rather there was one dynamic process withinthe tradition of changing Roman imperial Kunstwollen (at war with thelimitations of materials within any given cultural context) that produced specificarts ofspecificstyles.Here hisinfluencewasfundamentalandappearsnotonlyintheGermanschool of Wegner andRodenwaldt (as well as Lehmann) butequally in major scholars from diverse other educational contexts such as BianchiBandinelli (Italian), HansPeterL'Orange(Norwegian)andMorey(American).Where Riegl lost specifically among those that might be called his own discipleswasinhispositiveandpolemicalstandforlateantiquityasaprogressiveartagainst theprophets of decline. Thenewspirit of theSpa tantikewas rapidlysubsumedbackintotheRenaissancelanguageof decadence. So, for instance,BernardBerenson'sfamousassaultontheArchofConstantine,whichcontainsseveral laudatory references to Riegl and is, in fact, thoroughly in Riegl's debt inseeing the arch within a Romano-centric process of artistic production,nonetheless reverses Riegl's notionof progress andreplaces it withRaphael'sand Vasari's polemic against decline.60Likewise Bianchi Bandinelli, in one of themoreover-the-topparagraphs of Rome: TheCentreof Power writes of late-antiqueartasthecongruenceof`formalabstraction,decompositionoforganicforms, and an irrational reliance on metaphysical solutions for the world'sproblems'.61Secondly, what Riegl had envisaged as the broad multicultural melting pot ofimperialRome(itselfanidealizingmulticultural,andhenceinitscontemporarycontext apolitical, imageof theHolyRomanempireof his owntime) couldequallybemorenarrowlydefinedasRomanor Italicinaracial sense. IntheIntroductiontoSpa tro mischeKunstindustrie,Rieglhadexplicitlywritten:Inselectingtheword`Roman'insteadof`antique'IhadinmindtheentireRomanempirebutnotasIwishtoemphasizestronglyfromtheoutsetthecityofRomeortheItalicpeopleorthenationsofthewesternhalfoftheempire.(p.14)Yet rapidly this was turned into a national problem, especially in the German ratherthanAustro-Hungarianreceptionof Riegl.62For Germanart history, withitsfundamentally philhellenic prejudices (reaching back to Winckelmann), the Italiannatureof Romanart wasanaidtothetheoristsof decline, sinceit representedsouthern decadence by contrastwiththe Nordic spirit. Asnationalism (as wellasovert racism) began to permeate scholarship in the 1920s and 1930s, figures such asJohannes Sieveking and Carl Weickert tried ever more precisely to define the Italicelements in Roman art and to identify a national spirit in Roman production whichwas at the same time a cause for the disintegration of Greek forms.63RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901370 AssociationofArtHistorians2002TheOrientalthesisandsomereverberationsMeanwhile, inthesameyearthatRiegl publishedSpa tro mischeKunstindustrie,Strzygowski produced Orient oder Rom. Using an entirely different body of visualmaterial from Riegl (and arguably a more adventurous one) Palmyrene paintings(e.g. plate 32) and sculptures, the sarcophagi of Asia Minor, early Christian ivoriesfromEgypt andCoptic textiles Strzygowski mountedanargument for theoriginsofChristianandlate-antiqueartwhichwaspolemicallydirectedagainstWickhoff's Vienna Genesis book. The persistent attack on Wickhoff, beginning inthe first paragraph of the `Einleitung' on page 1, dominates the entire introduction(pp. 110) andinforms the shape of the book. Strzygowski claimedthat the32 FrescofromtheHouseoftheThreeBrothers,Palmyra.PerhapsAD3rdcentury.Photo:AfterStrzygowski,OrientoderRom,page16,figure3.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 371changes in late-antique art and the rise ofChristian art were not a Romandevelopment but rather the pervasiveand malicious influence of the East, risenagain from its slumbers after centuries ofGreek dominance to destroy the Hellenictradition.64Denying any coherent orunitary`individualculture'or`nationalart' to the `colourless mass-culture of theRoman empire' (p. 8 an antitheticposition fromthat of Riegl), Strzygowskiarguedfor multiple centres of artisticproduction and influence and for theweakness of the Graeco-Roman tra-ditionfallingpreytotheEast.Evokinga famous image in Winckelmann,65Strzygowski wastopresentHellasasabeautiful maiden who sold herself to an`Old Semite' to be kept as the jewel of hisharem, surrounded by the `Semitic pack'teamingwithsilkandgoldandgems.Riegl's attempt (in Stilfragen) to see thecontinuity of Byzantium and Islam withGreece was a fundamental miscon-structionofthe`tenaciousracial artofthe Orient', whose move fromMeso-potamiatoConstantinopleimpliedthewrestingof the NewRome fromthearms of the Greeks into Orientaldecadence.ThetenacityofthisOrien-talraceisexemplifiedbythefigureoftheWanderingJew.66Itisnotdifficulttoseewhereallthiswasleading.Strzygowski's influence among those who specifically claimed to be Romanists(or whosought toupholdthetraditionof Wickhoff andRiegl) was relativelysmall.OttoBrendel,inhisownhighlyslantednarrativeofthehistoriographyofRomanart,dismissesthe`OrientoderRom'controversyashavinglittleimmediateinfluence. . .Itfailedtoopennewavenueswheretheyweremostneeded,withregardtothemonumentsofItalyandespeciallyRomeherself.ThestrictdenialofaRomanartafterWickhoffandRieglrancountertocommonexperience. . .ThesearchforthepropercharacteristicsofRomanartwasfelttobethepressingtaskafter1901.67But this is a highly partisan commentary, seriously underestimating the impact ofStrzygowski'sworkonscholarsofearlyChristianartandofJewishart. So, by33 Muralpaintingofamalefigure,fromthewestwalloftheSynagogueofDuraEuropos,c.AD240.Syria.Photo:courtesyofYaleUniversityArtGallery,DuraEuroposCollectionRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901372 AssociationofArtHistorians2002contrast, Charles Rufus Moreyin1942wrote that Strzygowski's contribution`openingupperspectivesofEastChristianartunsuspectedbytheearlierRoma-centricview, exertedapowerful influenceontheliteratureinthisfieldof thepresent century'.68Strzygowski's sway within the field was significantly enhancedby the single most important art-historical discovery of the 1920s and 1930s in theRomanEast:namely,theSynagogueofDuraEuroposinSyria.Discovered in the excavation campaign of 1932,69the Dura Synagogue (plates33and34)appearedlikeanempirical measurementinthehardscienceswhichwould prove an hitherto speculative hypothesis. Where actual astronomicalobservations couldconfirmEinstein's Theoryof Relativity(for instance), soamajormonumentofJewishartfromtheEastwasseizeduponbymanyastheproof of Jewish (and hence Oriental) influence in the genesis of Christian and late-antique art. Inthe historiographyof earlyChristianart, the DuraSynagogue(more than all the other remains of Dura put together) whose date of discoveryis so extraordinarily close to the rise of the most traumatic of all periods in Jewishhistory is a remarkable case of the spectacular impact of a chance monumentalsurvival.70Strzygowski's use of Palmyrene tomb frescoes from what is now knownasthetomboftheThreeBrothers(plate32)seemedbrilliantlytohavepresagedthestylisticallyrelatedwall paintingsofnearbyDura(plates33and34).71Onemightpoint, incomparingplates32and33, tothesimilarfrontal flatteningoffiguresagainst thebackground, thereluctancetousenaturalistictechniquesofvisual illusionism, thesquareframingof heads. Likewise, quiteapart fromthesimilar iconographic focus on women and children in plates 32 and 34, there is aparallel almost faux-naf use of paintedarchitectural features (the dados,34 MuralpaintingshowingElijahrevivingtheWidow'sChild,fromthewestwalloftheSynagogueofDuraEuropos,c.AD240.Syria.Photo:courtesyofYaleUniversityArtGallery,DuraEuroposCollectionRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 373paintedtoresemblemarblepanellingbutnotsoastoeffectatrompel'oeil,thecolumn in plate 32). The style of these kinds of images, dismissed as `mediocre' atbest and the work of `local artists of very moderate ability . . . dependentultimatelyonthehybridizedtraditionsof thehellenizedOrient onthewesternedgeofParthia' withitsfrontalityandstaticsymmetrywasgristtothemill ofStrzygowskianOrientalism.72MikhailRoztovtzeff(1938)specificallywroteof`areturn to the principles of Oriental art, a return to a simpler, more elementary and. . . amorebarbaricformofart'.73CharlesRufusMorey, writingofDurajustaroundthetimeof Strzygowski'sdeath, commented: `Thisfrontiertownisanalmost perfect illustration of the process whereby Hellenism sank `intothe Orient's embrace'', to use Strzygowski's phrase.'74The Biblical subject matter,no less than the style, led naturally towards that of Christian art.75In the work ofKurt Weitzmann, for example, Dura held a dominant place as the key toexaminingtheriseofearlyChristianpictorialnarrative.76Empiricism,idealismandtheproblemsofthebiganswersForothers, not least Andre GrabarandErnst Kitzinger, theOriental thesisofStrzygowski led down the path of positing a `sub-antique' or `third-world' cultureof image production within the Roman empire and on its margins which could beemployed as part of the causal explanation for the transformation of forms in lateantiquity.77Kitzinger inparticular another exile fromViennaandone tornbetweentheconflictingRieglianandStrzygowskianstrandsinhisownculturalheritageshowsthecontinuinglegacyofthisintellectual schismaslateasthe1970s. His Byzantine Art in the Making, a series of lectures delivered inCambridge in1974 andpublishedin1977, is anentirely stylistic attempt toexplorewhathecallsthe`crises',`conflicts'and`syntheses'inthestylesoflate-antiqueimage-makingintermswhicheffectivelyattempt tobringtogethertheRieglian and Strzygowskian apparatuses. Kitzinger wants his period (fromConstantine to Justinian) to be `a bridge between Antiquity and the Middle Ages'(pp.23),nota`simpleprogression'butan`organicdevelopment'inwhich`theperiodasawholedoeshaveaninternaldevelopmentofitsown.'(p.3)Heevenentertains (as late as 1977) the Hegelianextensionof Riegl's Kunstwollenbyacceptingthenotionof Zeitgeist for theinterpretationof forminits culturalcontext (p. 17). But Kitzinger also accepts the significance of what he describes as`regional factors' (p. 4)themultipleregional schoolsandstyles(Alexandrian,Asiatic and so forth) which he ascribes to Charles Rufus Morey, but which Moreyborroweddirectly fromOrient oder Rom(pp. 34).78Kitzinger's chapter on`AncientArtinCrisis' explicitlycitesbothRiegl (forthemovetowardsopticaleffects, p. 15, n. 23) and his followers who advocated the late Antonine Stilwandel(Rodenwaldtp. 11, n.13andp. 18, n. 27: Wegner14, nn.2021).However,histext itself mentions Strzygowski more thanonce (p. 9, by name, andp. 11,through quotation). Kitzinger uses Strzygowski to formulate his own notion of the`sub-antique' (pp. 1113)asagroupingofregional stylistictendencies, foundedupon Strzygowsi's form of Orientalism. All this is conducted in an extraordinarilycareful discourse, full of caveats and ambivalent about every proposition even as itRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901374 AssociationofArtHistorians2002is put forward.79Kitzinger uses the trick of naming scholars to avoid himself beingdirectly responsible for the positions which they represent but which he upholds.Thusatpage9,forinstance,Kitzingerdistanceshimselffrom`Decline'byusingBerenson as its advocate, but nonetheless he condemns the Arch of Constantine inBerensonianterms as the `collapse of the Classical Greekcanonof forms', a`breakdown' of`jerky, overemphaticanduncoordinated' images(p. 7), withnoalternativeRieglianKunstwollensummonedtotherescue.I myself feelas uncomfortable about Kitzinger's bookas he clearly did aboutthe remarkablyconflictive andcreative traditionof Viennese-style art historywhichhewasattemptingtosynthesize. ModernresponsestoKitzingeramountlargely to silence, but the discomfort lies especially on the level of formalism. It isfoundedontheconvictionprettywellasuniversallyheldnowasformalistarthistory was universally dominant half a century ago that stylistic analysis alonetells us precious little beyondthe prejudices of its interpreters. Yet Kitzinger,working withinthe formalist traditionof whichRiegl was perhaps the mostsignificantfounderandStrzygowskioneofthemostbrilliantexponents,revealsthatthetwoprotagonistsofthispaperhadmoreincommonmethodologicallythan their polemic and political differences might imply. The tremendous strengthof the Vienna School lies in its empiricism (to which Riegl and Strzygowski wereboth wedded), tied to a brilliant visual acuity in the stylistic description ofmaterial.Althoughsuchamethodhasoftenbeenaccusedofreductivism,thisisnottrueineitherthecaseofRieglorthatofStrzygowski. Rather,inbothcases,therewasarichstylisticgenerationofvaluableart-historicaldata.Theproblemwithplentiful dataisthatitisnevereasytowelditintoanoverarchingtheory(you might say that this was the credo of cautious British empiricism), but it is thewonderful ambition of Viennese art history (shared not only by Riegl andStrzygowskibutalso,especially,byGombrich)preciselytocombinethenarrowfocusofempiricismwithagrandthesis.Thebiganswers,apparentlyinductionsfromthe evidence, turnout tobe axiomatic assumptions about evolutionaryprogressandchangeinamulti-cultural empire(inRiegl), orthescientificandexperimental roots of artistic genius in anti-collectivist individualism (inGombrich)orproto-Nazi Aryanism(inStrzygowski). Interestingly, theseareallquite specific political responses tocontemporary themes entirely outside thespecificart-historicalperiodsdiscussedbyanyofthesescholars.What is most strikingly sharedby Riegl andStrzygowski especially bycontrast with Kitzinger is an empirical formalismembedded in profoundidealism.Theminutestylisticevidenceonlymattersinitsrelevanceandsupportforasetofverygrandphilosophical, culturalandhistoricalpropositionsinthegreattraditionofidealistAustrianandGermanhumanism. Afterthehorrorofwhat this tradition could lead to in the 1930s and 1940s (and the permanent taintonthenamesofsomeofGermany'smajornon-Jewisharthistorians, includingStrzygowski, butalsoSedlmayrandRodenwaldtamongthosementionedhere),formalism'smost committedadherents, likeKitzingerwereleft withastylisticmethod but no idealist theory to which to tie it. This, I think, helps to explain theextraordinarycaution ofByzantine ArtintheMaking, whichcouldbe describedas style art history without conviction. Gombrich, who was, of course, an unusual(Warburgian) Viennese in never being wedded to style, is in this sense the last ofRIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 375thegreatpre-wararthistorians.Forhisarthistoryisempiricallysupported,all-inclusive and strains towards a universally valid philosophical thesis grounded inthe work of Viennese thinkers like Popper and Hayek (both explicitly credited inArt and Illusion),80who happened, like him, to have been exiled to London.81Butwhat is interesting in the eclipse of art-historical formalism in the quarter centurysince Byzantine Art in the Making is that once scholars lost their faith ingeneralizingfromstylisticobservationstomajorhistoricalconclusions(alossoffaith based more on the negative example of Strzygowski and others than on thestill inspiringandgenuinelyeducational paradigmof Riegl), thenthe stylisticmethoditselfwasdoomed. Despitetheempirical justificationsforstyleincloselookingandcareful description, what has always reallymatteredis the greatidealist desire for a set of big answers which such close looking has been imaginedtooffer.Jas ElsnerCorpusChristiCollege,OxfordNotesMythanksareduetoNatalieBoymelKampenandMargaretOlinfortheircommentsonanearlierdraft,toPaulCrosleyforhisenthusiasm,toSorchaCareyandViccyColtmanforcommissioningthefirstsketchofthispaperforthe`Who'sWhoinClassicalArtHistory'dayattheCourtauldInstitutein2000,andtoSalvatoreSettisandFrancescodeAngelisforinvitingmetogivealaterversionattheScuolaNormaleSuperioreinPisa.Iamgrateful,too,toDanaArnoldandtheanonymousrefereefortheircritique.1 SoatleastarguesR.BianchiBandinelli,`Spaetantike'Enciclopediadell'ArteAntica,vol.7,Rome,1966,pp.4267.2 Strzygowski'sbookwaswrittenasanattackonF.Wickhoff'sWienerGenesis,Vienna,1895.HesubsequentlyattackedRiegl'sSpa tro mischeKunstindustriein`HellasunddesOrientsUmarmung',BeilagezurMu nchenerAllgemeinenZeitung,18February1902,p.313andinhisreviewinBZ11(1902)pp.2636.Rieglrespondedwith`Spa tro mischoderOrientalisch?'BeilagezurMu nchenerAllgemeinenZeitung934(23April1902)translatedas`LateRomanorOriental?'inG.Schiff(ed.)GermanEssaysonArtHistory,NewYork,1988,pp.17390.SeealsoJ.Strzygowski,`DieSchicksaledesHellenismusinderBildendenKunst',NeueJahrbu cherfu rdasklassischeAltertum,GeschichteunddeutscheLiteratur8(1905)pp.1933.3 Late-antiqueartmatterstoGombrichasbeingarchetypallynotthat`incorporationintheimageofallthefeaturesthatserveusinreallifeforthediscoveryandtestingofmeaning'whichbelongto`thespecialtricksofnaturalism'and`whichenabledtheartisttodowithfewerandfewerconventions'(TheImageandtheEye,Oxford,1981,p.297):seeforinstanceArtandIllusion,London,1960,pp.1245.4 SeeGombrich,1960,op.cit.(note3),p.16forKunstwollenas`aghostinthemachine'and(withthehelpofaquotationfromMeyerShapiro)`vagueandoftenfantastic'.CfMeditationsonaHobbyHorse,Oxford,1963,p.114:`NowIdonotwanttogiveyoutheimpressionthatRieglwasafool.Hewasnot.Buthetoofellvictimto. . .thefetishismofthesinglecause.'GombrichismuchmorenuancedinTheSenseofOrder,London,1984,viiiandpp.18097.5 SeeJ.Bakos,`TheViennaSchool's168thGraduate:TheViennaSchool'sIdeasRevisedbyE.H.Gombrich',inR.Woodfield(ed.),GombrichonArtandPsychology,Manchester,1996,pp.23457,esp.237.6 SeeE.Gombrich,reviewofJ.Badonyi,EntstehungundBedeutungdesGoldgrundesinderspa tantikenBildkomposition,KritischeBerichtezurKunstgeschichtlichenLiteratur5(1932/3)pp.6575,withR.Woodfield,`Introduction'toWoodfield,1996,op.cit.(note5),pp.126,esp.23.OnthelifelongbattleseeBakos,1996,op.cit.(note5),pp.23942,withGombrich'sresponse(wonderfullyimpassionedinitsdenialofsuchabattle!)atpp.25861,esp.25960.7 ForBianchiBandinelli'sthoughtsonRiegl,seehisentryintheEnciclopediadell'ArteAntica,vol.6,Rome,1965,pp.6836.Foracontextualizedhistoricalintroduction,seeD.G.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901376 AssociationofArtHistorians2002Reynolds,`AloisRieglandthePoliticsofArtHistory:IntellectualTraditionsandAustrianIdentityinFindeSie cleVienna',PhDdissertation,UniversityofCaliforniaatSanDiego,1997:AnnArbor(UMI),1997.8 OnRiegl'sroleinhelpingtocreateanautonomousdisciplineofarthistory,seeW.Sauerla nder,`AloisReiglunddieEntstehungderautonomenKustgeschichteamFindeSie cle'inR.Bauer(etal),FindeSie cle,Frankfurt,1977,pp.12539.9 O.Pa cht,`ArtHistoriansandArtCriticsVI:AloisRiegl',BurlingtonMagazinevol.105(1963)p.189callshimthefirsttotreattheminorartsas`amajorthemeofhistory'.Cf.Gombrich,1984,op.cit.(note4),p.182whocallsStilfragen`theonegreatbookeverwrittenaboutthehistoryofornament'.10 Especially Altorientalische Teppiche, Leipzig, 1891.11 Seeforexample,R.Winkes,`Foreword'toA.Riegl,LateRomanArtIndustry,Rome,1985,xixxiv,esp.xvixix.12 M.Olin,FormsofRepresentationinAloisRiegl'sTheoryofArt,UniversityPark,1992,pp.545.13 ibid.,pp.712.14 OntheViennaSchool,seetheusefulintroductionandbibliographybyC.WoodinC.Wood(ed.),TheViennaSchoolReader,NewYork,2000,pp.981.15 Pa cht,1963,op.cit.(note9),pp.1901.SeealsoOlin,1992,op.cit.(note12),pp.14853;M.Iversen,AloisRiegl:ArtHistoryandTheory,Cambridge,Mass,1993,pp.318,14966;M.A.Holly,PanofskyandtheFoundationsofArtHistory,Ithaca,1984,pp.6996;S.Alpers,`StyleisWhatYoumakeIt:TheVisualArtsOnceAgain',inB.Lang(ed.),TheConceptofStyle,Philadelphia,1979,pp.95117,esp.98105.16 SeeN.B.Kampen,`DemocracyandDebate:OttoBrendel's``ProlegomenatoaBookonRomanArt'' ',TAPA127(1997),pp.3818,esp.381,n.1.17 O.Brendel,ProlegomenatotheStudyofRomanArt,NewHaven,1979,p.31.18 E.Wind,TheEloquenceofSymbols,Oxford,1993,p.23.19 SeeH.Zerner,`AloisRiegl:Art,ValueandHistoricism',Daedalus105(1976),pp.17788,esp.1802andC.Wood,`Introduction'toE.Panofsky,PerspectiveasSymbolicForm,NewYork,1991,pp.716.ThetwokeytextshereareE.Panofsky`DerbegriffedesKunstwollens',Zeitschriftfu rA sthetikundAllgemeineKunstwissenschaft14(1920),pp.32139(translatedas`TheConceptofArtisticVolition'CriticalInquity8[1981]pp.1734)andH.Sedlmayr,`DieQuintessenzderLehrenRiegls',inKunstundWahrheit,Mittenwald,1978,pp.3248(originallypublishedin1929).20 SeeGombrich,1960,op.cit.(note3),pp.1425,withthecommentsofPa cht,1963,op.cit.(note9),p.192.21 Seeforexample,N.Bryson,VisionandPainting,London,1983,pp.1835.22 A.Riegl,`NaturwerkundKunstwerkI'inGesammelteAufsa tze,AugsburgandVienna,1929,pp.5164,p.56.23 Onviewing,seeM.Olin,`FormsofRespect:AloisRiegl'sConceptofAttentiveness'ArtBulletin71(1989),pp.28599;Olin,1992,op.cit.(note12),pp.15569;Iversen,1993,op.cit.(note15),pp.12447.24 SeeOlin,1992,op.cit.(note12),xviiixx,pp.1807.25 ibid.,p.175.26 OnRieglandconservation,seeS.Scarrocchia,AloisRiegl:TeoriaePravidellaConservazionedeiMonumenti,Bologna,1995.27 SeeM.Olin,`AloisRiegl:TheLateRomanEmpireintheLateHapsburgEmpire',AustrianStudies5(1994),pp.107120.Thispaper,insomewhatdifferentform,appearsalsoasM.Olin,`ArtHistoryandIdeology:AloisRieglandJosefStrzygowski'inP.S.GoldandB.C.Bax(eds.),CulturalVisions:EssaysintheHistoryofCulture,Amsterdam,2000,pp.15170.SeealsoReynolds,1997,op.cit.(note7),pp.25260.28 Forahagiographicversionofhislifeandwork,seeM.Dvora k,`AloisRiegl'inGesammelteAufsa tzezurKunstgeschichte,edsJ.WildeandK.Swoboda,Munich,1929,27999.29 Sothekindsofanti-Hegelianism,commitmenttoabstraction(non-mimeticelements)andevenproto-structuralismidentifiedbyM.Iversen,`StyleasStructure:AloisRiegl'sHistoriography'ArtHistoryvol.2(1979),pp.6272,esp.627.OnRieglandWalterBenjamin,seeIversen,1993,op.cit.(note15),pp.1416.30 OnStrzygowksi,seeE.Frodl-Kraft,`EineAporieundderVersuchihrerDeutung:JosefStrzygowskiundJuliusv.Schlosser',WienerJahrbuchfu rKunstgeschichte42(1989),pp.752andS.Marchand,`TheRhetoricofArtifactsandtheDeclineofClassicalHumanism:TheCaseofJosefStrzygowski'HistoryandTheory:ThemeIssue33(1994),pp.10630.31 Marchand,ibid,p.116.32 ibid.,p.120.33 WitnessforexamplehisveryminorroleinhiscolleagueJuliusvonSchlosser'sDieWienerSchuledeKunstgeschichte,Innsbruck,1934,whereStrzygowskifiguresonlybrieflyintheaccountofMaxDvorak,pp.11415.34 CfMarchand,1994,op.cit.(note30),p.121.35 OntheracismofStrzygowski'sEastaseffectivelyadislocatedAryanWest,seeA.Wharton,RefiguringthePostClassicalCity,Cambridge,1996,pp.1011.36 SeeespeciallyM.Olin,` ``EarlyChristianSynagogues''and``JewishArtHistorians'':TheDiscoveryoftheSynagogueofDura-Europos'MarburgerJahrbuchfu rKunstwissenschaft27(2000),pp.728,esp.201.37 OnStrzygowskiandWorldArt,seeU.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 377Kultermann,TheHistoryofArtHistory,NewYork,1993,p.166;onWorldArtinitsmodernincarnation,seee.g.I.Lavin(ed.),WorldArt:ThemesofUnityinDiversity:ActsoftheXXVIthInternationalCongressoftheHistoryofArt,UniversityPark,Pa,1989;R.Nelson,`TheMapofArtHistory'ArtBulletin79(1997)pp.2840.38 ParticularlywelldiscussedbyMarchand,1994,op.cit.(note30).39 ForsomegeneralcommentsandbibliographyonSpa tro mischeKunstindustrie,seeS.Scarrocchia,StudisuAloisRiegl,Bologna,1986,pp.758.40 Olin,1992,op.cit.(note12),p.129.41 F.Wickhoff,RomanArt,London,1900,p.7wentforthefifthcentury.42 ThepreambletotheViennaGenesisbookwastranslatedintoEnglishbyMrsStrongasRomanArt,London,1900.43 Wickhoff,1900,forexamplepp.178,557,769.InthisheanticipatedCliveBellandRogerFry.OnWickhoff'sdefenceofmodernistartpractice(intheformofKlimt),seeM.A.Holly`SpiritsandGhostsintheHistoriographyofArt'inM.Cheetham,M.HollyandK.Moxey(eds),TheSubjectofArtHistory,Cambridge,1998,pp.5271.44 SeeBrendel,1979,op.cit.(note17),pp.2537foranexcellentanalysisoftherelationsbetweenSpa tro mischeKunstindustrieandWienerGenesis,andthewayRiegldevelopedandexpandedWickhoff'sinsights.45 OnRiegl's`Austrianformalism'anditsparticularexpressioninSpa tro mischeKunstindustrie,seeW.Kemp,`Introduction'toAloisRiegl,TheGroupPortraitureofHolland,LosAngeles,1999,pp.157,esp.69.46 OnRieglandstyle,seeI.Frank,`AloisRiegl(18581905)etl'analysedustyledesartsplastiques'Litte rature105(1997)pp.6677.47 SeethediscussionsinG.Kaschnitz-Weinberg,`AloisRiegl:Spa tro mischeKunstindustrie'Gnomon5(1929)pp.195213;Brendel,1979,op.cit.(note17),pp.2937;Olin,1992,op.cit.(note12),pp.12953;Iversen,1993,op.cit.(note15),pp.7091.48 Olin,1994,op.cit.(note27),11213.49 Riegl,1985,op.cit(note11),pp.527,67,768,90,91,92,93,945,99,101,103.50 SeeF.Haskell,HistoryandItsImages,NewHaven,1993,pp.11823.51 Olin,1992,op.cit.(note12),p.130,withreferences.52 ForFoucault'sdiscussionofVelazquez'sLasMeninas,seeM.Foucault,TheOrderofThings:AnArchaeologyoftheHumanScinces,London,1970,pp.316;forLacan'suseofHolbein'sTheAmbassadors,seeJ.Lacan,TheFourFundamentalConceptsofPsychoanalysis,London,1977,pp.859.53 Wood,2000,op.cit.(note14),p.10.54 Onthis,ingeneral,seemy`FrontalityintheColumnofMarcusAurelius'inJ.ScheidandV.Huet(eds),AutourdelacolonneAure lienne,Tournhout,2000,pp.25164.55 Forexample,M.Wegner,DiekunsgeschichtlicheStellungderMarkussa ule,JarhbuchdesdeutschenArcha ologischenInstituts46(1931)pp.61174;G.Rodenwaldt,U berderStilwandelinderAntoninischenKunst,AbhandlungenderPreussischenAkademiederWissenschaften,no.3,Berlin,1935;M.Pallottino,`L'orientamentostilisticodellaculturaAureliana'LeArti1(1938),pp.326;G.Rodenwaldt,`ZurBegrenzungundGliederungderSpa tantike',JarhbuchdesdeutschenArcha ologischenInstituts59/60(1944/45)pp.817.56 R.BianchiBandinelli,Rome:TheCentreofPower,London,1970,p.314.57 K.Lehmann-Hartleben,DieTrajansa ule:einro mischesKunstwerkzuBeginnderSpa tantike,BerlinandLeipzig,1926,esp.pp.1524.58 G.Rodenwaldt,`Ro mischeReliefs;VorstufenzurSpa tantike',JahrbuchdesdeutschenArcha ologischenInstituts55(1940)pp.1243,esp.1222.59 C.R.Morey,EarlyChristianArt,Princeton,1942,pp.501.60 Itmightbesaid,bytheway,thatBerenson'sreasonsforespousingdeclinelaynotsimplyinsolidaritywiththeRenaissancetradition,butalsointheparticularhistoricalmomentwhenhesatdowntowrite,namely1941.SeeJ.Elsner,`Berenson'sDecline,orhisArchofConstantineReconsidered'.Apollovol.148,no.437,July1998,pp.202.61 R.BianchiBandinelli,Rome:TheCentreofPower,London,1970,pp.3212.62 ItremainsarealconcernofBrendel'sthroughouthisProlegomena.Seeesp.Brendel,1979.op.cit.(note17),pp.311(hisintroduction)onthe`Romanproblem'.EveninmodernClassicalarchaeology,theproblemlingersseeT.Ho lscher,Ro mischeBildsprachealssemantischesSystem,Heidelberg,1987,pp.1113;S.Settis,`Un'arteplurale.L'imperoromanao,iGrecieiposteri'inE.GabbaandA.Schiavone(eds.),StoriadiRomaIV:Caracteriemorfologie,Turin,1989,pp.82778.63 SeeBrendel,1979,op.cit.(note17),4768.64 OnStrzygowski'sposition,seeibid.,pp.3847andWharton,1996,op.cit.(note35),pp.312.65 FromtheveryendofWinckelmann'sTheHistoryoftheArtofAntiquity,seeA.Potts,FleshandtheIdeal:WinckelmannandtheOriginsofArtHistory,NewHaven,1994,pp.4850.66 Forthis,seeOlin,1994,op.cit.(note27),pp.1145,withreferences.67 SeeBrendel,1979,op.cit.(note17),p.4768 Morey,1942,op.cit.(note59),p.203,n.69.69 SeeC.H.Kraeling,TheSynagogue(DuraEuroposFinalReportVIII.2),NewHaven,1956,pp.46.RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901378 AssociationofArtHistorians200270 ForanexcellentdiscussionseeOlin,2000,op.cit.(note36).71 OnthetomboftheThreeBrothers,seeJ.Strzygowski,OrientOderRom,Leipzig,1901,pp.1132;M.Colledge,TheArtofPalmyra,London,1976,pp.847.OnthePalmyra-Duraparallelsinstylisticmatters,seeforexampleibidp.87andA.Perkins,TheArtofDura-EuroposOxford,1973,pp.1245.72 Formediocrity,seeM.I.Rostovtzeff,Dura-EuroposandItsArt,Oxford,1938,pp.78and85:`archaicclumsy,static,naveandprimitive'.Foramoredetailedstylisticaccountbroadlyinlinewiththisjudgement,seePerkins,1973,op.cit.(note71),pp.11417.Forincompetentartists,seeE.Gombrich,TheStoryofArt,NewYork,1972,p.89andR.Brilliant,`PaintingatDura-EuroposandRomanArt'inJ.Gutmann(ed.),TheDuraSynagogue,Missoula,Mo.,1973,pp.2330,esp.p.28(whencethequote).73 Rostovtzeff,1938,86.Myquotationexcludeshisapologyforthisdescription`ifonelikestoapplytoitwhatistomymindaninadequateterm'(namely`barbaric').HoweverthisdoesnotpreventRostovtzeffspecificallychoosingtoapplytheterm!74 Morey,1942,op.cit.(note59),p.28.75 Seeesp.K.WeitzmannandH.Kessler, TheFrescoesoftheDuraSynagogueandChristianArt,WashingtonDC,1990andA.Grabar'sthree`recherchessurlessourcesjuivesdel'artpale ochre tien'(fromthe1960s)reprintedinl'artdelafindel'antiquite etdumoyenage,vol.2,Paris,1968,pp.74194.76 SeeWeitzmannandKessler,ibid.pp.34fortheplaceofDurainWeitzmann'sworkinthe1930s,1940sand1950s.Weitzmann'scharacteristicmethodoftracingsourcesofexistingworkinallmediatolostmanuscriptprototypesisitselfindebtedtoStrzygowski,who(forexample)positedtheoriginsofTrajan'sColumninabookscroll(1901,op.cit.[note71],p.4).Itisworthnotingthatallthegreatadvocatesinthebattleoverlate-antiqueartcuttheirteethinmanuscriptstudies.BothRieglandStrzygowskisparredinitiallyintheirworkontheCodex-Calendarof354,withthelattergoingontopublishnumerouslate-antiquemanuscripts,whileWickhoff'swholetheoryofRomanartwasfoundedontheexplicationoftheViennaGenesis.77 Esp.A.Grabar,`Letiersmondedel'Antiquite al'e coledel'artclassiqueetsonro ledanslaformationdel'artduMoyenAge',Revuedel'art18(1972),pp.926[=studyIinL'artpale ochetienetl'artbyzantin,London,1979];E.Kitzinger,EarlyMedievalArt,London,1940,pp.89;E.Kitzinger,ByzantineArtintheMaking,London,1977,pp.915.78 ApartfromthegeneralstructureofMorey'saccount,hischoiceoffrontispieceaChristiansarcophagusfragmentfromAsiaMinorinBerlinspeaksvolumes.Thispiece,whichMoreydescribedas`asymbolof[hisbook's]scopeandpurpose',hadformedthemainfocusofchapter2ofStrzygowski'sOrientoderRom,pp.4861,andmaybedescribedasavisualtalismanoftheStrzygowskiantradition.79 AsimilarpointwasmadeofKitzinger'scollectedessays(TheArtofByzantiumandtheMedievalWest,editedbyE.Kleinbauer,BloomingtonIndiana,1976)inawaspishbutacutereviewbyCyrilMango:`thecomplexityofKitzinger'sargumentationisfurtheraggravatedbyhistendencytoqualifynearlyeverygeneralstatementhemakes',in`ArtifactsintheAbstract',TLS25March,1977,p.381.80 ReferencestoPopper:ArtandIllusion,1977(5thedn),ix,pp.17,234;referencetoHayek:ibid.,24.81 IsittoofancifultoseeEnglandinthefadingtwilightofempireasparticularlyattractivetotheAustro-Hungarianemigre tradition(LondonasViennaontheThames),bycontrastwithAmericathenewworldsuperpoweranditsattractionfortheGermanrefugees?RIEGLANDSTRZYGOWSKIIN1901AssociationofArtHistorians2002 379