Erwin Panofsky (1892-1968): Thinker, Historian, Human Being

Author(s): Jan Biaostocki

Reviewed work(s):
Source: Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, Vol. 4, No. 2 (1970), pp. 68-89
Published by: Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3780356 .
Accessed: 22/05/2012 18:49

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

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Stichting voor Nederlandse Kunsthistorische Publicaties is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Simiolus: Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art.

http://www.jstor.org
 ERWIN PANOFSKY (1892-1968):
THINKER, HISTORIAN, HUMAN BEING
JAN BIAtOSTOCKI

1. The masterof art history

With the death of Erwin Panofsky on March14, 1968 one of the most important chap-
ters in the history of art history as a discipline of researchreached its close. At the
time of his death Panofsky was an undoubted master of his profession, perhaps even
more so than were Wolfflin, Friedlander,Focillon or Berensonwhen they passed away.
Each new study by Panofsky, however large or narrowits scope, used to be read with
interest by art historiansworking in various fields. Each advancedimportantnew state-
ments and insights;his writing was always witty and always young.
Panofsky was born at the end of the last century at a time when the power of the
Germanstate was at its height. He arrivedat maturity when Germanhumanisticscho-
larship had just reached the last stage of its world dominance. He died as an American
scholar; a master of Englishscholarly prose; a direct or indirect teacher of hundredsof
art historians throughout the world; the inventor of a method whose triumph went
beyond the borderlines of his own discipline; a duca e maestro of art-historicalre-
search.
The triumph of Panofsky came late in his life, but it was complete. In his years in
the Hamburg chair of the History of Art, first as Dozent (1921-26) and then as
Ordinarius(1926-33), the young scholar stood in the shadow of the foremost represen-
tatives of German art history: Schlosser, Wolfflin, Goldschmidt, Friedlander,Jantzen
were still alive and at the height of their powers. But Panofsky won the high esteem of
art historians with his very first studies. For his doctor's thesis - a perfect answerto a
question formulated by Wolfflin - he received the HermannGrimm Prize.1 Moreover
he soon became famous as a teacher: the young students, true to the Germantradition
of wandering from university to university, began to flow to Hamburg.In the short
time of less than twelve years at the university of that Hanseatic town Panofsky
trained a large group of prominent scholars, among them such names as Heydenreich
and Heckscher,Katzenellenbogenand Janson, Buchtal and WalterHorn.2
But his triumph came only when Panofsky began, from 1931 on, to teach in
America and when, from 1933 on, he began to write and to publish in English.His in-

* The
present article is an abridged version of the introduction to a selection of Panofsky's
writings soon to appear in Polish (Paistwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa). I have left out the
discussion of criticism of Panofsky's views, which may form a subject for a separate article. I quote
Panofsky's obituaries without their respective titles. I am very much indebted to Mr. Gary Schwartz,
whose corrections of the wording have transformed my own translation into idiomatic English.

1. Hans Kauffmann, obituary in Kunstchronik 1968, 261.

2. Hugo Buchthal,obituaryin A CommemorativeGatheringfor ErwinPanofskyat the Instituteof
Fine Arts New York Universityin Association with the Institute for AdvancedStudy, New York
1968, 12.

68
 PhotobyLotteJacobi

comparableerudition and his admirabletalent for logical, although sometimes intricate

thinking, his inborn wit and incredible feeling for languages, soon allowed him to
create an individualwriting style in an English marked by Anglo-Saxon clarity of ex-
pression. His highly specialized academic knowledge could now be fruitfully used in
works written for the generaleducated public. The Americancustom of organizinglec-
tures later to be publishedgave Panofsky'sactivity a convenient framework,facilitating
the publication of the books which brought him fame and glory in the English-
speaking world. Studies in Iconology (1939), The Life and Art of Albrecht Diirer
(1943), Early NetherlandishPainting (1953), Tomb Sculpture (1964): all these books

69
 show a happy mixture of Germanprecision and thoroughnesswith the simplicity and
wit of the Englishessay style.
Slowly Panofsky's fame began to reach beyond the narrow circle of art historians,
and also beyond the English-speakingworld, until it even penetratedhis land of origin,
which had expelled him after his dismissal from the university in 1933. His books
began to be translated,even in Germany and France, which for a long time had not
been very interested in what was going on in the field of the humanities outside her
own borders. Panofsky was famous: he received membershipsin learned societies and
academies,and honorary degrees from severaluniversities.The first of these, which was
granted to him at the nadir of his fortunes, in 1935, was the honorarydoctorate from
Utrecht University.
It was only one year before his death that Panofsky decided to end an absence of
33 years and visit the country which was once his own, which had expelled him and
which was as if forgotten. He came for a short stay, and even though he accepted the
high national order of West Germany, Pour le merite, he delivered his lecture in
English. In these ways he stressed his being a foreigner, he maintained distance and
mistrust. Although he admitted with pride to belonging to the great tradition of Ger-
man scholarship, he stressed his claim to being 'free from what may be suspected as
retroactiveGermanpatriotism'.3
Panofsky was not only the creator of a system and a method (in spite of the fact that
he denied it, with his acquiredAnglo-Saxondislike for systems),he was also the nucleus
of an interational groupof scholars,of somethinglike a 'clan' of art historiansbound up
with him either by the direct links of the teacher-pupilrelation or by a - perhapsstill
more valuable - Wahlverwandschaft, brought into being by the animatingcontact with
Panofsky'sthought-provoking illuminatingideas. A stay at the Institute for Advanced
and
Study in Princeton,where Panofsky from 1935 on representedart history in the School
of HistoricalStudies, sharingthe membershipof the Institutewith scholarslike Einstein,
Oppenheimerand Maritain,was a dream of art historians,not only becauseit gavethem
the opportunity for quiet work in that wonderfulplace Princetonwas and still is, but also
because of close contact with Panofsky's mind and intelligence. Everybody who has
learned the completeness of the Princeton libraries, the charm of its University, its
avenues and gardens,understandswhy Panofsky has called his compulsory emigration
from Germanyand his settling down in Princeton'an expulsion into Paradise'.
To many people - even to many art historians- Panofsky is known first of all, or
exclusively, as a deviser of a method called iconology. Although he probably did not
dislike being thought of in that way, late in his life he used to quote a statement by an
Arab statesman, who said that 'discussion of methods spoils application.'4 He also
avoided the term 'iconology', taking care not to use it in his late studies. Its too great
popularity and a too great crowd of imitators,with whom he often disagreed,provoked
his skepticism. In this there was quite a lot of his acquiredEnglishunderstatement,since
Panofsky was, it seems, one of the most systematicallyminded of art historians,gifted

3. Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the VisualArts, Garden City, N.Y. 1955, 323.
4. William S.Heckscher, 'The Genesis of Iconology', in: Stil und Uberlieferung in der Kunst des
Abendlandes.Akten des XXI. InternationalenKongressesfur Kunstgeschichte,Bonn 1964, Berlin
1967, III, 239-262, quot. 262.

70
with a powerfultalent for precisethinking.His scholarlyactivity in the historicalstudy of
art and of the literature of art was accompanied - especially in the first half of his
creativelife - by constant reflection on theory. In this way he built up a conceptualand
methodological framework that sustained and justified his practical work. Hence the
importanceof the system of art analysis devised by Panofsky, a system which is no less
significantan achievementthan the resultsof his historicalresearchand interpretation.
Anyone seeking, at the beginningof the twentieth century, to get a clearview of the
fundamentalproblems of art study had to consider, and to form his own attitude to-
wards, such concepts as 'style', 'forms of beholding', 'artistic volition', 'symbol' and
'symbolic form', concepts which had been formulatedand discussedby the generationof
predecessorsand teachersof Panofsky. The young scholar dealt with them in a masterly
way. With an admirablestrivingfor system and with a certain stubbornnesshe returned
over a long period of his life to those problems, in order to make his concepts more
perfect and to eliminate ambiguity. And he always looked on the questions from the
most generalpoint of view. He succeeded in creatinga system which is perhapsthe most
coherent art-historicalmethod put together in our times. Problems of style, artistic
volition and generalconcepts of art history were analyzedin a Kantianspirit;the problem
of the relation of art and ideas in a neo-Kantian,Cassirerianspirit;and the method of art
study, which was later to be celebrated as 'iconology', was conceived in a Warburgian
spirit.

2. Aprioristicconcepts of art history

In a letter of April 1, 1962 to Herbertvon Einem, Panofsky wrote the following about
himself:5 'Was ich mir vomahm, war nicht sowohl etwas "Originelles"zu leisten, als
vielmehr unter Vermeidung der Einseitigkeit so viel von der grossen Tradition des
19. Jahrhunderts(V6ge, Riegl, Goldschmidt, Warburg,sogar ein bisschen Wolfflin und
Friedlander)in das 20. Jahrhundertheruberzuretten,als es in meinen Kraftenstand. Aber
es muss auch Eklektikergeben in der Wissenschaftwie in der Kunst.'
This 'topos of modesty', very frequent and typical in Panofsky'sletters, was - so it
seems - not a 'topos of false modesty'. He describedhimself as 'vainbut not conceited'.6
He was well awareof his own position and of his importance,and if he complainedit was
only when he felt that his efficiency in work was decliningin his old age. Aware of the
role he played in the art history of our time, he nonetheless wanted to be linked with
older tradition. Indeed, if any art historianin our centuryhas profited from the tradition
of scholarship,it was Panofsky.A tirelessreaderwho united contemplationwith activity,
he never worked in a state of immobile concentration,but in an incessantconfrontation
with books, dictionaries, articles and photographs, constantly verifying his immense
eruditionin orderto purgeit of errorand doubt.
With a youthful enthusiasm,at the age of twenty three he began a polemic with the
most prominentleader of his discipline - HeinrichWolfflin.In 1912 Wolfflindelivereda
lecture before the PrussianAcademy of Sciences in Berlin, presenting the ideas of his
book KunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe(Principlesof Art History),which appearedonly

5. Herbert von Einem, obituary in Wallraf-RichartzJahrbuch, XXX, 1969, 72 f.

6. E.H. Gombrich, obituary, Burlington Magazine 1968, 359.

71
in 1915.7 He distinguishedbetween two 'roots of style': individualstylistic features of
the artist, which express his specific mind, and the 'form of beholding'which belongs to
each penod of the aevelopmentof art.
Panofsky took exception to this 'form of beholding' which, Wolfflin pretended,was
typical of the period ratherthan the individual,and in which the source of the diversity
of styles should be sought. Seeing, Panofsky wrote,8 is a physiological process of re-
ceiving visual stimuli, and as such it does not change in history. Whatchangesis the pro-
cess of interpretationof what is seen. It is the aestheticchoice which changes.Manmakes
choices by virtue of his mental powers. The aesthetic choice is a psychologicalprocessin
which a certain attitude of the human mind to the visual world is expressed.Hence, the
'modes of representation'typical for art of variousepochs are not 'given',but are a result
of an active interpretation,and as such they are chargedwith expressivemeaning(in spite
of their sometimesbeing largelyconventional,and thus not the productsof a real choice).
Panofsky states that seeing alone only furnishes the mind with visual elements; it has
nothing to do with expression and has no influence on style. Style is shapedonly by the
interpretation of visual impressions. In this way Panofsky recovered the expressive
meaningof stylistic features,lost in Wolfflin's'formsof beholding'.For Panofskystylistic
features are not a reflection of changes in the 'form of beholding' independentof the
human mind, but a reflection of changesin the interpretationof the world as we see it;
this in turn is the result of the spiritualevolution of mankind.
Panofsky also took a critical attitude toward the famous categories of Wolfflin's
KunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffeshortly after it was published.9 But first he felt the
need to find the solution to anotherproblemwhich had been puzzlingthose art historians
who were convinced of the existence of aesthetic pluralism.The main representativeof
this idea, which was responsiblefor the disappearancefrom art-historicalterminologyof
the words 'decline', 'fall' and 'decadence',was Alois Riegl. Riegl introducedthe concept
of 'artisticvolition' (Kunstwollen) into the very center of discussion.In his own writings
the term changed somewhat in meaning, and it became the object of a prolongeddebate
in the first quarterof the twentieth century.10
For Riegl 'artisticvolition' was a dynamic factor, conscious or unconscious,a drive,a
necessity. Panofsky, however, wanted to make of the concept something much more
essential than an individualor social-psychologicalfactor, as severalwritersinterpretedit.
He therefore left psychology aside and created a philosophicalinterpretationof Kunst-
wollen. 'Artistic volition', he wrote, 'cannot be anythingelse than what residesin artistic
phenomena as their essential meaning.'The word Sinn, often used in Panofsky'sGerman
writings, means 'the essence of things' and probably comes - as do so many concepts

7. Heinrich Wolfflin, 'Das Problem des Stils in der bildenden Kunst', Sitzungsberichtedes
koniglichenPreussischenAkademieder Wissenschaften, XXXI, 1912, 572ff.
8. ErwinPanofsky,'Das Problemdes Stils in der bildendenKunst',Zeitschriftfur Aesthetikund
allg.Kunstwissenschaft,X, 1915, 460467.
9. HeinrichWolfflin,KunstgeschichtlicheGrundbegriffe.Das Problemder Stilentwicklungin der
neuerenKunst, Munich1915.
10. Hans Sedlmayr, 'Die Quintessenzder LehrenRiegls', in: Alois Riegl, GesammelteAufsatze,
Augsburg-Vienna1929, xii-xxxiv; Otto Pacht, 'Art Historiansand Art Critics-VI:Alois Riegl',
BurlingtonMagazine1963, 188-193; KsaweryPiwocki,Pierwszanoweczesna teoriasztuki, Poglady
AloisaRiegla,Warszawa1970.

72
used by Panofsky - from Kant.l 1 Whatis that Sinn, the essentialor intrinsicmeaningof
artistic phenomena? It is the tendency one finds expressed in the choice and in the
shaping of formal and figurativeelements, and which can be discernedin the uniform
attitude towardsthe basic artisticproblems.And what are artisticproblems?
Starting with his criticism of Riegl and Wolfflin, Panofsky undertook to build up a
system of 'aprioristicconcepts of the study of art', as Kant did for philosophy. In his
article of 1920 on the interpretationof 'artistic volition', he merely sketched the pro-
blem, announcingthat a history of art aimingat a study of meaninghas to proceed from
previously defined concepts applicable to 'any possible artistic problem'. This is the
backgroundof the 1924 article by Panofsky (in which he took advantageof studies by
the Hamburgart historian-philosopherEdgarWind)concerningthe relationof art history
to art theory, an article which could be entitled 'Prolegomenato any future art history
which could claim to be a science'.12
The five pairs of concepts devised by Wolfflin are, accordingto Panofsky, no more
than elaborationsof incidental empiricalconcepts, fit perhapsto describethe individual
differences between Renaissanceand Baroque, but not derivingfrom a transcendental
analysis of the very possibilities of art. In other words, they are merely aposterioristic
interpretations of historical material, and not Grundbegriffeat all. A transcendental
analysis of the possibilities of art was still lacking, and Panofsky now attempted to fill
this lack, in the first of his tabularsystems of concepts, apparentlyfollowing a Kantian
model.
The most general, inclusive antithesis in art is, accordingto Panofsky, that between
'fullness' and 'form'. This line of thinking leads Panofsky to formulate the system of
three layersof opposedvaluespresentin every work of visualart:
1. elementaryvalues(optical-tactile,i.e. space as opposed to bodies)
2. figurativevalues(depth-surface)
3. compositional values (internal links-externallinks, i.e. internal organicalunity as
opposed to externaljuxtaposition).
In order for a work of art to be created, a balance must be struck within each of these
scales of value. The absolute poles, the limiting values themselves, are outside of art:
purely optical values characterizeonly amorphousluminous phenomena.Purely tactile
values characterizeonly pure geometrical shapes deprived of any sensual fullness. A
solution which determines the position of the work of art at some point on any given
scale at the same time determinesits position on the other scales. To decide for surface
(as opposed to depth) means to decide for rest (as opposed to movement), for isolation
(as opposed to connection) and for tactile values (as opposed to optical ones): a typical
example confirmingthe analysisquoted above may be the Egyptianrelief.
The individualwork of art is not, as claimed by Wolfflin, defined by one antithetical
category or the other, but is situated at some point on the scale between the limiting
values. For instance the scale 'optical-tactile' takes actual form in such categories as

11. Kirchner'sWorterbuch der philosophischenGrundbegriffe,6th ed., ed. CarlMichaelis,Leipzig

1911, 910.
12. 'Uberdas Verhaltnisder Kunstgeschichtezur Kunsttheorie',Zeitschriftfiir Aesthetikund allg.
Kunstwissenschaft,XVIII, 1925, 120-161; cf. Edgar Wind, 'Zur Systematik der kiinstlerischen
Probleme',ibidem438-486.

73
'painterly'(near the 'optical' pole), through 'sculptural'(in the middle of the scale) to
'stereometric-crystalline'(closest to the ideal, untrodden pole of the absolute 'tactile'
quality). The borderlinesand the valuesattainableon the scale are conditionedby histori-
cal tendencies: the qualities consideredas most painterlyon the Renaissancescale moved
closer to the tactile pole in the Baroque,becausethe whole scale had shifted towardsthe
optical pole.
The mannerin which elements are composed in a work of art revealsa specific creative
principle,i.e. a specific principleof solvingproblems.In a givenwork the set of principles
used for solving artistic problemsconstitutes a unity. And this unity is for Panofskythe
essential meaning of a work or of an artistic period. It correspondsfor him to what he
understandsby 'artisticvolition'.
Theoretical, interpretativestudy of art reveals that in case A artistic problem X has
been solved; in case B artistic problemY has been solved; moreoverwe observe that in
both cases they have been solved in a similar way, which means that A:X-B:Y. The
constant attitude of the artist or of the historical period towards fundamentalartistic
problemscan be establishedin this way, and eventuallythe meaning,the artisticvolition
of the work, the artistor the period. Seen in this light, artisticvolition loses all tracesof a
voluntaristicor psychologicalcharacterand becomes 'the essence of style' or 'style in an
intrinsicsense'.
Moreover, since 'artistic volition' is nothing but 'the intrinsic meaning' of artistic
phenomena,or the 'unity of the principlesof solvingartisticproblems',it is quite a useful
concept from the methodologicalpoint of view, allowingone to join two methodological
positions usually opposed in the study of art. I mean the method which stresses the
autonomy of artisticphenomenaand the method which stressestheir links with the other
elements of the historical process. Whatis more, this joining can now be done not as a
Taine or a Semper did it, i.e. by consideringthe artistic phenomena as influenced by
technical, economical, geographicaland other factors, nor in the manner of Dvoriik's
'expressionistic'relation between art and religionor philosophy, of which the work of art
is to be considereda function, but in a new way: by defining the common factor in the
intrinsicmeaningsfound in the variousfields of culture.
Since the intrinsic meaning of phenomena in the visual arts is nothing else than the
underlyingsimilarity in the means of solving the basic artistic problems,we are able to
compareit with the intrinsicmeaningof phenomenanot only in the other arts,e.g. music
and literature,but also in the other fields of humanculture.Scientific, legal and linguistic
systems are based - as far as they are systems - on some specific principlesof solving
problems peculiar to those fields. A generalizinghumanistic study is able, then, to
comparethe intrinsic meaningsof variousfields of human activity in any culturelimited
in time, space, ideas or social character. Now we understandhow it happened that
Panofsky, twenty-four years later, presented an admirablecomparativeaccount of the
parallelstructurein Gothic architectureand Scholasticthinking.'3
In this way the once dynamicconcept of Kunstwollenwas transformedin the hands of
the ingenious humanist from a tool Riegl could use to describethe artistic features of
different periods, places and individuals,into one enabling Panofsky to compare the

13. Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism [lecture 1948], Latrobe, Pa., 1951.

74
similaritiesof ideological and artistic attitudes manifest in the variousaspectsof one and
the same culture. From here it was only one step to the concept of 'symbolicalform' and
to use it in the methodology of art history. Panofsky'snext step was preciselythat.

3. Symbolic Forms
Unaveritasin variissignisvarieresplendet
NicolasCusanus

Panofsky was born in Hanover.He went to high school in Berlin,wherehe was educated
in the famous JoachimsthalschesGymnasium,which gave him an excellent formation
both in the classics and in mathematics. He began his university studies in the Law
Departmentof the Universityof Freiburgim Breisgau,owinghis conversionto art history
to his friendKurt Badt, who took him to hear WilhelmVoge's lecture on Durer'sFeast of
the Rose Garlands.'Et cecideruntde oculis eius tamquamsquamae',he wrote later.14 He
studied art history with the most prominentmediaevalistsof his time. Firstwith Voge at
Freiburg,where he completed his doctorate in 1914 with a prize thesis on Direr's art
theory; then, feeling the need to develop his erudition and method even further, he
studied for several terms with Adolf Goldschmidtin Berlin.5s Thanksto an otherwise
innocuous fall from a horse at the beginningof his militaryservice,he avoidedthe hell of
the First WorldWar.His abilities were so highly valued that in 1920 the new Hamburg
University,just being organized,invited him to pass his Habilitationand to become the
head of the art-historicalseminar.From 1921 on Panofskywas Dozent and from 1926 on
the full professor of the history of art in Hamburg(Ordinarius),a position he kept until
the spring of 1933, when he was dismissed- after the proclamationof the Nuremberg
Law - and left Germany.
The Hamburgyears were a period of intense scholarly as well as pedagogicaland
literary activity for Panofsky.At the age of thirty, his talent at its peak, he found himself
living in one of the most interestingcenters of pre-warGermanscholarship,in the sphere
of influence of two powerful minds, men one generation older than he was - Ernst
Cassirerand Aby Warburg.That he underwenttheir influence was to be expected;what is
interestingis that he knew how to make use of that influencein an independentway. He
was able to learn from them what he needed, without surrenderingto the spell of their
strong personalities.From the beginninghe stood on equal footing with them, as it were.
Cassirerand he understoodeach other at once thanksto their sharedKantiantraining.
He must have been fascinatedby the depth and scope of that thinker'sphilosophicaland
humanisticinterests. The concept of symbol at the center of Cassirer'sphilosophy, a con-
cept of great concern to every art historian, and Cassirer'sspecial concentrationin the
field of Renaissanceneo-Platonismand its consequencesmust also have contributedto
the formationof a stronglink between the philosopherand the art historian.Theirdirect,
close collaborationwas realizedpreciselyin the field of neo-Platonicstudies.Two lectures
in the WarburgLibraryin Hamburgwere devoted to Plato's aestheticideas. Cassirerspoke
about the idea of beauty in Plato's dialogues, Panofsky about the developmentof the

14. Erwin Panofsky, 'WilhelmVoge' in: Bildhauer des Mittelalters. GesammelteStudien von
WilhelmVoge,Berlin1958, ix-xxxi, quot. xxiv.
15. HansKauffmann,obituary,o.c. 261.

75
Platonic concept of idea from antiquityuntil Bellori.In the prefaceto his book Idea (the
development of that lecture), dated March 1924, Panofsky expressed his thanks to
Cassirerfor his help and encouragement.
Soon the mind of the art historianfelt the influence of Cassirer'sfundamentaltheory,
which was at that time being developed in his magnumopus, the three volumes of The
Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Perhapsthe first echo of that theory in the history of art
was the descriptivetitle Panofsky gave to his famous study of perspective,presentedas a
lecture in winter 1924/25 and publishedin 1927. As we all know, that study was called
'Perspektiveals "symbolischeForm"'.
The concept of symbolic form introducedat that time by Cassireris now well at home
in the modern philosophicalvocabulary;it has alreadypassedinto the history of philoso-
phy. It had great importancefor the study of culture.One can say that if Cassirer'sideas
on language- like those of Camap - heraldedand pavedthe way for the later approach
of the semiologists16 - Cassirer'stheory of culture as a symbolic creationof man paved
the way, as it were, for the method of interpretingthe phenomenaof civilizationused by
the recent school of structuralresearchin culturalanthropology.
How can we know the essence of the humanworld, Cassirerasks,if neitherpsychologi-
cal introspection,biological observationand experimentnor historicalresearchgivesus a
satisfactoryanswerto the question 'Whatis man?' I have endeavouredto discoversuch
an alternativeapproachin my Philosophyof Symbolic Forms. The method of this work is
by no means a radical innovation. It is not designed to abrogatebut to complement
former views. The philosophy of symbolic forms starts from the presuppositionthat, if
there is any definition of the nature or 'essence' of man, this definition can only be
understood as a functional one, not a substantialone. [... ] Man'soutstandingcharac-
teristic,his distinguishingmark,is not his metaphysicalor physicalnature- but his work.
It is this work, it is the system of humanactivitieswhich defines and determinesthe circle
of 'humanity'. Language,myth, religion, art, science, history are the constituents, the
various sectors of this circle. A 'philosophy of man' would therefore be a philosophy,
which would give us insight into the fundamentalstructure of each of these human
activities, and which at the same time would enable us to understandthem as an organic
whole. Language,art, myth, religion are no isolated, random creations. They are held
together by a common bond. But this bond is not a vinculum substantialeas it was
conceived and describedin scholasticthought;it is rathera vinculumfunctionale. It is the
basic function of speech, of myth, of art, of religion that we must seek far behind their
innumerableshapes and utterances,and that in the last analysiswe must attempt to trace
back to a common origin'.17
Wasthis not the very philosophyPanofskyneeded in orderto develop a concept of the
intrinsic meaning of a work of art, a period, or a field of culture? The philosophy of
symbolic forms, which conceived the link between variousfields of humanendeavorin a
functional or structuralway, appearedto be similarto the system of concepts developed
by Panofsky. This may be due to Panofsky'sand Cassirer'scommon Kantianbackground.
'All human works arise under particularhistorical and sociological conditions. But we

16. Milka Ivic, Kierunki w lingwistyce, Wroclaw-Warszawa-Krakow1966, 111, 184.

17. Ernst Cassirer, An Essay on Man. An Introduction to a Philosophy of Human Culture, New
Haven 1944, reed. Garden City, n.d., 93.

76
could never understandthese special conditions unless we were able to graspthe general
structuralprinciplesunderlyingthese works. In our study of language,art, and myth the
problem of meaningtakes precedence over the problemof historicaldevelopment'[ ...]
'This structuralview of culture must precede the merely historicalview. History itself
would be lost in the boundless mass of disconnected facts if it did not have a general
structuralschemeby meansof which it can classify, order,and organizethese facts.'18 So
wrote Cassirer- how similarto what was written by Panofsky on methodologicalmat-
ters.
On May 20, 1931 Panofsky spoke before the Kiel section of the Kant Society. The
title of his talk was 'ZumProblem der Beschreibungund Inhaltsdeutungvon Werkender
bildendenKunst'. He sketched for the first time a system of interpretationof the work of
art centered on problems of content. In that system, clearly derived from Panofsky's
former methodological studies, he formulated the program of an iconographically
oriented history of art which conceives works of art as symptoms of generalintellectual
history. Panofsky discernedin the work of art a threefold 'meaning':1. external, 'pheno-
menal';2. semantic;and 3. documentary,or what he called 'essential'.In the first layer he
included the representedobjects and their objective and expressivesignificance;in the
second their conventional meaning, deriving from cultural tradition;in the third their
'essential' meaning, namely the basic relation of the work of art to the total historical
process. This was what he formerly called 'artistic volition'; in this first version of his
scheme he used as a label for that layer the term of Carl Mannheim:'documentary
meaning'. At each level of interpretation,Panofsky expected the interpreterto be ade-
quately prepared:at the first stage, with generalexperience of life; at the second, with
literaryknowledge;at the third, with a conscious stance vis-a-visthe world. The corrective
to subjectivismin interpretationis providedby objectivehistoricalknowledgeof style in
the first stage, of the history of iconographicaltypes in the second and of the general
history of intellectualculturein the third.
That scheme was modified by Panofsky twice more. Eight years later it receivedits
classical form, when Panofsky published it in the first part of the Introductionto his
most famous book, Studies in Iconology. In the place of Wesenssinn,with its obvious
debt to Riegl's Kunstwollen, a new term, 'intrinsicmeaning',appeared,now alreadyin
English; 'intrinsic meaning' was understood as 'content which constitutes the world of
symbolic values'. It was only then, in 1939, that Panofsky made plain that he conceived
the deep meaning of works of art as symptoms of cultural attitudes in the sense of
Cassirer'ssymbolic forms. Riegl's'artisticvolition', conceivedas the 'intrinsicmeaning'of
all art, became identified with Cassirer'ssymbols of culture.
In the version of the system we are talking about, Panofsky introduced one more
vertical division to house the descriptionof the kinds of interpretativefunctions. In the
first stage is 'pre-iconographicdescription', in the second 'iconographicanalysisin the
narrowersense', in the third 'iconographicinterpretationin the deepersense or iconogra-
phic synthesis'. But that did not remain the final formulation of the system. Only in
1955, when Panofsky reprintedthat article in his volumeMeaningin the VisualArts, did
the system achieve its ultimate form. There is, to be sure, only one difference, but it

18. O.c.94.

77
amounts to a definitive declaration.The act of interpretationaimingat the discoveryof
intrinsicmeaning,i.e. the world of symbolicalvalues,was describedformerlyas 'iconogra-
phical interpretationin a deeper sense'. In the definitive version of the system Panofsky
called that act 'iconologicalinterpretation'.Thus, as he manifestedhis link with Cassirer
in 1939, in 1955 he stressedfinally his link with Warburgand 'iconology'.18a
Of course,Panofsky'spracticalwork showed this much earlier.It is alreadymanifestin
the title of his Studies in Iconology. Iconographicalinterests and the influence of
Warburgare apparentin severalof his publications,beginningwith the book on Durer's
MelencoliaI, publishedin 1923 in collaborationwith Fritz Saxl. But in the Introduction
to Studies in Iconology, the first part of which bears the imprint of Cassirerianinspira-
tion, whereasthe second reflects the essentialpreoccupationsof Warburg'scircle, the two
roots of Panofsky'smethodologicalattitude were manifestedin the most outspokenway.
While Cassirerreconfirmed,as it were, Panofsky'sideas on the logical study of culture,
which he had arrivedat independentlythrough rationalanalysis,Warburgopened to him
the great irrationalworld of human passion, where the roots of art are to be found, and
made it possible for him to embrace an immense field of human cultureby showinghim
how to systematicallyabolish the borderlinesbetween the disciplines.Panofskywas able
to master with his mind both these mental dimensions and to make out of them a
homogeneouswhole. To have done that is just one of his claimsto greatnessas a historian
of culturallife.

4. Iconology
In his obituary of Warburg,written after the latter'sdeath in 1929, Panofskyquoted the
well-knownaphorismof Leonardoda Vinci: 'He who is fixed to a star does not change
his mind'.19 Warburgwas doubtless a man of inspirationand genius - theia mania.One
could continue and guess with which celestial body Warburgwas linked: Saturn,beyond
any doubt! All the features of the Saturnianpsyche, from genius to madness, from
creativeintellectual work to the abyss of the most profoundmelancholywere his.20 The
comparison with Nietzsche - only one generation older - is so compelling that one
wonders why it was not developed further after Saxl mentioned it briefly in one of his
early articles.21 The same incessant tension between rational thought and the energy of
the subconscious,the irrationallife of the psyche; the same loss of mental balancecursed
those discoverersof Dionysiac follies and of powerful instincts behind the dynamismof
forms. The same union of life and thought for which one pays with madness.
The fact that Panofskymet both Cassirerand Warburgin Hamburgwas partly acciden-
tal. Cassirerstudied in Marburg,and before coming to Hamburglived in Berlin.Warburg

18a. BernardTeyssedre ('Iconologie, Reflexions sur un concept d'Erwin Panofsky',Revue Philoso-

phique, CLIV, 1964, 321-340) compares the 1955 version of the system with the 1962 reprint of the
Studies in Iconology drawing the conclusion that Panofsky eliminated the term 'iconological inter-
pretation' in the later version. The opposite is true.
19. Erwin Panofsky, 'A.Warburg',Repertorium fur Kunstwissenschaft, XXXV, 1930, 1.
20. Fritz Saxl, Lectures, London 1957, 325-357; Gertrud Bing, 'A.M.Warburg',Journal of the
Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XXVIII, 1965, 299-313: E.H.Gombrich, 'Aby Warburg zum
Gedenken', Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunstsatmlungen, XI, 1966, 15-27; Dieter Wuttke, 'Aby
Warburg und seine Bibliothek', Arcadia I, 1966,319-333; Carlo Ginzburg, 'Da A. Warburg a E.H.
Gombrich (Note su un problema di metodo)', Studi medievali, 3 ser., VII, 2, 1966, 1015-1065.
21. See footnote 27.

78
 was a member of an old, rich Hamburgfamily. The family bank, of world importance,
provided a basis for his scientific undertakings.On the other hand, the two thinkers
shared strikinglyclose tendencies as well as points of departure.Warburg'smain interest
too was the search for symptoms of thought and life in art; for him too art was an
indicatorof changingattitudes, outlooks, religions,myths, superstitions.Cassirerdesigned
a philosophy of human culture conceived as a system of symbolic forms. Warburg,fasci-
nated by the real life of history expressedthroughthose forms, appliedhimself to actual
historical problems.Startingwith detailed analysis,he strove for a generalknowledgeof
traditionand of culturalcontinuity.
Warburgdealt with questionsconcerningthe role of the traditionof the classicalworld
in Europeancultureand the significanceof Dionysiac,pathetic, non-classicalantiquity,to
which Nietzsche had shortly before opened the eyes of scholars.This aspect of antiquity,
transmitted in long-forgotten systems of magic and astrology, is especially interesting
because it conservedin strange,often deformed shape the image of classicalgods as the
humanistsand artists of the Renaissancehad first learned to know them. Warburgdealt
with questions concerningthe 'formulaeof expressingpathetic passions'found by those
artists in the treasuryof classicalart, which depicted not only quiet beauty but also pas-
sions bound by form.22 Penetratingdeep into the history of the Renaissance,Warburg
solved severaldetailed problems,e.g. the imporantquestion of the donorsrepresentedon
the shuttersof Memling'sLast JudgmentAltar.23
Warburg'striumphwas his performanceat'the InternationalCongressof Art Historyin
Rome in 1912: he presentedthe 'iconologicalanalysis',as he calledit, of the astrological
frescoes by Cossa and his collaboratorsin the Palazzo Schifanoia at Ferrara.24These
representations,incomprehensibleto Warburg'spredecessors,were interpretedby him as
a pictorial formulation of an astrologicalprogramdevised by a Ferraresehumanist in
accordancewith Arabic, Ptolemaic and Hindu traditions.The realisticallyconceivedper-
sonifications represent decans of the months. This was Warburg'striumphnot only in
respect to the resultsachieved,but also in respect to the method used.25 His discoveryof
the solution to the riddle of the Palazzo Schifanoiafrescoes was not an accident.It was
not by chance that he came across the IntroductoriumMagnumof Abumasar,reprinted
by Franz Boll in 1903 as an appendix to his Sphaera.It was a result of deep knowledge
and systematic research.At the end of his paperWarburgaddedsome fundamentalstate-
ments conceming method: 'venturingto present here a provisionalsketch concerninga
particularquestion, I wanted at the same time to raise my voice in defense of enlarging
the methodological borderlinesof our discipline, as concerns materialas well as space.
[... ] I hope that with the help of the method used in my attemptedexplicationof the
wall-paintingsin the PalazzoSchifanoiaat Ferrara,I have shown that an iconologicalana-
lysis which is not dissuadedby the rules of the border police can study antiquity, the

22. Fritz Saxl, 'Rinascimento dell'Antichita. Studien zu den Arbeiten A.Warburgs',Repertorium fur
Kunstwissenschaft, XLIII, 1922, 221-272.
23. Aby Warburg, 'Flandrische Kunst und florentinische Fruhrenaissance', Jahrbuch der
preussischen Kunstsammlungen, XXIII, 1902, 247-266.
24. Aby Warburg, 'Italienische Kunst und internationale Astrologie im Palazzo Schifanoja' [lecture
19121, in: Atti del X Congresso Internazionale di Storia dell'Arte in Roma, L 'Italia e lArte Straniera,
Roma 1922, 179-193, reprinted in Gesammelte Schriften, Leipzig-Berlin 1932, II, 459-481.
25. Heckscher, o.c. passim.

79
Middle Ages and modern times as interconnectedepochs and analyze the works of the
'finest' and the most 'applied' arts as equally valid documents of expression.When the
light of such a method is beamed on one darkspot, it can enlightengreatgeneraldevelop-
ments in their interconnection. I careless to presenta smooth solution than to discovera
new problem.. .2 6
This new branch of scholarship- a synthesis of the knowledgeof culture, implicating
in its investigationsmyth, idea, word and image - was to be realizedby means of the
librarybuilt up by Warburg,first as his privatelibrary,then transformedinto an institute,
cared for and organizedby Warburg'scollaborator,pupil and prophet of his ideas, Fritz
Saxl.27 That great promotor of Warburg'sideas popularizedand brought together the
ingenious flashes of his master's thought. He published summariesof Warburg'sideas.
Warburghimself, affected by mental illness, did not round off his theories. Saxl carried
Warburg'swork on after the latter'sdeath in 1929. In 1933 he savedthe libraryfrom the
Nazi deluge, transferredit to Great Britain and succeeded in incorporatingit into the
academiclife of the adopted country. He was its head until his death in 1948. Saxl was
the closest collaboratorof Panofskyin his Hamburgyears.28
WhatWarburgand his librarymeant for the whole world of humanisticscholarshipand
philosophy in Hamburg,we learn from Cassirerin the fine dedicationto Warburgof one
of his now classic works, The Individualand the Cosmosin RenaissancePhilosophy. 'My
dear and esteemed friend,' Cassirerwrote on June 13, 192629 - 'The work I am pre-
senting to you on your sixtieth birthdaywas to have been a purelypersonalexpressionof
my deep friendship and devotion. But I could not have completed the work, had I not
been able to enjoy the constant stimulationand encouragementof that groupof scholars
whose intellectual centre is your library.Therefore,I am speakingtoday not in my name
alone, but in the name of this group of scholars,and in the name of all those who have
long honoured you as a leader in the field of intellectual history. For the past three
decades, the WarburgLibraryhas quietly and consistently endeavouredto gather mate-
rials for researchin intellectual and culturalhistory. And it has done much more besides.
With a forcefulnessthat is rare,it has held up before us the principleswhich must govern
such research.In its organizationand in its intellectual structure,the Libraryembodies
the idea of the methodologicalunity of all fields and all currentsof intellectualhistory.
Today, the Libraryis enteringa new phasein its development.Withthe constructionof a
new building,it will broaden its field of activity. On this occasion,we memberswant to
express publicly how much the Librarymeans to us and how much we owe to it. We
hope, and we are sure, that above and beyond the new tasks which the Librarymust
fulfil, the old tradition of our common, friendlycollaborationwill not be forgotten, and
that the intellectual and personal bond that has hitherto held us together will become
ever stronger. May the organon of intellectual-historicalstudies which you have created
with your Librarycontinue to ask us questionsfor a long time. And may you continue to

26. Warburg,Gesammelte Schriften, 478f.; Heckscher, o.c. 246.

27. Fritz Saxl, 'Die Bibliothek Warburgund ihr Ziel', Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg,1921-22, 1,
1923, 1-10.
28. GertrudBing, 'Fritz Saxl, 1890-1948, A Memoir',in: Fritz Saxl, 1890-1948. A Volume of
Memorial Essays, ed. G.J.Gordon, Edinburgh 1957, 1-46.
29. Ernst Cassirer,Individuumund Kosmos in der Philosophie der Renaissance,Leipzig-Berlin
1927, Engl. trans.: New York 1964, xiii.

80
show us new ways to answerthem as you have in the past.'
Cassirerspoke these words in the name of a groupof scholarsto which Panofskyalso
belonged. Cassirer'sbook appearedin 1927. Two yearslater Warburgwas no longer alive;
six yearslater Hamburglost Cassirer,Saxl, Panofskyand the excellent library.
For the young Panofsky the circle of the philosopherof symbolic forms and that of
the inventor of iconological analysis were most stimulatingmilieus. The interest in the
theory of art and in Durer reflected in his first studies, and his knowledge of mediaeval
sculptureand architecture,acquiredfrom Voge and Goldschmidtand formulatedin 1924
in his monumental book on German sculpture of the llth-13th centuries, was now
supplemented by some vast new fields: the problems of the classicaltradition and the
Renaissance, especially of Michelangelo (to whom his Habilitationsschriftwas dedi-
cated30) and above all - iconography.
In his precisely worked out scheme of interpretationthe analysisof content took the
main place. By iconographyPanofskydid not mean the identificationof saints,attributes
and symbols as practicedby theologians, art historiansand archaeologistsin their daily
work, an integralpart of art history since the nineteenth century,when the field became
a scholarly discipline. For Panofskythe study of iconography,as well as art theory, was a
means to restorethe lost links between art and thought, between imagesand ideas.
With these aims in mind Panofsky studied the classical tradition and its impact on
Duirer's art;31 together with Saxl he devoted a fundamental study to Diirer's
MelencoliaL32 He began a systematic study of religious and humanistic iconography.
Constantly sharpeninghis tools, he never stopped formulating concepts and general
theoretical points of view. A long study of 1927 entitled Imago Pietatis, devoted to the
history of the iconographicaltype of the Man of Sorrows and MariaMediatrix,included
reflections on the concept of iconographictypes and on the method of researchin that
field.
A further step was the book dedicated to the motif of Herculesat the Crossroadsas a
moral allegory,publishedin 1930. In this study the imagewas - as impliedby the subject
- alwaysclosely linked with ideas about life and morals.The scholarlyapproachincluded
constant confrontations of the sphereof art with that of philosophyand concepts of life.
In the introduction Panofsky first formulated his ideas on the study of content,
conceivingit as an integraland important element of the procedureof the art historian.
We have already seen that the final formulationof these ideas was expressedin the
form of statementsin which Panofskyconvincinglyconnected the system of fundamental
concepts of art history, built up in the early stage of his development,with his new task
of the interpretationof content. The programcame to fruition in the articlescollected in
Studies in Iconology and in severallater papers,written in America.
Panofsky'sinterests spread out from alreadyexisting nuclei. His studies on Diirer'sart
history led to severalpapers on Durer'sart, culminatingin the monumentalmonograph
on the artist publishedin 1943. Panofsky'sinterest in Jan van Eyck did not die after he

30. Hans Kauffmann, obituary, o.c.

31. Panofsky, 'Dirers Stellung zur Antike', Jahrbuch fiirKunstgeschichte, I, 1921-22, 43-92.
32. Erwin Panofsky and Fritz Saxl, Dirers Melencolia I, Leipzig-Berlin 1923. Enlarged ed.:
R.Klibansky, E.Panofsky, F.Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy. Studies in the History of Natural
Philosophy,ReligionandArt, London 1964.

81
wrote the essay on perspective. It grew, as Panofsky produced a series of articles and
polemics in the thirties, and reachedits climax in his iconographicalanalysesof the Ghent
altarpiece,the Amolfini portrait and the Timotheos ;33 its summa has been given us in
Panofsky's biggest book, Early Netherlandish Painting of 1953. His inclination to
philological analysis of texts brought about the publication of the LeonardesqueCodex
Huygens in 1940 and the masterly translation of Abbot Suger's writings,published in
1946 with a thoroughphilologicaland historicalcommentaryas well as an extraordinarily
lively reconstructionof the personalityand ideas of that mediaevalthinkerand patron.
Panofsky'smain passion, solving iconographicriddles,found expressionin numberless
detailed studies and articles, and in some more extensive works such as Pandora'sBox,
written with his wife, a humanisticdocument to his sharedlife with Dora Panofsky;34a
study on the Gallery of FrancisI in Fontainebleau(1958), also written in collaboration
with his wife; the study on Correggio'sCameradi San Paolo in Parma(1961); and articles
on some picturesby Poussinand some worksby Durer.35
Renaissanceand Renascences,a seriesof lecturesdeliveredin Sweden and publishedin
1960, is devoted to a defense of the authentic meaningof the Renaissanceagainst'the
revolt of the mediaevalists';a large book concerningTomb Sculpture resulted no doubt
from a continuation of Panofsky's old interest in the tomb of Julius II and its genea-
logy.36
Panofsky's desire to link ideas and forms, art and humanisticthought was expressedin
the masterly parallel of Gothic Architecture and Scholasticism(1948), which could be
described as an exercise in structuralanalysis;in his study on Galileo and his scientific
views in their relation to art (1954 and 1955); and in his last article on Erasmusof
Rotterdamand the visual arts(1969). Titian studies,beautifully inauguratedby an article
in Studies in Iconology, became the subjectof Panofsky'slast book.37
He once wrote that the world of the art historianis composed of many islands.These
islands grow up and multiply, sometimesthey connect to form extensive areas,recognized
and subjugated.38The world of art on which he ruled extended from antiquity to the
eighteenth century, although he undertook sporadic excursions also into the last two
centuries.39 Although he did not have a negativeattitude towardscontemporaryart, the
movies seemed to him the most important of the various artistic expressions of our
century. He thought of film as an extremely 'iconographic'art, the heir of the tradition
of symbolismand of the old meaningsconnected with images.It was not by accidentthat
he devoted to the movies a study highly appreciatedeven by specialists.
He was troubled by areaswhich could not be subjugatedby logical, orderingthought.

33. Panofsky, 'Jan van Eyck's ArnolfiniPortrait',BurlingtonMagazine,LXIV, 1934, 177ff.; 'The

FriedsamAnnunciationand the Problemof the Ghent Altarpiece',Art Bulletin, XVII, 1935, 433ff.;
'Once Morethe FriedsamAnnunciationand the Problemof the Ghent Altarpiece',Art Bulletin,XX,
1938, 429ff.; 'Whois Jan van Eyck's Timotheos? ', Journalof the Warburgand CourtauldInstitutes,
XII, 1949, 80ff.
34. Pandora'sBox, New York 1956, reed. 1962 and 1965.
35. Erwin Panofsky, 'Et in Arcadia Ego', Philosophy and History, Essays Presented to Ernst
Cassirer,Oxford 1936, 223-254; idem,A MythologicalPaintingby Poussin,Stockholm1960.
36. Idem, TombSculpture,New York 1964.
37. Idem,Problemsin Titian,mostly iconographic,New York 1969.
38. Idem,Meaningin the VisualArts, GardenCity, N.Y., 1955, 340.
39. 'The '"Tombin Arcady" at the "Fin-de-Siecle"', Wallraf-Richartz JahrbuchXXX, 1968,
287-304 (with GerdaSoergel-Panofsky, his secondwife).

82
When the material of history did not yield to his expectations of intellectual order he
complainedjokingly but also accusinglyof 'die verdammtenOriginale'.40 It was of course
easierto put orderinto photographsand types. He was also troubledby Spain - which he
never visited, by the way - 'where everything is always possible', where there was no
certain point of reference.His eruditionand his - to quote Gombrich4 - 'enjoymentof
the virtuosities of erudition' have led to his being considered a 'bookish' scholarwho
worked in his study with books and photographsonly. He was accused of a lack of
interest in form, in art itself. Everybodywho knew this exceptional man knows how false
such an opinion is, and that this kind of criticismwas altogetherunjust. But it is certainly
true that his main interest was in meaning, which he saw everywhereand which he knew
how to reveal to others.42 In that he typified the basic interestsof contemporaryhuma-
nistic studies, of which he was in severalrespectsthe precursor.

5. Historian,writer,critic
The value of many scientific theories is revealedin, and sometimeslimited to, their fruit-
fulness, especially in the case of methodological rather than ontological theories.
Panofsky's system, whatevercriticism can be applied to it, and howevermuch one could
try to make it more perfect, has passed that critical test with flying colors. I doubt
whether the - in some respects amended - versions proposed by Klein, Teyssedreand
Forssmancould passit.42a Panofsky'ssystem had the imprintof genius: in its recommen-
dations of practical procedure it was unambiguous;it was a flash of revelation opening
the eyes to things unseen before. It was rational,compact and fruitful.
It should be stressed that Panofsky conceived the work of art first of all as an object
designed for a practicalfunction, either as a vehicle of communicationor a tool. In order
to qualify as a work of art the object would have been creatednot only with an intention
of practicaluse but also of givingan aesthetic experience.An art historian'constituteshis
"material"bij means of intuitive aesthetic re-creation,including the perception and ap-
praisal of "quality"'.43 Therefore it is not right to say that Panofsky omitted the
aesthetic element. The task of the historian is to find out that he has to do with a 'man-
made object demandingto be experiencedaesthetically';that is how he defines the object
of his study. In a letter of August 24, 1965 he clearedup his attitude to that question:44
'I am the last to deny his [GeorgeKubler's]contention that - as Aristotle and St.Thomas
knew so well - every man-madeobject producedwith a purpose- is (or rathercan be) a
legitimate object of "art" historical or "art"criticalinvestigation- if and when it has an
"aesthetic"intention together with an infinite variety of others. But the fact remainsthat
we ourselves must realize and qualify that "intention" (otherwise there would be no
rationalizabledifference between the descriptionsof a motor car by an engineer and an

40. MillardMeiss,obituary9, in the volumequoted in footnote 2.

41. E.H.Gombrich,obituary,quotedin footnote 6.
42. HaroldCheriss 10f., obituaryin the volumequoted in footnote 2.
42a. RobertKlein,'Considerationssur les fondements de l'iconographie',Archivio di Filosofia,
1963, 419-436; BernardTeyssedre,article quoted in footnote 18a; Erik Forssman,'Ikonologieund
allgemeineKunstgeschichte',Zeitschriftfur Aesthetik und allgemeineKunstwissenschaft,XI, 1966,
132-169.
43. ErwinPanofsky,Meaningin the VisualArts, 14f.
44. A letter in the presentwriter'spossession.

83
art historian); and for this realizationand qualificationwe need explore what the artist
had in mind - including,in certain cases, iconological content and, in all cases, an auto-
nomous frameof referencedeterminedonly by artistic"Grundprobleme"'.
Panofsky was an historian but also a philosopher and he liked to build up logical
constructions.Neverthelessit would be a mistake to give undue stressto methodological
theories in the evaluation of his work. Had it not been verified by a hundredexcellent
studies, his theory would probably have remained buried in the pages of specialized
periodicals. It should also perhapsbe added that in practice Panofsky was by no means
always true to his prescriptions,and in each separatecase he adopted lines of investiga-
tion suited to the particulartask he was settinghimself.
His ambition was not only to solve particularquestions but also, and above all, to
formulate general statements, something like 'humanistic laws'. Perhaps two of
Panofsky's statements in particularwill remain long-lived acquisitions of art-historical
scholarship.First is the law he formulatedin collaborationwith Saxl, based on Warburg's
studies, concerning the relation of the literary and visual tradition of antiquity in the
Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages, accordingto Panofsky, 'classicalsubjectswere repre-
sented by non-classicalforms, and classical forms were used for representationof non-
classicalsubjects'. The text-traditionand the image-traditionof antiquitywere separated.
They were reunited only at the peak of the Renaissanceat the beginningof the 16th
century.45 That correct and pertinent observationbecame a lastingelement of historical
knowledge.
Panofsky'ssecond discoveryis of what he called 'disguisedsymbolism'. 15th-century
painting aimed at representingreal space; mediaevalsymbolic thinkinghad to obey the
laws of the new realism.Since howeverthe principleitself of conveyingmeaningthrough
symbols did not disappear,symbols had to take on the form of actualobjects coexisting
with people in the same space. In this way 'disguised symbolism' was created, as a
consequenceof the union of realismand symbolic thinking.
That discovery, while it gave new perspectivesto the second and third stages of art-
historical interpretation,also created a serious methodologicalproblem, concerningthe
principles of control. Wherewas interpretationto stop? Could every object always and
for everybodybear all the symbolicalmeaningsever connected with it? Panofskyinsisted
on the applicationof strict historicalmethods and common sense moderatedby historical
knowledge. He was distressedby the fantastic and uncriticalinterpretationsproposedby
his followers, for which he felt at least partly, responsible.In one of his last works, the
book Tomb Sculpture of 1964, he admonishedthe younger scholars: 'Nor should we
overlook the danger of reading a profound significanceinto each and every detail. The
human race is both playful and forgetful, and many a motif originally fraught with
meaningcame to be used for "purely decorative"purposeswhen this meaninghas fallen
into oblivion or had ceased to be of interest. I am convinced, however, that very few
motifs were invented for "purely decorative"purposes from the outset: even so light-
hearted an ornament as the garland or festoon (serta) ubiquitous in Roman art and

45. First formulated together with Saxl in 'Classical Mythology in Mediaeval Art', Metropolitan
Museum Studies, IV, 1933, 228-280. Developed in Studies in Iconology, New York 1939 and in
Renaissance and Renascences, Uppsala-Stockholm, 1960.

84
enthusiasticallyrevivedby the Renaissance,was ritual in origin and the specific connec-
tion of such longae coronae with funeraryrites is attested by as venerablea source as the
Twelve Tables.'46
A tendency to precision, reflected in his attempts to establish laws, predisposedthat
masterof philology to a love for the sciences and partisanshipin favor of their application
in art history. His close collaboration with the Brussels Laboratoire Central and his
friendshipwith its creator, Paul Coremans,were proofs of that attitude. A recordof that
aspect of his interests is preservedin Panofsky's obituary of Coremans.47Panofsky
stressed the close link between technological and scientific analysis and the humanistic
investigationof a work of art. Experienceaided by instrumentsis blind if not led by the
'aprioristic'humanisticconsiderationsthat properly precede it. Panofsky availedhimself
eagerlyand often of the resultsof laboratoryinvestigation,usingX-raysand technological
analysisnot only in his researchon Jan van Eyck, but also on Poussinand Titian.
Technology rewardedhim for that recognition,confirmingone of the beautiful analy-
tical investigationsincluded in his study of Rembrandt'sDanae of 1933. Panofsky de-
monstrated the originality of Rembrandt'siconographicconception against the back-
ground of tradition. He reconstructed Rembrandt's'ideal' transformationof the usual
type of Danaeby the eliminationof the golden showerin favor of rays of golden light, by
shifting the position of the old nurse and by modifying the pose and gesture of the
heroine. Technicalinvestigationsby Soviet scholarsin the Hermitage,recently published
and interpretedby Youri Kousnetsov, have confirmed Panofsky's thesis, revealingun-
expectedly that the process reconstructedby the scholar was not 'ideal' but quite real:
traces of the original, traditional invention have been found in the lower strata of the
picture. They were changedby the master some dozen or more years after the execution
of the originalversion.48
Looking into the pictorial structureof the work of art, trying to reachits primaidea,
Panofsky was far from restrictinghimself only to tracingcontent, meaningand symbo-
lism. Like any inventor of a new method he was and still is looked upon in a one-sided
way. Opposingthat current distorted appraisal,Panofsky'selder colleague,WalterFried-
landeris reportedby Gombrich49to have said: 'He is not as learnedas all that, but he has
a wonderful eye.' Some of Panofsky's analyses of style, form and individualfeatures of
artistic expression are among the best-known in the whole history of art. One such
masterpiece of critical and historical thought, based on an observationof Voge's, is
Panofsky's systematized and precisely formulated definition of the relation of volume
and space in Romanesqueand Gothic sculpture,in his study on perspective.50Another
one is his excellent characterizationof Diirer'sgraphic technique;51 still another the

46. Erwin Panofsky, Tomb Sculpture, New York 1964, 32f.

47. Idem, 'The promoter of a new cooperation between the natural sciences and the history of art',
Bulletin de l'Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique, VIII, 1965, 62-67.
48. Youri Kousnetsov in Soobshthenia Gos. Ermitagea, XXVII, 1966, 26; Oud Holland, LXXXII,
1968, 225-232; Kurt Bauch, Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, Berlin 1967, 132f.; Youri Kousnetsov,
Zagadki 'Danai', Leningrad 1970.
49. E.H.Gombrich, obituary, o.c. 359.
50. 'Die Perspektive als "symbolische Form" ', Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg[1924-25] 1927,
258ff.; Erwin Panofsky, Aufsatze zu Grundfragen der Kunstwissenschaft (H.Oberer and E.Verheyen,
ed.) Berlin 1964, 113-115.
51. Albrecht Durer, Princeton 1943 [also 1945 and 1948], 47f., 63ff., 133f.

85
description of Jan van Eyck's style, crowningPanofsky'spresentationof his work. Van
Eyck's interpretation of the world is characterizedas a unique linking of a vision of
detailswith the graspingof an immensewhole.52
Panofsky'spowerfulmind was well servedby his talent as a writer.He was probablyan
exception among Germanemigrants,since he masteredthe languageof his new country
not only in a perfect but even in a creativeway. RensselaerLee characterizesPanofsky's
English style thus in his obituary:53 'crisp, humorous, sometimes ironical, full of lights
and half-lightsthat mirrorsubtle changesin his own feeling, and above all, neverdull. Had
he remained in Germany the history of art written in English would have suffered an
immeasurableloss.'
There are, however, some features of thought and verbalizationcommon to the Ger-
man and Englishworks. Every attentive readerof Panofsky'swritingsnotes one of them
at least. It is his inclination constantly to contrast two qualities,values, tendencies;his
inclination to use an antithetic scale, as it were. Sometimeshe likes to play with relations
he has discovered,reversingthem in order to reinforce the connection of elements. That
way of thinking, which became a stylistic figure too, sometimes seems to be a literary
ornamentnot alwayscontributingto the classificationof his argument.54
Sometimes his way of leading an argumentthrough constant comparisonsof con-
trastingconcepts or valuesachievesbrilliantresults,as for instancewhen he comparesthe
concepts of spatial and historical distance, unknown to the Middle Age.55 Perhapsthe
most beautiful example of all is his magnificentpolyphonic considerationof the exact
and the humanistic sciences, reprintedas the introduction to his book Meaningin the
VisualArts. In that essay he condensed into a few pages for the Americanreadershis
greatwisdom about art and art history.56
In the American period, three times longer than his activity in Hamburg,Panofsky's
function was quite different from that of an academic teacher in Germany.Attuning
himself to the conception of scholarshipand culturein America,he participatedin a way
unknown in Germanyin the popularizationof knowledge. An indefatigableand enthu-
siastic lecturer, entrancinghis audiencesby the content as well as the form of his lectures
- and first of all by his sense of humor - he knew how to link his creative, lonely
scholarlywork, done in the seclusion of the PrincetonInstitute, with pedagogicactivity
on various levels. Every second year he conducted a guest seminarat PrincetonUniver-
sity, with which he always had friendly relations. Several invitations brought him for
longer or shorter periods to such institutions as HarvardUniversity,Bryn MawrCollege,
New York University(where he began his Americancareerin 1931 as a Visiting Profes-
sor) and the BenedictineAbbey of St.Vincentin Latrobe,Pennsylvania.
Everywhere he aroused interest and enthusiasm and everywhere he left students.
Everywherehe suggested subjects, offered ideas, encouragedand helped. He used his
growingauthority to endorse applicationsfor scholarships,funds and grantswheneverhe

52. Early Netherlandish Painting, Cambridge, Mass. 1953, 180-182.

53. Rensselaer W.Lee, obituary, Art Journal 1968, 568.
54. This was observed already by Julius Held in his review of Early Netherlandish Painting, Art
Bulletin, XXXVII, 1955, 207.
55. 'Artist, Scientist, Genius', The Renaissance, Six Essays, New York 1962, 129.
56. 'The History of Art as a Humanistic Discipline' [1940], in: Meaning in the VisualArts, 1-25.

86
thought they were necessaryand useful. As Professorat the School of HistoricalStudies
of the Institute for Advanced Study he proposed annually the names of art historians
from all over the world for temporarymembershipof the Institute, giving them in this
way the possibilityto work underideal conditions.
He was gifted with such extraordinarypersonalcharmthat everybodywho once came
into the orbit of his influence remainedforeverunder his spell. People who conducted
violent polemics againsthis works became friendsof Panofsky'sfor life when they got to
know his amazing mind and his unexpected receptivity, even to the ideas of young
colleagues. Short in stature and far from beautiful, he was attracted in his historical
imaginationby 'little great men', as he called them. We find that idea in his beautiful
essay on Abbot Suger, where he gave us a - doubtless autobiographical- account of
people for whom 'an exceptionally smallphysiqueseems to be insignificantin the eyes of
history'. It was certainly not without personal reference that as motto of his Suger
monographPanofsky chose the couplet found in the obituaryof the great abbot written
by Simon CapraAurea:
Corpore,gente brevis,geminabrevitatecoactus,
In brevitatesua noluit esse brevis.57
A passionatereader,also of detective novels, a lover of A. ConanDoyle, an enthusias-
tic amateurof music who always had the Kochel-Verzeichnisat hand in his livingroom,
an intrepid discussion partner of physicists and mathematiciansaround the Institute, a
man who used to give a lift in the afternoon to his old maid Emma, bringingher in his
very old Cadillacto the Negro quarterof Princeton.He had a specialfondness for blacks.
Universally admired and loved, he reciprocated these feelings with warmth, never
leaving a letter unanswered,an offprint without a wise and witty commentaryas a certain
proof that he had readthe text througheagerly.

6. Humanistand man
In his life and in his scholarshipPanofsky followed the ideal of the humanisticattitude,
which he characterizedmost beautifully in his lecture of 1940, mentioned already.
Humanitas meant for him the strength of man, expressedin his reason and freedom of
will, but at the same time the weaknessof man, expressedin his shortcomings.From this
concept of humanitashe deducedthe claim of responsibilityof man for his own conduct,
but also of tolerationfor the shortcomingsof his fellow men. He did not accept any form
of determinism,a doctrine which deprivesman of his freedom to decide about his own
behavior, and eventually liberates him of any responsibilityfor his words and acts. He
disagreedalso with those who deny the moral significanceof human acts. He was anta-
gonistic to aestheticism,'insectolatrism'professingthe all-importanceof the hive, but also
to subordinationto any authoritynot controlledby reasonand morallaw.
He appreciatedthe 'ironicalskepticism'of Erasmusand his 'unheroiclove' of study in
tranquillity, but he recalled the duty inherent in the concept of a humanist of being a
watchmanon the tower. The humanistis in a privilegedposition, commandsa view of a

57. Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.Denis and Its Art Treasures,Princeton 1946,
Introduction, 1-37.

87
large horizon unobstructed by practical little problems of everyday life; but he has a
responsibility'which devolvesupon the tower dwellernot in spite but becauseof the fact
that he dwells in a tower.' The humanistperceivessocial and political dangersfaster than
others. His duty is to spy out calamitiesand to raise his voice to prevent them. And he
should not remainsilent when it is necessaryto speak.58
A humanist, in Panofsky'sconception, rejects uncontrolled authority,but he respects
tradition, and in interpretingit he discoverslastingvaluesin the humanrecordswhich he
transmitsto posterity. He analyzes signs and structureswhich emergefrom the streamof
time, left behind by men of past times who expressed throughthem their thoughts.The
humanist is thus, fundamentally, an historian who 'endeavorsto transformthe chaotic
variety of human recordsinto what may be called a cosmos of culture,'just as a scientist
'endeavors to transform the chaotic variety of natural phenomena into what may be
called a cosmos of nature.' The human world createshistory by interferingwith time,
opposing conscious recordsof humanexistence to its flow. The task of the humanistis to
decode these records, to understand their message and to transmit them further, to
resuscitatethat which without the humanist would remaindead, destroyedby time. The
natural sciences, Panofsky wrote, attain a sum of knowledge called by the Latin word
scientia; the humanities attain learning, eruditio. The first is a mental possession, the
second a mental process. 'The ideal aim of science would seem to be something like
mastery,that of the humanitiessomethinglike wisdom.'59
Withinthat cosmos of culture built up by the humanist - may I continue Panofsky's
argument - the art historian constructs the world of art. Although the number of ma-
terial objects, its components, remainsstatic or growsslowly, the function, the structure
and the content of that world change, transformedby the mind of the scholar, who
constitutes them accordingto his own conception of the cosmos of culture, accordingto
the way in which his intellect and his imaginationorganizethat cosmos.
The mind of the scholar is like a convex mirrorwhich concentrates our sight on
specific objects, qualities, problemsand values. Some scholarspresent to us a foggy but
beautiful image; the image presentedby others is out of focus but touching; still others
present an image of absolutesharpness,wherewe see each detail, but where the life of art
is extinguished.
Panofsky's mirrorshowed the cosmos of art in a way similarto that in which one of
the artists closest to him, Jan van Eyck, showed the real world in his pictures. In a
masterly way that painter solved the fundamentalproblemconfrontinghis generationof
artists: to establish an equilibriumbetween the analytic and synthetic view, between the
general view of the forest and the individualtrees. 'Jan van Eyck's eye operates as a
microscope and as a telescope at the same time.' Panofskysaid.60 Likewise,the profound
vision of the greatart historianpenetratedthe meaningand structureof the whole and of
the parts; it revealed great areasof thought and values, projectinga synthetic image of
them based on the most detailed possible analysis of the individualelements. In its

58. 'In Defense of the Ivory Tower', The CentennialReview of Arts and Science, I (nr 2), 1957,
111-112; 'Three Decades of Art History in the United States: Impressionsof a Transplanted
European',(1953], Meaningin the VisualArts, 321-346.
59. Meaningin the VisualArts, 25.
60. EarlyNetherlandishPainting,182.

88
panoramicview, composed accordingto the fundamentalproblemsformulatedby 'trans-
cendental analysis',Panofsky'svision took up everythingin its ken with a strongfeeling
for matter, objects, people and facts.
The cosmos of culture built by humanists changes; it is transformedand becomes
richer with the labors of the re-creatingand creatinghands of scholars.The art historian
changes that cosmos of art which existed before he came;he does it by discoveringa new
beauty, a new function or a new content.
As a mass of materialobjects, the world of art could remaina mass of lifeless things.
Organizedby the thought of humanistsinto a cosmos, it comes to life and becomes a vital
power. Panofskywas one of the greatarchitectsof that cosmos. He has given life to it. He
left it quite different than he found it. In countlessplaces of that immenseland his trace
has been so deeply engravedthat facing works of art whose meaninghe has revealed,it
would be impossibleever to forget that ErwinPanofskyfuit hic.

89