5
Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture by Richard Krautheimer Review by: Spiro K. Kostof The Art Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 261-264 Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048477 . Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:04 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 [email protected]. . College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Art Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture by Richard KrautheimerReview by: Spiro K. KostofThe Art Bulletin, Vol. 49, No. 3 (Sep., 1967), pp. 261-264Published by: College Art AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048477 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 02:04

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

College Art Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The ArtBulletin.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 2: Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

BOOK REVIEWS 261

the whole permits consideration of the Callima- chus epitaph as an early example of the group in which stress is laid on intellectual achievements

and on earthly glory attained through the books of the humanistic hero. (For a discussion of the relation of the epitaph to Netherlandish painting, especially to Eyckian models see Jolanta Maurin Biatostocka, "W sprawie wplyw6w wloskich w plycie Kallimacha," Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, 19, 1957, 178-82.)

Since it is not discussed by Panofsky it is per- haps worthwhile to mention a group of tomb slabs which include an intellectual element ex-

pressed by the books on which the deceased re- poses. Several such slabs are to be found in the narthex of Santi Apostoli, Rome, two others are located in Santa Maria del Popolo (a slab of Bishop Iohannes de Montemorabili who died in 1479); a slab of Fabritius Staibanus in San Pietro a Maiella, Naples shows him reposing on books. (For more examples and a discussion of this type see Kurt Gerstenberg, "Das Biicherstilleben in der Plastik" in Deutschland-Italien. Festschrift

Wilhelm Waetzoldt, Berlin, 1941, 135-59 and s'Ja- cob, Idealism, 207.) A late echo of this tomb type with book-background may be found again in England, this time at Canterbury.

While in epitaphs of the late fifteenth or early sixteenth century gestures and objects which have symbolic meaning appear in a realistic framework and produce what Panofsky once called "dis- guised symbolism," the hiatus between realism and symbolism is obvious in thirteenth and four- teenth century tombs. The present reviewer is somewhat reluctant to accept the characterization of the tombs of the Mainz archbishops Siegfried II of Epstein (d. 1249), Gerhart II of Epstein (d. 1305?) and Peter of Aspel or Aichspalt (d. 1320) as "absurd," because the deceased, their heads resting on pillows, are shown crowning simul- taneously two or three kings to stress their right to crown the German rulers (p. 55). They are ob- viously absurd by standards of fifteenth or six- teenth century realism, but should we regard them from such a point of view? It seems to this reviewer that the "antinomy" between the physi- cal placement of the figure and its artistic con- ception can be seen as such only when we adopt an anachronistic attitude. Is it not that gestures, objects and even the persons represented in the framework of the image do not function as real things seen in one space, but only as signs, sym- bols and attributes? The pillow denotes the eternal sleep of the Mainz prelate precisely as the taking of matrimonial oath on the English brass cited on the same page (pl. 212) denotes the fact that

the couple was married; the gesture of crowning the kings signifies the right to execute such a function but it was certainly not intended to cre- ate any realistic image of an actual crowning ceremony in the mind of the beholder. Even if they had been conceived as standing and not recumbent figures, the two or three kings repre- sented in miniature and crowned could have been

conceived only as attributes, as the basilisk and the dragon could not have had any realistic "ex- istence," even if the position of the figure had justified the prelate's ability to trample the beasts.

But if we doubt our right to call--from the mediaeval point of view--such compositions "ab- surd," we can only admire Panofsky's precision in characterizing the development leading in var- ious ways from such symbolic compositions to the new forms of the late mediaeval and Renais-

sance tombs. The late Robert Klein rightly stressed, in his thoughtful review of Tomb Sculpture (Mer- cure de France, No. 353, Jan.-Apr., 1965, 364- 67), Panofsky's tendency to establish iconographic rules and laws. This striving to introduce an or- der (sometimes limited to establishing pairs of contrasting phenomena) into the bewildering rich- ness of iconographic expression in funerary art, and the clarity resulting from such an endeavor are qualities which make the reading of this new book by Panofsky such an exciting experience, known so well to the readers of his other books.

It is of course impossible, even in a review of some length, to render justice to all the merits of the book, or to discuss the innumerable points of interest which it includes. One thing however is sure. Panofsky's presentation of a synthesis of our knowledge in this one field of art historical research will certainly stimulate, and form a point of departure for, new research. Tomb Sculpture will remain, as so many germinal books by that great master of art historical studies, among the basic works which determine turning points in the history of our discipline.

JAN BIALOSTOCKI

University of Warsaw, National Museum in Warsaw

RICHARD KRAUTHEIMER, Early Christian and Byzan- tine Architecture, Harmondsworth and Balti- more, Penguin Books, 1965. Pp. 390; 110 figs.; 192 pls. $20.00.

No volume in the Pelican History of Art series was more needed than the one under review: none could have been more taxing to write. In the last three decades or so widespread and persistent research in the field of early Christian and, to a

somewhat lesser degree, Byzantine architecture has significantly revised our knowledge of the standard monuments, added scores of new monu- ments to the list, and in the process eroded the doctrinal polarizations in the scholarship of the first third of the century. For these reasons early handbooks (chief among them O. Wulff, Altchrist- liche und byzantinische Kunst, Berlin, 1914-24; C. Diehl, Manuel d'art byzantin, 2nd ed., Paris, 1925-26; and J. Ebersolt, Monuments d'architec- ture byzantine, Paris, 1934) were seriously out- dated. The few newer efforts of synthesis have been brief and limited in scope (J. A. Hamilton,

Byzantine Art and Decoration, London, 1933, 2nd ed. 1956; E. C. Davies, The Origins and Develop- ment of Early Christian Church Architecture, London, 1952; W. MacDonald, Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture, New York, 1965). Understandably so. The subject now covers a vast geographic area: the ring of lands around the Mediterranean, the countries of the Middle East, the Balkans, and Russia. Reports are scat- tered in scores of journals, more than a few of them hard to come by. The student who pro- poses to write a thorough history of the subject has to be an indefatigable traveler and an excep- tional linguist. And if the book is not to be a mere descriptive register of buildings, he must also have a perceptive enough understanding of the subject as a whole to establish some sort of intelligible construct from the wealth of fact available to him.

Prof. Krautheimer's long-awaited history ad- mirably meets this challenge. The assignment was natural. His sustained concern with the subject has been demonstrated amply by the magisterial Corpus basilicarum christianarum Romae (1939ff.), now nearing completion, and by the handful of basic articles published since the 1930's which not only set out to clarify specific issues such as the origin of early Christian church architecture or the problem of the tripartite transept, but in do- ing so have educated us in method and offered cor- rective measure to the flamboyant dogmatism of earlier scholars like the formidable Josef Strzy- gowski. Finally, Krautheimer's outlines for his courses at New York University were models of organization for those of us who were setting up similar courses elsewhere, and provided a fore- taste of the history volume to come.

Early Christian and Byzantine Architecture is first of all an excellent work of reference, and will undoubtedly be used as such for a long time. Over two hundred churches, martyria, and pala- tine structures are encompassed, and at least briefly discussed. Clear, up-to-date drawings illus- trate many of them. Recent discoveries, here

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 3: Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

262 The Art Bulletin

given their canonization, will soon become com- mon knowledge. The impressive early Christian basilica of Saint Leonidas at Lechaion, not only introduced but ably analyzed, is one instance (pp. 99-101). Troublesome old acquaintances are firmly redated. Saint Demetrius at Thessaloniki is at-

tributed to the late fifth century (p. 97); San Lo- renzo in Milan to ca. 370 (p. 55); dates of post- Justinianic churches like the one at Dere Agzi, Saint Nicholas at Myra (Demre), and Saint Clem- ent at Ankara, though unsettled, are narrowed down and properly focussed. The selection of plates is generous and informative, the quality of the photographs generally high. A careful index which lists monuments by building type as well as place should make it easy to locate isolated items of interest. The selected bibliography is brief, but the notes, keyed in to the index, cite most papers and books of consequence. There is, finally, a useful glossary of terms.

But Krautheimer's volume is much more than

a handbook. Its lucid and intelligent organization creates a coherent narrative that informs each

monument with historical pertinence, and gives credit to the most inconspicuous of local building traditions. At the same time a general thesis is coaxed into shape with each succeeding chapter. Brutally summarized, this thesis is as follows: 1. Early Christian architecture was not a pre-

dominantly Eastern or Western development but should be seen as the final brilliant phase in the architectural tradition of the Roman

Empire. 2. Generally speaking, the timber-roofed basilica,

adopted from Roman civil architecture to be- come the premier form in church building both in the East and the West up to the age of Justinian, represents the only meaningful link with the architectural language of classi- cal Roman antiquity.

3. For the rest, early Christian architecture was rooted in the forms of late antiquity as they were to be seen, most especially, in the pro- ductive centers of the eastern Mediterranean.

4. In the time of Justinian the timber-roofed ba- silica, and with it the architectural concepts of classical Rome, came finally to an end. In the West these concepts would be consciously re- vived, after a break of more than two cen- turies, under Charlemagne. In the East, on the other hand, beginning with Justinianic pro- grams Christian architecture, henceforth prop- erly called Byzantine, would be firmly asso- ciated with the formal ambience of the vaulted, centrally planned imperial buildings of late antiquity (like palace halls, mausolea, and the

like), and it must therefore be understood in the context of these late antique buildings.

This thesis is in harmony with the recent sensi- ble trend of early Christian-Byzantine scholar- ship, initially articulated by J. B. Ward Perkins ("The Italian Element in Late Roman and Me- dieval Architecture," ProcBritAc, 33, 1947), which denies the argumentative simplicities of Orient oder Rom and the fanatical and often far-fetched search for ultimate sources on which this artifi-

cial dichotomy has so long flourished. The new trend does not put much score in the formal simi- larities of plans, so often adduced in the past as evidence for regional affiliations, even when the regions were far apart in time and place. "Re- semblances of plan on paper," as Krautheimer writes, "regardless of scale, are not historical reality. Gaps of half a millenium between the putative forebear and the offspring are not easily bridged, unless there are unquestionable interme- diaries... Is it, after all, really necessary to speak of dependence and influence wherever a resem- blance exists between two styles distant in time and place? Is not a design in solids simply one of the possible architectural concepts which repeats itself in history?" (pp. 104f.; see also similar ob- jections on pp. 232f.).

Ward Perkins, Krautheimer, and others now choose to see a koine of architectural forms over a large part of the Mediterranean world of Ro- man and Christian antiquity, and to distinguish regional variants within this koine. According to Ward Perkins the variants are the outcome of

discrete local building techniques. For Kraut- heimer the problem of identity is more complex. Regional modes are determined only in part by the use of similar building materials and tech- niques. More important determinants are what he calls "stylistic characteristics of building" or "stylistic concepts" p. 71f.) which remain con- stant within a region even when materials and techniques might differ from area to area. This stylistic unity is discussed by Krautheimer in terms of predilections in space and mass, in the use of light and decoration. Thus for the fifth century (a term which to him is not one of purely chronological significance) he is able to distin- guish among three such regions: the Latin-speak- ing West; the coastlands of the Aegean, with Constantinople as the main generative center; and the inland countries of the Near East (Syria,

Egypt, Armenia and Asia Minor). According to this presentation, a highly inventive period from the time of Constantine to the end of the fourth century was followed by the consolidation of a few building types and norms, regionally varied.

The sixth century and much of the later con- tent of the book is organized on this same prin- ciple of building families, general architectural themes, and their stylistic variations. For the early Byzantine centuries beginning with Justinian, for example, the main theme is reduced to a basic unit: the cross shape surmounted by a dome (p. 172). For the Middle Byzantine period the discus- sion is concentrated on four new building types: 1. "the atrophied Greek-cross" plan; 2. "the oc- tagon-domed" plan; 3. "the Greek-cross-octagon" plan; and 4. "the quincunx or cross-in-square" plan (pp. 241ff.).

This change of the organizing principle of the early Christian and Byzantine material from one of similarities in plan and elevation to one of typal themes has obvious advantages. It makes obsolete those long drawn-out discussions of "origins," a classic example of which was the early Christian basilica. By viewing it as a build- ing type with many variants and associating it with the civil basilica of the Romans, itself a building type with variants, one need go no fur- ther in search of prototypes (pp. 20f.). The Egyp- tian hypostyle hall, the atrium house, and all the other "sources" which have been proposed in the last sixty years can be forgotten with im- punity. At the same time this new method of or- ganization is clearly more justifiable from a his- torical viewpoint. It renders possible the studying of buildings within a compact cultural and chron- ological framework that avoids great leaps across space and time based on dubious physical resem- blances. One does not feel free to propose dou- ble-apsed basilicas in North Africa as the imme- diate source for those of mediaeval Europe, nor to claim that San Lorenzo in Milan was designed by an Armenian architect. Krautheimer's bold and penetrating discussion of Hagia Sophia and Saints Sergius and Bacchus within the context of centrally planned audience halls and their emu- lating counterparts, centrally planned palatine churches (pp. 166ff.), surely makes more historical sense, not to say more credible reading, than the arguments we have had to tolerate which linked these extraordinary Justinianic buildings to every- thing from the Pantheon and the Basilica Nova to structures in Peruitica, Zvartnots, Parthian and Sassanian Persia, and Mesopotamia.

And yet, it must be said, one is not entirely comforted. Like any method of organization, this too at times defeats its purpose. The temptation cannot be avoided to urge even the most original of buildings to become a variation of a typal theme. In shunning unwarranted claims Kraut- heimer is forced to suppress unusual achievement.

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 4: Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

BOOK REVIEWS 263

Thus a wide variety of ingenious centrally planned palace halls are lumped together in one paragraph to form a "family" (p. 54). Two strik- ing monuments, the oval church of Saint Gereon at Cologne and the north basilica at Trier, are summarily classified: Saint Gereon with the state- ment "imperial mausolea come to mind," Trier with the assertion that "the singular design is certainly rooted in Late Roman architecture" (p. 62). At times buildings are analyzed into "stylis- tic" components in a way that dismembers one's memory of their greatness. Thus Sant'Apollinare Nuovo is termed a "blend peculiar to Ravenna," and is found to be the result of a Latin Western plan executed in Milanese masonry technique into which "are fused elements purloined from the Aegean coastlands and as far away as Syria" (p. 139).

But this criticism is unfair. The book's interest is not in fact in buildings as individual creations, unique answers to specific needs, to subtly defina- ble social and historical conditions. General his-

torical background is briefly sketched, to be sure, at the beginning of each part of the book, and function or ritual is discussed whenever it has an obvious impact on design. But interpretations of single buildings along the lines of G. H. Forsyth's

paper on Old Saint Peter's ("The Transept of Old S. Peter's," Late Classical and Medieval Studies in Honor of Albert Mathias Friend, Jr., Princeton, 1955, 56-70) or O. Von Simson's on the sixth century churches of Ravenna (Sacred Fortress; By- zantine Art and Statecraft in Ravenna, Chicago, 1948) are clearly not part of the author's intention. Nor, of course, of the editor's. If they were, early Christian and Byzantine buildings would not, for one, have been divorced from their decorative schemes for study. This is a growing concern of this reviewer, and is aired here for what it is worth. Architectural histories have too long tended to treat buildings as structural envelopes or envelopes of design, and rarely as total en- vironments in which form and meaning are con- sidered inextricable. Treated as envelopes, it is inevitable that buildings would have to be grouped or classified in one way or another. One feels obliged to remark that this strict approach, so superbly illustrated by Krautheimer's book, pre- sents the archaeology of past architectures-that their history cannot be written when as elemental a part of their content as the programs of decora- tion is arbitrarily omitted from the discussion. The arrangement is especially unsatisfactory in this period when, as Otto Demus (Byzantine Mosaic Decoration, Boston, 1955) has shown for Middle Byzantine church architecture, building and dec-

oration are not only inseparable, but one in fact is a condition of the other. And yet, there is no- where in Krautheimer's book a serious account

of mosaic pavements, icons, or wall paintings, and of their part in the total experience of the build- ings, undoubtedly because these disembodied pro- grams of decoration will be studied separately in a future volume of the Pelican series. At times

one feels that Krautheimer is almost impatient with this additional complication in discussing the buildings. Of the Kahriye Cami for example, he writes: "This interior serves as a frame for the

mosaics and paintings that cover wall and vaulting zones in such profusion and beauty as to over- shadow the architectural design" (p. 307). The author of the painting volume, from his stand- point, might well find the curving of the vaults something of a nuisance!

Another general criticism which again springs from a consciousness in the reviewer of the need

to study the total environment in dealing with his- torical periods of architecture must be voiced. This need would understand churches not as iso-

lated objects of scrutiny but as parts of larger settings, monastic or palatine complexes and ur- ban situations. Krautheimer devotes some space to monasteries and to palaces but this is minimal. Secular architecture gets nodding recognition here and there, but is for all practical purposes not a contributing factor in the book's argument. This is a pity. The material is not lacking. We know a considerable amount about early Christian cities like Antioch or the North African towns of Dje- mila and B~ne (Hippo). In the latter instance Krautheimer himself admits that "nowhere in North Africa can the church building be viewed as an autonomous structure. On the contrary it ought to be seen as part of the building complex which comprises the bishop's palace, dwellings for the clergy, dining rooms for community ban- quets ... store rooms, bakeries, oil presses and the like" (p. 145). But that is as far as such dis- cussions go. The history of the secular architec- ture of the early Christian and Byzantine period is yet to be written.

But to return to the book as we have it. The relative weight given to early Christian architec- ture and to the later centuries deserves comment. Roughly one half of the book is devoted to the former, a fourth to the period from Justinian to the end of Iconoclasm, and a fourth to "Middle" and "Late" Byzantine architecture. This division is apt to rankle some Byzantinists. My impression is that, regardless of length, the last section, Parts Six and Seven, is weak by comparison to the ex- cellence of the earlier sections. In the discussion

of "Middle Byzantine" architecture the primacy of Constantinople is insufficiently stressed, and both here and in the final chapters the prov- inces, especially Bulgaria, are allowed to obscure the critical development in the capital. The com- plexity and wealth of Serbian churches, on the other hand, does not come through. There is no mention of the interrelation of form, in masonry patterns most notably, between late Byzantine Constantinople and Seljuk architecture in Ana- tolia, although elsewhere in the book wonderfully provocative suggestions are made regarding pos- sible influence from Muslim sources. And of

course, not all students or general readers will agree with the verdict that "never is Late Byzan- tine architecture monumental, rarely is it subtle, and never is it great" (p. 294).

It remains to point out some small doubts and minor irritants.

1. I wonder if the date of mosaic floors is always a reliable criterion for dating the buildings to which they belong (pp. 81, 91). In the case of Cappadocian rock-cut chapels the presence of an aniconic decoration underneath a figural program is not a safe index for dating the ac- tual building to the Iconoclastic interval (p. 281). Most of these chapels, regardless of their date, were given initially a crude non-figural ornament in red paint, to exorcise the rock, as it were, and consecrate the hollowed space. More elaborate painted programs may or may not follow.

2. I see no meaningful connection between the double corbel-table frieze of the Orthodox

Baptistery in Ravenna and the apse of Qalat Siman. The attribution of this frieze to the fifth century (p. 133) is inaccurate (see now S. Kostof, The Orthodox Baptistery of Ra- venna, New Haven, 1965, 39-41, and 43-45). The apse decoration of Sant'Apollinare in Classe is mistakenly referred to as "seventh- century" (p. 196). (Only the Reparatus and the Abel-Melchizedec panels in the lower half of the apse are this late, while the mosaics on the triumphal arch are probably much later.)

And while still on Ravenna, let me take ex- ception to the curious description of the cen- tral vault of San Vitale as "not a dome but an

eight-sided cloister-vault placed on squinches"

(p. 170). 3. The scales on the drawings need to be used

with caution. In several instances the meas-

urements as given in the text do not agree with those derived from the drawings. (Note for example fig. 34 and p. 91; fig. 70 and p. 179; fig. 81 and p. 203; fig. 101 and p. 269.)

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Page 5: Early Christian and Byzantine Architectureby Richard Krautheimer

264 The Art Bulletin

4. There is no consistency in the spelling of Greek and Turkish names. We get both SS. Sergios and Bacchos (p. 53) and H. Sergios and Bakchos; St. Sergius at Gaza and H. Sergios (p. 181, within the same paragraph). If it is

Anthemios, why is it Isidorus? The church at

Ligourio is called H. Yoannis (p. 279) but most other churches with the same dedication are

plain "St. John" (e.g. St. John Aleiturgitos, p. 305). Most Turkish names are properly spelled: since Turkey has been using the Latin alpha- bet for over thirty years there is of course no reason for any of us to be transliterating. Spellings such as Quaranleg, Karabash, Elmaly (p. 354 nn. 58f.) are left over from Jerphanion's day and look doubly curious next to proper Turkish like Tavyanli.

5. Here are some questions that nag: If none of the Syrian towers seem to have served any practical or liturgical function (p. 115), which is a doubtful claim, why were they there? What is the meaning of "double cathedrals" in the North? (pp. 23f.) Why are the six aisles of the Epiphanius basilica at Salamis on Cyprus "best explained as a survival of Constantinian

planning"? (p. 80). The hypothesis of a late ninth century renascence of Justinianic style in Bulgaria is intriguing, but not convincing

(p. 226). I hope sincerely that these criticisms of Early

Christian and Byzantine Architecture, such as they are, will be taken both by Prof. Krautheimer and by his readers in the spirit in which they are offered. They are by no means intended to detract from the extraordinary achievement of the vol- ume, which is now, and will certainly be for a long time to come, indispensable. It is only great works of architectural history that have the power to remind us of how much more we would like to know.

SPIRO K. KOSTOF

University of California at Berkeley

MARIANNE HARASZTI-TAKACS, Budapest Museum of Fine Arts Spanish Masters, Corvina Press, Budapest, 1966. Pp. 21; 48 pls.

Lesser nineteenth century collectors and museums possessed of courage and insight were fortunate to find an important article very much in disfavor on the open market. Spanish art (with the excep- tion of Vel~zquez) was generally despised, and it is due to this curious circumstance that Spanish painting outside Spain can be studied far better in unexpected places such as America and Bu- dapest than in Paris or London.

The Budapest collection is especially dense in Spanish masterpieces and affords the student a comprehensive range of all the major schools and all the major epochs of Spanish painting. The roster is illustrious and carries us from the work of Pedro Sanchez, Juan de Juanes and other art- ists of the sixteenth century to a splendid series of seven El Grecos and on to the great masters of the siglo d'oro, Vel/zquez, Ribera, Zurbaran, Murillo and Alonso Cano. Crowning this collec- tion are the famous Goyas: two of his greatest portraits, representing the early and the late style with exceptional quality, and those celebrated cor- nerstones of modern painting, the Water-Carrier and the Knife-Grinder. But in listing only the most precious names one does the Budapest Mu- seum and Spanish art a great disservice by leav- ing out such intriguing painters as Carducho, Or- rente, Luis Tristan, Mateo Corezo the younger and Pedro Nunez de Villavicencio, who are rep- resented in Budapest by exceptionally forceful and well-preserved works.

The present book, alas, does not quite live up to the obligations which such a proud and all-too- little-known collection imposes. The introductory text, though thoughtful, is meager and conveys little of the special qualities or erratic wayward- ness of Spanish painting in general. Nor do the notes which accompany the illustrations illuminate this kind of highly demanding material. In the end, one must content oneself with at least having full-page illustrations of almost the entire Spanish collection at Budapest. The color, as is only to be expected in such a publishing venture, is overly succulent.

FRED LICHT

Brown University

BERNARD TEYSSEDRE,

Roger de Piles et les ddbats

sur le coloris au sidcle de Louis XIV, Paris,

La Bibliothbque des Arts, 1965. Pp. 684; 44 pls.

, L'histoire de t'art vue du Grand Sidcle, Paris, Julliard, 1964. Pp. 400; 16 pls.

There is something quite natural about the ap- pearance of books on French artistic theory of the seventeenth century at this time. This theory has not received much attention; but until recently French art of the seventeenth century had been little studied. During the past few years, however, a new interest has been taken in this art and im-

portant exhibitions have been devoted to LeBrun

(Versailles, 1963) and Jouvenet (Rouen, 1966 ). The study of theory forms an extension of this activity. Theory played an important role in the authori-

tarian Academy of Painting and Sculpture, to which virtually all artists belonged. It offers firm guiding principles for artists and interpretations of artistic excellence by artists and amateurs. The- ory must be considered in any fair or meaningful treatment of the art of the period. The study of seventeenth century French art together with the- ory is also of broader interest as a test of the importance for artistic practice of strictly intellec- tual processes.

The general outlines of seventeenth century French theory were described in books and arti- cles by nineteenth century French scholars, cul- minating in Andrb Fontaine's ambitious but sketchy Les doctrines d'art en France (Paris, 1909). By underlining the debt of French theorists to earlier Italian theory these writers unwittingly prepared the way for the kind of assessment of French theory found in Schlosser's standard Kunst- literatur (Vienna, 1924; La letteratura artistica, 2nd Italian ed., Florence, 1956, 627ff.) where it is con- temptuously characterized as a mere populariza- tion of Italian ideas. In the years following the publication of Schlosser's book a few devoted art historians have clarified the nature of the borrow-

ings of French theorists and brought into focus the French contribution to artistic theory. Prof. Lee's admirable article in this journal ("Ut pictura poesis: the Humanistic Theory of Painting, "AB, 1940, 197-269) and seminal pages in Prof. Blunt's Art and Architecture in France come to mind. But

Mr. Jacques Thuillier, who is preparing a major study of the subject, has recently demonstrated the great variety and enormous complexity of this material, indicating the considerable amount of work yet to be done ("Pour un Corpus Pussini- anum," Actes du Colloque Nicolas Poussin, Paris, 1960, II, 49-238).

Roger de Piles et les ddbats sur le coloris is the first work on seventeenth century French theory to make full use of the voluminous source ma-

terials in this field. Teysshdre deals extensively with theory in France from its beginnings shortly after the foundation of the Academy in 1648, through the period of its maturity, until about 1709. This massive book contributes a great deal to our knowledge of the subject, and is worth dis- cussing in some detail. It does not, I think, fill the need for a book of its kind. It is difficult to use

because of an extremely cumbersome apparatus and the frequent disregard for elementary rules of style in the notes. More disconcerting, however, is a conflict of purpose in the author's method and approach.

Teysshdre is primarily concerned, as the title suggests, with color polemics. But he has not lim-

This content downloaded from 185.2.32.110 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 02:04:04 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions