Part 1 - The Institute Libraries - Institute for Advanced Study

lish nev objectives, say, in kerican archaeology, or Egyptian, or
Assyrian, would be neither as setisfactory nor as economical; Princeton .
had gained "a considerable noment~." in its fields, and the Institute
could be more effective in contributing to their development than by
initiating its own fields of inquiry. To strengthen his position he
quoted an opinion from Dr. Ervin Panofsky,.eminent art-historian lately
of Hamburg, and presently teaching as Visiting Professor at New York
University.
'Art and archaeology would really be the best thing to begin
v'Lh, for as things hzve Zeveloped, art-history has beccmz
a kind of clearing house (both literally and figuratively
speaking) for all the other historical disciplines which,
when left alone, tend to a certain self-isolation. This
key position in modern Geistesgeschichte iccounts also for
the success of the Uarburg Library in Hzmburg, and it vould
be a ragnificent idea to build up a similar thing (yet not
a duplicate, thanks to the well-established tradition of
your Department) at Prin~eton.'~
According to this pattern, Dr. Morey then listed five profes-
sorial positions, and suggeste? four candidates as follows: (1) An art-
historian in the 14th Century and the later Middle Ages, for which he
named Dr. Panofsky, "the most brilliant scholar in.. .~Fhose periodsi - that
we know." (2) A paleographer in Greek and Latin, for which, with the
admission that such a genius did not exist, he named Dr. Elias A. Love
as "second to none in Europe" in Ltin. (3) A specialist in Greek
architecture, for vhich he suggested Dr. Y. B. Dinsmoor of Columbia.
(4) A Greek epigraphist, for which he named Dr. Benjamin D. Ileritt,
"outstanding ... knovn for his brilliant vork on the Agora inscription^.^
(5) A Near Eastern archaeologist with a special competence in Islamic
art. For this position he had no candidate. But he said that not only