georges didi huberman, confronti... - lensbased.net

294 Notesfrom Ripa’s manual much more closely than does the actual canvas. See Panofsky, ‘‘Titian’sAllegory of Prudence: A Postscript,’’ in Meaning, 146–68.103. Panofsky, ‘‘Iconography and Iconology . . . ,’’ 32.104. ‘‘Plus familier et moins sujet à discussion’’; ‘‘d’être lu avec la plus extrême prudence.’’Panofsky, in Essais d’iconologie: Thèmes humanistes dans l’art de la Renaissance, trans.C. Herbette and Bernard Teyssèdre (Paris: Gallimard, 1967), 3–5.105. Panofsky, ‘‘Iconography and Iconology . . . ,’’ 32.106. See, for example, A. Roger, ‘‘Le Schème et le symbole dans l’oeuvre de Panofsky,’’in Erwin Panofsky, ed. Jacques Bonnet (Paris: Cahiers pour un temps, 1983), 49–59,who writes that ‘‘the pivotal question is that of Panofsky’s relation to Kant’’ (49).107. See, in particular, Dora Panofsky and Erwin Panofsky, Pandora’s Box: The ChangingAspects of a Mythical Symbol (London and New York: Routledge/Kegan Paul, 1956.Panofsky and Panofsky, ‘‘The Iconography of the Galerie François Ier at Fontainebleau,’’Gazette des Beaux-Arts 52 (1958): 113–90. Panofsky, The Iconography of Correggio’s Camera diSan Paolo (London: Warburg Institute, 1961). Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic(New York: New York University Press, 1969).108. Panofsky, ‘‘Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung . . . ,’’ in Aufsätze,91–92.109. It is worth recalling here that Warburg took a very different tack.110. Panofsky, ‘‘Zum Problem der Beschreibung und Inhaltsdeutung . . . ,’’ in Aufsätze,93.111. Ibid., 93 and 95 (synoptic table).112. Erwin Panofsky, Perspective as Symbolic Form, trans. Christopher S. Wood (NewYork: Zone Books, 1991), 40–41.113. See Panofsky, ‘‘Introductory,’’ Studies in Iconology, 8 (‘‘ ‘symbolical’ values’’), 15(‘‘symbols’’), and 16 (‘‘ ‘symbols’ in Ernst Cassirer’s sense’’).114. Cassirer, PSF (orig. German ed. 1923–29; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955).115. For a survey of neo-Kantism, see T. E. Willey, Back to Kant: The Revival of Kantianismin German Social and Historical Thought, 1860–1914 (Detroit: Wayne State UniversityPress, 1978).116. PSF 1:76.117. Ibid., 77.118. Ibid. Cassirer had developed this thesis at length in an earlier book, Substanzbegriffund Funktionsbegriff (1910); English ed.: Substance and Function, trans. W. C. Swabey andM. C. Swabey (Chicago and London: Open Court, 1923).119. ‘‘All cognition, much as it may vary in method and orientation, aims ultimatelyto subject the multiplicity of phenomena to the unity of a ‘fundamental proposition.’ . . .Essentially cognition is always oriented toward this essential aim, the articulation of theparticular into a universal law and order.’’ PSF 1:77.120. Ibid., 84.121. Ibid., 80.122. Ibid., 80. See above, page 000.123. Ibid., 77 (my emphasis).124. Ibid., 110–12. See also 98: ‘‘This dialectic of metaphysical ontology can be avoidedonly if, from the very start, ‘content’ and ’form,’ ‘element’ and ‘relation’ are conceivednot as terms independent of one another, but as concurrent and mutually determiningone another.’’125. Ibid., 86.126. Ibid., 99–100, 105–6.