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

Notes 307Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance, ed. GertrudBing with F. Rougemont (1932), trans. David Britt (Los Angeles: Getty Center for TheHistory of Art and the Humanities, 1999), 184–221 and 222–62.177. Cennini, Il libro dell’arte o trattato della pittura, chaps. clxxxi–clxxxvi, pp. 123–29.178. Vite 3:373 [Lives 1:556].179. Votum est promissio Deo facta, etc. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, iia–iiae.88.1–2. On the extension of the concept of ‘‘votum,’’ see P. Séjourné, ‘‘Voeu,’’ inDictionnaire de théologie catholique, xv–2 (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1950), cols. 3182–234.180. Aby Warburg, ‘‘The Art of Portraiture . . . ,’’ proposed that Florentine portraiturehad three aspects: religious, pagan, and magical. The historical question broached here isvast, extending from Roman imagines and Etruscan tombs to the royal effigies studied byErnst Kantorowicz (The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology [Princeton:Princeton University Press, 1957]) and R. E. Giesey (The Royal Funeral Ceremony in RenaissanceFrance [1960; Geneva, 1983]).181. ‘‘And if the cadaver is so like, that is because it is, at a certain moment, likenesspar excellence, altogether like, and it is nothing more. It is likeness, likeness to an absolutedegree, upsetting and marvelous. But what does it resemble?’’ M. Blanchot, ‘‘Les deuxVersions de l’imaginaire,’’ in L’Espace littéraire (Paris: Gallimard, 1968), 351.182. ‘‘You have been taught that when we were baptized in Jesus Christ we werebaptized in his death (in mortem ipsius baptizati sumus); in other words, when we werebaptized we went into the tomb with him and joined him in death, so that as Christ wasraised from the dead by the Father’s glory, we too might live a new life.’’ Romans 6:3–4.183. As maintained by, for instance, Federico Zeri. See F. Zeri, Behind the Image: TheArt of Reading Painting, trans. Nina Rootes (1987; London: Heinemann, 1990).184. On the fundamental notions of the gap and the dislocating limit of the imaginary,see again Écrits, 552 [Fink, 186], and, above, all, Jacques Lacan, The Seminar, Book ii. TheEgo in Freud’s Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, trans. Sylvana Tomaselliwith notes by John Forrester (1954–55; New York: W. W. Norton, 1991), 146–78.185. H. Michaux, Face à ce qui se dérobe (Paris: Gallimard, 1975).Appendix1. Interpretation, 104 (in French in the original).2. See N. Schor, ‘‘Le Détail chez Freud,’’ Littérature 37 (1980): 3–14.3. Sigmund Freud, ‘‘Fragment of an Analysis of a Case of Hysteria’’ (1901/05), in SE 7,p. 9.4. We know that the paradigm of the treasure subtends Panofsky’s interpretation ofTitian’s Allegory of Prudence (see Meaning, 146–68). More recently, Carlo Ginzburg hasconferred a new legitimacy on the iconographic roman à clef, arguing that paintings can‘‘reveal the secret’’ of their ‘‘commission.’’ See Carlo Ginzburg, The Enigma of Piero, trans.Martin Ryle and Kate Soper (London: Verso, 1985).5. Gaston Bachelard, Essai sur la connaissance approchée (Paris: Vrin, 1927). See alsochapter 11 of the same author’s La Formation de l’esprit scientifique (Paris: Vrin, 1980 [11thed.]), 211–37.6. Bachelard, Essai sur la connaissance approchée, 9.7. Ibid., 95.8. Lives, 2:794. Diderot’s remarks about Chardin begin as follows: ‘‘Approach, everythingbecomes muddled, grows flat, and disappears; move away, everything recreates and