ALSO BY MICHAEL

ANN

HOLLY

of Porrofb and tbcFsunfurtons An Hisnry (rp8+) l4wal Tbeory:Painting and Intetyaaaoa, co-editor with Norman Bryson and Keith Moxey (tqqo) Iconografra lcnologia Gggz) e Wnal Culnre: bnaga and Intapreuaozr, co-editor with Norman Brpon and Keith Moxey (tgg+)

Pasr LooKrNG
Historical Imagination and tbe Rbetoric tbe Image of

MICHAEL ANN HOLLY

l?' c'x&
Cornell University Press
ITHACA AND LONDON

\--r---

A-ncuArscsEn Tonso Arolros \\tr kannten nicht sein unerhortes Haupt, darin die Augendpfel reiften. Aber sein Torso gltiht noch wie ein Kandelaber, in dem sein Schauen,nur zurtickgeschraubt, sich hdlt und gldnzt. Sonst konnte nicht der Bug der Brust dich blenden, und im leisen Drehen der Lenden kcinnte nicht ein Llcheln gehen zu jener l'Iitte, die die Zeugung trug. Sonst stiinde dieser Stein enstellt und kurz unter der Schultern dursichtigem Sturz und flimmerte nich so u'ie Raubtierfeller und brdche nicht aus allen seinen Rindern aus wie ein Stern: denn da ist keine Stelle, die dich nicht sieht. Du musst dein Leben dndern. Rainet' Maria Rilke, r 9o8
I

CoNTpNTS c.$s

List of Ilhrnations Preface Telling a Picture Picturing Cultural History Looking into the Past Imagining the Baroque Writing Leonardo Backwards Witnessing an Annunciation Reading Critical Theory Index

lx xtll

Ancnelc Tonso or Arono We cannot know his legendary head with eyes like ripening fruit. And yet his torso is still suffusedu'ith brilliance from inside, like a lamp, in u'hich his gaze, now turned to lorv, gleams in all its power. Otherwise the curved breast could not dazzle you so, nor could a srnile run through the placid hips and drighs to that dark center u'here procreation f'lared. Otheru'ise, this stone would seem defaced beneaththe translucentcascade the shoulders of and would not glisten like a wild beast'sfur: would not, from all the borders of itsell burst like a star: for there is no place that does not see you. You must change your life.

',

29 64 9r
tt2

3 4 5 6
1

r49 r70
2o,9

6
-'ii

\ArrrNESsrNG eN ANNUNcTATToN

.''l!i rit -.. ".r1" ! :' rr i'l'i if.

L piture hcld us cal)tivc. And wc coulcl not gct outsiclc it, f<rr it lay in our l:rnguatc antl langr,ragc sccnrcd to rcpcat itsclf to us inexorably. I.uorv rc Wr-rrc eNs'rr w, I \t i I oso lt i caI Ina estgat i ons p i . . . in ccrtain paintings figuration is irlwaysthe mystcry of an incarnation whosc statcrncnt always pl'cscnts itself as thc annunciation o[ a sccrct; or yct again that plinting'-sfiguration is thc "rnystcrious" cxposurc to sight of thc "announccd" sccrct of languirgcls staterncnt. Lours ManrN. "SrrrrrN<;a Mys'r'rnrous lilcunr"

r,].U f{'1.

r..!t .;.ij: #t5f

Ei+'

. .J,. ' ', r '- , ] ."')." F il ',.ir* ;; 'af\-r n{

.4^r ','.1 '}B'

l.!dll.

Figu'e 56. Lconardo. "Studicsof lmagcsPassing drrough Apcrnrrcs;Coloulcd Lights; Iluman Figurc in Motion and Light rrnd Shadc," r5o8. lloyal Librarl', \44ndsor, r9r49v, r9r50, r9r5r, r9r5z. The RoyalCollcction,C)ourtcsy llcr MajcsryQuccn of Elizabcth Il.

In rnakingan arpmcntfor what he callsthc "pictorialturrt," W.J. T Mitchcll hasurgcdlatc tu'cnticth-century criticsto payattcntionto thc waysin which actualhistorical picturcsrcrrch out to us and atternptto (figurc I9), of coursc,has tlrcir cl';rin'r. Las srrrkc \'cliz.qucz.'.s |l[cninns rrs visulrl c.ranrlllc oltthat l)roccss, drc ntirr<.rr its scrvcrl thc llrrrldigrrratic in thc backof thc sevcntccnth-ccnrury paintingis-ritualistically,cornpulsivcly, playfully-burnishcd to reflcctr llarrrtiveaboutits own pol"l'hisact of "intcrpcllation"at ishcdsolicitation thc spcctatorls of gazc. thc prim'.rlsccnc of intcrprctatir-ru rcglrdcd by Mitchcll as synis rvithscrious onynrous play:"'l'he scnsc drat thc inragc or grcets hailsor adclrcsscs thet it takcs thc bcholdcr into thc ganrc,cnfolclsdre us, obscwcr:rsobjcct for thc 'grrzc'of thc picturc."l
r. \\/..1.'tl A'litchcll, I'iclilrc'l'l,cot'y: I')rsr.ys lirhnl nnl Wnnl Intcrprctulrbr (Chic'rgo: on U ni vcrsi ty,of (,hi cago l )rc s s , r994), p. 75. Mi tc hc l l rl c fl rrc s c "pi c tori al turn" A s a "pos ttl l i n5nri sti c, postscnri oti c rl i s c ov c rl of thc pi c turc as i r c ottrpl c xi ntc rpl av hc rrv ec nv i s ual i ty rc ' (p. r6). :l l )l )ari rtus, i nsti tuti ons,tl i s c ours c l,x rtl i c s ,anrl fi grrrrrl i tv "

WITNESSING

AN ANNUNCIATION

I 5I

r v; \o o\

o
fl o

U
0 ti

E
U

e
U L4 tr ii s

Y -a

b t
a.
F

In many ways Mitchell's thesisabout pictorial interpellatiori resonateswith my own, but the argument in these pagescircles around a specific aspectof spectatorialexchange:that between the visual rhetoric of the image and the rhetorical and textual strategiesof its historical interpreters.I do believethat therc are many occasions when we can nearly map a one-to-one compositionalcorrespondence betweenimagesand the texts written about them (and I have explored that relarionshipin earlier chapters), perhaps more interestingoccasion but the occurswhen tJratrelationshipis metaphorical. Rather than refcrring to a text, or even tqlng to write another one, to explain a fifteenth-century painting, we can read a Renaissance painting for the insights it may afford us, firsr, rerrospectively(anachronistically)into a highly influcntial rnid-twentieth-cenrury historiart cal program (iconology),and second,for the explanationit seemsto generatefor why that meth<ldological tour-de-force has come under attack in recent revisionist thinking. Reversing chronology, I wanr ro use the picture to pose a reading of its subsequenthisroriographic rcception.The opposition betweensubject and object is perpetually unfixed, historically on the move. Looking at times past is never a simple chronological act. Always and forever the figural imagination hasbcen there before us. And if we "see" the past at all, it is in large part because has lelded us the imageswith which to look. it Consider the Merode Altarpiece,painted by Robert Campin, also known as the Master of Fl6malle, in the early fifteenth century (figure 5Z).At first glancewe can secthat although thc biblical subjcctof the Arnnunciation paramount in thc central panel of the Flemish tripis rych, the painting is.also a srudy in thrcsholds: an iconography of windows,door, locks, and keys.Tiipartite in strucrure,the altarpiece hastwo side panelsthat can close,shutterlike,over the cozy domestic miracle forever taking place in the middle. 'fhe iconographicinterpretationsof the painting which havesucceeded unlocking its mysin tericsand opening up its "disguisedsymbolism" to critical scholarship in the wentieth century merit a brief recitation here.2Yet the work can
z. 'fhc tcrrn "disguised symbolisrn"is lirwin PanofskyS, fron Fatly Netherlandisb I'aintirtg:hs Origirc and Chanctcr, vols, (Ncw York: Icon Iiditions, r953),althoughmanysubsez qucrrt scholrrs lravcenrploycd asa rncthodological it conccpt unlocking nrysteries for thc of northern Renaissancc painting. For a samplingof somcof dreMerodescholarship, Mcyer sec Schapiro, "'.\{uscipula Diaboli': Thc Syrnbolisrn the Merodc Altarpicce,"^r{rrBulletinz7 of (Scptember r945): r8z-87; Charlcsdc'lolnay, "Uautcl Merode du Maitre de Fl6malle," Gazette benut-at'ts (g5g):65-78; Lloyd Bcnjanrin, des 'Disguised Symbolisrn Exposcd and 53

; U
t, 0

t-

r52

PAST LOOKING

WITNESSING

AN ANNUNCIATION

r53

also effectively serve as a painted metaphor for the processof intcra pretation itself. My subject is essentially historiographicone about reading and writing of time, about locking up and unlocking the the past, but my starting point, like that of nearly all art historians,is r canonizedwork of art. Reading the Merode narrative from left to right, we first encountcr the two Flemish donorskneeling piouslyin thcir walled flower gardcn, of whosehalf-open gatepermits a view into the ordinariness strcct lif'c outside (figure 58). Inside a rose bush blooms, and three birds havc alightedon the backwall. The Ingelbrecht coupleare watchedover by a beneficentman holding his hat, whom some scholarshaveidentified as the Prophet Isaiah,some as a marriagebroker, others as a contenljust having arrived through the back gate. The half:porary messenger oaken door, with is rusting iron hinges, a lock, and intricately open rvrought keys,permits the pair to "seeinto" the sacredmysteryoccursitting room. The fact insidetheir own well-appointed ring, presumably, in that the conceit of painting Annunciation scenes contcmporarysctits in both northern and southernworks shouldnot obscure tings occurs canwe ignore thc fact that thc political and socialimplications.Neither eyes, Her slightly downcast donatrixdoesnot look direcdy at the scene. like her rosary may well indicateher piety; but evenif shewereto lift hcr gaze,her view of the miracle would be partially obstructedby her husband'sback.Accessto the sacredevent is clearly gendercd,a fact that
Willirrn z bt the History of Early NetherlandishPainting,' Studies konograpbll (1976): .t.r-.24i ,.The Annunciation of the Merode Altarpiece:An lconographicalstutly," in Heclschei dcr TLxticlkunstcn, Miscelhnea Jozef Duueryer(Ghent: Vercniging voor de Geschiedcnis pp. 196g), 3!-61; Charlis I. Minoa, "The Thcme of the Merode Altarpiece,"l' Ballcti, 5r BulhAltarpiccc," of "The Iconography the Mcrodc. (ig6g)t i67-7 r; MargaretB, Frecman, 1957):r3o-39; Thcodorc.l{oussclu, tni of tbe lvtenopoliuiMuseunof Art 6 (Decenrber Muscumof An ft (Decembcr r957): "Thi Merode Altarpiece,"Bulletinof the Metropolitan Musmn oJ' Metyop.olitan rr7-zgj Helmut Ni;kel, "The Man besidethe Gate," Bulletinof th.e Ai z4'$966): 237-44;Ellen Callman,"Campint Maiolica Pitcher,"Art Bulletin64 (Dccenrber r98uj, 6zglriJoaef DeCoo, "A McdievalLook at the Merotle Annunciaion," ZeitschriJi fii, Iiorutgorlirire 44 (r98r): rr4-32; Marill'n A. Lavin, "Thc Mystic Wincprcssin thc Paintingin Honot'oflvlilla*l in iMerodeAltarpiece,';in Studies Lote Medinal and Renaissance rg77), Meks, ed.Irving Lavin andJohn Plummer(New York: New York UnivcrsityPress, zgl-jori Irving Zupnick, "The Mystery of tle Merode Mousetrap," BurlingtonMagazine Savc Mary Enlighten,andJcsus Cynthiatlahn, "'JosephWill Perfcct, rob (igeq' r16--33; Thee': The Holy Family asMarriageModel in the Merodc Tiiptych," An Bulletin68 (t986): of Aarhuics 54-66i Daid Carrier, "Naturalism and Allegory in Flemish Painting,"Journal ind At-t Critkism 45 (Spring t987): 237-49; BarbaraLane, "SacredversusProfanein Early and Synr"Rcalisnr r8 Paindng," Sim.iohs (r9ti8): I07-I5; Craig IJarbison, Netherlandish 66 tln IJullctitt (DcccrnbcrI9tl4): 5tlti-6o2.Scc also in b<rlisnr t)arly lilcnrishPairrting," (Milan: JacaBooks, r99z). Michacl Ann I{olly, konogafa e leonologia

may be only pardy explainedby the possibility that her portrait was paintedin after their betrothal. In thc central panel (figure 59) we litcrally wiuress(asdo our donors,but from a view at a right angle to ours) thc "pregnant moment" taking place, when all that has happencdhas bcen and all that will be is visually prophesied.The Virgin of Humility sits on the floor, leaning casually(if a Virgin can be so casually described) againsta carved wooden bench in front of a fireplace,rapt in her traditional reading of the Psalms,or perhapsin her reading of thc prophecy of Isaiah which itself doubly "announces" tlre birth of the Christ Child, or even triply or quadruply, if the Gospel book and scroll on the table are thelnsclves The Angel "read" asrevelations. his(?)spectacularly Gabriel, iridescent wingsstill aflutter,hassilently alighted acrossthe table. Has he too entered through a gardendooq or is he mcrely an apparition?Given his position, the donors would have to see through hirn, or elsethe sacreddrama enacted in their parlor would be occluded by the voluminous crisp white drapery on his winged back (at work hcre seems be a miniature chain of being Figrc 58. Dctail: Donors in Garden (lcft wing to in terms of who gets to sce: lnan of rhc Mcrodc'Iiiptycb). blocla the sight of woman, celesdal crearure blocksthe sight of rnortal man).Yct this is a rnattcrof mystical vision, not mere sight.l At the moment when Gabricl raiscshis hand
3. SeeClaudc Gandclrnan,ReadingPiotrcs, Vinuiug'fcxts(Bloonrington: lndiarrr Urrivcrsi ty P rcss, r99r), p.4r. A l s o s c c l oui s l \' l uri n, "S tati ng r My s tc ri orrsl i i grrrc ," i l l i uc ti t i u Contuuponny'l'lutn1: .'ln Intuzli.t,'iplimry .lppronh. vol. r: llirzr'.w, .\izzrirsir, tnl lbtr"ri ci. l l R onal d B ogue (P hi l :rdcl phi a:J ohn l c ni anri rrs \rbl i s hi ng, r99r),14r.45-64.

r5 4

PAST LOOKING

WITNESSING

AN ANNUNCIATION

r55

the Figre 59. Detail: The Annunciation (ccntral panel <.rf MerodeTiiptyel).

a in blessing, tiny baby bearinga gilded crossslidesthrough the unbroken round window paneon raysof golden light, headedstraight for the starburst pattern on Mary's red-robed lap. All of the attributes of a bourgeoishousehold,from the copperbasinto the neatly folded towel to the brasscandlestickto the majolica pitcher, have bccome transformed, like the toys at night in the Nutaacker ballet, into participants in the most sacredof all Christian stories. shop in the right wing who sits in his carpenter's The elderlyJoseph, (figure 6o) high above the town (in Flanders, not the Holy Land), is to himself deniedvisual access the sceneby the stone wall behind the fireplace.Patiendy drilling holes in a wooden board while his dcvout young wife becomesimpregnatedby sevenrays of light in the next

room, Joseph perhapsjusdy deserves more iconographic attention than any other actor in the plot. His artisanal activity has given rise to much speculation. Somescholars arguethat he is at work on a wineprcsssymbolically forctclling the rite of the Eucharist; othcrs speak of thc mousetrap dcsigned to catch the devil invoked by Saint Augustine. There has been in this century an abundance ofspeculative activity: the painting, as well as every detail in it, has been construed asa riddle to be answered. The puzzlesolving mania surrounding its restoration and reception in the r95os can serveto remind us of Carlo Ginzburg'sargument that thc detcction of cluesis itself the paradigrnatic modus operandi of art historical scholarship in the twentieth cenrury.a Panofsky's work on the painting servesas only one noted and, to be sure, much-criticizedexampleof this detectivc mania at work, although scores ofothcr cssays thc sadre in vcin aftest to its prirnal power as a conundrum. A fervent adrnirer of Sherlock Holmcs, the mastcr iconologist regardedthe painting as a mystery ro be unraveled evena crime to be solved.s or ln retrospect,his ingenious methodol-

Figarc 6o. Detail: Joseph in His Workshop (right wing of rhe Metoth 7i-iptych).

"Morelli, Freud,and shcrlockHolmes:cruesand Scientific 4. carlo Ginzburgr, Method," trans.Anna Davin, IlistoryI'Itorkshop 9 (r98o):5-36; rcprintcdas "clues: Rootsof an Evidcntial_Paradigm," cluu, M1tbs,and tbe l-listiriial Mubod, trans. 'le4eschian4 in John Anne C.'Ibtlcschi (Baltinrorc:-Johns Ilopkins Universitypress,r9g9i pp. 96_r25. See Frccnra-n, "'l'hc Icono6paphy thc Merode Altarpiece,'' of rJo-J9. l*"t Panofsky's affectionfor the work of Arthur Conan Ooyle,sceWilliarn fleckscher, _ S. Druin^Panofs\,: p. ! lun icaluu Vitae(Princeton:Rccordof the fui Museum zg, 1969), t7, Panofsky, Holmes,belicved like that "if all that which is impossible b..n'"*.l,i.l"il, th" h.r improbablc that remains rnustbc truc."

r56

PAST LOOKING

WTTNESSTNG AN ANNUNCIATION

I57

ogy reads like a wily processof interrogation designedto makc thc work of art "confess,"in GeorgesDidi-Huberman'sterm.6In his r953 Early Netherlandisb Painting:hs Originsand Characte4 Panofskyinvestigatedwhat he calledthe principle of "disguisedsyrnbolism"at work in the North. With regard to the Merodc pancl such an'.rnalysis, whilc acknowledgingthe "naturalism" of the Flemish interior, with its vcssels,towels,candlesticks, fireplaces, and so on, seeks find a Christian to meaning"concealed"within. By this iconologicalreckoning the foldcd towel, the copper laver, and the pure white lilies in the significant numbcr of three would be symbolsof Mary's chastity;the unbrokcn candlewhose pane of glassa symbol of her virginity; the extinguished wispy smoke trails into the quieted air not the result of the angcl's of beating wings but the sign of the presence the true light of God, accordingto the revelationsof Saint llirgitta. According to this view, in as the northern Renaissance the fifteenth century bedazzled it was by the inventionsgoing on in Italy, particularlyinvolving the systelnatization of space,had to put all sacredmysteriesto the "test of verifiability." But the equipoiseso delicatelyachieved alwaysthreatened to become undone: "The Master of Fl6rnalle'srcaliry not as yet cornpletely stabilized and coherent, with tables threatening to tip ovcr, benchesextendedto incredible length, interiors still conrbincd with exterior views, could not absorbsyrnboliccontent so cotnpletelythat or there remainedno residueof either objectivitywithout significance without disguise."T significance This entire notion of disguisedsynbolism, of course, has cou'rc historiansof Netherlandishart. under convincingattackby subsequent interpretation that or Yet it is not the efiEcacy the failuresof Panofsky's for a moment that his schemcfor I am addressing here. If we consider deciphermentwas not only anticipatcdby his methodologicalprimcr in the Inuoductory essayto Studics lconologof r93g, but also prein of dicted by some of the rnanifestpictorial strategies the paintingsat which he was looking, we might detect a reciprocating relationship (sometimes beween the analyticsysliteral, sometimesrnetaphorical) tematic and this particular painting on which it later so mcmorably rvent to work. For my purposeshere it does not really tnatter which
6. Georges Didi-Hubennan, "The Art of Not Dcscribing: Vermccr-'l'he Dctail and thc Parch," Hinory of the Hunran Sciences (June 1989): r37. z 7. Envin Panofsky, Ear$ Netberlandkb Painting: Its Origirts nnd Cltamcto", z vols. (r953, r p t . N e w Y o r k : I c on Ed itio n s, r 9 7 r ) , p p . r l4 , r 4 l.

camefirst: his looking at this kind of work or the devclop-"rrt.of hi, schemc.It is the to-and-fro-ness, element of play betweenimage the and text, in which I am interested. an amateurdetective fu myself,I am emplofng this fiftccrrth-centuryimageto uncoverdre disguised agenda in Panofsky's twcnticth-ccntury tcxt. 'lb revicw bricfly: in that famous"lconology" cssay Panofsky posited three levcls of reading an imagc in ordcr to dccode both latent and manifest meaningson his way to ensnaringthe past: the pre-iconographic, the iconographic, and the iconological (much like Freud's cxcavation the stratigraphyof thc unconscious). of A "pre-iconographical" descriptionon the basisof "practicalexperience" intcrprets "primary or nataftrl subject matter."8This stage is concerncdwith "factual" nrcirning,with thc rccognitionof the work in -lb its rnost clcmentarysense. cmploy Panofsky's analogy, when a man tips his hat to rne in greeting,I am rcstrictedon this level to noticing only the objects involved in the processof signi$ring: a hat and a gentleman.When applied to a work of art, the pre-iconographic calls attention to thc indcxicaland thc iconic elementsat work in the preliteratc, almost prevcrbal, perception of the image. Applied to the Merode Altarpiece,this level would have us recognize,for instance, that the sccnetakcsplaceboth insidc rnd outsideand is populatedby sevenforegroundedcharactcrs, one of them very tiny. An iconographicanalysisis interestcdin the secondaryor conventional mcaningsthat can be discovcrcdby a farniliarity with literary prccedents. The iconographicstagerelatesto conventionalmeaning, to thc recogrritionthat the man who greetsme by tipping his hat is bcing consciously polite with rcferenceto a sharedworld of cultural valuesthat both of us have acquiredby being urcmbcrsof a specific community. On this levcl we idcntify the subjectof thc painting: its rnoment and placeof enactrncnt,its literary prcccdents, the narnesof its characters, historical predccessors. the Merode Altarpiece, its For the Gospel story and the revelationsof Saint Birgitta would matter
8. Alf quoted nratcrial in this discussion from Erwin Panofsky, is Studies lemolog: in (r939; Ilunanistic'fhantes thcArt of the Rcnaissanec rpt. Ncw York:Icon Editions,r97z), in pp. 5-r7.Scc alsoMichacl Ann llolly, Panofslq the FoandationsArt History (k\eca: and of (lornell UnivcrsityPrcss,r984);Kcith Ntoxcy, "Panof'sky's Conceptof 'Iconology'andthe Problern oflntcrpretation theI{istory ofArt," Near in Literary Ilinory r7 (r985-86):,65-7+; Michaef Podro, 'fbe Crilical Historians Att (Ncw Flaven:Yale University Prcss, r98u); of (New I-Iaven:Yale D<rnaldPreziosi, RethinkitgAn History: Il4editutions a Coy Sciczce oi Univcrsity Press, 989).M itchellsccs "currcrrt r thc rcvivalof i ntercst Panofsky" just one in as rrr<rrc "syrnptorn tlrc pictorialturn," Mitchcll, I'ienre'l'hcory, 16. of p.

r58

PAST LOOXING

\VTTNESSTNG AN ANNUNCTATTON

r59

here,aswell asthe role of the altarpiece fifteenth-centurybourgeois in society. concenrs Iconology proper, the subjectof the third level of analysis, iself with "intrinsic meaningor content."The iconologicalhingeson a reading of the work as a possibly "unconscious"bearer of meaning beyond what the artist might have intended;in odrer words, this lcvcl involvesan analysis the rneaningin terms of underlf ng biographicrl of and cultural principles.For example,dre act of lifting a hat in greeting indicatesa whole range of twentieth-centuryvalues,both conscious while also providing a biography of the man who and unconscious, Although interactswith the world when he greetsme with this gesture. read the Merode Altarhe did not acruallydo so, Panofskymight have piecenot only asa "document" of Robert Campin'spersonalitybut also as an expression the worldview of the early northern Renaissance. of I am not setting out to claim that the Merode made Panofsky"sec" (althoughI sometimes think a legitimatecasecould be made frorn that direction) so much as I am using the altarpieceas a painted metaphor To for his interpretive process. grant it is theorcticalforce, iconology asan intellecrualsvstemis an articulateedifice.Like thc Merodc Altarheuristic architectonicis tripartite in structure.'l'hc piece,Panofsky's story of a work of art "unfolds" aswe move from one sceneto thc ncxt, for and eachlevel'is responsible unlocking yet another door to undcrstanding.If we think about the first, prc-iconographiclcvcl in relation to the lefthand panel of thc uiptych-we do, after all, have a man doffing his hat in both painting and interpretiveschemeto guide usprinciples can we detect? what sharedexegetical level,considerhow Carnpinis phenomenological On a fundamentally rvork of art is, on the one hand, about barricrsand, on thc odrcr, lltout of the process getting through theur, uruch like drc baby Christ in his slick penetration of the glasswhich does not break. Reminding drc attentive iconographerof Saint Birgitta's meditations on safekeeping ("but if we have houses,we may not keep what is gadrcrcd in thcttt exceptthey havedoors,nor lnay the doors hang without hingesn<lrbc shut without locls";,r the left panelis indeeda srudyin walls and doors,
revelations continucs: "'fhe door is hopc ' . . and frorn Saint Birgitta's 9. Thc passage nor ofattainingbliss, bc one that man shouldneverdespair this hopemusthavetwo hinges; pain.. . . Thc lock of the door mustbc goodlycharity, . . thrrtthc presumptuous escaping of it enemycomenot in, for rvhatavailcth to havea door without a lock,andwhat is it to hrvc hopewithout charity.. . . Thc key to openand closcoweth to bc thc only dcsircof (irxl." pp' "Iconographv thc Mcrodc Alt,rrpiecc," r35-36. I"rccof Quotedin l{argaret Frceman,

locks and keys, ranging from the obtrusive interior frame with hinger, to the walled gardenwhich obsrructsall but a sliceof our view into the street beyond, to the most prominent half-open door through which the donors can peer into their sitting room-the only door, of all the doors and windows and gates in the painting, according to Claude Gandelman, "that enablesvision, rather than mere seeing, to take placg."t0The iron keys occupy a crucial metaphoricalplace in the narrative, with their assertive presence suggesting simultaneously something that can be both revealed to and shut off from view Through their proprietary acquisirivencss Ingelbrechtsachieved the the socialstatusof being able to watch a miracle unfold in a room, if not idendcal to, then at lcast very much like their own well-furnished domesticspace. Incongruouslypresentat the most private and sacred of moments,the donors are nonetheless "offstage."The trajectories of their gazesare of neither mortal time nor physicalplace. If they are sccondary witnesses the event,where doesthat situate to the art historian?Models of transparency, the historianJoan Scon as has cmphasized her critiquc of appeals thc "cvidcnceof experiin to erlce,"lie at the basisof any clairnsof seeinginto thc past.ll The insidiousthing about visual analysis its predicationon this common is assunrption that knowledgecomcs through vision, and that art historians thereforemay appcarto be rnore "in the know" than other kinds of spcctators when it comesto dccipheringrhe visualresidueof history. "Sccing," of course,hasalwaysbccn that act which separates outsiders
man crtnscicntiouslypoints out, "'lil bc surc, vcry fcw rcprcscntations of the Annunciation follow drc dcscriptions of Saint lJcrnard antl odrcrs of a cornplctcly closcd chambcr for thc Annunciation; rnany of thcnr arc widc opcn to thc worltl outsidc; but thcy rarcly show so conslticuouslyin thc rlcsign '.rvcry rc:rlisticr4lcnctl <l<xrr. lcncc onc is tcrnptcd to discovcr a I Iridtlcn rncaning hcrc. It tnay wcll bc, howcvcr, that thc opcncd door is mcrcly thc artist's device for integrating the left panel with thc ccntral onc, while at tle samc tinrc creating a slight barrier betwcen the two, the holy sccnc and the secular onc" (p. r36). ro. Gandelman, Reding Piaareq p. 4r. r r. Joarr Scott, "'lhe Evidence of lixpcricncc," Critical lnquiry r7 (Sunrnrcr ry9r): 775rnusingson thc privilcging of thc visiblc in history writing: 76. Oornp:rrc lirank Ankcrsrnit'.s "thc historian'.s language is not a transparcnt passivcnrcdiurn tltrough which rvc can scc thc past as we /o perccivc what is writtcn in a lettcr drrough thc glasspapcrwcight lying on top of it. . . . thc historian'slanguagc has rnorc in common with a belvedere:we do not look at the past througlt the historian's language, butf'nn tlrc vantagc point suggestcd by it. The historian's languagc does not strive to make itself invisiblc likc thc glass papcrweight of thc epistemological rnodcl, but it wishes ro takc on the samc solidity and opacity as a thing." Ankersrnit, "The Dilcrnma of Contemporary Anglo-Saxon Philosophy of I-listory" in IILrtory and'fhcory, Beiheft :5, Knwing and Ttlling llistory: T'he lnglo-Sann Dcltate, ed, tl A. Ankersnri t(D ccenrber r986): r 9.

r6o

PAST LOOKING

WITNESSING

AN ANNUNCIATION

t 6t

from insiders.Mid-twentieth-century iconologists,in their confidcnt encounterpastcultural values, ambition to havepresentunderstanding were never content to let that predicamentget the better of them. In his early theoreticalrvritings Panofskyhad labored to situatehis perspective the past from the locus of what he calledan "Architncon deanviewpoint," a philosophicallyobjectivepoint of viewl2 But whcn gazc bccatnc it came to practical application,that distant perspectival (asfar asone cln mirrored in its counterpart,the vanishingpoint deep go?) inside the painting: to be literal about it, especiallyinside the eye that kept attractingPanofsky's so that hc compositions Renaissance re-createthe cremight "mentally . . . . re-enactthe actions and . .' after his interpretive Uiumphs with the art of ations."ls For decades Michelangelo,Diirer, Titian, and Jan van Eyck, to name only a few,a new generationof iconographersand iconologistscontinued to conceiveof their role asone of literally "getting inside,"of leavingthe world of right-angled viewing and achievingthe oblique g^ze within. If the keysto openingthis doorwere intelligenceand erudition,theyhad to be sensitivityand methodologicalacuity. molded and shapedby aesthetic that this is precisely in There are cerrainly suggestions his cssays how Panofskyconceivedof his daunting iconological task, even if at times he found a work of art's intellecrual challengetoo fornridlblc too frustrating. It is alwaysin uromcnts of halting and, consequently, havc taught us, that proseand ruptured thought, as deconstructionists an intellectual construct becomes cxposed. In Early Netherlandish Pninting, for exarnple,Panofsky'sthwartcd confrontation with Jcrotnc Bosch's enigmatic arr hinges on metaphors that might havc bccn crafted by a locksmith, or, more appropriatelyyct' a carpentersuchas g[ the forlorn and banished Josephin the Mcrode Altarpiece:"In spitc devotcd all the ingenious,erudite and in part extremelyusefulrcsearch ,decodingJeromeBosch,'I cannot help feeling that the to rhe task of has real secretof his magnificentnightmaresand daydreams still to bc through the door of the l<rckctl We have bored a few holes disclosed. the roomi but somehowwe do not seemto havediscovered key'"t+1'1't"
kitschriftftr Erwin Panofsly,"Der Begriff des Kunstwollcns," rz. see, for cxanrplc, r4 Kanstwisscnschaf (r9zo): 32r-39. und Aesthetik allgnneinc ,,Thc History of Art as a l{umanisticDisciplinc,",lvleming the h r3. Erwin Pano6ky, r955),p' r4'. In Vis-ttal Atts: Popa's and On Art l/irtolr (New York: DoubledayAnchor Books.-, of in notion of thc "trianglcof r-ce1gctme1t" Pattens Comparcaswell Michacl Baxandall's of Intrniiou: On the HinoricolExplanation Picturu (Nerv Haven:Yalc University Prcss,I9[15). fuinting, pp. 157-58. Early Netho'landish 14. PanofsLa,

lamcnt of the iconologistwho is almostbut not quitc "thcrc" could find little spnpathy with many contemporaryposrsrrucruralist historians, who spin decidedly oppositional rnetaphorsfor thinking about the present's understanding the past.Foucault,for example, far more of is obviouslyrootcd in twcntieth-centurydeconsrruction than in rhe legacy of nincteend'r-century historicisrnwhen he claims:"'fhc contemporary critic is abandoningrhc grear rnyth of interioriry. . . . Hc finds himself totally displaccdfrom rhe old thernesof locked cnclosurcs, of the trcasurein the box that he habiruallysought in the depths of the work's container.Placing himself at the cxterior of the text, he constructs a new exterior for it, writing texts out of texts."l5 Such a characterization dre posirion of the late twcntieth-cenrury of historian, the post-Panofskyiconologist, nright also be said to have rhetorical resonanccs with the Mcrode Altarpiece before us. Once again,and pcrhapsfor the penultimatctirne, we shouldinvoke the lines of sight in that paintcd narrative as a meraphor for the proccssof interprctation.Parallels-between thc reahnsof secingand not-seeing, giving witnessand yct being excluded, locking up and being unlocked, even virginity and phallic pcnerrarion-in the fiftecnth-cenrurytriprych and thc invcstigative paradigmin arr historicalscholarship known as "iconology" arc more than nrcrely "figurativc." Indccd, the irnage goes a long way toward configuring its own rcxr(s).Thc impcrious optirnism of dre mid-twentieth-centuryiconological projcct siruated thc interpreter,like thc anachronistic Ingelbrechts, a position to see in through or into thc mystericsof an cvent taking placc in anothcr tirnc and culturc. Granterl, drcrc wcrc doors to bc unlclckcd,kcys to be forgcd and then turned, evcnwalls to brcak down if onc wasasunlucky asJoseph;but, ultimatcly, thc sccrctscencwas thcrc to be sccn.Once upon a time dre picture told us so. Now, howcver,the latc twenticthccntury art historian scerns be in a position morc outsidethan cven to that of the hapless Joscph, irrcvocably banishedfrom thc interioriry of historical expcrienccby the knowledge that although somcthing once happcned, it a miraclc or a u'rundar)c be cvcl'lt,access thc lived to reality of the sceneis alwaysalready foreclosed."Reading" the past is plausible, rccxperiencing it forever inrpossiblc. 'I'hc view drat thc contcmporary obscrver catchcsis not cven an <lbliqueone, like that of the Flemish couple, but neccssarily cornesfrom a right angle
r5. Michcl l.'oucault, Iiuuult l.iue (lntut:iczus,t966-8), JohnJohnstorr (N cw Y ork: S erui orc x tl c l ,r989), p. z r. ctl. Sylvtre Lotringcr, trans.

r62

PAST LOOKING

W ITN E S S IN G A N A N N U N C IA TION

t63

to the scene.From outsidc, all drc past can cvcr bc, it sccurs,is "tcxtual." And is that an end to it? Can contemporary scholarsno longcr expectmatchesto be made betweentheir words and the imagesabout which they write, only passing resonances betweenpainting and tcxt to What sort of knowledgeis still possiblc,asks be established? Jonathan Culler, if we acknowledgefutility in the historian's quest for the meaning?t0There are many waysto approachsuchlegitimatelyvexedqucstions. fu subtleasPanofsky's schemeis, it is probablynot too much of an exaggeration saythat its telcology is onc of closing clownrncanto ing: his goal is to discovertexts or systemsof textuality that preccdc and thereby absorbthe images.But what gets neglectedin his nrcthodology,asMitchell has also pointed out, is the questionof spectatorof ship, and, perhaps more important, the allied issueof the "resistance Writing the icon to the logos."lz Seeingis not tantamountto mastery. about a picture doesnot exhaustwhat the irnagehas to say. This, then, it seemsto me, is where the qualified observations o[ receptiontheoristsenter.Although it may havebeenthe casethat until legitthe arrivalof modernistart and theory "interpretationwasalways was not imate if it reduced the text to meaning," such a conviction without its consequences, accordingto Wolfgang Iser: Referralof the text to some alreadyexistingframc of rcfereuce by aim became essential of this mcthod t>[interpretation, rncans an of dulled.. . . If it wcrc of which the sharpness a text wasinevitably within a text itself,onc reallytrue . . . that the meaningis concealcd with cannot help wonderingwhy texts should play hide-and-seek why the meaning, their interpreters; evenmore puzzling, and onceit hasbeenfound,shouldthcn change again,evcnthough the lettcrs, words,and sentences the text remainthe sarne.ls of By reintroducing Gadamer's conceptof "play"-especially in thc context of "hide-and-seek"-Iser unintentionally providesus with a lnorc metaphorical way of coming to terms with the proliferation of scholarship surroundingthe Merode Altarpiece.The rhetoric of the painting,
Pumtit of Sigts:Snuiotits, Litetatut'c, Dccottstrltctiutt r6. JonathanCuller, 77re flthaca:(irrnell UniversityPress,r98r), p. 48. r7. Mitchell, PimtreTheory, 18, 28. pp. r8. Wolfgang lser, Prospcaing: From ReadcrRcspotuc Lituwy Autbropolog(llaltimore: to JohnsHopkinsUniversityPrcss,r989),pp. j-4.

playing as it docswith diffcring lcvclsof rcvclationanclsequencing of tin-rcand plot, catchesits studiousspecraror in the acrion. In this up regard,aswe sawin chaptcr r, wc canconcciveof thc rulesof the game asnarurallyprccxistingthe playing of it, or, in Lacanianrerms,the gaze as having precxistedthe look. The poeticsof the intcrpretive process are engendered the figurality of the work of art; the "sharpness by of the text," in Iser'scvocative language, certainlyneednot be "dulled." It picrcesus still. The cuesfor initiating an exchange betweenobject and subject-which Panofskychoscro ignore in his erudite efforts at pinning down nrclning-lrrrk within thc rhctoricalstmtcgies drc pictoof rial cornposition. Unlocking them is not ncarly so difficult a project as deciphcringmeaning.So "natural" is the processthat even the most learnedhistoriansseemunawareof its rhetorical pull. If the Merodc Altarpieceis, in a poericdimension,about the process of locking and unlocking meaning,about concealment and winresging, it shouldnot surpriscus that this is alsothc tenor of most of the critical scholarship drat surroundedits conservarion Williarn Suhr,the literby al point at which its material depths were revealedby the restorer's light. And not quite parenthctically, is worrh noting that Suhr'sresroit ration notes rcveal that what "provcs" the Merode Altarpiece to be Campin's (the quest for another kind of authorial authoriry that of connoisseurship) the way in which the thrcsholdsare painted,cspeis cially thc windowsand the out-of-doors,and thc caregivcn both to the two kcys (one in thc lock, onc dangling),which arc rhc only objcctsin thc gardcn to castshadows, cxceptfor thc door in thc rear gardenwall againstwhich the messenger lightly rests his right hand, thereby betrafng just how recently hc has arrived on the scene.le Plalng with the painting mcraphorically, radrer than matcrially or iconographically, reveals that rencwedattention to the spectator the in gardcn can engendcrothcr tales,or at least return us to the urge to invoke e theory of the gazethat comcs ro rerms with dris rwist in the pictorial turn. Bcf<rrc Lacan,for cxamplc,thcre wasSartre,who relatcd a paralrlcin Bcingand Nothingnrss about an cncounterin a park. A man entersa park and is relieved to find himself alone; all of the pastoral preservc"unfolds bcfore this absolutecenter of a livcd horizon: the subject residesat the still point of the rurning world, master of its
r 9. 'fhc rcstoration n<>tcs Williarrr Suhr lrc houscclin the Gctty Archivcs, Gctty Ccntcr of for thc Ilistory of Art arrd thc Ilunranitics, Santa Monica. I am gratcful to Myra Orth for learling rnc to thcrn.

r64

PAST LOOKING

W ITN E S S IN G A N A N N U N C IA TION

r65

prospects,sovereignsurveyor of the scenc."The tranquillity of thc scenario,howeveq is disrurbed by the arrival of another whose presencesoon disrupts"this reign of plenitude and luminous pcacc."Thc watcher then realizesthat he "is in rurn watched;observcdof all obsight." His vicwing to a the servers, viewer becomes spectacle another's the point becomes vanishingpoint of the new viewer; the two subjects' Thc and lines of sight crisscross come to rest in eachother'sobjectness. is experience one of an intense decenteringof the self.2o of Is there a moral to this parable?In terms of the discussion the Merode Altarpiece we might easily draw an explicit one. Inanilnate object that it may be, the painting clearly looks back at the historians who havecome to standtransfixedbeforeit in the hushcdrooms of thc Cloisters (if one moves either too close or too abruptly, an alarm disguises with which it articulatesits secrcts, The cleverness, sounds). its ryanbolism,revealsthe polysernyof its meanings,plays with its conspiresto cntrap the confident empiricism of the histospectators, rians who colne to figure out its iconography,to positiorl it in thc canon of early Netherlandish painting, to marvel at is sophisticated handling of paint, or whatevcrit is that historiansof art so confidently do in the aftermath of bearing witness.2l The momenrum for the swing between subjectand object is couthe eventhougl-r pictorial in standy reenacted dre historian'slanguage, rhetoric of thc work may well have ilitiatcd thc cxchangc.The first rcquest that tl-rcMerode Altarpiecc apparcntly tnadc of the scholars was to unlock its doors, to who were its twentieth-centurywitnesses rend is veils,to passover its thresholdsinto the centerwherein lies its likc thc meaning.And it is no wonder, sincethe skin of the altarpiece, with it, offered thc transparencyof Alberti's veil contemporaneous promise of enhancedvision. The spatial and temporal complexity of betweenthose its the triptych achieves auitnationfrotrr the connections who seeand thosewho are seen,thosewho havethc capacityfor mcre sight and those who have the power of visions,and in turu dlc acccss erch witnesshas to the hyers of sacrcdtimc cnfoldcclwithin. If thcrc are locls, there must be keys. If there is tirne past, then there is also
l.'icld," in ro. Tianslatcd and recounted by Norman Bryson in "'l'hc Gazc in the F.xpande<l Wsionsnd Vimality, ed. Hal Foster (Scatde: Bay Prcss, r988), pp. ti7-9I; adapted fromJetntrans. Flazel E. Barnes(New York: Philosophical Library Paul Sarrrc, Beingand NothirrgTrcrr, r 9 5 6 ) , c h a p . r , s c c .4 , p p . z1 4 - jo 2 ' ir. For a revealing account of the formation of the Nethcrlandish cannn, scc Kcith l{oxc1', "Motivating Ilistory" An Bullctin 77 099)t 392-4ot.

time prescnt.If there arc scenes bc seen,then therc must bc see-ers to (or seers). The picture tells (shows)us so. But is that all it tells us? Obviously,if we read reception rheory or deconstructionor phcnomenology or Lacanian psychoanalysis-or, better yet, keep looking at the Merodc Altarpiece-we soon realize that the showing and telling can never come to an end. Each act of unlocking bespeaks the traces of its earlier locking up; each act o[ unconcealing, I-Ieideggerrecognized, a new conceahnent. is a as is It commonplaccto claim that contemporary studies of representation regard imagesas a kind of language. "Instcad of providing a transparent window on the world," in Mitchell's characterization, "imagesare now regarded the sort ofsign that presents deceptive as a appearance of naturalness and transparencc concealingan opaque,distorting, arbitrary n'rechanisnr represcntation, process idcologicalrnystificaof a of tion."22 Maybe thc late rwentieth-century predicamenris not quite that bleak. The interprctations of works can differ, perhaps,because the visual narratives themselvespossessan inherent creative undecidabiliry even though their iconographicpre-textsmay haveordaineda single and unified meaning to which their later critics rhetorically responded.In Gadamer'sterms, again,works of art necessarily challenge the rules to the limit of what rnight be done with them. Inconsistcncyof interprctationacrosstirnc may well bc thc hallnrarkof works that continue to rnattcr. 'I'hcir hist<lricalaccountsarc sometimes at odds, perhaps,not only bccause different viewersask differcnt questions,but also because the visual narrativesthemselves possessa kind of stratigraphy of rhetorical possibilities.Having spent more than a generationcxercisingits interpretiveenergies unlockon ing meaningin response certainpowerful spatialand temporal cues to about "witnessing"enactedin the work, the field of art history seelns rhetorically preparcd to respond to rnore deeply layered "patterning strategies"2l thc Merotlc. As an akcrnarivero rhc oppressive in phallic rcadingsof dre iconologists,which indccd did "work" vcry well for
zz. W. J. 'Il Mitchcll, Iconology:Imagc, Tixt, Idcolog (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), p. 8. r3. 'I'hc tcrm is Iscri. I borrow it to argue that the poctics ofhistorical irrterprctation arc compulsively dcpendent on thc figural status ofa work ofart, what Iser charactcrizesas is 'patterning suatcgies." See Wolfgang Iscr, "Thc Reading Proccss: A Phenomenological Approach," in Reader-Respotue Critiimr: Frcm Fomulism to Post-Sfitctrunlimr, ed. Jane P. 'lirnrpkirrs (B:rltirlorc: Jolrns I lopkins Univcrsity l)rcss, r986), 1tp.64-65.

r66

PAST LOOKING

WITNESSING

AN ANNUNCIATION

67

over a cenmry we might briefly consider two gynocentric points of view-one historical, one conremporary-that could help us make senseof what may have been going on when several generations of learned scholarsattempted to decipher and announce"meaning" in an altarpiecededicatedto the sacredsecret of the pregnancyof drc Virgin M"ry. o\r"r, century ago,before the empiricistmania for getting it "right" of held swayin hisiorical circles,the "pastness" the pastdid not makeit Michearticulatethan the presentor .r.""rrrrily any lesssophisticated inevitablycame of let'svenerationof the otherness history for example, into creative tension with his desire to tame it and tell its story. Narrawhere none may actuallyexist,and chaos,givescoherence tive shapes engaged Although the passionately of this iact he *aia.rrt"ly aware. characterizethe particromantic historian may have been eager to and appropriate ularity of the other, and perhapstherebydomesticate afraid, as Lionel Gossman ir, he was also profoundly (and reasonably) the dilemma, that history writing-not to mention has characterized history itself-might not make sense: the The hiddenobjectof curiosityand desire-the excludcd, alienatecl, the repressed,the ferninine-is ' ' ' identified with the that is to the the unstructured, lawless, chthonic,the unbounded, and almostprehuman say,with all those"primitive," preindividual time, that the at and destructive the satne blindly productive forces, propertied,pauiarchalculture of the modern West scemsto have inu"nt.d in order to define itself againstthem. The Other of the If as a hereassumesthreatening well asan alluringaspect. Romantics historian's ultimately reducible,by virtue of the at times it seems to intelligibleorder, at other titnesit looms bcforc heroic effors, irnageof the ultiunrcprescntable him as the tcrrible, unreadablc, his of mateirrationalityand meaninglessnessexistence, own dreaded Nemesis.2a By rhis reckoningwhat cannorbe spoken-about the femalc,the prcg,,"n"y, the conception-is nearly as significantaswhat can. In represthe mid-wentieth-cenrury phalloccnuic proiectof sing this ^*"r"rr.rr, iconographicunlocking denied itself continuing fecundity as an intcr:4. Lionel Gossman,BenDemllistory and Literatute (cambridge: Ifurvard univcrsity r99o),pp. 273-74. Press,

pretive paradigrn. "History can be an aliment," saidBarthespariphrasing Michelet, "only when it is full as an egg."2s Contemporary deconstructive theory may also provide a fertile interpretive substitutc for looking at Virgins in Annunciarion scenes. Dcrrida, for example,"rcplaces thc metaphor of thc phallus as the ultimate meaning,"accordingto Mieke Bal, "with that of thc hymen as the shcct-or canvas-on which mcaning circulateswithout fixity."zo For my own metaphoricalreading, thar suggesrs that the subject of Campin'spainting, the excusc pre-textof the Annunciationfor all of or the iconographicdcciphermenrs throughout dris past cenrury itself is now (or has been all along) ready to reveal an alternative,"disseminated" rcading.Ncither the prirnacyof the word over the vision, logos over mythos (accordingto thc Gospelof SaintJohn,"In the beginning wasthc Word, and the Word waswith God, and the Word wasGod. . . . And the Word was rnadeflesh,and dwclt arnongus"), nor the primacy of the word over the experience the pregnancyitself (the Virgin sits of reading the Gospelstory of the conceptionrarher tlan witnessingher own child's arrival) can conceal,however,the obvious temporal and spatialfact that sheis not yet penetrated, nor, at leastwithin the frame of the fiftecnth-ccnturypainting, will she ever be. Was dris the Other, in Michelet'sterms,which the confident iconographers darednot confront? At lcast drere is still tirne ro conrinue the game. Understanding a puzzle, cracking a code, reading a verbal precedcnt-all thesearc n-rethodological proccduresthat stayon the side of penetration; but posing the possibility of a "play" of interpretation bctweenwork of art and witnessinvokesthe possibiliryof seeingin the terms of the Mrgin, whose "h;rmcn," so to speak,has remainedintact in the visual narrativef<lr over fivc ccnturies:the rhetorical screen,in Lacan'sschcmc,wherc the play of interpretationcan kcep acting isclf out; thc surfaceof the visual text whose historical readingsneed not remain superficial.With dris distinctively antiempiricistsenriment a few historians and a number of contcmporary literary critics would surely agree.AlexandcrNehamas,for example, writes: "Interpretation must be separated from dre searchfor meaningsconcealed within the
25. Roland llarthcs,illiclrlct, trans. RichardIlowarul (r954; rpt. New Xrrk: I-Iill and Wang,r9tl7), 25. p. 26. Micke Bal, Rculing"Ronbruntlt": Bcyoultbc Llronl-hnagc (Ncw Yrrk: CarnOpposition bri<lgJc University Prcss, r99r), p. r9: "l)isscminati.n. . . enhances slipperydcstabilizcd thc nrobilityof signsin intcraction with signusers."

r68

PAST LOOKING

wrrNEssrNc AN ANNUNcTATToN

169

text and located in the writer's intention or experience.. . . Interpretation does not depend on such metaphorsof depth and concealment and . . . it doesnot involve a radical distinction between'theapparent rtrd the real.... Think of it insteadin terms of breadthand-expansion."27 If, as I have said, we can use the altarpieceto help make senseof its histories,canit alsobe readasanticipatingthis particular(peculiar)late twentieth-century mode of showing and telling, by our watching how not the painting-as-painting only puts on a rhetorical displayof reading readings it? itself but alsocompositionally anticipates subsequent the of Metaphorically,of course it can, especiallybecause poststructuralist writers have given us the freedom to engagewith the "thought of the painting"2a insteadof just ia subjectmatter.Readingthe work of art to understand the histories that come after it is a process that can be caricatured, but I prefer to close by offering a caricature of my own. Even though I have used the pictorial cues @arricrsand thresholds, locks and keys,male and female)in that curious lefthand panel to predict art the logic of figuration in the Merode's subsequent historical trifigures(leaving thc umphs,I think we canalsoemployits paintedsecular visionaryfiguresof Gabriel andMary alone)in a lessportentousvein, to historianswho write them. emblematize typesof twentiedr-century the To do so requires our acknowledgmentfirst of all that Mistress Ingelbrechtwasnot intendedto seeanything.Shewasnever presentas an original witness.The pregaanryof the Mrgin Mary wasnot for her femaleeyes, the greenand golden carpetof flowersdetectedby the for restorersunderneathher pious dark garmene indicatesthat she was in squeezed as an afterthoughtand, once there, was still positionedso No asnot to "see."Ze doubt about it, the prime playersin this scencare all male, but at least it was t}re Virgin who initiated the game. And Merchant Ingelbrecht? Earlier on I identified him widr the midtwentieth-century art historian as iconologist, the competent bouroJ' :7. AlexanderNehamrs, "Writcr, Text, \A/ork,Author," in Litct'rturcnnd thc Qucstiort Philosophy, Anthony J. Cascardi(Baltimore:Johns l{opkins Univcrsity Press, r987), ed. pp. 275-78. Bannand F'ranccttc 28. Hubert Damisch, of trans.Stcphcn "The Underneaths Painting," Pacteau, Word Annunciation sccnes, scc andImager (r985):zo4. For the poetics reading of posde fns d\ne ltistoirz lhn (Paris: de aax GeorgesDidi-Huberman, DeaantI'image:Question Editionsde Minuit, r99o). 29. Accordingto the Suhr restoration reports;scealso Rousseau, "The Merode Altarpiece," rz5. p.

geois, the archetypal voyeur who unlocks the door, the witnesi who "seesthrough," the man whose li'es of sight passthrough the sacred passageway' glanceoff the Angel Gabriel'supraisedhand, and come to restdirectly on Mary's sequestered fu for the contemporarycritic, lap. asMitchell or Nehamasor Iser might characterize role, with whom the can we identiS' his or her deliberategesturingtoward opacity,breadth, and expansion? How about the horsemanglimpsed through the garden gate in the background, the man riding by at a right angreto the scene, insouciantly cutting acrossthe orthogonal lines of sight, in Lacan's terms' likc stain passing over, a rnan of the streetswho not only gives _a the lie to the perspectival vision and its confidencein penetrationbot also co'founds the senscof sacredtime and spaceelaboratedin the foregroundashe rides on below,behind the scenes, neitrrerpausingro Iook up nor dismounti'g to worship in the garden. open gateswill never be thresholdsfor contemporarycritics. They havl other places to get to, other gamesto play. That lcaves third man, our fcllow wirh the hat, the watcherin the dre (sartrean) garden, who positions himself betweenwealthy merchant and man of thc street,iconologistand New criric. Having iust crossed the.boundarythat separatcs ordinary life from extraordinaryevenr,he is the one whose gaze cspeciallycaprivates mine. Looking at him, I somchow alwayscatch him looking obliquely back at L.rppor. that is because -". historiographers traditionally take refugeat the dlsrant wall. Yct watching those who have warched,particularly if they have witncsseda great deal, can have its own intcrpretive satisfactions.