Page - 268 - in Der Arkadenhof der Universität Wien und die Tradition der Gelehrtenmemoria in Europa

arithmetic operations are determined – in human behaviour as well as in history, where the causes of the equation were also defined as arbitrary quan- tities. D’Hancarville’s paper monument staging his self-burial can ultimately be regarded as a vis- ible self-authorization, demonstrating that he is the one capable of defining such an arbitrary new foundation for the course of history. Furthermore, d’Hancarville takes full advan- tage of this licence. In fact, one of the most un- usual and surprising traits of the Antiquités are the extremely early datings for significant per- iods of Greek art history. To be more precise, d’Hancarville dates the origins of Greek art about half a millennium earlier than Winckel- mann. In doing so, he quite literally pulls the rug from under his opponent’s History of An- cient Art by locating the beginning of this hist- ory at a far earlier stage than Winckelmann. Ul- timately, he is founding history anew by wittily turning Winckelmann’s identity politics against himself. Where the latter had to experience how he destroyed the beauties of art by writing their history, d’Hancarville takes the exact opposite stance. By re-narrating art history from its begin- nings, he is ultimately able to rewrite and repeal the story of the downfall of art which Winckel- mann had institutionalized. iv The paper monuments discussed during the course of this essay attempt to situate the com- memorated antiquarian in relation to his auth- ored text and the historic occurrences described in it. Ultimately, they attempt to allow him to be- come part of this very history. In each case, a dif- ferent rhetorical strategy is used in order to tackle this challenge. Caylus tried to reincarnate him- self in the past by appropriating an antique tomb monument, which summarises metonymically (and ontogenetically) the history of art as a whole. The ultimate failure of the realization of this pro- ject, however, gives it a rather tragic outcome. Winckelmann’s personas are all modelled metaphorically: He likens himself to a weeping maiden; Oeser places the beholder of his paper memorial in an analogous position of mourn- ing, as embodied by the said lover; and Herder compares Winckelmann’s life to a ruined statue. By evoking the reunification of Winckelmann with his lost love, the memorials and eulogies discussed tell a romantic story – but it is a dark romance, ‘a drama of self-identification symbol- ized by the hero’s transcendence of the world of experience, his victory over it, and his final lib- eration from it’.41 D’Hancarville, finally, under- stands history ironically. Unlike Winckelmann and Caylus, he does not try to catch up with the past by inscribing himself to its ending, but in- stead to its beginning, thus negating the tempor- al sequentiality that was still respected by the au- thors of the Recueil and the History of the Art of Antiquity. By undermining the historical roots of Winckelmann’s history, d’Hancarville is working on what one might call a satirical ‘counter-his- tory’.42 If all of the paper monuments discussed seem decidedly self-reflexive in their outlook, d’Hancarville’s project is surely the most blatant avowal to the metahistoric mindsets underlying its construction. Photographic Acknowledgements: Fig. 1, 3: Ian Jones; Fig. 2, 4, 5: SUB Göttingen. hans christian hönes 268 ports entre les êtres sur lesquels il agit; ce sont ces rapports, […] qui forment ce que l’on appelle l’esprit des différens siécles. (P.F. d’Hancarville, Essay de Politique et de Morale Calculée, London 1752, p. 108) 41 H. White, Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-Century Europe, Baltimore / London 1973, p. 8. 42 On this concept, see Hönes, Kunst am Ursprung (cit. n. 27). Open Access © 2018 by BÖHLAU VERLAG GMBH & CO.KG, WIEN KÖLN WEIMAR