Page - 244 - in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Volume LIX

Evonne Levy244 […] zusagen. The collaborators are: Brunoff, Kaschnitz, Schrade, Oertel, Linfert, Nordenfalk, Stechow, Kris, Fürst, Pächt, and Sedlmayr; even- tually also Hallbaum, Ladner, and next to the names of Koerte and Benjamin he puts a ques- tion mark; als gelegentliche he includes Panofsky, Jantzen, Köhler, Swoboda, Alpatoff. He invites Schapiro to contribute reviews on publications on Persia, Islam, Spain, and the Romanesque. What is interesting here is the inclusion of Benjamin as a possible collaborator at the begin- ning of 1933 which must be related to Benjamin’s review of the 1st volume of the ‘KWF’, the first version of which, written in 1931, was rejected by the ‘Frankfurter Zeitung’; it was to be published in 1933 under a pseudonym. Sedlmayr knew the content of the 1931 version for we know that at least Benjamin’s critical comments (not all of which made it into the published version) were passed on to Sedlmayr by Carl Linfert, one of the volume’s contributors.37 But did he know that Benjamin concluded the first version “Die Män- ner, die in diesem Jahrbuch sprechen, repräsen- tieren diesen Typus in seiner Strenge. Sie sind die Hoffnung ihre Wissenschaft”? Frederick Schwartz suggests that Benjamin’s comments in- fluenced Sedlmayr to move away from the “de- ductive use of gestalt principles.”38 A letter from Sedlmayr dated 30 March 1933 responds to Schapiro’s letter of 16 February 1933 with more discussion of the ‘Kritische Berichte’, a recommendation of Alföldi’s essay on the Hel- lenistic Kurs unter Gallienus and his positive opinion of Kaschnitz’s essay on Egyptian sculp- ture (which Schapiro would review), unfortu- nately without further comment. Then there is a break in the series until Sedlmayr’s letter of 7 February 1934. Reference in the latter to an ongoing debate likely refers to conversations the two men had in person since the Schapiros spent three months in Vienna in 1933.39 7 February 1934 Sedlmayr tells Schapiro that [Ernest] Nagel was here and visited me. Nagel, born in Bohemia, immigrated to the US at the age of 10. He was a philosopher of science who taught for many years at Columbia Univer- sity and was a close friend of Meyer Schapiro. In 1934 he was on a Guggenheim fellowship in Vienna. Sedlmayr tells Schapiro: Ich durfte ihm die Diskussion, die zwischen uns im Gange war nicht verschweigen, und ob- wohl ich das so sachlich als möglich getan habe, scheine ich ihn dadurch verstimmt zu haben – denn er hat seinen zweiten Besuch, den er mir versprochen hatte, nicht mehr durchgeführt. Das tut mir leid, da mir Herr Nagel einen höchst sympathischen Eindruck gemacht hat, aber ich kann es nicht ändern. Hätte ich meine Meinungsdifferenzen mit Ihnen verschweigen, so hätte Herr Nagel mir mit Recht Heuchelei vorgeworfen. The difference of opinion must refer to Sedlmayr’s and Schapiro’s political positions and Sedlmayr’s anti-Semitism, which had broken out into the open. The letter is worth citing at length: Ich verstehe die Reaktion von Juden, denen ich ehrlicherweise sagen muss, dass ich antijüdisch bin, sehr gut. Anderseits müsste ich aber genau 37 For Linfert’s letter of 1932 see Schwartz, Blind Spots (cit. n. 9), p. 165, p. 281, n. 80. The two versions of the es- say “Strenge Kunstwissenschaft. Zum ersten Bande der ‘Kunstwissenschaftlichen Forschungen’” and Linfert’s letter are reprinted in: R. Tiedemann/H. Schweppenhäuser (eds), Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Schriften, Frankfurt 1972–89, III, pp. 363–369, and pp. 653–657 (for Linfert’s letter to Benjamin). Benjamin’s letters to Linfert are collec- ted in: C. Gödde/H. Lonitz (eds), Walter Benjamin, Gesammelte Briefe, vol. 4, 1931–1934, Frankfurt 1995–2000. 38 Schwartz, Blind Spots (cit. n. 9), p. 165. 39 An obituary of Schapiro’s wife Lillian notes they spent a few months in Vienna in 1933 where they saw the rise of Hitler (likely winter/spring1933). URL: http://www.thevillager.com/villager_176/lillianmilgram.html [20.04.2011].