Page - 251 - in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Volume LIX

sedlmayr and schapiro correspond 251 differences – you must fail to grasp the true ob- ject of our studies i.e. ‘art’ in its very peculiarity and marrow. For similar reasons why the ablest scholar will fail to grasp religion if he is a posi- tivist: for lack of experience of a specific kind. I mean experience of what art meant in the past, not in our days. The suspicion of mine is confirmed by your approval of Strzygowskis characterization of the essays of my own group.46 His word of ‘Minia- ture – painting’ leaves me quite indifferent – not only because, as you in fact know very well, I am trying things which are not miniature at all, but because that word betrays a view which must come short when applied on art. For it is a fact that a work of art can be transformed by minute changements in a mere aggregation of forms without artistic qualities. One who is not interested in that microstructure will never gain the substance for a broad view. In fact, where Strzygowski is at work history of art turns to be a history (or mythos) of form-types, materials, techniques in connection with theories on races, regions, ‘blood and soil.’ He would be better on his place in history of external culture. If you see in him features sympathetic to you I can understand you; I had and have myself impressions of that. ‘August Weltumsegler’ (you know Hamsuns fine figure) which would be favourable if they where [sic] not darkened by other features most contemptible.47 It is easy to respect if one does not know the person. Slav na- tionalist if he wants a profit from slaves [sic], liberal when he takes money from jews, teuton when he awaits to be canonized by nazis – he would disgust you as deeply – I am quite sure – as me. And I think these features are visible in his work (which also for quite other reasons I cannot value like you do) Dear Mr. Schapiro! I must close this long letter because since Swoboda and Hahnloser have left us I am overcharged with work of all kind. If there is some obscurity left you must think that it is difficult to write all in an (aus- trian) letter, but you most [sic] not impute lack of frankness. Im [sic] must frankly avow that there is an undertone in your last letter which I do not like. I am afraid you have tak- en offence at the statements of my last letter. May be I am wrong – I hope so. But I have too often experienced that partisans of most aggressive movements are very irritable when they have to hear statements of the same reso- luteness which seems quite natural to them in their own utterances. As there is such a deep gulf between our political and so on positions we shall call our attention to the links between us. I mentioned the attitude towards sciences. I am sure there are further more. E.g. (perhaps) my honest and unaffected predilection for workman whom I know (a little) by three years of common life in war. I often found and find in them a genuine dignity which I estimate very much. (Though if I take the best types of workers and peasants the peasant is superior in my eyes.) I ask you to tell me if you can see other connecting links. Excuse my abominable English! Sincerely Hans Sedlmayr P.S. Ich danke Ihnen sehr für Ihre Versuche Pächt zu helfen, Ich habe ihm Ihren Brief übergeben, ohne Zweifel wird er selbst ant- worten. Leider spiesst sich die Sache daran, dass er Englisch mühsam liest und nicht spricht. Die Lage der österreichischen Juden ist ganz ungeregelt und deshalb in gewissem Sinn noch 46 I have not yet identified a publication that can be connected to this remark. 47 The reference is to the Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun’s ‘August Weltumsegler’, 1930, the protagonist of which fig ures the modern age, an imaginative (or dishonest) cosmopolitan who introduces early forms of capital to a remo- te fishing village.