Seite - 215 - in Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, Band LIX

“i then asked myself: what ist the ‘wiener schule’” 215 was just as far away from me, as Rafael Donner from Wickhoff. The subject of my thesis was “Wiener Schule” all right, since it directed art history’s attention to a yet unplowed field: Aus- trian Baroque. That I chose it was not Wickhoff’s but Riegl’s influence, but not Riegl’s direct influ- ence, but my colleague Hans Tietze’s thesis for the final paper in the “Institut für österreichische Geschichtsforschung” as well.34 Writing here about my examination I real- ize more than ever that the Wickhoff I knew had been a very tired Wickhoff only, a sick man who was to die in a short time. His earlier pupils cer- tainly had known a different teacher than I did. His personal interest in his early pupil Schlosser was also evident in his remaining in his chair and listening in at Schlosser’s first examination. I had met J. Hermann shortly before my examina- tion; he was one of the curators at the Museum and knew Schlosser intimately. I complained to Hermann that it was I who had to have the first experience of Schlosser as examinator. Kind Hermann tried to reassure me. “Don’t be afraid”, he said to me, “you are well acquainted with his special interests. And if you can tell him the name of the man who made the iron work at the Campanile in Piazza, he’ll be delighted.” I hastened to the Institute and tried to find out about this smith. And when I found his name listed somewhere in small print, I tried to learn it by heart. Schlosser had brought a bronze plaque from his collection, which I could date, but had no idea about its iconography. Since nobody else seemed to have solved its puzzle, this did not matter and Wickhoff and Schlosser discussed it at length without reaching a convincing solution. There were some other questions which I don’t remember and finally Schlosser asked me about the grill of the Campanile. I ostensibly thought for a while, then with a disarming smile said: “I am sorry, I don’t remember his first name; his second name is Gai.” The battle was won. I have forgotten whether I passed my examina- tion Summa cum laude or with a lesser distinc- tion. The thesis was published by Dvořák in the “Jahrbuch der Zentralkommission”, 1905 before the ink was dry (not type writing in 1905) some years later I was able to publish a very short note in the Kunst chronik (?):35 Correction of Erica Tietze-Conrat’s attribution to Rafael Donner. (This short note is one of my articles I like best.) When half a year later I saw the Scaligeri tombs in Verona, typical sculpture of the 14th century, I said to Hans Tietze: “They are so very different from Donner – aren’t they?” I gave this thorough account of my final examination by which I gained my Ph.D. in order to show the American students how much less weighty a Vienna Ph.D. of 1905 was (and later probably too) than one from an American University. (Riegl) I don’t think that there was any similarity be- tween Wickhoff and Riegl except that both of them did not use a slide-lantern in their lectures. But while this meant a serious drawback for the students of Wickhoff, it was the right thing for those of Riegl. He used to have the smallest audi- ence and the use of slides in the darkened room would have spoiled the intimacy of his lectures. We used to be about six only at his main course and three to four in his seminar. Riegl had his desk opposite our chairs, read slowly and with sharp punctuation a few lines of his manuscript. He then took his glasses (pince-nez) down and reached for the pile of photos next to his manu- script, got up and close to us holding the photo 34 Hans Tietzes Hausarbeit im Institut für österreichische Geschichtsforschung hat den Titel „Johann Michael Rottmayr, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Barockstils in Österreich.“ 35 E. Tietze-Conrat, Korrekturen zu dem von E. Tietze-Conrat zusammengestellten Oeuvre des G. R. Donner, in: Kunstchronik und Kunstmarkt, 1920, S. 195–197.