Journal of Art Historiography Number 22 June 2020 Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’1 Eleonora Gaudieri 1. Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom (1908) as part of Riegl’s lecture notes The work of Alois Riegl (1858‒1905),2 one of the major thinkers of the so-called ‘Wiener Schule’3 and of modern art historiography in general, has already been 1 This article is an elaboration of my talk at the conference ‘The Influence of the Vienna School of Art History before and after 1918,’ which took place 3‒5 April 2019 at the Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague. 2 For the latest contribution to Riegl’s work, see, for example: Ute Engel, ‘Der Barock und das Kunstwollen: Alois Riegl,’ in Ute Engel, Stil und Nation: Barockforschung und Deutsche Kunstgeschichte (ca. 1830‒1933), Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2018, 374-95; Diana Reynolds Cordileone, Alois Riegl in Vienna 1875‒1905: An Institutional Biography, Farnham: Ashgate, 2014; Peter Noever, Artur Rosenauer and Georg Vasold, eds., Alois Riegl Revisited: Beiträge zu Werk und Rezeption. Contributions to the Opus and its Reception, Vienna: Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2010; and the review of this by Matthew Rampley, ‘Re- reading Riegl,’ Journal of Art Historiography, 5, December 2011; Alois Riegl, The Origins of Baroque Art in Rome, ed. and trans. by Andrew Hopkins and Arnold Witte, with essays by Andrew Hopkins, Alina Payne and Arnold Witte, Los Angeles: Getty Research Center, 2010; Alois Riegl, Grammatica Storica delle Arti Figurative, trans. by Carmela Armentano and ed. by Andrea Pinotti, Macerata: Quodlibet, 2008; Matthew Rampley, ‘Alois Riegl (1858‒1905),’ in Ulrich Pfisterer, ed., Klassiker der Kunstgeschichte, 1, Von Winckelmann bis Warburg, Munich: Beck, 2007, 152-62; Alois Riegl, Historical Grammar of the Visual Arts, trans. by Jacqueline E. Jung and ed. by Benjamin Binstock, New York: Zone Books, 2004; Georg Vasold, Alois Riegl und die Kunstgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte: Überlegungen zum Frühwerk des Wiener Gelehrten, Freiburg im Breisgau: Rombach Verlag, 2004; Richard Woodfield, ed., Framing Formalism: Riegl’s Work, Amsterdam: G+B Arts International, 2001. 3 See Julius von Schlosser, ‘Die Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschichte: Rückblick auf ein Säkulum Deutscher Gelehrtenarbeit in Österreich,’ Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, XIII: 2, 1934. For the latest contribution to the Vienna School, see, for example: Matthew Rampley, The Vienna School of Art History: Empire and the Politics of Scholarship, 1847‒1918, University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013; Ján Bakoš, Discourses and Strategies: The Role of the Vienna School in Shaping Central European Approaches to Art History & Related Discourses, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Edition, 2013; and the review of this by Branko Mitrović, ‘The Vienna School and Central Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 2 extensively examined, however some aspects of his literary production still remain unexplored. This concerns especially the partial publication of his manuscripts on Baroque art and consequently a compromised reception of his idea of ‘Baroque,’ which remain important issues in current historiography. The project was inspired by the Getty publication The Origins of Baroque Art in Rome (2010), edited by Andrew Hopkins and Arnold Witte.4 This book stands out from the historiography on Riegl’s work not only because it offers the first English translation of the posthumous publication Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom (1908)5, but also because of the complexity of approaches by the authors of the introductory essays ‒ Alina Payne, Arnold Witte and Andrew Hopkins ‒ to Riegl’s work, analyzed from different points of view.6 Furthermore, their contribution paves the way for a more thorough investigation of Riegl’s manuscripts on Baroque art, since it discusses the problematic reception of his concept of ‘Baroque’ by modern and contemporary historiography. In 1908, three years after Riegl’s death, the book Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom was published. Its editors were Arthur Burda, librarian of the Hofmuseum as well as Riegl’s former student and friend, and Max Dvořák, Riegl’s successor to the chair of art history at the University of Vienna. Die Entstehung offers an almost European Art History,’ Journal of Art Historiography, 11, December 2014; Edwin Lachnit, Die Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschichte und die Kunst ihrer Zeit: Zum Verhältnis von Methode und Forschungsgegenstand am Beginn der Moderne, Vienna, Cologne and Weimar: Böhlau Verlag, 2005; Maria Theisen, ed., Wiener Schule: Erinnerung und Perspektiven, Vienna: Böhlau, 2005. 4 Alois Riegl, The Origins of Baroque Art in Rome, ed. and trans. by Andrew Hopkins and Arnold Witte, with essays by Andrew Hopkins, Alina Payne and Arnold Witte, Los Angeles: Getty Research Center, 2010; and the review of this by Ute Engel, ‘Riegl on the Baroque,’ Journal of Art Historiography, 7, December 2012, 1-6. 5 Alois Riegl, Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom, ed. by Arthur Burda and Max Dvořák, Vienna: Schroll, 1908. Published in a second edition with 23 additional illustrations. Vienna: Schroll, 1923. Reprint, Munich: Mäander, 1977. Reprint, Munich: Mäander, 1987. Translated by Sibylle Muller as Alois Riegl, L’Origine de l’Art Baroque à Rome, Paris: Klincksieck, 1993. Reprint, Paris: Klincksieck, 2005. 6 For the historical contextualisation of Riegl’s work in the field of the contemporary German-language historiography on Baroque art, see Alina Payne, ‘Beyond Kunstwollen: Alois Riegl and the Baroque,’ in Riegl, The Origins, 1-33. For the reconstruction of Riegl’s work on Baroque art in its development phases and an introduction to the problematic reception of Riegl’s idea of ‘Baroque’ in consideration of the unpublished manuscripts, see Arnold Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom,’ in Riegl, The Origins, 34-59. For the reception of Riegl’s work in the field of the German art historiography of the 1920s and 1930s with its effects on the following decades until a second ‘Riegl Renaissance,’ concentrated in the field of British and American art historiography of the 1980s and 1990s, see Andrew Hopkins, ‘Riegl Renaissances,’ in Riegl, The Origins, 60-87. For the latest contribution to Riegl’s work on Baroque art, see Ute Engel, Stil und Nation: Barockforschung und Deutsche Kunstgeschichte (ca. 1830‒1933), Paderborn: Wilhelm Fink, 2018, 374-95. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 3 literal transcription of selected parts of Riegl’s lecture notes on Baroque art, which, as indicated by its publishers in the editors’ preface, he prepared for his teaching at the University of Vienna between 1894 and 1902.7 In respect to this, at least one question would be appropriate, namely, whether the selection criteria applied by Burda and Dvořák can in fact guarantee a complete understanding of Riegl’s idea of ‘Baroque.’ As explained by the authors of The Origins of Baroque Art in Rome, the collation of the posthumous book of 1908 with Riegl’s manuscript notes gets to the heart of the matter. It sheds light on the fact that Burda and Dvořák decided to publish only a small part of Riegl’s lecture notes under the title Die Entstehung. The book deals with the period of Italian art from Michelangelo Buonarroti’s mature works starting from 1520 to the final years of Annibale Carracci and Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio in 1610, that is to say, with the ‘origin’ (‘Entstehung’ in German) of Baroque art. Furthermore, it is useful here to point out that in order to provide a clear structure to the book, Burda and Dvořák divided the text into chapters and consequently modified the structure of the lecture notes, which exhibit rather generical captions. Even the emphasis on the ‘origin’ of Baroque, as suggested in the title, seems to be based primarily on an editorial decision, since there is no reference to this title in the corpus of Riegl’s manuscripts.8 2. Riegl’s lecture notes on Baroque for his teaching at the University of Vienna Riegl’s manuscripts on Baroque are preserved in the archives of the Art History Department at the University of Vienna and kept in a box labeled ‘Alois Riegl Vorlesungen Barock 1894/5, 1901/2 Bernini.’9 The reconstruction of the genesis and developmental stages that involved the writing process and the organisation of the lecture notes together with an overview of their structure, as proposed by Arnold Witte in his essay ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom,’ was a fundamental task in preliminary approaches to Riegl’s documents.10 The manuscripts are divided into three different groups, or rather ‘chronological sections,’ according to Riegl’s lectures. There is a close connection between each of these folders due to Riegl’s constant reuse of his preceding lecture notes for the following sessions. Riegl gave his first course on Baroque, dedicated to ‘Art History of the Baroque Age,’ in the winter semester 1894–95. The main theme was the origin and 7 Cf. Arthur Burda and Max Dvořák, ‘Preface,’ in Riegl, Die Entstehung, V-VI. 8 See Arnold Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom,’ 42. 9 Riegl 6 (Box IV): Umschlag ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ Vorlesungsmanuskript WS 1894‒95; Umschlag ‘Italienische Kunstgeschichte von 1520‒1700,’ Vorlesungsmanuskript WS 1901‒02; Umschlag ‘Lorenzo Bernini,’ Übungsmanuskript SS 1902. Archives of the Art History Department at the University of Vienna. 10 Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 38-46. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 4 development of the Roman Baroque style throughout Italy and beyond the Alps. From the lecture notes which he wrote and used in preparation for this course, he took out those sections that did not deal with Italian art. In fact, four years later, Riegl then focused his attention on Italian art and dedicated a second cycle of lecture to ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800.’ For his third course, ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ in the winter semester 1901–02, he used earlier teaching materials, especially the lecture notes of his second course, ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800.’ From the material prepared for his third cycle of lectures, he extracted the section on Giovan Lorenzo Bernini and used it for his monographic seminar of the summer semester 1902, dedicated to the Baroque artist.11 On this occasion, he offered his students translations and commentaries of passages from Filippo Baldinucci’s Vita del cavaliere Gio: Lorenzo Bernino, scultore, architetto, e pittore (1682).12 Based on the different paper colour of Riegl’s manuscripts – grey, faded blue and white sheets – it can be argued, as observed by Witte, that the notes are the result of a ‘constant reordering and adjustment of the texts he composed for his lectures.’13 Grey paper was used for his course on ‘Art History of the Baroque Age’ (1894–95), faded blue for the lecture on ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800’ (1898– 99), and, finally, the white paper goes back both to the third course on ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ (1901–02) and the monographic seminar on Bernini of the summer semester 1902.14 The first folder, entitled ‘Art History of the Baroque Age, W[inter] S[emester] 1894/95,’ contains lecture notes of the first cycle of lectures on grey paper, and, in addition, sections on white paper dealing with architecture in ‘Saxony’ and ‘Prussia (and north Germany),’15 which Riegl presumably jotted down later as supplements to his discourse on architecture in Germany. This first folder includes the most substantial number of papers, namely 439 loose sheets, and it constitutes a relevant thematic group since its unpublished material allows access to a European Baroque art. Following an introduction to his course, Riegl began his investigation with a section dedicated to ‘the first period of Baroque architecture from Michelangelo to the arrival of Bernini.’ It follows the subsequent captions ‘The development of 11 For information on Riegl’s series of lecture on Baroque art and on the related lecture notes, see also Burda and Dvořák, ‘Preface,’ in Riegl, Die Entstehung, V-VI. For the dating of Riegl’s manuscripts on the basis of the different kind of paper, see the follow of the main text and note 14. 12 Filippo Baldinucci, Vita del Cavaliere Gio: Lorenzo Bernino, Scultore, Architetto, e Pittore, Firenze: Stamperia di Vincenzio Vangelisti, 1682. 13 Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 38. 14 For information on the dating of Riegl’s lecture notes on the basis of his different use of paper, see: Karl M. Swoboda, ‘Foreword,’ in Alois Riegl, Historische Grammatik der Bildenden Künste, ed. by Karl M. Swoboda and Otto Pächt, Graz and Cologne: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1966, 9-12 and 16. 15 ‘Sachsen’ and ‘Preussen (und Norddeutschland).’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ in Riegl 6 (Box IV). Archives of the Art History Department at the University of Vienna, 62- 78. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 5 Roman Baroque architecture until the arrival of Bernini’ and ‘Baroque architecture before Bernini outside Rome.’ On page 137 is found a section dedicated to ‘the middle period of Baroque style (High Baroque),’ subdivided in turn by the captions ‘Roman Baroque architecture of the 17th century starting from Bernini’ and ‘Baroque architecture of the second period outside Rome.’ From page 219 onward, the title is ‘Third period of Italian Baroque architecture: 18th century.’ Pages 233 to 238 include a section dedicated to ‘Italian sculpture of the 17th and 18th centuries,’ which ends with a more extended examination of ‘Painting of the Italian Baroque era,’ for which the numbering starts anew with page 1. The final section deals with ‘German art of the Baroque’ and again features a new numbering.16 The second folder, ‘Italian Art History from 1520–1700, W[inter] S[emester] 1901/02,’ contains the corpus of Die Entstehung (1908), which groups together the materials from Riegl’s two other and thematically closely related lectures, respectively those on faded blue paper for his second cycle of lectures, ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800’ (1898‒99), as well as the lecture notes on white paper that he prepared for his third and last course on the Baroque, ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ (1901‒02). This material is clearly an elaborated version of those sections of lecture notes of the first folder on the origins of Baroque style, the main theme of Die Entstehung. The dominance of faded blue paper here might suggest that the text basically consists of the notes already prepared for his second lecture, ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800’ (1898–99), and that Riegl probably prepared his third and final lecture ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ (1901–02) on the basis of his previously written text for his preceding course.17 Furthermore, as part of this material, one can find a small group of notes written on grey paper and, consequently, taken from the lectures of the first folder. A vivid example of Riegl’s reuse of previous material for his successive lectures is the section on Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio and the Naturalists, written on grey paper and inserted later at the end of the second folder. While Die Entstehung ends with the sentence ‘[...] and he died of fever at Porto Ercole on the Pontinian coast in 1609, before he was able to reach Rome ‒ in the same year Annibale Carracci died in Rome,’18 the lecture notes at the end of this second folder continue with the reception of Caravaggio by the Naturalists and a critical analysis of their art work. It concerns the paintings of Bartolomeo Manfredi, Carlo Saraceni, Michelangelo Cerquozzi and Domenico Fetti, 16 See also Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 38-9. 17 It will be helpful here to correct some information derived from Witte’s preliminary investigation on the manuscripts: the first folder contains only the lecture notes on gray paper (with some integrated part on white paper) for the first course of 1894‒95; the second folder includes the corpus of Die Entstehung on blue, white and some gray paper. This means that this second folder contains both the lecture notes of the second course of 1898‒99, on blue paper, and those of the third course of 1901‒02, on white paper. Cf. Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 39. 18 ‘[…] und [Caravaggio] stirbt fieberkrank zu Porto Ercole an der pontinischen Küste, bevor er Rom erreichen kann, 1609 im selben Jahre, da Annibale Carracci zu Rom geendet hat.’ Riegl, Die Entstehung, 207. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 6 with particular attention to the art of Fetti. This is continued in the first folder by Riegl’s examination of Italian schools of painting from north to south up to the 18th century, a time in which the figure of Giovanni Battista Tiepolo stands out, whom Riegl regarded as the last important Italian painter.19 The simultaneous presence of grey, mainly faded blue but also white paper in this second folder suggests that its label dating the material to 1901–02 is not entirely correct. The last folder, entitled ‘Lorenzo Bernini,’ contains Riegl’s monographic research on Giovan Lorenzo Bernini, to whom he dedicated the seminar of the summer semester 1902. The text, written exclusively on white paper, consists of Riegl’s comments on Filippo Baldinucci’s Vita del Cavaliere Gio: Lorenzo Bernino, Scultore, Architetto, e Pittore (1682), together with translations of selected sections. Later, in 1912, the material was published by Arthur Burda and Oskar Pollak under the title Filippo Baldinucci’s Vita des Gio: Lorenzo Bernini.20 As Burda and Dvořák have indicated in the editors’ preface of Die Entstehung, Riegl took out from the corpus of his third lecture notes, ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ (1901–02), the sections on Bernini to reuse and maybe to revise them in view of his monographic seminar of 1902. According to the editors, the publication of Stanislao Fraschetti’s monography on Bernini in 1900 prompted Riegl to examine Bernini’s works more closely and to carry out his research in line with the latest literature. Burda and Dvořák indicated Riegl’s text of 1902 as his most recent contribution to Bernini.21 This state of things was confirmed by a collation between this section with another one dedicated to the artist, which, written on grey paper, can be found from page 145 to 191 of the first folder’s content, as a part of the lecture notes for the winter semester 1894–95. 3. Barockkunst in Rom (1923) and projects for a publication of Riegl’s ‘Art History of the Baroque Age’ Fifteen years after the publication of Die Entstehung (1908), a new edition entitled Barockkunst in Rom (1923) was published by Karl M. Swoboda and Johannes Wilde.22 The differences from Riegl’s manuscript are even more substantial than the first edition by Burda and Dvořák.23 Swoboda and Wilde included thirty-two illustrations in their book, which are neither part of the 1908 edition nor of Riegl’s lecture notes, they rearranged the order of chapters as compared to Die Entstehung, and finally they changed the book’s title to Barockkunst in Rom. It is conceivable that these further changes were due to Swoboda’s and Wilde’s efforts to facilitate the 19 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 40-1. 20 Alois Riegl, Filippo Baldinuccis Vita des Gio: Lorenzo Bernini, Übersetzung und Kommentar von Alois Riegl, ed. by Arthur Burda and Oskar Pollak, Vienna: Schroll, 1912. 21 See Burda and Dvořák, ‘Preface,’ in Riegl, Die Entstehung, V. 22 Alois Riegl, Barockkunst in Rom, ed. by Karl M. Swoboda and Johannes Wilde, Wien: Anton Schroll & co, 1923. 23 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 42-3. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 7 Figure 1 Karl M. Swoboda’s scheme of Riegl’s lecture notes on Baroque art (first page), ca. 1960. reception of the text. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the editors originally intended to publish a larger part of Riegl’s manuscripts under the new title Barockkunst in Rom.24 These additional alterations to the original structure of the lecture notes led authors to deal with the first edition of 1908, as in the case of the recent English translation The Origins (2010). In the second folder of Riegl’s lecture notes, before and separate from the corpus of Die Entstehung, are found five handwritten notes on white paper in a hand that conforms to the one of Swoboda.25 The first four pages of Swoboda’s notes show a scheme of Riegl’s lectures notes on Baroque art, organized into three groups (Fig. 1). The illustrated subdivision of the material corresponds to the chronological sequence of Riegl’s lecture notes and also provides information on the different uses of paper. Thus, as stated by Witte, it reflects the current sorting of Riegl’s manuscripts into the first two folders, which group together the three lectures on Baroque art and presumably goes back to Swoboda.26 The first grouping on Swoboda’s scheme, that is, the lecture notes of the first course, ‘Art History of the Baroque Age,’ corresponds to the first archival folder. The remaining two groupings, with reference to the lecture notes on ‘Italian Art History from 1550 to 1800’ (1898–99) and the materials for the following third course, ‘Italian Art History from 1520 to 1700’ (1901–02), are part of the same second folder, which contains the corpus of Die Entstehung. The scheme shows no reference to Riegl’s lecture notes in the third folder, which consists of Riegl’s translations and comments on Baldinucci’s biography of Giovan Lorenzo Bernini, later published by Arthur Burda and Oskar Pollak in 1912. The fifth paper of Swoboda’s scheme, as 24 While the book cover’s title is Barockkunst in Rom, one can read on the frontispiece of the same volume the title Die Entstehung der Barockkunst in Rom. Therefore, a planned publication of additional volumes of Riegl’s unpublished lecture notes cannot be ruled out. Cf. Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 42-3. 25 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 43 and note 24. 26 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 43-6. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 8 Figure 2 Karl M. Swoboda’s scheme for a planned new edition (fifth page), ca. 1960. suggested by the caption ‘for a reconstruction for a new edition,’ contains references to a possible new edition of Riegl’s lecture notes (Fig. 2). On the basis of the indicated page numbers together with the corresponding subjects, it seems that Swoboda’s intent was to include in the planned new edition both published and unpublished sections of Riegl’s lecture notes. The publication should have focused on art history from 1630 to 1800, hence, in Riegl’s periodisation, from High Baroque to Neoclassicism. However, this new edition would have changed the structure of Riegl’s notes, since it would have joined together, without distinction, published and unpublished passages taken from the three folders (the Roman numbers refer to the lecture series and the Arabic numbers to the page numbers of the selected sections), with the aim of providing space for an organic discourse on Baroque art. It follows that the latter would have reflect Swoboda’s own ideas more than Riegl’s intentions.27 In any case, Swoboda’s plan for a more comprehensive edition of Riegl’s writings on Baroque was never realized. 4. A European Baroque art from the mid-16th century to 1800: Riegl’s introduction to his course ‘Art History of the Baroque Age’ Only when turning the pages of the manuscripts do we realize that Riegl’s investigation of Baroque establishes more extended geographical and chronological boundaries. From the analysis of the unpublished material comes to light, indeed, a far more complex idea of ‘Baroque’ as an artistic phenomenon that goes beyond the limits of Rome and includes a more extensive chronological period: a European Baroque art from the mid-16th century to 1800. The lecture notes of the first folder, 27 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 46. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 9 ‘Art History of the Baroque Age’ (1894–95), offer such a wide-ranging perspective since Riegl discusses the topic of the concept of European ‘Baroque’ in the field of German art literature at that time.28 4.1. Riegl’s periodisation of Baroque art In introducing students to his course, Riegl should have asked the following question: ‘Is it justified to treat Italian art history from 1550 to 1800 as an independent section?’29 Already the first sentence of his lecture notes speaks of an intention to tackle a methodological question, suggesting the necessity of treating Italian art in a broader context. Riegl’s following observations make particularly evident the periodisation of his investigation of Baroque art, the time frame of which extends from 1550 – according to him the end of the High Renaissance and the beginning of Baroque – to the nineteenth century, when finally, in his words, begins ‘‘modern art’ in the strict sense.’30 Concerning Italian art history of the Baroque age, to which Riegl dedicated more than the first half of his lectures notes on ‘Art History of the Baroque Age,’ he established its chronological boundary with the last phase of Antonio Canova’s career around 1800, whose artistic contribution he defined as ‘reaction against everything that Italian art had striven for since 1550.’31 In the context of his periodisation, Riegl proposed a further subdivision of the same time frame: on the one hand the Baroque style, which developed from 1550 to 1750, and on the other hand Neoclassicism, which continued the last phase of the Baroque from 1750 to 1800. On this basis, Riegl further restricted the boundary of his ‘scientific systematics’32 in the first section of the time frame, which covers the period from 1550 to 1750. In this time frame, one could assume with him ‘a generally uniform artistic direction.’33 Nevertheless, he stressed that it would be useful to consider the time frame of 1750–1800 as an ‘appendix’34 to the whole periodisation. The motivation would lie in the importance of the last phase of Baroque for the development of Neoclassicism. 28 See Witte, ‘Reconstructing Riegl’s Entstehung,’ 39. 29 ‘Ist es gerechtfertigt die Geschichte der italienischen Kunst von 1550–1800 als selbständigen Abschnitt zu behandeln?’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. The lecture notes show two series of numbers: After page 7, the following sheets were marked with a new numbering. 30 ‘‘Moderne Kunst’ im engeren Sinne.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. 31 ‘Reaction gegen alles, was die italienische Kunst seit 1550 angestrebt hatte.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. 32 ‘Wissenschaftliche Systematik.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. 33 ‘Ein[e] im Allgemeinen einheitlich[e] Kunstrichtung.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. 34 ‘Anhang.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 10 4.2. The role of Roman Baroque within a ‘universal history’ After Riegl’s explanation of his periodisation of Baroque art, he drew his students’ attention to a further question concerning the role of Italian Baroque within ‘a universal history of the visual arts of humanity.’35 The examination of the corpus of this first folder indeed shows a discussion of the developments of Baroque style and its propagation beyond the Alps within a extensive history of culture. This history goes back to ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine art but also includes the ‘modern era.’ Within this universalistic historical perspective, the artistic phenomenon is significant either as a ‘local’36 or a ‘universal’37 cultural expression.38 This depends on whether the art works of a certain period are to be understood as parts of a localized cultural episode, or whether they acted as a dominant factor of culture, such as the Italian Renaissance art or Baroque art. Riegl assumed that in the course of history the supremacy of one cultural center would be replaced by other centers, whereby the interplay between the ‘artistic talent’39 of a ‘nation’40 (‘Volkes’) and cultural, sociological and political factors would be decisive. Within Riegl’s ‘Universalgeschichte,’ the visual arts play a fundamental role in this historical development, both as a cultural phenomenon and at the same time as an 35 ‘Eine weitere Vorfrage werden wir uns auch mit Nutzen sofort zu beantworten trachten. Sie werden sich fragen: Welche Bedeutung innerhalb der großen Universalgeschichte der bildenden Kunst der Menschheit haben sie der italienischen Kunst, die auf die Hochrenaissance gefolgt ist, beizumessen?’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 2. Riegl briefly introduced the kind of role of Italian and European Baroque in the artistic development in the introduction to his subsequent cycle of lectures focused on Italian art. See Riegl, Die Entstehung, 5-8. Within the framework of Riegl’s work, the analyses of the artistic phenomenon develop within a universal historical perspective, or rather ‘universal history.’ Riegl was introduced to this historical view by the teaching methods of Robert Zimmermann and Max Büdinger. Burckhardt’s work also agreed with this philosophy, which showed human history to be a unified development. See for example: Swoboda, ‘Foreword,’ Historische Grammatik, 12. For Riegl’s universal-historical analysis or morphological comparative method, see Andrea Pinotti, ‘Foreword to the Italian Edition,’ in Alois Riegl, Grammatica Storica delle Arti Figurative, trans. by Carmela Armentano and ed. by Andrea Pinotti, Macerata: Quodlibet, 2008, 51. See also Gianni Carlo Sciolla, La Critica d’Arte del Novecento, Novara: De Agostini, 2006, 15. 36 ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 4. Describing those artistic phenomena that would have played a marginal role in the development of art history, Riegl employed the following expressions: ‘lokale Bedeutung’ or ‘untergeordnete Bedeutung.’ 37 ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 4. Concerning those artistic phenomena that would have played a crucial role in the development of art history, Riegl used the following expressions: ‘weltbeherrschende Rolle,’ ‘fundamentale weltgeschichtliche Bedeutung,’ ‘universalen Werth’ or ‘führende Rolle.’ 38 For Riegl as ‘Kulturhistoriker,’ see Georg Vasold, Alois Riegl und die Kunstgeschichte als Kulturgeschichte, 83-5. 39 ‘Künstlerischen Begabung.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 2. 40 ‘Volkes.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 2. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 11 independent means of expression with its own laws. The universal history of fine arts, in Riegl’s sense, consists of the periodic alternation of the leading role of a ‘Volk,’ which for a certain time dominates the progress of artistic development. The artistic dominance of a ‘Volk’ is determined by the successful development of its own ‘artistic talent’ on the basis of which it creates a ‘universal’ model for the other nations. The dominant artistic direction is either accepted or rejected by the other ‘Völker,’ which leads to different results: in the first case – in Riegl’s opinion the ‘standard principle’41 – the leading role of the ‘Volk’ is recognized and its artistic language assimilated; in the second case, the other ‘Völker’ take their own artistic direction and express it in their own artistic language, but without playing an important role in the international scene. Seen through the lens of this far-reaching historical perspective, for Riegl it was undeniable that the role of, for example, ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman and Byzantine art at their respective times could be described as ‘universal.’ The same kind of phenomenon is reiterated in the art of the Italian Renaissance, which acted as an ‘authoritative model’ for the local artistic developments in the other European countries. Due to the dominance of this Italian artistic language inspired by ancient times, it was impossible for another, equally powerful artistic phenomenon in the rest of Europe to develop its own rules. In this context, German, English, French or Spanish Renaissance arts, in comparison to the universality of Italian culture, represent a local expression of this artistic phenomenon, the development of which was dependent on Italian art. Starting from the end of the 16th century, according to Riegl, Italian art gradually lost its hegemonic role in all disciplines of art history, the first symptoms of which could be observed in the field of painting, now dominated by Holland and Spain, up to the second half of the 17th century, when France took over the leading role in the European art scene. Nevertheless, the investigation of European art of the Baroque age, with a focus on the relationship between the Italian Baroque art stemming from the Roman tradition and the Baroque of those territories beyond the Alps, would confirm a more or less constant influence of Italian art on the ‘local’ development of Baroque in European countries, and consequently its ‘universal’ role in European art history. Riegl used the example of Viennese architecture, which between the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th centuries under Fischer von Erlach and his school developed its distinguishing features. However, at the same time, in his opinion Viennese Baroque architecture betrayed the influence of Roman Baroque, without the assimilation of which its own original development would have been inconceivable.42 Riegl noted that a similar situation of a local artistic expression based on the Roman example could also be observed in the other territories of Austria as well as in the southern territories of Germany, and he drew the following conclusion: ‘Whoever wants to get to know the development of art after 1550 in its 41 ‘Maßgebende Regel.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 2. 42 The example of the Viennese Baroque architecture as a ‘local’ and at the same time original development of Roman Baroque is present also in the introduction of Die Entstehung (1908). See Riegl, Die Entstehung, 5-6. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 12 most important features, must first study the development of the Roman Baroque style.’43 5. Focusing on selected passages of Riegl’s lecture notes: A European late ‘Baroque’ After surveying the corpus of Riegl’s lecture notes with a total of 943 pages, I focused my attention on those sections that supplement Die Entstehung (1908). Applying a further selection, I first chose those passages that contribute to broadening Riegl’s idea of ‘Baroque,’ that is to say, those sections that bring to light the European character of the late Baroque. To better understand Riegl’s difficult handwriting (Fig. 3), it was necessary to transcribe a part of the unpublished corpus amounting to a total of 223 pages. This basically represents the transcription of a conspicuous part of the first folder’s contents, most of which consists of the lecture notes on grey paper from the first teaching cycle, ‘Art History of the Baroque Age.’ In addition to this material, I also transcribed the final pages of the second folder that contain the corpus of Die Entstehung. These last sheets are the continuation of the section with which Burda and Dvořák decided to end Riegl’s discussion on Baroque painting with Caravaggio’s death; these letters, also on grey paper, were kept apart from the material of the first folder. Concerning the criteria for transcription, my aim was to leave the selected section unchanged, maintaining both its original structure and, wherever possible, the orthography in use at that time in the German speaking countries. The obtained text thus offers a whole section of 43 ‘Wer die Kunstentwicklung nach 1550 in ihren maßgebenden Zügen kennen lernen will, muss in 1. Linie die Entwicklung des römischen Barockstils studieren.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 5. Figure 3 Example of Riegl’s handwriting, page 1 of the section ‘Painting of the Italian Baroque era.’ Riegl’s notes for the 1894‒95 series of lectures. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 13 the lecture notes, with the exception of the passages on Bernini, the Carracci’s school, Guido Reni and Francesco Albani. As explained, the 46 pages on Bernini in this first folder show no substantial differences, neither in structure nor in the analysis of artworks, from the lecture notes on Bernini written by Riegl for his summer seminar of 1902 and published later in 1912 by Burda and Pollak. A similar argument also applies to the passages on Carracci’s school, Guido Reni and Francesco Albani, which do not fundamentally differ from the sections on the same topic in to the second folder that constitute part of the corpus of Die Entstehung. The selected and transcribed material can be divided into two major thematic sections: the first one deals with Italian art from ‘High Baroque,’44 the beginning of which Riegl established in Bernini’s early work, to Neoclassicism; and the second section is dedicated to ‘German art of the Baroque age,’45 that is to say, the development of Baroque style beyond the Alps from the first half of the 17th century, when according to Riegl the assimilation of the Roman Baroque style by northern people would have taken place, to Neoclassicism. These two sections, however, are connected not only by their time frame and the treatise’s structure or the grouping of art works into the three major categories of art history, architecture and sculpture and painting. Their common ground also lies in the contemplation of the artistic phenomenon in its stylistic development. Riegl traces, in his words, an ‘historical thread of development’46 of art history of the Baroque age which not only encompasses Italy from north to south but also permeates the whole of Austria. Riegl pays particular attention to the Viennese Baroque and includes in his discourse both Germany and Bohemia, with particular attention to Prague. Riegl’s investigation in each field of artistic discipline basically follows geographical and cultural criteria, which makes it possible to define the Baroque not only as a ‘universal’ phenomenon, as in the case of the international style based on the Roman example, but also as a ‘local’ phenomenon, as for example in the case of the Viennese Baroque. If the examination of Roman Baroque style, which Riegl identifies as the ‘origin’ of European Baroque art, can make it possible to understand the stylistic development in its various phases throughout Europe, the analysis of art beyond the Alps also reveals a plurality of artistic ‘languages’ which, apart from a common ground, namely, the Roman Baroque style, have their own identity. Riegl’s examination of Baroque art proceeds by means of a detailed analysis of individual art works of these personalities, who have more or less significantly contributed to the development of Baroque. Except for more wide- ranging reflections concerning the development of art history in a universal historical perspective, the structure of Riegl’s discussion, the rhythm of which is 44 The full title of the first section of the transcribed corpus is ‘II Die Mittlere Periode des Barockstils (Hochbarock).’ See ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 137. 45 ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 1. 46 ‘Historischen Entwicklungsfaden.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 9. Riegl used this expression with reference to his aim to investigate, through geographic-cultural criteria, the specificity and complexity of northern Baroque. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 14 articulated by careful investigation of art works, is quite similar to his lecture notes for the following courses, which constitute the corpus of Die Entstehung. This way of proceeding in a case-by-case manner, which can only confirm the relevant role of an empirical approach in Riegl’s methodology, seems to have its raison d’être in the intrinsically didactic value of this kind of writing, that is to say, the lecture notes. The section on Italian art concludes Riegl’s examination of Italian Baroque, thus integrating the published lecture notes on the origin and early development of the Roman Baroque style. As in the book Die Entstehung, the largest part is dedicated to architecture, which constitutes the first topic. The section on the ‘High Baroque’ introduces the art of Giovan Lorenzo Bernini and his crucial role in the development of Italian art, which is then followed by an analysis of the work of Francesco Borromini, Pietro da Cortona and Andrea Pozzo. The important role of Francesco Borromini for the artistic development is evident not only from this part of the manuscripts dedicated to Italian art but also from the examination of Baroque beyond the Alps. His influence on the art of Guarino Guarini and Domenico Gregorini are also discussed. The lecture notes on ‘German art of the Baroque’ include a discussion of the development and assimilation of Borromini’s language by the architects on the other side of the Alps, as in the case of Dientzenhofer’s in Bayern, Franconia and Bohemia. Concerning architecture in Italy, Riegl distinguishes it into three areas: north, centre and south. He includes an analysis of the architecture of Cosimo Fanzago, Baldassarre Longhena, Ferdinando Fuga, Alessandro Galilei, Filippo Juvarra, Luigi Vanvitelli and others. The section dedicated to Italian sculpture then deals with the work of Alessandro Algardi, François Duquesnoy, Francesco Mochi and the influence of Bernini on their artistic production. It follows a larger part dedicated to ‘Italian painting of Baroque age,’ which thematically consists of two parts. The first introduces an extensive discussion of the development of art history from Antiquity to the 19th century under the lenses of a mutable relationship between man and nature with its consequences on artistic production. From this point of view, Baroque painting is considered as the most appropriate artistic language for a ‘realistic’ interpretation of the natural phenomenon in the modern Age. In the second part, Riegl discusses the heterogeneity of Italian Baroque painting and therefore the necessity to proceed along schools, groups of painters or single personalities. After the Naturalists follows the examination of the Roman school (Andrea Sacchi, Carlo Maratta and Sassoferrato), the works of Neapolitan and foreign painters, who made important contributions to Neapolitan art (from Giuseppe Ribera and Salvator Rosa to Luca Giordano and Francesco Solimena), Florentine painting and Tuscan painters (as in the case of Cristofano Allori, Cigoli, Francesco Furini, Carlo Dolci and Pietro da Cortona) as well as northern painting (from Bernardo Strozzi to Giovanni Battista, Daniele and Giuseppe Maria Crespi). The analysis of Italian art concludes with the painters of the 18th century, such as Pompeo Batoni, Antonio Canale, Bernardo Bellotto, Giovanni Battista Tiepolo, Rosalba Carriera and Francesco Zuccarelli. The second section, dedicated to ‘German art of the Baroque age,’ begins with a discussion of the development of ‘German art’ from the Middle Ages to the Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 15 Baroque era, discussing in particular the role of Roman Baroque in this process and at the same time the distinguishing features of ‘German art.’ As for the examination of Italian art, Riegl deals extensively with the study of architecture. He reaffirms the necessity to proceed by ‘territories,’47 which often correspond to not only geographical but also political boundaries. Only in this way it would have been possible to understand the artistic development of each territory and its more or less consistent assimilation of Baroque art, taking into account the specificity of its artistic traditions. Concerning architecture in Austria, Riegl focuses his attention on the development of Baroque in Vienna and closely examines the work of Johann Bernhard and Joseph Emanuel Fischer von Erlach and Lucas von Hildebrandt. Starting with a propagation of the Roman Baroque style due to the immigration of Italian artists, which according to Riegl found its full expression in Bernini’s art, this is continued with an elaboration of the Roman Baroque by the next generations of Austrian artists towards the creation of a ‘national’ style. The next passages are then dedicated to the Baroque in Prague, from the important role of Italian families of architects in its propagation, such as the Lurago Family, to the maturation of a local artistic language due to the activity of Christoph and Kilian Ignaz Dientzenhofer. Since Bohemian architecture would have essentially maintained its roots in the ‘German’ Renaissance, despite the diffusion of Roman art, the Baroque style of Borromini, which in Riegl’s opinion had profound affinities with ‘German art,’ would have had found fertile ground for its assimilation. The investigation of the Baroque in Germany, which Riegl defines as a ‘territorial complex,’48 takes into account the following areas: ‘Alpine territories south of the Danube,’ ‘South Germany,’ ‘Franconia,’ ‘Swabia,’ ‘Rhineland,’ ‘Saxony,’ and ‘Prussia and North Germany.’ Concerning the history of Baroque art in these areas, Riegl always distinguishes between a first phase, characterized by the initial spread of Italian Baroque, and a second phase, in which, due to its reinterpretation by local artists, it evolves into a national style. With regard to the Baroque sculpture of the territories beyond the Alps, Riegl discusses its development starting from the diffusion of Bernini’s art, most of all thanks the intermediation of Italian artists, up to the creation of a local artistic language. This section thus deals with the art works of Lorenzo Mattielli, Giovanni Giuliani, Raphael Donner, Franz Messerschmidt, Andreas Schlüter and Johann Friedrich Böttger. Riegl’s lecture notes for the winter semester 1894–95 end with the examination of German painting. Particular attention is dedicated to the work of Adam Elsheimer, which in Riegl’s opinion had the capability to blend the Italian means of expression with German Naturalism into a unique artistic language. 47 ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 12. 48 ‘Ländercomplex.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 15. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 16 6. A synthesis of approaches: a philological-historical method and a universal historical analysis In his introduction of Riegl’s posthumous book Historische Grammatik der Bildenden Künste (1966), Swoboda states that because of his designation as a full professor of art history at the University of Vienna in 1897, Riegl felt able to include in his teaching also Italian art history, which until this point was considered the domain of the at that time full professor Franz Wickhoff. According to Swoboda, at this point it became possible for Riegl to specify his target, that is to say, to engage in the research and teaching of art history, without restrictions, as a ‘universal history of art.’49 From the so far addressed issue, one can deduce that at the time of his course on Baroque of the winter semester 1894–95 Riegl was engaging with an extensive investigation of Italian art and its relevant role in European art history. Furthermore, from these lecture notes, one can assume that aim of his discourse on Baroque was to show his students the importance of a kind of approach to art history that was able to combine the empirical analysis of art works with the investigation of the artistic phenomenon from a more wide-ranging point of view. Both his reflection on a ‘universal art history’ through which he introduced this first cycle of lecture as well as his detailed analysis of individual art works, which articulates the rhythm of his investigation of the Baroque, can be regarded as exemplifications of the ideal methodological approach that he will later theoretically susbstantiate in his essay ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte’ (1898).50 Riegl’s discussion on the Baroque arises from a synthesis of two methodological approaches which, as he will explain in the essay of 1898, should not be applied one aside from the other in scientific research: the ‘philological-historical method’51 and the ‘universal-historical analysis,’52 which nowadays corresponds to what is known as the ‘comparative method.’53 The first should be used as a methodological instrument in the service of 49 ‘Im Jahre 1897 war Riegls Ernennung zum ordentlichen Professor der Kunstgeschichte an der Wiener Universität erfolgt. An der Universität nun gleichrangig mit Wickhoff, fühlte Riegl sich nicht weiter verpflichtet, die Geschichte der Kunst Italiens als eine Sonderdomäne Wickhoffs zu respektieren. Anderseits fühlte er sich nun bestimmt, die gesamte Kunstgeschichte als Universalgeschichte der Kunst zu erforschen und zu lehren. Es erscheint in diesem Jahr sein Aufsatz ‘Kunstgeschichte als Universalgeschichte.’’ Swoboda, ‘Foreword,’ Historische Grammatik, 10-1. 50 Alois Riegl, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte,’ in Riegl, Gesammelte Aufsätze, 3-9. 51 ‘Philologisch-historische Methode.’ Riegl, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte,’ 6. 52 ‘Universalgeschichtliche Art der Betrachtung.’ Riegl, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte,’ 7. ‘Es wäre also völlig müßig die Frage aufzuwerfen, welcher von beiden Methoden der Verzug zu geben ist. Sie sind beide notwendig und bedürfen einander wechselseitig. Es stünde daher zu wünschen, daß sie stets Hand in Hand miteinander gingen. Das wäre das ideale Verhältnis, das aber als solches wohl kaum je zu erreichen sein wird.’ Riegl, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte,’ 7-8. 53 See Pinotti, ‘Foreword,’ Riegl, Grammatica Storica, 51: ‘[…] Quel che il metodo storico- filologico non vede, perché esclusivamente circoscritto a quest’opera, lo può invece cogliere Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 17 historiographic research to examine the visual arts as a unified cultural development of a history of humanity. The individual work should provide information about the overall development and vice versa. In the context of this extensive perspective, it would have been possible to identify deep connections between works of art, which could be very far apart from each other chronologically, through the principle of ‘comparison,’54 and this modus operandi would allow the art historian to solve the major issues of art history. Conclusions In light of what has been discussed so far, it is possible to draw the following conclusions. From the investigation of Riegl’s lecture notes on ‘Art History of the Baroque Age’ stands out, in comparison to the posthumous publication Die Entstehung, a far more complex idea of ‘Baroque’ as a stylistic phenomenon, which, arising from Rome around 1520, develops throughout Italy and European countries until the beginning of the 19th century. Riegl’s examination of Baroque art avails of geographic-cultural criteria with the aim to consider the plurality of responses of the rest of Italy and other European countries to the assimilation of the Roman Baroque. The detailed analysis of the most representative art works of each territory allows to grasp the specificity of their cultural identity in their different elaborations of Baroque. Furthermore, some sections of the lecture notes, in particular the introduction to the first course and the discussion of the role of Baroque painting in the universal history of human perception of nature, shed light on Riegl’s wide- ranging approach to art history. In comparison to the sections of the lecture notes published by Burda and Dvořák under the title Die Entstehung, the manuscript of this first folder is not marked only by a pronounced empirical approach to individual works and documentary sources. From this first group of lecture notes also clearly stands out a conception of the development of the Baroque style as part of, in Riegl’s own words, ‘a universal history of the visual arts of humanity.’55 As discussed, Riegl’s methodological approach to Baroque art synthesizes a detailed analysis of single art works and documentary sources with a universal-historical consideration of art history. If earlier works, such as Altorientalische Teppiche (1891)56 and Stilfragen (1893)57, show such a combination of an empirical approach with a ‘universal historical analysis,’ Riegl’s reflections on the principles that inform such cultural history of mankind reveal in nuce a further broadening of his theory of art quella che Riegl chiama (con terminologia büdingeriana) un’‘analisi storico-universale’, e che potremmo oggi definire metodo morfologico comparativo.’ 54 ‘Vergleichung.’ Riegl, ‘Kunstgeschichte und Universalgeschichte,’ 4. 55 ‘Universalgeschichte der bildenden Kunst der Menschheit.’ ‘Kunstgeschichte des Barockzeitalters,’ 2. 56 Alois Riegl, Altorientalische Teppiche, Leipzig: Weigel, 1891. 57 Alois Riegl, Stilfragen: Grundlegungen zu einer Geschichte der Ornamentik, Berlin: Siemens, 1893. Eleonora Gaudieri Alois Riegl and his lecture notes. A reconsideration of his concept of ‘Baroque’ 18 toward a theory of culture and of worldviews, which will find full expression in his later writings, Historische Grammatik der Bildenden Künste (1897‒98, 1899) and Die Spätrömische Kunst-Industrie (1901)58. Eleonora Gaudieri is PhD candidate in Art History at the University of Vienna and Fellow of the ‘Vienna Doctoral Academy.’ From October 2016 to October 2019 she was employed as a pre-doctoral research assistant (Uni:docs Fellowship) at the Department of Art History at the University of Vienna. She is currently concluding her PhD project, which reconsiders Alois Riegl’s contribution to Baroque studies on the basis of his unpublished manuscripts. Eleonora received the ‘Getty Library Research Grant’ (2016) and was a Fellow of the Austrian Academy of Sciences at the Historical Institute at the Austrian Cultural Forum in Rome (2015‒2016). eleonora.gaudieri@univie.ac.at This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial 4.0 International License 58 Alois Riegl, Die Spätrömische Kunst-Industrie nach den Funden in Österreich-Ungarn, Vienna: Kaiserlich-Königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1901. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/