Flat Iconology: Metamorphoses of a Method in British Exile

In 1942, Otto Pächt wrote a letter to fellow émigré Fritz Saxl, criticizing an article on ‘Classical Mythology in Medieval Art’ that the latter had co-authored with Erwin Panofsky. The ‘general reflections about the Renaissance spirit etc etc’ especially raised Pächt’s objections. Surprisingly, Saxl agreed and replied that ‘I myself object strongly to the rather flat second part’. Clearly, disagreement had spread amongst the former Hamburg colleagues about the method of iconology, its aims and scope. Saxl’s scepticism towards broad cultural interpretations marks in some respects a departure from Aby Warburg’s methods and approaches. This chapter aims to analyse these shifts of understanding of iconology amongst the scholarly community associated with the Warburg Institute. Countering the perceived ‘flatness’ of iconology, the Warburgians repeatedly issued a rallying cry, promoting historical ‘depth’ and a scrupulous, case-study based approach. The chapter also aims to contextualise the motivations for this shift by analysing how they can be understood as the result of the Institute’s acculturation to the research practices and interests of its new home country.