-
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in
ConstantinopleAuthor(s): Anthony CutlerSource: The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Autumn, 1966), pp.
27-35Published by: Wiley on behalf of The American Society for
AestheticsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/428881 .Accessed:
24/04/2014 13:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
.
Wiley and The American Society for Aesthetics are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of
Aesthetics and Art Criticism.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
ANTHONY CUTLER
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia
Sophia in Constantinople
STUDIES OF THE AESTHETIC ASPECTS of Hagia Sophia1 and the
principles of its design began little more than a generation ago
with the pioneering work of G. A. Andreades.2 Since 1931, such
inquiries have gained in sophistication although they are often
marred by attempts to fit Justinian's great church into some prior
notion of architectural development.3 It might appear somewhat rash
to venture further opinions as the day of Van Nice's long-awaited
book on Hagia Sophia draws near, especially since its author's
views are based upon his many years of study and detailed
measurement of the church.4 It is worth remarking, however, that
this mathematical emphasis has been singularly lacking in previous
investiga- tions. The object of the present paper is to relate
certain aspects of the design of Hagia Sophia to later Greek
geometry. For the present, we will confine ourselves to a
consideration of the pendentives and the nave capitals. These
forms, and the rela- tionship between them, derive from prin-
ciples employed in the church which stands as the supreme monument
to the early Byzantine sense of kinship between mathematics and
aesthetics. I
The contemporary, popular distinction between the architect and
builder is that
Anthony Cutler is an assistant professor of art history at Emory
University. He has written articles on Byzantine art for various
journals.
the former creates as much beauty as he can for the money
available while the latter spends as little money as possible in
the erection of a functional, and perhaps incidentally beautiful,
structure. Pressed further, this estimate is based upon a belief in
the differences between the archi- tect's theoretical training in
design and the builder's speedier, more practical acquisition of
technical experience.
Though these concepts may be challenged both in schools of
architecture and on building sites, they bear a remarkable
similarity to views held in the last cen- turies of the Western
Roman empire and the first centuries of East Rome. Downey's textual
investigations5 have shown that only the vocabulary has changed.
When, in the sixth century, Procopius described the principal
architect of Hagia Sophia as mechanikos, he intends much more than
the term mechanic suggests today. He seems to have in mind a man
academically trained in areas that remove him from the mere
architectus, the engineer or builder, who knew how to construct or
reconstruct-the classical Greek edifices demanded by men of taste
like Trajan. The mechanikos, rather, possesses a body of
theoretical knowledge that enables him to "prepare in advance
designs of future constructions," 6 to create something new and
beautiful as a result of his training in theoretical mechanics.
Justinian demanded more of his archi- tects than did the
emperors of the second
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
28
century. So severely practical a structure as the Bin-bir-derek
cistern involves solutions to mechanical problems unheard of by the
builders of the Basilica Ulpia. And though the vast complex of
buildings at Tivoli known as Hadrian's Villa7 suggests considerable
technological advances upon the creations of Trajan, it is not
until some time in the third century that we have evidence of that
essential and manifest characteristic of early Byzantine
architecture, the disciplinary relationship between mathematics and
structural me- chanics. About 250 A.D. the mathematician Heron of
Alexandria composed his Kamarika, a treatise on vaultings now lost
but which remained the foundation of Byzantine mechanics.8
The emperor continued to be officially credited as the prime
entrepreneur in the construction of public, monumental works. The
nymphaeum known as the Temple of Minerva Medica at Rome, the
"kalybe" at Ummaz-Zaitun in the Hauran, and other North African
structures preserved and developed the techniques of vaulting used
in the vestibule of the Piazza d'Oro at Tivoli. Yet, despite the
extensive building programs of Diocletian and Constantine, in the
early fourth century Pappus of Alexandria still found it necessary,
in his Synagoge, to argue the essentially mathema- tical basis of
theoretical mechanics.9
Two hundred years later the argument is no longer to be heard.
Procopius' in- valuable book on the building of Justinian insists
almost as much on the mathema- tical preeminence of his builders as
on the emperor s initiative in their creation. Anthemius of
Tralles, the chief architect of Hagia Sophia, was not merely a
master- builder but a geometrician of the first or- der. His work
on conic sections and his method of constructing an ellipse have
recently been translated and his treatise gives meaning to the term
mechanikos.'0 The pragmatic importance of his the- oretical
discoveries is in ample evidence. It is the work of a man who could
draw in two dimensions, construct in three, and appreciate the
difference between these two modes of thought. His colleague,
ANTHONY CUTLER
Isidore of Miletus, seems to have been a professor of geometry
or mechanics. Not without significance for the study of sixth
century architecture is the work of one of his pupils, a supplement
to Euclid that describes a method for inscribing certain regular
solids in certain others and for determining the angle of
inclination be- tween faces meeting in these solids.ll We are not
far from the mind that conceived the capitals of Hagia Sophia.
The architect's application of Greek mechanics is hardly to be
faulted by the events of 557, when an earthquake partially
collapsed the main dome twenty years after its completion.
Justinian entrusted its restoration to Isidore the Younger, nephew
of the first Isidore.12 The restoration has, in its fourteen
hundred years, survived further earthquakes, renewed pillage, and
two medieval attempts at rebuilding.
It is probable that the thrusts and stresses set in action by
the unprecedented size of Anthemius' building were not pre- cisely
calculable in advance.'3 However, lack of detailed information
regarding the strength of materials used and their per- formance
under stress must be balanced against a quite unclassical
sensitivity to three-dimensional design. Early Byzantine architects
seem to have possessed this quality so strikingly absent in contem-
porary mosaics. Thus Pappus in his Syna- goge uses the term
problema to indicate a perspective illustration, a projected view
drawn in two dimensions but fully sug- gesting the appearance of
the finished structure. Enlargement from this view was done by
quadratura, a method of squaring off. But in no way does this plane
technique seem to have prevented the designer from seeing his
building as a piece of solid geometry. Procopius' description of
the dome of Hagia Sophia as sphairion, and sometimes hemisphairion,
suggests that the historian shared some of the truly cubic
comprehension of the architects whom he praises. These men, who
distinguished between plan, projection, and elevation,'5 reveal
themselves as fully appreciative of various three-dimensional forms
and of inherent affinities between such architec-
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia tural shapes. Nowhere at
Hagia Sophia is this so apparent as in the pendentives and the
capitals of the nave columns.
II
The origins of the pendentive are lost in the forest of
documentation and dogma that is the principal legacy of
Strzygowski16 and Rivoira.17 Much of the acerbity of the Orient
oder Rom controversy cen- tered on the supposedly major supportive
role of the pendentives. Partisans in the dispute sought to
attribute the invention of the supremely elegant and apparently
superbly functional members to some locale far east or far west of
Byzantium. Had conditions in Constantinople been amenable, the
energies expended in the historical battle might have been em-
ployed in archaeological surveys of the church's structure. But
Ataturk opened Hagia Sophia to the world only in 1935, and we have
had to wait nearly thirty years for Van Nice's demonstration that
regard for aesthetics bulked as large as structural considerations
in its design. It is now sus- pected that the half-domes were used
"not as functional elements but purely in order to enhance the
nave's spatial effect." 18
The aesthetic aspect of the interior's design was, therefore,
one of the architect's priorities. In the same light, we can see
the pendentives as constructs designed to fill the spaces between
the arches of the nave. Their primary function is to effect a
palpable transition between the circular plan of the dome and the
square formed by the four central piers. A mobile, not a static,
eye is required to appreciate this transition. Byzantine
descriptions of the church19 demand a gaze that travels over the
decorations rather than a motionless concentration on one
particular figure or feature.
The pendentive is just such a decora- tive feature, a mass of
brick shaped in the mind and set in place by the builder. It is
material substance and therefore, like all matter, intended to be
moulded by man for his own purposes. This understanding is at the
root of Byzantine admiration for
29 technical innovation in architecture: mat- ter is malleable
and when one mind has given it form, another can appreciate that
formulation.20 The shaped form is, in short, aisthetos-that is,
perceptible to the senses.
The treatise of Anthemius, cited above, suggests that applied
geometry is a means of fashioning the material world. His search
for the center of gravity in a cylin- drical column implies the
role that mathe- matical and mechanical theory play in the
pragmatic equipment of the architect. In such experiments Anthemius
writes as the heir not only of Heron and Pappus but also of
Proclus. The commentaries on Euclid of this fifth century geometer
in- clude the suggestion that a cylinder be considered not as a
cylinder but as a pit.2' Anthemius himself tells us that "research
into such matters belongs fittingly and thoroughly to him who would
be called the son of the Muses." 22
The same analogical sense of volumes is to be found in Hagia
Sophia. Architec- tural forms are by definition not two-
dimensional, linear compositions but masses occupying space. Large
or small, by means of their form, they affect our ap- preciation of
adjacent masses. The gal- leries give a sense of scale to the
church, human in proportion to the broad span of the arches and the
seemingly titanic vaults. The half-domes prepare the way and (as
Van Nice has shown) enhance the effect of the crowning hemispheres.
And the pendentives have an almost syntactical importance in
relating arch, dome, and gallery (P1. 1). Their mosaic sheathings
per- form as connective tissue between other surfaces. They begin
at the perimeter of the great dome and by their curving contours
guide the eye to the main piers some eight stories above the
pavement.
From this point down, from the second cornice to the first and
from the first cornice to the pavement, the scale is sug- gested by
the colonnades. A man can stand in the nave and comprehend the
height of the structure by measuring himself against the four
columns that separate the nave from the aisle. Above these columns,
at
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Plate 2
Plate 1
z
C
H
o z
n c
r M
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia triforium level, are six
further monolithic cylinders. Together they form superim- posed
column-screens which break up into perceptible units the colossal
inter- vals between the principal structural elements of the
church. Longitudinally, the columns define the distance between the
main piers. Vertically, they parallel those piers yet divide their
immense height into more readily apprehensible com- ponents.
In this complex of functions, the col- umns resemble the
pendentives. These di- vide the circumference of the dome into
quadrants and thus direct the eye horizon- tally. At the same time
they vertically diminish towards the point where the arches spring
from the main piers. But it is in their function in the third
dimen- sion that the pendentives can be seen as the most subtle
expressions of the Byzan- tine sense of volume. Their concave form
extends the hollow space under the great dome yet seems to anchor
the vault super- structure at its imposts. The shallow voids
created by the pendentives ease the tension of that canopy
stretched across a hundred feet of space. They reduce the
circumfer- ence first by extending it, ultimately by securing it
four-square at the crossing. Functioning in height, width, and
depth, the pendentives not only solve the theoret- ical and
physical problem of squaring the circle. They resolve the aesthetic
and metaphysical dilemma of connecting the uppermost, celestial
regions of the church with the galleries, those parts where
humanity could walk.
III
In terms of the main structural system of Hagia Sophia, the
colonnades of the nave, galleries, and exedrae play as little part
in load-bearing as do the pendentives. Their main function is to
transmit to the foundations the thrust of their adjacent vaults.
But beyond this purely structural purpose they perform as aesthetic
ele- ments. The column-screens define the nave without rigidly
confining it. Their archi- volts repeat the decorative,
semi-circular motif of the arches and the tympanum
31
walls. And, in their capitals, they express the lateral and
vertical thrusts of the local load that they bear.
The form of their capitals is the result of what seems to have
been felt needs in both mechanics and aesthetics. On the one hand,
their truncated and inverted pyramidal form successfully reconciles
the base of the archivolt with the column. The square plan at the
impost where abutting arches meet is reduced by means of splay- ing
the sides of the capital and chamfer- ing its angles to produce a
circle at the astragal (Figs. 1 and 2). On the other hand, this
very reduction seems to direct the lateral thrusts of the abutting
arches down the vertical cylinder of the column. The complex of
forces acting upon the capital is thus contained by its appropriate
shape and conducted in the required di- rection.
Any estimate of the degree to which this mechanical disposition
is successful -and about the complementary role of the tie-rods in
the gallery colonnades- must wait upon the publication of Van
Nice's researches. On formal grounds the shape of the capital is
impeccable. Not only does it provide a suitable seating for the
masonry burden that it helps to carry. It works a metamorphosis
upon the shape of this burden, gradually converting its square form
at the impost to the circle that is a horizontal section of the
shaft below.
It is now apparent that this achieve- ment is a smaller
restatement of the transi- tion effected by the pendentive.23 The
latter's concave triangle is, in essence, an inversion of the
capital's convex form. Seen in geometric terms, it appears that the
shapes enclosed by the main arches of Hagia Sophia correspond
directly to the splayed sides of its capitals, while the
pendentives' form answers directly to that of the capitals'
chamfered angles (Fig. 3). This affinity could hardly have been
mnissed by the architect designing his structure in terms of
three-dimensional problemr ta.24
For the worshiper standing in one of the side aisles, the view
upwards towards the great dome is dominated by the capitals of the
nave columns silhouetted against the shape of the pendentive; the
almost
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
z H
o z
0 c 3^ Plate 4 Plate 3
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia instinctive search for
the crowning fea- ture of the church projects the lesser resolu-
tion of the square-and-circle problem against the greater
exposition of the same solution. This relationship between pen-
dentive and capital probably escaped that large portion of the
congregation whose minds were not attuned to the subtleties of
later Greek geometry; indeed, it has evaded the attention of modern
writers on the Great Church. It is, nonetheless, evi- dent that the
contour of the pendentive leads from the circular plan of the dome
to the square established by the four main piers, while that of the
capital leads the eye from the square plan of the abacus down to
the circumference of the shaft.
That the capitals of Hagia Sophia were meant to be seen in this
fashion is sug- gested by the difference between them and capitals
in contemporary structures. At Hagia Sophia, the verticality of the
column is not interrupted, as it is at San Vitale, by a dosseret
block (P1. 3). In the church at Ravenna, there was no need to
clarify the shape of the capitals in this way for there was no
manifest aesthetic relationship be- tween their form and that of
the squinches in the octagonal drum (P1. 2). At Hagia Sophia,
however, the eye perceives the rela- tively small statement of the
capital made against the massive, spherical triangle of the
pendentive. And the geometrical con- gruity between the two shapes
is not fortui- tous. It stems from an understanding that both
members, the immense pendentive and the comparatively slight
capital, per- form the same aesthetic function. Analo- gous shapes,
they each effect the most satis- factory junction between square
and cir- cle.25
The means by which this linkage is made can be well seen in the
Bin-bir-derek cistern, a product of the same period of building
activity as the Great Church. In the cistern, the transition from
shaft to vault by means of the splayed-and-cham- fered member can
be seen without the celebrated basket-work of the capitals in Hagia
Sophia. This adornment, however, is much more than a decorative
after- thought. Rather than disguise the solution
33
FIG. 1
FIG. 2
FIG. 3
discovered by Anthemius, the basket relief rehearses the
transition from the square to the circle (P1. 4). But it transposes
the connection from the area of mathematics to the realm of nature.
While there is considerable individual variation between nave
capitals, a general aesthetic principal can be detected. Main stems
of acanthus rise vertically from the astragal only to branch into
tendrils moving in the hori- zontal plane around the surface of the
block. The geometric manner in which the hard edge of the echinus
has been reduced is disguised by the foliage; the organic growth
connects what otherwise
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
34
would be four distinct aspects of the capi- tal. In this way,
the vegetable sculpture accentuates both the circularity of the
col- umn and the horizontal progress of the archivolt. This
aesthetic emphasis gains further strength from its repetition at
the triforium level.
Thus the formal essence of the capital's shape is restated in
organic terms that comprehend even the volutes in the intri- cate
growth of natural forms. The sculp- tors of the capitals in the
nave and the exedrae (though not in the galleries) took further
pains lest the vegetable relief obscure the truncated pyramid that
was these capitals' geometric origin. The vo- lutes are placed at
the top of the echinus where they fill an area almost as wide as
that of abacus above them. In contrast, the volutes on capitals in
a church such as Hagia Sophia at Salonika (c. 495) are placed below
the echinus and only a little above the astragal.27 There they
inter- rupt the smooth diminution of the in- verted pyramid and
conceal the chamfered angles that aesthetically ease the square
above into the circle below. At Hagia Sophia in Constantinople,
such interfer- ence is designedly avoided.
Much else remains to be said about the relationship between the
pendentives, the nave capitals, and other features of the Great
Church. Gervase Mathew has ob- served that "the whole of Hagia
Sophia, decorations as much as structure, is an ap- plication of
geometry to solid matter."28 Unfortunately his Byzantine
Aesthetics, searching as it is on the mathematical background,
deals only cursorily with architecture. Now that Van Nice's work
draws near to publication, the historian will be in a position to
understand better the complexities of Anthemius' structural system.
But, more important, he will possess a solid basis in fact, a
detailed ac- count of Byzantine geometry in the su- preme example
of its application. For the first time it will be possible to
appreciate what architectural aesthetic meant to the medieval
Greek, an epithet for material substance formed and understood in
the light of the spirit.
ANTHONY CUTLER
1I am grateful to the British Council for a grant which, among
other things, enabled me to study Byzantine architecture in Turkey
and Yugoslavia. Preliminary work on this paper was done by Mr.
Wayne Moulton, a research student working under my direction at
Emory University.
2"Die Sophienkathedrale von Konstantinopel," Kunstwis. Forsch.,
I (1931), 33-94.
'E. g. H. Sedlmayr, "Das erste mittelalterliche
Architektursystem," Kunstwis. Forsch., II (1933), 25-62; idem.,
"Zur Geschichte des justinianischen Architektursystems," Byz.
Zeitschr., XXXV (1933), 38-69. Although the title of his book
implies such a historical viewpoint, W. R. Zaloziecky, Die
Sophienkirche in Konstantinopel und ihre Stellung in der Geschichte
der abendldiindischen Architektur (Rome and Freiburg-im-Breisgau,
1936), is a much more objective treatment. Of many other important
studies, mention must be made of W. L. Emerson and R. L. Van Nice
"Hagia Sophia, Istanbul," American Journal of Archaeology, XLVII
(1943), 402-436, and W. L. MacDonald, "Design and Tech- nology in
Hagia Sophia," Perspecta, IV (1957), 20-27. A useful appreciation
of aesthetic considerations of Hagia Sophia before the Second World
War is to be found in E. H. Swift, Hagia Sophia (Morningside
Heights, N. Y., 1940), pp. 30-49. At the time of writing, I had not
seen the interesting essay by P. A. Michelis, L'Esthetique
d'Haghia-Sophia (Faenza, 1963).
4By way of an interim report, see R. Van Nice, "The Structure of
Hagia Sophia," Architectural Forum (May, 1949), pp. 131-138,
210.
6 G. Downey, "Byzantine Architects. Their Train- ing and
Methods," Byzantion, XVIII (1948), 99-118.
6 De aed., Loeb ed., I, I, 24. 7The most recent study is S.
Aurigemma, Villa
Adriana (Rome, 1962). 8 Sir Thomas Heath, A History of Greek
Mathe-
matics (Oxford, 1921), II, 306-310. 9 Downey, p. 106. 10G. L.
Huxley, Anthemius of Tralles, a Study
in Later Greek Geometry (Cambridge, Mass., 1959). For a
discussion of Anthemius' mechanical experi- ments, see p. 29.
"Downey,p. 113. 12 The rebuilt dome was increased in height
so
as to bring the thrusts more vertically upon the main piers,
Emerson and Van Nice, "Hagia Sophia, Istanbul," p. 404.
13 Van Nice, "Structure," p. 132. 1The disparity between the
methods of the
painter and those of the architect suggests that the latter
enjoyed training in the geometry of solids while his colleague in
the figurative arts did not. Unfortunately we lack any document on
the train- ing of Greek Christian painters before the eight- eenth
century.
"Downey, pp. 114-117. 10See especially his Origins of Christian
Church
Art, trans. 0. M. Dalton, H. M. Braunholtz (Oxford, 1923). For
an appraisal of his work, E. Herzfeld, W. Koehler, C. R. Morey,
"Josef Strzygowski," Speculum, XVII (1942), 460-461.
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia 17Lombardic
Architecture, Its Origins, Develop-
ment and Derivatives, trans. G. McN. Rushforth (New York,
1910).
18 "Structure," p. 210. In a recent amendment to his earlier
views, "St. Sophia's Structure," Archi- tectural Forum (Aug.-Sept.,
1964), pp. 45-49, Van Nice returns to the belief that the
half-domes exert considerable inward pressure on the upper parts of
the transverse arches against which they abut. In doing so, of
course, they buttress the main dome. This revised estimate in no
way detracts from the probability that the entire design of the
nave was so structured as to leave it as uncluttered as possi-
ble.
19 These ekphraseis persist from the sixth century to the
fourteenth and constitute an important genre in Byzantine
literature. The most celebrated is Paulus Silentiarius' verse
description of Hagia Sophia, Migne, Patrologia Graeca, LXXXVIb
(Paris, 1865), cols. 2119-2158.
35
20G. Mathew, Byzantine Aesthetics (New York, 1963), p. 24.
21 In Euclideln, I, 8-12. 23 Huxley, p. 25. 23 See above. 24 The
suggestion of a close theoretical relation-
ship between the design of the capitals and the pendentives at
Hagia Sophia has an obvious bear- ing upon the problem of the
historical origins of these forms. However, it is not our intention
to write a postscript to the Orient oder Rom contro- versy.
25Swift, Hagia Sophia, p. 40, seems to have appreciated this
aspect of the pendentives which "function as abstract geometrical
forms realized in some thin, light material."
20 For the sculpture of the nave capitals see A. Grabar,
Sculptures byzantines de Constantinople, IVe-Xe siecle
(Istanbul-Paris, 1963).
27 Rivoira, Lombardic Architecture, p. 64, fig. 92. 28 Byzantine
Aesthetics, p. 67.
This content downloaded from 83.212.10.20 on Thu, 24 Apr 2014
13:30:02 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Article Contentsp. [27]p. 28p. 29p. 30p. 31p. 32p. 33p. 34p.
35
Issue Table of ContentsThe Journal of Aesthetics and Art
Criticism, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Autumn, 1966), pp. 1-120Front Matter
[pp. 1-2]Inside and Outside in Architecture: A Symposium [pp.
3-15]Problems of Artistic Form: The Concept of Form [pp.
17-26]Structure and Aesthetic at Hagia Sophia in Constantinople
[pp. 27-35]The Practical Aesthetics of Thomas Busby's Music Reviews
[pp. 37-45]Polarity and Atonalism [pp. 47-52]Principles of
Opposition and Vitality in Fang Aesthetics [pp. 53-64]Panthea:
Lucian and Ideal Beauty [pp. 65-70]Samuel Johnson's Principles of
Criticism and Imlac's "Dissertation upon Poetry" [pp. 71-82]Formal
Specification [pp. 83-88]Attitude and Object: Aldrich on the
Aesthetic [pp. 89-91]The Art of Blotting [pp. 93-103]ReviewsReview:
untitled [p. 105]Review: untitled [pp. 105-107]Review: untitled
[pp. 107-109]Review: untitled [pp. 109-111]Review: untitled [p.
111]Review: untitled [pp. 111-112]Review: untitled [pp.
112-113]Review: untitled [pp. 113-114]
Books Received [pp. 115-116]Notes and News [pp.
117-118]International News and Correspondence [pp. 119-120]Back
Matter