Art history at the art school: Revisiting the institutional origins of the discipline based on the case of nineteenth-century Greece

(ProQuest: ... denotes non-USASCII text omitted.)

Scholarly courses at the art school: a blind spot of research

The elaboration of a theoretical discourse on art has been a main concern of art academies since their creation in the sixteenth century. This concern was nurtured by the need to regulate artistic production through the establishment of specific norms and values, and, at the same time, it was intricately linked to the promotion of the artist's status and the legitimization of the artistic profession. The articulation of theoretical discourse in the academies took place mainly in the framework of conferences among peers - by and for an elite of peers - where multiple alternating voices could engage in fruitful debate. However, towards the end of the eighteenth and during the early nineteenth century the plurivocal structure of the conferences was, in many cases, gradually replaced by actual courses offered by a unique professor. Along with practical training, courses of history, archaeology, art history, art theory and aesthetics were systematically incorporated into the academic curricula in the context of larger pedagogical and institutional reforms. This is the period in which Ancient Régime artistic structures were reformed, while new art schools were created, and the academic system of art education expanded in the recently founded nation-states of Europe and the Americas.

A series of questions arise from this development. Whereas courses in art theory and aesthetics could be seen as a further pursuing of old concerns, courses in art history were less expected. Why did artists need to study the history of art? Engagement with the art of the past was certainly a salient aspect of academic training, through the copying of art works of antiquity or of the Old Masters. But what did this new kind of knowledge on past art - scholarly, systematized, often with a claim to exhaustivity, codified in a course - have to contribute to artistic practice? What were the artistic, political or economic grounds for the utterly novel claim that art has a history, and this history has to be taught to artists? Another major issue related to the introduction of scholarly courses in the art school has to do with the fact that artists seem to gradually abandon the control over the discourse produced on art to non-practitioners, to scholars who form gradually a community of professional specialists. In this regard, how was the introduction of art history courses in this particular moment related to the arising discipline of art history?

I will focus here on the case of nineteenth-century Greece and the scholarly teaching offered in the Athenian School of Arts, the first art institution of the country, founded in 1837. The development of art institutions in Greece followed very different trajectories from those observed in most western European countries. The inception of the Greek art world coincides with the creation of an independent Greek State, in 1830, in a small territory sliced from the Ottoman Empire. The very notions of 'fine arts' and the 'artist' actually had no equivalent in the Greek-speaking world of the Ottoman Empire. These categories, and the cultural practices to which they are linked, were shaped mainly through the foundation of a state institution, the School of Arts, a development that had a lasting impact on the conception both of artistic activity and the role of the artist. The interest of the Greek case lies precisely in the fact that it represents a new art world formation, where all the fundamental questions around the social production of art had to be thought anew. Constructed almost ex nihilo, the Greek art world may be envisaged as a kind of historical laboratory, permitting one to observe the very institution of practices and concepts that one often tends to naturalise (or let their historical specificity be blended away by anachronisms).

The founding of the School of Arts, and more generally the creation of an artistic culture in Greece, was the outcome of a complex set of cultural transfers: the School introduced art education based on Western European models that were mediated by foreign professors and Greeks who had studied abroad, particularly in Italy, France and Germany. In this process various European practices and discourses were appropriated, combined and reshaped to confront the particularities and needs of the local context. This is particularly the case with scholarly teaching, which had a rather uneasy and discontinuous presence in the curriculum of an institution intended to accommodate not only artistic studies, but also technical education. Two significant moments in this fragmentary history of scholarly teaching in the School can be singled out: one spanning from the formation of the institution to the 1860s, and a second one covering the last two decades of the century. Each of them provides interesting insights into the particular nature, goals and implications of this new type of scholarly study of art proposed to trainee artists. During the first phase, on which I will mainly concentrate here, the study of ancient Greek art was an exclusive, ideologically informed focus: interestingly, though, the approach to ancient art developed within the School took a quite different orientation in comparison with the way this very exclusive field was studied during the same period within the Athenian University. During the second phase, starting in the 1880s, new orientations arose in scholarly training not only in terms of an expanded temporal and geographical scope beyond Greek antiquity, but also in the ways of understanding artistic activity and its values.

Studying the scholarly training in the Greek art school and its 'laundering' of various European art discourses, I was brought to realise that this particularly stimulating object has remained a kind of blind spot of research, lying as it is in the intersection of two fields, the history of art education and the history of art history. Before departing on my analysis of the Greek case, I may be permitted here a few programmatic observations on the heuristic interest of this neglected topic for both these fields. The study of scholarly courses, and more particularly of art historical courses, offered in the art school may permit, on the one hand, a re-evaluation of artistic training in the nineteenth century, and, on the other, a better understanding of the varied institutional groundings of the discipline of art history.

Despite the extensive literature on art academies and the renewed perspectives on the history of nineteenth-century art education,1 art history and other scholarly courses taught at the academies remain largely overlooked. The names of the professors or the courses' titles may be known, but the actual content of the courses is ignored, as is, more importantly, their potential impact on artistic practice. While the official conferences of art academies have attracted important scholarly interest,2 the systematization of scholarly training in the nineteenth century has not yet found its specialists.

The implicit prejudice here - informed by the hierarchical and tense relations between theory and practice - is most probably that scholarly courses are of minor significance in the history of art education. Overcoming this kind of prejudice may help revise dominant conceptions regarding the institutions of art education in the nineteenth century. Often considered as rigid and conservative due to their practical curricula, these institutions could be seen under a different light if one focuses on their scholarly curricula. I argue that precisely these courses provided, in many cases, a locus of reflexivity within established academic traditions, where academic principles, values and norms could be reassessed or even severely questioned.

Scholars appointed as professors at the academies were often the driving forces of institutional reforms, and contributed not only to the remodelling of practical training, but also to the revision of its theoretical underpinnings. Franz Kugler's (1808-1858) role in the context of the reforms of the Berlin Akademie in the 1840s is paradigmatic in this regard.3 Unlike eighteenth-century conferences, scholarly courses were usually offered by outsiders from various academic fields, who operated within different disciplinary protocols and thus were less bound to academic doctrines, which they were ready to look at from a fresh and, in any case, different external perspective. Hippolyte Taine provides a very good and well-studied example.4 Elsewhere I had the opportunity to check this hypothesis in detail, based on the case of Stylianos Konstantinidis, who taught art history and aesthetics at the Athenian School of Arts from 1879 to 1896 - the second phase referred to earlier. His courses on aesthetics in particular were mainly informed by the work of the French theorist Eugène Véron (1825-1889), one of the pioneers of scientific aesthetics in France. Adopting Véron's positivistic outlook, Konstantinidis rejected artistic laws derived a priori, and sought to provide artists with 'scientific' ones, based solely on the functioning of human perception and feeling as established by new research in the fields of physiology and experimental psychology. His teachings severely undermined the normative character of ancient art upon which academic authority was founded until then, while at the same time his emphasis on the values of individuality and artistic originality, leitmotifs in Vérons' texts, brought into question the dominant regime of evaluating artistic activity, based on an ideal of 'national conformity' both in terms of stylistic choices (the paradigm of ancient art) and subject matter (Greek subjects).5

The teaching of art history in art academies has also remained overlooked within the constantly expanding field of art historiography, athough accounts of the institutionalisation and professionalisation of the discipline6 are still rather minor in relation to the study of discourses and the formation of various interpretative schemes and methodologies, or to biographical accounts, which privilege influential art historians. Focusing mainly on the university and the museum, scholarship tends to neglect the role of academies and art schools. Nonetheless, art academies count among the first (in some cases, they are indeed the first) institutional homes of art history, and played an important role in the shaping of the discipline well before the establishment of autonomous university chairs. In Berlin, for instance, twenty years before the foundation of the University in 1810, or some forty years before the foundation of the public museum in 1830, the Akademie der bildenden Künste was the only institution to offer regular courses on ancient art, taught by Karl Philipp Moritz (1756-1793) and later by Aloys Hirt (1759-1837).7 The primacy of the art school in the institutionalization of the discipline was arguably the case in France, where courses on art history and aesthetics were first introduced in the Parisian École des Beaux-arts after the major reform of 1863 (taught by Eugène Viollet le Duc, Hippolyte Taine and later Eugène Müntz).8 The same phenomenon is also observed in more recent art world formations, such as in the Academia Imperial de Belas Artes in Rio de Janeiro, where the major painter and scholar Pedro Américo (1843-1905) was the first to teach art history courses (along with archaeology and aesthetics) in the early 1870s.9 Taking academies into consideration may thus help to grasp better the multiple institutional frameworks involved in the formation of the discipline.

Art academies were multi-facetted, hybrid institutions in which various (sometimes competing) intentions, actors, and publics came together. One could argue more particularly that academies lay at the intersection of the artistic and the scientific field. As training centres, as well as competition and exhibition venues, academies functioned as instances of consecration within the artistic field. At the same time, academies produced an historical and theoretical knowledge on art, and hosted in their curricula a variety of fields - history, art history, aesthetics, archaeology and classics, or even literature - that, precisely during the first half of the nineteenth century, were shaping their disciplinary identities and negotiating their boundaries.

A key question in this perspective is to examine to what extent and in which ways this particular institutional location affected art historical discourses produced within its walls. I refer to it as a particular location in the sense that it provided a direct contact with art practitioners as well as an exposure to the problems of art practice and the concerns about the character and the quality of contemporary artistic production.10 Did adapting to the needs of art training generate different kind of objects, methods, focuses, and ultimately a different kind of scholarship in comparison to that produced in universities or museums? How did art scholars adapt their approaches and teaching methods to art students as opposed to university audiences? Finally, what synergies, interactions or tensions are nurtured by this proximity between scholarly discourses and art practice?

I will subsequently try to approach this series of questions by focusing on the Athenian School of Arts. I will explore the objectives, ideological implications and tensions underlying the very introduction of, and the specific orientation given to, scholarly courses from the 1840s to the 1860s. A course on 'History of the arts' was introduced to the curriculum in 1844, taught by the historian and philologist Grigorios Papadopoulos (1818-1873). Papadopoulos, who remained in the post until 1863, based his teaching mostly on Karl Otfried Müllers' Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst (1830), a work of seminal significance for the nascent discipline of archaeology. I will examine first under which conditions and against which other scholarly traditions this particular model was privileged. Subsequently, I will turn to the various operations through which Papadopoulos seeks to adapt an archaeological manual to the needs of artistic training. His hesitations, choices and proposed solutions allow one to grasp the fecundity and dynamics of this instituting moment - even when, or rather precisely when, these solutions were not meant to last. As we shall see, under his initiative, the study of ancient art was conducted for much of the century under a concept that did not survive in Greek language after the first decades of the twentieth century.

During Papadopoulos's tenure in the School, Karl Otfried Müller's Handbuch also informed teaching on ancient art at the University of Athens. In the last part of the paper, I will address this double institutional appropriation of Müller's work in Greece, and I will point to the differentiation of practices and approaches between the university and the art school. In my overall analysis, I will try to show that adapting the scholarly study of art to the needs of artistic training gave way to approaches primarily centred on objects, techniques and forms, rather than on the construction of historical narratives and continuities; that is, approaches that privileged systematic classification rather than chronological organization, and which neglected historical contextualisation.

The Athenian School of Arts: some elements of the context

The 'Royal School of Arts', as was its official title, was founded in Athens in 1837, the same year as the establishment of the University. Mostly referred to as the 'Polytechnic', the School was initially conceived as a technical school for the formation of craftsmen and builders, in response to the urgent construction needs of the new capital of the Kingdom. It introduced artistic education only six years later, with the institutional reform of 1843; thereafter, the establishment was divided into two departments, the school of fine arts and the school of mechanical or industrial arts, along with a Sunday school for the training of working craftsmen. The two orientations of the School, artistic and technical, were in constant tension throughout the century, echoing larger debates on the modernisation and the economic development of the country.11 From 1844 to 1862, under the directorship of Lysandros Caftanzoglou (1811-1885), one of the most prominent Greek architects in the nineteenth century,12 the artistic studies in the School were significantly enhanced. A fervent classicist who trained at the Academy of Saint-Luke in Rome, Caftanzoglou aspired to elevate the institution to the level of a fully-fledged fine arts academy, introducing annual competitions and exhibitions, and initiating a tradition of official discourses, which he used to deliver at the inauguration of exhibitions in solemn public ceremonies, honoured by the King himself.13

Grigorios Papadopoulos (fig. 1) was a precious collaborator in Caftanzoglou's endeavour. He was appointed Professor of the 'History of Visual Arts' in October 184414 - an unpaid interim to his main position as Professor of History at the only high school of the capital, granted to him a few months earlier.15 Before arriving in the new Kingdom upon the invitation of Prime Minister Alexandros Mavrokordatos, Papadopoulos had studied in Paris from 1836 to 1839, taking courses in philosophy, history and classics at the Sorbonne and the Collège de France - although he did not obtain a formal degree.16 In 1839 he was appointed in the service of the Ruler of Wallachia Alexandros Gkikas (1790-1862), as his personal secretary and tutor to his sons and his niece Eleni Gkika, who was to become the famous woman of letters Dora d'Istria. In Bucharest, Papadopoulos also served as high school teacher and bureaucrat involved in major reforms of the educational system in the Hegemonies. Following the fall of Gkikas, the young erudite accompanied him in Dresden, where he spent two years from 1842 to 1844 before coming to Athens.

Like Caftanzoglou, Papadopoulos was descended from a wealthy merchant family of Thessaloniki that was dispersed during the war against the Ottomans in the 1820s. After fleeing and studying abroad, with financial support from relatives, they both chose to establish themselves in the new state and join forces, as did many Greeks educated abroad, in the collective enterprise of reconstructing the country after the war, an enterprise largely felt as a national regeneration. It is possible that the first contact between the two future collaborators came in Paris, where Caftanzoglou sojourned for a year after his studies in Rome. The two men were the driving forces of the School of Arts until the 1860s, and played a prominent role in the shaping of the Greek art world, establishing the values and orientations of the nascent artistic production in the new kingdom.

From a universal history for artists to the study of ancient art

The statutes of 1843 that introduced artistic studies in the School did not include scholarly courses in the curriculum of the fine arts department. The course of 'History of Visual Arts' ('...'), as it was initially referred to in the School documents,17 was introduced on the initiative of Caftanzoglou, quite possibly in consultation with Papadopoulos. But what exactly lay underneath this intriguing title? In the first, rather allusive, reference to the content of the course, one reads about a 'history of the arts' with particular emphasis on the study of mythology, customs and costumes 'with regard to the works of the artists'.18 Papadopoulos repeatedly stressed that such a course was an indispensable part of the curricula of art institutions: 'History, what concerns [...] the costumes of the ancients and mythology are taught everywhere, in every artistic School'.19 'Storia, mitologia e costumi' was indeed the title of the course taught by the antiquarian Giusseppe Antonio Guattani (1748-1930) at the Accademia di San Luca in Rome20 - a major reference for the Athenian School during Caftanzoglou's tenure. During his lengthy period of studies at the Roman academy from 1824 to 1836 (starting at the age of thirteen), the Greek architect may himself have had the possibility to attend or take notice of Guattani's courses offered from 1812 to 1830.

Whatever the precise model Papadopoulos had in mind, he points to a well-established tradition of scholarly teaching in art academies that remains extremely understudied to this date. This 'history of arts' is rather a history for the arts: a kind of universal history seeking to provide artists with the necessary documentation and pragmatic knowledge for their historical, religious and mythological compositions, which stood traditionally at the top of the academic hierarchy of genres. Without this type of knowledge, as Papadopoulos observes, recycling the typical rhetoric of relevant publications from the eighteenth century onwards, the painter risked representing 'the twelve apostles with helmets [...], Alexander as a barbed Skythian', and was liable 'to plant olive trees in Siberia or to dress Helen as Cleopatra, Caesar as Achilles, Peter the Great as Charlemagne'.21

This tradition dates back to the mid-eighteenth century and to the lectures of the academician, painter and scholar Michel-François Dandré Bardon (1700-1783) at the École Royale des élèves protégés in Paris, on which Guattani himself was drawing.22 Professeur pour l'histoire, la fable et la géographie from 1755 until the suppression of the school in 1775, Dandré-Bardon had published extensively for his own teaching purposes: the multi-volume Histoire Universelle, traité relativement aux arts de peindre et de sculpter (Paris, 1769, 3 vols), and the fully illustrated Costume des anciens peuples, à l'usage des artistes (Paris, 1772-1774, 2 vols) (fig. 2).23 ?he notion of 'costume' that figures in the title of this latter publication had indeed a very precise meaning in the academic artistic vocabulary, covering not only clothing, but the general historical setting: 'Costume, in the art of painting, is called what proper decorum demands from history painters in terms of the customs of different periods, the morals of nations and the nature of places'24 - a broad term which refered also to the natural environment, hence Papadopoulos's reference to 'olives trees in Siberia'.

In Rome, Guattani began his courses with the biblical Creation, continuing with the basic episodes of the Bible, before turning to various ancient peoples, including Egyptians, Phoenicians, Persians, Scythians, Sarmats, Greeks and Romans. An overview of the major events of 'sacred and profane history' was accompanied by detailed descriptions of their ways of life, manners and customs, myths, beliefs and allegorical systems, political constitution and warfare as well as their clothing and gear, based on ancient sources, both textual and visual.25 A similar logic seems to have prevailed at the École des Beaux-arts in Paris, where Alfred Jarry de Mancy (1796-1862) - professor of history in secondary education, just like Papadopoulos - occupied the first chair of 'Histoire et Antiquités', from 1829 to 1862.26

This kind of universal history for art students seems to have been the first type of systematic scholarly training offered in art academies from the mid-eighteenth century, with a view to reinforcing the erudite tradition of history painting.27 This type of course existed well into the nineteenth century, even if both the study of history and the understanding of history painting had in the meantime drastically evolved, transforming at the same time the approaches of the professors. It is particularly revealing in this regard to compare Guattani's outlook with the recently documented case of Ernst Guhl's (1819-1862) teaching at the Berlin Academy, and particularly his 'Geschichtskunde', introduced to the curriculum in 1859.28 While Guattani's Storia was rooted in the universal history of the seventeenth century and the antiquarian tradition of the eighteenth, Guhl's approach was marked by the disciplinarisation of history within the German university and the development of cultural history.29 Concerning history painting, most importantly, the emphasis on biblical and mythological subjects, as well as on ancient history, had given way to the introduction of the modern and contemporary subject, and the promotion of national history painting, coupled with shared concerns among painters and historians on the very nature and the problems of historical representation.30

Papadopoulos's outlook is closer to Guattani than to Guhl. The young Greek professor seems at first to orient himself towards this model, and announces a cycle to be completed within two or three years.31 ?he exact content and scope of the course during this inaugural period is uncertain, although a brief historical overview contained in his inaugural lecture of 1844 allows us to assume that he most probably remained within the horizon of Antiquity.32 The first two years of Papadopoulos's lectures were rather experimental in character, as he strove to calibrate the needs and lacunas of a large and heterogeneous audience composed of School students but also of an almost equal number of free attendees, mostly high school and university students - reportedly around 200 in total in 1845.33

However, starting from the academic year 1846-1847, his teaching takes a more systematic character and a new orientation, which would lead him away from what he saw as the common European practices in artistic scholarly education. In his inaugural lesson of 1846, Papadopoulos claims indeed that the example of European academies should not be followed to the letter, given particular local needs and, most importantly, the country's special ties to Greek Antiquity. As he observes, he would not focus 'simply' on the costume of the ancients; he intended to offer an in-depth treatment of ancient Greek art and, through it, of ancient Greek civilisation as a whole.34 Working through a first experimental phase, Papadopoulos ended up with little interest in a universal history of ancient peoples. His objective was rather the study of the country's own past, an ideal of knowledge for which he coins the term ... (study or knowledge of Greece), inaugurating thus a long series of neologisms with which he would bestow the Greek language, as we shall see further on.35

The redefinition of Papadopoulos's teaching programme led to the creation of two different courses; while during the first two years of his tenure he taught only once a week, on Sundays,36 from the academic year 1846-1847 onwards he teaches Kallitechniologia - a term coined by Papadopoulos to replace the previous 'history of the arts' - and Artistic Mythology, each for two hours weekly.37 As he announces in this inaugural lecture of 1846,38 the new teaching program covered in his two courses would be based on the Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst (1830, 2nd ed. 1835) by Karl Otfried Müller (1797-1840), one of the most polymathic classical scholars of the nineteenth century (fig. 3).39 Abandoning the already outdated antiquarian logic of Guattani, Papadopoulos was turning himself toward the robust, internationally renowned German model of Altertumswissenschaft. This was already the main orientation of the small community of scholars formed in the capital around the philosophical faculty of the Athenian University, the professors (philologists and historians) of which were almost exclusively trained in Germany.40 Putting aside the example of institutions of art education, Papadopoulos would draw his models and resources from university practices, both local and foreign.

An archaeological manual for artistic training

Karl Otfried Müller and the Greeks, ancient and modern

Professor at the University of Göttingen from 1819 to 1840, Karl Otfried Müller was a leading figure of the second generation of scholars that consolidated the project of a scientific study of Antiquity rooted in the thought of Wilhelm von Humboldt and systematised through the writings of Friedrich August Wolf and August Boeckh's teaching in the University of Berlin.41 Müller's innovative contributions in various fields, such as ancient Greek history, religion, mythology, literature, or the arts, were largely informed by a holistic and organic conception of Antiquity, seeking to understand the life of ancient societies in its totality. Papadopoulos's ??????µ??e?a was precisely shaped by this approach.

Formed in the spirit of Boeckh's Sachphilologie in Berlin,42 Müller's endeavour accorded a privileged role to material remnants of the past along with written sources, which were traditionally predominant in the study of the ancient world. In his studies, and particularly in his teaching at the University of Göttingen, Müller manifested a special interest in archaeology, precisely at a time when it started growing into an independent field among the different disciplines of Altertumswissenschaft. Müller was indeed one of the rare philologists to propose courses in archaeology,43 following here a Göttingen tradition which began with Christian Gottlob Heyne's lectures in the second half of the eighteenth century and pursued shortly after by Müller's immediate predecessor, Friedrich Welcker, before the latter's migration to the newly founded university of Bonn.44 The Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst (fig. 4), composed for his lectures, constitutes the first complete survey of ancient art, and had a tremendous influence on the teaching of archaeology in Germany and beyond.45 Reprinted many times throughout the century and translated into French (1841), Italian (1844-1845) and English (1847), the handbook became the new reference on ancient art, replacing the authority of Winckelmann's Geschichte der Kunst des Altertums (1764), which served until then as the seminal text on the subject.46

The reception of Müller's work in Greece was extremely early and had a great impact on the shaping of archaeology in the Athenian University, which established as early as 1837 a chair for the discipline. The ... [Handbook of the archaeology of the arts] (1841) by Ludwig Ross (1806-1859), first occupant of the chair, is a Greek adaptation47 of Müller's manual, upon which Ross founded his teaching from 1839 on.48 However, Müller's reception in Greece was not primarily due to Ross's mediation. The Göttingen professor's tenacious defence of the cultural autarchy of ancient Greek civilisation against the idea of an Egyptian or Oriental influence49 made him one of the most popular foreign scholars in the young Kingdom. Müller perceived indeed ancients societies as closed entities anchored in a specific natural and geographical environment, a vision fully informed by a historicist and organicist conception of nation.50 He thus turned to the study of the Greek peoples (Stämme) in the different regions of Greece, which he considered as the 'Hauptglieder in dem Organismus des Hellenischen Nationallebens' ['main members in the organism of hellenic national life'].51 This outlook is found already in nuce in Müller's doctoral dissertation dedicated to the island of Aegina (Aegineticorum liber, 1817), and is further pursued with Orchomenos und die Minyer (1820) and Die Dorier (1824), first volumes of the ambitious series Geschichten hellenischer Stämme et Städte, which he never managed to complete.

The absolute centrality accorded to the Greeks in the study of the ancient world accounted largely for Müller's popularity in the newly established State. Along with Ross, other university professors also drew on the German scholar's work, such as Konstantinos Schinas (1801-1870), the first Rector of the university (and son-in-law of the famous law professor Karl Friedrich von Savigny), who explicitly followed Müller's teaching model in his own 'Life of Greece, or Greek archaeology' from 1837 to 1847. 52 Besides, many high placed officials in the Greek administration and education were among his audience in Göttingen.53 Most importantly, Müller's long-planned journey to Greece and his sudden death only four months after his arrival, in 1840, had turned him into a kind of philhellenic hero. He fell ill during his work at the site of Delphi and died on his return trip to Athens; he was buried with full honours on the Hippeios Colonus hilltop, in a ceremony organised by the professors of the University of Athens. 54 Six years after Müller's death, Papadopoulos would evoke his 'great and philhellenic spectre' hovering over the hill, inciting the young Greeks to 'recover ancestral art'.55 This was precisely the project underlying his teaching, and more generally the orientation of the School of Arts under Caftanzoglou's tenure.

Kallitechniologia: a new word, a new field of knowledge

The appropriation of Müller's manual by Papadopoulos is first of all mediated by the creation of a term that establishes a new field of knowledge. The term ... (Kallitechniologia) is composed of the words ... (fine arts) and ... (discourse). According to Papadopoulos's definition, it covers the totality of 'theoretical and practical' knowledge necessary for the study of architecture, sculpture and painting, and their subordinate branches.56 Kallitechniologia examines the materials, techniques, artistic genres as well as the theoretical principles that govern the arts. In today's terms, it could be understood as a kind of practical art theory. The Greek teacher models the term Kallitechniologia upon the word ... (technology), which means, 'in European languages', 'the practical and theoretical knowledge of the arts, and particularly the industrial arts (...)'.57 In order to conceive a similar kind of knowledge for the fine arts, Papadopoulos proposes the term kallitechniologia. However, he limits his teaching to the artistic practices of Greek antiquity, and speaks particularly of a 'Greek Kallitechniologia'.58

Papadopoulos divides Kallitechniologia into two main parts. The first part concerns architecture, and examines 'building materials, artistic and geometrical forms, architectural members, orders and types of buildings'.59 In a second outline of the course, dated from 1857, Papadopoulos adds to this part the study of furniture and vases, what he terms ..., stressing thus the artistic qualities of these artefacts.60 In this grouping, Papadopoulos follows Müller's encompassing category of tectonics (Tektonik), used to qualify buildings (Gebäude, Architektonik), furniture and utensils (Geräthe und Gefässe).61

The second part of Kallitechniologia is dedicated to ... (image-making arts), which corresponds to what Müller terms Bildende Kunst, and covers the various branches of plastic arts, drawing and painting. These arts are studied under two perspectives: on the one hand, the ... [mechanische Technik, mechanical technics], that is, 'the procedures and material means through which images, statues, etc. are created'; 62 on the other hand, the ... [optische Technik, optical technics], which approaches 'the principles of human figuration of the Greeks, the study of character and expression, as well as the different costumes of Greeks and Romans'.63 In a manuscript note found in Papadopoulos's archives, the content of ... also includes the study of different kinds of perspective, proportions, treatment of the body, expressions, gestures and drapery.64 The study of plastic arts and painting thus concerns both the media and the techniques, as well as the overall principles of figuration and composition.

Initiator of a new field -the first to try to establish it in Greece, as he repeatedly stresses65 -, the scholar is eager to define its limits and relations with other branches of knowledge. He expounds in length the prospective contributions of Kallitechniologia to a large variety of fields, including history, philology, the study of religion and public life of the ancients, art history and aesthetics,66 offering thus a vivid image of the forming constellation of the humanities in Greece. Let me cite him here referring to the fields that are immediately related to the study of art, such as art history and aesthetics: 'Kallitechniologia is a learning extremely profitable to art history, since how can one approach the temple, for instance, while ignoring its parts and the relation of each part to the whole, and how can one understand artistic progress, while ignoring how each of these parts was gradually transformed'.67 It seems that, for Papadopoulos, Kallitechniologia proposes a close technical knowledge of the monuments, while the task of art history is to place them in a historical sequence of stylistic evolution, a conception that points most probably to Winckelmann's system, the inner logic of which, despite their differences in periodisation and structure, was preserved in Müller's manual.68

As for the contribution of 'Greek Kallitechniologia' to aesthetics, it lies in the fact that 'the principles [of Greek art] are not arbitrary or drawn on contingencies; they are based on positive and aesthetic relations, and this is what renders this art positively excellent and universal'.69 The universal validity of the Greek artistic paradigm is a topos constantly reiterated in the discourse of the School. Of interest here is the way aesthetics is conceived: not as the study of aesthetic experience or as a philosophical inquiry into the nature of beauty, but rather as a normative theory of art that extracts 'positive' principles from the most perfect works of art.

Artistic mythology

Artistic mythology is the second weekly course taught by Papadopoulos. As he explains, he uses the term 'artistic mythology' to distinguish his object from the 'theological part' of mythology, which is related to the study of religious doctrines, or from the historical study of myths.70 The object of artistic mythology is the study of the 'ideal types of artistic representation of different mythological and often historical figures'.71 Papadopoulos speaks also of an ...72 of ancient art, which should be understood rather as an iconography that details typical depictions of gods and mythological heroes, but also of historical personalities, politicians, orators, poets, philosophers, etc. The figurative types of ancient art are studied through works in different media, sculptures, bas-reliefs, gems, coins, frescoes, vases, etc.73 According to a manuscript note in Papadopoulos's archives, the mythological subjects examined included the twelve gods of Olympus and various mythological cycles, 'the Dionysian Cycle, the Cycle of Eros, the Cycle of the Muses, etc.'.74 Papadopoulos's intention was also to familiarise students with the myths themselves, combining the study of works of art with the study of texts. In this regard the Greek professor stands closer to Guattani's or Mancy's practices that incorporated the study of texts. Indicative of Papadopoulos's approach are his own iconographical studies on Demosthenes and Theseus, which were based on new findings in Athens (a bust and a stamp seal respectively)75 and were initially presented as lectures in the Ellinikon Ekpaideutirion, the private high school he directed during his time the School of Arts and in which, like Caftanzoglou, he had initiated a tradition of end-of-the-year speeches that often treated artistic subjects.

In the programmatic presentation of his course in 1846, Papadopoulos insists on the non-rigid character of Greek artistic types: unlike the Egyptian ones, they did not imply a stereotypic mechanical reproduction, but provided for a marge of liberty to the artists' imagination, and even triggered their creativity,76 always though within a given collective horizon defined by religion - the major source of art according to Müller.77 As Müller explains, even if the most successful images of deities were the product of imagination and genius of some exceptional artists, such as Phidias' Zeus,78 they responded above all to the 'general idea that the nation had of the divinity', which 'served as a touchstone of the correctness of representation'.79 It was through this kind of social control and consecration that 'NORMAL IMAGES resulted, to which succeeding artists adhered with lively freedom, and with that correct taste peculiar to the Hellenic nation, which was equally removed from Oriental stiffness and modern egotism [...] All this could take place in such a way only among the Greeks, because in Greece only was art to such an extent a national activity, the Greek nation only a great artist.'80 One of Müller's leading ideas was indeed that art in ancient Greece was above all a national activity, produced collectively rather than by particular individuals. This conception of art as a variation upon collectively elaborated types, and of invention essentially as reinvention, had a lasting impact on the ways of thinking and evaluating artistic activity in the forming Greek art world - a conception that would be put into question only towards the end of the century.

It is also worth mentioning that Papadopoulos traces a parallel between ancient and Byzantine iconography. Referring to a manuscript held in Mount Athos and 'only recently revealed in Europe', he observes that such types, 'certainly less perfect, were also produced in our religious painting [...] that followed the traces of ancient art'.81 Papadopoulos was indeed one of the first scholars - if not the first -to try to incorporate Byzantine art into the national artistic past, operating under a conception of Greek history as an unbroken continuum comprising the Byzantine era - a conception that would only a decade later be established by official, university-produced historiography. The classicist Caftanzoglou, himself, remained sceptical of Papadopoulos's linking of ancient and byzantine art.82 Despite Papadopoulos's interest in the latter, there is no evidence to suggest that he extended his teaching to the subjects and types of Christian iconography, remaining rather exclusively oriented towards antiquity.

Recasting Müller's approach to ancient art as a practical art theory for the present

The complex architecture of Papadopoulos's teaching programme draws directly on the second part of Müllers' handbook dedicated to the systematic treatment of ancient art ('Systematische Behandlung der Antike Kunst'). Müller's intention was to compile the totality of current knowledge on ancient art, adopting an almost encyclopaedic outlook. Indicative of this outlook is the manual's combination of two approaches to ancient art: a historical and a systematic one. In the first part of the manual, the German scholar presents the historical evolution of ancient Greek art, divided into five periods. In contrast to Winckelmann he only devotes a concise appendix to the art of ancient peoples 'of non-Greek race' ['Die nicht griechischen Völker'], namely Egyptians, Babylonians and Phoenicians, Persians and the Indians. After a short general introduction to the political, social and intellectual context of each period, Müller separately examines architecture, sculpture and painting, treating the artists and works. The second part of the handbook opens with an exhaustive geographical survey of ancient monuments and of the current repartition of collections of antiquities around Europe. Subsequently Müller undertakes a thorough examination of techniques and forms, and finishes with an iconographical approach to the different subjects of ancient art.

It is then primarily this second part of the manual, almost double the size of the first, historical part, which interests Papadopoulos (with the exception of the introductory geographical survey). Papadopoulos's artistic mythology draws on Müller's analytical register of the subjects of ancient art. However, while Müller proposes a comprehensive iconography divided into 'mythological subjects', 'subjects from human life' ('historical representations, portraits; religious transactions, agones, war, the chase, country life, economical occupations, domestic and married life, death') and 'subjects from the rest of nature' ('animals and plants, arabesques and landscape, amulets, symbols'), Papadopoulos remains attached primarily to mythological subjects (including, in extremis, historical portraits), and thus to the older tradition of scholarly courses in art academies, where mythology was established as a subject-matter.

Concerning Kallitechniologia, a quick look at the table of contents in Müller's manual shows how closely the Greek professor follows the structure of Müller's analysis of techniques and forms. All the subdivisions of Kallitechniologia previously described, and the neologisms introduced by Papadopoulos such as ... and ..., are directly inspired by the categories and classifications proposed by the German scholar. Nonetheless, based on Müller's analysis of the technics and forms of ancient art, for which the German scholar does not propose any specific overarching term, Papadopoulos moulds the notion of Kallitechniologia and generates a new methodology for the study of the arts, a kind of practical art theory, to which he ascribes a general validity (even though he restrains it, for his teaching, to the study of Greek art).

The voluminous information gathered by Müller in this section of the manual is intended principally as a means of classifying and interpreting the works of the past. As Müller's colleague Friedrich Welcker explained in his thorough review of the manual published in 1834, adressing in particular the principles of composition and figuration: 'To see art, to appreciate the drawing [...] to grasp easily the expression in countenance, posture, movement, gestures and action, to be able to distinguish the mass of significant signs from the insignificant ones [...], all this corresponds actually to grammatical knowledge and amounts to the necessary propaedeutic and condition of every act of interpretation'.83 Taking as his model philology and the study of texts, Welcker sees in these elements the possibility of a grammar permitting one to read ancient images (die Bilder gleichsam zu lesen) and unravel their meanings. Papadopoulos, on the other hand, uses the same material not only in order to understand the art of the ancients, but also as part of an active learning to be applied by his students, in contemporary artistic practice. In short, he transforms Müller's technical approach into a set of organisational principles and concepts that were meant to guide the nascent artistic production in the Greek Kingdom.

Teaching mode and didactic material

In his inaugural lecture of 1846, Papadopoulos sets out in a very methodical manner not only the subject and contents of his courses, but also the methods and the pedagogical resources of this teaching. He even discusses the pertinence of different lecturing modes. He expresses his predilection for a declamatory art of teaching (...84), a model that directly evokes the practices in place within the French establishments frequented by Papadopoulos during his studies in Paris, such as the Sorbonne and College de France.85 Papadopoulos conceives his courses as erudite lectures for relaxed listening, and condemns dictation (...) - a widespread practice that many universities administrations tried to forbid86 - that cancels the vivid and oral character of teaching. 87

In 1844, Papadopoulos had proposed to provide his students with a detailed plan of each lecture, presenting the points that would be developed in this ex cathedra oration, during which the students were supposed to take notes.88 Moreover, students were prompted to present summaries of each lecture, a kind of informal knowledge assessment.89 Thus students were themselves responsible for composing the didactic corpus, a practice intended to develop their writing and synthetic skills and permit them to assimilate the multitude of new terms and concepts necessary to their studies.

Very soon, however, the need for a teaching manual became apparent, in order to assure the coherence and correctness of received knowledge and facilitate the students' learnings. Complying to the lack of available treatises and works in Greek relative to his courses, Papadopoulos took upon himself to compose a handbook based on his lectures, drawing 'on various sources, and above all on the illustrious Müller'.90 The sections treated in each lecture would be presented in autonomous manuscript booklets and put at the disposal of students for copying - the mechanical reproduction of teaching manuals would be systematised in the School only in the 1880s, along with regulations on the professors' obligation to produce teaching handbooks for their courses, mainly in the technical department.91 Papadopoulos also intended to accompany this textual material by illustrated plates (...).

Two such didactic manuscripts were found in Papadopoulos's archives: one consisting of a general overview entitled 'Summary of Greek Technology' (...), and one dedicated to optical techniques (...).92 The different parts of Kallitechniologia were most probably treated in rotation along the years: in 1862, for instance, as one learns from a newspaper article, the course of Kallitechniologia was limited in Technoptics.93 Structured in numbered paragraphs, the two didactic manuscripts follow Müller's text closely, even though Papadopoulos also often inserts personal observations. Along with the two manuscripts, I traced an illustrated compendium for architecture, to which I will return later. Unlike Ross at the University, Papadopoulos did not produce a printed manual for his course, but, as shown here, he did try to propose a systematised corpus of knowledge to his students.

Illustrating the lectures: from graphic plates to the originals

Images played a central role in Papadopoulos's teaching approach. Both for his course of Kallitechniologia and for Artistic Mythology, he dedicated a separate part of the lecture to the 'interpretation of plates', that is, the analysis of the visual material necessary for the comprehension of the more theoretical part of the course.94 Papadopoulos announced a visual corpus including 'building plans, representations of different monuments, sculptures, vases, etc.'.95 He insisted on the fundamental importance of this practice, without which 'teaching becomes almost useless, particularly for artists'.96 Moreover, he encouraged the students to draw copies of the objects and works he was commenting on. 97 The expression 'with demonstration and interpretation of plates' that systematically accompanied the titles and announcements of his courses implies that the practice was definitely worth mentioning and possibly an attraction for the public.

Ludwig Ross was the first in Greece to make use of visual material for his lectures at the University in 1839-1840,98 importing a practice already established in Germany.99 Papadopoulos, who was not in Athens during Ross's rather short tenure (1837-1844), had eventually made the experience of such an image-based lecturing during his studies in Paris. In his widely renowned lectures at the Bibliothèque Royale, the Conservator of the Cabinet des antiques et médailles Désirée Raoul-Rochette (1790-1854), close friend and correspondent both of Müller and Ross, made a wide use of graphic illustrations as well as frequent references to Müller's manual.100 It is also possible that the first contact of Papadopoulos with Müller's work dates from this period. As his writings indicate, Papadopoulos's reception of the manual seems to have been exclusively based on its French translation of 1841-1842.101 The French translation was also the one cited by Caftanzoglou in the published versions of his annual official discourses. The reception of the manual in the School was thus mediated through the French prism, whereas in the University the reference was rather the German original.

Given the substantial reliance of Papadopoulos on Müller's work, one can assume that the illustrated plates he used for his teaching were drawn from Müller's picture compendium Denkmäler der alten Kunst (1832), composed in collaboration with his colleague at the University of Göttingen, the painter Carl Oesterley (1805-1891), to accompany the manual.102 This was a widely influential album, which, like the manual itself, was also repeatedly re-edited and completed103 and which informed, for instance, in many ways Franz Kugler's similar endeavour for his Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte.104 Müller's album was present in the Library of the Athenian School of Arts.105 However, the iconographic material compounded by Müller in 1832 (and completed in 1835) covered only the first historical part of the manual; illustrations pertaining to the systematic treatment of architecture, plastic and graphic arts or the iconography of ancient art were not planned.106 Nonetheless, the organisation of the iconographical material related to this first historical part followed a multi-layered scheme, where a set of at least four overlapping principles of classification can be observed: chronology, artists, media, and subject. The tables follow the overall chronological division of ancient art in five periods; within each period, illustrations are organised by medium (sculptures, painted vases, engraved gems, coins), or material ('works in metal'), but also often by subject-matter cutting across media (representations of gods, kings, monarchs, other historical or mythological figures, personifications of cities, etc.). In certain periods, the visual material is also organised by artists or schools - for instance, Lysippus' sculptures. But within such classifications, works are grouped iconographically rather than chronologically. Thus, tables like the ones grouping together representations of Hercules or Alexander the Great, across various media, based on types fixed by Lysippus (fig. 5, 6) could definitely be of use for Papadopoulos in his treatment of artistic mythology.

Within this visual maze, architecture is totally absent,107 even though it is treated in Müller's historical narrative - Müller was in fact the first to integrate architecture into the archaeological study of ancient art, a choice that functioned paradigmatically for the subsequent development of Kunstarchäologie in the nineteenth century.108 Müller's lack of familiarisation with the actual monuments seems to meet its limits here. His studies at the University of Breslau and then in Berlin had little prepared him for teaching on ancient art, a task he had to face upon his appointment at the University of Göttingen, at the age of twenty-two. Seeking to enrich his knowledge and nourish his teaching, he travelled to study collections of antiquities first in Dresden, immediately after his appointment, in autumn 1819, and three years later in Great Britain - primarily for the Parthenon marbles -, Holland and France.109 Nonetheless, his trip to Italy and Greece, where architectural monuments were mainly preserved, was to be eventually made only in 1840, after more than twenty years of research and teaching. Müller's unease in providing architectural illustrations, but also, more largely, his very narrative in the manual itself, reveals a rather philological and text-based approach to ancient works and monuments. Besides, the characteristic pure line engravings of the picture compendium point to a comprehension of the works of art primarily as iconographical motifs rather than real objects, embodied in material media. Deprived of volumes and shadows, flattened up on the page surface, the depicted works evoke a kind of image-language, an image-script to be read out, as Welcker suggested.

For Papadopoulos, on the contrary, the works in their very materiality and the monuments themselves were of seminal importance - and, what is more, at his immediate reach. The Greek professor complied with the lack of representations for architecture in Müller's compendium, by compounding his own plates for the study of this important first part of Kallitechniologia; 110 he also used the collection of casts of ancient sculptures held in the School for the illustration of his lectures,111 as did Müller with the important collection of the Göttingen University.112 Thirdly, and most importantly, he sought to familiarise his students with the original works and monuments of Athens, by implementing a tight programme of educational excursions. For the year 1846-1847, he planned visits to the Acropolis, the Theseion (fig. 7) and the Monument of Lysikrates, in order to study architecture as well as the statues and bas-reliefs conserved there (Theseion and different buildings on the Acropolis functioned in the period as the first museums of the capital113). Due to the unfortunate loss of the great works of ancient Greek painters,114 painting would be studied mainly through the decorated vases held in various collections in Athens and Piraeus.115 It is important to note that this reliance on vase painting implies a rather graphic conception of the discipline: during this period the term normally used for painting was ..., a word that evokes the idea of drawing, rather than ... or ..., the term which was finally consecrated in language.

Papadopoulos's intention to illustrate his lectures using the plaster casts held in the School is also significant. The cast collection comprised copies of works held in leading European museums, such as the Archaeological Museum of Naples, the Louvre and the British Museum, and was funded mainly through donations, thanks to the initiatives and networking of Caftanzoglou,116 who strove to introduce in Greece the canon of ancient sculpture as it was established in the academic tradition. The casts were primarily intended for the drawing classes of the School, particularly the classes of drawing from the round, termed in Greek as ... (literaly: drawing from statues). Discussing the casts in his lectures, Papadopoulos incorporated the models that the students were prompted to copy in their daily drawing exercises into a larger framework of knowledge. His teaching therefore offered an essential complement to practical training, and was centred on the works themselves, in a progression from two-dimensional graphic representations to three-dimensional copies, and finally to the originals.

'Along with the things, the names': the creation of an artistic terminology

Another key objective of Papadopoulos's educational programme was the consolidation of an artistic terminology, a need particularly felt in Greece, while 'unknown', as he observes, 'in the wise Europe'.117 During the first decades of State formation, and in the context of the thorny 'language question',118 the lack of specialized technical terms was extremely acute along various fields of the public and private domain, including administration, law, education, army, communications, transports or commerce. This was particularly true for the domain of the arts.

Not long before Papadopoulos took up teaching in the School, Stephanos Koumanoudis (1818-1899), particularly sensitive to the question of words - a future University professor and the historian par excellence of modern Greek neologisms at the end of the century -, was already facing the problem of vocabulary while translating into Greek two essays by Winckelmann in 1843 - an endeavour that marked the beginnings of art literature in the new state. In his preface, the young Koumanoudis pertinently summarized the main aspects of the problem: complete lack of words, lack of consensus on the meaning of available terms, inappropriateness of ancient words to describe modern practices.119 Papadopoulos introduced another dimension, evocative of the ideological and national claims connected to language: he pointed to the invasion of foreign 'barbaric' words into the Greek vocabulary. Apparently he had in mind Western European words too, but primarily Turkish ones, characterised by him as 'stigmata of slavery', while the centuries of Ottoman rule were to account for the deep 'mutilation' of language.120

Papadopoulos proposed two main courses of action: on the one hand, to meticulously study and restore available Greek terms; on the other, to coin the rest in consistency 'to Greek eurhythmy and orthoepy'121 - which means that the proposed new terms not only had to be operative, but also to look and sound ostensibly 'Greek'.122 The Greek professor poses himself both as a collector and an inventor of words, putting a particular emphasis on the act of nomination (???µat??es?a). Extreme cautiousness and zeal were needed in this attempt; Papadopoulos even goes on to point out the insufficiency of terminological researches on ancient art undertaken - 'rather as a parergon' - by foreign scholars, such as Theodor Panofska's studies on vases,123 which he considers already obsolete. ?he task, as he notes, encumbered above all Greek scholars.124

Papadopoulos's intention is to build a homogenous artistic vocabulary that could be widely spread, as he hopes, through the students of the School, 'who are learning the things along with the names'125 - he points here to a typical operation of institutional self-reproduction. While Koumanoudis was describing a rather individual problem related to his activity as a translator, Papadopoulos speaks in the name of an institution that sought to teach Greek society not only to produce art but also to speak about it.

Faithful to his programmatic declarations, Papadopoulos engaged in intense lexicographical research, as testified both by a manuscript entitled 'Material to Kallitechniological Terminology' [...] found in his archives, as well by his ... [Essay on Artistic Onomatology], composed around 1850. The manuscript is a kind of Greek-French glossary that contains more than 400 entries of technical and artistic terms presented not alphabetically, but in the order of their appearance in Müller's text. The glossary served apparently as a work tool for Papadopoulos's oral or written translations and re-adaptations of Müller's manual, which were based, as discussed earlier, ?n its French translation. Among foreign languages, French is Papadopoulos's main reference, as it was for Greek educated elites in general. During this period, articles in the press treating artistic questions are scattered with French terms in parentheses, as accompaniments to the Greek ones, creating thus a kind of meta-text to assure that the message would get through, given the semantic instability of Greek words. Even Ludwig Ross, in his adaptation of Müller's manual, feels the need to insert parenthetically, along with the German terms, the French ones corresponding to the Greek.126 A manuscript note, found in Papadopoulos's archive, detailing his courses seems to imply that French terminology was even taught to the students of the School, along with the developing Greek one.127

As for Papadopoulos's Essay on Artistic Onomatology, unlike what its title might suggest, it is not a continuous argumentative text, but rather a series of lexicographical entries and brief explicatory texts corresponding to fifteen plates destined for the study of architecture as proposed in Müller's systematic approach in the second part of his manual.128 The plates and the corresponding entries follow closely the order of Müller's presentation; they cover construction techniques according to material: stone, wood and brick (pl. 1-4); geometric forms, different kinds of lines and surfaces (pl. 5) (fig. 8); rectilinear and curvilinear mouldings, or what Müller terms 'subordinate, interruption, separating, preparatory forms',129 mainly cymatia (Dorian, lesbian, etc., pl. 6-8); bearing architectural members: the column (Dorian, Ionian, Corinthian) and its elements (base, shaft and capital) (pl. 9-10) (fig. 9, 10), pillars and walls (pl. 11), doors and windows (pl. 12), entablatures (architrave, frieze, cornice) in the Dorian, Ionian and Corinthian ordinances (pl. 13-14) and, last, ceilings, roofs and vaults (pl. 15).

The German scholar qualifies his technical approach to architecture in the second part of the manual as 'nothing more than nomenclature, which oral exposition must supply with illustrations'.130 This is precisely what Papadopoulos undertakes, providing images for almost every single architectural unit of Müller's 'nomenclature'. In the corresponding captions, he names each unit and architectural element illustrated, codifying thus a highly specialised repertoire of technical terms. In the Essay, Papadopoulos therefore seeks to generate simultaneously a taxonomy of words and of things, in order to bring about a practice-oriented knowledge. Giving names to things, forming a language amounts here, in a sense, to the very production of knowledge. Papadopoulos's whole endeavour is indeed orientated towards objects, developing a visual, classificatory and onomatological approach that leaves little margin to historical thinking, contextualisation or narrative structures.

In the captions corresponding to the plates, each Greek term is accompanied with its equivalent in Latin and French, less often in Italian also; German terms are completely absent. Most interestingly, in this dry lexical and taxonomic script, Papadopoulos often inserts notes that reveal the prescriptive character of his teaching. For instance, in the captions pertaining to geometric forms, where different line and surface combinations are presented, Papadopoulos opens with a programmatic observation absent from Müller's text: 'The straight lines, horizontal or vertical, and the only slightly sloping lines (in relation to the first two) are the dominant lines in Greek architecture', and further inserts: 'Lines heavily sloping from the vertical or the horizontal, such as Gothic lapses, are contrary to the principles of architectural beauty of the Greeks'.131 For both Papadopoulos and Caftanzoglou, Gothic architecture represented indeed the absolute Other of Greek architecture, a kind of imminent 'danger' in this crucial period of the 're-generation of arts', that should by all means be held outside the Greek territory.132 The fear of 'barbaric' words is here coupled with the fear of an eventual invasion of 'barbaric' forms. In the highly ideological rhetoric of the School, reanimated ancient words and suitably constructed neologisms, along with a properly defined artistic vocabulary of forms, constitute the nation's arsenal against its literary and artistic enemies.

Both in the Essay and in his French-Greek glossary, for each entry Papadopoulos methodically accounts for his 'nominational' choices, drawing on a bewildering array of ancient writers, Greek, Latin or even Byzantine (such as Eustathios of Thessaloniki). His familiarity with ancient sources and his lexicographical interests were probably cultivated in Paris, where, in parallel to his studies, he worked as an editor of ancient texts in the Frères Didot publishing house, engaging in the on-going publication (from 1831 to 1865) of the Thesaurus Graecae Linguae, a landmark in modern lexicography of Greek.133 To mention just one example from the French-Greek glossary: for arts du dessin, architecture, painting and sculpture, Papadopoulos adopts the term ... drawing on Plato's Laws, and considers it preferable to Ross's - in his adaptation of Müller's manual - ..., also found in Laws.134 Ross's choices are indeed a basic reference alongside which, or often against which, Papadopoulos develops his own terminological universe.

Of particular interest is a less typical sample of Papadopoulos's practices: the inclusion, along with ancient Greek, Latin, and French or less often Italian lexical equivalents, of words of colloquial usage, particularly for the elements pertaining to wood construction, widely used in vernacular architecture.135 Papadopoulos's intention is to address the young craftsmen and traditional artisans flooding the classes of the School from various regions, within or outside the frontiers of the State, seeking to inculcate the new techniques (namely, drawing) and the new aesthetic models introduced under the authority of a state institution. These craftsmen and artisans are precisely the prospective users and disseminators of the new homogenized 'national' artistic language, both lexical and formal, envisioned by the leaders of the School.

Papadopoulos's appropriation of Müller's work led to a huge operation of word inventions and definitions of terms. His lexicographical inquiries and proposals need to be further studied, but their historical significance is already clear: this is the first attempt to institute a system of concepts around works of art and art practices, a system of specialized terms capable of defining a separate field of production that was only then emerging in Greece.136

A romantic aesthetics for Greek art?

As shown so far, Papadopoulos's appropriation of Müller's handbook privileges the systematic treatment of ancient art, neglecting the historical approach proposed in the first part of the manual. Another part of Müller's summa proved particularly important for the Greek teacher: the inaugural theoretical introduction. Papadopoulos's adaptation of this part is the only printed extract of his lectures, which appeared in instalments in the magazine Ephimeris ton Philomathon in 1857, under the title 'Introduction to Greek Kallitechniologia'.137

Müller's comprehensive account of ancient art is preceded by a two-fold general introduction divided into a theoretical and a literary part (proposing an exhaustive review of sources and literature on ancient art). It is the first theoretical portion that interests Papadopoulos. Müller exposes here the conceptual foundations of his work, drawing on art theory and aesthetics: he defines the concept of Art (Kunst) and more particularly the notion of 'artistic idea', as well as the 'simplest and more general laws of art' (Die einfachsten und allgemeinsten Gesetze der Kunst); he further discusses the divisions and classifications of art, and finally its historical emergence.138

Müller's choice to introduce an archaeological manual with a speculative approach to art is quite original.139 Such an approach is indeed completely absent from the complex architecture of the disciplines and fields composing Altertumswissenschaft as influentially defined, at the beginning of the century, by Freidrich August Wolf (1759-1824),140 whose logic and order are taken into account in Müller's manual. Concerning the study of works of art and the material remnants of antiquity, Wolf points first to 'a complete enumeration of the preserved material',141 which is what Müller undertakes in his exhaustive geographical survey of monuments and collections, and concerning art in particular, the focus is on two disciplines: Kunstgeschichte (Müller's first part of the manual) and Kunstlehre, that is, 'the principles and technical rules [...] under which the artists of antiquity worked'.142 Wolf's Kunstlehre corresponds to Müller's technical approach in the second part of the manual. However, along with the study of theoretical and practical principles in history (that is, the principles valid in the specific historical period of antiquity), Müller also attempts in his introduction a general, abstract and philosophical reflection on the nature of art. Aesthetic considerations of this order were in general omitted by the philologically trained scholars who came to study and teach ancient art in the German University (one may think, for instance, of Panofka or Gerhard in Berlin). It is in this sense extremely revealing that Friedrich Welcker - Müller's predecessor at the University of Göttingen, who shared an equally acute interest in ancient art143 - makes no comment whatsoever in his extended review of the manual on this programmatic introductory part, suggesting tacitly its displaced character.

Müller would find a privileged interlocutor for his speculative endeavour beyond the circle of his philologically trained, text-oriented colleagues, in an extra-institutional scholar, the art historian Carl Friedrich von Rumohr (1785-1843), whose ground-breaking Italienische Forschungen (1827-1831, 3 vols), published three years before Müller's manual, began with an imposing treatise on aesthetics - his famous 'Haushalt der Kunst'.144 Müller's endeavour was thus informed by the developments occurring in the study of post-antique art. It is also interesting in this regard that precisely when the artist's biography was becoming in Germany the genre in which a new critical and historical methodology was elaborated, breaking away from the older vitas,145 Müller was one of the first to apply this model to an ancient artist, the celebrated Phidias, in his De Phidiae vita et operibus, commentationes tres (1827) - an extremely interesting and today hardly mentioned text (probably also because of its being written in Latin).146 One cannot help but stress the intense contact between scholars, now blurred by the subsequent fragmentation of disciplines, and to underline the entangled nature of their interests during this formative period when the divide between ancient and modern art was still extremely fluid.

The art theoretical premises adopted by Müller draw mainly on Kant, but also on the romantic aesthetics of Novalis and Schiller.147 Papadopoulos's appropriation of Müller's introduction for his own teaching at the School of Arts is particularly important, not simply as a first example of a systematic theoretical discourse that marked the origins of art education in Greece, but also because it introduced elements of romantic aesthetics, functioning thus as an alternative to the classicist doctrine expressed in the annual official discourses by Caftanzoglou.148

Very significant in this regard is Müller's understanding of art not as mimesis, but rather as representation (Darstellung, ...); that is, as the outward expression of inner mental activity: 'Art is representation, that is an activity, by means of which what is in our mind is inscribed into external sensible forms'.149 Crucial to this definition of art is the concept of 'artistic idea', that is, 'the mood and activity of the mind from which proceeds the conception of the particular form':150

The internal or the represented in art, that is, the spiritual life that the artwork makes manifest, is called artistic idea [...] the work of art, even if it is often copied from nature, has still its proper existence [...] this is because the artist does not copy [nature], but rather represents their own feeling, to which the contemplation of the object gave rise.151

Beyond the classicist paradigm of mimesis, the emphasis is put here on the affective and subjective mediation of external reality by the figure of the artist. Concerning the conceptual status of the artistic idea, Müller observes moreover that it 'is rather an idea of a peculiar individual kind, which is at the same time united with a strong and lively feeling of the soul [...] in the creation as well as the adoption of the artistic form, the feeling remains predominant'.152

The primacy of feeling in shaping the artistic idea and its corresponding form seems to have been already present in Papadopoulos's thought even before his turn towards Müller's work. In his inaugural lesson of 1844, he declared: 'Art is feeling, it is transformed into an idea, and finally is incarnated in the work'.153 Papadopoulos's sententious, paratactic and essentially oral formulation has certainly little to do with the analytical precision of Müller's text; he seems above all to neatly separate feeling from idea (consubstantial in Müller's analysis), suggesting moreover a vision of artistic creation as a kind of linear sequence of well-distinguished phases (feeling, idea, work). This is precisely what he will manage to communicate in a more complex way, by adopting Müller's analysis. Müller insists from the very beginning on the intrinsic link between idea and form, conceiving and making: 'The idea and the work are so closely related that as soon as the idea is born within us it tends to be represented outwards; only through this representation [the idea] is completely developed in the mind'.154 Papadopoulos pursues this with a concrete example, manipulating Müller's reference to Schiller's 'obscure total idea':155

A rather unclear idea prevails before the production of every work of art. While the artist is imagining initially a battle in an unclear way, in working [executing] with enthusiasm, he manages to represent it with clarity, making thus more articulate the idea in his mind. 156

Here, the different moments of creative activity feed into each other, forming a kind of circular flow. The initially indeterminate idea can only be fully crystallised through its expression in material form. The work of art is not the application of a well-defined, preconceived plan or idea, but is formed through and along with the very process of the material execution of the work, which fully participates in the making and finalisation of the idea itself.

Unlike Caftanzoglou, who in his official speeches operates solely with a disincarnated, abstract essence of art, Papadopoulos, following Müller, puts at the centre of his analysis the artist and the very process of artistic creation. Müller adopts indeed an aesthetics of creation rather than an aesthetics of reception;157 that is, he approaches art from the point of view of its maker rather than its beholder. This makes his theoretical analysis valuable for Papadopoulos, as he wishes to address art students. He even tends often to insist on and amplify passages that put the artist and his particular way of seeing 'on stage', or which demonstrate more generally the internal dynamics of the creative process.

Turning concepts into (well-chosen) examples

As has already been suggested in the previous analysis, Papadopoulos does not propose a verbatim translation of Müller's theoretical introduction, far from it. As the editor of the magazine Ephimeris ton Philomathon observes, the published lectures 'contain much from the work of Müller, part of which was changed and developed according to the finality [of the course], while other parts were entirely added in order to complete the teaching material'.158 The parts that could be attributed exclusively to the Greek professor are not as many as this commentary would imply. Papadopoulos follows indeed quite closely the logic and structure of Müller's introduction.159 Nonetheless, the ways he intervenes in the adopted Müllerian script are extremely varied.

First of all, in the way Papadopoulos adapts Müller's introduction there is a prevailing tendency to simplify and make intelligible by means of concrete examples the abstract philosophical discourse of the German scholar, which was full of theoretical concepts and aesthetic categories that were still not widespread in Greece, and were certainly new for the students of the School. Concepts are often paraphrased, and the names of authors cited by Müller (?ant, Goethe, Schiller, etc.) are systematically omitted. Müller's frequent references to music are almost always replaced by examples from the relevant art form of painting and sculpture. Moreover, Papadopoulos tends to select his examples not solely from the realm of ancient art, but also from modern times, seeking to affirm the general validity of Kallitechniologia for the study of the arts across history: thus, when he introduces for instance the notion of style, discussing it both as an individual and as a collective phenomenon, in the sense of national schools ('..., école'), he expands and diversifies Müller's few examples drawn exclusively from ancient art (Phidias, Praxiteles; Egyptian, Grecian style), by referring also to Raphael, or to the Arabic, Byzantine, Dutch and Italian style.160

Typical of the Greek professor's efforts of vulgarisation is his treatment of the notions of the sublime and the graceful, which Müller succinctly juxtaposes with the beautiful in his discussion of the 'simplest and more general laws of art': regularity, beauty and unity (§ 14). Concerning the sublime, Papadopoulos further develops Müllers laconic definition,161 introducing the Kantian distinction between 'mathematical' sublime, inspired by magnitude of size (...) and 'dynamical' sublime inspired by force (...); and he goes on to provide concrete examples. The famous Kantian ones (ocean, mountains, crowds) are here accompanied by examples that would immediately make sense to the Greek audience, drawn from ancient and modern Greek history: thus, the sense of the sublime inspired by force would be engendered by 'the view of the thunder, of a sea agitated to its depths, of a man who, firm to his convictions, remains steadfastly opposed to the tyrant; by the imprisoned Socrates dying in the name of truth, or a hero inspiring and steering up a whole nation for freedom'.162

As for the category of the graceful, Papadopoulos's examples are strictly drawn from the universe of landscape and genre scenes: 'The graceful, being free of shock or excitation, provokes to the soul calm and agreeable sensations; for example the vision of a beautiful green plain, bleating sheep herds, a fluting shepherd, a small hut irradiating rural happiness'.163

Precisely at the moment of the publication of Papadopoulos's 'Introduction', such subjects were proposed in the artistic competitions of 1856 and 1857, exceptionally sponsored by the Minister of Finance Alexandros Kontostavlou (1789-1865).164 The subject given to sculptors in 1856 was 'Shepherd holding a sheep' ['...'], and the first prize was given to brothers Georgios and Lazaros Phytalis for their treatment of the subject. (fig. 11) The latter had a year earlier participated in the Greek section of the Parisian Universal Exhibition of 1855 with his 'Fluting Shepherd', a work conveying, according to Caftanzoglou, 'the idle and carefree bucolic life'.165 While evoking an idyllic Arcadian Greece, such themes were typically transposed into the present, conveying the vision of an idealised country life - which was besides politically instrumental at a moment of intense turmoil in the mainland.166

It is clear that Papadopoulos's intention was not only to exemplify theoretical concepts, but also to fix a prescriptive repertory of subjects. Genre scenes, standing traditionally at the lower level of the academic hierarchy, were here legitimatised under the category of the graceful; along with portraits, genre scenes would indeed dominate the artistic production of the country during the second half of the century.

Colour according to Chevreul

Papadopoulos's most significant intervention, however, lies elsewhere. In Müller's discussion on the use of colour in painting and the plastic arts, the teacher inserts an analysis based on Eugène Chevreul's (1786-1889) studies on colour interaction. It is well known that the French chemist's colour theory, advanced in his voluminous De la loi du contraste simultané des couleurs (1839), had, through intermediaries like Charles Blanc, and a series of productive misunderstandings, contributed considerably to the establishment of a new paradigm of chromatic harmony based on the juxtaposition of complementary colours - a practice banished in classicist aesthetics due to the resulting effect of intense contrasts.167 Chevreul's famous law of simultaneous contrast of colours would be of major significance for the experimentations of impressionists and, most importantly, of post-impressionists. However, before the 1860s, with the notable exception of Delacroix, Chevreul's ideas on the interaction of colours had not really found any serious applications in artistic practice.

This is why Papadopoulos's reference to Chevreul in 1857 - probably also earlier, in the context of his oral teaching - is quite remarkable. It is possible that Papadopoulos had a chance to familiarise himself with Chevreul's ideas in Paris. Much more than his strenuous volume of 1839, it was Chevreul's public lectures, from 1830 until the 1850s, that functioned as the main source for the diffusion of his theories. Delivered at the Manufacture des Gobelins, where Chevreul was appointed as Director at the Department of Dyes, his lectures were highly popular,168 and it is possible that the young Papadopoulos also attended them.

Papadopoulos's intention was to bring at the disposal of his students the 'laws of colour harmony', which, as he observes, Chevreul's chromatic circle presented in a 'positive and sensible manner'. 169 After a detailed description of Chevreul's scheme, which was apparently supported by an illustration in the classroom,170 he concluded:

Colours are modified when they are juxtaposed with other colours: in this table, each colour is defined, and one can find the necessary ascending and descending modification, that is, the tone that has to be applied to the surrounding colours, as well as the resulting assimilation. The necessary harmony is thus constructed in an easy and positive manner.171

A scientific and a normative outlook are here coupled together. Previously condemned to being studied through ancient vases, painting is put here at the centre of attention. This is indeed one of the rare but quite significant indications of an attempt to supplement the technical procedures and knowledge of the ancients with modern science. Trying to adapt an archaeological manual to the needs of artistic training could indeed lead to fascinating combinations: the peak of German Altertumswissenschaft went hand in hand with the peak of French applied chemistry in the decorative arts and industry (particularly tapestry, for which Chevreul's theories were originally developed).

It is difficult to determine whether and to what extent Chevreul's ideas as introduced by Papadopoulos had an impact or practical application in his students' work. It is equally difficult to know whether Papadopoulos was conscious of the potentially subversive character of these ideas with regard to the standard academic practices in painting technique. His proposals about the use of colour would probably have sounded strange, to say the least, to the painters that taught drawing and painting classes at the School.172 As I argued in my introductory comments, scholarly courses in the art school can potentially function as clusters of innovative ideas and reflexivity in relation to established traditions. Even if the actual impact of such theories on artistic practice cannot be defined, the fact of their inclusion in the teaching material merits taking into account.

Beautiful forms or beautiful ideas?

Finally, of particular interest are Papadopoulos's resistances to Müller's positions. Elsewhere I had the opportunity to discuss in detail how Papadopoulos tried to rehabilitate the concept of mimesis, inserting a second definition of art after the introductory one based on the idea of representation (...).173 Another seminal notion of classicist aesthetics that the Greek professor hesitates to abandon is that of allegory, brought into question in Müller's analysis.174 Müller introduces a neat distinction between the 'artistic idea', that can only be expressed through 'the altogether particular form of the work' and the idea 'in the ordinary sense' (Begriff), that is, a 'frame where different phenomena may fit'.175 Here Müller draws on Kant's thought, and stresses the incompatibility between language, composed by Begriffe, and plastic forms.176 A necessary consequence of this distinction is that allegories, which seek to represent abstract notions, such as truth, 'by external shapes' do not 'strictly speaking lie within the sphere of artistic activity'.177

Papadopoulos adopts Müller's analysis, admitting in his turn that in the case of allegories art 'deviates from its main objective'.178 However, he is quick to elaborate on this position, adding that 'when the artist represents abstract notions in an anthropomorphic way, he can still produce a notable work'.179 Allegory was indeed crucial for the didactic and moralising mission the leaders of the School strove to attribute to art, hence Papadopoulos's reticence to completely dismiss it as an artistic genre. Only a year before the publication of his lectures, the subject in Kontostavlos' painting contest of 1856 was precisely an allegory of charity - albeit still quite far from the academic conception of the genre - with the precise indication to treat it 'anthropomorphically': 'Charity, represented through three figures: a blind old woman with a child and a young student that gives her alms, in the form of bread or money'.180

I will focus subsequently on a last point of resistance that is closely related to the logic inherent in Papadopoulos's rescuing of allegory; it concerns the difference in the way that artistic laws seem to be understood by Müller and Papadopoulos, at least in the way the latter decided to convey them to his students. An important shift is observed in the definition of the beautiful. While Müller speaks exclusively in terms of beautiful forms,181 Papadopoulos, in transcribing Müller's definition, qualifies as beautiful not only forms (...) but also, and primarily, ideas. He even adds, in his typical manner, a series of well-chosen examples:

Beautiful are called the artistic ideas, or the forms, that exercise on the soul an impression in conformity to its own nature; a beneficent impression, which produces harmonious feelings; that is, beautiful is the picture that excites the feeling of piety or tenderness, or the love for the country; that evokes the innocent joy of children, or the pudicity of a young virgin, etc.; [Beautiful is] the poem that represents the crime as abominable, inspiring repulsion towards evil.182

The criterion of the beautiful is here displaced from the form to the idea. The 'beneficent' influence and the ¡¥harmonious feelings¡ that beautiful works raise in the soul seem to depend on their ability to appeal to a set of dominant moral, religious or national values. The basis of beauty lies in the nobleness and moral gravity of the subject, while forms in themselves are not deemed capable of moving the soul, or provoking aesthetic pleasure. The idea of the self-sufficiency and autonomy of artistic means does not penetrate the Greek horizon, where image is above all the carrier of a moral and national message. This same resistance can be observed in the way Caftanzoglou, in his official speeches, adapted the ideas of French theorist Jacques-Nicolas Paillot de Montabert (1771-1849) concerning the impact of art on human sensibility.183

Contrary to Papadopoulos, Muller speaks solely in term of 'beautiful forms', which are considered as such precisely because they are capable of producing in the soul vibrations that are in accordance with its inmost structure. The sense of beauty relies in a sort of harmonious correspondence between artistic forms and the vibrations of the soul. For the German scholar, who follows Kant in this point as well, the question of beauty is put in the last instance under the prerogative of 'aesthetics, as a part of psychology'.184

This idea determines more generally the way Muller grounds artistic laws. As he explains, these laws are actually deduced from the very nature and function of the soul.185 Papadopoulos on the contrary omits almost completely any reference to the psychological foundation of artistic laws seminal for Muller. In the corresponding passage, he mentions bluntly: 'We call general laws of art the simple conditions under which alone the sensible life of man can be excited in an agreeable manner; that is, under which alone representation is made'.186

The insertion of this last phrase is telling: for Papadopoulos, the laws of art have a normative character. What he is primarily interested in is the instruction of his students, rather than free philosophical speculation on the nature of beauty and its psychological underpinnings. Thus, while for Müller the laws of art are valid to the degree that they conform 'to the demands of sensibility', for Papadopoulos they seem rather to be arbitrarily imposed. The Greek professor transforms Müller's speculative approach into a prescriptive set of concepts, principles and rules to guide artistic practice.187 I close here my analysis of the various methods by which Papadopoulos reinvents Müller's archaeological manual for the needs of artistic training, and shall now turn to an overall evaluation of his teaching.

Scholarly training for artists or craftsmen?

Papadopoulos's choice to dedicate his teaching to the study of ancient Greek art is not surprising, given the classicist orientation of the School under Caftanzoglou's tenure and the overall ideological agenda of the State, which sought to re-appropriate the ancient Greek heritage. For the leading figures of the School it was almost self-evident that the development of modern Greek art would be founded on ancient art, envisaged as a universal artistic model. This aesthetic ideal presupposed a scholarly ideal: 'since the study of the artistic remnants of antiquity is the basis of every sound art, the knowledge of archaeology on their regard is not only necessary, but also inevitable'.188 Papadopoulos proposes thus an exhaustive and in-depth study of the artistic practices and monuments of antiquity, turning mainly towards the new science of archaeology and firmly away from the model of a history for artists.

The thorough education on the techniques, forms and subjects of ancient art, and the theoretical and technical knowledge Papadopoulos codified, endowing it with a proper vocabulary, provided trainees with particular resources and skills that formed a specific competence upon which their professional legitimacy was to be grounded. As holders of this specific competence, the students of the School would be able to gain access to and negotiate their position within the emerging art world of the Greek State.

Nonetheless, the mastery obtained through this education was almost entirely grounded on the historical experience of Greek antiquity. As Pierre Bourdieu observes, the 'practical mastery of the specific attainments of the whole history of the genre which are objectified in past works and recorded, codified and canonized by the whole corpus of professionals of conservation and celebration - historians of art and literature, exegetes, analysts - is a necessary resource, part of the capital, that conditions access to the field'.189 The doyens of the School, unique legislators [nomothetes] of the nascent art world, however, limit the 'history of the genre' solely to ancient Greek art. The students of the School could pretend only to a very partial mastery of such a history, as they were deprived from any substantial contact with artistic developments beyond the sacro-saint limits of Greek antiquity, and particularly with the Western tradition of the Renaissance. The study of Western art was certainly hindered by the lack of relevant works in Greece, on which to base, for instance, a teaching of the type proposed by Papadopoulos. Sticking to Antiquity was however a deliberate, ideologically informed choice rather than a form of compliance to practical limitations. Be that as it may, completing one's studies in European artistic centres was throughout the century a necessary condition in order to become an established artist in Greece.

Papadopoulos's abandonment of the project of a universal history for artists was rooted in the different objectives informing art education in Greece with relation to its foreign models. In the 1840s, Italian and French art schools were still striving to perpetuate the tradition of history painting; it therefore remained necessary to provide their students with the appropriate knowledge for reading and producing historical and mythological subjects. Art students were confronted precisely with such subjects in the large variety of artistic contests that structured the pedagogical experience throughout the year, culminating in competitions like the Prix de Rome in France or the Concorso Clementino in Rome.190 In Greece, on the contrary, the artistic contests organised at the end of each academic year - with the exception of the extraordinary, privately founded contests of 1856 and 1857 - always involved copying a model (two-dimensional print, cast or live model), rather than producing a composition based on a given academic subject.

The historical and literary culture that was the primary concern of scholarly teaching in Italy and France gave way to a technical culture, certainly thorough, but limited to a very specific stylistic morphology. Given this orientation, one might wonder what exactly the status was of painters and sculptors trained by the Athenian School. Was the objective to form artists capable of producing visually and intellectually compelling compositions, or rather skilled craftsmen, decorators capable of reproducing antique ornamental motifs or sculptors at ease with the different techniques and genres of ancient sculpture?

During this formative period, the very agenda of the institution is ambiguous: as Papadopoulos puts it, the School was conceived 'as a school of fine arts, to the degree that these can constitute a proper profession in Greece, or in order to contribute to the betterment of other arts and crafts'.191 Concerns about the viability of the artistic profession in Greece were rising in the face of the cultural unresponsiveness of a public that had to be 'produced' along with the producers. The big state commissions for the decoration of the new buildings of the capital, meanwhile, tended to be monopolised by foreign, mainly Bavarian artists that accompanied the King - and the limited private commissions by the local elites largely followed the lead. Moreover, the role and identity of the institution were highly unstable, hovering between artistic and economic considerations and seeking to promote also applied arts or even to develop scientific technical studies.192 These were the tensions that Papadopoulos had to face in defining the focus of his teaching. To be sure, the School's objective was not the creation of history painting, or even of a national school of history painting, despite a few mentions about it solely by Papadopoulos.193 It seems rather that the primary goal was the elaboration, codification and transmission of a common plastic vocabulary clearly identified as Greek and capable of evoking the illustrious past of Antiquity in all forms of production in the new Kingdom, both artistic and manufactured. The priority was to teach matters relating to the materials, the forms and the techniques of ancient art, which the students of the School had to be capable of mastering and reproducing in the present.

Finally, one has to add Papadopoulos's own personal scholarly interests and claims to the considerations that determined the direction of scholarly training. It is clear that his teaching is strongly informed by an ideal of scholarship. He refers extensively to the contribution of Kallitechniologia to classical studies and particularly to philology, insisting that through the concrete and detailed knowledge of ancient monuments and objects a better understanding of the texts themselves could be attained.194 He repeatedly points to the possibility offered by his courses to observe ancient life in all its dimensions, and contribute to his ideal of ..., the global knowledge of ancient Greece that was largely informed by Müller's project. As he observes with reference to the study of ancient architecture, 'in explaining the uses of buildings, we will necessarily discuss the multiples relations of public and private life of the Greeks, their morals, customs, etc.'195 Similarly, artistic mythology would allow for the study of religion and cults.196 His objective was not only to propose a meticulous analysis of works and their modes of fabrication, but also to understand their context of production, and more particularly to understand ancient Greek societies through their relation to objects.197 He even defines one of the programmatic objectives of his teaching as the 'study, registration and conservation of Greek antiquities'198, constantly menaced by expatriations and the illegal commerce that he violently denounces.199 Here is a set of extra-artistic considerations no doubt also determined by the wider public he wished to address.200

The School and the University: parallel teachings, or splitting Müller in two

A few years before its adoption in the School of Arts, Müller's handbook was, as previously mentioned, already in use by Ludwig Ross at the Athenian University. Trained as a philologist at the universities of Kiel and then Leipzig, under Gottfried Hermann (Boeckh's famous rival), Ludwig Ross came to Greece in 1832, where he spent some of the most productive years of his career, first as Ephor (overseer) of Antiquities at the Archaeological Service, from 1833 to 1836, and then as professor of archaeology at the philosophical faculty of the Athenian University, from 1837 to 1843.201 Ludwig Ross was among the first twenty-three professors to be appointed to the University directly by the Ministry of Education.202 The founding statutes did not define the object and specialty of the chairs in each faculty, but Ross's official appointment explicitly stated 'archaeology' as his main field203 - a political decision dictated by the singular importance of classical heritage for the ideological legitimation of the Greek State.204

Thus, one of the earliest chairs of archaeology in Europe was founded in Athens. Archaeology was only then starting to be recognised as an independent field in university curricula,205 while there was still much debate among scholars on its very nature and objects. From the 1830s onwards, the intense discussions about the definition of archaeology were mainly p?larised into two understandings of the notion. On the one hand, there existed a conception of archaeology as an all-encompassing study of ancient life based on all kinds of material remnants of the past (a tendency best represented by Eduard Gerhard's definition of archaeology as monumentale Philologie, that sought to endow archaeology with the same disciplinary and institutional status as philology). On the other hand, there existed also a more restricted conception that limited archaeology solely to the study of the arts, namely, fine art: that is, the various branches of architecture, sculpture and painting, eventually including also epigraphy and numismatics. It was this second conception, which was predominant until the end of the century, and Müller's manual, focused on art, was instrumental in this regard.206

Ross complies with this later definition of archaeology as the study of artworks, principally the study of fine arts, along with their subordinate manual arts (...).207 His teaching however would embrace not only the study of art, but a wide variety of topics and disciplines, such as epigraphy and the topography of Athens, while his philological courses were devoted to individual (almost exclusively Latin) authors and works, for example, Ovid's Metamorphoses and Plautus's Miles gloriosus.208 Ross' own comment on his appointment in his memoires is quite revealing: 'archaeology in the first semester was still out of the question, so I inaugurated with a lecture on Aristophanes' Acharnians and Knights'.209 Archaeology was not ready to go; a system and a method had to be found, and Müller's manual came as an ideal solution.

Based on this manual, Ross first introduced a course titled '...' ('Archaeology of the arts') in the summer semester of 1839, and in 1841 he published his own adaptation of Müller's manual in Greek (fig. 12). In the preface, he acknowledges his debt to his late Göttingen colleague, with whom he had the chance to meet and exchange during Müller's short trip to Greece.210 Ross insists nonetheless on the changes, additions and corrections he introduced in various parts, based on his own researches.211 He points most importantly to his conflicting understanding of 'the origin and transmission of art among ancient nations'.212 As previously mentioned, Müller was one of the strongest advocates of Greek cultural autarchy, and of the idea of a completely autonomous development of ancient Greek art, free of any influence from the Orient. Ross, on the contrary, fascinated by the deciphering of Egyptian hieroglyphs and the new possibilities that this opened for the study of the ancient world, was advancing the thesis of a colonisation of Greece by the Phoenicians and the Egyptians in the second millennium BCE, a development which, for him, was largely responsible for the introduction of the different arts.213 In his manual, Ross set out his theory on the diffusion of arts from Egypt to Greece, and, in this regard, inversed Müller's order of presentation, starting his examination of ancient art with the Egyptians and other Asian peoples, and concluding with the Greeks.214 Reversing the order of presentation in this way, he turned to Winckelmann's scheme that Müller had precisely revised because of the centrality he accorded to Greeks in his approach of the ancient world.215

When in the mid-1840s Papadopoulos turned to Müller's manual for his teaching at the School of Arts, he publicly dismissed any reference to Ross' Greek adaptation of the manual, insisting on the novel character of his own endeavour. This dismissal of Ross' contribution was perhaps a result of the aftermaths of the Revolution of 1843 against the Bavarian government and the subsequent expulsion of foreigners from the public service - due to this Ross lost his position at the University.216 Papadopoulos's silence on Ross could also be accounted for by Ross's positions on the delicate question of the origins of ancient art. Whereas Ross was seeking to question the hellenocentric vision of Antiquity advanced by his German colleagues, and Müller in particular, his theses, given from the lectern of the Athenian University, profoundly disturbed the community of Greek scholars. In his official speech of 1848, Caftanzoglou was one of the first to fervently refute Ross's claims, mounting a well-documented offensive that was grounded in part on Müller's arguments.217

Nonetheless Papadopoulos's claim that there was no treatise in the Greek language covering the subject-matter of his lectures218 is not entirely unfounded, given the fact that Ross's adaptation concerned only the first part of Müller's manual, that is, the historical approach to ancient art. Ross intended to further publish a concise 'technology' of ancient art, as he termed it,219 but he never came to it, probably due to his interrupted tenure. Ross's successor, Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis (1810-1892)220, whose tenure started only a semester after Papadopoulos's appointment at the School and ended in 1867, followed the same pattern. Shortly before the end of his tenure, he proposed his own manual on ancient art under the title ... [Archaeology. History of Ancient Art] (1865-1866) (fig. 13), presenting solely the historical evolution of ancient art and omitting any reference to a systematic approach.

Rangavis's two-volume manual, largely based on his lectures,221 was also founded upon Müller's work and followed its structure closely, even though each chapter was significantly augmented, incorporating the new findings of scholarship since the publication of Müller's manual, almost thirty years earlier, as well as observations by his own research in various Greek sites.222 After a general introduction on the political and social context of each historical period, Rangavis studies, in the Müllerian order, architecture, sculpture and painting,223 treating the works and the artists organised in regional schools. Like Müller, Rangavis uses two main categories, the artist and the regional school, which he subordinates to an overarching chronological arrangement divided in five periods. Moreover Rangavis returns to Müller's order of presentation, starting with the Greeks and Romans, and turning at the end to the Egyptians and other Asian peoples under the term 'barbaric nations' (...). ?e also seizes the opportunity to refute Ross's views on the Egyptian origins of Greek art, and to demonstrate, in his turn, its autochthone character.224

This impressive persistence of the Müllerian script is not a Greek phenomenon, and the same goes for its selective appropriations too. Since its second edition in 1835, Müller's manual had significantly influenced the teaching of archaeology and the history of ancient art within the German university itself. Many professors re-appropriated his work for their teaching, as was sometimes apparent in the very titles of their courses. One of the earliest mentions, almost coinciding with Ross's turn to Müller, is Ernst Toelken's course at the University of Berlin 'Archäologie der Kunst (nach Müller's Handbuch) nebst Erklärung der antiken', proposed in the summer semester of 1838.225 In Berlin, in particular, apart from Toelken, Eduard Gerhard, Adolph Schöll and Ernst Curtius - the latter two being among Müller's best students and his travel companions on his visit to Greece - explicitly used the manual for their lectures, while the same phenomenon occurred at Müller's host University of Göttingen, and further at the universities of Bonn and Konigsberg.226

Müller's ambition to condense the totality of the 'archaeological' knowledge of his time on ancient art into a book that brought together a great variety of objects and approaches - a historical, a technical and an iconographical approach, along with a geographical survey and a literature review, not to mention the speculative approach of the general introduction - turned the manual into an ideal source for subsequent appropriations, selective readings, corrections or completions, the richness and complexity of which has only recently started to be documented.227 Müller himself had anticipated this eventuality, noting in the preface of the manual's second edition that his work 'might be the basis of archaeological predilections of very different kinds', and that 'each lecturer might still employ a free and independent method of his own'.228

It seems though that the second voluminous part of the manual, and particularly the systematic study of techniques and forms, the principles of figuration and composition, and finally the study of the subjects treated in ancient art (precisely the part that proved crucial for Papadopoulos), had been rather neglected alongside the multiple appropriations of the manual, as suggested already by the cases of Ross and Rangavis. The very division of the manual into a historical and a technical part, and particularly their order of presentation, had been in itself an object of discussion and criticism.229 In his lengthy review of the manual, Friedrich Welcker finds it absurd, for instance, to start treating the history of ancient art without basic notions of the materials, techniques and forms, and prefers Winckelmann's concise presentation of this information before launching into the historical part.230 Integrating Welcker's critique, Müller notes in the second edition of the manual that he 'himself has latterly found it the best plan to anticipate in the first or historical part what is most important to know on the technics, forms and subjects of ancient art'.231 The majority of the professors that had subsequently used the manual as a basis for their lectures, such as Gerhard, Curtius or Otto Jahn, applied similar solutions, starting with techniques, material and genres, or simply fusing such information into the historical part.232

It is clear that, in the university context, what was central to the study of ancient art was its historical evolution.233 Pointing to the overarching title 'Archäologie der Kunst' in Müller's manual, Welcker was moved to 'an emotional outpouring' against the use of the word Archäologie as a scientific term and its confusing effects, preferring to speak plainly in terms of Kunstgeschichte.234 As Ross declares at the outset of his manual: 'Announcing thus the archaeology of the arts, we mean a historical overview of the birth, development, progress and fall of the art of the ancients, along with notes on the most excellent artists or all kinds of worth-remembering works of art'.235 Archaeology is here synonymous with the history of ancient art, and Ross's definition also indicates well the main focus of study.

Ross moreover notes that archaeology is the 'science of the history of the fine arts' of the ancients, incorporating not only extant works (...) but also the ones that we only know about through the written sources (...).236 As it is here conceived, the history of ancient art largely relies on written sources rather than the study of the works themselves. This was actually a major critique of Müller's approach all along, namely his strong reliance on philology,237 as was also the case for Heyne and Winckelmann before him - although Müller's effort reached a climax, as Klaus Fittschen observes, in this first philological phase of archaeology, before the redefinition of the discipline as mainly object-, field- and excavation-oriented.238 The same text-based approach to monuments was taken by both Ross and Rangavis, even though they can be situated precisely at the preparatory phase, at the origins of this new paradigm, being among the first to undertake the study of the actual sites in Greece - study that became finally possible after the creation of an independent Greek State.

It is highly telling, for instance, that after introducing courses based on Müller's manual in the summer semester of 1839, in the summer semester of 1841 Ross dedicated a course entirely to Pliny's Natural History, proposing thus to complete the study of ancient art through written sources, based on the major textual summa on the subject. It is similarly indicative that Rangavis's refutation of Ross's positions on the Egyptian origin of Greek art in his manual was exclusively founded on texts, on indications provided by the ancients themselves, while by contrast Caftanzoglou's discussion of the same issue was largely based on arguments founded on the observation of works, and architecture in particular, concerning the use of specific materials, the appearance of certain building types and the stylistic evolution of particular architectural elements. Moreover, in spite of Ross's and Rangavis's multifarious engagement in the administration of ancient monuments and sites,239 there is no evidence that they tried to familiarise their students with the study of original works, as Papadopoulos wanted to do through his visits to various Athenian monuments and archaeological collections. The practical exercises on archaeological sites emerge for the first time in the university curriculum a few years before the end of Rangavis's tenure, in the summer semester of 1865-1866, and were offered by a private lecturer (...), Petros Pervanoglous (1833-1894),240 before being generalised in the 1870s by the ordinary professor Athanasios Roussopoulos (1823-1898).

For almost twenty years, from the mid-1840s to the mid-1860s, Papadopoulos and Rangavis teach side by side, in two of the major educational institutions of the country. The former focuses on Kallitechniologia and Artistic Mythology; the second, on 'History of ancient art': they are, in a sense, splitting Müller's manual in two. Within the University a largely text-based historical approach prevails, with an emphasis on origins and narrative constructions; within the School of Arts, an approach oriented to objects is advocated, detailing their classifications and nomenclature, their techniques and subjects. In Athens, the School and the University develop into major centres for the study of ancient art that follow different methodological agendas.

Further investigation needs to be undertaken in order to determine to what extent this situation attests to a relation of complementarity, emulation or rivalry between the two institutions. Several occurrences in the official discourses of Caftanzoglou suggest that the School coveted the superior institutional prestige of the University. One might also evoke Papadopoulos's personal ambition for a position at the University, of which he was deprived, according to one of his biographers, because of his anti-bavarian spirit, as manifested in his newspaper articles.241 Moreover, the management, the conservation and above all the access to the study of antiquities unearthed on a daily basis in the capital was a major source of tension and conflicts during the period. Caftanzolgou, for instance, appointed as 'Architect of Antiquities' at the Archaeological Service between 1844 and 1851, had actively pushed for the transfer and conservation of original works at the School, at a moment when the archaeological administration was facing serious problems in finding adequate storage locations. The pieces were largely copied by students and teachers alike, as is indicated by several studies at the exhibitions of the School, and they had even served in two occurrences as models for the annual artistic competitions.242 Papadopoulos, despite his interest in ancient art and archaeology, was kept rather at the margins of the Archaeological Society and was in public conflict with Kyriakos Pittakis (1798-1863), Ross' successor as Ephor of Antiquities,243 while his relations with Rangavis probably were also not cordial.244 The personal and institutional tensions over control of antiquities must in all cases also be taken into account in order to understand the orientations of the scholarly teaching at the School.

My aim for now is rather to acknowledge the difference of focus identified above between the School and the University. The adaptation of the scholarly study of art to the needs of artistic training privileged taxonomical thinking and systematic classification of objects rather than chronological ordering, construction of narratives and historical contextualisation. This tendency prevails also later in the nineteenth century. While throughout the century teaching at the University was exclusively restricted to ancient art, at the School of Arts Konstantinidis was the first in Greece to move towards a general history of art, based on the universalist view expressed in Charles Blanc's Grammaire des arts du dessin (1867). In his courses, though, typically entitled 'History of the Visual Arts' or 'History of Architecture, Sculpture and Painting', the matrix of an extended, world art history was not used to trace continuities, observe changes or explain individual works with reference to their social and historical environment, but functioned rather as a reservoir of examples for a 'grammar' of forms, for a classification of the techniques, the formal qualities and the expressive means of architecture, sculpture and painting.

Is this repartition of approaches between the university and the art school valid or significant on a more general level? Can it help our understanding of the developmennt of the different approaches to art, in spite of the particularities of the Greek case, which I tried to point out in my analysis above? The development of formalist approaches in art history, the focus on the internal dynamics of forms to the detriment of historical contextualisation, as in the case of university professors and museum professionals like Heinrich Wölfflin (1864-1945) or Alois Riegl (1858-1905), has often been interpreted in the context of very specific disciplinary pressures - that is, as a wish to emancipate art history from the tutelage of history.245 Based on the examined examples, could one assert that teaching to art (and particularly architecture) students might have functioned as an alternative institutional framework for the inception of such orientations?

If one opens up the horizon of study to other cases, different divides between art institutions and the university can be observed. To stay within the German context - which is more thoroughly studied and has been crucial for the organisation of the discipline -, if one compares, for instance, the teaching of Karl Schnaase (1798-1875) at the Academy of Dusseldorf246 and Moriz Carrière at the Academy of Munich,247 with the teaching of Anton Springer (1825-1891) in Bonn,248 one could assert a prevalence of aesthetics and of a kind of speculative art history grounded on idealist philosophical systems at the academies, as opposed to a concrete, empirical and historical outlook at the university. This rather hasty allegation falls nonetheless apart, if one looks at the case of Franz Kugler, who occupied simultaneously positions both at the Academy (1833-1848) and the University (1833-1842) in Berlin: he usually taught the same course at both institutions, with no significant difference in his teaching, other than 'a greater emphasis on technical questions and practical application'249 at the Academy. Besides, Kugler considered the teaching of aesthetics highly inappropriate for artists, as it risked carrying them away from practice and towards 'one-side theorizing'.250

Any kind of simplistic institutional divide between art academies and the university is destined to neglect not only the particularities of local scholarly traditions, but also the extreme mobility and simultaneous involvement of scholars across institutions. In German-speaking countries, for instance, many of the founding figures of the discipline were indeed conjointly appointed at universities and art academies251, while many of these appointments were also combined with positions in museums. Along with the mobility of scholars, mobility of audiences must also be taken into account. As seen in the case of Papadopoulos, lectures at the School attracted a varied audience, extending well beyond the population of trainee artists or craftsmen. In other cases, such lectures were rather neglected by art students, while being widely successful amongst the general public (spanning from royal family members to the educated middle classes).252 On the other hand, art students were to be found in public courses outside the walls of the art school, at the university, or elsewhere.253 There are, here, a series of methodological precautions that have to be taken into account in the study of scholarly courses proposed to art students.

The Greek case has an heuristic value not because the related findings are of general validity, but because it points to the significance and interest of scholarly training as an object of inquiry. It is, however, only through a systematic study of the curricula and the subjects of the courses across institutions, along with the profile, training and qualifications, the multiple affiliations and networks of their professors, that one might begin to reach some degree of generalisation on the nature and function of scholarly courses destined to artists, on the different claims to authority, or on professional hierarchies established between scholars at the university, the academy and the museum. This is what remains to be done.

Footnote

1 Important in this regard is the volume by Rafael Cardoso Denis and Colin Trodd, eds, Art and the Academy in the Nineteenth Century, Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000. On the German case in particular, see Ekkehard Mai, Die deutschen Kunstakademien im 19. Jahrhundert: Künstlerausbildung zwischen Tradition und Avantgarde, Köln: Bohlau, 2010. See also for a long overdue inquiry into teaching practices in the private studio: Alain Bonnet and France Nerlich, eds, Apprendre à peindre. Les ateliers privés à Paris, 1780-1863, Tours: Presses Universitaires François-Rabelais, 2013.

2 See for instance the critical edition of the conferences of the French Academy by Jacqueline Lichtenstein and Christian Michel, eds, Les Conférences de l'Académie royale de peinture et de sculpture, 5 vols, Paris: éd. Beaux-arts de Paris, 2004-2012. On the lectures of the Royal Academy in London, see mainly Robert Wark, ed., Sir Joshua Reynolds, Discourses on Art, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997; Gisela Bungarten, ed., J.H. Füsslis (1741-1825) 'Lectures on Painting': das Modell der Antike und die moderne Nachahmung, 2 vols, Berlin: Mann, 2005.

3 See especially Leonore Koschnick, Franz Kugler (1808-1858) als Kunstkritiker und Kulturpolitiker, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Berlin: Freie Universität, 1985, 204-234; Mai, Die deutschen Kunstakademien, 175-186. Interesting in this perspective is also the case of Karl Josef Ignatz Mosler (1788-1860), painter and professor of art history at the Akademie of Düsseldorf, a close collaborator of Cornelius in the major reform plans of 1820. See Nikolaus Pevsner, Academies of Art: Past and Present, New York: Da Capo Press, 1973 (1st ed. 1940), 213.

4 Morton M. G., Naturalism and Nostalgia: Hippolyte Taine's Lectures on Art History at the École des Beaux-Arts, 1865-1869, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Providence: Brown University, 1998; Philip Walsh Hotchkiss, 'Viollet-le-Duc and Taine at the École des Beaux-Arts: on the first professorship of art history in France", in Elizabeth Mansfield, ed., Art History and its Institutions: Foundations of a Discipline, London, New York: Routledge, 2002, 85-99.

5 Eleonora Vratskidou, L'émergence de l'artiste en Grèce au XIXe siècle, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 2011, 461-513.

6 A major reference for this last perspective is the work of Heinrich Dilly, Kunstgeschichte als Institution: Studien zur Geschichte einer Disziplin, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1979. For the French case, see Lyne Therrien, L'histoire de l'histoire de l'art en France. Genèse d'une discipline universitaire, Paris: Éditions du CTHS, 1998. See also the collected volumes, Mansfield, Art History and its Institutions; Elizabeth Mansfield, ed., Making Art History: a Changing Discipline and its Institutions, New York, London: Routledge, 2007. For a transnational perspective, see Matthew Rampley, Thierry Lenain, Humbertus Locher, eds, Art History and Visual Studies. Transnational Discourses and National Frameworks, Leiden, Boston: Brill, 2012. See most recently the excellent studies by Eric Garberson on cases of Berlin-based scholars during the first half of the nineteenth century, where teaching in art academies is also taken into account: Eric Garberson, 'Art history in the university: Toelken - Hotho - Kugler', Journal of Art Historiography, 5, December 2011; 'Art History in the university II: Ernst Guhl', Journal of Art Historiography, 7, December 2012.

7 Claudia Sedlarz, 'Incorporating Antiquity. The Berlin Academy of Arts' Plaster Cast Collection', in Rune Frederiksen and Eckart Marchand, eds, Plaster Casts. Making, Collecting and Displaying from Classical Antiquity to the Present, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2010, 206-207. On Hirt in particular, see Claudia Sedlarz, ed., Aloys Hirt. Archäologe, Historiker, Kunstkenner, Hanover-Laatzen: Wehrhahn, 2004.

8 This being said, one should not ignore the lectures on ancient and medieval archaeology at the Cabinet des médailles of the Royal Library and the École des Chartes in the first half of the century; see Therrien, L'histoire, 37-79.

9 See especially Madalena Zaccara, Pedro Américo: um artista brasileiro do século XIX, Recife: Ed. Universitária da UFPE, 2011, 74-85.

10 This is not to imply that concerns about the quality and future of current artistic production were the privilege of art scholars teaching at the academies. Scholarship produced by the first generations of art historians, inside or outside the academies, was intertwined with their interest in the art of their time, and its future development. Besides, most art scholars were actively engaged in art criticism. Franz Kugler's Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte (1841-1842), largely regarded as the first handbook of art history, placed the diversity of past art into a coherent narrative extending up to the present, and intended above all to reflect on and inform contemporary artistic practice. Springer's last part of his own multi-volume Handbuch der Kunstgeschichte, entitled Die Kunst von 1800 bis zu Gegenwart, was first published no later than 1858, and is even more telling in this regard. Concerning the second part of the nineteenth century in Germany, Pascal Griener speaks of a 'militant' art history, seeking to 'provide contemporary artists with a new ethics of art'; Pascal Griener, 'Idéologie "nationale" ou science "positive"?', Revue de l'art, 146, 2004, 43-44. See also, indicatively, Hernik Karge, 'Projecting the future in German art historiography of the nineteenth century: Franz Kugler, Karl Schnaase, and Gottfried Semper', Journal of Art Historiography, 9, December 2013; Edwin Lachnit, Die Wiener Schule der Kunstgeschichte und die Kunst ihrer Zeit. Zum Verhältnis von Methode und Forschungsgegenstand am Beginn der Moderne, Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau, 2005.

11 The tense relations between the departments were only resolved with the creation of two independent institutions, the Technical University and the School of Fine Arts in 1917. On the history of the School, see especially Kostantinos Biris, ... [History of the National Technical University], Athens: National Technical University, 1957; Antonia Mertyri, ? ... (1836-1945) [Artistic Education of ?oung People in Greece (1836-1945)], Athens: IAEN, 2000.

12 On Caftanzoglou, see mainly Dimitris Philippidis, H ... [?he Life and Work of the Architect Lysandros Caftanzoglou], Athens: Ministry of Culture, ETBA, 1995.

13 For a vivid description of these ceremonies attended by ministers and officials, foreign diplomats and the 'Tout-Athènes', ending in crowded public feasts, see the introduction by the French journalist and art critic Louis Énault (1824-1900) in the French translation of Caftanzoglou's lecture of 1856: Lysandre Kaftangioglou, Discours prononcé à l'École Royale des Beaux-arts le 25 Novembre 1856, pour la fête anniversaire de son établissement à l'occasion de la onzième distribution des prix du concours, et de l'exposition des travaux des élèves, traduit en français par D.N., Paris: Soye et Bouchet, 1857, 9-12.

14 Biris, ..., 77-78. For Papadopoulos's various appointments and career in public education and administration, see his file in the database ... (19...) [Public Servants of Higher, Secondary and Primary Education (19th century)] of the Institute of Historical Research, Section of Neohellenic Research, National Hellenic Research Foundation. I owe special thanks to Mr. Triantaphyllos Sklavenitis for giving me full access to Papadopoulos's file.

15 Papadopoulos quickly lost his position at the Athens Gymnasium due to a quarrel with the historian Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos (1815-1891), on the content of a history manual translated by the latter. In 1849, he founded a highly successful private school, the Ellinikon Ekpaideutirion, which he ran parallel to his teaching at the School of Arts. In the 1860s he served as a consultant at the Ministry of Education, and in 1870 he was appointed at the service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and became one of the founding members of the Association for the Propagation of Greek Letters, undertaking activity in Epirus, Macedonia and Thrace, territories under Ottoman rule at the time. He published many pedagogical treatises (with a particular emphasis on women education), as well as archaeological, historical and folklore studies, and became actively engaged in the cultural life of Athens as a member of various artistic and literary associations and institutions. The multifarious activity of this seminal intellectual figure of the modern Greek State needs further investigation. For Pappadpoulos's pedagogical activity in secondary education, see Fouggos I., ... (1819?-1873): ? ... [Grigorios G. Papadopoulos (1819-1873): his life, didactic work, pedagogical position and his national activity], MA thesis, Thessaloniki: Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 2003.

16 No documentation of his studies could be traced. His biographer and former student Dionysios Stephanou mentions that he followed courses and frequented the cycles of Victor Cousin (1792-1867) and the famous Hellenist Abel Villemain (1790-1870). See Dionysios Stephanou, '...' ['Biography of Grigorios Papadopoulos'], in ? ...: ? ... 1869-1969 [The Athenian Association for the Propagation of Greek Letters: the activity of the Association during 1869-1969], Athens, 1970, 13-26.

17 Biris, ..., 78.

18 'Histoire des arts pour la connaissance de la mythologie, des coutumes, de l'habillement, etc., pour ce qui concerne les ouvrages des artistes', Discours composé par G.G. Papadopoulos, professeur d'histoire, et lu par L. Caftanzoglu, directeur de l'École des arts, à l' occasion de l'ouverture de la première exposition annuelle des beaux-arts en Grèce, ce 18 juillet 1844, traduit en français par l'auteur', manuscript (text in Greek and French), Archives of Grigorios Papadopoulos, Research Centre for Medieval and Modern Hellenism (KEMNE), Academy of Athens (thereafter: AGP). Papadopoulos's archives are unclassified. I am grateful to the Direction of the Centre, and particularly to its scientific collaborator Konstantinos Lappas for granting me access to the material. According to the manuscript, Caftanzoglou's speech, made in July 1844, was written by Papadopoulos, although the latter would not be officially appointed at the School until October; this corroborates the hypothesis of their close synergy for the introduction of the new course not provided for in the official statutes. The speech was published in the journal ... [Athina] (8 July 1844) and the Athenian French-Greek journal .../L'Observateur Grec (18 July 1844).

In his inaugural lecture on 29 October 1844, Papadopoulos describes the content of the course as following: '...'; [Grigorios Papadopoulos], '... 29 ... 1844' ['Speech addressed to the students of the Polytechnic School of Athens at the inauguration of historical lectures by professor G., on 29 October 1844'], Panarmonion, 8, 3 February 1845, 62.

19 Grigorios Papadopoulos, ... ?. ... (15 ... 1846) [Introductory lesson, or speech delivered to the students of the Athens Royal Polytechnic, on the inauguration of the course of Greek Kallitechniologia (15 décembre 1846)], Athens: Ch. A. Doukas, 1847, 14: '...'. See also [Papadopoulos], '...', 62; Grigorios Papadopoulos, ... [Discourse on the Polytechnic School], Athens, 1845, 10.

20 ?n his teaching, see Pier Paolo Racioppi, '"Per bene inventare e schermirsi dalle altrui censure": Giuseppe Antonio Guattani e l'insegnamento di Storia, mitologia e costumi all'Accademia di San Luca (1812-1830)', in Paola Picardi and Pier Paolo Racioppi, eds, Le scuole 'mute' e le scuole 'parlanti': studi e documenti sull'Accademia di San Luca nell'Ottocento, Roma: De Luca, 2002, 79-98.

21 [Papadopoulos], '..., 62: '....

Compare with the introductory admonition of the painter Andrée Corneille Lens (1739-1822) to his influential Le Costume ou Essai sur les Habillements et les usages des plusieurs peuples de l'Antiquité prouvés par les monuments, Liège: J. F. Bassompierre, 1776, viii: 'Ils [les connoisseurs instruits des usages de l'antiquité] verront toujours avec regret les Disciples des Jesus-Christ représentés avec des mitres comme nos Evêques ; Tarquin vêtu d'un pourpoint Espagnol ; les femmes Grecques & Romaines avec les robes de nos aïeules ; les Mages enveloppés dans un manteau de brocard ; les Patriarches avec un turban, & la Reine de Carthage expirante sur le bûcher au milieu d'une garde Suisse' ['They [the well-advised connoisseurs of the customs of the ancients] will always regret to see the disciples of Jesus represented with mitres like our Bishops; Tarquin wearing a Spanish doublet; Greek and Roman women dressed like our ancestors; the Magi clothed in brocade coats; the Patriarchs wearing turbans and the Queen of Carthage breathing her last at the stake, amidst a Swiss guard'].

22 Racioppi, in Picardi and Racioppi, Le scuole 'mute', 85.

23 Louis Courajod, Histoire de l'enseignement des arts du dessin au XVIIIe siècle: L'Ecole Royale des Elèves Protegés, Paris: J.-B. Dumoulin, 1874, 57 and 129. On his teaching, see Laetitia Pierre, 'Michel-François Dandré-?ardon et la filiation de la pensée rousseauiste suivant la pratique de l'enseignement artistique (1755-1772)', P?l Dupont and Michel Termolle, eds, 'Emile' ou de la praticabilité de l'éducation, Mons: Éditions de l'Université, 2005, 163-173.

24 'Ce qu'on appelle costume dans l'art de la peinture, est ce qu'une juste convenance exige des peintres d'histoire, relativement aux usages des temps, aux moeurs des nations & à la nature des lieux', Henri-Claude Watelet and Pierre-Charles Levesque, Dictionnaire des arts de peinture, sculpture et gravure, vol. 1, Paris: L. F. Prault, 1792, 498. The Italian costumi in plural, from which this specialised use was derived, means: 'l'habitude, les moeurs, les coutumes', Dictionnaire de l'Académie des Beaux-Arts, vol. 4, Paris: Firmin-Didot, 1884, 284.

25 Racioppi in Picardi and Racioppi, Le scuole mute, 88-89. Guattani's initial project was to cover the history of various peoples from the Creation to present times, divided in seven periods, according to the model of the Istoria Universale (1697) by Francesco Bianchini, but he never managed to get beyond the end of Justinian's era. His lectures were published posthumously in three volumes and were not illustrated - unlike Dandré-Bardon's publications; they included however a lengthy 'Repertorio di soggetti proposti ad esser trattati in pittura o scultura', that is, a list of subjects proposed to artists, starting with entries such as 'La divisione del Caos', 'La Creazione del Mondo', 'Il Diluvio Universale', and finishing with 'Giustiniano consegna ai Giureconsulti i libri del dritto'. See Giuseppe Antonio Guattani, Lezioni di storia, mitologia e costumi, Roma: Crispino Puccinelli, 1838-1839, vol. 3, 523-536.

26 Alain Bonnet, L'enseignement des arts au XIXe siècle. La réforme de l'École des Beaux-arts de 1863 et la fin du modèle académique, Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2006, 60-61. There is indeed, as Bonnet notes, no precise evidence on Mancy's teaching: 'il est propable que l'essentiel du cours n'était occupé que par la lecture des passages les plus célèbres des auteurs antiques ou de la Bible, éventuellement suivie d'une explication de texte et d'un commentaire savant sur les usages, les moeurs, les costumes des peuples anciens', 61 (Mancy's name is here erroneously typed as 'Marcy').

27 Let it be noted that while in Rome and Paris - the models that Papadopoulos most probably had in mind - this was indeed the only kind of teaching proposed (with the exception, in both schools, of courses concerning the history and theory of architecture in particular, proposed to architecture students), in various German academies there are already specific courses on art history, focused on the study of the works. The implications of this difference cannot be studied here, but have to be urgently addressed in the context of this discussion. For courses on the history of architecture at the École des Beaux-arts in Paris, starting in 1819, see Therrien, L'histoire, 83-86; for courses on the theory of architecture at the Accademia di San Luca, see Valentina White, 'L'insegnamento dell' "Architettura Teorica" nelle Scuole di Belle Arti dell'Accademia di San Luca. Le Lezioni di Architettura Civile di Raffaele Stern (1812-1820)', in Picardi and Racioppi, Le scuole 'mute', 99-132.

28 See Garberson, 'Art History II, especially 24-26, 43-45.

29 In these courses the engagement with history was certainly not a goal in itself. Both Guattani and Papadopoulos start by reassuring their students that they will not have to deal with the abyssal immensity of historical knowledge, but rather with a selection of the most useful information, destined to trigger their imagination, while assuring the accuracy of their compositions (Guattani, Lezioni, vol. 1, 1-2; Papadopoulos, '..., 62). ?n 1850-1851, in a programmatic presentation of his course, Guhl develops a much more thorough and probing reflection on the selection effort made by the historian for the purposes of the artist (Ernst Guhl, 'Der wissenschaftliche Unterricht auf Kunstakademien', Deutsches Kunstblatt, 20, 17 May 1851, 153-154 and 21, 24 May 1851, 161-163; see particularly p. 154). What is the epistemological status of this kind of cultural history for artists, developed in particular by Guhl ('eine allegemeine Kultur-, Bildungs- und Sitten- Geschichte', Guhl, 'Der wissenschaftliche, 154)? What kind of history is constructed by this reflexive turn on the historian's own practice through a new perspective, a new necessity: 'to extract the "artistic representable" (das künstlerische Darstellbare) and present it in a way inspiring to artists' (Garberson, 'Art History II, 43)? And how does this process inform or question the historian's ways of thinking and ordering the past?

30 See in particular Guhl's essay, Die neuere geschichtliche Malerei und die Akademien, Stuttgart: Ebner & Seubert, 1848. More generally on the debates revolving around the orientations of history painting in Germany and the involvement of art historians, see Rainer Schoch, 'Die belgischen Bilder. Zu einem Prinzipienstreit der Historienmalerei des 19. Jahrhunderts', in Karl Möseneder ed., Streit um Bilder. Von Byzanz bis Duchamp, Berlin: Reimer, 1997, 161-180; France Nerlich, '"Marcher vers l'avenir". Delaroche, Vernet et Scheffer en Allemagne et les enjeux de la peinture d'histoire moderne', in Isabelle Jansen and Friederike Kitschen, eds, Dialog und Differenzen, deutsch-französische Kunstbeziehungen 1789-1870, Paris, Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2010, 333-348; France Nerlich, 'Peindre l'histoire, écrire l'histoire: Kinkel, Springer et Delaroche', in Henry-Claude Cousseau, Christina Buley-Uribe and Véronique Mattiussi, eds, Naissance de la modernité. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Vilain, Paris: Éditions du Relief, 2009, 115-122; Andrea Meyer, 'Der Begriff der Historie bei Franz Kugler', in Michel Espagne, Bénédicte Savoy and Céline Trautmann-Waller, eds, Franz Theodor Kugler. Deutscher Kunsthistoriker und Berliner Dichter, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2010, 159-172.

31 Papadopoulos, ..., 62.

32 Papadopoulos, ..., 36-37 and 45-46.

33 Papadopoulos, ..., 10. This extraordinary number should be attributed to the momentum that marked the inauguration of Caftanzoglou's tenure; numbers decline afterwards, to attain the more habitual standards for this type of courses during the period. In 1860, the course of mythology counts 35 registered students. ... [Student Register], ?rchive of the National Polytechnic School, Athens. Student registers are preserved only for the period 1859-1871, while the archives of the institution remain still unclassified and held in extremely precarious conditions.

34 Papadopoulos, ..., 14.

35 The term, which makes its first appearance in the inaugural lecture of 1846, is recorded in the famous dictionary of neologisms introduced in the Greek language since the fall of Constantinople in 1453 by Stephanos Koumanoudis, published at the end of the nineteenth century. See Stephanos A. Koumanoudis, ..., [Collection of Neologisms Created by Scholars from the Fall of Constantinople to Our Own Times], Athens: D. Sakellariou, 1900, vol. 1, 357.

36 Papadopoulos, ..., 10.

37 Papadopoulos, ..., 16-18; Biris, Ist???a, 161. See also a short untitled note on his teaching in the journal Aion, 8 February 1862, signed L.K. and probably written by Lysandros Caftanzoglou.

38 Papadopoulos, ..., 19.

39 For a short biographical notice, see Wolfhart Unte, 'Karl Otfried Müller', in Ward W. Briggs and William M. Calder III, eds, Classical scholarship: a biographical encyclopedia, New York and London: Garland, 1990, 310-320. For the different aspects and international impact of his work, see the excellent selection of essays, William M. Calder III and Renate Schlesier, eds, Zwischen Rationalismus und Romantik. Karl Otfried Müller und die Antike Kultur, Hildesheim: Weidmann, 1998. For a detailed presentation of published sources, archival material and secondary literature related to his life and work, see Helmut Rohlfing and Wolfhart Unte, Quellen für eine Biographie Karl Otfried Müllers, Hildesheim: Olms, 1997.

40 For a reference in English, see Sophia Matthaiou, 'Establishing the discipline of classical philology in nineteenth-century Greece', The Historical Review, 8, 2011, 117-148.

41 For an interesting recent reading of the academic establishment and expansion of the model, see Annette M. Baertschi, '"Big Science" in Classics in the Nineteenth Century and the Academicization of Antiquity', in Rens Bod, Jaap Maat and Thijs Weststeijn, eds, The Making of the Humanities III: The Modern Humanities, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2014, 233-250.

42 For a quick note on Boeckh and Sachphilologie, as opposed to Gottfried Hermann's Sprachphilologie, see, handily, Suzanne Marchand, Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750-1970, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996, 42-43; and for a more thorough analysis, Ernst Vogt, 'Der Methodenstreit zwischen Hermann und Böckh und seine Bedeutung für die Geschichte der Philologie', in Hellmut Flashar und Mayotte Bollack, eds, Philologie und Hermeneutik im 19. Jahrhundert, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979, 103-121.

43 Müller was appointed extraordinary professor of Altphilologie in 1819. In 1823, he became ordinary professor of Philosophy 'mit der Maßgabe, Altphilologie und Archäologie (Altertumskunde) zu lehren' and additionaly, in 1835, professor of Eloquence (Professor eloquentiae et poeseos); see Klaus Nickau, 'Karl Otfried Müller, Professor der klassischen Philologie 1819-1840', in Carl Joachim Classen, ed., Die klassische Altertumswissenschaft an der Georg-August-Universität Göttingen. Eine Ringvorlesung zu ihrer Geschichte, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989, 28.

44 See on this regard Classen, Die klassische Altertumswissenschaft.

45 On Müller's manual and teaching of archaeology, see mainly Klaus Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller und die Archäologie', in Calder III and Schlesier, Zwischen Rationalismus, 193-199; Sepp-Gustav Gröschel and Henning Wrede, eds, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung 'Griechische Kunstgeschichte'. Nach der Mitschrift Wilhelm Gurlitts im Winter 1864/65, Berlin, New York: De Gruyter, 2010, 27-30; and for its uses and repercussions in the university teaching of archaeology in Germany, 31-44.

46 Potts A., 'Vie et mort de l'antique: historicité et beau idéal chez Winckelmann', in Éduard Pommier, ed., Winckelmann: la naissance de l'histoire de l'art à l'époque des Lumières, Paris: La Documentation Française, 1991, 35.

47 The Greek adaptation, along with the French, Italian and English translations, was based on the second edition of the manual prepared by Müller in 1835.

48 On his professorship, see Olga Palagia, '... (1837-1843)' ['Ludwig Ross, first professor of archaeology at the University of Athens (1837-1843)'], in Hans Rupprecht Goette and Olga Palagia, eds, Ludwig Ross und Griechenland, Rahden/Westfallen: Marie Leidorf, 2005, 263-272.

49 On this aspect, to which I will return later in this text, see mainly Brian Vick, 'Greek Origins and Organic Metaphors: Ideals of Cultural Autonomy in Neohumanist Germany from Winckelmann to Curtius', Journal of the History of Ideas, 63: 3, July 2002, 483-500. Vick analyses the discussions on the relations between Greece and the Orient since the mid-eighteenth century in Germany, and points to the disciplinary claims and aspirations that informed Müller's rather singular position on this issue, which in fact diverged from the view of most of other leading scholars such as Boeckh, Friedrich Thiersch, Welcker, or Désiré Raoul-Rochette in France.

50 See especially on this aspect, Hans-Joachim Gehrke, 'Karl Otfried Müller und das Land der Griechen', Mitteilungen des Deutsches Archäologisches Instituts. Athenische Abteilung, 106, 1991, 9-35; Josine Blok, '"Romantische Poesie, Naturphilosophie, Construktion der Geschichte": K. O. Müller's Understanding of History and Myth', in Calder III and Schlesier, Zwischen Rationalismus, 55-97.

Müller's ideas have often been misinterpreted and highly instrumentalised in Germany in the 1930s, to be finally denounced as racist in Martin Bernal's highly controversial Black Athena: The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (3 vols, 1987-2006). Among the many responses to Bernal, I indicate Josine Blok's, 'Proof and Persuasion in Black Athena: The Case of K. O. Müller', Journal of the History of Ideas, 57: 4, October 1996, 705-724, where the serious problems of Bernal's argumentation are deftly demonstrated.

51 Karl Otfried Müller, Die Dorier, Breslau: Joseph Max, 1844, vol. 1, v.

52 Carl Otfried Müller, Lebensbild in Briefen an seine Eltern, mit dem Tagebuch seiner italienisch-griechischen Reise, Berlin: Weidmann, 1908, 342. Schinas' course - an overall view of ancient Greek life, with an emphasis on the political and public context and a particular focus on Athens - was probably based on Müller's 'Die Altertümer der Griechen, mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Staatsverfassung und Attisches Recht' or 'Die Grieschischen Altertümer, d.h. eine geschichtliche Darstellung der öffentlichen und häuslichen Lebens der Griechen', offered usually in the winter semester. For a list of Schinas' courses see, Panagiotis Kimourtzis, ... (1837-1860): ... [University of Athens (1837-1860): the first generations of professors], unpublished doctoral dissertation, Athens: National and Kapodistrian University, 2001, vol. 2, 106; for Müller's courses, see Rohlfing and Unte, Quellen, 178-184.

53 Müller, Lebensbild, 342.

54 On Müller's journey to Greece through Italy and his tragic death, see Hartmut Döhl, 'Karl Otfried Müllers Reise nach Italien und Griechenland, 1839/1840', in Classen, Die klassische Altertumswissenschaft, 51-77.

On his warm reception by the transnational scholarly community of the capital, and particularly by the Greek professors of the University, as well as on the facilitation of his studies by the local archaeological administration, see Müller's own account: Müller, Lebensbild, 342-345.

55 Papadopoulos, ..., 19: '...'.

56 Papadopoulos, ...'. See also Grigorios Papadopoulos, '...' [Introduction to Greek Kallitechniologia], Ephimeris ton Philomathon, 1857, 125-126, § 34: '...'.

57 Papadopoulos, ..., 16: 'Technology meant initially in European languages the interpretation of technical terms [...] Today however the meaning of the world is extended and covers the practical and theoretical knowledge of the arts, and particularly the industrial arts' ['...'].

Papadopoulos points here to a major semantic evolution of the term, initiated in the mid-eighteenth century under the decisive impulse of Diderot and D'Alembert's Encyclopédie that revalorised manual labour and the crafts in general. Initially defining a system of technical terms pertaining to a specific field - what is now called terminology -, technology became thereafter a complete science of techniques, comprising a systematic study of procedures, methods, instruments and tools, or even machines. However, as we shal see, the initial meaning of terminology will remain a major component of Papadopoulos's Kallitechniologia.

58 For the following analysis of the courses' subjects, I combine information drawn from the inaugural lecture of 1846, a series of courses published in the periodical press in 1857, as well as a manuscript note by the professor detailing the contents of each course and found in his archives (AGP).

59 Papadopoulos, ..., 16: '?? ...'.

60 Papadopoulos, '..., 126, § 34.

61 Karl Otfried Müller, Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst, Breslau: Joseph Max, 1835, 349-402.

62 Papadopoulos, '..., 126, § 34: '...'.

63 Papadopoulos, ..., 17: '...'; see also Papadopoulos, ..., 126, § 34: '...'.

64 [Papadopoulos], manuscript page, not dated, AGP: '...'.

65 Papadopoulos, ..., 18: '...' ['the very name [Kallitechniologia] appears in Greece for the first time']; Papadopoulos, ..., 19: '...' ['the proposed course is both novel and first in our country'].

66 Papadopoulos, ..., 133, §35.

67 Papadopoulos, ..., 133, §35: '...'.

68 Alex Potts, Flesh and the Ideal. Winckelmann and the origins of art history, New Haven and London: Yale University, 1994, 33; Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 195-196.

69 Papadopoulos, ..., 133, §35: '...'.

70 Papadopoulos, ..., 17.

71 Papadopoulos, ..., 17: '...'.

72 This is yet another term reinvested by Papadopoulos (Papadopoulos, ..., 126). The word did exist in ancient Greek, but meant rather the 'figurative speaking' (Henry George Liddell and Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, New York: Harper, 1883, 416).

73 L.K., [untitled], Aion, 8 February 1862: '...'.

74 Papadopoulos, manuscript page, not dated, AGP: '...'.

75 Grigorios Papadopoulos, ... [Discourse on Demosthenes and his iconography], Athens: Ch. Nikolaidis-Philadelpheus, 1853 and Grigorios Papadopoulos, '...' ['Discourse on a Greek stample representing Theseus'], in ... 1857-1858, Athens: P. A. Sakellariou, 1858, 3-18.

76 Papadopoulos, ..., 17; see also Papadopoulos, ..., 125, §33: '? ...' ...'.

77 See Ursula Franke and Werner Fuchs, 'Kunstphilosophie und Kunstarchäologie. Zur Kunsttheoretische Einleitung des Handbuches der Archäologie der Kunst von Karl Otfried Müller', Boreas (Archäologisches Seminar der Universität Münster), 7, 1984, 287 ; Marchand, Down from Olympus, 43-44.

78 Müller notes on the formation of the figurative type of Zeus: 'This union of attributes, after many less profoundly conceived notions of early art, was advanced by Phidias to the most intimate combination and undoubtedly it was he also that established the external features which all succeeding artists, in proportion to their artistic skill, endeavoured to reproduce', Carl Otfried Müller, Ancient Art and its Remains; or a Manual of the Archaeology of Art, trans. by John Leith, London: A. Fullarton and Co., 1850, 420.

79 Müller, Ancient Art, 418.

80 Müller, Ancient Art, 418.

81 Papadopoulos, ..., 17-18. Papadopoulos refers to ..., a painter's manual containing descriptions of hagiographic subjects, composed around 1730 by Dionysius of Fourna (c. 1670-c. 1745). The manuscript had recently been discovered in Mount Athos by French archaeologist Adolphe Napoléon Didron (1806-1867), who translated it into French under the title Manuel d'Iconographie Chrétienne, grecque et latine (1845). On the manual, see mainly Paul Hetherington ed., The 'Painter's Manual' of Dionysius of Fourna: An English Translation, London: Sagittarius Press, 1974.

82 For a detailed analysis, see Eleonora Vratskidou, L'émergence, 155-168.

83 'Die Kunst zu sehen, die Zeichnung zu würdigen [...] den Ausdruck in Mienen, Stellung, Bewegung, Geberden und Handlung leicht und sicher aufzufassen, auch eine Menge bedeutsamer Zeichen von gleichgültigeren zu interscheiden [...] entspricht eigentlich der grammatischen Kenntniss und macht die Vorschule und Bedingung alles Erklärens aus', Friedrich Welcker, 'Aus der Anzeige von K. O. Müllers Handbuch der Archäologie 1830 die vorangehenden allgemeinen Bemerkungen', Reinische Museum, 1834, reprinted in Kleine Schriften. Dritter Theil: Zu den Alterthümern der Heilkunde bei den Griechen, Griechische Inschriften, zur alten Kunstgeschichte, Bonn: Eduard Weber, 1850, 349-350.

84 Papadopoulos, ..., 18. Sources of the period confirm this predilection of the professor, and prize his oratory qualities and his eloquence. One of Papadopoulos' students at the Ellinikon Ekpaideutirion notes: 'His courses resembled rather to conferences. His teaching ex cathedra fascinated his audience. Endowed with a very acute memory, with great erudition - a cosmopolitan, who had travelled from a very early age around East and West -, he embellished his lectures with images and metaphors that kept the audience hung upon his lips. He very rarely took an eye on his notes, which were dense and written in a way that only he could decipher. When he taught History, he often left his lectern and, with his hand bound behind his back, he seemed rather to pronounce a speech rather than a course'. Stephanou, ..., 18.

85 Boris Noguès, 'Élèves ou auditeurs ? Le public des facultés de lettres et de sciences au XIXe siècle (1808-1878)', Histoire de l'éducation, 120, 2008, 77-97.

86 William Clark, Academic Charisma and the Origins of the Research University, Chicago, London: University of Chicago Press, 2006, 85-86.

87 A similar model is to be found in Müller's teaching, particularly in his archaeological lectures - generally considered as more successful than his philological courses and private seminars. See August Baumeister, 'Karl Otfried Müller', Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, vol. 22, Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1885, 666.

The model of a free, almost improvised lecturing, with a loose reliance on notes, goes also for Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis, Ross's successor at the chair of archaeology at the University of Athens, who taught during the same period with Papadopoulos in the School of Arts (see below). Rangavis gives a vivid description of his lecturing mode in this memoires, Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis, ... [Memoires], vol. 2, Athens: Georgios Kasdonis-Hestia, 1895, 139.

88 The professor even goes on to give very precise indications on how the students' notebooks should be organised, divided into two unequal columns, a narrower for the plan and a larger for the corresponding notes; Papadopoulos, ..., 62.

89 The course did not have exams, unlike Guattani's course at the Accademia di San Luca. The archives of the institution preserve students' copies of the exams; Racioppi in Picardi and Racioppi, Le scuole 'mute', 87-88.

90 Papadopoulos, ..., 19.

91 Eleni Kalafati, '...' ['The role of donations in the formation of the Library of the Polytechnic School'], in '...': ... [The Old Collections of the Library of the National Technical University], Athens: National Technical University, Ekkremes, 1995, 29-32.

92 According to a nineteenth century source, the School's professor had composed six such treatises for the needs of his courses, including two general surveys on Kallitechniologia (...), two treatises on individual objects (...), an Artistic Mythology (...) and an Essay on Artistic Onomatology (...). See Stephanou, ..., 23.

93 L.K., Aion.

94 Papadopoulos, ..., 17-18.

95 Papadopoulos, ..., 18: '...'.

96 Grigorios Papadopoulos, ... [Inaugural lesson, or Discourse to the students of the Athenian Polytechnic], manuscript, 29 October 1844, AGP: '...'.

97 Papadopoulos, ..., manuscript, AGP: '...'.

98 Palagia in Goette and Palagia, Ludwig Ross, 267. Twice during his tenure (in the summer semester of 1839 and in the winter semester 1839-1840), Ross proposed a weekly hourly course that must have been exclusively dedicated to the interpretation of images, as its title indicates: ... (Demonstration and interpretation of archaeological images). For a complete list of Ross's courses, see Kimourtzis, ..., vol. 2, 102.

99 Müller, for instance, illustrated his famous five-hour lectures entitled 'Die Archäologie und die Geschichte der Antiken Kunst' with graphic plates as well as casts of ancient works from the important collection of the University of Göttingen; see Karl Ferdinand Ranke, Carl Otfried Müllers Lebensbild, Berlin: A. W. Hahn's Erben, 1870, 11-12; Nickau in Classen, Die klassische Altertumswissenschaft, 31 and 34.

100 Eve Gran-Aymerich, 'Karl Otfried Müller et la France', Revue germanique internationale, 14, 2011, 114, n. 5. Raoul-Rochette's teaching at the Cabinet des médailles spanned from 1824 to 1858.

101 Karl Otfried Müller, Nouveau manuel complet d'archéologie, trans. by P. Nicard, Paris: Librairie encyclopédique de Roret, 2 t. in 3 vols, 1841-1842.

102 Carl Oesterley was professor of drawing and art history, successor of Johann Dominicus Fiorillo, from 1831 to 1845. Dilly, Kunstgeschichte, 182-183.

103 On the album and its re-editions, see Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 197-199; .

104 Hubert Locher, Kunstgeschichte als historische Theorie der Kunst, 1750-1950, Munich: Fink, 2010 (1st ed. 2001), 243-244 and 270; Dan Karlholm, Art of Illusion: the Representation of Art History in Nineteenth-Century Germany and Beyond, Bern, New York: Lang, 2004, 66.

105 [E????? ?ets?ße?? ????te??e??], ?at?????? t?? ß?ß???????? [National Polytechnic School, Library Catalog], Athens: Petrakos, 1911, 31; S?st?µat???? ?at?????? t?? ß?ß???????? t?? ??????? ?ets?ß??? ????te??e??? [Systematic catalogue of the Library of the National Polytechnic School], Athens: G. Makris, 1924, 141. In these library catalogues published at the beginning of the twentieth century, the acquisition date is not mentioned, but given the strong interest for Müller's work, I tend to believe that the acquisition (or donation) of the album dates from the period of Caftanzoglou's tenure.

106 Illustrations covering the iconographical part were only added in a later edition of the album by Müller's successor at the University of Göttingen Friedrich Wieseler, Denkmäler der alten Kunst, von C. O. Müller, fortgesetzt von Friedrich Wieseler, Göttingen: Dieterich, 1856.

107 With only one exception, in the very first plate: a depiction of the Lion Gate at Mycenae. See Karl Otfried Müller ed., Denkmäler der alten Kunst, Göttingen: Dieterich, vol. 1, 1835, 1, pl. 1, n. 1.

108 Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 30.

109 Unte, 'Karl Otfried Müller', 312.

110 The plates are comprised in his ... [Essay of Artistic Terminology] (c. 1850), which I will examine in the following section.

111 Papadopoulos, ..., 17.

112 See above, note 99.

113 See Aggeliki Kokkou, ... [The protection of antiquities in Greece and the first museums], Athens: Ermis, 1977, 161-174; Andromache Gazi, Archaeological Museums in Greece: 1829-1909. The Display of Archaeology, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Leicester: University of Leicester, 1993, vol. 1, 84-117.

114 Papadopoulos, ..., 37.

115 Papadopoulos, ..., 17.

116 For the cast collection of the School, see mainly Eleni Kalafati, ed., ?? ... 1837,-2000 [Benefactors and Donors of the National Technical University], Athens: National Technical University, 2007, 55-60.

117 Papadopoulos, ..., 15.

118 The problem of standardising modern Greek given the various dialects spoken in the Greek territory, but also the different varieties of Greek, more or less close to ancient Greek, proposed by the literati. For a detailed treatment of the language question and its implications for the shapping of Greek national identity, see Peter Mackridge, Language and National Identity in Greece, 1766-1976, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

119 S.?.?. [Stephanos Koumanoudis], ... [Where is the art of Greeks heading today?], Belgrade: Government Press, 1845, 34.

The translated essays by Winckelmann - to my knowledge, the first sample of his work to have been translated into Greek - date from 1759 and count among Winckelmann's early writings, appearing in his Kleine Schriften (1755-1763): 'Erinnerung über die Betrachtung der Werke der Kunst' ('...') and 'Von der Grazie in Werken der Kunst' ('...'); see Johann Joachim Winckelmann, Kleine Schriften. Vorreden. Entwürfe, ed. by Walther Rehm, Berlin: De Gruyter, 2002 [1st ed. 1968], 149-162.

120 Papadopoulos, ..., 15.

121 Papadopoulos, ..., 15.

122 On the ideological dimensions of Greek neologisms, see Marianna Ditsa, ... [Neology and Critique in the Nineteenth Century], Athens: Ermis, 1988.

123 Theodor Panofka (1800-1858), founding member of the Istituto di corrispondenza archeologica in Rome (1829) and later professor in Berlin (1844-1858), was one of the pioneers in the study of ancient pottery and vase painting. In 1829, he published in collaboration with his friend and future colleague in Berlin Eduard Gerhard (1795-1867) Recherches sur les véritables noms des vases grecs et sur leurs différents usages, d'après les auteurs et les monuments anciens (Paris: A. Firmin-Didot).

124 Papadopoulos, ..., 15.

125 Papadopoulos, ..., manuscript, AGP: '...'.

126 For instance, Loss, ..., 14: 'Ganze ? runde Figuren (figures de ronde bosse), ...; 16: ... (école de l'art, Kunstschule)'.

127 The complete title of the course on Kallitechniologia is: ... [Greek Kallitechniologia. With plates and French terminology], [Papadopoulos], manuscript page, not dated, AGP.

128 Grigorios Papadopoulos, ..., Athens: National Press, 1867. In the sole copy of the work that I managed to trace, Papadopoulos's Essay is already in second use: it is approved as an applied terminology for the Mechanics Department of the Ministry of Army. His handwritten text and the plates (with the indication: 'printed around 1850') were technically reproduced in 1867 by the Ministry. In the title page, the indication 'First part: Architecture. Section A: Elementary' might suggest that Papadopoulos went on to compose such annotated picture compendia for the following parts of Müller's systematic treatment of ancient art, or at least those more accessible to visualisation, yet no such material could be detected.

129 Müller, Ancient Art, 304.

130 Müller, Ancient Art, 299.

131 Papadopoulos, ..., 8: '...'.

132 See Vratskidou, L'émergence, 147-148 and 221-226.

133 Stephanou, ..., 15.

134 Grigorios Papadopoulos, ..., manuscript, AGP: '7. ..., arts de dessin (...), ... 2, 667? ... 668, ... (??? 5), ....

135 Papadopoulos, ..., 4: '... arbalétriers, ... Another example, 6: ... (...)'.

136 Concerning the elaboration of a properly artistic language in this perspective, see Pierre Bourdieu, The Rules of Art. Genesis and Structure of the Literary Field, trans. by Susan Emanuel, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, 292.

137 Grigorios Papadopoulos, '...' ['Introduction to Greek Kallitechniologia'], Ephimeris ton Philomathon, 214-217, 29 June and 6, 13, 21 July 1857. As noted by the editor of this periodical, which specialised in questions of teaching and education, the text was published based on the notes of a student, with the approval of Papadopoulos himself. The publication of lectures was a widespread practice throughout the century, notably concerning opening and closing lessons of the Athenian University professors. The publication of lectures held at the School of Arts shows the social interest in the activity of the institution, as well as the esteem enjoyed by Papadopoulos as an educator.

138 For an analysis of the introduction, see Franke und Fuchs, 'Kunstphilosophie, 269-294.

139 A choice possibly also informed by his attendance at Karl Friedrich Solger's lectures on aesthetics during his studies at the University of Berlin. Franke und Fuchs, 'Kunstphilosophie, 275; Unte, 'Karl Otfried Müller', 311.

140 Friedrich August Wolf, 'Darstellung der Altertumswissenschaft nach Begriff, Umfang, Zweck und Wert', Museum der Altertums-Wissenschaft, 1, Berlin: Realschulbuchhandlung, 1807.

141 Wolf, 'Darstellung, 71: 'vollständige Aufzählung des Erhaltenen'.

142 Wolf, 'Darstellung, 74: 'die Grundsätze und technischen Regeln [...] nach welchen die Künstler des Alerthums arbeiteten'.

143 Welcker was the first to occupy in Germany a chair of 'Griechische Litteratur und Archäologie', which was created at the University of Giessen in 1809. This was the first official recognition of archaeology as a distinct disciplinary field within the German university. See Wilfred Geominy, 'Welckersche Archäologie', in William M. Calder III, ed., Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker, Werk und Wirkung, Stuttgart: Steiner, 1986, 230-250.

144 Rumohr remained rather reserved towards Müller's speculative efforts, in spite of his enthusiasm for the young scholar's overall accomplishment. The correspondence between Rumohr and Müller on the introduction and the manual in general merits thorough examination. Rumohr's letters were published by Friedrich Stock, 'Briefe Rumohrs an Otfried Müller und andere Freunde', Jahrbuch der Preußischen Kunstsammlungen, Beiheft, vol. 35, 1933, 1-44 (concerning the former comment, see indicatively 7-9).

Equally interesting is Müller's correspondence with Ludwig Schorn, the famous editor of Kunstblatt, who had started his writing career with an ancient subject (Über die Studien der griechischen Künstler, 1818). Müller met Schorn in Dresden in autumn 1819 during a study trip, and he remained in close contact with him until his death, contributing, among others, to Schorn's art periodical. Their correspondence was published by Siegfried Rieter, 'Briefwechsel zwischen Karl Otfried Müller and Ludwig Schorn', Neue Jahrbücher für das Klassische Altertum, Geschichte und Deutsche Literatur und für Pädagogik, 26, 1910, 292-315, 340-360 and 393-514.

145 As exemplified in works such as Ludwig Fernow, Leben des Künstlers Asmus Jakob Carstens, Leipzig, 1806; Georg Christian Braun, Raphael Sanzio's von Urbino Leben und Werke, Wiesbaden, 1815; Adam Weise, Albrecht Dürer und sein Zeitalter. Ein Versuch, Leipzig, 1819; Josep Heller, Lucas Cranach Leben und Werke, Bamberg, 1821; Gustav Friedrich Waagen, Über Hubert und Jan van Eyck, Breslau, 1822; Ulrich Hegner, Hans Holbein der Jüngere, Berlin, 1827; Alfred von Reumont, Andrea del Sartro, Leipzig, 1835.

On this issue, see mainly Gabriele Bickendorf, Der Beginn der Kunstgeschichtsschreibung unter dem Paradigma 'Geschichte'. Gustav Friedrich Waagens Frühschrift Über Hubert und Johann van Eyck (1822), Worms: Werner, 1985; Catherine M. Soussloff, The Absolute Artist: The Historiography of a Concept, Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press, 1997; Hellwig Karin, Von der Vita zur Künstlerbiographie, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 2005; Gabriele Guercio, Art as Existence.The Artist's Monograph and its Project, Cambridge, Ma.: MIT Press, 2006.

146 Müller's monograph is based on three lectures held at the Königliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, in June 1824, April 1825 and January 1827 and published initially in the periodical of the society, Commentationes Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Göttingensis recentiores-Classis historicae et philologicae, VI, 1823-1827, 121-212, before being published autonomously (Gottingae: Typis Dieterichianis, 1827). I am currently preparing an essay on the subject.

Let it be noted that in spite of the wide impact of Müller's Handbuch - a reference for scholars such as Kugler, Gottfried Semper or Rudolf von Eitelberger -, his contribution to the study of ancient art has not yet attracted much scholarly attention, unlike his historical and philological input, and particularly his contribution to the study of ancient myths.

147 Franke und Fuchs, 'Kunstphilosophie, 275.

148 Indeed, in the pair Caftanzoglou-Papadopoulos, the second was always the advocate of a more reconciliatory vision, as reveals, for instance, his extremely early interest in Byzantium and Byzantine painting.

149 Papadopoulos, ..., 106, § 1: '...'. See Müller, Ancient Art, 1, § 1.

150 Müller, Ancient Art, 2, § 6.

151 Papadopoulos, ..., 107, § 6: 'To ...' (emphasis in the original). See Müller, Ancient Art, 2, § 6,

152 Müller, Ancient Art, 3, § 8 (emphasis in the original). 'Feeling' is the English equivalent adopted for the German Empfindung.

153 Papadopoulos, ..., 52: '...'.

154 Papadopoulos, ..., 107, § 4. Müller, Ancient Art, 1, § 3: 'this correspondence in art is so close and intimate that the internal or spiritual momentum immediately impels to the external representation, and is only completely developed in the mind by the representation'.

This is not to imply that the traditional scission between conception and execution - in classicist aesthetics or the dominant academic practices - is here completely abolished. Müller operates within this divide, perceiving execution as subordinate. Müller, Ancient Art, 2, § 6: 'The creative fanciful conception of the artistic form is accompanied by a subordinate but closely connected activity - the representation of the form in the materials - which we call execution.' On the persistence of this scission, founded, as Philippe Junod argues, on the 'anteriority and superiority of the intelligible upon the sensible' and the dualism of western aesthetic thought, see his analysis in Transparence et opacité. Essai sur les fondements théoriques de l'art moderne, NÎmes, Jacqueline Chambon, 2004 [1st ed. 1976], 138-186.

155 Müller, Ancient Art, 3, § 8.1. On Schiller's notion, see in particular Werner Hofmann, '"The Dark Total Idea": Schiller on the Creative Process', in Frederik Burwick, ed., The Romantic Imagination: Literature and art in England and Germany, Amsterdam, Atlanta: Rodopi, 1996, 63-75.

156 Papadopoulos, ..., 107, § 7: '...'.

157 Franke und Fuchs, 'Kunstphilosophie, 275.

158 Papadopoulos, ..., 106: '...'.

159 Papadopoulos adds namely, at the end of the introduction, a detailed presentation of the field of Kallitechniologia, and an analysis of the social and political conditions that led to the 'Greek miracle' of the classical period, an analysis that is already present in one of his previous essays, on the monument of Lysicratis, initially presented as a lecture at the Ellinikon Ekpaideutirion: Grigorios Papadopoulos, ?e?? t?? e? ... [On the Monument of Lysicrates in Athens], Athens: Ioannis Aggelopoulos, 1852, 24-27.

160 See Müller, Ancient Art, 11, § 29; Papadopoulos, ..., 118, § 30.

161 Müller, Ancient Art, 4, § 14: 'the former [the sublime] demands of the soul an energy of feeling wound up to the limits of her power'.

162 Papadopoulos, ..., 108, § 1: '...'.

163 Papadopoulos, ..., 108, § 12: '...'.

164 On these competitions, see Biris, ..., 99-103; Ilias Mykoniatis, '..., 1833-1862' ['Original plasters from the othonian period'], Archeologika Analekta Athinon, XIX: 2, 1986, 210-220; Mertyri, H ..., 109-113; Vratskidou, L'emergence, 276-285.

165 L. ?., '...' ['Artistic works sent from Greece to Paris'], ?ea Pandora, 6: 124, 15 May 1855, 79: '...'.

166 On the economic situation of the rural populations, the uprisings against centralised state power in different regions of Greece, and the phenomenon of brigandage during the period, see Giorgos Dertilis, ... [History of the Greek State], Athens: National Bank of Greece, 2004, vol. 1, 207-253.

167 On this question, see mainly Georges Roque, Art et science de la couleur: Chevreul et les peintres, de Delacroix à l'abstraction, NÎmes: J. Chambon, 1997.

168 Roque, Art et science, 179.

169 Papadopoulos, ..., 117, § 26: '...'.

170 It is difficult to know exactly which one of Chevreul's chromatic circles Papadopoulos used. Based on his description, I tend to believe that it was most probably the first 'cercle chromatique [...] renfermant les couleurs franches', published in 1855 (Cercles chromatiques de M. E. Chevreul, Paris: E. Thenot, 1855).

171 Papadopoulos, ..., 117, §26: '...'.

172 On the professors and their work, namely the Italian Raffaello Ceccoli (c. 1800-c. 1850), professor of painting from 1843 to 1852; his successor, the Bavarian Ludwig Thiersch (1825-1909) from 1852 to 1855; and the Zakynthian Petros Pavlidis-Minotos (c. 1800-after 1861), who occupied the post from 1858 to 1861, see Mertyri, ? ..., 143-153 and 156-160.

173 Vratskidou, L'émergence, 329-331. It should be noted that the notion of mimesis, which was removed entirely from the second edition of Müller's manual in 1835, was still present in the first edition of 1830; Karl Otfried Müller, Handbuch der Archäologie der Kunst, Breslau: Joseph Max, 1830, 1, § 1: 'Die Kunst ist eine Darstellung (µ?µ?s??), d.h. eine Thätigkeit, durch welche ein Innerliches äusserlich wird', and in note ' M?µ?s?? ist nicht bloss Nachahmung sondern auch Darstellung'.

174 On the centrality of allegory in the thought of theorists such as Winckelmann or Quatremère de Quincy, see mainly Yves Hersant, 'Winckelmann et l'allégorie', in Jean-Paul Barbe and Jackie Pigeaud, eds, Winckelmann et le retour à l'antique, Nantes: Université de Nantes, 1995, 41-48; James Henry Rubin, 'Allegory versus Narrative in Quatremère de Quincy', The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 44: 4, summer 1986, 383-392.

175 Müller, Ancient Art, 2, §7.

176 This is a position extolled by Rumohr in his correspondence with Müller. Stock, 'Briefe Rumohrs, 7.

177 Müller, Ancient Art, 3, § 7.

178 apadopoulos, ..., 107, § 7.

179 Papadopoulos, ..., 107, § 7: ...'.

180 '...' ['Athens Polytechnic'], Nea Pandora, 9:197, 1st June 1858, 99: '...'.

181 Müller, Ancient Art, 4, § 12: 'We call those forms beautiful which cause the soul to feel in a manner that is graceful, truly salutary and entirely conformable to its nature, which, as it were, produce in it vibrations that are in accordance with its inmost structure'.

182 Papadopoulos, ..., 108, § 9 (emphasis added): '...'.

183 For an analysis, see Vratskidou, L'émergence, 88-92.

184 Müller, Ancient Art, 4, § 12: 'the theory of art, by such a definition, consigns the further inquiry into the nature of the beautiful to aesthetics as a part of psychology'.

185 Müller, Ancient Art, 3, § 9: '[the laws of art] determine the artistic form according to the demands of sensibility, and have their foundation therefore in the constitution of the sensitive faculty. This constitution is here merely recognised in its manifestations; the investigation of it belongs to psychology'.

186 Papadopoulos, ..., 107, § 8 (emphasis added): '...'.

187 It is interesting to note that those ideas of Müller which meet Papadopoulos's resistance here - that is the autonomy of artistic means, the emphasis of form as a source of aesthetic pleasure, the interest for a psychological approach of artistic and aesthetic experience - would come to the fore during the last two decades of the century in Stylianos Konstantinidis' teaching, informed by the work of Charles Blanc and Eugène Véron.

188 Papadopoulos, ..., 13: '...'.

189 Bourdieu, The Rules of Art, 398.

190 On the extremely elaborate emulation system in the Parisian École des Beaux-arts, see the excellent account by Alain Bonnet, L'enseignement, 81-106. On the Roman case, see Anna Maria Corbo, 'L'insegnamento artistico a Roma nei primi anni della Restaurazione', Rassegna degli archivi di Stato, XXX: I, 1970, 91-119; Picardi and Racioppi, Le scuole 'mute', 301-447.

191 Papadopoulos, ..., 8: '...'.

192 For a detailed discussion of the various debates on the role of the institution, as well as the responses devised by Caftanzoglou and Papadopoulos, see Vratskidou, L'émérgence, 44-84.

193 Papadopoulos, ..., 11.

194 Papadopoulos, ..., 16-17: '...'.

195 Papadopoulos, ..., 16: '...'

196 Papadopoulos, ..., 18: '...'.

197 Papadopoulos, ..., 14-15 : '...'.

198 Papadopoulos, Discours, manuscript, AGP.

199 Papadopoulos, ..., 15.

200 Papadopoulos, ..., 16: '...' ['the course is given for general education and for artists in particular'].

201 On Ross and his activity in Greece, which was not without tensions with the local administration, see mainly Goette and Palagia, Ludwig Ross.

202 Based predominantly on the German model, the Athenian University was divided into four Faculties: the School of Theology, the School of Law, the School of Medicine and the School of Philosophy, the latter including humanities, physics and mathematics. For a history of the University, see Kimourtzis, ...; Konstantinos Lappas, ... [University and Students in Greece during the Nineteenth Century], Athens: IAEN, 2004.

203 See Kimourtzis, ..., vol. 1, 16.

204 More broadly, on the crucial role of archaeology in the formation of the 'national imagination' in Greece, see Yannis Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins. Antiquity, Archaeology and National Imagination in Greece, Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

205 In Berlin, for instance, only a year later, with the statutes of 1838, one of the seventeen ordinary professorships of the philosophical faculty was designated under the title 'Archaeology and history of art' (Archäologie und Geschichte der Kunst). Garberson, 'Art History II, 3.

206 On this extremely complex discussion that I am resuming here, see Marchand, Down from Olympus, 40-51; Alice Donohue, Greek Sculpture and the Problem of Description, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005, 1- 14; Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 31-38.

207 Ross, ..., 4-5.

208 Shortly before his dismissal Ross was also named 'professor of Latin philology'. See Ludwig Ross Nachlass, Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landesbibliothek, Cb 42.11: 02.12, 'Ubernahme des Lehrstuhls Lateinische Philologie durch Ludwig Ross', Athen 24. Juli 1843.

209 Ludwig Ross, Erinnerungen und Mittheilungen aus Griechenland, Berlin: Rudolph Gaertner, 1863, 108: 'So verlief die Gründung der Otto-Universität, die ich einige Tage später am 22. (10.) Mai 1837, da im ersten Semester an Archäologie noch nicht zu denken war, mit einer Vorlesung über Aristophanes' "Archarner" und "Ritter" vor etwa 30 Zuhörer eröffnete'. These are topics closely related to Ross's doctoral dissertation on The Wasps by Aristophanes.

210 Döhl, 'Karl Otfried Müllers Reise, 61.

211 As he observes: 'I am thus convinced that in the entire book there is not a paragraph that was not modified in one way or another and that one can scarcely find a phrase verbatim translated' [...]. Ross, ....

212 Ross, ....

213 On Ross's theory and the debate with Müller, see particularly Klaus Fittschen, 'Griechenland und der Orient: Ludwig Ross gegen Karl Otfried Müller', in Goette and Olga Palagia, Ludwig Ross, 251-260.

214 Fittschen erroneously notes that Ross's adaptation of Müller's manual concerned only Greek art; Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 194.

215 As Vick explains, Müller's insistence on the absolute originality of the Greeks and their cultural isolation must be seen rather as a historicist reaction to the model of universal history and the teleological conception according to which all peoples should be integrated in the same chain of cultural diffusion and evolution, that is, in the same sequence of an ever-going progress. Müller, on the contrary, privileges the study of national experiences as distinct from one another. For instance, he did not believe that the study of Egyptian civilisation was less important, but he rather thought that it should be undertaken in a distinct disciplinary and institutional framework; see Vick, 'Greek origins', 495-497.

216 See Ludwig Ross Nachlass, Schleswig-Holsteinischen Landesbibliothek, Cb 42.11: 02.13, Staatsekretariat des Kultusministeriums <Griechenland>: Ross Entlassungsurkunde aus dem Universitätdienst, Athen 8. September 1843.

217 Lysandros Caftanzoglou, ..., [Discourse delivered at the annual ceremony of the Royal Polytechnic], Athens: Ch. Nikolaïdis Filadelpheus, 1848. For an analysis of his argumentation, see Vratskidou, L'émergence, 109-112.

218 Papadopoulos, ..., 19.

219 Ross, ....

220 Rangavis was born in the cosmopolitan Phanariot milieu of Constantinople. He enrolled in the Munich Military Academy (1825-1829) and settled in Greece initially as an army officer, before switching to an illustrious career in public administration, education, politics and finally the diplomatic service. Poet, prolific writer and dramatist, he actively engaged in the cultural scene of the new State. Apart from his professorship of archaeology at the University, he occupied the key position of the Secretary of the Archaeological Society from 1837 to 1851, and played thus a leading role in the first archaeological institutions of the country. Unlike Ross, and like Papadopoulos, Rangavis had no official academic credentials for his university position. For a biography, see Euthymios Soulogiannis, ... (1809-1892). ? ... [Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis (1809-1892), his life and work], Athens: I. D. Arsenidis, 1995. On his teaching at the University, see Katerina Ritsatou, ... [With the Love of the Muses... Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis and the Modern Greek Theater], Heraklion: University Press of Crete, 2011, 415-423.

221 The hand-written notes of Rangavis's lectures on the 'History of fine arts in Antiquity' during the academic year 1859-1860 by one of his students present almost the exact structure and material as Rangavis's handbook published six years later. See S. D. Lamaris, ... 1859-1860 ..., manuscript, Alexandros Rizos Rangavis's Archives, 2. 27 A?/?? 2.76, KEINE, Academy of Athens. Unlike Ross, Rangavis adopted an all-encompassing understanding of archaeology, defining the history of ancient art as just one of its many branches (Rangavis, ..., vol. 1, 2-4). Completely excluding philological courses, he organized his teaching around a clock-precise rotation of three topics: 'History of ancient art', 'Political antiquities of Athens' and 'Epigraphy'. For a complete list of his courses, see Chaido Barkoula, ... (1830-1880): ... [Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis (1830-1880): Irredentism and Diplomacy], unpublished doctoral dissertation, Athens: National and Kapodistrian University, 2008, 276-279.

222 The Greek professor also accompanied his work with a picture compendium, as Müller had done before him: Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis, ... [Plates for the history of ancient art], Leipzig: E.A. Seemann, 1865. Ross did not propose a published version of iconographical material, even though he made use of images in his teaching.

223 This order of examination of the three arts established by Müller became canonical in the discipline of archaeology; Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 196.

224 Alexandros Rizos-Rangavis, ... [Archaeology. History of Ancient Art], Athens: Koromilas, 1865-1866, vol. 1, 78-83.

225 See Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 42; Sven Ahrens, 'Eduard Gerhards Lehre und der archäologische und kunsthistorische Unterricht an der Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Berlin', in Tatjana Bartsch and Jörg Meiner, eds, Kunst, Kontext, Geschichte. Festgabe für Hubert Faensen zum 75. Geburtstag, Berlin: Lukas, 2003, 258.

226 See Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 31-44. On Gerhard in particular, see Ahrens, 'Eduard Gerhards Lehre, 251-266.

227 The book itself and the accompanying picture compendium were besides further re-edited and completed by Friedrich Welcker and Friedrich Wieseler respectively, turning authorship into a collective enterprise.

228 Müller, Ancient Art, viii; Müller, Handbuch, 1835, v: 'wenn es [das Buch] auch vielleicht archäologischen Vorlesungen von sehr verschiedener Art zum Grunde gelegt werden könnte, wird die Benutzung desselben doch immer eine freie und eigentümliche sein müssen'. The English translator introduces in the corresponding passage cited above the figure of the lecturer, not present in Müller's text, which is another indication of the wide use of the manual for teaching purposes.

229 See Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 197; Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 37.

230 Welcker, 'Aus der Anzeige, 342.

231 Müllers, Ancient Art, viii; Müller, Handbuch 1835, v. Müller had himself asked for Welcker's review and discussed the manual with him in their correspondence; see Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 31 and 39.

232 On Gerhard, see Ahrens, 'Eduard Gerhards Lehre, 258-259; On Curtius, see Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 98; on Otto Jahn, see the plan of his lectures for the summer semester of 1865: Hubert Cancik, 'Otto Jahn's Vorlesung "Grundzüge der Archäologie" (Bonn, Sommer 1865) in den Mitschriften von Eduard Hiller und Friedrich Nietzsche', in William M. Calder III, Hubert Cancik and Bernhard Kytzler, eds, Otto Jahn (1813-1868), Ein Geisteswissenschaftler zwischen Klassizismus und Historismus, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 29-30.

233 Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 39.

234 Welcker, 'Aus der Anzeige, 336: 'sieht sich Ref. auch zu einer Herzensergießung über den ihm (wissenschaftlich) verhassten Namen Archäologie veranlasst'.

Let it be noted though that there is indeed a difference between 'Archäologie der Kunst' and 'Geschichte der Kunst'. Müller's famous course, offered in almost every summer semester, was typically entitled 'Archäologie und Geschichte der Kunst bey den Alten'. As Müller noted, he treated first the technical part (probably along with the introductory geographical survey and review of the literature on ancient art), and subsequently turned to the historical examination of ancient art. Following the Wolfian distinction, I tend to believe that the term 'archaeology' describes everything that pertains to prevailing structures or that cannot be narrated as a sequence of events. Wolf, who also clearly has difficulties with the term, consigns to archaeology 'what cannot find an appropriate place elsewhere, and what is nonetheless of such nature as to contribute to the knowledge of the particular character of antiquity [...] Conditions and constitutions are besides the leading concepts here, whereas history only narrates incidents and events in their succession' ['was anderswo keinen recht angemessenen Platz findet, und doch von der Art ist, dass dadurch die Kenntniss der Charakteristischen im Alterthume gewinnt. [...] Zustände übrigens und Verfassungen sind hier durchaus der leitende Begriff, wogegen die Geschichte nur Begebenheiten und Ereignisse in ihrer Aufeinanderfolge erzählt'], Wolf, 'Darstellung, 55. There is thus a methodological difference between the two terms that one has to bear in mind (compare Garberson, 'Art History II, 14-16).

235 Ross, ..., 2.

236 Ross, ..., 1-2.

237 Gröschel and Wrede, Ernst Curtius' Vorlesung, 37.

238 Fittschen, 'Karl Otfried Müller, 187-189.

239 On Ross's activity as an overseer of antiquities and his journeys in various regions of Greece, such as the Peloponnese and the Aegean islands, as well as in Asia Minor, see Goette and Palagia, Ludwig Ross, 159-250. Rangavis's archaeological researches have not yet been fully investigated. Extremely useful though is the account by Ritsatou, ..., 423-439.

240 Kimourtzis, ..., vol. 2, 194.

241 Stephanou, ..., 19. Papadopoulos was finally offered a position as a professor of history at the University in 1870, but he never exercised his functions, as he was almost immediately replaced by the co-pretender of the position S. Tsivanopoulos (Lappas, ..., 558; Vaggelis Karamanolakis, H ... (1837-1932) [The Formation of Historical Science and History Teaching at the University of Athens], Athens: IAEN, 2006, 90, 148-149.

242 Vratskidou, L'émergence, 260-264.

243 The conflict revolved around the deteriorations οf the choragic monument of Thrasyllus, on the south side of the Acropolis, in 1851, as well as the quality of the journal of the Archaeological Society edited by Pittakis. Pittakis and Papadopoulos's quarrel had an important resonance in the daily press. See mainly Kokkou, ..., 94, n. 2 and 110, n. 1.

244 During their manifold careers, Papadopoulos and Rangavis came often to collaborate in various educational associations and artistic comities. Nevertheless, in Rangavis's memoires, the few references to Papadopoulos are very reserved, Rangavis, ..., vol. 3 (Athens: Pyrsos, 1930), 83; vol. 4 (Athens: Pyrsos, 1930), 94 and 97-98.

245 See for instance, Willibald Sauerlander, 'Alois Riegl und die Entstehung der autonomen Kunstgeschichte am fin de siècle', in Roger Bauer, ed., Fin de siècle. Zu Literatur und Kunst der Jahrhundertwende, Frankfurt am Main: Klosterman, 1977, 125-139.

246 See Hernik Karge, 'Das Frühwerk Karl Schnaases. Zum Verhältnis von Ästhetik und Kunstgeschichte im 19. Jahrhundert', in Antje Middeldorf Kosegarten, ed., Johann Dominicus Fiorillo Kunstgeschichte und die romantische Bewegung um 1800, Göttingen, 1990, 402-419; Hernik Karge, 'Franz Kugler und Karl Schnaase - zwei Projekte zur Etablierung der "Allgemeinen Kunstgeschichte"', in Espagne, Savoy and Trautmann-Waller, Franz Theodor Kugler, 83-104.

247 His lectures at the Munich Academy, in which he taught from 1855 to 1887, led to his monumental five-volume Die Kunst im Zusammenhang der Kulturentwicklung und die Ideale der Menschheit, (Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863-1873), the title of whch is in itself highly eloquent. On his teaching, see particularly Annemarie Menke-Schwinghammer, 'Moriz Carrière. Zwischen Propädeutik und Fachwissenschaft', in Christian Drude und Hubertus Kohle, eds, 200 Jahre Kunstgeschichte in München: Positionen, Perspektiven, Polemik (1780-1980), München: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2003, 57-67. See also his autobiographical text, Moriz Carriere, Lebensbilder, Brockhaus: Leipzig, 1890, particularly the chapter 'Dreißig Jahre an der Akademie der Künste zu München', 445-470.

248 Springer was appointed at the University of Bonn in 1860 and taught there until 1872. See particularly Johannes Rössler, Poetik der Kunstgeschichte. Anton Springer, Carl Justi und die ästhetische Konzeption der deutschen Kunstwissenschaft, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2009; Michel Espagne, L'histoire de l'art comme transfert culturel. L'itinéraire de Anton Springer, Paris: Belin, 2009.

249 Garberson, 'Art History, 84; 80.

250 Garberson, 'Art History II, 26.

251 Including, apart from Kugler, Ernst Toelken and Ernst Guhl in Berlin; Ludwig Schorn (1793-1842) and Moriz Carriere (1817-1895) in Munich, or Rudolph von Eitelberger (1817-1885) and Moriz Thausing (1835-1884) in Vienna.

252 This was, for instance, the case for Hippolyte Taine's lectures at the École des Beaux-arts in Paris. See Walsh Hotchkiss, in Mansfield, Art History, 94.

253 One may evoke here an earlier French example, the famous lectures on archaeology at the Cabinet des médailles of the Royal Library in Paris, offered by Aubin-Louis Millin (1759-1818) during the first two decades of the century. See, René Sternke, 'L'archéologue Millin-modèle de l'archéologue Böttiger', in Geneviève Espagne and Bénédicte Savoy, eds, Aubin-Louis Millin et l'Allemagne. Le Magasin encyclopédique - Les lettres à Karl August Böttiger, Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 2005, 82.