NOTES

Chapter 1: The Unfinished Project

1.Eric R. Kandel, The Age of Insight: The Quest to Understand the Unconscious in Art, Mind, and Brain, from Vienna 1900 to the Present (New York: Random House, 2012), especially chaps. 11–12. For an assessment of Gombrich as an art historian whose work pointed beyond art history, see Christopher S. Wood, “E. H. Gombrich: Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation, 1960,” in The Books that Shaped Art History: From Gombrich and Greenberg to Alpers and Krauss, ed. Richard Stone and John-Paul Stonard (London: Thames & Hudson, 2013), 116–27.

2.Robert Waelder, “Psychoanalysis and History: Application of Psychoanalysis to Historiography,” in The Psychoanalytic Interpretation of History, ed. Benjamin B. Wolman (New York: Harper Torchbooks, Harper and Row, 1973), 3.

3.As George Makari points out, Kris hoped that Anna Freud’s interwar studies of the child would create a bridge to academic psychology. Waelder had studied physics in Vienna before turning to psychoanalysis. See Makari, Revolution in Mind: The Creation of Psychoanalysis (New York: HarperCollins, 2008), 441–3.

4.In Vienna, Erik Erikson became intrigued by Kris’s notion of regression and self-restitution. After the war, he expanded upon it in his own theory of the stages of ego development, each stage marked by a period of crisis and reconsolidation. On Erikson’s early interest in Kris’s theory of creativity and ego functioning, see Lawrence J. Friedman, Identity’s Architect: A Biography of Erik H. Erikson (New York: Scribner, 1999), 70 and 94. Like Erikson, Hans Loewald after the war would also emphasize the phases of the ego’s achievement of inward reconsolidation. See Hans W. Loewald, “On the Therapeutic Action of Psychoanalysis” (1960), in Papers on Psychoanalysis (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), 221–56. Ego consolidation would “follow periods of relative ego disorganization and reorganization, characterized by ego regression” (ibid., 224). Drawing out the therapeutic implications of that insight, Loewald argued that “analysis can be characterized, from this standpoint, as a period or periods of induced ego disorganization and reorganization” (ibid.). The therapeutic process represented a “regressive crisis” (ibid.).

5.See the collection of Warburg’s writings in Aby Warburg, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity: Contributions to the Cultural History of the European Renaissance, trans. David Britt, Getty Research Institute Publications Programs: Texts and Documents (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1999).

6.See Kandel, Age of Insight, especially chaps. 11–12. Kandel emphasizes the importance of Alois Riegl, a founder of the Vienna School, in bringing attention to the beholder’s share in art.

7.A collection also of Saxl’s correspondence with Kris and Gombrich is in the General Correspondence of the Warburg Institute Archive (hereafter cited as GC, WIA). Letters in the General Correspondence between the institute and Kris and between the institute and Gombrich appear in the folders “Ernst Kris,” “Kunsthistorisches Museum (Kris),” and “E. H. Gombrich.” Before 1940, Kris and Gombrich corresponded with each other in German; from 1940 on, they corresponded only in English. Prior to the Second World War, correspondence between Kris, Gombrich, and the Warburg Institute was carried on in German, but from 1939 only in English. Translations in the book are my own unless indicated otherwise.

8.See Ernst Kris to E. H. Gombrich, 7 June 1949, Box 6, Ernst Kris Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC. Hereafter the Ernst Kris Papers will be cited as EK.

9.See Gombrich to Kris, 2 May 1950, Box 6, EK.

10.See Kris to Gombrich, 28 November 1945; Kris to Gombrich, 9 January 1946; and Gombrich to Kris, 20 April 1947, Box 6, EK.

11.E. H. Gombrich to Ernst Kris, 6 August 1952, Box 6, EK.

12.Plutarch, “Alexander,” paragraph 1, in The Age of Alexander, trans. Ian Scott-Kilvert (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1973), 252.

13.See Roger Nichols, Mendelssohn Remembered (London: Faber and Faber, 1997), 138–9. In our day, Kirk Douglas, also a practitioner of caricature, referred to it as “the actor’s obsession.” See Kirk Douglas, I Am Spartacus! Making a Film, Breaking the Blacklist (New York: Open Road, 2012), 128.

14.For a detailed analysis and compelling narrative of caricature art in French urban culture and society, see Judith Wechsler, A Human Comedy: Physiognomy and Caricature in 19th Century Paris (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).

15.For Baudelaire, Balzac, and Champfleury, see Ségolène Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” in Daumier 1808–1879, exhibition organized by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, Paris, and the Phillips Collection, Washington (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1999), 38–40.

16.See, for example, Ralph E. Shikes, The Indignant Eye: The Artist as Social Critic in Prints and Drawings from the Fifteenth Century to Picasso (Boston: Beacon Press, 1969); Ralph E. Shikes and Steven Heller, The Art of Satire: Painters as Caricaturists and Cartoonists from Delacroix to Picasso (N.p.: Pratt Graphics Center and Horizon Press, 1984); Diana Donald, The Age of Caricature: Satirical Prints in the Reign of George III (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996); David Bindman, Hogarth and His Times: Serious Comedy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997); Mark Hallett, The Spectacle of Difference: Graphic Satire in the Age of Hogarth (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999); John Milner, Art, War and Revolution in France 1870–1871: Myth, Reportage and Reality (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); and David S. Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture 1830–1848: Charles Philipon and the Illustrated Press (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 2000). From September 2011 to March 2012, the Metropolitan Museum of Art presented a comprehensive exhibition on the uses of caricature across time and place. See Constance C. McPhee and Nadine M. Orenstein, Infinite Jest: Caricature and Satire from Leonardo to Levine (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2011). For a brief review of selected art historical approaches to caricature, see Sybille Moser-Ernst and Ursula Marinelli, “Geschichte des Karikaturprojektes Kris/Gombrich: Antworten und offene Fragen,” in Jenseits des Illustrativen: Visuelle Medien und Strategien politischer Kommunikation, ed. Niels Grüne and Claus Oberhauser (Göttingen: V&R Unipress, 2015), 249–52.

17.Thus, for the special issue of the Art Journal edited by Judith Wechsler, “The Issue of Caricature,” Art Journal 43, no. 4 (Winter 1983), which included articles on photography, the world of nineteenth-century newspapers, Cubism, and the art of cartooning, Gombrich contributed his essay “The Wit of Saul Steinberg” (377–80).

18.Felix Gilbert, A European Past: Memoirs 1905–1945 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1988), 172.

19.Ibid.

20.Felix Gilbert, “Machiavelli in an Unknown Contemporary Dialogue,” Journal of the Warburg Institute 1, no. 2 (October 1937): 163–6.

21.Machiavelli and Francesco Guicciardini became the subjects of Gilbert’s groundbreaking study of Renaissance political and historical thought, Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965).

22.Gilbert, “Machiavelli,” 164.

23.Ibid., 166.

24.Gilbert, A European Past, 187. After the war, Gilbert taught for many years at Bryn Mawr College, before becoming a fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

25.Ernst Kris and Hans Speier, German Radio Propaganda: Report on Home Broadcasts During the War, in association with Sidney Axelrad, Hans Herma, Janice Loeb, Heinz Paechter, and Howard B. White (London: Oxford University Press, 1944), 291.

26.On wartime efforts to use psychoanalysis to interpret the psychology of the Nazi leadership and the impact of those efforts on social science, see Daniel Pick, The Pursuit of the Nazi Mind: Hitler, Hess, and the Analysts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012).

27.In his study of Freud, Carl E. Schorske described the pattern of political withdrawal and scientific engagement that began to appear among Austrian intellectuals prior to the First World War. See Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna: Politics and Culture (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980), 181–207.

28.Russell Jacoby, The Repression of Psychoanalysis: Otto Fenichel and the Political Freudians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986).

29.Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Adi Wimmer, in Strangers at Home and Abroad: Recollections of Austrian Jews Who Escaped Hitler, ed. Adi Wimmer, trans. Ewald Osers (Jefferson, NC: McFarland and Company, 2000), 29. An earlier translation of this interview appeared in Peter Weibel and Friedrich Stadler, eds., The Cultural Exodus from Austria: Vertreibung der Vernunft (Vienna: Löcker Verlag, 1993), 333–7.

Chapter 2: Toward a Psychology of Art, 1919–32

1.Gombrich to Kris, 22 December 1945, Box 6, EK.

2.Kris to Gombrich, 28 June 1946, Box 6, EK.

3.Gombrich to Kris, 2 May 1950, Box 6, EK.

4.Anton O. Kris, letter to the author, 6 May 2004. I am indebted to Ernst Kris’s son Anton O. Kris and his daughter Anna Kris Wolff for family history and biographical information. For Kris’s early life, see also Samuel Ritvo and Lucille B. Ritvo, “Ernst Kris, 1900–1957: Twentieth Century Uomo Universale,” in Psychoanalytic Pioneers, ed. Franz Alexander, Samuel Eisenstein, and Martin Grotjahn (New York: Basic Books, 1966) and Elke Mühlleitner, “Ernst Kris (1900–1957),” in Biographisches Lexikon der Psychoanalyse: Die Mitglieder der Psychologischen Mittwoch-Gesellschaft und der Wiener Psychoanalytischen Vereinigung 1902–1938 (Tübingen: Edition Diskord, 1992).

5.Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with author, 22 January 2004. Anton Kris and Anna Kris Wolff recalled that although their father did not provide them with formal religious training, he familiarized them with the aesthetic and symbolic heritage of the Church on their travels to Italy after the Second World War. For Kris’s university registration form, see Matrikel (Summer 1919–Summer 1922), Universitätsarchiv, Universität Wien. The form lists his religion as Roman Catholic and his father’s profession as Rechtsanwalt.

6.Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with the author, 22 January 2004.

7.See Betty Kurth, Das Lustschloss Schönbrunn, Österreichische Kunstbücher, Band 7 (Vienna: Ed. Hölzel [ca. 1920]), 17.

8.Gombrich to Kris, 25 March 1942, Box 6, EK.

9.E. H. Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man: Reminiscences of Collaboration with Ernst Kris (1900–1957)” (1967), in Tributes: Interpreters of Our Cultural Tradition (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 221. On Kris’s attendance at university lectures, see also E. H. Gombrich, preface to Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist: A Historical Experiment, by Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979), ix.

10.Max Dvořák, “Pieter Bruegel the Elder,” in The History of Art as the History of Ideas (1924), trans. John Hardy (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984), 77.

11.Ibid.

12.Ibid., 78.

13.Ibid., 79.

14.Ibid., 90–1.

15.Ibid., 96.

16.Ibid. For Dvořák’s historical perspectives and methods, see also Dvořák, Idealism and Naturalism in Gothic Art, trans. Randolph J. Klawiter (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1967).

17.On Dvořák’s theory of art history and reaction to the First World War, see Matthew Rampley, “Max Dvořák: Art History and the Crisis of Modernity,” Art History 26, no. 2 (April 2003): 214–37.

18.Otto Benesch, “Max Dvořák (1874–1921)” (1957), in Collected Writings, edited by Eva Benesch, vol. 4 (London: Phaidon Press, 1973), 310–11. On Dvořák and the Vienna School art historians, see also Benesch, “Die Wiener Kunsthistorische Schule” (1920) and “Max Dvořák: Ein Versuch zur Geschichte der historischen Geisteswissenschaften” (1924 [1922]), in Collected Writings, vol. 4.

19.For Kris’s attendance at Kraus’s one-man performances, see Eric R. Kandel, In Search of Memory: The Emergence of a New Science of Mind (New York: W. W. Norton, 2006), 363. For Kraus and the Expressionists, see Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna, 322–66.

20.Max Dvořák, “On El Greco and Mannerism,” in History of Art as the History of Ideas, 104. After the war, the art historian Walter Friedlaender expanded Dvořák’s conception of Mannerism and its relevance to modern art history. See Friedlaender, Mannerism and Anti-Mannerism in Italian Painting (1925, 1930 [1928–29]), introduction by Donald Posner (New York: Schocken Books, 1965) and David to Delacroix (1930), trans. Robert Goldwater (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952).

21.See Matrikel (Summer 1919–Summer 1922).

22.On Schlosser’s Italian background, see E. H. Gombrich, “Julius von Schlosser,” Burlington Magazine 74, no. 431 (February 1939), 98.

23.Julius von Schlosser, “History of Portraiture in Wax” (1910–11), trans. James Michael Loughridge, in Ephemeral Bodies: Wax Sculpture and the Human Figure, ed. Roberta Panzanelli (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2008), 172.

24.Ibid.

25.See E. H. Gombrich, Art and Illusion: A Study in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (1960), A. W. Mellon Lectures in the Fine Arts, 1956, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC, Bollingen Series, XXXV, 5 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), 23. According to Gombrich, Croce’s influence superseded the early interest Schlosser had shown in the psychology of artistic representation. See E. H. Gombrich, “Art History and Psychology in Vienna Fifty Years Ago,” Art Journal 44, no. 2 (Summer 1984): 162–4.

26.See, for example, Franz Wickhoff, Roman Art: Some of Its Principles and Their Application to Early Christian Painting, trans. Eugénie Strong (London: William Heinemann, 1900).

27.For Schlosser’s description of Kris, see Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 222. Kris also worked as Schlosser’s research assistant. See Gombrich, preface to Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist, x. On Schlosser’s influence on Kris’s art historical interests, see Thomas Röske, “Traces of Psychology: The Art Historical Writings of Ernst Kris,” American Imago 58, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 463–77.

28.Anton O. Kris described his father’s political stance in comments at the panel devoted to Ernst Kris’s career held at the Winter Meeting, American Psychoanalytic Association, 23 January 2003.

29.See Carl E. Schorske, Thinking with History: Explorations in the Passage to Modernism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998), 105–22.

30.On Kris as a curator, see Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 222. The historian of Renaissance sculpture, Leo Planiscig, had responsibility for organizing the collection’s bronze work, which he described in his Die Bronzeplastiken: Statuetten, Reliefs, Geräte und Plaketten: Katalog, Publikationen aus den Sammlungen für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe, ed. Julius Schlosser, vol. 4 (Vienna: Kunstverlag Anton Schroll, 1924).

31.For Bredekamp’s analysis of the rise of scientific, especially evolutionary, perspectives within the Kunst- und Wunderkammer tradition, see Horst Bredekamp, The Lure of Antiquity and the Cult of the Machine: The Kunstkammer and the Evolution of Nature, Art and Technology, trans. Allison Brown (Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener, 1995). For a discussion of the influence of the Kunstkammer tradition within twentieth-century Austrian medicine and literature, see Gitta Honegger, Thomas Bernhard: The Making of an Austrian (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2001), 84–8.

32.See Julius von Schlosser, Die Kunst- und Wunderkammern der Spätrenaissance: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sammelwesens: Ein Handbuch für Sammler und Liebhaber (1908), 2nd edition (Leipzig: Klinkhardt and Biermann, 1978), 66–7, 79–86, 97, 101, 109, and 176–8.

33.Christopher S. Wood, introduction to The Vienna School Reader: Politics and Art Historical Method in the 1930s (New York: Zone Books, 2000), 31.

34.Emanuel Loewy, The Rendering of Nature in Early Greek Art, trans. John Fothergill (London: Duckworth, 1907), 13.

35.E. H. Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich über seinen Lehrer Emanuel Löwy,” interview by Harald Wolf, in Emanuel Löwy: Ein vergessener Pionier, ed. Friedrich Brein, Kataloge der Archäologischen Sammlung der Universität Wien, Sonderheft I (Vienna: Verlag des Clubs der Universität Wien, 1998), 64.

36.Emanuel Loewy, “Ursprünge der bildenden Kunst,” Almanach der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien 80 (1930): 277.

37.Anton O. Kris, letter to author, 6 May 2004.

38.For information on Marianne Rie’s early education and career, see Mühlleitner, “Marianne Kris (1900–1980),” Biographisches Lexikon der Psychoanalyse and Elizabeth Ann Danto, Freud’s Free Clinics: Psychoanalysis and Social Justice, 1918–1938 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2005), 99 and 172.

39.Ernst Kris, interview by K. R. Eissler, 15 June 1953, Box 117, Sigmund Freud Papers, Library of Congress (hereafter cited as SF), 2. Author’s translation from the German. On the conception of applied psychoanalysis within the early Freudian movement in Vienna, see Louis Rose, The Freudian Calling: Early Viennese Psychoanalysis and the Pursuit of Cultural Science (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1998).

40.Kris provided dates for the progress of his career in the letter and curriculum vitae that he wrote for the Society for the Protection of Science and Learning after his emigration to Britain. See Ernst Kris to Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 4 June 1939, Bodleian MS., Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 187/1–3, folios 175–7 and 189.

41.See Ernst Kris, Der Stil “rustique”: Die Verwendung des Naturabgusses bei Wenzel Jamnitzer und Bernard Palissy, Sonderausdruck aus Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, Band I (Vienna: Verlag von Anton Schroll, 1926), 138. Carlo Ginzburg has discussed pictorial representation in light of its origins in depictions of the dead. See Ginzburg, Wooden Eyes: Nine Reflections on Distance, trans. Martin Ryle and Kate Soper (New York: Columbia University Press, 2001), 63–78. In his autobiography, Palissy warned against sacrificing true originality to mere imitation in art. See James S. Amelang, The Flight of Icarus: Artisan Autobiography in Early Modern Europe (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), 246–7. On Palissy’s craft, see Leonard N. Amico, Bernard Palissy: In Search of Earthly Paradise (Paris and New York: Flammarion, 1996).

42.See Ernst Kris, “A Psychotic Sculptor of the Eighteenth Century” (1933 [1932]), in Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art (Madison, CT: International Universities Press, 1952), 128–50. For alternative interpretations of Messerschmidt, see Rudolf Wittkower and Margot Wittkower, Born Under Saturn: The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), 124–32 and Ulrich Pfarr, “Ernst Kris on F. X. Messerschmidt—A Valuable Stimulus for New Research?” American Imago 58, no. 1 (Spring 2001): 445–61. Kris published his essay on Messerschmidt in Imago, where he returned to the subject a few years later. See Kris, “Comments on Spontaneous Artistic Creations by Psychotics” (1936), in Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art, 87–127.

43.See Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 225–6. Kris had enrolled for biology courses in 1931. Marianne Kris recalled that perhaps he also had determined to renounce the study of medicine after being offered the editorship of Imago. See Evonne Levy, “Ernst Kris, The Legend of the Artist (1934), and Mein Kampf,” Oxford Art Journal 36, no. 2 (2013): 210–11.

44.Ernst Kris, “The Image of the Artist: A Psychological Study of the Role of Tradition in Ancient Biographies,” Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art, 83. The essay appeared originally under the title “Zur Psychologie älterer Biographik (dargestellt an der des bildenen Künstlers)” in Imago 21 (1935). Later in life, Kris expressed deep regret that he never studied medicine. Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with the author, 23 January 2003.

45.Henry James, Daumier, Caricaturist (1890; reprint, London: Rodale Press, 1954), 24.

46.Ibid. Three years after publishing it in the January 1890 issue of Century Magazine, James republished the essay, with minor editorial changes, as “Honoré Daumier” in his collection Picture and Text (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1893). Each version was reprinted separately in the 1950s. See Daumier Lithographs: The Human Comedy (Elvehjem Museum of Art, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 1985), 6.

47.On Seipel’s ordination and appointment at Salzburg, see Klemens von Klemperer, Ignaz Seipel: Christian Statesman in a Time of Crisis (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1972), 31 and 43.

48.On the integral role of anti-Semitism within the Christian Social movement, see Bruce F. Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution: A History of Austrian Anti-Semitism (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 150–73.

49.On Christian Social foreign policy in particular and the party’s relation to fascism in general, see Martin Kitchen, The Coming of Austrian Fascism (London: Croom Helm, 1980), 144–201. For Seipel’s reference to Mussolini as a renewer, the negotiation over an Italian, Austrian, and Hungarian alliance, and the diplomatic confrontation in the South Tyrol, see Klemperer, Ignaz Seipel, 329–40.

50.On the reduction in the size of the civil service, see Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 90–1.

51.On nationalist protests and anti-Semitic violence at universities in the 1920s, see Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 89–101 and 121–5.

52.Karl Kraus, The Last Days of Mankind, trans. Alexander Gode and Sue Ellen Wright (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing, 1974), 3.

53.See Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 99. On the link between Kraus’s play and his documentary journalism, see Paul Reitter, The Anti-Journalist: Karl Kraus and Jewish Self-Fashioning in Fin-de-siècle Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008), 118–19.

54.See Eric Hobsbawm, Interesting Times: A Twentieth-Century Life (New York: Pantheon Books, 2002), 168. A. J. P. Taylor commented that perhaps the only inhabitants of the Austrian republic who identified themselves as Austrian citizens rather than as German nationals were diehard Habsburg loyalists, Viennese Jews, and Communists. See Taylor, “The Austrian Illusion,” in Europe: Grandeur and Decline (London: Penguin Books, 1991), 325–7.

55.See Christopher Long, Josef Frank: Life and Work (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 117. Trude Wähner eventually emigrated to the United States.

56.Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with the author, 22 January 2004.

57.See Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 222 and Kris to Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 4 June 1939, Bodleian MS.

Chapter 3: The Vienna–London Connection, 1932–36

1.For an account of the individualist perspective, philosophic optimism, and social background of the membership of the Austrian Masonic lodges, see Malachi Haim Hacohen, Karl Popper—The Formative Years, 1902–1945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 41–3 and 47.

2.See E. H. Gombrich and Didier Eribon, Looking for Answers: Conversations on Art and Science (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1993), 29–30.

3.On Asquith’s upbringing and education, see Roy Jenkins, Asquith: Portrait of a Man and an Era (New York: Chilmark Press, 1964), 13–25. George Dangerfield’s caustic but classic portrait of Asquith, published in 1935, still deserves attention. See Dangerfield, The Strange Death of Liberal England (New York: Capricorn Books, 1961), 17–18. For Violet Bonham Carter, see Jenkins, introduction to Lantern Slides: The Diaries and Letters of Violet Bonham Carter 1904–1914, ed. Mark Bonham Carter and Mark Pottle (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1996).

4.I am grateful to Professor Richard Gombrich and Leonie Gombrich for information regarding E. H. Gombrich’s sisters. Leonie Gombrich, letter to the author, 16 January 2008.

5.For Gombrich’s education, see Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 25–30, 133–6. On the Theresianum, see Schorske, Fin-de-siècle Vienna, 135.

6.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 32.

7.E. H. Gombrich, “An Autobiographical Sketch” (1987), in Topics of Our Time: Twentieth-Century Issues in Learning and in Art (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1991), 13. For Gombrich’s early attitude toward Expressionism, see his The Preference for the Primitive: Episodes in the History of Western Taste and Art (London: Phaidon Press, 2002), 233.

8.E. H. Gombrich, “Focus on the Arts and Humanities,” in Tributes, 13–14.

9.Gombrich, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” 14. Confronted late in life by a strong revival of interest in Riegl’s theories, Gombrich reminded younger art historians that he had been wary of the ideological implications of Riegl’s aim to understand art through the artist’s will. Riegl, he stated, had not inspired him in the pursuit of art history. See Ján Bakos, “The Vienna School’s Hundred and Sixty-Eighth Graduate: The Vienna School’s Ideas Revised by E. H. Gombrich” and E. H. Gombrich, “Response from E. H. Gombrich,” in Gombrich on Art and Psychology, ed. Richard Woodfield (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1996), 234–61. For a discussion of Riegl’s conception of art history, see Margaret Olin, Forms of Representation in Alois Riegl’s Theory of Art (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992) and Richard Woodfield, et al., Framing Formalism: Riegl’s Work (Amsterdam: Overseas Publishing Association, 2001).

10.Gombrich, “Focus on the Arts and Humanities,” 14. Gombrich published his dissertation in two parts. See E. H. Gombrich, “Zum Werke Giulio Romanos: I. Der Palazzo del Tè,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, Band 8 (1934): 79–104 and “Zum Werke Giulio Romanos: II. Versuch einer Deutung,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, Band 9 (1935): 121–50.

11.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 41.

12.Gombrich to Kris, 17 August 1940, Box 6, EK.

13.Gombrich ultimately published this research as “Eine verkannte karolingische Pyxis im Wiener Kunsthistorischen Museum,” Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, Neue Folge, Band 7 (1933): 1–14.

14.Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 224.

15.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 45.

16.Gombrich reproduced “Der Zweifel” in a letter to Carl E. Schorske, in which Gombrich confirmed the date of the student play as 1932. E. H. Gombrich to Carl E. Schorske, 18 December 1994, letter in possession of the author. I am grateful to Carl Schorske for having provided me with the letter and poem.

17.Gombrich to Schorske, 18 December 1994. Underlined in the original.

18.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

19.Ibid.

20.For a description of the events of June 1931, see Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 125–7.

21.E. H. Gombrich, “The Exploration of Culture Contacts: The Services to Scholarship of Otto Kurz (1908–1975)” (1979), in Tributes, 238.

22.See Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 27–8.

23.Ibid., 28.

24.See Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 262.

25.Ibid., 28.

26.Ibid., 29.

27.On Mussolini’s role in the February events in Austria, see Kitchen, The Coming of Austrian Fascism, 151.

28.On the February events, the Vaterländische Front, and anti-Semitism see Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 268–72 and Kitchen, The Coming of Austrian Fascism, 202–64.

29.Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 29.

30.Ibid. On Benesch, see Charles de Tolnay, “In Memoriam Otto Benesch,” in The Art of the Renaissance in Northern Europe: Its Relation to the Contemporary Spiritual and Intellectual Movements, by Otto Benesch, revised edition (London: Phaidon Press, 1965), vii–ix and “Österreichische Wissenschaftsemigration” in The Cultural Exodus from Austria, ed. Weibel and Stadler, 7.

31.Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 167 and 172.

32.Ibid., 168 and 202–3.

33.See Franz Borkenau, Austria and After (London: Faber and Faber, 1938).

34.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 46–7.

35.Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 227–8.

36.Anton O. Kris, letters to author, 8 April 2006 and 9 April 2006. The identity of the cardinal is still unknown.

37.See Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 29.

38.For the history of the Hamburg school of thought that developed around Warburg, from the creation of his private library to the founding of his academic institution for the humanities and social sciences, see Emily J. Levine, Dreamland of Humanists: Warburg, Cassirer, Panofsky, and the Hamburg School (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013). Levine explores the school within the context of Hamburg’s intersecting social, intellectual, and political worlds. Focusing on changes in image making at the time, Philippe-Alain Michaud examines the connection of Warburg’s art history to the contemporaneous emergence of the motion picture. See Michaud, Aby Warburg and the Image in Motion, trans. Sophie Hawks (New York: Zone Books, 2004).

39.For comparison of the Renaissance in the work of Warburg and Freud, see Louis Rose, The Survival of Images: Art Historians, Psychoanalysts, and the Ancients (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2001), 96–105.

40.See Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 39–40.

41.See Arpad Weixlgärtner and Leo Planiscig, eds., Festschrift für Julius Schlosser zum 60. Geburtstage (Zürich: Amalthea Verlag, 1927). Kris’s essay, titled “Georg Hoefnagel und der wissenschaftliche Naturalismus,” took up the theme of naturalism that he had recently explored in the work of Jamnitzer and Palissy.

42.See the Warburg Library’s Kulturwissenschaftliche Bibliographie zum Nachleben der Antike, vol. 1, Die Erscheinungen des Jahres 1931, (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1934; reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus-Thomson Organization, Kraus Reprint, 1978) and the Warburg Institute’s A Bibliography of the Survival of the Classics, vol. 2, The Publications of 1932–1933, (London: The Warburg Institute, 1938; reprint, Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus-Thomson Organization, Kraus Reprint, 1978).

43.E. H. Gombrich, letter to the author, 1 March 2000.

44.Fritz Saxl to Ernst Kris, 28 October 1932, GC, WIA. At the end of the war, Edgar Wind had studied art history at the University of Berlin, but he also spent a semester at the University of Vienna, attending the classes of both Dvořák and Schlosser. See Hugh Lloyd-Jones, “A Biographical Memoir,” in The Eloquence of Symbols: Studies in Humanist Art, by Edgar Wind (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1983), xiv.

45.Ernst Kris and Otto Kurz, Die Legende vom Künstler: Ein geschichtlicher Versuch (Vienna: Krystall-Verlag, 1934), [5]. The book was published in English as Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist: A Historical Experiment, trans. Alastair Lang and Lottie M. Newman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979).

46.Kris and Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist 66–71. Kris had given his book the working title, “Daidalos, Die Legende vom Künstler (Ein geschichtlicher Versuch).” (See Kris to Saxl, 23 April 1934, GC, WIA.) During the Renaissance and Baroque periods, as Kris knew, automated sculptures became among the most highly prized possessions of the Kunstkammer collectors. On the fascination with automatons, see Bredekamp, The Lure of Antiquity and the Cult of the Machine, 46–51.

47.Kris and Kurz referred to Warburg’s 1902 essay “Bildniskunst and florentinisches Bürgertum,” republished in the 1932 volume of Warburg’s papers, Die Erneuerung der heidnischen Antike: Kulturwissenschaftliche Beiträge zur Geschichte der europäischen Renaissance, ed. Gertrud Bing (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner). See Kris and Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist, 73. The recent English translation appears as “The Art of Portraiture and the Florentine Bourgeoisie” in Warburg, The Renewal of Pagan Antiquity, 185–221 and 435–50.

48.Kris and Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist, 76. Steffen Krüger has described how Kris might have seen in Hitler the most recent and most dangerous example of self-identification with the artist as magicworker. See Krüger, “Die Legende vom Künstler als Propagandastrategie,” in Im Dienste des Ich: Ernst Kris heute, ed. Steffen Krüger and Thomas Röske (Vienna: Böhlau, 2013), 99–117, and “The Legend of the Artist: Family Romance and Führer Myth,” American Imago 71, no. 1 (Spring 2014): 29–51. See also Levy, “Ernst Kris,” 209–29. For an analysis and critique of this conception of image making and perception, see David Freedberg, The Power of Images: Studies in the History and Theory of Response (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989), 201–5. Freedberg argues that it is not the unconscious process of perception but instead the conscious creations of the artist that encourage the viewer to seek out lifelike illusions.

49.Kris and Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the Artist, 49. See Erwin Panofsky, Idea: Ein Beitrag zur Begriffsgeschichte der älteren Kunsttheorie (Leipzig: Studien der Bibliothek Warburg, 1924); English edition: Idea: A Concept in Art History, trans. Joseph J. S. Peake (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1968).

50.Kris to Saxl, 23 April 1934, GC, WIA. Panofsky himself had conceived of Idea itself as a companion study to a lecture on “The Idea of the Beautiful in Plato’s Dialogues” presented by Ernst Cassirer at the Warburg Library. See Panofsky, Idea, ix, and Levine, Dreamland of Humanists, 164–5.

51.Kris to Saxl, 23 April 1934, GC, WIA.

52.Ibid.

53.On the Lucerne Congress, see Ernest Jones, The Life and Work of Sigmund Freud, vol. 3 (New York: Basic Books, 1957), 191–2 and Ernest Jones to Sigmund Freud, 20 June 1934, The Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908–1939, ed. R. Andrew Paskauskas (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1993), 737–8.

54.See Ernst Kris, “Zur Psychologie der Karikatur,” Imago 20, no. 4 (1934): 451. (English version: Ernst Kris, “Psychology of Caricature,” in Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art, 174.) Translations from the German are Kris’s translations for the English version. Page numbers from the English version are included in parentheses.

55.Ibid., 451. (Ibid., 174.)

56.Ibid., 452. (Ibid., 174–5.)

57.Ibid. (Ibid., 175.)

58.Ibid. (Ibid.)

59.Ibid., 454. (Ibid., 177.)

60.Ibid., 455. (Ibid.)

61.Caricature represented a convergence, not divergence, of regressive and cognitive mental acts. On convergence and divergence in mental life, see Anton O. Kris, “Unlearning and Learning Psychoanalysis,” American Imago 70, no. 3 (Fall 2013): 341–55.

62.“Zur Psychologie der Karikatur,” 458. (“Psychology of Caricature,” 180.)

63.Ibid., 461. (Ibid., 183.)

64.Ibid., 457. (Ibid., 179.)

65.Fritz Saxl to Ernst Kris, 3 July 1934, GC, WIA. On Read’s appointment as editor, see James King, The Last Modern: A Life of Herbert Read (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1990), 117–18.

66.Saxl to Kris, 18 December 1934, GC, WIA.

67.Ernst Kris, review of W. R. Juynboll, Het komische genre in de ital[i]aansche Schilderkunst gedurende de zeventiende en de achtiende eeuw. Bijdrage tot de geschiedenis van de caricatuur, in Burlington Magazine 66, no. 383 (February 1935): 97. On the Carracci, whose work became crucial to Kris and Gombrich’s interpretation of caricature, see Donald Posner, Annibale Carracci: A Study in the Reform of Italian Painting around 1590, 2 vols. (London: Phaidon Press, 1971); Margaretha Rossholm Lagerlöf, Ideal Landscape: Annibale Carracci, Nicolas Poussin and Claude Lorrain (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990); and Gail Feigenbaum, “Practice in the Carracci Academy,” in The Artist’s Workshop, ed. Peter M. Lukehart, Studies in the History of Art, 38 (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 1993).

68.See Steffen Krüger, Das Unbehagen in der Karikatur: Kunst, Propaganda und persuasive Kommunikation im Theoriewerk Ernst Kris’ (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 2011), 157, and Levy, “Ernst Kris,” 216.

69.Kris to Saxl, 24 October 1934, GC, WIA.

70.Kris seems to have kept Schlosser’s comment even from Gombrich, only informing Saxl so as to convince him of the importance of finding places for Gombrich and Kurz at the Warburg Institute. In later years Gombrich recalled that Schlosser had deplored anti-Semitism at the university and had condemned acts of intimidation by the Deutsche Studentenschaft. He knew that Schlosser had stopped taking on Jewish doctoral students because, Gombrich explained, he did not believe that he could find them employment. Gombrich also stated, however, that he had been told that Schlosser concluded a postcard to a colleague in Florence with the salutation, “Heil Hitler.” For Gombrich, Schlosser’s “internal contradiction” with regard to the Anschluss remained a painful enigma. See E. H. Gombrich, “Einige Erinnerungen an Julius von Schlosser als Lehrer,” Kritische Berichte XVI, no. 4 (1988): 9.

71.Kris to Saxl, 7 December 1934, GC, WIA.

72.Ibid.

73.Ibid.

74.Ibid.

75.Ibid.

76.Ibid.

77.Ibid.

78.Kris to Saxl, 9 January 1935, GC, WIA. Immediately before the war, Kris did begin work on a new psychology of art. See Kris, “On Inspiration: Preliminary Notes on Emotional Conditions in Creative States,” International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 20, nos. 3–4 (July–October 1939): 377–89.

79.Bettina Warburg was the daughter of Aby Warburg’s brother Paul Warburg, and Edward the son of another brother, Felix Warburg. A naturalized American citizen, Bettina Warburg had trained as a psychiatrist in London. She belonged to the American Psychoanalytic Association, through which she organized and financed the emigration of psychiatrists and psychoanalysts from Germany. The Viennese psychoanalyst Hermann Nunberg, who was married to Marianne Kris’s sister, worked with Bettina Warburg in New York. Edward Warburg, also a naturalized American, served as a trustee for the Museum of Modern Art and as the chief financial sponsor for the newly founded American Ballet. See Ron Chernow, The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family (New York: Random House, 1993), 312–13, 342–7, and 439. On Nunberg’s career, see Mühlleitner, Biographisches Lexikon der Psychoanalyse, 236–7. Kris first approached Bettina Warburg and Edward Warburg about Kurz at the psychoanalytic congress in Lucerne and he kept Saxl informed of his efforts in this regard. See Kris to Saxl, 7 December 1934, GC, WIA.

80.Kris to Saxl, 7 December 1934, GC, WIA.

81.Ernst Kris to Edward Warburg, 8 January 1935, carbon copy, GC, WIA. In German in the original.

82.Ibid.

83.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

84.Edward Warburg to Ernst Kris, 4 March 1935, carbon copy, GC, WIA. In English in the original. Edward Warburg responded only after Bettina Warburg intervened directly with her cousin. See Kris to Saxl, 25 April 1935, GC, WIA.

85.Kris to Saxl, 7 December 1934, GC, WIA.

86.Kris to Saxl, 25 April 1935, GC, WIA. At the time, the future of the Warburg Institute generated severe intrafamilial conflict and bitterness. In 1933, the German government allowed the Warburg Library to move to London on condition that the transfer drew no publicity and that the books traveled to England only as a three-year loan. In 1935, from New York, Felix Warburg exerted pressure within the family to bring the institute to the United States after the loan’s expiration. The patriarch and director of the family’s financial affairs in Germany, Max Warburg, and his son Eric Warburg strenuously opposed the plan. During 1935, Hitler sought cordial military and diplomatic understandings with the British government—the Anglo-German naval agreement was signed in June. At the same time, the Völkischer Beobachter accused the Warburg family of seeking to profit financially from the eventual selling and dispersal of the library. The German Warburgs therefore expected Hitler’s government to cancel the loan and retaliate against the family if the books left England and moved to the United States. Ultimately, Eric Warburg convinced his New York cousins to accept a London home for the institute. In 1936, Samuel Courtauld gave it an endowment and the University of London provided it with space. See Chernow, The Warburgs, 407–8.

87.Kris to Saxl, 25 April 1935, GC, WIA.

88.Kris to Saxl, 7 December 1934, GC, WIA.

89.See Gertrud Bing to E. H. Gombrich, 8 January 1935, GC, WIA.

90.Bing to Gombrich, 28 September 1935, GC, WIA. See also Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 47.

91.On Gombrich’s fellowship, see Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 48–50 and Gombrich, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” 19–20.

92.Bing to Gombrich, 13 July 1936, GC, WIA. On his travel, see Kris to Saxl, 2 October 1935, GC, WIA.

93.Kris to Saxl, 25 April 1935, GC, WIA.

Chapter 4: Daumier in Vienna, 1936

1.For a biography of Dantan, see Janet Seligman, Figures of Fun: The Caricature-Statuettes of Jean-Pierre Dantan (London: Oxford University Press, 1957).

2.Nothing, unfortunately, is at present known of the donor.

3.[Ernst Kris], Die Karikaturen des Dantan: Paris-London, 1831–1839, Ausstellung im Corps de Logis der neuen Hofburg, Herbst, 1933, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe (Vienna: J. Weiner, 1933), 3–4.

4.The most notorious writer of local Kulturpolitik, Karl Heinrich Waggerl, became an early, outspoken supporter of Hitler. On Austrian Kulturpolitik and the Heimat movement in literature, see Honegger, Thomas Bernhard, 45–54. School textbooks, emphasizing that Austria was a historically German nation, expressed the same views. See George Prochnik, The Impossible Exile: Stefan Zweig at the End of the World (New York: Other Press, 2014), 150.

5.On the cultural politics of the Salzburg Festival, see Michael P. Steinberg, The Meaning of the Salzburg Festival: Austria as Theater and Ideology, 1890–1930 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990), 84–141 and 196–231.

6.Saxl to Kris, 28 October 1932, GC, WIA.

7.On Sedlmayr’s support for Anschluss, see Wood, introduction to The Vienna School Reader, 12–13 and 36.

8.See Hans Sedlmayr, “Bruegel’s Macchia,” in The Vienna School Reader, ed. Wood, 323–76.

9.Dvořák, “Pieter Bruegel the Elder,” 91.

10.Ernst Kris and Leo Planiscig, Kleinkunst der italienischen Frührenaissance: III. Ausstellung, Juni–Juli 1936, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe (J. Weiner: Vienna, [1936]), 3.

11.Vincent van Gogh to Theo van Gogh, July 1885, in The Letters of Vincent Van Gogh, ed. Ronald de Leeuw, trans. Arnold Pomerans (London: Penguin Books, 1996), 306. Underlined in the original. On Van Gogh’s collection of Daumier lithographs, see Vincent van Gogh to Theo van Gogh, 3 September 1888, 9 September 1888, and 24 September 1888, ibid., 395, 398, and 406.

12. Conversations with Cézanne, ed. Michael Doran, trans. Julie Lawrence Cochran (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2001), 175. Unlike Daumier, Gavarni did not tackle politics, while Forain placed his drawings at the service of the French war effort in 1914. See Edward Lucie-Smith, The Art of Caricature (London: Orbis Publishing, 1981), 78, 81, and 92.

13.For a study of Daumier’s experimentation in various artistic media, see Bruce Laughton, Honoré Daumier (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996).

14.Daumier’s illustrations appeared in volume 9 of La Comédie humaine, including depictions of Vautrin and old Goriot from Le Père Goriot. See Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” 40.

15.Honoré de Balzac, Lost Illusions, trans. Herbert J. Hunt (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 299.

16.Ibid., 314. On the themes of spirituality and social criticism in Balzac’s work, see for example Philippe Bertault, Balzac and the Human Comedy, trans. Richard Monges (New York: New York University Press, 1963). For Balzac as a social novelist and social psychologist, the essential reading remains Georg Lukács, Studies in European Realism (New York: Grosset and Dunlap, Universal Library, 1964), 21–84. Judith Wechsler analyzes Balzac’s theory and methods of observation and their relation to caricature in A Human Comedy, pp. 20–39.

17.Stefan Zweig, The World of Yesterday, trans. Benjamin W. Huebsch and Helmut Ripperger (Lincoln, NE and London: University of Nebraska Press, Bison Book, 1964), 431–2.

18.Stefan Zweig, Balzac, trans. William and Dorothy Rose (New York: Viking Press, 1946), 40. Zweig’s abbreviated study of Balzac appeared posthumously. He had begun the book in exile in London, before coming to the United States and finally Brazil. His wife Lotte ensured that the manuscript reached Zweig from Britain, perhaps, as George Prochnik writes, to encourage or revive an identification with the novelist. For a short time in Brazil, Zweig did work enthusiastically on the biography. For a study of Zweig’s life and spirit in exile, see Prochnik, The Impossible Exile; on Zweig and Balzac specifically, see pp. 258–9 and 335–6.

19.On the creation, diffusion, and prosecution of Louis-Philippe’s caricature as a pear, see Wechsler, A Human Comedy, 68–75; Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” 40; and Kerr, Caricature and French Political Culture, 141–5.

20.Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” 40.

21.See T. J. Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois: Artists and Politics in France 1848–1851 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1999), 116–17.

22.Judith Wechsler has traced Daumier’s personal struggle in his figure of the jester. See Wechsler, A Human Comedy, 170–1.

23.For background to Kris’s participation at Pontigny, see Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 230. On Kris’s participation at Pontigny and for conference topics, see Enid McLeod, Living Twice: Memoirs (London: Hutchinson Benham, 1982), 59–66, 89–90, 93–4, and 111–12. I am grateful to Steffen Krüger for drawing my attention to McLeod’s autobiography.

24.Albert Camus, “Roger Martin du Gard,” in Lyrical and Critical Essays, trans. Ellen Conroy Kennedy (New York: Vintage Books, 1968), 260.

25.Ibid., 270.

26.Ibid., 272.

27.Roger Martin du Gard, Jean Barois (1913), trans. Stuart Gilbert (New York: Viking Press, 1949), 22.

28.Ibid., 62. See also 13–19 and 56–9.

29.Ibid., 180–1.

30.Ibid., 182.

31.Jean Améry, On Aging: Revolt and Resignation (1968), trans. John D. Barlow (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1994), 84.

32.Jean Améry, On Suicide: A Discourse on Voluntary Death (1976), trans. John D. Barlow (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999), 11.

33.Camus, “Roger Martin du Gard,” 285. In January 1942, Martin du Gard wrote to Stefan Zweig that the next generation would build the world anew and that their own generation must be able to exit it with dignity. See Prochnik, The Impossible Exile, 339. For the career and ideas of Martin du Gard, see David L. Schalk, Roger Martin du Gard: The Novelist and History (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1967).

34.See McLeod, Living Twice, 112. Martin du Gard recalled how André Gide distanced himself from the younger generation who were trying to come to terms with this question at the 1937 conference. See Martin du Gard, Notes on André Gide (1951), trans. John Russell (New York: Helen Marx Books, 2005), 79–82. During the war, the Pontigny conference was reconvened at Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts, bringing together American academics and French scholars-in-exile, including Jean Wahl, Rachel Bespaloff, and Claude Lévi-Strauss. On the wartime meetings and their prewar history, see Christopher Benfey and Karen Remmler, eds., Artists, Intellectuals, and World War II: The Pontigny Encounters at Mount Holyoke College, 1942–1944 (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006).

35.Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 230. Evonne Levy has suggested that a political critique was also implicit in Kris and Gombrich’s research into the Naumburg Cathedral sculptures that they undertook at the same time as the caricature project. See Levy, “Ernst Kris und der Nationalsozialismus: Politische Subtexte in einem verschollenen Experiment über Reaktionen auf die Chorfiguren des Naumburger Doms (1933–1935),” in Im Dienste des Ich: Ernst Kris heute, ed. Krüger and Röske, 83–97.

36.See Honoré Daumier: Zeichnungen, Aquarelle, Lithographien, Kleinplastiken, Ausstellung, 21 November–21 Dezember 1936 (Vienna: Albertina, Kulturbund, 1936), 5. The exhibition bore the imprimatur of an honorary committee that included Schuschnigg. The Austrian chancellor attended the exhibition’s opening (see Levy, “Ernst Kris,” 212). The French ambassador to Austria, Gabriel Puaux, was also a member of the committee and assisted as an intermediary, helping to obtain loans from public museums in Paris. In 1938, as France sought to reassert its presence in the Middle East, Puaux was appointed high commissioner in Syria. See Philip Shukry Khoury, Syria and the French Mandate: The Politics of Arab Nationalism, 1920–1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press), 574–5. In the 1960s, Puaux published a political memoir of Austria under Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, Mort et Transfiguration de l’Autriche 1933–1955 (Paris: Librairie Plon, 1966).

37.Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 133.

38.On the assembling of the exhibition, see Honoré Daumier, Ausstellung, 21 November–21 Dezember 1936, 5–6. The Albertina co-sponsored the exhibition with the Austrian Kulturbund. Like Kris, Benesch remained in Vienna until the Anschluss forced him into exile in the United States. During the war, he published a study of book illustrations from Rubens to Daumier that was both a history of art and history of ideas. See Otto Benesch, Artistic and Intellectual Trends from Rubens to Daumier as Shown in Book Illustration (Cambridge, MA: Department of Printing and Graphic Arts, Harvard College Library, 1943). After the war, Benesch returned to Vienna and the Albertina. In 1947, he became the collection’s director, a position that he held until 1961. See Barbara Dossi, Albertina: The History of the Collection and Its Masterpieces (Munich: Prestel, 1999), 158. After his return, Benesch wrote about the Albertina’s history in “A Short History of the Albertina Collection” (1948) and “Die Albertina” (1959), both essays republished in Collected Writings, vol. 4. After completing his directorship, he wrote Master Drawings in the Albertina: European Drawings from the 15th to the 18th Century (1964), trans. Felice Stampfle and Ruth Kramer (Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society Publishers, n.d.).

39.The Konzerthaus incident is described in Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 272.

40.Kris to Saxl, 10 August [1936], GC, WIA.

41.G. E. R. Gedye, Betrayal in Central Europe: Austria and Czechoslovakia: Fallen Bastions (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1939), 186.

42.On the Austro-German understandings, see Gedye, Betrayal in Central Europe, 180–91. In Holland, in advance of direct orders from Germany, Seyss-Inquart enforced anti-Semitic legislation modeled on German racial laws. See Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews (1961) (New York: Harper and Row, Harper Colophon Books, 1979), 365–82. The International Military Tribunal recorded that the deportation of Jews ordered by Seyss-Inquart entered strongly in his conviction and subsequent execution in 1946 (ibid., 690 and 713). As Nuremberg prosecutor Telford Taylor described, Seyss-Inquart epitomized the mentality of the Austrian civil servant who sought to revive Habsburg imperial ambitions in alliance with Hitler’s Greater Germany. Only toward the end of the war did his criminal actions raise qualms in him. See Taylor, The Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials: A Personal Memoir (New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 1993), 439–44.

43.Gedye, Betrayal in Central Europe, 192–4.

44.According to Kris in his interview with K. R. Eissler, Freud had decided against Fenichel as editor of Imago because “he found Fenichel too doctrinaire. Too doctrinaire means that he had a political opinion and this political opinion could influence his editorial activity” (Kris, interview with K. R. Eissler, 15 June 1953, 1, Box 117, SF). Regarding Freud and Reich—“the prelude to the Fenichel story”—Kris described how Freud drew a distinction between doctrinaire and revolutionary thought: “Here [with Reich] it was clearly, absolutely clearly, his [Freud’s] rejection of Marxism as too doctrinaire. If it would have been during the time of revolution [in der Revolution], that would have been something different. But a doctrinaire system was unacceptable. And moreover it, the whole of it, seemed to him too unpsychological. The subordination of psychological thinking to materialism seemed to him implausible” (ibid., 23–4). Author’s translation from the German interview. Another example of Freud’s attitude toward revolutionary, as opposed to doctrinaire, thinking derives also from this time. In 1932, Freud signed a Left-leaning, antiwar petition circulated by the German physician Dr. Wladimir Eliasberg intended for the Geneva antiwar congress in July. This “call to physicians of all countries” warned that the economic crisis would lead to war. It stated further: “It is Soviet Russia that faces the most immediate threat. An attack on this country, which desires peaceful reconstruction, means a new world war.” Author’s translation from the German. See Wladimir Eliasberg, Box 24, SF.

45.Cited by Jacoby, The Repression of Psychoanalysis, 94. For a discussion of Reich, Fenichel, and Kris, see Jacoby, 83–97. On the cooperation and friction between Reich and Fenichel, and on Reich’s important role in the Vienna Psychoanalytic Institute’s Technical Seminar and Ambulatorium, where Reich was appointed the first tenured doctor in 1925, see Danto, Freud’s Free Clinics, 100, 125–6, 160, and 269–71. As George Makari points out, Kris and Waelder attended Reich’s Technical Seminar. For a cogent account of the professional and intellectual debates within the interwar psychoanalytic community in Vienna, see Makari, Revolution in Mind, 388–466. On the theory and practice of psychology in Vienna in the era of municipal reform, see Sheldon Gardner and Gwendolyn Stevens, Red Vienna and the Golden Age of Psychology, 1918–1938 (New York: Praeger, 1992).

46.Kris to Saxl, 14 September 1936, GC, WIA.

47.Ibid.

48.Ibid. For National Socialism’s use of the word, Sippe (kin), see Victor Klemperer, The Language of the Third Reich: LTI-Lingua Tertii Imperii: A Philologist’s Notebook, trans. Martin Brady (Continuum: London, 2002), 80.

49.Kris to Saxl, 14 September 1936, GC, WIA.

50.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

51.Ibid.

52.Ibid. Von Dehmel, perhaps as Kris’s colleague or at Kris’s request, later assessed Freud’s antiquities at an unusually low value, reducing the tax imposed by the authorities on Freud when he left Vienna. See Mark Edmundson, The Death of Sigmund Freud: The Legacy of His Last Days (New York: Bloomsbury, 2007), 116.

53.Ibid.

54.Kris to Saxl, 22 October 1936, GC, WIA.

55.Ibid. On the Warburg Institute, the AAC, and negotiations to keep the institute in England, see Elizabeth Sears, “The Warburg Institute, 1933–1944: A Precarious Experiment in International Collaboration,” Art Libraries Journal 38, no. 4 (2013): 8–11. See also Dorothea McEwen, “A Tale of One Institute and Two Cities: The Warburg Institute,” in German-Speaking Exiles in Great Britain, ed. Ian Wallace (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1999).

56.For a list of exhibitions devoted to Daumier’s work, see “Exhibitions,” in Daumier 1808–1879, exhibition organized by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, Paris, and the Phillips Collection, Washington, 588–93. Michel Melot has explored the exhibitions of Daumier’s works in France, and the nuances of the responses to them, against the background of political conflicts in the Third Republic, not only between republicans and conservatives but also between moderate republicans who emphasized Daumier as a painter and left-wing republicans who stressed Daumier the printmaker and caricaturist. See Michel Melot, “Daumier, Art, and Politics,” ibid., 60–9. Kris and Gombrich’s Vienna exhibition would reflect most closely the left-wing republican perspective.

57. Ausstellung Honoré Daumier 1808–1879: Gemälde, Aquarelle, Zeichnungen, Plastik, 21 February–31 March 1926, Galerie Matthiesen, Berlin (Berlin: Otto Elsner, [1926]). Emil Waldmann, who co-organized the Berlin exhibition and wrote the catalog introduction, assisted Kris in assembling the Vienna exhibition.

58.Otto Benesch, “Honoré Daumier: Zur Ausstellung in der Albertina 1937,” Österreichische Rundschau, 3 Jg., Heft 2 (1937), reprinted in Collected Writings, vol. 4, 106.

59.Ibid.

60.See Melot, “Daumier, Art, and Politics,” 64.

61.Kris reproduced these and the following illustrations in the exhibition’s catalog.

62.Ernst Kris, “Honoré Daumier” (1936) in Honoré Daumier, Ausstellung, 21 November–21 Dezember 1936, 7. Imprisoned in 1944 in one of Hitler’s asylums, the writer Hans Fallada recalled a Daumier cartoon given him by a friend: “one of those portraits of parliamentarians that he did by the hundred, with their stupid, sly and brutish faces … in my own mind I translated [its title] simply as ‘Nazi mug.’ ” See Fallada, A Stranger in My Own Country: The 1944 Prison Diary, trans. Allan Blunden (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2015), 69.

63.Balzac, Lost Illusions, 387.

64.See ibid., 391.

65.Thus, as Le Men notes, when he depicted the figure in print, it was “drawn by Daumier from every conceivable angle.” See Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” 38.

66.Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois, 116.

67.Ibid., 117. Édouard Papet writes, “With Ratapoil, Daumier simultaneously synthesized and subverted the sculptural genres that predominated toward the end of the July Monarchy: the caricature, the bourgeois statuette, and the commemorative public monument,” in Papet, “‘He Also Does Sculpture,’” in Daumier 1808–1879, exhibition organized by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, Paris, and the Phillips Collection, Washington, 55–6. For a chronology of the appearance and survival of Ratapoil both in print and in stone, see ibid., 276–87.

68.Jacques Ellul, Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner (New York: Vintage Books, 1973), 24.

69.Kris, “Honoré Daumier,” 7–8. Clark’s analysis, like Kris’s, asserts the existence of that identification. See Clark, The Absolute Bourgeois, 117. For an examination of Daumier’s representations of Don Quixote from the beginning to the end of his career—pre-and post-Ratapoil—see Daumier 1808–1879, exhibition organized by the National Gallery of Canada, Ottawa, the Réunion des Musées Nationaux/Musée d’Orsay, Paris, and the Phillips Collection, Washington, 516–41.

70.James, Daumier, 24.

71.Ibid., 23.

72.Ibid., 24.

73.Ibid., 30. Judith Wechsler cites Baudelaire’s statement in “The Issue of Caricature,” 317. Agnes Mongan noted “the writer’s pleasure, his puzzlement and his desire to explain both” in James’s reaction to coming across Daumier’s lithographs in a Left Bank bookshop. See Mongan, introduction to Honoré Daumier 1808–1879: The Armand Hammer Daumier Collection (Los Angeles: Armand Hammer Foundation, 1982), 10.

74.Victor Hugo, Selected Poems of Victor Hugo, trans. E. H. and A. M. Blackmore (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), 117.

75.Kris, “Honoré Daumier,” 8.

76.Ibid., 9.

77.Ibid.

78.Gertrud Bing, “Fritz Saxl (1890–1948): A Memoir,” in Fritz Saxl 1890–1948: A Volume of Memorial Essays from His Friends in England, ed. D. J. Gordon (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1957), 9.

79.Saxl to Kris, 27 January 1937, GC, WIA.

80.Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 230. The certificate of Kris’s membership in the Ordre National de la Légion d’Honneur is in Box OV 1, EK. No further information is available on the process behind Kris’s membership (Jean Beysett, Grande Chancellerie de la Légion d’Honneur, letter to author, 27 October 2004).

81.Leonie Gombrich, conversation with the author, 4 January 2008. On the day of Gombrich’s marriage Kris wrote Saxl with the news. See Kris to Saxl, 16 October 1936, GC, WIA. Richard Gombrich became Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford and a leading figure in the field of Buddhist Studies.

82.Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 135.

83.Fritz Saxl, “Why Art History?” (1948), in Lectures, vol. 1 (London: The Warburg Institute, University of London, 1957), 355. For a discussion of Saxl’s interpretation of Guernica, see Rose, Survival of Images, 151–2.

84.Ernst Kris, “The Imagery of War,” Dayton Art Institute Bulletin XV, no. 1 (October 1942): [1–2].

85.Ibid., [5]. For a recent study of the depiction of war in European art, see James Clifton and Leslie M. Scattone, The Plains of Mars: European War Prints, 1500–1825 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009).

86.Recently, Carlo Ginzburg has emphasized the significant role of Picasso’s own experiment with classicism in the creative and political genesis of Guernica. See Ginzburg, “The Sword and the Lightbulb: A Reading of Guernica,” in Disturbing Remains: Memory, History, and Crisis in the Twentieth Century, ed. Michael S. Roth and Charles G. Salas (Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2001), esp. 125–56.

Chapter 5: The Caricature Book, 1936–38

1.Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 228–9.

2.See Kris to Saxl, 4 February 1937 and Saxl to Kris, 8 February 1937, GC, WIA; Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 51; and Gombrich, “Sir Ernst Gombrich,” interview by Wimmer, 133.

3.Saxl to Kris, 5 March 1937, GC, WIA.

4.Kris to Saxl, 13 October 1937, GC, WIA.

5. Die Karikatur (unpublished German ms) and Caricature (unpublished English ms), property of the Archive of E. H. Gombrich Estate, at the Warburg Institute Archive, London. © Literary Estate of E. H. Gombrich (hereafter cited as Gombrich Archive, WIA). The question of course arises as to which manuscript should be considered the final prewar version. Both versions have equal status. The London translation of the Viennese manuscript was the version intended for publication and the analysis here follows that translation. It utilizes the Vienna manuscript to fill in certain gaps, but it does not offer new English translations, with the exception of the foreword, which Gombrich translated only partially into English. I have preserved the unedited punctuation and grammar of Gombrich’s English version, and have included original German phrases with the English where such clarification seemed useful. It is not yet possible to determine exactly when Gombrich completed the English translation. The Gombrich Archive possesses partial drafts of lectures on caricature that Gombrich adapted from the caricature book years after he and Kris ended the book project: a four-page draft, “The Caricature Style”; a partial draft of lectures, pages numbered 3–104; and a thirteen-page manuscript of a radio talk in German, “Das Wesen der Karikatur.” Gombrich thus incorporated various ideas from the book manuscript into his writings throughout his career.

6.Foreword to Caricature ms, page inserted in Die Karikatur. Underlined in the original.

7.Ibid.

8.Ibid.

9.Ibid. Author’s translation.

10.Ibid. Author’s translation.

11.Gombrich described Kris’s intention in his letter to the author, 1 March 2000. See also Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 51.

12.Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, Caricature ms, 2. Underlined in the original.

13.Ibid., 12.

14.Ibid., 14–15.

15.Ibid., 25.

16.Ibid., 26.

17.Ibid., 30.

18.Ibid., 33.

19.Ibid., 35.

20.Ibid., 36. Underlined in the original.

21.Ibid., 42–3.

22.Ibid., 53. Here Gombrich translated Kippcharakter as “character switch” rather than “switch character” as he did throughout the remainder of the manuscript.

23.Freud perhaps anticipated this interpretive approach in Civilization and Its Discontents, where he explained the limits of the analogy between archeology and psychoanalysis. There he wrote that in the mind, unlike the archeological site, various layers co-resided or overlapped: “[A]ll the earlier phases of development continue to exist alongside the latest one … And the observer would perhaps only have to change the direction of his glance or his position in order to call up the one view or the other.” See The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. James Strachey (London: Hogarth Press and the Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1953–1974), vol. 21, p. 70.

24.Kris and Gombrich, Caricature ms, 54–5.

25.Ibid., 105.

26.Ibid., 106.

27.Ibid., 106 n. 1.

28.Ibid.

29.Ibid.

30.Ibid., 86.

31.Ibid., 87.

32.Ibid., 88.

33.Ibid.

34.Ibid., 90.

35.Ibid.

36.Ibid., 111–12.

37.Ibid., 112.

38.Ibid., 116.

39.Ibid., 117.

40.Ibid., 118.

41.Ibid., 119.

42.Ibid.

43.Ibid., 125.

44.Ibid., 119.

45.Ibid., 143.

46.Ibid., 155.

47.Ibid., 156.

48.Ibid.

49.Ibid.

50.Ibid., 161.

51.Ibid.

52.Ibid., 163.

53.Ibid., 166.

54.Ibid., 167.

55.Ibid. Melot has pointed out that in the early 1830s Daumier lithographs shared in the Romantic rebellion and received support from French Romantics, including Hugo; under the Second Empire, however, classicists approvingly linked his caricatures to a lost humanism. See Melot, “Daumier, Art, and Politics,” 65–6. Between the two world wars, an edition of Daumier’s antiwar lithographs was published in Germany. See Daumier on War, introduction by Hans Rothe (1926; reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1977).

56.Kris and Gombrich, Caricature ms, 168.

57.Ibid.

58.Ibid., 172–3.

59.Ibid., 173.

60.Ibid.

61.Ibid., 175

62.Ibid., 174.

63.Ibid., 175.

64.Ibid., 176.

65.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

66.Ibid., 178.

67.Ibid., 180.

68.Ibid., 181.

69.Ibid., 182.

70.Ibid., 183.

71.Ibid., 183.

72.Ibid., 184.

73.Ibid.

74.Ibid., 184.

75.Ibid., 185.

76.Ibid., 185n.

77.Ibid., 185–6.

78.Ibid., 186n. Pierre Cabanne similarly likened Daumier to Balzac in their shared interest in nocturnal luminance—for what it revealed in the shadow world around them and for its magnetic effect on viewers. See Pierre Cabanne, Daumier, trans. Lisa Davidson (Paris: Vilo Publishing, Les éditions de l’Amateur, 1999), 7.

79.Kris and Gombrich, Caricature ms, 189.

80.Ibid., 191.

81.Ibid., 191n.

82.Ibid., 193. Italics added.

83.Ibid.

84.Ibid., 200.

85.Ibid., 201.

86.Ibid.

87.Ibid.

88.Ibid., 202. Underlined in the original.

89.Ibid., 203.

90.Ibid., 204.

91.Ibid., 204–5. Underlined in the original.

92.Ibid., 209.

93.Ibid., 209–10.

94.Ibid., 213.

95.Ibid.

96.Ibid., 213–14. In the London manuscript, Gombrich omitted the sentence referring to the Dadaists, Klee, and Ernst (Die Karikatur ms, 213). The translation of this sentence is my own.

97.Ibid., 214. Underlined in the original.

98.Years later, Edgar Wind criticized both caricature drawing and Expressionist art, arguing that “Expressionist painting as a whole, even with such remarkable talents as Beckmann and Kirchner, became caught in that most cantankerous of genres, the serious cartoon; but that was not just a German obsession.” See Wind, Art and Anarchy (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1964), 133. According to Wind, caricature had cut itself off from its political and social moorings: “The fact that the best cartoonists of our age have abandoned their medium for the grand manner, or confine themselves to weird social burlesque in the style of Thurber, may possibly account for the scarcity of talent in current political caricature. Or has modern conformism become so strong that caricature, deprived of its topical role, can display itself only as a ‘fine art’?” (ibid., 133–4.)

99.Kris and Gombrich, Caricature ms, 217.

100.Ibid., 218.

101.Ibid., 219.

102.Ibid., 219–20.

103.Ibid., 221–2.

104.Ibid., 222. Underlined in the original.

105.Ibid., 223.

106.Ibid., 228–9.

107.Ibid., 230.

108.Ibid., 234n.

109.Ibid., 243–4.

110.Ibid., 244.

111.Ibid., 254.

112.Primo Levi, The Periodic Table (1975), trans. Raymond Rosenthal (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Everyman’s Library, 1996), 37.

Chapter 6: From Vienna to London and New York, 1938–41

1.On the British Journal of Medical Psychology and the British Psychoanalytic Society, see Adam Phillips, Winnicott (London: Penguin Books, 2007), 39–41. For Freud, Rickman, Rivers, and Jones, see Jones to Freud, 25 January 1920, 364; Freud to Jones, 8 February 1920, 368; Jones to Freud, 1 October 1920, 391; Freud to Jones, 12 October 1920, 393; and Jones to Freud, 15 June 1921, 430, Complete Correspondence of Sigmund Freud and Ernest Jones 1908–1939. In the 1920s, Rickman helped organize the London Clinic for Psychoanalysis and joined its staff. See Danto, Freud’s Free Clinics, 151 and 168. For biographical information and a collection of Rickman’s writings, including reports for the War Office in the Second World War, see John Rickman, Selected Contributions to Psycho-Analysis (London: Karnac, 2003) and John Rickman, No Ordinary Psychoanalyst: The Exceptional Contributions of John Rickman, ed. Pearl King (London: Karnac, 2003).

2.Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, “The Principles of Caricature,” British Journal of Medical Psychology 17 (1938): 319.

3.Ibid.

4.Ibid., 322. Italics in the original.

5.Ibid., 321 n.1.

6.Ibid., 324.

7.Ibid., 331. Italics in the original.

8.Ibid., 337.

9.Ibid.

10.Ibid., 340.

11.Ibid., 337.

12.Ibid., 341.

13.Ibid., 319 n.1.

14.Ernst Kris and Leo Planiscig, Gefälschte Kunstwerke: V. Ausstellung, September–Oktober 1937, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe (J. Weiner: Vienna, [1937]), 3. Months earlier Kris and Planiscig had presented an exhibition of trial pieces sculpted by late Renaissance artists, including Giambologna and Bernini, which emphasized that the experimental process—not the final product—represented what was authentic in art. See Ernst Kris and Leo Planiscig, Bozzetti und Modelletti der Spätrenaissance und des Barock: IV. Ausstellung, Dezember 1936–Jänner 1937, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Sammlungen für Plastik und Kunstgewerbe (J. Weiner: Wien, [1936–7]). Bozzetto referred to the sketch and modelletto to the final design.

15.Kris and Planiscig, Gefälschte Kunstwerke, 3.

16.Ibid., 4.

17.Ibid., 3.

18.That same treacherous nakedness reappeared after the Second World War when politicians, lawyers, clerics, and academics all claimed that Austria had in actuality been the first republican victim of Hitler. On the persistence of the myth of Austria as Hitler’s first victim, see Hella Pick, Guilty Victim: Austria from the Holocaust to Haider (London: I. B. Tauris, 2000).

19.On Innitzer’s support for the Anschluss, his efforts to protect Church interests, and his attempts to accommodate Hitler, see Pauley, From Prejudice to Persecution, 298–9 and Evan Burr Bukey, Hitler’s Austria: Popular Sentiment in the Nazi Era, 1938–1945 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000), 35–6 and 96–106.

20.See The Vienna School Reader, ed. Wood, 12–13.

21.Leonie Gombrich, conversation with the author, 4 January 2008.

22.Anton O. Kris, letter to the author, 30 December 2007 and Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with the author, 17 January 2008. In recounting to his son the story of his final days in Vienna, Kris never specified which branch of the police called him in for questioning. For recollections of the Anschluss see, for example, Kandel, In Search of Memory; George Clare, Last Waltz in Vienna: The Rise and Destruction of a Family (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1982); and Egon Schwarz, Refuge: Chronicle of a Flight from Hitler, trans. Philip Boehm, Hildegarde and Hunter Hannum, and Caroline Wellbery (Riverside, CA: Ariadne Press, 2002). George Steiner recalls that period through the life of his Viennese father. See Steiner, Errata: An Examined Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998).

23.Consul to Warburg Institute, Imperial Institute Buildings, South Kensington, 6 May 1938, GC, WIA. The month of Kris’s emigration is incorrectly recorded as June in Herbert Haupt’s Jahre der Gefährdung: Das Kunsthistorische Museum 1938–1945 (Vienna: Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1995), 10. On the forced emigration from Austria, see Edward Timms and Ritchie Robertson, eds., The Austrian Exodus: The Creative Achievements of Refugees from National Socialism, Austrian Studies VI (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1995).

24.P. A. Lemoisne, “Preface,” Exhibition of a Century of French Caricature 1750–1850 with some English Caricatures of the Napoleonic Period, 10 March–6 April 1939 (The Anglo-French Art and Travel Society, 1939), 8.

25.Ibid., 10.

26.Ibid.

27.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 51. The reader was Edgar Wind, from whom Saxl had drawn information about psychoanalysis as early as 1932. Saxl, however, might also have been concerned with the possible impact on the status of a foreign institute in Britain. Years later, Gombrich referred to “a certain reluctance to publish a book which took many of its examples from topical cartoons such as those by David Low who was then at the height of his powers.” (Quoted in Levy, “Ernst Kris,” 214 n. 28.)

28.Ibid.

29.On the King Penguin series, see Jeremy Lewis, Penguin Special: The Life and Times of Allen Lane (London: Penguin Books, 2005), 143–5.

30.Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, Caricature (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1940), 5.

31.Ibid., 14.

32.Ibid., 15.

33.Ibid., 17.

34.Ibid., 22.

35.Ibid., 24.

36.Clive Bell, review of Portraits of Christ, by Ernst Kitzinger and Elizabeth Senior and Caricature, by Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, in New Statesman and Nation (22 February 1941): 196. Bell shared Read’s principled pacifism. His discomfort with new mass media and technological culture reflected both his commitment to the intellectual world of Bloomsbury and his attachment to the countryside and his country estate. In 1937, Bell’s son Julian was killed defending the Spanish republic at the battle of Brunete. See Peter Stansky and William Abrahams, Journey to the Frontier: Two Roads to the Spanish Civil War (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966), 38 and 394–6.

37.Bell, review of Portraits of Christ and Caricature, 196.

38.On Piper as a wartime artist, see Henry Pelling, Britain and the Second World War (Glasgow: William Collins and Sons, 1970), 322–3 and Frances Spalding, British Art since 1900 (London: Thames & Hudson, 1986), 128–39. After the war, CEMA became reincarnated as the Arts Council.

39.John Piper, “One Shilling, Coloured,” The Spectator (14 March 1941): 290.

40.Review of Caricature by Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, in Times Literary Supplement (8 March 1941): n.p.

41.Herbert Read, Art and Society (New York: Macmillan, 1937), 251–2.

42.On the New Burlington exhibition, see King, The Last Modern, 170–1. Just two years earlier, Read had published his Art Now: An Introduction to the Theory of Modern Painting and Sculpture (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1936). On artistic rebellion and the suppression of art in interwar Germany, see John Willett, Art and Politics in the Weimar Period: The New Sobriety, 1917–1933 (New York: Da Capo Press, 1996).

43.Herbert Read, foreword to Kokoschka: Life and Work, by Edith Hoffmann (London: Faber and Faber, 1947), 8.

44.Ibid.

45.On Goya’s influence on British satirical art, see Reva Wolf, Goya and the Satirical Print in England and on the Continent, 1730–1850 (Boston: David R. Godine and Boston College Museum of Art, 1991). On Read’s role in the display of Guernica, see King, The Last Modern, 171–2.

46.Herbert Read, Contemporary British Art (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1951), 23.

47.Ibid.

48.Ibid., 27.

49.See Asa Briggs, The BBC: The First Fifty Years (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), 114–15.

50.Herbert Read, “Multum in Parvo,” review of Portraits of Christ, by Ernst Kitzinger and Elizabeth Senior, and Caricature, by Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, The Listener (27 February 1941): 305.

51.Ibid., 305–6.

52.Ibid., 305.

53.On recruitment and staffing, see Olive Renier and Vladimir Rubinstein, Assigned to Listen: The Evesham Experience 1939–43 (London: BBC External Services, 1986), 15–16; Asa Briggs, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, vol. 3, The War of Words, revised edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 170–3; and Briggs, The BBC: The First Fifty Years, 175 and 188–9. On BBC governance, see Asa Briggs, Governing the BBC (London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1979).

54.Jessica Mitford, Hons and Rebels (New York: New York Review Books, 2004), 179–80.

55.“(Walter) ERNST KRIS,” Bodleian MS., Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 189/1–2, folio 177. For the date of the curriculum vitae, see folio 189.

56.See Kris, Curriculum Vitae, Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 1.1, Series 200, Sub-series R, Box 260, Folder 3098.

57.See Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 315–16, and Daniel Snowman, The Hitler Emigres: The Cultural Impact on Britain of Refugees from Nazism (London: Pimlico, 2003), 105–6.

58.See Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 86.

59.See Christopher Andrew, Her Majesty’s Secret Service: The Making of the British Intelligence Community (New York: Penguin Books, 1987), 479.

60.See Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 87.

61.Andrew, Her Majesty’s Secret Service, 480.

62.Ernst Kris to Esther Simpson, 10 July 1940, Bodleian MS., Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 189/1–2, folio 199.

63.Kris to Simpson, 20 August 1940, folio 205v.

64.Ernst Kris to Mark Abrams, 5 September 1940, Box 2, EK. Abrams, a monitor whom Kris had trained in England, headed the BBC Research Department in fall 1940. See Ernst Kris to S. Lawford Childs, 10 October 1940, Box 2, Folder 15, EK.

65.Kris to Abrams, 5 September 1940, Box 2, EK.

66.Ibid.

67.Ibid.

68.Ernst Kris to W. N. Newton, 6 September 1940, Box 2, Folder 15, EK.

69.Ernst Kris to John Salt, 15 November 1940, Box 2, Folder 17, EK. Salt was a BBC program director whose responsibilities eventually included monitoring, counter-propaganda, and overseas intelligence.

70.Ernst Kris to Mark Abrams, 22 December 1940, Box 2, EK.

71.On the University in Exile, the role of the Rockefeller Foundation, and the friction between the school and the foundation, see Peter M. Rutkoff and William B. Scott, New School: A History of the New School for Social Research (New York: Free Press, 1986), 84–106.

72.See Sears, “The Warburg Institute, 1933–1944,” 9.

73.See Hans Speier, “Introduction: Autobiographical Notes,” in The Truth in Hell and Other Essays on Politics and Culture, 1935–1987 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989), 14–15.

74.Ibid., 15.

75.Kris to Salt, 15 November 1940, Box 2, Folder 17, EK.

76.On Marshall’s role at the Rockefeller Foundation, in particular his efforts to build contacts in Europe in the 1930s, see William J. Buxton, “John Marshall and the Humanities in Europe: Shifting Patterns of Rockefeller Foundation Support,” Minerva 41, no. 2 (2003): 133–53. For the appraisal committee’s report, see p. 141.

77.On Marshall’s contributions to the study of politics and mass communication, see Brett Gary, The Nervous Liberals: Propaganda Anxieties from World War I to the Cold War (New York: Columbia University Press, 1999), 85–93.

78.See Paul F. Lazarsfeld, “An Episode in the History of Social Research: A Memoir,” in The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960, ed. Donald Fleming and Bernard Bailyn (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1969), 275–6. On Marshall’s support for Eisler, see Buxton, “Marshall,” 134 n.8 and 152.

79.Quoted in Rutkoff and Scott, New School, 89. On the split within the Rockefeller Foundation over providing support for Jewish scholars, see ibid., 95–6.

80.On the contrasting efforts of the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations, see Buxton, “Marshall,” pp. 148–9. On Marshall and antifascism, see Gary, Nervous Liberals, 107–8.

81.Ernst Kris, Curriculum Vitae, Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 1.1, Series 200, Sub-series R, Box 260, Folder 3098, Rockefeller Archive Center.

82.Ibid.

83.John Marshall, Interviews, 12 December 1940, Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 1.1, Series 200, Sub-series R, Box 260, Folder 3098. Hereafter cited as Interviews.

84.Marshall, Interviews. The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, which provided teachers with guidance on how to instruct students and the public in recognizing propaganda, professed political indifference to the source of propaganda. See Ralph W. Tyler, “Implications of Communications Research for the Public Schools” (1942 [1941]), in Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy, ed. Douglas Waples (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 155 and Gary, Nervous Liberals, 78.

85.Quoted in Ernst Kris, “The ‘Danger’ of Propaganda,” American Imago 2, no. 1 (1941), 8 n. 7.

86.See Gary, Nervous Liberals, 67–8.

87.Marshall, Interviews. Lasswell strongly recommended Kris to Marshall, although he described Kris as “someone whose speculation must be kept in touch with the evidence” (Marshall, Interviews). For Lasswell’s recommendation, see Harold Lasswell to John Marshall, 15 December 1940, Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 1.1, Series 200, Sub-series R, Box 260, Folder 3098. Gary discusses Kris and Lasswell’s views of the wartime role of social science. See Gary, Nervous Liberals, 118–21.

88.Marshall, Interviews. Kris gave a similar, albeit abbreviated, account of the interview: “I gave them my conditions: That I was not ‘neutral,’ that I would not associate with anybody who had ever been neutral or anti-British at any time of his life, etc. … I had a three-hour conference with their coordinator for radio and propaganda research, Lasswell, who flatly accepted all I wanted …” (Kris to Salt, 15 December 1940, Box 2, Folder 17, EK).

89.Kris and Speier, German Radio Propaganda, 35.

90.Ibid., 36.

91.Resolution, 21 March 1941, Rockefeller Foundation, Record Group 1.1, Series 200, Sub-series R, Box 260, Folder 3098.

92.Kris to Salt, 1 February 1941, Box 2, Folder 18, EK.

93.Kris and Speier, German Radio Propaganda, v.

94.See Speier, “Autobiographical Notes,” 6–14, and Rutkoff and Scott, New School, 107–13.

95.Hans Speier, “The Truth in Hell: Maurice Joly and The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion,” in The Truth in Hell, 283. The anti-Semitic authors who invented The Protocols of the Elders of Zion plagiarized from Joly’s dialogue, transforming Joly’s descriptions of Bonapartist political strategies into the protocols of a supposed Jewish world conspiracy. Speier wrote his essay to guard Joly from undeserved taint and preserve his status as an important political theorist. For a commentary on the history of Joly’s essay and its contemporary relevance, see Carlo Ginzburg, “Representing the Enemy: On the French Prehistory of the Protocols,” in Threads and Traces: True, False, Fictive, trans. Anne C. Tedeschi and John Tedeschi (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2012).

96.Speier, “The Truth in Hell,” 281.

97.Ibid., 282.

98.Ibid.

99.Speier, “Autobiographical Notes,” 23. For a discussion of Speier’s participation in the Totalitarian Communication Project and his move from the New School to Washington, see Daniel Morris Bessner, “The Night Watchman: Hans Speier and the Making of the American National Security State” (Ph.D. diss., Duke University, 2013), 129–42.

100.News of the Hitler–Stalin Pact hit Lynd particularly hard. See Gary, Nervous Liberals, 93–4.

101.See Ernst Kris and Howard White, “The German Radio Home News in Wartime,” in Radio Research 1942–1943, ed. Paul Lazarsfeld and Frank Stanton (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, Essential Books, 1944; reprint: New York: Arno Press, 1979), 181–208. On radio research at Columbia, see Lazarsfeld, “Episode in the History of Social Research,” 304–5, 310–13, and 326–31.

102.Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Modern American Culture (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1929, 1957). In 1935 the Lynds returned to Muncie to study the effects of the Depression. See Robert S. Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1937, 1965). For a recent extension of the Middletown study, see Dan Rottenberg, ed., Middletown Jews: The Tenuous Survival of an American Jewish Community (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997).

103.On Kracauer and Adorno, see Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923–1950 (Boston: Little, Brown, 1973), 21–2 and 66.

104.This account is based on material from David Culbert, “The Rockefeller Foundation, the Museum of Modern Art Film Library, and Siegfried Kracauer, 1941,” Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 13, no. 4 (1993): 495–511.

105.In her work Barry explored how motion pictures transformed visual art. In a letter to Kris, she explained that movie fragments and not primitive residues provided the material of supposedly unconscious, surrealist symbolism, writing that “my own preoccupation with the surrealists is to establish (as I believe) that much of their visual imagery comes from forgotten but very concrete memories of early French films seen in their early years i.e. 1901–1912” (Iris Barry to Ernst Kris, 9 May 1945, Box 2, EK). Like Kris and Gombrich, she concluded that primitivism was in crucial part not a primordial revival but a contemporary creation.

106.Iris Barry to John Marshall, 14 May 1941, in Culbert, “Rockefeller Foundation,” 499. In the wartime social sciences, Adorno also emphasized the necessity of “content analysis.” See T. W. Adorno, “Scientific Experiences of a European Scholar in America,” trans. Donald Fleming, in The Intellectual Migration: Europe and America, 1930–1960, ed. Fleming and Bailyn, 344.

107.John Marshall to Henry Allen Moe, John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, quoted in Culbert, “Rockefeller Foundation,” 505. Carlo Ginzburg, in “Details, Early Plans, Microanalysis: Thoughts on a Book by Siegfried Kracauer” (Threads and Traces, 186), has pointed out that Kracauer’s interpretation of film also showed the influence of Panofsky.

108.Siegfried Kracauer, From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947), 71.

109.Siegfried Kracauer, “Film 1928,” in The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays, trans. Thomas Y. Levin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), 320.

110.Siegfried Kracauer, “Propaganda and the Nazi War Film” (1942), supplement to From Caligari to Hitler, 299.

111.Ibid., 303. On the propaganda studies of Kris, Kracauer, and Adorno, see Louis Rose, “Interpreting Propaganda: Successors to Warburg and Freud in Wartime,” American Imago 60, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 122–30, and “Daumier in Vienna: Ernst Kris, E. H. Gombrich, and the Politics of Caricature,” Visual Resources: An International Journal of Documentation 23, nos. 1–2 (March–June 2007): 39–64.

112.Schapiro had first urged Kracauer to seek Barry’s support in the United States. On Schapiro’s support for and disagreements with Kracauer, see Mark M. Anderson, “Siegfried Kracauer and Meyer Schapiro: A Friendship,” New German Critique, no. 54 (Fall 1991): 19–29.

113.Meyer Schapiro, “The New Viennese School” (1936), in The Vienna School Reader, ed. Wood, 459.

114.Ibid., 482.

115.Kris to Salt, 1 February 1941, Box 2, Folder 18, EK.

116.See Gary, Nervous Liberals, 121–2. Kris, with other psychoanalysts, did provide advice to Walter Langer as he constructed his wartime case study of Hitler for the OSS. See Pick, Pursuit of the Nazi Mind, 133–4. Pick’s book includes a history of the OSS’s interest in psychological analysis (108–22) as well as an examination of the content and fate of Langer’s report (128–52). Like Kris, Erik Erikson also devoted attention to propaganda analysis. See Erikson, “Hitler’s Imagery and German Youth,” Psychiatry 5, no. 4 (November 1942): 475–93, and “Comments on Anti-Nazi Propaganda” (1945), in A Way of Looking at Things: Selected Papers from 1930 to 1980, ed. Stephen Schlein (New York: W. W. Norton, 1987).

117.Kris provided essential support to exiled family members. During the First World War, his older brother Paul, who had helped prepare Kris’s path toward Catholicism, had been a prisoner of war in Russia; after the war, he practiced law in Paris. In 1938, in an Austrian journal for refugees in France, he published legal advice to Austrian exiles, recommending that they seek protection in France by defining themselves as ex-Austrians. The designation carried a political message but no legal weight. Paul emigrated to Brazil via Portugal. Ernst Kris sent funds to him and his wife, and also helped his two nieces in Britain (Anton O. Kris and Anna Kris Wolff, conversation with the author, 17 January 2008). On Paul Kris in Paris, see Franz Goldner, Austrian Emigration 1938–1945 (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1979), 2. Kris shared with Saxl the responsibility for supporting Betty Kurth, who now lived in London. See Kris to Bing, 6 November 1942, GC, WIA.

118.Kris to Salt, 7 January 1941, Box 2, Folder 18, EK.

119.Kris to Bing, 6 November 1942, GC, WIA.

120.Discussing his father’s emigration, Anton O. Kris concluded, “I don’t think he ever recovered from leaving England.” Quoted in Emily A. Kuriloff, Contemporary Psychoanalysis and the Legacy of the Third Reich: History, Memory, Tradition (New York: Routledge, 2014), 39. Kuriloff explores diverse experiences of exile among psychoanalysts from the perspective of an interpersonal psychoanalyst.

121.Kris and Speier, German Radio Propaganda, 36.

122.Prior to German Radio Propaganda, Kris had completed several studies on mass communication, propaganda, and political terror, including “German Censorship Instructions for the Czech Press,” Social Research 8, no. 2 (May 1941): 238–46; “Morale in Germany,” American Journal of Sociology 47, no. 3 (November 1941): 352–61; “Mass Communication under Totalitarian Governments” (1942 [1941]), in Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy, ed. Waples; “German Propaganda Instructions of 1933,” Social Research 9, no. 1 (February 1942): 46–81; “The Covenant of the Gangsters,” Journal of Criminal Psychopathology 4, no. 3 (January 1943): 445–58; and “Danger and Morale,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 14, no. 1 (January 1944): 147–55.

123.“Expert Analyzes Nazi Propaganda,” New York Times, 8 December 1940. The article described Kris as a “Viennese psychologist” who had been on “the teaching staff of the Psychoanalysis Institute in Vienna” and “the war head of the monitoring service of the British Broadcasting Company.” The illustration that accompanied the article would have confirmed Kris’s concerns about the difficulty of countering Nazi propaganda in the United States: a photograph showed an elderly gentleman in bowler and overcoat, in undisturbed peace, feeding the swans in London’s Battersea Park.

124.Ernst Kris, “The Place of the Audience in German Propaganda,” ms, n.d., 14–15, Box 17, Folder 2, EK. Here Kris makes his own application of ideas developed by Freud in Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Kris explored Le Bon’s theories and the Freudian response further in an unpublished essay that he co-authored with a member of the Rockefeller research team, Hans Herma. See Ernst Kris and Hans Herma, “Hitler’s Views on Propaganda and Le Bon’s Psychology of the Crowd: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge,” ms, n.d., Box 17, Folder 2, EK.

125.Ernst Kris, “Some Problems of War Propaganda: A Note on Propaganda New and Old,” Psychoanalytic Quarterly 12 (1943): 387–8. For a study of Kris as propaganda analyst, see Krüger’s Das Unbehagen in der Karikatur.

126.Ibid., 399.

Chapter 7: War Work, 1941–45

1.Gombrich to Kris, 2 November 1944, Box 6, EK.

2.Gombrich to Kris, 3 January 1945, Box 6, EK.

3.E. H. Gombrich, “Myth and Reality in German Wartime Broadcasts” (1969), in Ideals and Idols: Essays on Values in History and in Art (London: Phaidon Press, 1979), 104–5.

4.Ibid., 105.

5.Elias Canetti, Party in the Blitz: The English Years (New York: New Directions Books, 2005), 9.

6.Fritz Saxl and Rudolf Wittkower, British Art and the Mediterranean (1948; reprint with a preface by Rudolf Wittkower, London: Oxford University Press, 1969). Katia Mazzucco discusses the 1941 Warburg Institute exhibition from which the book derived, including a review by Herbert Read, in “1941 English Art and the Mediterranean: A Photographic Exhibition by the Warburg Institute in London,” Journal of Art Historiography 5 (December 2011): 1–28. For a brief biography of Saxl, see Bing, “Fritz Saxl (1890–1948): A Memoir,” in Fritz Saxl 1890–1948, ed. Gordon. On the CEMA photo exhibitions, see Gombrich to Kris, 16 August 1943, Box 6, EK.

7.For political themes in Saxl’s lectures, see Rose, Survival of Images, 133–53.

8.Bing to Gombrich, 13 September 1939, GC, WIA.

9.On the wartime difficulties confronting the Warburg Institute, see Sears, “The Warburg Institute,” 12–14.

10.E. H. Gombrich to Esther Simpson, 12 April 1939, Bodleian MS., Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 187/1–3, folio 249.

11.Bing to Gombrich, 13 September 1939, GC, WIA.

12.Gombrich to Bing, 14 September 1939, GC, WIA.

13.See Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 47–8.

14.Gombrich to Bing, 8 October 1939, GC, WIA. Underlined in the original.

15.Gombrich to Bing, 8 October 1939, GC, WIA.

16.See Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, Caricature: An Essay on Its History and Meaning, ms, n.d., Box 17, EK. Kris saved the text of the essay, while Gombrich kept the appendix on art and physiognomy, the subject that he intended eventually to submit to Wittkower.

17.Kris and Gombrich, “Caricature: An Essay on Its History and Meaning,” Hist. Probl. 12, Box 17, EK. It is possible that Gombrich was referring to this manuscript when he recalled the difficulty of publishing a work that included Low’s caricatures. For Low’s creation, see The Complete Colonel Blimp, ed. Mark Bryant (London: Bellew Publishing, 1991).

18.E. H. Gombrich, “Art and Propaganda,” The Listener (7 December 1939): 1119.

19.Ibid., 1120.

20.Ibid., 1120.

21.Bing to Gombrich, 12 October 1939, GC, WIA.

22.See Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 58 and Gombrich, “Myth and Reality in German Wartime Broadcasts,” 93.

23.Richard Marriott, quoted in Renier and Rubinstein, Assigned to Listen, 16.

24.Gombrich to Bing, 21 February 1940, GC, WIA.

25.Ibid. Three years before the war, the archeologist Sir Leonard Woolley, who had undertaken excavations at Ur for the British Museum, published his book Abraham: Recent Discoveries and Hebrew Origins (London: Faber and Faber, 1936).

26.Gombrich to Bing, 21 February 1940, GC, WIA.

27.Gombrich to Bing, 11 May 1940, GC, WIA. Underlined in the original.

28.See Gombrich to Kris, 2 January 194[1] (the year was mistakenly typed as “1940”) and n.d. [ca. February 1942], Box 6, EK.

29.See Gombrich to Kris, 7 October 1940, Box 6, EK. Amadea Gombrich did not remain in Edinburgh, but eventually moved to London to find work. In 1942, she married Sir John Forsdyke, director of the British Museum, at Westminster Abbey. See Gombrich to Kris, 25 March 1942, Box 6, EK.

30.Gombrich to Bing, 6 June 1940, GC, WIA. Underlined in the original.

31.Gombrich to Bing, 7 July 1940, GC, WIA. By the end of the month, Gombrich had learned the address—“A.I.C. Huyton near Liverpool, Camp 3, House 166”—and relayed it to Esther Simpson of the AAC. See Gombrich to Simpson, 30 July 1940, Bodleian MS, Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, 187/1–3, folio 258. Gombrich told Kris of his father’s and Kurz’s internment in a letter the following month. See Gombrich to Kris, 17 August 1940, Box 6, EK.

32.E. H. Gombrich to Rudolf Wittkower, 25 July 1940, GC, WIA.

33.Gombrich to Kris, 7 October 1940, Box 6, EK. For first-person accounts of the internment camps, see Snowman, The Hitler Emigres, 107–15.

34.Ibid.

35.For Lady Violet Bonham Carter’s intervention, see Gombrich to Kris, 23 July 1941, Box 6, EK. For efforts by the Gombrichs to find a home and secure work, see Gombrich to Kris, 25 March 1942 and 25 November 1942, Box 6, EK.

36.See Gombrich to Kris, 25 November 1942 and 16 November 1943, Box 6, EK.

37.See Gombrich to Kris, 23 July 1941, Box 6, EK. See also Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 62, and Sears, “The Warburg Institute, 1933–1944,” 13.

38.[Saxl] to Gombrich, 7 August 1941, GC, WIA. Underlined in the original.

39.See Gombrich to Kris, 21 August 1941; n. d. [ca. February 1942]; and 25 March 1942, Box 6, EK.

40.T. Rowlandson and A. C. Pugin, The Microcosm of London (London: King Penguin Books, 1943; revised edition, 1947), 5.

41.Ibid., 7.

42.Ibid.

43.Ibid., 6.

44.Gombrich to Saxl, 20 August 1940, GC, WIA. See E. H. Gombrich, “The Artist and the Art of War,” The Listener (29 August 1940): 311–12.

45.E. H. Gombrich, preface to Assigned to Listen, by Renier and Rubinstein, 7.

46.Gombrich to Kris, 21 August 1941, Box 6, EK.

47.Gombrich to Kris, n. d. [ca. February 1942], Box 6, EK.

48.Ibid.

49.See Briggs, The BBC: The First Fifty Years, 207–8.

50.Gombrich to Kris, n. d. [ca. February 1942], Box 6, EK.

51.Ibid. On Oliver Whitley’s background, work, and resignation, see Asa Briggs, The History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, vol. 2, The Golden Age of Wireless, revised edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 399, and vol. 3, War of Words, 171 and 330–1.

52.Gombrich to Bing, 23 June 1941, GC, WIA. Ellipses in the original.

53.On Eden and appeasement, see R. A. C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement: British Policy and the Coming of the Second World War (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), 45–57 and 93–123; William R. Rock, British Appeasement in the 1930s (New York: Norton, 1977), 4–5 and 75–82; and A. J. P. Taylor, English History 1914–1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970), 379–80 and 421–3.

54.On the Economic Warfare division, its Special Operations Executive, and Dalton’s tenure, see Andrew, Her Majesty’s Secret Service, 475–7. One of the most detailed case studies and one of the most moving accounts of democratic antifascism is E. P. Thompson’s history of the service of his brother, Frank Thompson, in E. P. Thompson, Beyond the Frontier: The Politics of a Failed Mission: Bulgaria 1944 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1997).

55.On domestic reform and the war effort, see Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 130–1, 168, and 181–5.

56.Ibid., 133, 158–9, and 185–6.

57.For example, he wrote to Salt in January 1941: “The wave of anti-British feeling, which is still alive and kept alive by Moscow and Berlin, is a danger which we have no reason to minimize” (Kris to Salt, 7 January 1941, Box 2, Folder 18, EK).

58.See Kris and Speier, German Radio Propaganda, 214, 223–4, 284–5, 436–7, and 481–2.

59.Ibid., 285.

60.See Gombrich to Kris, 14 February 1941, Box 6, EK.

61.Gombrich to Saxl, 27 March 1941, GC, WIA. For background on the life, works, and political thought of Gerald of Wales, see Robert Bartlett, Gerald of Wales, 1146–1223 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press, 1982).

62.For a recent discussion of the dual state interpretation of fascism, see Robert O. Paxton, The Anatomy of Fascism (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 121–2.

63.Gombrich to Kris, 23 July 1941, Box 6, EK.

64.Gombrich to Kris, 14 February 1941, Box 6, EK.

65.Gombrich to Kris, 3 April 1941, Box 6, EK. In interviews with the psychiatrist Leon Goldensohn at the Nuremberg trials, Fritzsche again depicted Germans as fighting the two world wars only as wars of national defense. He asserted that the Second World War became a war of atrocities and a war to exterminate the Jews because the Nazis had defensively adopted the methods of Russian and German Communists and because French resistance fighters and Russian partisans began attacks on Germans. According to him, before the rise of the resistance and partisan movements in France, the Germans administered a “peaceful occupation” and in Russia “people were almost happy.” See Leon Goldensohn, The Nuremberg Interviews: An American Psychiatrist’s Conversations with the Defendants and Witnesses, ed. Robert Gellately (New York: Vintage Books, 2005), 65–7. Fritzsche also criticized as counter-productive the crude propaganda of Julius Streicher (ibid., 71–3) and the anti-Church ideology of Alfred Rosenberg (ibid., 74–5). But as Telford Taylor pointed out, in broadcasts after the invasion of Russia, Fritzsche’s characterization of Nazi Germany as victim included describing Germany as subject to “a new wave of international Jewish-democratic-bolshevistic agitation.” See Taylor, Anatomy of the Nuremberg Trials, 463. Fritzsche was acquitted at Nuremberg, but immediately upon release he was brought before the city’s Denazification Court (Spruchkammer), convicted, and sentenced to nine years of hard labor. He was pardoned in 1950 and died in 1953 (ibid., 612). On the organization of propaganda in Germany from 1933 to 1945, see David Welch, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda (London: Routledge, 1993).

66.Gombrich to Kris, 23 July 1941, Box 6, EK. Underlined in the original. Gombrich revived the analysis of propaganda contained in his letters from 1941 in his Creighton Lecture delivered nearly thirty years later. See Gombrich, “Myth and Reality in German Wartime Broadcasts.”

67.Kris to Gombrich, 2 January 1942 [misdated 1941], Gombrich Archive, WIA.

68.Ibid.

69.Gombrich to Kris, 29 January 1942, Box 6, EK. Underlined in the original.

70.Ibid.

71.Ibid.

72.Ibid.

73.Ibid. Even Charles de Gaulle, with his Catholic monarchist lineage and anti-Marxist animus, when urged by his interior minister to arrest Jean-Paul Sartre during the May 1968 student revolt, replied, “You cannot imprison Voltaire.”

74.Ibid. Years after the war Gombrich returned to this question of how to create viable revolutionary propaganda—one that “implies some kind of correspondence between inwardness and outward sign”—as a part of his exploration of schematized or ritualized expression. See Gombrich, “Ritualized Gesture and Expression in Art” (1966), in The Image and the Eye: Further Studies in the Psychology of Pictorial Representation (London: Phaidon Press, 1982), 74.

75.On efforts to formulate an antifascist philosophy during the war, see James D. Wilkinson, The Intellectual Resistance in Europe (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981).

76.Gombrich to Kris, 25 March 1942, Box 6, EK.

77.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

78.Ibid. During the war, in “The Subject of Poussin’s Orion” for the Burlington Magazine 84, no. 491 (February 1944), Gombrich pointed out how Poussin contained the problem of violence within his vision of nature: “he too conceived the ancient tale of violence and magic as a veiled and esoteric ‘hieroglyph’ of nature’s changing course” (41). Reprinted in Gombrich, Symbolic Images, 3rd edition (London: Phaidon Press, 1985), 122.

79.A further demonstration of the interweaving of Gombrich’s political and scholarly concerns was a four-page, typescript essay he sent to Kris entitled “Some Axioms, Musing and Hints on Hearing.” Dated 15 June 1945, the essay analyzed how auditory perception and mental projection interacted in the work of translating radio broadcasts. He wrote the analysis for fellow monitors. Gombrich to Kris, 15 June 1945 and 23 September 1945, Box 6, EK. In Aby Warburg’s case, Charlotte Schoell-Glass has convincingly interpreted his art history as an indirect mode of political engagement, specifically the means through which Warburg confronted the growth of political anti-Semitism in Germany. See Charlotte Schoell-Glass, Aby Warburg and Anti-Semitism: Political Perspectives on Images and Culture, trans. Samuel Pakucs Willcocks (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2008).

80.On Vansittart’s participation in the Hoare–Laval negotiations and his contribution to the Munich discussions, see Norman Rose, Vansittart: Study of a Diplomat (London: William Heinemann, 1978), 175–80 and 221–30. For a concise character sketch of Vansittart at the time of Munich, see Taylor, English History 1914–1945, 405. On Vansittart’s ties to and role within the intelligence community, see Andrew, Her Majesty’s Secret Service, 342–3, 350, 383–5, 414–17, 424, and 429. On the communications between Vansittart, Halifax, Italian representatives, and the War Cabinet in the crucial days before the fall of France, see Ian Kershaw, Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940–1941 (New York: Penguin Press, 2007), 31–47.

81.For the succession of printings, see Robert Vansittart, Black Record: Germans Past and Present (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1941), [iv].

82.Vansittart, Black Record, 18. Italics in the original.

83.Ibid., 19.

84.Ibid., 8.

85.Ibid., 14.

86.Ibid., 10.

87.See ibid., 20 and 24.

88.See ibid., 13 and 55.

89.On the reactions to Vansittart’s BBC talks and on his wartime relations to the Foreign Office and to Dalton, see Norman Rose, Vansittart, 237–49 and Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 260–1.

90.Vansittart, Black Record, 52.

91.Ibid., 54.

92.Ibid.

93.Ibid.

94.Using Tacitus to debate political theories and justify nationalist ideologies had a long European history from the Renaissance to Nazi Germany. Christopher B. Krebs traces that history in A Most Dangerous Book: Tacitus’ Germania from the Roman Empire to the Third Reich (New York: W. W. Norton, 2011). The exiled Italian scholar and future Warburg fellow Arnaldo Momigliano counted the Germania as one of “the one hundred most dangerous books ever written” (quoted in Krebs, 22). The centuries of debate over how to interpret Tacitus had particular relevance to Momigliano. A classicist from a religiously orthodox and socially assimilated Jewish family, Momigliano—like thousands of Italian academics—swore a loyalty oath to Mussolini. He joined the Fascist party and in 1938 sought exemption from the anti-Semitic Racial Laws as a party member. Mussolini’s government ignored the request and deprived him of his university professorship. Momigliano found eventual refuge in England. During the war, the Nazis murdered his parents, who had also joined the Fascist party but who eventually found temporary safety in France. See William V. Harris, “The Silences of Momigliano,” Times Literary Supplement (12 April 1996) and Michael P. Steinberg, “Arnaldo Momigliano and the Facts,” in Judaism Musical and Unmusical (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 141–65. At the time of the Vansittart controversy, Momigliano was at work on his manuscript on Tacitus’ ideas of power and freedom; after the war he published his essay on Tacitus and the response to Roman tyranny. See Arnaldo Momigliano, “The First Political Commentary on Tacitus” (1947), Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1982), 205–29. See also Riccardo Di Donato, “Arnaldo Momigliano from Antiquarianism to Cultural History,” in Momigliano and Antiquarianism: Foundations of the Modern Cultural Sciences, ed. Peter N. Miller (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2007), 70–2.

95.See Heinrich Fraenkel, Vansittart’s Gift to Goebbels: A German Exile’s Answer to Black Record (London: Fabian Society, [n.d.]), 9.

96.Victor Gollancz, Shall Our Children Live or Die? A Reply to Lord Vansittart on the German Problem (London: Victor Gollancz, 1942), 5. According to Gollancz, as many as a half-million copies of Black Record might have been purchased, from which he concluded that as many as three million read Vansittart’s book (ibid.).

97.George Orwell, “London Letter to Partisan Review,” 15 April 1941, in The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell, vol. 2, My Country Right or Left 1940–1943, ed. Sonia Orwell and Ian Angus (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1968), 114.

98.Ibid.

99.George Orwell, “London Letter to Partisan Review,” 1 January 1942, ibid., 175.

100.Ibid.

101.Ibid., 176. The Austrian socialist leadership in exile called for a workers’ antifascist uprising throughout Greater Germany, whereas Austrian conservatives revived the notion of Austrian patriotism and a return to the status quo ante. On the politics of the Austrian émigré community in England, see Goldner, Austrian Emigration 1938 to 1945, 14–17 and 120–8.

102.See Rose, Vansittart, 262–4.

103.Gombrich to Kris, 2 January 194[1], Box 6, EK.

104.Ibid.

105.Ibid. Himmler, pan-German educators, and Nazi propagandists in fact claimed that Tacitus provided an original account of dormant racial characteristics that National Socialism would revive and reanimate in the present. See Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book, 214–44.

106.Gombrich to Kris, 29 January 1942, Box 6, EK. Underlined in the original.

107.With Franz Neumann and Herbert Marcuse, Felix Gilbert worked in the OSS on political analyses that could assist with counter-propaganda. For example, with Marcuse, Gilbert co-authored a report on the political influence of the traditional Prussian aristocracy and officer corps in Nazi Germany, concluding that British and American propagandists had overemphasized their role and thereby diverted attention from the far more significant influence of industrialists, modern militarists, and middle-class nationalists and intellectuals—in other words, German fascism and not Prussian imperial ambition was now the enemy, and British and American counter-propaganda had to reflect that fact. See “The Significance of Prussian Militarism for Nazi Imperialism: Potential Tensions in United Nations Psychological Warfare (October 20, 1943)” in Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer, Secret Reports on Nazi Germany: The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2013), 61–73. In summer 1944, Gilbert returned to England to work in the London OSS office (ibid., 61).

108.E. H. Gombrich, “Kokoschka in his Time” (1986), in Topics of Our Time, 147.

109.Gombrich to Kris, 25 March 1942, Box 6, EK. Underlined in the original.

110.Ernst Kris, “The Covenant of the Gangsters,” 446. As Kris knew from his monitoring activity, Goebbels used Black Record to try to plant the fear of harsh retaliation. See Pelling, Britain and the Second World War, 261.

111.Kris, “The Covenant of the Gangsters,” 457.

112.Ibid., 456.

113.Ibid., 457.

114.Ibid.

115.Robert S. Lynd, Knowledge for What? The Place of Social Science in American Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1939, 1948).

116.Gombrich to Kris, 16 August 1943, Box 6, EK.

117.Ibid.

118.Kris to Gombrich, 18 September [1943], Gombrich Archive, WIA.

119.Ibid.

120.Ibid.

121.Ibid.

122.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

123.Gombrich to Kris, 16 November 1943, Box 6, EK.

124.David Hume, “Of National Characters,” in Selected Essays, ed. Stephen Copley and Andrew Edgar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, World’s Classics, 2008), 113. In that essay Hume wrote that “a nation is nothing but a collection of individuals” (ibid., 114) subject to the varying associative influences of government, economy, foreign relations, and political revolution. Because, according to Hume, “the human mind is of a very imitative nature” (ibid., 115), individuals were further influenced in their thoughts and feelings by group behavior and especially by figures of authority.

125.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

126.Ibid.

127.Kris and Speier, German Radio Propaganda, 79.

128.Gombrich to Kris, 2 April 1943, Box 6, EK.

129.Ibid. Underlined in the original. In Germany, Cardinal Michael Faulhaber’s Advent sermons in 1933 told German Catholics that the Christian religion, not pre-Christian culture, united the German people and that Christianity possessed historical and theological ties to Judaism. Still, he never protested publicly against Nazi anti-Semitism, he accepted the idea of a German racial community, and he re-emphasized the message that Christianity had supplanted Judaism. Bishop Clemens August von Galen openly opposed the Nazi euthanasia program. See Saul Friedländer, Nazi Germany and the Jews, vol. 1, The Years of Persecution, 1933–1939 (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, HarperPerennial, 1997), 47–8 and 183–4; Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust, 1930–1965 (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2000) 15, 45, 75, and 81; and Krebs, A Most Dangerous Book, 214–17.

130.For a description of the Kulturkampf in Austria see Radomír Luža, Austro-German Relations in the Anschluss Era (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 182–91.

131.Gombrich to Kris, 2 April 1943, Box 6, EK. Underlined in the original.

132.Ibid. Underlined in the original.

133.Ibid.

134.Gombrich to Kris, 16 August 1943, Box 6, EK.

135.Ibid.

136.Edmund Burke, A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1759), ed. Adam Phillips (Oxford: Oxford University Press, World’s Classics, 1990), 152. Emphasis in the original.

137.Ibid., 153. For a wartime analysis of the emotive origins and implications of Nazi language, see Klemperer, Language of the Third Reich, 236–45.

138.Gombrich to Kris, 16 November 1943, Box 6, EK.

139.Gombrich to Kris, 12 April 1944, Box 6, EK.

140.E. H. Gombrich, “Kokoschka in his Time,” 147. For discussion of Leftist resistance after 1934 to fascism in Austria—including Socialist, Communist, and labor resistance—see Martin Kitchen, “The Austrian Left and the Popular Front,” in The Popular Front in Europe, ed. Helen Graham and Paul Preston (London: Macmillan Press, 1987), 35–57 and Herbert Steiner, “The Role of the Resistance in Austria, with Special Reference to the Labor Movement,” in Resistance Against the Third Reich, 1933–1990, ed. Michael Geyer and John W. Boyer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 167–72.

141.See Kris, “Some Problems of War Propaganda.” The values expressed in this article were also reflected in lectures that he delivered at the New School. See Rutkoff and Scott, New School, 139.

142.Gombrich to Kris, 16 November 1943, Box 6, EK.

143.Ibid.

144.See Gombrich to Kris, 12 April 1944, Box 6, EK.

145.Gombrich to Kris, 3 January 1945, Box 6, EK.

146.Ibid.

147.Ibid.

148.Gombrich to Kris, 23 September 1945, Box 6, EK.

149.Gombrich to Kris, 23 March 1946, Box 6, EK.

150.Jonathan Swift, “A Meditation upon a Broom-Stick” (1703), in The Basic Writings of Jonathan Swift, intro. by Claude Rawson (New York: The Modern Library, 2002), 663.

151.Ibid.

Chapter 8: Between Past and Future, 1945–65

1.Ernst Kris, introduction (1954) to Sigmund Freud, The Origins of Psychoanalysis: Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, Drafts and Notes: 1887–1902, ed. Marie Bonaparte, Anna Freud, and Ernst Kris (New York: Basic Books, 1977), 3–47.

2.Kris to Gombrich, 3 October 1945, Box 6, EK. See Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, and Rudolph M. Loewenstein, Papers on Psychoanalytic Psychology (Madison, CT: International Universities Press, 1964). Nellie Thompson describes this phase of Kris’s professional career in her “Ernst Kris in America,” American Imago 71, no. 4 (December 2014): 353–74. Eli Zaretsky makes the point that even as the effort to systemize Freud’s psychology led Kris and his colleagues to emphasize a positivistic language that described psychic conflict in quantifiable terms, at the same time they recommended replacing the term “ego” with “self” in the discussion of narcissism so as to emphasis the person’s relation to the world, anticipating intersubjective psychoanalysis. See Zaretsky, Secrets of the Soul: A Social and Cultural History of Psychoanalysis (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004), 294 and 311–12.

3. Human Nature and Enduring Peace, ed. Gardner Murphy (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1945), vii.

4.Ibid., 237–8.

5.On McCarthy’s vendetta against Lattimore and its effect on Lattimore’s life and career, see Ellen Schrecker, Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1998), 244–54.

6. Human Nature and Enduring Peace, ed. Murphy, 406. Emphasis in the original.

7.Ibid., 407. In the following year, Kris returned to the question of postwar social relations in “Notes on the Psychology of Prejudice,” English Journal 35, no. 6 (June 1946): 304–8.

8.Kris to Gombrich, 3 October 1945, Box 6, EK.

9.Kris to Gombrich, 9 January 194[6] (the letter is misdated “1945”), Box 6, EK.

10.Ibid.

11.On the role of Kris in creating a psychoanalytic theory of cognition, see Kandel, In Search of Memory, 54–5 and 367–8, and Kandel, The Age of Insight, chaps. 11–12. Anton O. Kris noted Kris’s unrealized aim to pursue research into memory (Anton O. Kris, conversation with the author, 17 January 2008).

12.In December 1945, Saxl submitted a request to the Ministry of Labour for Gombrich’s reinstatement, writing, “Dr. Gombrich was granted permission to work at this Institute in April, 1936. He joined the BBC on 11th December, 1939, was approved for Auxiliary War Service employment on 20th February, 1940 and again on 21st March, 1943, and will terminate his employment at the BBC on the 14th of this month.” Saxl to Manager, Employment Exchange, Ministry of Labour and National Service, 4 December 1945, GC, WIA.

13.Kris to Gombrich, 3 October 1945, Box 6, EK. The possibility of integrating the listening post with official intelligence operations at the Foreign Office or Ministry of Information had been discussed when the monitoring service was created, but the plans had been placed on hold. See Briggs, History of Broadcasting in the United Kingdom, vol. 3, War of Words, 171.

14.Gombrich to Kris, 20 December 1947, Box 6, EK. On Buschbeck’s return to Austria, see Gombrich to Kris, 23 March 1946, Box 6, EK.

15.Gombrich to Kris, 23 March 1946, Box 6, EK. The two volumes of Karl Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies (vol.1, The Spell of Plato, and vol. 2, The High Tide of Prophecy: Hegel, Marx, and the Aftermath) had appeared the previous year (George Routledge and Sons, 1945).

16.Gombrich to Kris, 23 March 1946, Box 6, EK.

17.Ibid.

18.E. H. Gombrich, A Little History of the World, trans. Caroline Mustill (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 281.

19.Jonathan Schell, The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of the Nuclear Danger (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Metropolitan Books, 2007), 69.

20.Gombrich, Little History of the World, 282.

21.See Gombrich to Kris, 20 April 1947 and 27 February 1948, Box 6, EK.

22.Gombrich to Kris, 23 March 1946, Box 6, EK. Gombrich later wrote a memoir of Saxl for a collection of Saxl’s writings. See his introduction to A Heritage of Images, by Fritz Saxl (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, Peregrine Books, 1970). For a discussion of Gombrich’s return to the Warburg biography specifically, see Matthew Finch, “Ernst Gombrich and the Memory of Aby Warburg: Emotion, Identity and Scholarship” (Ph.D. diss., Queen Mary, University of London, February 2007). Carlo Ginzburg explores the dual historical tradition of Warburg and Gombrich within the Warburg Institute in “From Aby Warburg to E. H. Gombrich: A Problem of Method,” in Clues, Myths, and the Historical Method, trans. John and Anne C. Tedeschi (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989).

23.Gombrich to Kris, 20 April 1947, Box 6, EK.

24.Gombrich to Kris, 24 March 1948, Box 6, EK.

25.Ibid.

26.Kris to Gombrich, 13 May 1947, Box 6, EK.

27.Kris to Gombrich, 6 April 1948, Box 6, EK.

28.Before the end of the war, Kris had begun to return to his prewar plan for a psychology of art and creativity. See Kris, “Approaches to Art” (1944), in Psychoanalysis Today, ed. Sandor Lorand (New York: International University Press, 1944) and “Art and Regression,” Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences 6, no. 7 (May 1944): 236–50.

29.Gombrich to Kris, 24 April 1948, Box 6, EK.

30.The outline is dated 5 August 1948 and accompanied the letter from Gombrich to Kris, 7 August 1948, Box 6, EK.

31.Gombrich to Kris, 9 January 1949, Box 6, EK.

32.Gombrich to Kris, outline for “Caricature,” 16 July 1949, [1], Box 6, EK.

33.Ibid.

34.Ibid., [2].

35.Siegfried Kracauer to Ernst Kris, 17 October 1949, in Siegfried Kracauer-Erwin Panofsky Briefwechsel 1941–1966, ed. Volker Breidecker (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1996), 97.

36.E. H. Gombrich to Henri Frankfort, 15 January 1950, [1], Box 6, EK. It was Frankfort who in 1948 finally converted Gombrich’s fellowship into a permanent position at the institute.

37.Ernst Kris and E. H. Gombrich, “The Rise of Caricature: An Essay in the Social Psychology of Art,” ms, I.2, Gombrich Archive, WIA.

38.Ibid., I./3.

39.Ibid., II./7–8.

40.Ibid., II.10.

41.Ibid., II.11.

42.Ibid., /III/2.

43.Ibid., /III/8.

44.Kris’s negative reaction to Erik Erikson’s attempt to integrate the study of history, art, and ego psychology in his Childhood and Society might reflect in part Kris’s own pessimism toward such efforts at this time. See Friedman, Identity’s Architect, 239 and 294.

45.Gombrich to Kris, 2 November 1944, Box 6, EK. Gombrich’s judgment could also have been influenced by Read’s willingness at Routledge to consider publishing the first volume of Popper’s The Open Society and Its Enemies. See Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 122.

46.Gombrich to Kris, 20 April 1947, Box 6, EK. Two years earlier, Read’s Art and Society (London: Faber and Faber, 1945) had appeared in a second edition.

47.E. H. Gombrich, The Story of Art, 4th edition (London: Phaidon Press, 1951), 423.

48.Gombrich to Kris, 22 April 1950, Box 6, EK.

49.Gombrich to Kris, 7 June 1950, Box 6, EK.

50.Gombrich to Kris, 9 August 1950, Box 6, EK.

51.Ibid.

52.Gombrich to Kris, 23 April 1951, Box 6, EK. Lancelot Law Whyte was the philosopher of science who edited the symposium.

53.See King, The Last Modern, 235–7.

54.Ibid., 241.

55.Gombrich to Kris, 23 April 1951, Box 6, EK.

56.E. H. Gombrich, “Meditations on a Hobby Horse or the Roots of Artistic Form” (1951), in Meditations on a Hobby Horse and Other Essays on the Theory of Art, 4th edition (London: Phaidon Press, 1985), 8.

57.Gombrich to Kris, 23 April 1951, Box 6, EK.

58.Ibid.

59.See Gombrich to Kris, 23 April 1951 and 15 August 1951, Box 6, EK.

60.See Gombrich to Kris, 12 October 1951 and 23 October 1951, Box 6, EK.

61.Kris and Gombrich, “Principles of Caricature,” in Psychoanalytic Explorations in Art, 196.

62.Gombrich to Kris, 4 April 1954, Box 6, EK.

63.Gombrich, Art and Illusion, 342–3.

64.Ibid., 343.

65.Ibid., 345.

66.Ibid., 350.

67.Ibid., 353.

68.Ibid., 355.

69.Ibid., 357–8. For a discussion of Gombrich’s concept of progress in art in Art and Illusion and reactions to that concept within art history, see Wood, “E. H. Gombrich: Art and Illusion,” 122–7.

70.See Gombrich, “The Study of Art and the Study of Man,” 230; Gombrich, “An Autobiographical Sketch,” 19; and Gombrich, “Magic, Myth and Metaphor: Reflections on Pictorial Satire,” in The Uses of Images: Studies in the Social Function of Art and Visual Communication (London: Phaidon Press, 1999), 190–1. In the last of these essays, Gombrich stated that when he and Kris saw each other ten years after the completion of the 1937 manuscript they “had both gained some distance from their pet ideas” (ibid., 191). He did not refer to their attempts to rewrite the manuscript for possible publication at that time. In 1983, the director and writer Jonathan Miller conducted an interview with Gombrich for the BBC, now published in Miller, On Further Reflection: 60 Years of Writing (New York: Overlook Press, 2014). There Gombrich spoke of Kris’s invitation “to join him in an investigation of the history of caricature” and recalled its importance to his later work: “caricature, of course, raises many psychological problems, including problems of perception. So I was introduced very early in my life to the general problems of images rather than of great works of art; after all, nobody would claim that every successful caricature is a great work of art” (ibid., 105–6). He noted further that he continued this line of research after arriving in 1936 at the Warburg Institute, “which concerned itself no less with the symbolic meaning of humble images than with that of great works of art” (ibid., 106).

71.Freeman Dyson, The Scientist as Rebel (New York: New York Review Books, 2006), 252.

72.Leo Lowenthal and Norbert Guterman, Prophets of Deceit: A Study of the Techniques of the American Agitator (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949). The preface included an acknowledgment to Kris.

73.See, for example, M. I. Finley, The World of Odysseus (New York: Viking Press, 1954) and Bernard Knox, Oedipus at Thebes: Sophocles’ Tragic Hero and His Time (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). Alice L. Conklin’s In the Museum of Man: Race, Anthropology, and Empire in France, 1850–1950 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013) described how antifascist political culture helped move the discipline of anthropology toward both a more humanistic perspective and a more social scientifically based field methodology. The change included reorganizing the Musée de l’Homme in Paris to serve a wider public. In the United States, although divisions persisted between the humanities, sciences, and arts, interdisciplinary work between the social and mental sciences themselves continued to receive substantial university and foundation support, with cognitive psychology as both a leading field and a center of conflict for such work. See Jamie Cohen-Cole, The Open Mind: Cold War Politics and the Sciences of Human Nature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014), esp. 76–103.

74.Willibald Sauerländer, reviewing the Daumier exhibition organized by the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung in Munich, wrote that even today “the popularity of his works often goes no further than finding them entertaining and misses their explosive political significance and the physiognomic perceptiveness. Daumier’s prints reflect a critical public culture that has largely been forgotten.” See Sauerländer, “The Genius of the Other Daumier,” trans. David Dollenmayer, New York Review of Books 60, no. 3 (21 February 2013): 17. From October 2013 to January 2014, the Royal Academy in London, however, organized a new exhibition of Daumier’s artwork. See the catalog and essays, Daumier: Visions of Paris (London: Royal Academy Publications, 2013).

75.Herbert Read, Modern Sculpture: A Concise History (London: Thames and Hudson, 1964), 12.

76.Ibid. On the vitality and struggles of postwar British realism, see James Hyman, The Battle for Realism: Figurative Art in Britain During the Cold War 1945–1960 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001). Hyman emphasizes that, as the realist movement confronted “the post-surrealist concerns” of figures such as Read and the growing Abstract Expressionist movement of the 1950s, British realist art also experienced an internal conflict between modernist realism and social realism (ibid., 3).

77.The director Milos Forman revived that political interest in his film, Goya’s Ghosts (Sony Pictures, 2006). Forman traces Goya’s visions to the public and political realities of Bourbon and Napoleonic Spain: the torture, tribunals, and invasion that occurred in the name of God and liberation and that haunted Goya in his last years.

78.Gombrich and Eribon, Looking for Answers, 52–3. See also Gombrich, “Magic, Myth and Metaphor,” 191.

79.Felix Gilbert, “From Art History to the History of Civilization: Aby Warburg” (1972), review of Aby Warburg: An Intellectual Biography, by E. H. Gombrich, in History: Choice and Commitment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press, 1977), 424. Catherine Soussloff pointed to a similar de-emphasizing of political context in Gombrich’s interpretation of Oskar Kokoschka and Karl Kraus. See Catherine M. Soussloff, “Portraiture and Assimilation in Vienna: The Case of Hans Tietze and Erica Tietze-Conrat,” in Diasporas and Exiles: Varieties of Jewish Identity, ed. Howard Wettstein (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2002), 149 n.45.

80.E. H. Gombrich, “The Diversity of the Arts: The Place of the Laocoon in the Life and Work of G. E. Lessing (1729–1781)” (1956), in Tributes, 49.

81.Kris and Gombrich, foreword to Caricature ms, Gombrich Archive, WIA.

82.Kris and Gombrich, Caricature ms, 119.

83.Ibid., 239n.

84.Ibid., 220.

85.On Gombrich’s significance for the recognition of Cartier-Bresson, see Pierre Assouline, Henri Cartier-Bresson: A Biography, trans. David Wilson (London: Thames and Hudson, 2005), 228–32. Assouline points out that Gombrich included Cartier-Bresson in the updated editions of The Story of Art as early as 1972.

86.E. H. Gombrich, “The Photographer as Artist: Henri Cartier-Bresson” (1978), in Topics of Our Time, 200. Daumier’s interests in fact included photography, and like Cartier-Bresson, although he accepted captions as a journalistic necessity, he preferred to have the image speak for itself. See Le Men, “Daumier and Printmaking,” 38 and 42.

87.Gombrich, “The Photographer as Artist,” 200.

88.Ibid., 201–2.

89.Ibid., 202.

90.E. H. Gombrich, “The Mysterious Achievement of Likeness” (1997), in Tête à Tête: Portraits by Henri Cartier-Bresson, by Henri Cartier-Bresson (Boston: Little, Brown, Bulfinch Press Book, 1998), [ii].

91.Gombrich, Art and Illusion, 55–6.