ABSTRACT
At the Iconoclasm Symposium twenty-one years ago two papers by me depended, as we would now say, on a formalist framework, in which style was allowed to run the argument. 1 In a nutshell, this argument was that Iconoclasm may have temporarily changed the character of patronage and the quantity of production, but it failed to alter the course of art. Nor was there any problem about the finality of the date 843 as the dividing moment of the ninth century (and of my papers).
