than the one that existed in 1938. Thus,nit’s not surprising that The New OxfordnCompanion to Music is a two-volumenset whereas its predecessor is a singlenvolume. While the New Oxford Companionnisn’t exhaustive in the sense that,nsay, the OED is considered to be, it isnnonetheless a marvelously detailed encyclopedia;nas general editor DenisnKInArdess MerchandizingnKenneth Clark: The Art of Humanism;nHarper & Row; New York.nby Richard KostelanetznA title so grand evokes the image of anbook equally grand, which this, alas, isnnot. The Art of Humanism is less aboutnan artistic style or even an age than aboutnfive gentlemen: Alberti, Donatello,nUcceUo, Mantegna, andBotticelli. Indicatively,nthe book has only five chapters,none apiece on the five figures, and therenis neither an introduction nor a conclusionnthat might support the title. Predominantlynclose analyses of visual details,nthese five chapters are best read innconjunction with the numerous, mostlynfull-page photographic illustrations. Internalnevidence (such as “with whichnsome of you may be femiliar”) su^estsnthat the text began as scripts for KennethnClark’s traveling sUde shows, which werenapparently slapped together to make thisnbook whose true tide should be, givennthe subjects, “The Art of ADUMB.” Just asnthere should be truth in advertising, sonshould book publishers provide truth inntitling.nThe assumption of the book’s title isnthat these five 15th-century artistsnepitomize an art we should call “humanistic.”nHowever, neither Clark nor hisnMr. Kostelanetz, an author and a critic,nis completing a critique of literaryngranting in AmericanArnold points out, “Those who wantnmore fects must be directed to The NewnGrove Dictionary of Music and Musiciansn(1980)”—which consists of 20nvolumes. For most readers, the Oxfordnset is more than sufficient and to thenmoment as it ranges from the ancientnMesopotamian lute players to ThenPolice. Dnpublisher think this a thesis worth proving.nIndeed, in the few times Clark usesnthe epithet or its variants, he usually refersnto an intellectual attitude whose oppositenis theist. However, Clark’s subjectnis not belief but art; andfor all of its usefiilnessnas a platitude, humanism is no morenof an aesthetic (or art-historic) categorynthan animalism and vegetism. Whethernthese five lectures have scholarly valuenwith reference to earlier commentariesnon these hot five, 1 cannot tell; as essaysnon art, they olfer little.nIf mislabeling is the first problem of thenbook, the second problem is Clark’s style.nInhisfewningintroduction,John Walker,ndirector emeritus of the National Galleryn(U.S.), suggests that “the average reader”nwill be as “equally spellbound” as he thenscholar-curator was. Not so. There is nonway that an above-average reader, letnalone a professional in an area other thannart history, could get through this samplennnpassage, and then, as one test of comprehension,ntell someone else about it:nOnce more we are aware of this conflictnbetween a scientific and stylisticnapproach, a dilemma which does notnseem to have troubled Alberti, butnwMch underlies the whole otihe deltanPittura in the same way that a conflictnbetween his realistic Tuscan businessnphilosophy and the teachings of Platonunderlies his moral writings. In thatnevent it was the classicising and stylisticpartofAlberti’swritings.andnothisnscientific naturalism, which wasnrealized in the painting of the nextnhundred years.nIndeed, the defect of Walker’s collegialnintroduction is that instead of answeringnnagging questions about the proveniencenof these lectures, it is devoted tonunctuous promotional blather that is nonmore acceptable now, after Clark’s recentndeath, than it was before, whennWalker wrote.nClark’s writing is not merely witiessnand undistinguished, it is often inept.n”This was perhaps the first time,” henwrites, “that the men of the Renaissancenfelt they had excelled that antique culturenwhich both inspired and oppressednthem.”Excelled?Isthisatmsprintfor”exceeded”?nThat is possible, though perhapsn”transcended” would be more appropriate.nOther ofiensive sentencesnseem added as concessions to popularization:n”Uccello was far from being thenNoah’s Ark and rocking-horse painternwhich the superficial have supposed himn^5*vn^ ^ H H 3 3nMarch 1984n