In response to:
Ecstasy from the September 24, 1981 issue
To the Editors:
I write in an effort to set straight a matter of fact with respect to my book, Bernini and the Unity of the Visual Arts, reviewed in these pages by Robert M. Adams [NYR, September 24]. Professor Adams complained that my discussion of theatricality in Bernini’s work was “segregated in an appendix.” In her letter to the Editors concerning the review [NYR, March 4], Nicola Courtright noted that the discussion actually forms part of the Epilogue, entitled “The Unity and Its Meaning,” to which in his reply Professor Adams nevertheless persistently refers as an appendix. That the essay does indeed from part of the Epilogue may be seen from the enclosed photocopies of the Table of Contents and the relevant half-title and running heads. The Epilogue is followed in the book by an appendix containing quite different material.
Irving Lavin
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey
Robert M Adams replies:
I stand corrected on the point of fact, and apologize for the error. I was evidently misled by the title of the unit immediately preceding the Epilogue, “Conclusion.”
