DOI article:
Mount, Harry: Shaftesbury V. Richardson: A Counterfactual Exercise
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56525#0007
6
HARRY MOUNT
In some copies of that edition it was joined by the ‘Letter Concerning Design’, which went on to appear in sub-
sequent editions of the Characteristicks? At Shaftesbury’s death from tuberculosis at the age of 42 in 1713 the
remaining two parts of his projected book were left incomplete. One of these was to have been a commentary
on an ancient Greek text, the Tablet of Cebes, which would have used a discussion of a painted allegory to offer
instruction on how to lead a virtuous and happy life. The fourth and final part of Second Characters would have
been an essay provisionally entitled Plasticks, An Epistolary Excursion on the Original, Progress, and Power of
Designatory Art. This would, to judge from the surviving notes, have been by far the longest section of Second
Characters.5 It is also the section which bears most comparison with Richardson’s Theory of Painting, as it of-
fers a theoretical and historical discussion of art. Had Shaftesbury’s health been restored by his move to Naples
in 1711, he would no doubt have been able to complete and publish Second Characters.
That he did not has not stopped Shaftesbury from being presented by several modern historians as, in
effect, the father of British art theory.6 As I have argued elsewhere, I think that this is a far-fetched notion,
inspired more by Shaftesbury’s eminence as a philosopher and his appeal as a literary stylist than by his
actual level of impact on later thinkers and writers on the visual arts.7 These accounts also tend to give the
impression that a far more substantial corpus of art theory by Shaftesbury was known to eighteenth-readers
than was actually the case. In fact the sum total of Shaftesbury’s published writings on the visual arts at
that time consisted of the short essay on The Judgment of Hercules, the even shorter ‘Letter Concerning
Design’, and a brief if highly suggestive two-page passage in Characteristic!™,8 However, modern histor-
ians tend to bulk out their references to Shaftesbury’s thought by referring to his notes for the fourth part
of Second Characters, Plasticks, which survive in the Public Record Office in London and were first edited
and published by Benjamin Rand in 1914.9 As fascinating as these notes are, those citing them often rather
gloss over the fact that they were completely unknown to eighteenth-century readers. While Shaftesbury’s
published writings on the visual arts certainly were read I find little evidence to support those who see
the subsequent history of British art theory as an ongoing reaction to Shaftesbury’s thought. Indeed, such
evidence as there is suggests that Shaftesbury’s writings on the arts were nothing like as well-known as
we might now suppose. In 1732, for example, the journalist James Ralph contended that Shaftesbury’s
writings were ‘little known’ among modern painters,10 while in 1749 the architect John Gwynn urged that
Shaftesbury’s brief pronouncements on the imitation of nature in Characteristicks should be more ‘attent-
ively considered’.* 11
As Carol Gibson-Wood has suggested, the true father of British art theory was not Shaftesbury but
Richardson.12 For all their plodding prose and pedestrian arguments, it is the works of Richardson which con-
stitute the true foundation stone of the distinctively British branch of art theory. It was the works of Richard-
son, not those of Shaftesbury, which, according to Joshua Reynolds, persuaded him to become a painter, for
all that he had also read Shaftesbury as a young man.13 And it was from Richardson’s digest of the continental
art theoretical tradition, not from the rather different digest offered by Shaftesbury, that Reynolds took his
points of reference when he came to write the Discourses.
But what if Shaftesbury had lived to publish Second Characters? What if we posit a counter-factual
universe in which Shaftesbury, as he lay languishing in Italy, was suffering not from tuberculosis but from
that other common eighteenth-century complaint, hypochondria? What if the Italian sun had returned him to
4 Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Characteristicks (1714), vol. Ill, pp. 410-11.
5 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, or the Original, Progress, and Power of Designatory Art, [in:] idem, Standard Edition. Complete Works,
Selected Letters and Posthumous Writings, eds. W. Benda W. Lottes, F.A. Uehlein, E. Wolff, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, vol. 1,5 [herein-
after: Plasticks],
6 Most influentially by J. Barrell, The Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt, New Haven-London 1986, pp. 1-68.
7 H. Mount, The Englishness ofEnglish Art Theory, “Oxford Ait Journal”, vol. 25, 2002, pp. 102-103; idem, Leonardo ’s 'Treatise'
and the Empirical Undertow in British Art Theory, [in:] Leonardo in Britain: Collections and Historical Reception, eds J. Barone, S. Aveiy-
-Quash, Florence 2019, pp. 205-206.
8 Shaftesbury, Sensus Communis, an Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour (first ed. 1709), [in:] idem, Characteristicks
(1714), vol. I,pp. 142-144.
9 Shaftesbury, Second Characters; or, The Language of Forms, ed. B. Rand, Cambridge 1914.
10 Of Painting, “Weekly Register”, no 112, 3 June 1732, reprinted in “Gentleman’s Magazine”, vol. 2, 1732, p. 788.
11 J. Gwynn, An Essay on Design: Including Proposals for Erecting a Public Academy, London 1749, p. v.
12 Gibson-Wood, op. cit., pp. 230-232.
13 Reynolds’ remark about Richardson is reported in Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, Oxford 1905, p. 2 (1st edn 1779).
See also F.W Hilles, The Literary Career of Sir Joshua Reynolds, London 1936, pp. 5-6. For Reynolds’s reading of Shaftesbury see Hilles,
op. cit., p. 118.
HARRY MOUNT
In some copies of that edition it was joined by the ‘Letter Concerning Design’, which went on to appear in sub-
sequent editions of the Characteristicks? At Shaftesbury’s death from tuberculosis at the age of 42 in 1713 the
remaining two parts of his projected book were left incomplete. One of these was to have been a commentary
on an ancient Greek text, the Tablet of Cebes, which would have used a discussion of a painted allegory to offer
instruction on how to lead a virtuous and happy life. The fourth and final part of Second Characters would have
been an essay provisionally entitled Plasticks, An Epistolary Excursion on the Original, Progress, and Power of
Designatory Art. This would, to judge from the surviving notes, have been by far the longest section of Second
Characters.5 It is also the section which bears most comparison with Richardson’s Theory of Painting, as it of-
fers a theoretical and historical discussion of art. Had Shaftesbury’s health been restored by his move to Naples
in 1711, he would no doubt have been able to complete and publish Second Characters.
That he did not has not stopped Shaftesbury from being presented by several modern historians as, in
effect, the father of British art theory.6 As I have argued elsewhere, I think that this is a far-fetched notion,
inspired more by Shaftesbury’s eminence as a philosopher and his appeal as a literary stylist than by his
actual level of impact on later thinkers and writers on the visual arts.7 These accounts also tend to give the
impression that a far more substantial corpus of art theory by Shaftesbury was known to eighteenth-readers
than was actually the case. In fact the sum total of Shaftesbury’s published writings on the visual arts at
that time consisted of the short essay on The Judgment of Hercules, the even shorter ‘Letter Concerning
Design’, and a brief if highly suggestive two-page passage in Characteristic!™,8 However, modern histor-
ians tend to bulk out their references to Shaftesbury’s thought by referring to his notes for the fourth part
of Second Characters, Plasticks, which survive in the Public Record Office in London and were first edited
and published by Benjamin Rand in 1914.9 As fascinating as these notes are, those citing them often rather
gloss over the fact that they were completely unknown to eighteenth-century readers. While Shaftesbury’s
published writings on the visual arts certainly were read I find little evidence to support those who see
the subsequent history of British art theory as an ongoing reaction to Shaftesbury’s thought. Indeed, such
evidence as there is suggests that Shaftesbury’s writings on the arts were nothing like as well-known as
we might now suppose. In 1732, for example, the journalist James Ralph contended that Shaftesbury’s
writings were ‘little known’ among modern painters,10 while in 1749 the architect John Gwynn urged that
Shaftesbury’s brief pronouncements on the imitation of nature in Characteristicks should be more ‘attent-
ively considered’.* 11
As Carol Gibson-Wood has suggested, the true father of British art theory was not Shaftesbury but
Richardson.12 For all their plodding prose and pedestrian arguments, it is the works of Richardson which con-
stitute the true foundation stone of the distinctively British branch of art theory. It was the works of Richard-
son, not those of Shaftesbury, which, according to Joshua Reynolds, persuaded him to become a painter, for
all that he had also read Shaftesbury as a young man.13 And it was from Richardson’s digest of the continental
art theoretical tradition, not from the rather different digest offered by Shaftesbury, that Reynolds took his
points of reference when he came to write the Discourses.
But what if Shaftesbury had lived to publish Second Characters? What if we posit a counter-factual
universe in which Shaftesbury, as he lay languishing in Italy, was suffering not from tuberculosis but from
that other common eighteenth-century complaint, hypochondria? What if the Italian sun had returned him to
4 Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Characteristicks (1714), vol. Ill, pp. 410-11.
5 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, or the Original, Progress, and Power of Designatory Art, [in:] idem, Standard Edition. Complete Works,
Selected Letters and Posthumous Writings, eds. W. Benda W. Lottes, F.A. Uehlein, E. Wolff, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt 2001, vol. 1,5 [herein-
after: Plasticks],
6 Most influentially by J. Barrell, The Political Theory of Painting from Reynolds to Hazlitt, New Haven-London 1986, pp. 1-68.
7 H. Mount, The Englishness ofEnglish Art Theory, “Oxford Ait Journal”, vol. 25, 2002, pp. 102-103; idem, Leonardo ’s 'Treatise'
and the Empirical Undertow in British Art Theory, [in:] Leonardo in Britain: Collections and Historical Reception, eds J. Barone, S. Aveiy-
-Quash, Florence 2019, pp. 205-206.
8 Shaftesbury, Sensus Communis, an Essay on the Freedom of Wit and Humour (first ed. 1709), [in:] idem, Characteristicks
(1714), vol. I,pp. 142-144.
9 Shaftesbury, Second Characters; or, The Language of Forms, ed. B. Rand, Cambridge 1914.
10 Of Painting, “Weekly Register”, no 112, 3 June 1732, reprinted in “Gentleman’s Magazine”, vol. 2, 1732, p. 788.
11 J. Gwynn, An Essay on Design: Including Proposals for Erecting a Public Academy, London 1749, p. v.
12 Gibson-Wood, op. cit., pp. 230-232.
13 Reynolds’ remark about Richardson is reported in Samuel Johnson, Lives of the English Poets, Oxford 1905, p. 2 (1st edn 1779).
See also F.W Hilles, The Literary Career of Sir Joshua Reynolds, London 1936, pp. 5-6. For Reynolds’s reading of Shaftesbury see Hilles,
op. cit., p. 118.