DOI article:
Mount, Harry: Shaftesbury V. Richardson: A Counterfactual Exercise
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56525#0008
SHAFTESBURY V. RICHARDSON: A COUNTERFACTUAL EXERCISE
7
both physical and mental health, enabling him to finish his book and return to England to see it into print?
One might imagine that its publication would have coincided with, perhaps even slightly pre-empted, that of
Richardson’s Theory of Painting. One might also imagine that a published Second Characters, the work of an
aristocrat from a famous political family, of a man whose philosophical writings were already well-known,
would have attracted more attention than the first book by a professional portrait painter from a modest back-
ground, especially given that Second Characters would almost certainly have been far more stylishly written
than Richardson’s book. What, then, might the impact of this hypothetical Second Characters on the subse-
quent development of British art and art theory have been? As with any exercise in counter-factual history,
such musings can only ever be a matter of speculation, although I will finish this paper with some frivolous
thoughts on the matter. The greater part of this paper will, however, be devoted to a more substantive issue
- a comparison between Richardson’s Essay on the Theory of Painting and the Plasticks section from Shaftes-
bury’s Second Characters, to the end of establishing how the two texts might have differed. Even here there is
an element of speculation: Shaftesbury’s surviving notes are sufficiently fragmentary and disordered to leave
considerable uncertainty about the form that his finished book would have taken. They are, moreover, largely
written in what we might call a ‘notes to self’ style which may give a misleading impression of the language
he would have used in the finished text. Nevertheless, with the help of the more accurate edition of Plasticks
published in 2001 in the Standard Edition of Shaftesbury’s works14 we can make a few observations about
how his text would have differed from that of Richardson.
We should begin by acknowledging that there are important points of resemblance between Shaftes-
bury’s Plasticks and Richardson’s Theory of Painting. Both authors wished to improve painting in Britain
and both voiced their frustration at the lowly status of the art in their country. Both authors set out to raise that
status, so that painting might be no longer regarded as merely an amusement, a ‘vulgar science’, or a demon-
stration of mechanical skill.15 Both men, in other words, wanted their art theory to be what Michael Baxandall
has called an ‘operative theory’, one that would have an actual effect on the behaviour of painters and patrons,
rather than being a mere literary exercise.16 Both Richardson and Shaftesbury, for example, stressed the im-
portance of painters being learned in order to show that painting was a liberal art and not merely a mechanical
craft.17 Both authors focus their comments mainly on history painting and believed in the hierarchy of genres,
although both also respected the qualities seen in the lesser genres. Both writers also believed that painters
should present a perfected idea of reality rather than simply copying nature.18 As these characteristics suggests
both writers were heavily indebted to that classical branch of art theory which originated in fifteenth-century
Italy and had been further codified by French authors in the later seventeenth century. Indeed, both Plasticks
and Richardson’s Theory of Painting can be seen as attempts to digest and adapt this tradition of art theory
for a British audience.
It is, however, when we start to think about the question of audience that we begin to see significant dif-
ferences between Shaftesbury’s Plasticks and Richardson’s Theory of Painting. Although Richardson would
later address upper class art-lovers in his Two Discourses on connoisseurship (London 1719), his Theory of
Painting was primarily aimed at his fellow painters. Throughout his book, Richardson advises painters not
only to paint in a certain way, but also to think, read, converse and live in a certain way.19 He clearly believed
that the best way to improve British painting was to improve British painters. Shaftesbury, on the other hand,
envisaged Plasticks as an epistolary work in which each separate section would being with the words ‘My
Lord’, as if it were a letter to one of his fellow aristocrats.20 His Letter Concerning Design, addressed to his
art-loving friend Lord Somers, had opened in the same fashion.21 This framing device indicates that Shaftes-
bury’s target readership thus lay primarily among men of his own class. Indeed, one of the justifications he
14 See n. 5 above.
15 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 161 {'vulgar Science'), 170. See also Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Sec-
ond Characters..., pp. 18-27; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 29-30.
16 M. Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures, New Haven-London 1985, p. 75.
17 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, p. 196; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 20-24.
18 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 258, 267, cf. Shaftesbury, Sensus Communis, [in:] idem, Characteristicks (1714), vol. I,
pp. 142-144; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 9, 30, 160-162.
19 E.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 36-37.
20 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 161-162.
21 Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Second Characters..., p. 18. Somers is addressed repeatedly throughout
the text.
7
both physical and mental health, enabling him to finish his book and return to England to see it into print?
One might imagine that its publication would have coincided with, perhaps even slightly pre-empted, that of
Richardson’s Theory of Painting. One might also imagine that a published Second Characters, the work of an
aristocrat from a famous political family, of a man whose philosophical writings were already well-known,
would have attracted more attention than the first book by a professional portrait painter from a modest back-
ground, especially given that Second Characters would almost certainly have been far more stylishly written
than Richardson’s book. What, then, might the impact of this hypothetical Second Characters on the subse-
quent development of British art and art theory have been? As with any exercise in counter-factual history,
such musings can only ever be a matter of speculation, although I will finish this paper with some frivolous
thoughts on the matter. The greater part of this paper will, however, be devoted to a more substantive issue
- a comparison between Richardson’s Essay on the Theory of Painting and the Plasticks section from Shaftes-
bury’s Second Characters, to the end of establishing how the two texts might have differed. Even here there is
an element of speculation: Shaftesbury’s surviving notes are sufficiently fragmentary and disordered to leave
considerable uncertainty about the form that his finished book would have taken. They are, moreover, largely
written in what we might call a ‘notes to self’ style which may give a misleading impression of the language
he would have used in the finished text. Nevertheless, with the help of the more accurate edition of Plasticks
published in 2001 in the Standard Edition of Shaftesbury’s works14 we can make a few observations about
how his text would have differed from that of Richardson.
We should begin by acknowledging that there are important points of resemblance between Shaftes-
bury’s Plasticks and Richardson’s Theory of Painting. Both authors wished to improve painting in Britain
and both voiced their frustration at the lowly status of the art in their country. Both authors set out to raise that
status, so that painting might be no longer regarded as merely an amusement, a ‘vulgar science’, or a demon-
stration of mechanical skill.15 Both men, in other words, wanted their art theory to be what Michael Baxandall
has called an ‘operative theory’, one that would have an actual effect on the behaviour of painters and patrons,
rather than being a mere literary exercise.16 Both Richardson and Shaftesbury, for example, stressed the im-
portance of painters being learned in order to show that painting was a liberal art and not merely a mechanical
craft.17 Both authors focus their comments mainly on history painting and believed in the hierarchy of genres,
although both also respected the qualities seen in the lesser genres. Both writers also believed that painters
should present a perfected idea of reality rather than simply copying nature.18 As these characteristics suggests
both writers were heavily indebted to that classical branch of art theory which originated in fifteenth-century
Italy and had been further codified by French authors in the later seventeenth century. Indeed, both Plasticks
and Richardson’s Theory of Painting can be seen as attempts to digest and adapt this tradition of art theory
for a British audience.
It is, however, when we start to think about the question of audience that we begin to see significant dif-
ferences between Shaftesbury’s Plasticks and Richardson’s Theory of Painting. Although Richardson would
later address upper class art-lovers in his Two Discourses on connoisseurship (London 1719), his Theory of
Painting was primarily aimed at his fellow painters. Throughout his book, Richardson advises painters not
only to paint in a certain way, but also to think, read, converse and live in a certain way.19 He clearly believed
that the best way to improve British painting was to improve British painters. Shaftesbury, on the other hand,
envisaged Plasticks as an epistolary work in which each separate section would being with the words ‘My
Lord’, as if it were a letter to one of his fellow aristocrats.20 His Letter Concerning Design, addressed to his
art-loving friend Lord Somers, had opened in the same fashion.21 This framing device indicates that Shaftes-
bury’s target readership thus lay primarily among men of his own class. Indeed, one of the justifications he
14 See n. 5 above.
15 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 161 {'vulgar Science'), 170. See also Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Sec-
ond Characters..., pp. 18-27; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 29-30.
16 M. Baxandall, Patterns of Intention: On the Historical Explanation of Pictures, New Haven-London 1985, p. 75.
17 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, p. 196; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 20-24.
18 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 258, 267, cf. Shaftesbury, Sensus Communis, [in:] idem, Characteristicks (1714), vol. I,
pp. 142-144; Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 9, 30, 160-162.
19 E.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 36-37.
20 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 161-162.
21 Shaftesbury, A Letter Concerning Design, [in:] idem, Second Characters..., p. 18. Somers is addressed repeatedly throughout
the text.