DOI Artikel:
Mount, Harry: Shaftesbury V. Richardson: A Counterfactual Exercise
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56525#0012
SHAFTESBURY V. RICHARDSON: A COUNTERFACTUAL EXERCISE
11
close to perfection.54 His vice-captain was the ‘incomparable’ Poussin, who would, Shaftesbury believed,
have risen to similar or even greater heights had he not been held back by French patrons.55 The rest of the
team was made up of Domenichino, Michelangelo (with some reservations), Salvator Rosa, Gaspar Dughet,
Giulio Romano, Guido Reni, Titian and Annibale Carracci.56
This rather small canon gives a good idea of Shaftesbury’s tastes, and puts him firmly in the camp of
Italian theorists who favoured the decorous and austere works of the Carracci and their pupils over the more
sensual works of their rivals. Perhaps more significantly, it also allies Shaftesbury with the Poussinistes, that
group of French seventeenth-century theorists, including Fréart, who favoured the more severe and intellec-
tual works of Raphael and Poussin over more sensual paintings.57 ‘Chaste’ and ‘severe’ are, indeed, two words
which Shaftesbury applies to Poussin, and he praised the same painter alongside Raphael and Giulio Romano
for their ‘unmixt pure & simple Grace void of Affectation.’58 Throughout his notes for Plasticks Shaftesbury
praises the more intellectual parts of painting, and sees sensual qualities like colour as merely a means to an
end (although he does not go quite so far as Fréart, who was so suspicious of the sensual appeal of colour that
he discussed it only in terms of light and shade).59
Shaftesbury also shared with Fréart a fascination with perspective.60 He frequently judges paintings by
their size, calling those smaller than life-size, and especially those that are highly finished, ‘false’. Shaftes-
bury also showed an acute sensitivity to the relative size of the figures and other components within a paint-
ing, again calling those that are smaller than they should be within the overall perspective of the painting
‘false’.61 He did, however, also allow for hyperbole, the possibility that figures might, if appropriate, be larger
than they should be within the perspective scheme, a quality he thought best exemplified by the works of
Michelangelo.62 To judge from the notes for Plasticks, much of the published version of the work would have
been concerned with discussions of these matters. While this obsession with perspective may seem odd to
modern eyes, it is consistent with Shaftesbury’s debt both to Fréart and to another French writer of Fréart’s
generation, Abraham Bosse.63 It was to these earlier French theorists that Shaftesbury was principally in-
debted, rather than to later French authors like de Piles. While Shaftesbury mentions John Dryden’s deluxe
translation of Charles Du Fresnoy’s De Arte Graphica with notes by de Piles he does not seem to have been
very interested it, and he does not mention any other works by de Piles.64
Richardson, on the other hand, owed much more to the Rubéniste school of French theorists headed by
Du Fresnoy and de Piles. He too saw Raphael as undoubtedly the greatest of painters; indeed, his veneration
of Raphael, and especially the Tapestry Cartoons, almost exceeds that of Shaftesbury.65 But his tastes were far
more catholic than those of Shaftesbury. Richardson was also a fan of Rubens and Van Dyck, in addition to
Venetian painters like Titian and Veronese.66 Here we should acknowledge that the tastes of our two authors
must have been affected by their respective experiences. Shaftesbury was a widely travelled man who had
made himself familiar with recent Italian art while living in Naples, and could draw on memories like that
of seeing the painting by Van der Werff he had so disliked in Rotterdam. Richardson, on the other hand, had
never travelled overseas and was dependent on his own extensive collection of prints and drawings and on
paintings he had seen in Britain. This explains in part the prominence he gives to the Raphael tapestry Car-
54 Among many examples see e.g. Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 206, 214, 152, 277.
55 Ibidem, p. 269, 252.
56 Ibidem, pp. 176, 186, 202, 214, 242, 252, 258, 269, 277, 282.
57 For Fréart’s liking for Raphael, Giulio Romano, Poussin and Domenichino see An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 67-68, 91, 122—
125.
58 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 213, 246.
59 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 13, 32. On Shaftesbury’s dislike of gaudy, new and obtrusive colouring
see e.g. Plasticks, pp. 271-274. Cf. his dislike of‘richness’, ibidem, pp. 239, 247, and ‘licentiousness’, ibidem, p. 196. For Fréart’s belief
that invention and expression were the highest parts of art, with proportion, colour and perspective described as more mechanical, see Fréart
de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., p. 121. For Fréart’s distaste for the interest of modem painters in colour, handling, massing and
drapery see ibidem, p. 63.
60 For Fréart on perspective see e.g. An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 36-46.
61 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 235-238, 266, see also pp. 212, 292.
62 Ibidem, p. 236.
63 Shaftesbury mentions Bosse’s writings on p. 209 of Plasticks.
64 Ibidem, pp. 209, 222, 262.
65 He claimed that Hampton Court, where the Cartoons were hung, was the best tr easury of works by Raphael in the world, surpass-
ing even the Vatican (Richardson, Theory of Painting, p. 102, cf. p. 112).
66 See e.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 41, 106-108, 151, 160.
11
close to perfection.54 His vice-captain was the ‘incomparable’ Poussin, who would, Shaftesbury believed,
have risen to similar or even greater heights had he not been held back by French patrons.55 The rest of the
team was made up of Domenichino, Michelangelo (with some reservations), Salvator Rosa, Gaspar Dughet,
Giulio Romano, Guido Reni, Titian and Annibale Carracci.56
This rather small canon gives a good idea of Shaftesbury’s tastes, and puts him firmly in the camp of
Italian theorists who favoured the decorous and austere works of the Carracci and their pupils over the more
sensual works of their rivals. Perhaps more significantly, it also allies Shaftesbury with the Poussinistes, that
group of French seventeenth-century theorists, including Fréart, who favoured the more severe and intellec-
tual works of Raphael and Poussin over more sensual paintings.57 ‘Chaste’ and ‘severe’ are, indeed, two words
which Shaftesbury applies to Poussin, and he praised the same painter alongside Raphael and Giulio Romano
for their ‘unmixt pure & simple Grace void of Affectation.’58 Throughout his notes for Plasticks Shaftesbury
praises the more intellectual parts of painting, and sees sensual qualities like colour as merely a means to an
end (although he does not go quite so far as Fréart, who was so suspicious of the sensual appeal of colour that
he discussed it only in terms of light and shade).59
Shaftesbury also shared with Fréart a fascination with perspective.60 He frequently judges paintings by
their size, calling those smaller than life-size, and especially those that are highly finished, ‘false’. Shaftes-
bury also showed an acute sensitivity to the relative size of the figures and other components within a paint-
ing, again calling those that are smaller than they should be within the overall perspective of the painting
‘false’.61 He did, however, also allow for hyperbole, the possibility that figures might, if appropriate, be larger
than they should be within the perspective scheme, a quality he thought best exemplified by the works of
Michelangelo.62 To judge from the notes for Plasticks, much of the published version of the work would have
been concerned with discussions of these matters. While this obsession with perspective may seem odd to
modern eyes, it is consistent with Shaftesbury’s debt both to Fréart and to another French writer of Fréart’s
generation, Abraham Bosse.63 It was to these earlier French theorists that Shaftesbury was principally in-
debted, rather than to later French authors like de Piles. While Shaftesbury mentions John Dryden’s deluxe
translation of Charles Du Fresnoy’s De Arte Graphica with notes by de Piles he does not seem to have been
very interested it, and he does not mention any other works by de Piles.64
Richardson, on the other hand, owed much more to the Rubéniste school of French theorists headed by
Du Fresnoy and de Piles. He too saw Raphael as undoubtedly the greatest of painters; indeed, his veneration
of Raphael, and especially the Tapestry Cartoons, almost exceeds that of Shaftesbury.65 But his tastes were far
more catholic than those of Shaftesbury. Richardson was also a fan of Rubens and Van Dyck, in addition to
Venetian painters like Titian and Veronese.66 Here we should acknowledge that the tastes of our two authors
must have been affected by their respective experiences. Shaftesbury was a widely travelled man who had
made himself familiar with recent Italian art while living in Naples, and could draw on memories like that
of seeing the painting by Van der Werff he had so disliked in Rotterdam. Richardson, on the other hand, had
never travelled overseas and was dependent on his own extensive collection of prints and drawings and on
paintings he had seen in Britain. This explains in part the prominence he gives to the Raphael tapestry Car-
54 Among many examples see e.g. Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 206, 214, 152, 277.
55 Ibidem, p. 269, 252.
56 Ibidem, pp. 176, 186, 202, 214, 242, 252, 258, 269, 277, 282.
57 For Fréart’s liking for Raphael, Giulio Romano, Poussin and Domenichino see An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 67-68, 91, 122—
125.
58 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 213, 246.
59 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 13, 32. On Shaftesbury’s dislike of gaudy, new and obtrusive colouring
see e.g. Plasticks, pp. 271-274. Cf. his dislike of‘richness’, ibidem, pp. 239, 247, and ‘licentiousness’, ibidem, p. 196. For Fréart’s belief
that invention and expression were the highest parts of art, with proportion, colour and perspective described as more mechanical, see Fréart
de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection..., p. 121. For Fréart’s distaste for the interest of modem painters in colour, handling, massing and
drapery see ibidem, p. 63.
60 For Fréart on perspective see e.g. An Idea of the Perfection..., pp. 36-46.
61 Shaftesbury, Plasticks, pp. 235-238, 266, see also pp. 212, 292.
62 Ibidem, p. 236.
63 Shaftesbury mentions Bosse’s writings on p. 209 of Plasticks.
64 Ibidem, pp. 209, 222, 262.
65 He claimed that Hampton Court, where the Cartoons were hung, was the best tr easury of works by Raphael in the world, surpass-
ing even the Vatican (Richardson, Theory of Painting, p. 102, cf. p. 112).
66 See e.g. Richardson, Theory of Painting, pp. 41, 106-108, 151, 160.