DOI article:
Jaźwierski, Jacek: "The Judgement of Hercules": Shaftesbury at the Crossroads of Art Theory
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.56525#0036
■‘THE JUDGMENT OF HERCULES”. SHAFTESBURY AT THE CROSSROADS OF ART THEORY
35
cipie of unity of time and action rather than with any visual effect in mind. Disposition was determined by the
narrative: what was disposed was history, not a picture. Like for Fréart, “composition is [... the] Ordonance
of Figures”31 - the idea of composition reaching back to Alberti’s De pictura.32 Similarly Dryden in his intro-
ductory Parallel of Poetry and Painting kept silent about the visual effect of the picture and emphasized the
poetical aspects of composition. “The Compositions of the Painter shou’d be conformable to the Text of An-
cient Authours, to the Customs, and the Times”33, he wrote. In Hercules, the unity of time and action, which
Shaftesbury called “the rule of consistency”, was a guiding principle of the tablature as opposed to the “mere
confus’d Heap, or Knot of Pieces”34 in which different stages of action were represented by the same figures
as in medieval pictures. Any attempt to project the future or recall the past should be made by means of “Em-
blematical Devices”35 or accessories used as prefigurative or retrospective symbols. The choice of the mo-
ment of action was therefore a key decision to be made. This choice should take into account not what is most
beneficial to the visual composition of the scene but what contributes to the drama, sublimity, intelligibility
and moral impact of the story. Painter who did not create such a unified poetical concept of the picture was
not a historical painter at all even if he or she executed all other aspects of the picture to the highest degree.
For Dufresnoy and de Piles, composition of the bodies and disposition of the story was controlled by
the visual effect of the whole picture and aimed at the satisfaction of the eye. Nothing should “steal [the
principal Figure] from our Sight”36, noted Dufresnoy. And he added: “Members [should be] combin’d in the
same manner as the Figures are, that is to say, coupled and knit together. And the Grouppes be separated by
a void space, to avoid a confus’d heap [... ] [which] divides the Sight into many Rays, and causes a disagree-
able Confusion”,37 “[o]ne side of the Picture must not be void, while the other is fill’d to the Borders; [...]
let matters be so dispos’d, [... ] that they shall appear in some sort equal”,38 “[m]any dispers’d Objects breed
confusion, and take away from the Picture that grave Majesty, that soft silence and repose, which give beauty
to the Piece, and satisfaction to the sight. But if you are constrained by the subject, to admit of many Figures,
you must then conceive the whole together; and the effect of the work at one view; and not every thing sep-
arately and in particular.39 [... ] Avoid also those Lines and Out-lines which are equal [... ] all which by being
too exact give to the Eye a certain displeasing Symmetry, which produces no good effect.”40
Disposition of action was no longer subordinated to the clarity of narrative but, again, to the visual effect
of the whole. “’Tis the business of a Painter, in his choice of Postures, to foresee the effect, and harmony of
the Lights and Shadows, with the Colours which are to enter into the whole; taking from each of them, that
which will most conduce to the production of a beautifull Effect.”41 Painter was expected to compose the
figures and dispose the story in such a way as to achieve an agreeable visual effect based on the interplay of
lights, shades and colours. Because they are always the lights, shades and colours of the objects imitated, es-
pecially of the figures employed in action, they must be disposed and grouped according to their contribution
to the visual effect of the whole picture. For de Piles the visual order was an ultimate goal of painting. While
commenting in his Observations on the Art of Painting on the disposition of the picture which he considered
truly pictorial part of painting as opposed to invention and design based on “foreign” arts and sciences, such
as general learning, mathematics, anatomy etc., de Piles reversed the significance of the visual and intellectual
components of the picture. “[F]or the Oeconomy or ordering of the whole together, none but only Painter can
understand it, because the end of the Artist is pleasingly to deceive the Eyes, which he can never accomplish
if this part be wanting to him. A Picture may make an ill effect, though the Invention of it be truly understood,
the Design of it correct and the Colours of it the most beautifull and fine that can be employ’d in it. And on the
contrary we may behold other Pictures ill invented, ill design’d and painted with the most common Colours,
31 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection of Painting, p. 54.
32 Albertian idea of composition as, inter alia, a proportional construction of the figure out of parts is reflected by rather unusual
reference of “Disposition or Ordonance” to the single figure. Judgment of Hercules, p. 26.
33 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. xxxvi.
34 Judgment of Hercules, p. 9.
35 Ibidem, p. 9.
36 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, pę. 19-20.
37 Ibidem, p. 20.
38 Ibidem, p. 20.
39 Ibidem, p. 23.
40 Ibidem, p. 24.
41 Ibidem, p. 12.
35
cipie of unity of time and action rather than with any visual effect in mind. Disposition was determined by the
narrative: what was disposed was history, not a picture. Like for Fréart, “composition is [... the] Ordonance
of Figures”31 - the idea of composition reaching back to Alberti’s De pictura.32 Similarly Dryden in his intro-
ductory Parallel of Poetry and Painting kept silent about the visual effect of the picture and emphasized the
poetical aspects of composition. “The Compositions of the Painter shou’d be conformable to the Text of An-
cient Authours, to the Customs, and the Times”33, he wrote. In Hercules, the unity of time and action, which
Shaftesbury called “the rule of consistency”, was a guiding principle of the tablature as opposed to the “mere
confus’d Heap, or Knot of Pieces”34 in which different stages of action were represented by the same figures
as in medieval pictures. Any attempt to project the future or recall the past should be made by means of “Em-
blematical Devices”35 or accessories used as prefigurative or retrospective symbols. The choice of the mo-
ment of action was therefore a key decision to be made. This choice should take into account not what is most
beneficial to the visual composition of the scene but what contributes to the drama, sublimity, intelligibility
and moral impact of the story. Painter who did not create such a unified poetical concept of the picture was
not a historical painter at all even if he or she executed all other aspects of the picture to the highest degree.
For Dufresnoy and de Piles, composition of the bodies and disposition of the story was controlled by
the visual effect of the whole picture and aimed at the satisfaction of the eye. Nothing should “steal [the
principal Figure] from our Sight”36, noted Dufresnoy. And he added: “Members [should be] combin’d in the
same manner as the Figures are, that is to say, coupled and knit together. And the Grouppes be separated by
a void space, to avoid a confus’d heap [... ] [which] divides the Sight into many Rays, and causes a disagree-
able Confusion”,37 “[o]ne side of the Picture must not be void, while the other is fill’d to the Borders; [...]
let matters be so dispos’d, [... ] that they shall appear in some sort equal”,38 “[m]any dispers’d Objects breed
confusion, and take away from the Picture that grave Majesty, that soft silence and repose, which give beauty
to the Piece, and satisfaction to the sight. But if you are constrained by the subject, to admit of many Figures,
you must then conceive the whole together; and the effect of the work at one view; and not every thing sep-
arately and in particular.39 [... ] Avoid also those Lines and Out-lines which are equal [... ] all which by being
too exact give to the Eye a certain displeasing Symmetry, which produces no good effect.”40
Disposition of action was no longer subordinated to the clarity of narrative but, again, to the visual effect
of the whole. “’Tis the business of a Painter, in his choice of Postures, to foresee the effect, and harmony of
the Lights and Shadows, with the Colours which are to enter into the whole; taking from each of them, that
which will most conduce to the production of a beautifull Effect.”41 Painter was expected to compose the
figures and dispose the story in such a way as to achieve an agreeable visual effect based on the interplay of
lights, shades and colours. Because they are always the lights, shades and colours of the objects imitated, es-
pecially of the figures employed in action, they must be disposed and grouped according to their contribution
to the visual effect of the whole picture. For de Piles the visual order was an ultimate goal of painting. While
commenting in his Observations on the Art of Painting on the disposition of the picture which he considered
truly pictorial part of painting as opposed to invention and design based on “foreign” arts and sciences, such
as general learning, mathematics, anatomy etc., de Piles reversed the significance of the visual and intellectual
components of the picture. “[F]or the Oeconomy or ordering of the whole together, none but only Painter can
understand it, because the end of the Artist is pleasingly to deceive the Eyes, which he can never accomplish
if this part be wanting to him. A Picture may make an ill effect, though the Invention of it be truly understood,
the Design of it correct and the Colours of it the most beautifull and fine that can be employ’d in it. And on the
contrary we may behold other Pictures ill invented, ill design’d and painted with the most common Colours,
31 Fréart de Chambray, An Idea of the Perfection of Painting, p. 54.
32 Albertian idea of composition as, inter alia, a proportional construction of the figure out of parts is reflected by rather unusual
reference of “Disposition or Ordonance” to the single figure. Judgment of Hercules, p. 26.
33 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. xxxvi.
34 Judgment of Hercules, p. 9.
35 Ibidem, p. 9.
36 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, pę. 19-20.
37 Ibidem, p. 20.
38 Ibidem, p. 20.
39 Ibidem, p. 23.
40 Ibidem, p. 24.
41 Ibidem, p. 12.