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#0037
36
JACEK JAŻWIERSKI
which shall make a very good effect, and which shall more pleasingly deceive.”42 And he further amplified the
significance of disposition while diminishing that of invention: “The Invention simply finds out the subjects,
and makes a choice of them suitable to the History which we treat; and the Disposition distributes those things
which are thus found each to its proper place, and accommodates the Figures and the Grouppes in particular,
and the Tout Ensemble (or whole together) of the Picture in general: so that this Oeconomy produces the same
effect in relation to the Eyes, as a Consort of Musick to the EarsM3
De Piles explained “the whole” in terms of visual effect resulting from perception. “ [I] f you so assemble
them [the Figures], that some of them sustain the others, and make them appear; and that all together they
make but one entire Whole, then your Eyes will be fully satisfied: But if on the contrary, you divide them,
your Eyes will suffer by seeing them all together dispers’d, or each of them in particular”^ The visual effect
was achieved by such distribution of objects that the colours, lights and shadows naturally attached to them
created orderly composed masses. De Piles wrote that a “Painter ought to collect the objects, and to dispose
them in such a manner, as to compose one whole; the several contiguous parts of which, may be enlighten’d;
many shodow’d and others of broken Colours to be in the turnings, as on a Bunch of Grapes.”45 This effect
was pleasurable. “[A]fter the great Lights, there must be great Shadows, which we call reposes: because in
reality the Sight would be tired, if it were attracted by a Continuity of glittering objects. The Lights may serve
for a repose to the Darks, and the Darks to the Lights.”46
De Piles’ concepts of the whole and deceiving of the eyes appeared here and there in Shaftesbury’s
treatise, for example when he wrote that “the fewer the Objects are [...], the easier it is for the Eye, by one
simple Act and in one View, to comprehend the Sum or Whole,”47 Perhaps nowhere was Shaftesbury closer to
de Piles than when he tried to distinguish painting from emblematical art of sculpture. “[F]or the completely
imitative and illusive ART of PAINTING,” he wrote, “whose character it is to employ in her Works the united
Force of different Colours; and who surpassing, by so many Degrees, and in so many Privileges, all other
human Fiction or imitative Art, aspires in a director manner towards Deceit and a Command over our very
Senses; she must of necessity abandon whatever is ovQX-learned, humorous, or witty, to maintain her-self in
what is natural, credible, and winning of our Assent: that she may thus acquit her-self of what is her chief
Province, the specious [deceiving] Appearance of the Objects she representsThis affinity, however, was
only superficial and itself illusory. Not only Dufresnoy and de Piles went further in defining painting in terms
of illusion and its ability to deceive the senses by means of colours, they also turned it into the main virtue of
art. Dufresnoy wrote (in words chosen by de Piles and Dryden): “And as this part [Colouring] we may call
the Soul of Painting and its utmost perfection, is a deceiving Beauty, but withal soothing and pleasing: So she
has been accus’d of procuring Lovers for her Sister, and artfully ingaging us to admire her. But so little has
this Prostitution, these false Colours, and this Deceit, dishonour’d Painting, that on the contrary, they have
only serv’d to set forth her Praise, and make her merit farther known.”49 This passage must have shocked
Shaftesbury and raised his objections. Indeed, his concept of the whole bears less resemblance to the radical
stance of de Piles.
In Plastics, Shaftesbury linked the whole to invention, not collocation, which he defined as “general
symmetry, disposition”50, and he considered symmetry as formal beauty “abstract from the moral part”51: “In-
vention. Story. Imagery. This being the first of the (five) parts in painting; though in poetry ’tis the Efivsoig,
collocation, whole, unity, as the French author (MotfFréart de Chambray) has made it also in painting [... ].”52
Much more interesting is a passage in his Characteristics, where he derived the notions of the whole and the
unity of sight directly from Aristotle. “A PAINTER, if he has any Genius, understands the Truth and Unity of
Design [... ] Piece, if it be beautiful, and carrys Truth, must be a Whole, by it-self, compleat, independent, and
42 R. de Piles, Observations on the Art of Painting, [in:] Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. 112.
43 Ibidem, p. 114.
44 Ibidem,p. 130-131.
45 Ibidem, p. 166.
46 Ibidem, p. 161-162.
47 Judgment of Hercules, p. 39.
48 Ibidem, p. 37.
49 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. 36.
50 Plastics, [in:] Second Characters, p. 131.
51 Ibidem, p. 99. At the same time it is not without moral significance: “beautiful forms beautify; polite, polish.” Ibidem, p. 123.
52 Ibidem, p. 141.
JACEK JAŻWIERSKI
which shall make a very good effect, and which shall more pleasingly deceive.”42 And he further amplified the
significance of disposition while diminishing that of invention: “The Invention simply finds out the subjects,
and makes a choice of them suitable to the History which we treat; and the Disposition distributes those things
which are thus found each to its proper place, and accommodates the Figures and the Grouppes in particular,
and the Tout Ensemble (or whole together) of the Picture in general: so that this Oeconomy produces the same
effect in relation to the Eyes, as a Consort of Musick to the EarsM3
De Piles explained “the whole” in terms of visual effect resulting from perception. “ [I] f you so assemble
them [the Figures], that some of them sustain the others, and make them appear; and that all together they
make but one entire Whole, then your Eyes will be fully satisfied: But if on the contrary, you divide them,
your Eyes will suffer by seeing them all together dispers’d, or each of them in particular”^ The visual effect
was achieved by such distribution of objects that the colours, lights and shadows naturally attached to them
created orderly composed masses. De Piles wrote that a “Painter ought to collect the objects, and to dispose
them in such a manner, as to compose one whole; the several contiguous parts of which, may be enlighten’d;
many shodow’d and others of broken Colours to be in the turnings, as on a Bunch of Grapes.”45 This effect
was pleasurable. “[A]fter the great Lights, there must be great Shadows, which we call reposes: because in
reality the Sight would be tired, if it were attracted by a Continuity of glittering objects. The Lights may serve
for a repose to the Darks, and the Darks to the Lights.”46
De Piles’ concepts of the whole and deceiving of the eyes appeared here and there in Shaftesbury’s
treatise, for example when he wrote that “the fewer the Objects are [...], the easier it is for the Eye, by one
simple Act and in one View, to comprehend the Sum or Whole,”47 Perhaps nowhere was Shaftesbury closer to
de Piles than when he tried to distinguish painting from emblematical art of sculpture. “[F]or the completely
imitative and illusive ART of PAINTING,” he wrote, “whose character it is to employ in her Works the united
Force of different Colours; and who surpassing, by so many Degrees, and in so many Privileges, all other
human Fiction or imitative Art, aspires in a director manner towards Deceit and a Command over our very
Senses; she must of necessity abandon whatever is ovQX-learned, humorous, or witty, to maintain her-self in
what is natural, credible, and winning of our Assent: that she may thus acquit her-self of what is her chief
Province, the specious [deceiving] Appearance of the Objects she representsThis affinity, however, was
only superficial and itself illusory. Not only Dufresnoy and de Piles went further in defining painting in terms
of illusion and its ability to deceive the senses by means of colours, they also turned it into the main virtue of
art. Dufresnoy wrote (in words chosen by de Piles and Dryden): “And as this part [Colouring] we may call
the Soul of Painting and its utmost perfection, is a deceiving Beauty, but withal soothing and pleasing: So she
has been accus’d of procuring Lovers for her Sister, and artfully ingaging us to admire her. But so little has
this Prostitution, these false Colours, and this Deceit, dishonour’d Painting, that on the contrary, they have
only serv’d to set forth her Praise, and make her merit farther known.”49 This passage must have shocked
Shaftesbury and raised his objections. Indeed, his concept of the whole bears less resemblance to the radical
stance of de Piles.
In Plastics, Shaftesbury linked the whole to invention, not collocation, which he defined as “general
symmetry, disposition”50, and he considered symmetry as formal beauty “abstract from the moral part”51: “In-
vention. Story. Imagery. This being the first of the (five) parts in painting; though in poetry ’tis the Efivsoig,
collocation, whole, unity, as the French author (MotfFréart de Chambray) has made it also in painting [... ].”52
Much more interesting is a passage in his Characteristics, where he derived the notions of the whole and the
unity of sight directly from Aristotle. “A PAINTER, if he has any Genius, understands the Truth and Unity of
Design [... ] Piece, if it be beautiful, and carrys Truth, must be a Whole, by it-self, compleat, independent, and
42 R. de Piles, Observations on the Art of Painting, [in:] Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. 112.
43 Ibidem, p. 114.
44 Ibidem,p. 130-131.
45 Ibidem, p. 166.
46 Ibidem, p. 161-162.
47 Judgment of Hercules, p. 39.
48 Ibidem, p. 37.
49 Du Fresnoy, The Art of Painting, p. 36.
50 Plastics, [in:] Second Characters, p. 131.
51 Ibidem, p. 99. At the same time it is not without moral significance: “beautiful forms beautify; polite, polish.” Ibidem, p. 123.
52 Ibidem, p. 141.