The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 (7-volume-set)

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany

Heiner F. Klemme Manfred Kuehn, Editors

THOEMMES

How to go to your page This eBook contains 7 volumes. In the printed version of the book, each volume is page-numbered separately. To avoid duplicate page numbers in the electronic version, we have inserted a volume number before the page number, separated by a colon. For example, to go to page 5 of Volume 1, type 1:5 in the "page #" box at the top of the screen and click "Go." To go to page 5 of Volume 2, type 2:5… and so forth.

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 1 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung philosophischer Gespräche, welche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Übersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schivankenden Begriffe von dent Gescbmack festzuselzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abbandlungen: 1. Die natürliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenscbaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Hemrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schönheit und Tugend in zwo Abhandlitngen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flögel Versuch über den Geschmack. Nebst Zivo Abbandlungen über eben die Malerie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen über den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schönen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch über das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham

DIE SITTEN-LEHRER ODER ERZEHLUNG PHILOSOPHISCHER GESPRÄCHE, WELCHE DIE NATUR UND DIE TUGEND BETREFFEN

Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding

With an Introduction by Heiner F. Klemme

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes : ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Heiner E. Klemme, 2001

This volume is reproduced courtesy of Universitatsbibliothek Marburg

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

GENERAL INTRODUCTION On the eve of the nineteenth century, the historian of philosophy J o h a n n Gottlieb Buhle wrote in his Geschichte der neuern Philosophie: Around the middle of the century which has just passed, German scholars became increasingly familiar with the French and the English languages and their writings in the arts and philosophy. Their more intimate knowledge not only made them aware of the deficiencies and imperfections of the German language and the German national taste in the sciences and fine arts; it created not only the most lively passion to educate, to refine the sciences and the arts, and to compete with the foreigners in all kinds of beautiful representation. It also made the method of the Leibniz-Wolffian school distasteful to the better talents. The strict systematic form, which the Wolffians had accepted, appeared to put oppressing chains upon the free flight of philosophical genius. Moreover, a number of philosophical works of the foreigners also showed thoroughness and systematic spirit, but without betraying pedantry and coercion...even the textbooks of foreign philosophers were much more readable than those of the Germans.1 In 1778, Johann Gottlieb Herder was still sceptical: Winkelmann, Mengs, Lessing, Mendelssohn, Sulzer, Hagedorn, and Kästner published almost at the same time dissertations on the beautiful. These writers spurred each other on and influenced each other. Furthermore, since Hutcheson, Home, Burke and Gerard wrote at almost the same time in Britain and Diderot reawakened in France the I

|. (i. B u h l e , Gschicbte der neuern Philosophie seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften (Göttingen, 1805), vol. 6, pt 2, pp. ,503-504.

V

vi

General Introduction ideas of Shaftesbury, André's and others; I believe that the traces, which this age left on such matter, will be such that they cannot be erased and the good that they obtained will be inherited by the following generations. Mediocre criticism, the animus of the reviewers and the spirit of faction have been the reason why we followed this course in the last half decade. (Lustrum) 2

In the Göttingisches Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratur of 1782, this opinion was echoed and given a nationalist twist: Our literature has developed in such to such a high degree, there are so many masterpieces of so many different kinds, we have experienced so many revolutions that one should be of the opinion that it would have to be transformed into something complete, that it would acquire a character that is in keeping with the taste of the enlightened and educated past of the public and would fix the uncertain taste among us.... But it would be a quite futile undertaking to indicate the special character of German literature, even if we had permission to engage in endless disputes about it. It was always chaotic. One cause is easy to discern: We were the last.... If Germany had been entirely isolated...it could have founded a literature of its own. But because the Germans became acquainted with foreign masterpieces without having created their own, they made an u n w a r r a n t e d leap.... Imitation was the impetus that moved the Germans all at once.... In this way so many foreign and contradictory things were introduced that...foreigners long expected that the Germans would never produce fruits of their own. But the first great talents that appeared showed that German literature could really have a character of its own that was appropriate to our way of thinking and feeling. Lessing, Mendelssohn and Abbt found it, and they united to educate Germany. 3

2

3

J. G. Herder, Denkmahl Johann Winkelmanns, 1778, in Bernhard Suphan (ed.), Sämmtliche Werke (Berlin: Weiclmannsche Buchhandlung, 1892), p. 461. Anonymous, 'Ueber die deutsche Litterarur', Göttingischcs Magazin der Wissenschaften und Litteratttr, ed. Georg Clhristoph Lichtenberg and Georg Forster, 2. Jahrgang, 2. Stuck (1782), pp. J57-9.

General Introduction

vii

According to the anonymous author, the thorough and deep philosophising about man was later continued by Wieland, Herder and Goethe. But neither Lessing and Mendelssohn nor Herder and Goethe can be understood without their foreign and especially British sources - as they themselves more or less openly acknowledged. The transfer of intellectual ideas between E u r o p e a n c o u n t r i e s d u r i n g t h e period k n o w n a s t h e Enlightenment was largely dependent upon the abilities of translators and philosophers, who had to convey and make comprehensible, complex and new ideas expressed in one language to those who thought and wrote in another. Often, they had to invent or conceive a completely new terminology to express what the British authors intended to say. That many of the terms they introduced are now part of common German is a sign of their abilities. It was not least through the endeavours of men like Spalding, Mylius, Resewitz, Flögel and Garve that the aesthetic ideas of Shaftesbury, Hogarth, Hume, Gerard and Burke found followers and critics away from home. The translations published in this series are, in fact, essential for understanding Lessing, Mendelssohn, Herder, Goethe and others. But they are also indispensable in any discussion of the broader developments of German Literature and philosophy in the second half of the eighteenth century. Even Kant cannot be understood without them. The translators themselves were important in these developments. Many of them had studied with Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten or his follower Georg Friedrich Meier, who were both important for the early development of aesthetics in G e r m a n y . Meier found Locke especially important and lectured on him, thus preparing the way for the reception of these aestheticians. Johann Joachim Spalding, whose 1745 translation of Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury's work is called Die Sitten-Lebrer oder Erzebhtng philosophiscber Gespräche, welcbe die Natur und die Tugend betreffen, was one of the most important enlightenment theologians in Germany. Christlob Mylius, the translator of William Hogarth's Zergliederung der Schönheit, die scbwankenden Begriffe von dent Gescbmack festzusetzen (1754), had the closest connections with Lessing and Mendelssohn and was important in their earliest period. Since he died in the same year that his translation appeared, his

viii

General Introduction

influence remained restricted to that period. Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz, who translated David Hume's Vier Abbandlungen (1759), was an important writer on theological and pedagogical subjects, whose reviews of some of Kant's precritical writings were important. Johann Heinrich Merck, who translated Francis Hutcheson's Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schönheit und Tugend in zwo Abhandlungen (1762), was one of the most important figures of the Sturm und Drang, and was for a time closely allied with Goethe. Karl Friedrich Flögel, who translated Gerard's Versuch über den Geschmack (1766), was an influential anthropologist and literary critic. Finally, Christian Garve, who translated Edmund Burke's Philosophische Untersucbungcn über den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe vom Erhabnen und Schönen (1773) and Alexander Gerard's Versuch über das Genie (1776), was one of the most important of the so-called popular philosophers. Even more important were Shaftesbury, Flogarth, Hume, Hutcheson, Gerard and Burke themselves. As the Introductions to the individual works show, they had indeed a lasting influence on aesthetic theory in Germany, freeing it - at least to some extent - from the narrow confines of Leibniz-Wolffian speculation. One way to bring out how these British authors were important for the specifically aesthetic discussion in Germany during the second half of the eighteenth century is to note Friedrich Schiller's comment in his Kallias oder über die Schönheit. Schiller notes that his own theory is a fourth possible way to explain beauty. 'Either one explains it objectively or subjectively, and thus one is either subjectively sensible (like Burke and others) or subjectively rational ( l i k e K a n t ) o r o b j e c t i v e l y r a t i o n a l ( l i k e Baumgarten, Mendelssohn and the entire swarm of men of perfection) or finally objectively sensible'4 (like Schiller himself). Mendelssohn and the other Germans remained ultimately closer

4

Letter to Gottfried Körner, 25 January 1793, in Edith Nahler and Horst Nahler (eds.), Schillers Werke. Nationalausgabe, vol. 26 (Weimar: Verlag Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1992), pp. 175-6. See Michael Albrecht, 'Descartes, Hutcheson, Hume, Kant und andere Ästhetiker. Historische Erkundungen der subjektiven und relativistischen Äsrhetik des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts', in Angela Giebmeyer and Helga Schnabel-Schiile (eds.), 'Das Wichtigste in der Mensch.' Festschrift für Klaus Gerteis zum 60. Geburtstag (Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 2000), pp. 3-20, esp. p. 8.

General Introduction

ix

to Wolffian rationalism than one might have expected, given their reception of British aesthetics. It was ultimately only Kant who was moved to accept a subjective form of the explanation of beauty (and the sublime). The aesthetics found in Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Gerard, Burke and Henry Home (Lord Kames) was in this sense perhaps the antithesis of traditional German aesthetics and Kant's own synthesis was indebted to both the German and the British answers. One might perhaps also say that Schiller flattered himself when he thought that his own way of explaining beauty was new, for Burke and Gerard, for instance, had already come close to it. But be that as it may, it was difficult for German philosophers of the eighteenth century to see and appreciate this. To our knowledge all books in our series are reprinted here for the very first time. While these translations are among the most important eighteenth-century British aesthetics texts translated into German, they are of course not the only ones. This is especially true of Henry Home, Lord Kames, whose Elements of Criticism (Edinburgh, 1762)5 was widely read and discussed in Germany. Besides others there are also translations of James Beattie's Dissertations, Moral and Critical (Edinburgh, 1783)6 and of George Campbell's The Philosophy of Rhetoric (London and Edinburgh, 1776). Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn 2001

5

6

7

Henry Home, Lord Kames, Gnindsätze der Kritik. Übersetzt von Joh. Nikolaus Meinhard (bearbeitet von Christian Garve). Nach der 4. engl. verb. Ausgabe, vols. 1-3 (I.eipzig: Dyck, 1763, 1763, 1766). J. Beattie, Montlische und kritischc Abhandlnngen. Aus dem Englischen mit Zusätzen und einer Vorrede (Göttingen: Brose, 1789-91), pts 1-3. G. C a m p b e l l , Die Philosophie der Rhetorik. Aus dem Englischen mit Anmerkungen begleitet und auf die deutsche Sprache angewandt von D. Jenisch (Berlin: Matzdorff, 1791).

INTRODUCTION It is no exaggeration to say that Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury (1671-1713), had a decisive influence on the moral and aesthetic discourse of the European Enlightenment.1 Shaftesbury is widely known today as the author of An Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit (1699), in which he laid the foundations of the so-called moral sense theory. His aesthetic theory can be found in his dialogue The Moralists, A Philosophical Rhapsody, Being a Recital of Certain Conversations upon Natural and Moral Subjects published in 1709 in London. A shorter version of this book was published privately as early as 1704 under the title The Sociable Enthusiast; A Philosophical Adventure, Written to Palmeon. Revised versions of The Moralists appeared in the first and second editions of his Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times' in 1711 and 1714, which also includes his other main works. The Moralists is not just important because it offers a new account of aesthetics and deals with a wide range of topics, but also because it possesses an aesthetic quality of its own and is a

1

2

On Shaftesbury and his influence in Britain, see Isabel Rivers, Reason, Grace, and Sentiment. A Study of the Language of Religion and Ethics in England, 1660-1780, vol. II: Shaftesbury to Hume (Cambridge University Press, 2000). The text of the 1711 version of The Moralists is printed side by side with the text of the original 1704 version in Anthony Ashley Cooper, Third Earl of Shaftesbury, Standard Edition, ed., trans, and with a commentary by Wolfram Benda, Gerd Hemmerich and Ulrich Schödlbauer, vol. II. 1 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1987). It includes a new German translation of The Moralists (vol. II.3: Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1998), pp. 163-337. All subsequent references to The Moralists will be to the edition of Characteristicks of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, ed. Lawrenee E. Klein (Cambridge University Press, 1999). A comprehensive account of the genesis and printing history of The Moralists can be found in Horst Meyer, Limae labor: Untersiichungcn zur Textgenese und Druckgeschichte von Shaftesburys 'The Moralists', vols. I and II (Frankfurt am Main, Bern, Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1978).

X

Introduction

xi

counterexample to the dry academic style of most philosophical books. It is fictitiously situated 'among the groves of the Academy', as the subtitle reads. The dialogue involves mainly three persons, namely Philocles, Palemon and Theocles, who represents the voice of Shaftesbury himself. Shaftesbury chose the literary form of dialogue very deliberately. Although he thought that we have an immediate knowledge of virtue and beauty, he also thought that morals and aesthetics are best expressed in the public and open form of dialogue. Philosophy should be freed from the 'colleges and cells' (p. 232) in which it is imprisoned by empiricists and pedantic sophists. Since philosophy is the study of happiness, everyone must philosophise about his good and ill. To do so successfully, however, we must be experienced in the common affairs of life. The most poetic passages of The Moralists are to be found in part three, which is also said to be more philosophical than the first two parts (cf. p. 296). Inspired by the 'genius of the place' and the 'sovereign genius', Theocles depicts, in a hymn, nature as the workmanship of the divine artificer. The universe is an organic whole in which everything is harmoniously designed. This aspect of the world is inaccessible for the scholastic mind. The sum of Theocles' unconstrained optimism and charming picture of human beings is 'that the beautiful, the fair, the comely, were never in the matter but in the art and design, never in body itself but in the form or forming power' (p. 322). The idea of the creative activity of the poetic mind finds its best expression, however, in Shaftesbury's Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author: [the| man who truly and in a just sense deserves the name of poet, and who as a real master or architect in the kind can describe both men and manners and give to an action its just body and proportion, he will be found, if I mistake not, a very different creature. Such a poet is indeed a second Maker, a just Prometheus under Jove. Like that sovereign artist or universal plastic nature, he forms a whole, coherent and proportioned in itself, with due subjection and subordinancy of constituent parts, (p. 93) Sec Michael Prince, Philosophical Dialogue in the British Enlightenment. Theology, Aesthetics, and the Novel (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 47-73. '

xii

Introduction

Dissatisfied with a modern version of Epicurean philosophy, Shaftesbury rejected the concepts of moral egoism and nominalism and argued instead for a Platonic and more optimistic form of moral and aesthetic realism. He felt that human beings are social beings who never subsisted nor ever could subsist outside society. They are endowed with a specific moral sense and capable of what we call today 'aesthetic experience'. For this experience a concept of reason and inner sense is indispensable. Shaftesbury thus reinstates Platonic forms and innate ideas as essential conditions of the possibility of knowledge against Locke's sensationism. Yet, he also modified Platonism by connecting it more intimately with subjective experience and individualism. In doing so, he searches for a subjective critical standard of taste. He finds it in the inward structure of the mind, in reason and its forms. Because morals and politics are part of philosophy, it is necessary first to know man as he is in himself and his constitution or end in nature. The Moralists claims that the 'modern epicures' (p. 252; cf. pp. 258, 297) dogmatically assert that our real good is pleasure and that pleasure depends merely on our opinion. But we should, Shaftesbury claims, be realists in matters of moral virtue. Virtue is really something in itself and in the nature of things, not arbitrary or factitious (if I may so speak), not constituted from without or dependent on custom, fancy or will, not even on the supreme will itself, which can no way govern it but, being necessarily good, is governed by it and ever uniform with it. (pp. 266-7) Shaftesbury thought that there is no reason to doubt that our own selves really exist and that the forms of virtue and beauty are part of these selves. Indeed, the mind and the forms are superior to the senses and their objects. We immediately perceive beauty through our 'inward eye'. For with it we respond to formal qualities in objects: No sooner the eye opens upon figures, the ear to sounds, than straight the beautiful results and grace and harmony are known and acknowledged. No sooner are actions viewed, no sooner the human affections and passions discerned (and they are

Introduction

xiii

most of them as soon discerned as felt) than straight an inward eye distinguishes and sees the fair and shapely, the amiable and admirable, apart from the deformed, the foul, the odious or the despicable, (p. 326) We all own the standard of beauty, but in applying it to things, we often misjudge beauty because of our ignorance, our passions and our interests. The platonic elements of Shaftesbury's aesthetics are most explicit in his theory of the 'three degrees or orders of beauty' (p. 323). The first degree, that of the 'dead forms', is the result of man or of nature. The second degree consists of 'intelligence, action and operation'. These are 'the forms which form'. Dead forms receive their form from this order. The forms of the second degree show that we are not only capable of knowing beauty, but that we are original in creating beauty in architecture, music and the other arts and sciences. The third order consists in a creative mind, which 'forms not only such as we call mere forms but even the forms which form'' (p. 323). These forms are the principle and source of all beauty. Shaftesbury's motto could have been: beauty follows design, and design is made by the forming mind. Shaftesbury was eager to show, however, that we should not misinterpret the concept of form. His neo-classicist ideal of beauty is, accordingly, accompanied by a romantic expression of beauty. Even the terrible, frightening and ugly are aesthetically valuable. There is a formless form in nature, a 'primitive state' caught by our 'genius, the genius of the place and the Great Genius' which pleases us: Even the rude rocks, the mossy caverns, the irregular unwrought grottos and broken falls of waters, with all the horrid graces of the wilderness itself, as representing nature more, will be the more engaging and appear with a magnificence beyond the formal mockery of princely gardens, (p. 317) Shaftesbury was very critical of traditional theology. Thus he was also infamous for his alleged deism. Our love of God and virtue should be disinterested and for the sake of God and virtue alone. The excellence of the object itself, not the expected reward, should be our sole motive (cf. pp. 268-9).

xiv

Introduction

The first German translation of The Moralists was published in 1745 under the title Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung philosophischer Gespräche, welche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Aus dem Englischen des Grafen von Schaftesbury übersetzt. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Übersetzer (Berlin: Haude and Spener). The translation is based on the text of the edition in the Characteristics. It is interesting to note that the title page of this translation includes Horace's dictum 'Sapere Aude' which, according to a notable remark in Kant's essay 'Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?' (1784), should be the motto of the Enlightenment or Aufklärung. 4 Die Sitten-Lehrer is not the first German translation ever of one of the works of Shaftesbury, but it became undoubtedly very influential. It was also important because the anonymous translator was the theologian Johann Joachim Spalding. Spalding, who had Scottish ancestors, was born in 1714 at Tribsees and died in 1 804 in Berlin. He studied philosophy, languages and theology at Rostock and Greifswald, and wrote his philosophical dissertation in 1736 at Rostock. After holding the positions of a s s i s t a n t p r e a c h e r , p r e a c h e r and Gesandtschaftssekretdr at various places, he became Probst and Preacher at Berlin in 1764. As a result of the religious edicts of Wöllner, he resigned his office in 1788. Spalding was decisively influenced by the works of Christian Wolff, Shaftesbury, English anti-deism and Joseph Butler. Although Spalding is also known as a leading figure in German neology, as a critic of pietism and as a translator, 5 he is best known for his best-selling book

4

5

Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, ed. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften et al., vol. 8 (Berlin, 1900 onwards), p. 35. The ultimate model of this symbol seems to be a medal designed by the philosopher Johann Georg Wachter and coined in 1736 for the Alethophilen, a society established in Berlin to promote the philosophy of Christian Wolff. Gottsched was a member of this society. See Detlef Döring, 'Beiträge zur Geschichte der Gesellschaft der Alethophilen in Leipzig', in D. Döring and Kurt Nowak (eds.), Gelehrte Gcsellschaftcn im mitteldeutschen Rautn, 1650-1820, vol. 1 (Stuttgart, I.eipzig: Hirzel, 2000). He also translated Shaftesbury's Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit (Untersuchung über die Tugend, aus dem Englischen des Grafen von Schaftesbury übersetzt. Nebst einem Schreiben des Uebersetzers, Berlin, 1757) and Joseph Butler's Analogy of Religion. A comprehensive bibliography of bis works and translations can be found in Michael Albrecht, 'Zum Wortgebrauch von "Aufklärung" bei Johann Joachim Spalding. Mit einer Bibliographie der

Introduction

xv

Gedanken über die Bestimmung des Menschen, of 1748.6 It is Spalding's account of the end of man that proved very influential. Many leading and minor figures in German philosophy during the second half of the eighteenth century considered it important. Most famously, Moses Mendelssohn and Thomas Abbt discussed the 'Bestimmung des Menschen' in the 1760s.7 Even Kant's infamous question 'What is man?' cannot be properly understood in isolation from the debates originally initiated by Spalding. It was especially The Moralists that had a decisive impact on Spalding's thinking and writing. Like Shaftesbury, Spalding believed in the importance of the moral sense. He also believed that virtue is the high road to happiness and he shared Shaftesbury's optimistic picture of man. Most of all, however, he appreciated Shaftesbury's poetic style of writing. In this he was not alone. Indeed, many other Germans considered it e x e m p l a r y . In 1758 C h r i s t o p h M a r t i n Wieland ranked Shaftesbury with Xenophon, Plutarch and Horace as one of the very few writers he ever appreciated. In 1788, Wieland wrote that, if he were allowed to read just three poets, they would be Homer, Shakespeare and Shaftesbury. 1 0 And even Herder, who once called Shaftesbury 'that amiable Plato of

Schriften und zwei ungedruckten Voten Spaldings', in Michael Oberhauscn (ed.), Vermmftkritik und A u f k l ä r u n g . Studien zur Philosophic Kants und seines Jahrhnnderts (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 2001), pp. 13-19. 6

7

8

9

II)

The title of the hook was changed in later editions to Die Eestimmung des Menschen; see J. J. Spalding, Die Bestimmung des Menschen. Die Erstattsgabe von 1748 und die letzte Auflage von 1794, ed. Wolfgang Erich Müller (Waltrop: Spenner, 1997). See Stefan Lorenz, 'Skeptizismus und natürliche Religion. Thomas Abbt und Moses Mendelssohn und ihre Debatte über J. J. Spaldings "Bestimmung des Menschen"', in Michael Albrecht et al. (eds.), Moses Mendelssohn und die Kreise seiner Wirksamkeit (Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1994), pp. 113-33. See Clemens Schwaiger, 'Zur Frage nach den Quellen von Spaldings Bestimmung des Menschen. Ein ungelöstes Rätsel der Aufklärungsforschung', A u f k l ä r u n g , vol. 1 1, no. 1 (1999), pp. 7-19. Letter to Zimmermann, 18 October 1758, in Hans Werner Seiffert (ed.), Wielands Briefu'echsel, vol. I (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1963), p. 373. Anzeiger des Teuschen Merkur, March 1788, p. xxxi.

xvi

Introduction

Europe', 11 was as late as 1800 so inspired by Theocles' hymn of nature that he produced a new version of it in a more romantic mood. 12 In the third part of his Briefe, das Studium der Theologie betreffend (1781) Herder emphasized the beauty of The Moralists: 'It is one of the few pieces of the Moderns, which can, as far as composition and content go, be compared with the ancients..' 13 Moses Mendelssohn's Briefe über die Empfindungen were, according to Herder, 'a youthful, fortunate echo of the English philosopher'. 14 Kant declared in his lectures on Anthropology in 1781/82: 'Shaftesbury, Hutcheson and Hume have the same style of writing as Cicero, and perhaps it is even a more excellent. It is a pleasure to read them.' 15 But Kant's judgment is also praise of the German translations, if only because he could not read English. The high regard in which Shaftesbury was held in eighteenth-century Germany is also expressed by the historian Johann Gottlieb Buhle at the end of the eighteenth century: The Characteristicks 'is the most estimable bequest of one of the most lovable writers who ever lived. 16 Spalding himself decided to write in the same manner as Shaftesbury. And at least in the eyes of his contemporaries, he was not entirely unsuccessful. He was first identified as the translator of The Moralists through a stylistic comparison of Die Sitten-Lehrer and Spalding's own works by Friedrich Christoph Oetinger in 1753.17 11

Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, ed. B e r n h a r d S u p h a n , 33 vols. ( B e r l i n : Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1877-1913), vol. 5, p. 490.

12

Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 27, pp. 397-406; see also vol. 10, p. 232. In June 1771, Herder wrote to Karoline Flachsland that Wieland 'and an Englishman, Shaftesbury, are the main writers, with which I live right now'. Herder, Briefe, vol. 2, May 1771-April 1773, eds. Wilhelm Dobhek and Günter Arnold (Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolder, 1977), p. 33.

13

Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. JO, p. 305.

14

Herder, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 10, p. 305.

15

Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 25, p. 988.

16

Johann Gottlieb Buhle, Geschichte der nenern Philosophie seit der fcpoche der Wiederherstellung der Wissenschaften, vol. 5 (Gottingen, 1803), p. 291.

17

See his Inquisitio in sensum communem et rationem (Tubingen, 1753; reprint Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1964), p. 264; cf. Schvvaiger, 'Zur Frage nach den Quellen', p. 11.

Introduction

xvii

The Introduction, called 'A letter to the Translator'18, 18 was also most probably written by Spalding himself. 19 Addressing himself, Spalding writes: 'Your undertaking could claim approval just because it makes better known to the Germans a writer, whom the world has already long considered something special' (p. 3). Indeed, Shaftesbury belongs to the 'Aittores classici of the foreigners' (p. 4). There is need to be concerned about passages in this book, Spalding argues, which are dangerous to religion, and it is certainly true that Shaftesbury belongs to those authors, who have trust in their own reason alone and mistrust revelation. But in this he should be considered a modern Epicurus or Marcus Aurelius (cf. p. 5). Actually in much of what the reader can find in this work, religion is not in danger. If everything in nature is intention, design and ultimate end, then we have a perfect proof of the highest being and the truth of natural religion (cf. p. 13). The theory of moral sentiment ('moralische Empfindung') is in accordance with the goodness of God and it also agrees with our common experiences. In England, almost every thorough thinker sees this theory verified, especially since Hutcheson brought it to light with much care and understanding. And even if objections are raised against it, they do not concern the truth of such a sentiment but its use and the force ascribed to it. (pp. 16-17) The first fountain of our passions and spring of our actions is 'the s e n t i m e n t of perfection' (p. 17) ( ' d i e E m p f i n d u n g der Vollkommenheit'). Finally, Spalding claims that Shaftesbury teaches freethinkers a good lesson: voluptas ("Wollust] is not our highest good, we are more than merely a body (cf. p. 19). There is also justice, fairness, rightness and decency in the nature of our actions and our own natural dispositions, preceding all arbitrary and artificial impressions. Shaftesbury's view that morality and aesthetics must be deduced from the nature of man as it really is and that h u m a n nature consists of both reason and n a t u r a l affections, was 18

All references to this 'letter' are to our present edition, pp. 3-22.

19

Albrecht, however, claims that it was not written by Spalding; see Albrecht, 'Zum Wortgebrauch', p. 14.

xviii

Introduction

certainly unacceptable to traditional Christians. Spalding did his best, however, to downplay this in his introductory letter. But later he seems to have become disenchanted with Shaftesbury. Being impressed by Kant's moral theory, he wrote to Kant on 8 February 1788: It was already in my youth that I couldn't really approve of the principles of happiness in moral theory. For a certain period of time, a belief in Shaftesbury's and Hutcheson's glimmering system of moral sense seemed to make me feel content in this regard. But it was only a soporific. The idea of several original, independent powers of mind became harder and harder for me to sustain.... 20 Spalding's translation was favourably received by Herder, who wrote in his Adrastea (1801/2): How late these waitings |of Shaftesbury] were allowed to be known in Germany! After more than one defective attempt the first, against which so much uninspired was written, were translated 21 by a venerable clergyman in our language. The others 22 had to wait another thirty years..23 Shaftesbury's extensive influence in eighteenth-century Germany cannot be discussed here in any detail. Some further references must

20

Kant, Gesannnelte Schriften, vol. 10, p. 528.

2\

Herder is r e f e r i n g to the Sitten-I.ehrer and Spalding's t r a n s l a t i o n of Shaftesbury's Inquiry concerning Virtue and Merit.

22

23

DeS Grafen von Shaftesbtiry philosophische Werke. Aus dem Englischen übersezt, vol. 1 [trans. Ludwig Heinrich Christoph Hölty] (Leipzig: Weygand, 1776); vol. 2 [trans. Johann Lorenz Benzler] (Leipzig, 1777); vol. 3 [trans, (ohann Lorenz Benzlcr] (Leipzig, 1779). A selection of this edition (including The Moralists) was published as Anthony Earl Shaftesbury, Der gesellige Enthusiast. Philosophische Essays, ed. Karl-Heinz Schwabe (München: C. H. Beck; Leipzig, Weimar: Gustav Kiepenheuer, 1990). Herder, Sänimtliche Werke, vol. 23, pp. 154-5. See also Sänimtliche Werke, vol. 1 1, p. 205: 'Hats Deutschland genutzt oder geschadct, daS Spalciing, Felix Hefs, Sack, Bamberger u. a. uns mit Foster und Shaftesbury, Butler und Law, Benson und Locke bekannt gemacht haben? Zuerst schrie alles: "Naturalismus! Deismus! Arianer! Socinianer! Das Christenthum geht unter, wenn den Uebersetzern nicht mit Gewalt gesteuert wird!" Der Erfolg hats anders gewiesen.'

Introduction

xix

do. Even before Spalding's translation appeared in 1745, Leibniz expressed his admiration of him. In a letter to Pierre Coste of 30 May 1712, he claimed that he would have learned much from volume two of the Characteristicks, if he could have read it before he published his Théodicée.2'24 Johann Christoph Gottsched's Versuch einer Critischen Dichtkunst vor die Dcutschen (1729/30) was not only inspired by Shaftesbury, he even asked for a German translation of Soliloquy, or Advice to an Author, which eventually appeared as early as 1738.25 Before the period of Sturm und Drang and its emphasis on genius and nature, Shaftesbury's vision of nature as wilderness was interpreted in terms of physico-theology. An example of this is the poetic works of Barthold Heinrich Brockes in the first half of the century. 26 There is hardly any philosopher or poet of any standing in the movements of Enlightenment, Sturm und Drang and early Romanticism who did not react in one way or another to Shaftesbury's work. 27 His concepts of genius, aesthetic experience and disinterestedness28 are discussed in the 24

Die philosopbischen Schriften von Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, ed. Carl Immanuel Gerhardt, vol. 3 (Berlin: Weidmannschc Buchhandlung, 18X7; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1965), pp. 421-31, esp. p. 430.

25

Unterredungen mit sich selbst [translated by Georg Venzky] (Magdeburg, 1738).

26

See Carsten Zelle, 'Angenebmes Graiten.' Literaturhistorische Beiträgc zur Ästhetik des Schrecklichen im achtzehntcn Jahrhitndert (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1987), pp. 102, 220, 241, and Ida M. Kimber, 'Barthold Heinrich Brockes: Two Unacknowledged Borrowings', Modern Language Review, vol. 64 (1 969), pp. 806-808.

27

28

See besides others Johann Ulnch König, 'Untersuchung von dem gnten Geschmack in der Dicht- und Redekunst', in Frieclricb Rudolf von Canitz, Gedichte, ed. J. U. Konig (Leipzig, Berlin, 1727); Oskar F. Walzel, 'Shaftesbury und das deutsche Geistesleben des 18. Jahrhunderts', Gerinanisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, vol. 1 ( 1 9 0 9 ) , pp. 416-37; Christian Friedrich Weiser, Shaftesbury und das deutsche Geisteslehen (Leipzig, Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1916), pp. 557-9; Lawrence Marsden Price, English Literature in Germany (Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1953); Lothar Jordan, 'Shaftesbury und die deutsche Literatur und Ästhetik des 18. Jahrhunderts. Fin Prolegomenon zur Linie Gottsched-Wieland' Gernianisch-Romanische Monatsschrift, vol. 75; None Folge vol. 44 (1994), pp. 410-24; and Angelica Baum, Selbstgefiihl und reflektierte Neigung. Ästhetik und Etbik bei Shaftesbury (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, to be published). As to the reception of Shaftesbury's concept of disinterestedness, see Werner Strube, '"Interesselosigkeit". Zur Geschichte eines G r u n d b e g r i f f s der Ästhetik', Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte, vol. 23 (1979), pp. 148-74; Dabney Townsend, 'From Shaftesbury to Kant: The Development of the Concept of

xx

Introduction

works of Bodmer,29 Wieland, Mendelssohn,30 Sulzer,31 Herder, Hamann, 32 Schiller, Goethe, Kant and many others. It is to be hoped that this influence will be the subject of a fully comprehensive study in the near future.

Heiner F. Klemme Otto-von-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg Germany, 2001

Aesthetic Experience', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 48 (1987), pp. 287-306; and Paul Guyer, Kant and the Experience of Freedom. Essays on Aesthetics and Morality (Cambridge University Press, 1993), pp. 48-130. 29

Der Mahler der Sitten, eds. Johann Jacob Bodmer and Johann Jakob Breitinger (Zurich, 1746; reprint Hildesheim: Olms, 1972).

30

Shaftesbury's impact on Mendelssohn is discussed in Alexander Altmann, Moses Mendelssohn. A Biographical Study (University of Alabama Press, 1973).

31

32

See his Untcrredungen über die Schönhcit der Natnr (Berlin, 1750; reprint of the Berlin 1770 edition: Frankfurt am Main: Athenäum, 1971).

Johann Georg Hamann translated parts of the Characteristicks about 1755 which were, however, not published; see Hamann, Sämmtliche Werke, vol. 4, ed. Josef Nadler (Wien: Verlag Herder, 1952), pp. 131-91; on Shaftesbury's i m p a c t on H a m a n n cf. pp. 473-5 and Horst Meyer, ' H a m a n n und Shaftcsbury', in Bernhard Gajek (ed.), Johann Georg Hamann und England. Hamann und die englischsprachige Aufklarung. Acta des siehten Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums zu Marhurg/Lahn J996 (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Fang, 1999), pp. 197-204, and Christoph Deupmann gen. Frohues, 'Komik und Methode. Zu Johann Georg Hamanns ShaftesburyRezeptiorT, in Johann Georg Hamann und England, pp. 205-28.

This page intentionally left blank

4

5

6

7

8

9

Even Confcience, I fear, fuch as is owing to religious Difdpline, will make but a slight Figure , where this Tafte is fet amifs. Among the Vulgar perhaps it may do wonders. A Devil

IO

Devil and a Hell may prevail, where a Jail and Gallows are thought inefficient: But fuch is the Nature of the liberal, polish'd, and refin'd part of Mankind; fo far are they from the mere Simplicity ofBabesand Sucklings; that, inftead of applying the Notion of a future Reward or Punishment to their immediate Behaviour in Society, they are apt, much rather, thro' the whole Courfe of their Lives, to shew evidently, that they look on the pious Narrations to be indeed no better than Childrens Tales, or the Amufement of the mere Vulgar; Efie aliquos Manes, & fubterranea regna, Nee pueri credunt,nifi qui nondum aere lauantur. Juiten:

II

12

13

*4

I*

16

I?

S8

*5>

20

21

22

This page intentionally left blank

2»

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

3£

3*

37

38

3*

40

4*

42

43

44

4*

4*

4*

4S

4-9

50

5«

52

53

54

55

&

57

58

59

6o

6i

62

*3

64.

*5

&

*7

68

69

70

11

72

73

74

75

7^

77

78

79

So

8i

82

83

84

85

&

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

**

An Inquiry concerning Virtue or Merit by the Earl of Shaftesbury.

105

io6

loy

log

IO9

no

Ill

112

H3

ii4

IK

u6

117

us

H9

120

121

122

121

124

125

126

Ac mihi quidem Veteres illimaius quiddam animo complex!, multo plus etiam vidifTe videntur, quam quantum noftrorum ingeniorum acies intueri poteft: qui omnia haec, quae fupra effubter, vnum efTe ec vna vi, atque vna confeniione naturae con-

127

efle dixerunt. Nullum eft enim genus rerum, quod aut auulfum a caeteris per fe ipfum conftare, aut, quo caetera, li careant, vim fuam atque aeternitatem conferuare poillnt. Cicero de Oratore, 1. 3. Omne hoc, quod vides, quo diuina atque humana conclufa funt, vnum eft: membra fumus corporis magni. Seneca, Epift, p$. Societas noftra lapidum fornicationi umillima eft: quae calura, nifi inuicem obftajent, hoc ipfo fufti^ netur. Ibid. Eftne Dei Sedes, nifi Terra, et Pontus et'Aether, Et coelum et virtus ? Superos quid quaerimus vltra :^ lupiter eft, quodcunque vides, quocunque moueris.

I2g

129

13©

I3i

132

135

134

135

l$6

137

138

139

140

i4i

142

145

144

145

M6

147

148

149

15®

i5i

m

153

*54

155

I56

157

158

tf9

i6o

l6i

i6a

i63

164

I6>

166

167

i68

169

170

*7*

172

173

174

175

I76

17?

J78

I7f

i86

i8i

rga

183

i84

185

$6

187

188

189

I§O

191

192

m

194

195

196

197

I9S

199

200

2OI

202

2O3

2O4

2©5

ao6

207

208

209

2IO

2U

212

2Ig

21*

*$

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

22g'

2*4

225

226

227

22g

229

230

23t

23*

233

*34

235

216

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

2$0

351

152

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

26l

262

2£j

264

265

266

267

268

269

*7o

271

2v2

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

2gO

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 2 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme

and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745– 1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung philosophischer Gesprache, welche die Natur and die Ttigend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Ubersetzer (J745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schwankenden Begriffe von dem Geschmack festzusetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abhandlungen: \. Die naliiriiche Geschicbte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grumiregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck UntersHchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonheit und Tugend in zii'o Abhandlungen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch iiber den Geschmack. Nebst 7,wo Abhandlungen iiber ebtn die Matcrie voni Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schonen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch iiber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippcnham

ZERGLIEDERUNG DER SCHONHEIT

William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius

With an Introduction by

Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes: ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Manfred Kuehn, 2001

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION W i l l i a m Hogarth was horn on 10 November 1697 in London. He died on 26 October 1764 also in London. He is today best known for his satirical engravings and paintings, such as 'A Harlot's Progress 1 ( I 732) and V\ Rake's Progress' (1734). While his pictures are f u l l of exaggeration, satire and even drollery, they also had a definite moral message. Hogarth intended to improve the m i n d s of those who saw his pictures and thus contribute to the common good. In Germany, these engravings were popular, Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-99), one of the most subtle t h i n k e r s of the Enlightenment, wrote a detailed description and explanation of them that appeared between 1 7( M and 1833.' More than 10,000 copies of the work were published, and this not only made Lichtenberg famous but also c o n t r i b u t e d to I logarth's f a m e as an engraver. Curiously enough, in his e x p l a n a t i o n s Lichtenberg neglects Hogarth's theory of b e a u t y , even though it had made quite an impression on the- most important German aestheticians of the generation t h a t preceded his own. Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn and m a n y others had found The Analysis of Beauty i m p o r t a n t , while Lichtenberg was more interested in Hogarth, the story-teller. The Analysis of Beauty, written ivith a view of fixing the fluctuating Ideas of Taste appeared in 1753 in London. In it Hogarth argues that in the arts it is useful to consider solid objects as t h i n shells that are composed of lines. After having

1 (ieorg C .hristoph 1 ichtenberg, Ausfithrlichu Erklarung tier Hogarthischen Kiipferstiche ( I 7 °>4- I <S 1.1). Schriften nnd ttriefe, ed. Wolfgang Promies, vol.3 (Mi'mchen: H.IIIM.M Verlag, l c >72), pp. 657-1060. The later issues were, of course, nor written by I.ichtenberg himself. See also Wolfgang Promies (ed.), 1 .ichteiihcrgs Hogarth. Die Kalendererkliirnngen von Georg Christoph I icl'tenherg /nit Jen N.ichsticheii ron Ernst l.udwig Riepenhaitsen zn den Knpterstich I\i/eln i-oii William Hogarth (Miinchen: Carl Hanser, 1999). This is an edition ot the texts on which the Ansfiihrliche Erklarimg is based.

v

vi

Intoduclion

gone through the basic principles of design (such as fitness, variety, uniformity, simplicity, intricacy and quantity, 'all of which co-operate in the production of beauty, m u t u a l l y correcting and restraining each other occasionally' 2 ), he tries to show that some lines are more pleasing to the eye than others. Compositions with the 'waving line' and compositions with the 'serpentine line' are given special attention. 'Though all sorts of waving-lines are ornamental, when properly applied; yet strictly speaking, there is but one precise line, properly to be called the line of beauty', namely the one that he shows on figure 4 in the accompanying prints. 3 And just as there is one line of beauty, there is also one serpentine line that deserves the title 'line of grace'. Though these two lines are the foundation of his theory of beauty and grace, he insists that the use of these lines is to be governed by the principles of composition that he first laid down. The three central chapters of the book on lines (7, 8 and 9) are followed by discussions of proportion, light and shade, colouring, and depiction of face, attitude and action. In the last chapter Hogarth explains a 'new method of acquiring an easy and graceful movement of the hand and arms'. Even if all of this appears a bit odd or naive today, it may be said to represent nevertheless a significant departure from the classicist's theory of arts. Richard Woodfield has argued that whereas 'the classicist saw nature in terms of art...Hogarth saw art in nature; the former saw art as superior to nature whilst the latter saw nature as superior to art.' s In any case, Hogarth felt that the artist should imitate the visible world, and that the visible world, consisting of geometrical figures, should be the measuring stick for art. As he said, my 'figures...are to be consider'd in the same light as, with those a mathematician makes with his pen'.6 The German translation of The Analysis of Beauty by Christlob Mylius, Lessing's brother-in-law, appeared just a year after its

2

William Hogarth, Analysis of Beauty, 1753 (Hildesheim/New York: Georg Olms Verlag, 1974), p. 12.

3

Hogarth, Analysis of Beauty, 1753, p. 49.

4

Hogarth, Analysis of Beauty, 1753, p. 52.

5

Richard Woodfield, 'Introductory Note', in Hogarth, Analysis of Beauty, 1753.

6

Hogarth, Analysis of Beauty, 1753, p. 2.

Introduction

vii

first p u b l i c a t i o n in English. Its title is Zergliederung der Sch(")nheil, die scbwankenden Bcgriffe von dem Geschmack festzusetzcn, and it appeared in two editions, one appeared at the same time in London and Hanover, the other a little later in Berlin and Potsdam. The London edition contains a Preface by the translator, while the Berlin edition contains both this Preface and a 'Preface to this New Edition.' The second Preface was anonymous, but it is now known that Lessing wrote it. Christlob M y l i u s was born in 1722. He died on 30 May I 754, t h a t is, in the same year his translation appeared. As he points out in his Preface, he wanted to pass through London, but, much to his chagrin, the intended short stay turned into a very long one. Indeed, he never left London again. Mylius was a journalist, who specialized especially in scientific topics. Very much influenced by British empiricism, he tried to encourage his German contemporaries to rely on common sense and to think for themselves. He had written on such topics as the nature of space, the nature of fire, the materiality of the soul, the theory ot comets and on extraterrestrial worlds, and he had also tried to make Newton's theory better known to non-specialists. 1 he translation of Hogarth was therefore a bit of a departure from his normal pursuits, but it was not unusual because he had to earn a l i v i n g however he could (and he specifically points out t h a t the t r a n s l a t i o n was u n d e r t a k e n at the request of a publisher). M y l i u s t h o u g h t that Hogarth's work about taste could be u s e f u l to the Germans because nothing was as much misunderstood as taste. Hogarth had discovered the secret of beauty, the object of taste that even most of the ancients did not know. 'Hogarth has discovered all and has revealed it' (Preface). While his investigation of the causes of beauty concerns only the forms, M y l i u s was convinced - or says he is convinced - that he has also uncovered the true basis of beauty in music and thought. An Italian t r a n s l a t i o n appeared in 1761 with the title I/analisi dclla belezza 11 i v o r n o ) .

8 T h a t is why t h i > edition of the translation is reprinted in this series. A new (ic-mian t r a n s l a t i o n of that work appeared in 199,5 (Analyse der Schonheit. Aus dem Knglischen uherset/t von forg Heininger. Mit einem Nachwort von Peter l>e\te (Basel: Verlag der K u n s t ) . )

viii

Intoduction

One circumstance that makes the translation interesting is that Mylius collaborated with Hogarth. Even though Hogarth understood 'German as little as I [Mylius] understand Russian' (Preface), Hogarth helped Mylius by explaining terms of art he did not know. He admits that the language of the translation may be unusual, but he points out that this reflects the unusual English of Hogarth. Lessing points out in his Preface that the English" version of the translation was far too expensive for German artists and scholars and that this alone made necessary a reprint. But there are also changes in translation and style. And there is an addition, namely a translation of letters of a Mr. Roquet that appeared in London under the title Lettres de Monsieur * * * a un de ses Amis a Paris, pour luis expliquer les Estampes de Monsieur Hogarth. Though Lessing had already favourably reviewed the translation, he was critical of Hogarth and the translation. He claims Hogarth has shown 'that all bodily beauty consists in the skillful and manifold application of the waving line (Wellcnlinie) and the fluctuating taste is happily restricted to something that is certain, but I say restricted, for it has not been fixed yet' (Preface to this New Edition). We need only consider the first example of Hogarth's engraving to see this. There are several waving lines, but only one of it deserves the title 'line of beauty'. Lessing argues that metaphysical considerations have to supplement the practical considerations of the artist. Perfection consists in the unity of the manifold and when this unity is easy to comprehend we call it beautiful. A philosopher needs an argument that shows why the serpentine line has 'such a pleasing force over us' (Preface to this New Edition). Lessing ends his Preface by repeating a criticism made in the Journal Brittanique to the effect that Hogarth's idea was not new but resembles a system formulated by Parent. Having read Parent's essay, Lessing agrees: Hogarth's theory is surprisingly similar to that of Parent. 9 The review appeared in the Berlinische Priuilegierte Zeitmig of 30 May 1754. Lessing had already called attention to the translation on 7 May. On 25 June 1754, he mentioned it again, characterizing it as 'indispensahle' for artists and scholars but complaining about the price and announcing a new edition. Soon thereafter he could report that the book had appeared. (These reviews and announcements were made anonymously.) They are published in Gotthold Ephraim Lcssings Sdnuntliche Schriften, eel. Karl Lachmann, 3rd ed. Franz Muncker (Stuttgart: G. J. Goschensche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1890), vol. 5, pp. 391, 405-407, 413ff., 422.

Introduction

ix

The new edition appears to have led to many discussions of Hogarth in Germany. 1 0 C h r i s t i a n L . u d w i g von Hagedorn discussed specifically Hogarth's conception of waving lines as the basis of beauty. 11 Merck included in his book Uher die Schonheit (1776) a dialogue between Edmund Burke and William Hogarth, in which he rehearses the arguments of Burke's Enquiry and Hogarth's Analysis. He then lets one Anton Raphael Mengs explain his own views, arguing that abstract theoretical studies do not help and demanding instead a careful study of nature and practice in drawing. Johann Georg Hamann wrote to Kant on 27 July 1759 and in trying to justify his own crabbed style of writing referred to Hogarth, according to whom the serpentine line is the element of all beauty. " Kant himself, by contrast, seems to have been more impressed by Hogarth's engravings, which he knew through 1 ichtenberg's book, t h a n by his critical theory.13 Wieland and Justus Moser relied on Hogarth just as much as 10 Sec \: M. Barley, 'On the Nature and the Delineation of Beauty in Art and 1'lnlosopliy. I.essmg's Responses to W i l l i a m Hogarth and Edmund Burke', in I'radition .ind (".reation: Essays in Honour of Elizabeth Mary Wilkinson (Leeds: M a n e \ and Son Ltd, 1978), pp. 30-45; F.dmund Heier, 'Lessing and Hogarth: the L m p i r i c a l Concept of Beauty', in Achim Arnold et al. (eds.) AnalcctJ Helvetica ct Ciermanica (Bonn: (irundmann, 1979), pp. 77-98; and Walter T. R i \ , ' W i l l i a m Hogarth und die Aufklarung in Deutschland', in Bernd \X•'. K r y s m a n s k i and Joachim Moller (eds.) Hogarth in Context: Ten Essays and a liihlio^raphy (Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 1996), pp. 1 17-29.

1

See ' B e t r a c h t u n g iiber die Stellung nach der sogenannten Wellenlinie', llililiotht'k tier schonen Wissenschaften und der Freien Kiinste, vol. 4 (1760), pp. I- 1.5. The a u t h o r was Christian Ludwig von Hagedorn (see his tteti\ichtitn\>eti uher die Mahlerey, 1 vols., I.eip/ig, 1762).

12 K a n t , (te^aninielte Schriften, eds. Pveussische Akademie der Wissenschaften et

al., vol. 2.5 (Berlin, I 900 et set].), pp. 10, 14. 13 He wrote to Carl Lriednch Staudlin on 4 December 1794: 'Noch bitte ich

msta'ndigst: Ihrem \ortrerflichcn Urn. Hofrarh Lichtenberg, der, durch seinen hellen Kopr, seme rechtscharfene Denkungsart, und uniibertreffbare Laune, v i c l l i it lit besser clem t'bel eines triibseligen Zwangsglaubens entgegen wirken k a n n , < i l s aiulere n u t ihren Demonstrationen - meinen grofiten Dank fiir sein giitiges und u n v e r d i e n r e s Ceschenk "der Sammlung und Beschreibung Hogartscher Knpferstiche" /.u sagen, indem ich zugleich den Kostenaufwand der L o r t s c f / u n g d e r s e l b e n v e r b i t t e ' ( K a n t , Gcsammelte Schriften, eds. Preussische A k a d e m i e der Wissenschaften et al., Berlin 1900 et seq., vol. 1 1 p. 5 i 4 i . He also mentions Hogarth in his Observations (Kant, Gesanunelte \Verkc, vol. 2, p. 2 14) and Hogarth's depiction of character in his engravings p l a \ s ,1 role in Ins lectures on anthropology.

x

Intoduction 14

Johann Gottwerth Miiller and Daniel Chodowiecki. Still, it appears to have been Lessing who was most impressed by Hogarth. In his Laokoon or on the Limits of Painting and Poetry of 1766 and the Hamburgische Dramaturgic of 1767, he obviously relies on central distinctions of Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty. Later, its importance seems to have decreased. Thus Jean Paul mentions Hogarth often, but it is far from clear how important his theory was to him, and August Wilhelm Schlegel noted dryly that Hogarth painted ugliness but wrote about beauty. 15 This is also suggested by Goethe's sarcastic remarks about 'Undulisten' and 'Schlangler'.16 Manfred Kuehn Philipps- Universitat Marburg Germany, 2001

14

For more on this, see Rix, 'William Hogarth und die A u f k l a r u n g in Deutschland', pp. 123-7.

15 Kritische Friedrich-Schlegel-Aitsgabc, eels. Ernst Behler, Jean-Jacques Anstett

and Hans Eichner. Erste Abteilung: Kritische Ncnatisgabe (Munich, Paderborn, Wien: Schoningh; Zurich: Thomas, 1958 et seq.), part 1, vol. 2, p. 194. 16 'Undulisten. Unter diesem Namen wurden diejenigen bezeichnet, die sich mit

den vorhergehenden im Gegcnsatz befinden, die das Weichere und Gefallige ohne Charakter und Bedeutung lieben, wodurch denn zulctzt hochstens cine gleichgiiltige Anmut entstebt. Sie wurden auch Schlangler genannt, und man erinnerte sich der Zeit, da man die Schlangenlinie zum Vorbild und Symbol der Schonheit genommen und dabei viel gewonnen zu haben glaubte. Diese Schlangelei und Weichheit bezieht sich sowohl beim Kiinstler als l.iebhabcr auf eine gewisse Schwache, Schlafrigkeit und, wenn man will, auf eine gewisse krankliche Reizbarkeit. Solche Kunstwerke macheii bei denen ihr Gliick, die irn Bilde nur etwas mehr als nichts sehen wollen, denen eine Seifenblase, die bunt in die Euft steigt, schon allenfalls ein angenehrnes Gefuhl erregt.' See Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Der Sanunler und die Seinigen, in Johann Wolfgang Goethe, Gedenkausgabe der Wcrkc, Briefe und Gesprache, ed. Ernst Beutler, vols. 1-24 and supplementary vols. 1-3 (Zurich: Artemis, 1948 et seq.), vol. 19, p. 265.

Introduction

xi

/•or Further Reading A n t a l , Frederick, Hogarth and his Place in European Art (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1962). Burke, Joseph, 'A Classical Aspect of Hogarth's Theory of Art', journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, vol. 6 (1943), pp. 151-3. K r y s m a n s k i , Bernd W. and Joachim Moller (eds.), Hogarth in C.ontexl: 1 en Essays and a Bibliography (Marburg: Jonas Verlag, 1996). Paulson, Ronald, Hogarth - His Life and Art (New Haven/London: Princeton University Press, 1971). Read, Stanley H., "Some Observations on Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty 1 , The Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 5 (1941/2), pp. 360-"73.

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

Mzmzge a - la - mo'de.

Harlots's Progrefs.

Rake's Progrefs.

Four Times of Day. Strolling AfirefTes drefTint* in a Barn. Midnight Converfation. Southwark Fair. Bishop of Wmchefler. Calais, or the Roaft Beef of old England. Before and After. Diftrefs'd Poet. Enraged Mufician. Various Chnrniftcrs in Heads, in five groups.

Beer-

Beer-Street and Gin-Lane. Four Stages of Cruelty. Mofes brought to Pharao's Daughter.

Paul before Felix. Paul before Felix, in the Manner of Rembrant The Eftecls of Idlenefs and Induflry, exemplified in the Conduft of two Fellow-Prentices.

Lord Lovat. Countty-Inn Yard. Sleeping Congregation. March to Finchley. Mr. Garrick in the Characler of King Richard the third.

Columbus breaking the Egg.

Frontifpice.

II

Ill

IV

V

VI

VII

vin

2

3

A

5

6

7

8

9

IP

II

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

*4

35

26

27

28

29

30

3*

3*

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

4i

4*

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

5i

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

6o

6i

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

7^

73

74

75

7*

77

78

79

80

8(

8*

83

84

85

86

87

$8

89

90

si

92

This page intentionally left blank

96

97

98

99

JOO

101

102

103

104.

105

106

io-

?o8

109

no

Ill

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 3 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme

and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung philosophischer Gesprache, welche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Ubersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schwankenden Begriffe von dent Gescbmack festzusetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abhandlungen: 1. Die natiirliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonheit und Tugend in zwo Abhandlungen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch iiber den Gescbmack. Nebst Zwo Abhandlungen iiber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schonen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch iiber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham

VIER ABHANDLUNGEN

David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz

With an Introduction by Heiner F. Klemme

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes : ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Heiner F. Klemme, 2001

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION The p r i n t i n g h i s t o r y of D a v i d Hume's (1711-76) Four Dissertations, published by Andrew Millar in London on 7 February 1757, is complicated. Hume originally intended in June 1755 to publish 'The Natural History of Religion', 'Of the Passions' and 'Of Tragedy', along with a dissertation called 'Considerations Previous to Geometry and Natural Philosophy'. The mathematician Lord Stanhope, however, argued as against Hume that the manuscript of 'Some Considerations' was only of poor philosophical quality. Hume withdrew it before publication, asking his printer Millar to publish only three dissertations. Millar declined because of the shortness of the three remaining dissertations. Hume then decided to offer Millar as a substitute for 'Some Considerations' two alternative papers he actually never intended to publish, namely 'Of Suicide' and 'Of the Immortality of the Soul'. Millar was satisfied and started p r i n t i n g Hume's Five Dissertations. Before the book was p u b l i s h e d , h o w e v e r , he showed the proofs to William Warburton, Bishop of Gloucester, as well as to a few others. The bishop was not amused and threatened ecclesiastical and legal sanctions. To cut a long story short, Hume replaced both 'Of Suicide' and 'Of the Immortality of the Soul'2 by 'Of the Standard of Taste'. All four dissertations were read before

Sec Krnest C. Mossner, 'Hume's Four Dissertations. An Essay in Biography and Bibliography', Modern Philology, vol. 46 (1950), pp. 37-57; Tom L. B e a u c h a m p , 'An Analysis of Hume's Essay "On Suicide"', Review of Metaphysics, vol. 30 (1976/77), pp. 73-95'(esp. pp. 91-5); and Lothar Kreimendahl, 'Einleitung', in David Hume, Die Naturgeschichte der Religion. \Jber Aberglaube nnd Sclnvarmerei. Uber die Unsterblichkeit der Seel. Uber Selbstmord, ed. and trans. I.. Kreimendahl (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1984), pp. vn-xviii. Both essays were published anonymously after Hume's death in 1777 as Two l-.ssays (London). However, they were as early as 1770 printed in an unauthorized French translation in f. A. Naigeon (ed.), Recneil Philosophique on Melange de Pieces & la Morale, vol. 2 (London, 1770), pp. 34-49 and 50-69.

V

vi

Introduction

publication by Hume's friend Adam Smith, who suggested some corrections.3 The Four Dissertations were published in German translation as early as 1759 as Vier Abhandlungen: 1. Die natiirliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (Quedlinburg, Leipzig).4 The translator was the theologian and teacher Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz. Resewitz5 was born in 1729 in Berlin and, like many other translators, studied theology and philosophy with Sigmund Jakob Baumgarten and Georg Friedrich Meier at the University of Halle, between 1747 and 1750. After his return to Berlin, he was a participant in the monthly meetings of the 'Gelehrte Kaffeehaus' founded by two of the leading figures of the so-called Berlin Enlightenment, namely Moses Mendelssohn and Friedrich Nicolai. In 1756 Resewitz was appointed preacher in Quedlinburg and in 1767 pastor in Copenhagen. There he made contact with Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock and his circle. Later he became Abbot of the monastery and Principal of the Padagogium Berge near Magdeburg, through the efforts of the Prussian Minister of Education Karl Abraham von Zedlitz, who was also Immanuel Kant's protector. His school reforms were cut short and he was removed from office by von Zedlitz's conservative successor Johann Christoph Wollner, in 1796. Resewitz wrote reviews for Briefe, die neueste Literatur betreffend in 1764 and 1765. From 1765 to 1780 he contributed to Nicolai's prestigious Allgemeine deutscbe Bibliothek. He was the author of numerous sermons and much educational literature, but also published Versuch iiber das Genie in 1759. Resewitz died in 1806 in Magdeburg. 3

See J. Y. T. Greig (ed.), The Letters of David Hume, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, 1931), p. 245.

4

Before Resewitz, Johann Jakob Dusch published translations of the third and fourth dissertations. See Hume, 'Abhandlung vom Trauerspiele' and 'Von der Regel des Geschmacks', in J. J. Dusch (ed.), Vermischte kritische tmd satyrische Schriften, nebst einigen Oden auf ge-genwartige Zeiten (Altona, 1758), pp. 221-84. Resewitz mentions these translations on pp. 279-80 of his translation.

5

On his life, see H. Holstein, 'Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz', in Historische Commission bei der Konigl. Akademie der Wissenschaften (ed.), Allgemeine Deutsche Biographic, vol. 28 (Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot, 1889; reprint Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1970), pp. 241-5.

Introduction

vii

Hume argues in his 'Natural History of Religion' that all religion is based on certain principles of human nature. Religion is not founded on reason or on any original affective quality of h u m a n n a t u r e l i k e love or hatred. The conclusion seems inevitable to him that it is based on some derived principles of human nature. As against deism, Hume judges polytheism and not monotheism to be historically the first form of religion, and that polytheism is based on hopes and fears: We may conclude, therefore, that, in all nations, which have embraced polytheism, the first ideas of religion arose not from a contemplation of the works of nature, but from a concern with regard to the events of life, and from the incessant hopes and fears, which actuate the human mind. There is no rational process which leads from polytheism to monotheism. Nor can monotheism be explained by revelation. Just as Newton's law of gravitation explains the motions of physical objects, so there are certain principles of human nature which made the transition from polytheism to monotheism inevitable: It seems certain, that, according to the natural progress of human thought, the ignorant multitude must first entertain some groveling and familiar notion of superior powers, before they stretch their conception to that perfect Being, who bestowed order on the whole frame of nature. (1957, p. 24) What is more, polytheism is for Hume much more tolerant than monotheism. Monotheism also fostered the so-called monkish virtues. But both forms of religion are ultimately dangerous for morality, properly understood. Religion is for the ignorant and inexplicable by the sober mind of a philosopher: The whole is a riddle, an aenigma, an inexplicable mystery. Doubt, uncertainty, suspence of judgement appear the only result of our most accurate scrutiny, concerning this subject. But such is the frailty of human reason, and such the irresistible 6

David Hume, The Natural History of Religion, ed. with an introduction by H. F. Root ( S t a n f o r d University Press, 19.57), p. 27.

viii

Introduction

contagion of opinion, that even this deliberate doubt could scarcely be upheld; did we not enlarge our view, and opposing one species of superstition to another, set them a quarrelling; while we ourselves, during their fury and contention, happily make our escape into the calm, though obscure, regions of philosophy. (1957, p. 76) When the sober method of empirical enquiry has finished, religion is left on its own. What more could Hume have said in order to offend theologians and believers of his day than to argue on the one hand that religion is based on some unflattering principles of human nature and to declare on the other hand that their disputes were entirely ridiculous, senseless and dangerous for morality? Taking into account Resewitz's theological profession and interests, it does not come entirely as a surprise that he was, like many of his contemporaries, very critical of the 'Natural History of Religion'. The vast majority of his notes relate accordingly to Hume's first dissertation. He blames Hume for not being honest (cf. p. 96n), argues that the Scottish philosopher hates the Jewish religion (p. 11 In) and thinks Hume's arguments are governed by a 'black and belittling zeal' (pp. 134-5n). He is further of the opinion that Joseph Butler has proved in his Analogy of Religion 'that the reasons for natural and revealed religion are on their own much stronger than all those reasons which guide us in our most important affairs in this life and give weight to our decisions' (p. 115n). For Resewitz, it is a shame that a man of such commendable talents uses them to arouse a 7

On the reception or Hume s philosophy in general and his four Dissertations in particular in eighteenth-century Germany, see Giinter Gawlick and Lothar K r e i m e n d a h l , Hume in der deutschen Aufkldrung. Umrisse einer Rezeptionsgeschichte (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: fromman-holzboog, 1987); Manfred Kuehn, Scottish Common Sense in Germany, 1768-1800: A Contribution to the History of Critical Philosophy (Kingston, Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1987), esp. pp. 74-7; Reinhard Brandt and Heiner Klemme, David Hume in Deutschland. Literatur zur HumeRezeption in Marburger Bibliotheken (Marburg: UB Marburg, 1989); and Heiner F. Klemme, ' I n t r o d u c t i o n ' , in Reception of the Scottish Enlightenment in Germany: Six Significant Translations, 1755-1782, vol. 1 (=Hume, Philosophische Versuche iiber die Menschliche Erkenntnis, ed. Johann Georg Sulzer, Hamburg, Leipzig, 1755) (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000), pp. v-xii.

Introduction

ix

feeling of permanent anxiety in his fellow citizens (cf. p. 152n). In spite of his gloomy philosophy, however, 'it cannot be denied, that the author inserted many true and acute remarks, which partly deserve further reflection. But the whole oftentimes lacks coherence..., and the author is finally full of dazzling fallacies' (p. 156n). Resewitz was not very impressed by Hume's 'Of the Passions', either. He believed that there were better explanations of passions to be found in German writers. Hume has indeed not much to say that is new in this area of philosophy (cf. pp. 158n, 192n). Resewitz's most interesting comment on the second dissertation is in a footnote to page 208: Whether the will is governed through reason alone or also t h r o u g h the passions; if and how these have impact on reason's j u d g e m e n t s , is one of the most important and difficult questions of philosophy, which cannot be settled and determined by the author's unproved assertion nor in a single note. This comment is interesting because it formulates one of the most pressing questions of German moral philosophy in the decades to come: how can reason be practical and what function do sentiments, affections and feelings play in morals? As became clear to German philosophers mainly through the works of Shaftesbury, Hutcheson, Hume and Smith, moral and aesthetic phenomena cannot be explained without giving sentiments their fair share. But while rationalist philosophers, like Mendelssohn or F.berhard, tried to explain moral sentiments by reason itself, empiricist philosophers, like Feder and Meiners at Gottingen, followed British moralists more closely. Yet even they did not subscribe to Hutcheson's view of an original inner or moral sense. It was not until the critical writings of Kant appeared in the 1780s that the problem of moral motivation was solved in a very specific way. According to Kant, pure reason is o b j e c t i v e l y p r a c t i c a l , but in order to motivate i n d i v i d u a l persons it must cause in human beings a moral feeling, namely the feeling of respect that he believed to be the only rational feeling. Looking at the reception of Hume's strongly mechanistic argument in 'Of the Passions', it must be said that it was probably

x

Introduction

the least valued and least discussed of all of Hume's writings in eighteenth-century Germany.8 In fact, Hume's attempt to rewrite certain parts of book two of A Treatise of Human Nature (1739) is generally regarded even today as rather uninteresting, not least because he leaves out, for instance, discussions of free will to be found in volume two of his Treatise. The Four Dissertations also contain Hume's two most important writings on aesthetics. In 'Of Tragedy', Hume discusses the nature of that 'unaccountable pleasure, which the spectators of a well-written tragedy receive from sorrow, terror, anxiety, and other passions, that are in themselves disagreeable and uneasy.' Pointing out that imitation is always agreeable, he argues that tragedy is agreeable just because it is an imitation. But besides this, there is a more fundamental principle of human nature to explain how what is originally disagreeable is converted into something agreeable. The impulse or vehemence, arising from sorrow, compassion and indignation receives a new direction from the sentiments of beauty. The latter, being the predominant emotion, seize the whole mind, and convert the former into themselves, at least tincture them so strongly as totally to alter their nature. And the soul, being, at the same time, roused by passion, and charmed by eloquence, feels on the whole a strong movement, which is altogether delightful."

8

One of the very few references to this dissertation can be found in Michael Ignaz Schmidt, Die Geschichte des Selbstgefiihls (Frankfurt, Leipzig, 1772), p. 7. Schmidt refers to an unspecified English edition.

9

A third essay of aesthetic interest is Hume's essay 'The Sceptic', in which he famously argues that beauty is not a quality of a circle: 'Euclid has fully explained every quality of the circle, but has not, in any proposition, said a word of its beauty. The reason is evident. Beauty is not a quality of the circle. It lies not in any part of the line whose parts are all equally distant from a common center. It is only the effect, which that figure produces upon the mind, whose particular fabric or structure renders it susceptible of such sentiments.' Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, revised edition, ed. Eugene F. Miller (Indianapolis: Liberty Classics, 1987), p. 165. 'The Sceptic' was first translated into German in 1768; see Herrn Hume Vier Philosophen. Quod vltae sectabor her? Aus dem Englischen (Glogau, 1768).

10 11 1

Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, p. 216. Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, p. 220.

Introduction

xi

In a most interesting note added to his translation 'Of Tragedy', Resewitz comments on this passage in the following way: The a u t h o r seems to have found here the truth, and his hypothesis, based on observation, merits a more detailed analysis of the philosophical critics of the arts. A note in this regard would be too extensive and would not exhaust the subject anyway. The authors of the Bibliothek der schonen Wissemcbaften will be best qualified to try this. They will be able to provide a more distinct explanation than our author was in a position to supply. If he is on the right track, it is enough honour for him, to have freed the way. (pp. 224-5) Hume's 'Standard of Taste' certainly deserves special mention in the history of modern aesthetics. While aesthetics had already become a matter of feelings and sentiments with Shaftesbury and Hutcheson, Hume is the first to renounce entirely both the concept of reason and that of an internal sense. Our internal sense is not reliable, as is shown by the disagreements among persons. Aesthetics is a matter of taste to Hume, and with taste aesthetics becomes a social and relative subject. Although we disagree in our aesthetic judgements and claim that something is indeed beautiful or ugly, our judgements of taste are inescapably connected with judgements of facts but not derivable from them. In debating about taste, certain standards of taste are cultivated. Still it is a matter of expertise as to whose judgment we trust. There is a famous passage in Hume's essay in which he shows that taste is founded on our expertise and delicacy of imagination as well as on certain qualities of the perceived object. Beautx is not founded on the qualities of the object as such, nor on reason, nor on internal sense. Hume refers to a passage in Cervantes' Don Quixote where Sancho tells the following story: Two of my kinsmen were once called to give their opinion of a hogshead, which was supposed to be excellent, being old and of a good vintage. One of them tastes it; considers it; and after mature reflection pronounces the wine to be good, were it not for a small taste of leather, which he perceived in it. The other, after using the same precautions, gives also his verdict in favour of the wine; but with the reverse of a taste of iron, which he could easily distinguish. You cannot imagine how much they were both

xii

Introduction

ridiculed for their judgment. But who laughed in the end? On emptying the hogshead, there was found at the bottom, an old key with a leathern thong tied to it. ~ If someone lacks delicacy of taste, he cannot be a good critic. But even if we sometimes cannot decide with certainty who has the best taste and thus cannot settle our disagreements in the case of taste, Hume does not intend to claim that all our aesthetic judgements are per se merely subjective and relative. With Hume, aesthetics became a matter of criticism and general rules. There are only three notes by Resewitz to dissertation four. In the first and second note, Resewitz criticizes Hume's concept of modesty ('Bescheidenheit') and his description of Racine (cf. pp. 240-41, 277). The third note is rather long (pp. 278-80). It is at the very end of the translation. Resewitz claims that he is impressed with the richness of Hume's observations, but notes that he misses a certain standard of taste. Hume appears to him ultimately as a sceptic with regard to aesthetics. 'It can hardly be denied that this dissertation is well-behaved, written with taste, and contains many useful observations. But that we can find the certain standard of taste in it, is very doubtful indeed' (p. 278n). Hume either argues in a circle or he completely disposes of any kind of certainty in taste (cf. p. 279n). Resewitz's account of Hume is typical of those close to Mendelssohn and Gotthold Ephraim Lessing at the middle of the eighteenth century: Hume's observations and descriptions are interesting and phenomenologically correct, but the Scottish philosopher is unable to give the right explanation, and the reason is his mistrust of reason. Resewitz was more influenced by the writings of Baumgarten and Meier, who deduce the concept of beauty from objective and ontological principles. Although Hume's aesthetics was not discussed with the same intensity and breadth as that of Shaftesbury for instance, it would be very misleading to say that 'his remarks on aesthetics hardly

12

Hume, Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary, pp. 234-5. This story is also mentioned in Kant's lecture on anthropology (1775/76); see Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, eds. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften et al., vol. 25 (Berlin 1900 et seq.), p. 500; see also Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 15, p. 89 (refl. 233) and p. 805 (refl. 1503).

Introduction

xiii

met with interest" ' in Germany. Even if an author is not discussed in published writings, this does not mean that his theories and concepts were not very well known. In 1 782, an anonymous author began his essay 'Ueber die Theorie der Schonheit' with the remark: 'Some of the greatest men of our century, among them Hume and Mendelssohn, tried to develop the theory of beauty' (p. 43). He then argued not only that these two wrote the best-known theories of beauty, but that the others who wrote before and after them either contributed nothing to the general theory of beauty, or discussed only some particular beautiful objects, as William Hogarth did for instance (cf. p. 45). The reviewer argued that Hume explained beauty 'almost correctly 1 because he relied on Horace in his aesthetic theory. The problem was rather metaphysical. Hume gave only a nominal, not a genetic explanation of beauty, and he believed wrongly that there are no simple beauties, like a tone or the colour of a rose. Even dreadful objects, the wickedness of p e r s o n s , and a e s t h e t i c a l l y i n d i f f e r e n t objects could be declared beautiful on Humean grounds. What is more, Hume did not e x p l a i n the diversity of our aesthetic judgements (p. 48). The reviewer also claims that his criticisms are not new at all (cf. p. 52). This seems to be a good indication of what G e r m a n philosophers and critics generally thought about Hume's 'Of the Standard of Taste'. As in the case of Hutcheson's aesthetics, Hume's observations were given much applause, but the theory as a whole was rejected on the ground that it neglected rational explanation, which alone could serve as a really certain criterion of aesthetic beauty. Like many other of his contemporaries, Kant tried in the I 760s to come to terms with aesthetic evaluation. There can be no doubt that Hume and his fellow Scottish philosophers proved very f r u i t f u l for him. Kant owned a copy of Resewitz's trans-

13 Gawlick ant) Kremiendahl, Hume in der deutschcn Aitfkldrung, p. 112. 14

Anonymous, 'Ueber die Theorie tier Schonheit', Gottingisches Magazin der Wisseiischjfti'ii und l.itteratitr, eds. Georg Christoph Lichtenberg and Georg Forster, .1. [ahrgang, I . St. (1782), pp. 42-6 1. Herder made an excerpt around 1766 of Resevvit/s translation of'Of Tragedy'; see Gawlick and Kreimendahl, Hume in der deutschen Aiifklaning, p. I 13n.

xiv

Introduction

lation.15 In fact, Kant was until the middle of the 1780s of the opinion that our aesthetic judgements are founded on rational and empirical qualities. These judgements are not necessary, but admit only of few exceptions. There is a clear reference to Hume in his remarks in his copy of his Observations on the Feeling of the Beautiful and Sublime (1764): I talk about taste. I take therefore even my own judgements in such a way that they are (aesthetically), according to the standard of taste ('Regel des Geschmacks'), generally true, even if they were precisely (logically) valid only in some cases, according to the standard of the measuring reason. 16 In his very first lecture on anthropology in 1772/3, Kant said: If we read David Hume, who is one of the newest writers, and an English Spectator, one does not know if one should value more the beauty or the thoroughness and the insights. The theory of taste is not a doctrine but a critique. The critique is the distinction of the value in a given subject. If the theory would be a doctrine one could learn to become witty; only the critique is useful in that one learns to judge of oneself; it sharpens our 17 power of judgement and exercises indirectly our genius. There can be no doubt that Kant's concept of a critique of taste in the early 1770s was very much influenced by Hume and other British philosophers. This does not mean, however, that Kant subscribed to all of their views, nor does it mean that he did not change his concept of a critique of taste in the years to come. On the contrary, Kant became convinced in the middle of the 1780s 15

See Karl Vorlander, Imrnanuel Kant. Der Mann und das Werk, 3rd ed., vol. I (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1992), p. 151. Further evidence that Kant owned a copy of this translation is provided by the fact that he once used the word 'Strohwisch' (German for 'bullrush') in referring to Hume - a word also used in the translation; see Hume, Vier Abhandlungen, p. 96, Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 8, p. 152, and Gawlick and Kreimendahl, Hume in der deutschen Aufklarung, p. 185.

16

Immanuel Kant, Bemerkungen in den 'Beobachtungen fiber das Gefiihl des Schonen und Erhabenen', ed. Marie Rischmiiller (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1991), p. 22; see also Rischmiiller's comments on pp. 164-5.

17

Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 25, p. 385.

Introduction

xv

that there are indeed pure aesthetic judgements a priori. His new view of the logic of our aesthetic responses thus found its way into a new concept of aesthetic criticism. In the Critique of Judgement (1790) the term 'critique' no longer refers to an ultimately empirical endeavour as it did twenty years ago, but to judgement and its ultimately a priori principles. 18

Heiner F. Klemme Otto-i'on-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg Germany, 2001

ls

Sec Piero Giordanetti, 'Kants Kntdeckung dcr Aprioriat des Geschmacksurteils. Zur Genese dcr "Kritik dcr Urteilskraft"', in H. F. Klemme et al. (eds.) Aitfkliirung und Interpretation. Studien zu Kants Philosophic und ihrem Umkreis (Wur/burg: Konigshausen & Neumann, 1999), pp. 171-96; and H. F. Klemme, 'Finleitung', in Immanuel Kant, Kritik der Urteilskraft, ed. H. F. Klemme (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 2001), pp. viii-xcii.

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

9

3

4

5

6

7

3

9

JO

II

12

13

14

1$

x6

r?

18

19

20

2*

23

25

«4

25

"6 .**vy

27

b) Fngilis & laboriofa mortaliras in pnrtcs iila digcsjit, inlirmitatijfuac mcmor, v t p o r r i o n i bus

18

29

5°

31

3-

33

34

35

$s

"*f o7

J«

39

4o

4*

4*

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

&

55

$2

tf

54

55

?6

57

5§

59

6o

6l

62

•«3

«4

*s

66

67

6§

*>

7<>

tf

72

73

74

a) Hyde di Rel. vet. ?<>•£> b) £)a$ Scapiilnrium,

75

7«

77

78

79

8o

8i

£3

83

?4

8*

V>) Xtnopb.. Memor. L, //.

as

c> Pint, de Ificlc

Ofiriclc.

87

c) HyJc tie. Rcl.vet. Perf. prtl. L. HI. Id. U Vll.

f ) Arrian. fie £.v-

ss

8?

1) Stralo L\ V. Sn(tov. iu vita CW.

go

9*

a) Arriatius, pnsfin. cj Dijcor/t L VI.

b) Tbxcyd* L, K

52

25

94

9.5

9S

5>7

a&

99

ipo

101

loi

103

104

I0>

io6

toy

icS

Suftulic hincChrifti, pofuitque infigniaRegis: Impia gens, alium nefcit habere Deum.

109

no

g) De civtfate Del JL 111* c. 17. X) ClauJii Kjttilii Nu wit rani itcr Lib* /, //'/;. 3 8 5,

Ill

112

k) III. XIV. Ep((l.7. 1) Gksro de Divin. LIL c, *4»

"5

m) sueton, Aug. cap.90.92, plin,lib.II. c.7.

£4

"5

itf

u?

U8

n) bienctK Praeccr mulcipllces humanarum return, cafus, coelb teuraquc prodigia, oc fulminum m o n i r u s , £c futuroruni praefagia, laeta, triiHa, ambigua, manifcfta. Nee enim unquam atvocioribus populiRoman! cladibus, rnagisque juftis judiciis appr.obatum eft, non eifc curae Diis fccdritacem noltram, efTcultionem. H'fl. lib.

o) ljhilnpscudfs<

ir$

*20

121

122

123

124

I2>

126

127

128

I29

130

131

132

*33

*34

*35

r,6

'37

I3S

J39

*4°

141

143

143

144

I4S

146

147

148

*43

150

IJ1

XJS

*53

154

15$

J56

158

*59

i6o

i6i

1&2

«SJ

x«4

i«5

i66

Ut aflidens implumibus pullus avis Serpentum allapfus timec; Aiagis reliftis; non , ut adlic, auxili L-atura plus praefentibus.

16?

i£8

163

170

171

172

*73

H4

*75

J76

177

*78

r/9

igo

i«i

182

*83

$4

»8J

386

187

183

189

190

I9i

192

193

194

i9i

J96

19*7

198

199

aoo

201

202

203

204

205

20$

207

208

209

210

2«

212

2J

3

ST4

«S

3l&

aiS

219

22O

221

222

223

±24

225

226

227

2.28

229

c) Illud vcro perquam ranim ac memoria dig n u m , etiam fuprema opera artificum, im» pcrfeftasque t a b u l a s , f i c u t , Irin Ariftidis, Tynduridas Nicomachi, Medeam Timomaclii, &: quam diximus Venerem A p e l l i s , in n u j o r i admiratione eiFe quam perfefta. Qnip" pc in iis lineamenta rcliqua, ipfjeque cogltaciones a r t i f i c u m fpe&anrur, atque in leno« c i n i o c o m m e n d a d o n i s dolor eft manus, cum id a g e r e t , extinftae. Lib. XXX V, c. ir.

230

231

232

233

234

236

237

238

239

54°

241

24-

243

244

2

45

246

2

4?

248

249

2)°

w

252

2

55

254

*55

2<;6

257

258

259

s6o

26r

2 fo

2&£

2&f

265

z6&

2^;

i£8

269

27°

2?I

273

^73

274

*75

**?£ */ V

277

278

279

28o

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 4 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klcmme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzeblimg philosophischer Gespriiche, ivelche die Natitr und die Titgend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Ubersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schwankendcn Begriffe von dern Geschmack festzusetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abhandhmgen: 1. Die natiirlicbe Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Gescbmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonheit und Titgend in zwo Abhandhmgen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch iiber den Geschmack. Nebst Zwo Abhandlungen iiber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schonen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch iiber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Etd, Chippenham

UNTERSUCHUNG UNSRER BEGRIFFE VON SCHONHEIT UNO TUGEND IN ZWO ABHANDLUNGEN

Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck

With an Introduction by Heiner F. Klemme

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes: ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Heiner F. Klemme, 2001

This volume is reproduced courtesy of Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg, Universitats- und Landesbibliothek Sachsen-Anhalt. Shelfmark Fc 780 [IZEA] British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION Francis Hutcheson's (1694-1746) An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue was published anonymously in 1 725 in London. During his lifetime, three further editions appeared, said to be 'corrected 1 (1729, 1738) and, in the case of the second edition of 1 726, also 'enlarg'd'. Whereas the titlepages of the second and third editions are identical, only the first edition's titlepage mentions three objectives of the Inquiry. These are, firstly, the explanation and vindication of Lord Shaftesbury against Mandeville's Fable of the Bees (1714); secondly, the explanation of our ideas of moral good and bad according to ancient moralists; thirdly, the presentation of a mathematical method to calculate moral problems. The first and until now only complete German translation of the Inquiry was published in 1762 as Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonhcit und Tugend in zu'o Abhandlungen. I. Von Schonheit, Ordnung, Ucbercinstimmung und Absicht. II. Von dem moralist-hen Gut en und Uebel, Aus dem Englischen iibersetzt (Frankfurt and Leipzig). The translator was Johann I leinrich Merck (or Merk). His identity is revealed in his dedication of the translation to the physicist Johann Christian Arnold. Because Merck's translation follows the text of the f o u r t h edition, the German reader was seemingly kept in ignorance about the three objectives of Hutcheson's work. However, in all four versions of the Preface, Hutcheson points out that the agreement of his theory with the fundamental principle of ancient moral philosophers proves he is correct. In

I have round a misprint on page 295, line 16. Instead of 'vollkommenen Rechten' read 'unvollkommenen Rechten'. The only critical edition of part two of the Inquiry is Francis Hutcheson, Eine Untersuchung tiber den Ursprung tmsercr Ideen ron Scbonheit und Tugend. Uber tnoralisch Gates und Schlcchtcs, ed., trans, and introduced by Wolfgang Leidhold (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1986). All further references to Hutcheson's Inquiry are to the first derman translation of 1762.

V

vi

Introduction

the second, third and fourth editions, he recommends the writings of Shaftesbury. The most important additions to the third edition, mentioned in the Preface of the third and fourth editions, concern chapter two of the second Inquiry. In a new addition to the Preface of the fourth edition, Hutcheson mentions new additions, occasioned by critical objections against his theory. He also leaves out for the first time passages in which the mathematical calculus" is developed. The reason for this was, as Hutcheson states, that it was misunderstood and regarded as superfluous by many readers. Merck was born in 1741 in Darmstadt, where he attended the Padagogium with Georg Christoph Lichtenberg. From 1759, he studied theology at Giefien and Erlangen. J In 1762, he went to Dresden to study at the Kunstakademie. During the early 1770s, Merck's house became the meeting point of the sentimentalists (Empfindsamen] in Darmstadt; later on, he turned towards a more rationalistic view, characteristic of the Enlightenment. Merck was editor of the Frankfurter gelehrte Anzeigen (1772) and contributed to the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek and the Teutsche Merkur. Still later his interests shifted to the natural sciences. In 1790 he became a member of the Jakobin club in Paris; he committed suicide in 1791. Merck was an early friend of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. He also befriended Sophie De La Roche, and corresponded with Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Martin Wieland, Matthias Claudius and others. His translation 2

Hutcheson is regarded by many as being the first to have stated the greatest happiness principle with clarity. But it was really Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz who formulated it as early as 1700: 'To act in accordance with supreme reason is to act in such a manner that the greatest quantity of good available is obtained for the greatest multitude possible and that as much felicity is diffused as the reason of things can bear.' Quoted and translated from the Latin in Joachim Hruschka, 'The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory', Utilitas, vol. 3 (1991), pp. 165-77 (p. 166). Hruschka argues that Hutcheson was ultimately influenced by Leibniz's formula.

3

See Adalbert Elschenbroich, 'Johann Heinrich Merck', in Historische Kommission bei der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (eds.), Neue Deutsche Biographic, vol. 17 (Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1994), pp. 117-20.

4

See Karl Wagner (ed.), Briefe an Johann Heinrich Merck von Gothe, Herder, Wieland und andern hedcutenden Zeitgenossen. Mit einer biographischen Skizze (Darmstadt: Johann Philipp Diehl, 1835). A bibliography of Merck's works can be found on pp. xxxiii-xxxix.

Introduction

vii

of Hutcheson's Inquiry was his first philosophical undertaking. Hutcheson's preface to the Inquiry gives a first indication of why his work was welcomed in Germany. Being dissatisfied with the rationalistic Leibniz-Wolffian metaphysics, empirical and psychological investigations into human nature became the central concern of philosophers after the death of Christian Wolff in 1755, even in Germany. Hutcheson declared in the first sentence of his Preface the f u n d a m e n t a l importance of the knowledge of human nature and its powers. He promised to give a substantial account of the nature of our ultimate goal and the way in which we can realize it. Our most durable and largest pleasures are not to be found in reason, but in our senses. It is feeling and internal sense, which constitute aesthetic and moral p l e a s u r e , not reason. In s h a r p contrast to S h a f t e s b u r y , I lutcheson rejects all neo-platonic elements and the concept of innate ideas on Lockean grounds, trying to maintain a strictly e m p i r i c a l and sensationist account of aesthetics and moral philosophy. According to Hutcheson, there are many sensual pleasures that are not based on external senses and thus not caused by material objects or their qualities, be they primary or secondary. Basically, all these pleasures are derived from two different senses, namely our a b i l i t y to sense the beauty of regularity, order and harmony in objects, and our ability to approve of affections, actions or characters as virtuous. The first is called inner sense, the second moral sense. Inner sense and moral sense are immediate determinations of our mind, independent of our volition. Because reason is much too weak to be the source of our moral approval, the author of our being has implanted strong affections towards virtue in us. Our moral sense is a sense of the moral beauty of actions and affections. In the first part of his Inquiry, Hutcheson investigates what might be called the nature and variety of our aesthetic experiences. H u t c h e s o n ' s Inquiry Concerning Beauty, Order, Harmony, Design^ is regarded by many as the first systematic and

The best modern edition is Francis Hutcheson, An Inquiry Concerning Beauty, Order, Harnnmy, Design, ed. with an Introduction and Notes by Peter Kivy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973).

viii

Introduction

philosophical treatment of aesthetics in English.6 In refining and developing Shaftesbury's theory of inner sense, he treats aesthetics in a much more systematic and sober manner than Shaftesbury did and also left behind the Platonic heritage of The Moralists.7 He shares, however, with Shaftesbury a very optimistic view of nature and of human nature in particular. Without the concepts of harmony and design, aesthetic experience would be reduced to mere pleasures of our external senses. According to Hutcheson, beauty is the name of an idea caused in us, and the sense of beauty is the name for our ability to receive those ideas (cf. pp. 10, 86). In contrast to the other ideas received from external sense, beauty depends on the inner sense. The pleasures we receive from it are neither based on knowledge nor on any expected utility. Nor do they arise in us as a result of custom, education or example. The beautiful pleases instead immediately, disinterested and original through the inner sense. Our ideas of beauty and harmony are caused by primary qualities of the objects, but they are not identical with these qualities, because we would not have an aesthetic feeling without our mind being endowed with a sense of beauty (cf. pp. 17-18). The existence of primary qualities of objects is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of our natural feeling of beauty. The figures of external objects cause in us ideas of beauty in which we find uniformity with complexity (p. 20). This definition of original or absolute beauty has the bizarre consequence that a square is more beautiful than a triangle, a triangle more beautiful than a circle. General propositions are more beautiful than figures, because an infinite number of things correspond to them. A second type of beauty is called comparative or relative

6

7

See Peter Kivy, The Seventh Sense. A Study of Francis Hutcheson's Aesthetics and Its Influence in Eighteenth-Century Britain (New York: Burt Franklin & Co., 1976), p. 22. Johann Gottlieb Buhle writes in his Geschichte der neuern Philosophic seit der Epoche der Wiederherstellmig der Wissenschaften, vol. 5 (Gottingcn, 1803): Hutcheson 'rendered a great contribution to philosophy and the spread of its study in England by giving her a systematic representation, mainly in her practical part, according to the new opinion (Ansicht) which he and his contemporaries had formed about it' (p. 305). Buhle does not discuss Hutcheson's aesthetics.

Introduction

ix

beauty because here the beauty is a copy of an original or absolute beauty. The beautiful proves the existence of a benevolent and wise God who intends the happiness of human kind (cf. pp. 70-71). According to Hutcheson, there is no real ugliness in nature. Ugliness is indeed nothing but the absence of beauty (p. 76). In his second Inquiry Concerning Moral Good and Evil, Hutcheson strengthens his reputation as the most important of all moral sense philosophers, at least in the eyes of his German readers. Moral goodness is the quality of an action we approve of. It is accompanied by the desire that the actor should live happily (cf. p. 1 1 1 ) . We do not approve of an action or quality, however, because it is for our own good. Rather, we approve of it because it causes in us an immediate pleasure. There is a decisive difference between natural and moral good. As the beautiful immediately, disinterestedly and originally pleases through the inner sense, so moral good pleases us through the moral sense. Our approval depends neither on our volition nor on our personal or natural advantage. Nor is it based on reasoning. As against Hobbes and Mandeville, Hutcheson is eager to show that we approve of virtue and disapprove of vice because of a moral sense and not because it is to our advantage (cf. p. 130). Love and hatred are the most important natural affections as far as morality is concerned. Our love of rational beings is either complacence ( l Wohlgefallen') or benevolence ('Wohlwollen').8 The Kill passage, in which Hutcheson differentiates between complacency and hcnevolencc, shows remarkable similarities to a passage in Kant's lecture on moral philosophy held in the middle of the 1770s. Hutcheson writes: 'Die Liebe gegen vernunftige Wesen wire! wieder eingethcilet in die Liebe aus Wohlgefallen (complacence) oder aus Hochachtung, und in die Liebe aus Wohlwollen (Benevolence); Und der Hafs in den Hals aus Mifsfallen oder Verachtung, un in den Hals der Bolsheit. Wohlgefallen oder Hochtung bedeutet die Genehmhaltung der Handlung eincs andern Mittels unsers moralischen Gefiihls, und ist e h e r c i n e L m p f i n d u n g , als eine N e i g u n g ; obgleich die Neigung der Wohlgewogenheit daraus folgct. Wohlwollen ist das Verlangen, den andern gliicklich zu sehen. Ihr Gegensatz heifst Mifsfallen oder Bosheit' (1762, p. 142). In Kant's lecture we read: 'Alle Liebe ist entweder Liebe des Wohlwollens oder Liebe des Wohlgefallens. Die Liebe des Wohlwollens besteht im Wunsch und in der N e i g u n g , das Gliick a n d e r e r zu befordern. Die Liebe des Wohlgefallens ist das Vergniigen, welches wir haben, den Vollkommenheiten des anderen Beifall /.u bewiesen.' Immanuel Kant, Eine Vorlesung iiber Ethik, ed. Gerd Gerbardt (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1990), p. 21 I.

x

Introduction

Complacency is better described as a sentiment ('Empfindung') and not as a passion ('Leidenschaft'). It is only through benevolence that we desire the other to be happy. The moral sense approves of benevolent actions. Just as there is no real ugliness in nature, there is also no real moral evil in it. Human beings act at times egoistically, but no one strives after vicious things for their own sake. Human nature seems, as Hutcheson optimistically asserts, hardly 'capable of malicious distinterested Hatred' ('uneigenniitzige Bosheit'; cf. pp. 159, 181). The true fountain of virtue lies in a certain determination or instinct of our nature to be concerned with the well-being ('Wohlfahrt') of other persons. The moral sense approves of all actions caused by this love (cf. p. 166). Our natural affection of benevolence, the inner fountain of virtue (p. 185), is fortified by pity, gratefulness, and other natural affections (cf. p. 173). Hutcheson does not claim that all our actions are either motivated by self-interest or by benevolence. He is of the opinion that overdetermined actions, as they are called today, are possible (cf. pp. 145,199-201). Furthermore, an action can be completely virtuous even if the actor, motivated by benevolence, encountered no obstacles. This is the case when the benevolence is so strong that he would have acted in this way, even if these obstacles had existed (cf. p. 201). We approve of actions because they contribute to the general good. Hutcheson claims that there is a general benevolence in us toward mankind in general, which is strongest, however, if the distance between the bodies is smallest (cf. p. 233). There is also a strong connection between beauty and morals. The pleasures of external beauties are cold and joyless 'if there be no moral Pleasures of Friendship, Love and Beneficence' (p. 259). A mixture of the moral pleasures is what gives 'the alluring relish' (p. 263). Understood in this way, morality is the road to happiness (cf. p. 282). Reason proves itself unable to serve our self-preservation or the good of the whole without a moral sense (cf. p. 285). The design of nature proves the goodness of God (cf. p. 319). Hutcheson's optimistic aesthetics and moral theory were without doubt well known and appreciated in Germany. Most y

p. 210; see also pp. 191-2, 195, 196.

Introduction

xi

notably his conviction that aesthetic and moral pleasures are immediate, disinterested and original proved very influential. Around the middle of the eighteenth century, German philosophers became increasingly convinced that feeling is indispensable in aesthetics and ethics. Hutcheson became, besides Shaftesbury, Hume, Lord Kames and others, the central figure in the philosophical debate of the time. Yet however attractive the new British approach to philosophy was for German philosophers and literary critics, they never became followers of the theory of inner sense in the full sense of the term. They were impressed by the richness of the empirical and anthropological observations presented by Hutcheson and others, but they were not willing to ascribe to reason a subordinate function in aesthetics and morals. In particular, they were not prepared to accept Hutcheson's concept of an inner and a moral sense. They were convinced that Hutcheson described our aesthetic and moral feelings with diligence and care, but that he was unable to explain these phenomena in a satisfactory way. Immanuel Kant complained in his very first lecture on anthropology (held in 1772/73) of German philosophers: 'Why didn't anybody make a science of man out of the large stock of observations made by English writers? The reason seems to be that the science of man ("Wifsenschafft des Menschen") was regarded as an element to be appended to metaphysics— l|() Kant's dictum shows that German philosophers were still preoccupied with metaphysics in the early 1770s, but it also unintentionally shows that he did not expect British philosophers themselves would be in a position to create such a science of man. Kant, unlike British philosophers from Locke to Hume, still regarded metaphysics as indispensable for epistemology and morals. The acute observations of Hutcheson, Adam Smith and others were detrimental to metaphysics, but they were indispensable for a new kind of

10

Kant, (iesanunt'lte Schriften, eds. Preussischc Akademie der Wissenschaften et al., vol. 25 (Berlin, 1900 et sec].), pp. 7-8.

11

On the influence of Smith on Kant, see H. F, Klemme, 'Introduction', in Reception of the Scottish Enlightenment in Germany: Six Significant Translations. / 7 5 5 - / 7 S 2 , v o l . 4 (- Smith, Theorie der moralischen h.nif>fhn1n>igeit, I'>raunsch\veig, I 770) (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000), pp. vii-x.

xii

Introduction

anthropology that would be entirely outside the limits of metaphysics. To put it in a nutshell: anthropology was for Kant a good discipline for enlarging our empirical knowledge of man, but it was not part of philosophy's key science, namely metaphysics. Other German philosophers were not willing to draw such a sharp boundary between reason and metaphysics on the one hand, and feeling or sentiment on the other hand. They either tried to explain sentiment through reason, or they renounced the leadership of reason in philosophy altogether in an empiricistic mood. To give just a few examples, Moses Mendelssohn drew in his essay 'Verwandtschaft des Schonen und Guten' (1757) a parallel between bon sens and Hutcheson's moral sense, and argued that both have to be reduced to reason. He believed that Hutcheson had good reason to claim that God has given us a sense by which we know and love the good, but that 'it needs explanation'. The Leibniz-Wolffian philosopher Johann August Eberhard stated in his Allgemeine Theorie des Denkens und Empfindens (Berlin, 1776) with reference to Hutcheson and Lord Kames: 'If we would, therefore, characterize the most recent speculative philosophy, we would have to look especially at its discoveries in the theory of sensations ("Empfindungen")' (1776, p. 5). The other sources were, according to Eberhard, the observations concerning moral sensations through which the union of belles lettres and moral sciences was discovered. But Hutcheson and Kames 'remained halfway in the explanation of the appearances of inner sense, as Reid did in regard to outer senses' (1776, pp. 187-8n). In his Handbuch der Aesthetik Eberhard complains again that English philosophers of art ('Kunstphilosophen'), like Hutcheson and Edmund Burke, who wrote about the sublime and beauty, still accepted the 'method of their native country', 1 namely to philosophize only on the basis of experience and observation.

12

13

See Mendelssohn, Schriften zur Philosophic, Aesthetik und Apologetik, vol. 2, ed. Moritz Blasch (Leipzig: Voss, 1880; reprint Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1968), p. 288. Eberhard, Handbuch der Aesthetik fur gebildete Leser aus alien Standen, part 1, second improved edition (Halle, 1807), p. 298.

Introduction

xiii

It may be surprising that the empiricist philosopher Michael HiEmann did not mention Hutcheson in his section on aesthetic literature in his book Kenntnifi der auserlesenen Litteratur in alien Theilen der Philosophic (Gottingen, Lemgo, 1778), even though he mentioned him in the section on general practical philosophy.14 There we find also what may be regarded as the standard objection ^ against the theory of moral sense: If one disregards the multiplication of original instincts in the human soul that can be found in the writings of English moral philosophers, one cannot refrain easily from giving loud applause to their humane moral systems, which go hand in hand with the systems of the old academy. (1778, p. 301) H i f S m a n n b e l o n g e d to an i n f l u e n t i a l g r o u p of G e r m a n philosophers, who disregarded reason and favoured sensations and feelings, but who were nonetheless unwilling to ascribe to the concept of an original moral or inner sense. Another empiricistically minded philosopher, Christian Garve, thought that Hutcheson developed the most extended version of a system of sentiments by supposing a specific moral sense through which we immediately feel right and wrong, moral goodness and evil. He was the first to introduce for every cause that we cannot easily explain, la original power'. " Although Garve was full of praise regarding Hutcheson's observations, thinking that they are more useful for our lives than metaphysical speculations, he rejected his theory of original powers. Kant shared the same high regard of Hutcheson's empirical observation of h u m a n nature, but he was also early on much 14

Hutchcson's second Inquiry is given prominent place in the section 'Of Imputation': 'The worth of action consists in its general good and in the worthiness of the motive of the action' (pp. 318-19).

15

See also Herder: "...vielmehr sind manche dieser Schriften, Z. E. Shaftesbttry, Hittchcson, Law, ttcnson in Deutschland scharfer und wahrcr beurtheilt worden, als in F.ngland selhst, oder werden es doch warden.' Sdmmtliche \\'erkt\ ed. Bcrnhard Suphan, 33 vols. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhancllung, 1877-191 1), vol. I I, p. 205.

16

(Christian darve, Vchersicht dcr I'ornchnisten Prindpien der Sittenlehre, t'on dctn Zcitiilter dcs Aristoteles an his auf nnsre Zciten (Breslau, 1798), p. 154 (=(.',esii)unielti' Wt-rke, vol. 8, ed. Kurt Wolfel (Hildesheim, New York: Georg Olms. l c '8^-n).

xiv

Introduction

impressed by Hutcheson's insight that our moral consciousness is immediate, original and disinterested.17 Like many others of his contemporaries he was unsatisfied with rationalistic systems of morality and saw the need to give moral feelings and sentiments their proper place. Kant's philosophical development of the 1760s is still today a subject of much controversy.18 But it is doubtful that Kant was even for a short time a faithful follower of Hutcheson,19 as some scholars have maintained. Like other Germans, Kant always gave reason the first place. This becomes clear from the concept of moral obligation that seems to have been for Kant the central notion of moral philosophy even during the 1760s. Without the leading function of reason, the concept of moral obligation according to which one must fulfill one's duty even if it contradicts one's feelings, makes no sense to

17

'In den Jahren, da ich zu seinen Schiilern gehorte, waren ihm Hutcheson und Hume, jener im Fache der Moral, dieser in seinen tiefen philosophischen Untersuchungen ausnehmend wert. Durch Hume besonders bekam seine Denkkraft einen ganz neuen Schwung. Er empfahl diese beiden Schriftsteller uns zum sorgfaltigsten Studium.' Ludwig Ernst Borowski, 'Darstellung des Lebens und Charakters Immanuel Kants', in linmanuel Kant. Sein Lebeti in Darstelhtiigen von Zeitgenossen, Die Biographien von L. E. Borowski, R. B. Jachmann und A. Ch. Wasianski (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980), pp. 78-9. 'Borowski had known Kant the longest, having attended his lectures in 1755 and remained friendly with him through the early sixties. He had also been his opponent in a disputation on physical monadology in 1756.' Manfred Kuehn, Kant. A Biography (Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 7.

l!<

See Dieter Henrich, 'Hutcheson und Kant', Kant-Studien, vol. 49 (1957-8), pp. 49-69; Henrich, 'Uber Kants friiheste Ethik', Kant-Studien, vol. 54 (1963), pp. 404-31; Henrich, 'Uber Kants Entwicklungsgeschichte', Philosophische Rundschau, vol. 13 (1965-6), pp. 252-63; Manfred Kuehn, 'The Moral Dimension of Kant's Inaugural Dissertation: A New Perspective on the "Great Light of 1769?"', in Hoke Robinson (ed.) Proceedings of the Eighth International Kant Congress Memphis, 1995, vol. I, part 2 (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1995), pp. 373-92; and Clemens Schwaiger, Kategorische und andere Imperative. Zur Entwicklung von Kants praktischer Philosophic bis 1785 (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: frommanholzboog, 1999).

19

Kant seems to be closest to Hutcheson in a passage of his Untersuchting Uber die Deutlichkeit der Grundsatze der natiirlichen Theologie und der Moral (1764). See Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, p. 299 (compare this with Hutcheson, Untersuchung, pp. 13-14). In his announcement of lectures for the academic year 1765/6, Kant praised Shaftesbury, Hutcheson and Hume (Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 2, p. 311). He believed that whatever is defective in their general practical philosophy would be made precise and completed by his new method.

Introduction

xv

him." In other words, even if Hutcheson is right in his theory of the disinterestedness and originality of our feeling of moral obligation, his own explanation of this phenomenon is incomplete. As Kant seems to see it at this time, reason is the principium dijudicationis of moral obligation, but reason on its own is unable to motivate us to do our duty. Hutcheson seems right that moral sentiments are our exciting reasons. Kant seems closer to Mendelssohn than to Hutcheson. It actually took a very long time for Kant to provide what he considered to be a satisfactory account of moral motivation. Even in the 1770s, he found it very difficult to solve this 7I problem." It was only in his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785) that he for the first time introduced a special moral sentiment caused in us by practical reason itself. Kant's theory of moral motivation seems to try to do justice to both the rationalistic and the moral sense tradition of moral philosophy. Pure reason is objectively practical, but to become subjectively practical in human individuals, it must cause in them a specific, unpathological moral feeling, namely the feeling of respect for the moral law." In the Groundwork Kant gives an Epicurean account of Hutcheson's principle of moral sense, and argues that we do not have any evidence for an original moral sense at all." Our immediate and 'disinterested' interest in the moral law can only be explained by the influence pure reason has on our will.

11

In his lecture on anthropology, held in 1784/5, Kant put it this way: '...Hutcheson says: What one feels as good is our duty. Who does not have a sensitive soul ("empfindsame Seele") could in this way not know his duty.' Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 25, p. 1390; cf. Hutcheson, Untersuchung, p. 292.

!l

See Kant, Eine Vorlesitng fiber Ethik, ed. Gerd Gerhardt (Frankfurt am Main: Fischer, 1990), p. 54: 'Wenn ich durch den Verstand urteile, da(3 die Handlung sittlich gut ist, so fehlt noch sehr viel, dafs ich diese Handlung tue, von der ich so geurteilt habe. Bewegt mich aber dieses Urteil, die Handlung zu tun, so ist das das moralische Gefiihl; das kann und wird auch keiner einsehen, dais1 der Verstand sollte cine bewegende Kraft ZAI urteilen haben. Urteilen kann der Verstand freilich, aber diesem Verstandesurteil eine Kraft zu geben, und da6 es eine Triebfeder werde, den Willen zu bewegen, die Handlung auszuiiben, das ist der Stein der Weisen.'

'"' Cf. Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, pp. 401, 460. !;>

Cf. Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 4, p. 442.

xvi

Introduction

Still, in spite of Kant's critical remarks about Hutcheson and his concept of moral sense," one should always keep in mind that it was the author of An Inquiry into the Original of Our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue who proved decisive for Kant during a very important period of his philosophical development, both in moral philosophy and aesthetics."

Heiner F. Klemme Otto-von-Guericke-Universitat Magdeburg Germany, 2001

24

25

Some of these critical remarks can already be found in Herder's notes of Kant's lecture on practical philosophy (1762-4); see Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 27, esp. pp. 12 and 15. Kant owned copies of the German translations of Abhandung iiber die Natur und Beherrschung der Leidenschaften (1760) and the Inquiry. See Arthur Warda, Immanuel Kants Biicher. Mit einer getreuen Nachbildung des bisher einzigen bekannten Abzuges des Versteigerungskataloges der Bibliothek Kants (Berlin: Martin Breslauer, 1992), p. 50. (In his copy of the Untersuchung, he marked with pencil page 123, lines 10-15. On page 117, line 13 he inserted before 'Nei-' the words 'Meinungen vor'.) This does not mean, however, that he did not know Lessing's translation of Hutcheson's A System of Monil Philosophy (1755), which appeared as early as 1756. Hutcheson's Sittenlehrc der Vernunft is reprinted in vols. 2 and 3 of the collection Reception of the Scottish Enlightenment in Germany: Six Significant Translations, 1755-1782, ed. and introduced by H. F. Klemme (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000).

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

ft

12

I?

14

*5

16

I?

18

19

ao

21

22

25

24

25

26

27

28

29

3o

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

4i

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

5i

52

55

54

55

56

57

58

59

6o

,6i

6a

6?

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

7i

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

9r

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

IOO

101

102

10?

104

10?

io6

107

log

ICQ

lid

Ill

112

II?

IIA

H5

u6

II?

US

H9

I2O

121

122

H5

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

i?r

132

•i?3

134

13?

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

i6o

i6i

l6a

163

164

I65

166

167

168

i69

170

IT*

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

igo

I8i

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

J96

19?

198

199

260

•SOI

202

203

204

:£Q5

ao6

207

20g

209

2TO

211

212

213

214

215

2l6

217

218

2IQ

22O

221

222

223

224

225

Infani fapiens nomen ferat, aequus iniqut Vltra, quam iatis eft, virtutem ii petat ipfam (*).

*) Horatias Ep.6. Lib, I. verf 15,

226

227

22g

229

2?0

$31

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

25?

258

259

260

26l

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

27?

274

275

276

277 Qni didicit Patriac quid debeat, et quid Amicis, Quo fit amorc Parens, quo Prater amandus et hofpes, Quod Jit Confcripti, quod Judicis officium, quae Partesin helium miffi Ducis; ille profe£lo. Rcddere Pcribnac fcit convcnientia cuiquc.

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

2§6

287

9&Q •^oo

289

290

29!

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

goo

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

3°8

309

gro

3ii

312

3i?

314

315

3i6

317

3i8

319

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 5 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme

and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johaun Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung philosophischer Gesprache, welche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Ubersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schuankenden Begriffe von dem Geschmack festzusetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abhandlungen: 1. Die naturliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vont Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonheit und Tugend in zuo Abhandlungen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch uber den Geschmack. Nebst Zwo Abhandlungen uber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen uber den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schonen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch uber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham

VERSUCH UBER DEN GESCHMACK

Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel

With an Introduction by Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes : ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Manfred Kuehn, 2001

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION Alexander Gerard ( 1728-95) was born on 22 February 1728, the son of a minister of a parish in Aberdeenshire, northeast Scotland. He was licensed to preach in 1748 and, after substit u t i n g first for David Fordyce, he became professor of moral philosophy and logic at Marischal College in Aberdeen in 1752. In 1 760 he was named professor of divinity, and in 1773 he was appointed professor of divinity at King's College in Aberdeen, a position he held u n t i l his death. His lectures on aesthetics as well as on m a n y other matters appear to have been very influe n t i a l . I n d e e d , some h a v e made them responsible for the flowering of literary c u l t u r e in Aberdeen. James Beattie, for instance, learned much from Gerard. He was also impressed by his abilities. Thus he claimed that Gerard was so effective at memorizing sermons that after a mere two hours he could then recite them w i t h o u t omitting or changing a word. Gerard was also a c t i v e l y involved in changing the curriculum at Marischal College. Thus he successfully argued in his Plan of Education in the Marischal (College and University of Aberdeen, with the Reasons of 11 ( 1 7 5 5 ) against the practice of teaching logic early and advised t h a t the first year of study should be taken up by classics, the second year by history and elementary mathematics, the t h i r d year by natural philosophy, literature and mathematics, and the f o u r t h year by philosophy of mind, natural theology, ethics, jurisprudence, politics, rhetoric and metaphysics. 1 In t h i s c u r r i c u l u m philosophy did not form the basis of all other s t u d i e s , as in most u n i v e r s i t i e s and colleges in Britain and elsewhere, but it was r a t h e r taken at the end, forming the c r o w n i n g a c h i e v e m e n t for s t u d e n t s at Marischal College.

In G e r m a n : Alexander ( G e r a r d s G e d a n k e n von der Ordnung der philosophischen Wissenschaften nebst dem Plan des Unterrichts dcs Marischallcollegio und auf der Universitait Aberdeen, aus dem englischen lihersctit. die Philosuphic betreffenden Betrachtungen (Riga, 1770).

V

vi

Introduction

Thomas Reid, who was reaching at King's College at this time, argued that the old system of "Regents' should he retained, and that the students should first he taught the rudiments of logic and then learn to apply them in natural and moral philosophy. King's College did not adopt the new system. Gerard became famous through his An Essay on Taste (London: A. Millar, A. Kincaid and J. Bell, 1759). He had written the hook as an entry to an essay competition on taste, sponsored hy the Edinburgh Select Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Sciences, Manufactures, and Agriculture in 1756. The committee included David Hume and Adam Smith. Cerard's essay won the prize and Hume supervised its first edition. The publisher added two essays by Voltaire and d'Alembert. A second edition appeared in 1764 with the title An Essay on Taste. The Second Edition, with Corrections and Additions. To Which is Annexed, Three Dissertations...by Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Montesquieu (Edinburgh: Printed for A. Millar, A. Kincaid, & J. Bell), and a third edition in 1780. In the third edition, Gerard added a fourth part to the original three parts of the book, entitled 'Of the Standard of Taste', which represents a response to Hume's essay" of the same name that had appeared in 1757, that is, a year after the original submission of Gerard's work. After his death, there was an American edition (1804). There was a French translation, Essai sur le gout in 1766. The German translation appeared in the same year and was entitled: Versucb iiber den Gescbmack von Alexander Gerard, nebst zwo Abhandlungen iiber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Herrn von Alembert (Breslau and Leipzig: Johann Ernst Meyer, 1766). In 1774 he published a sequel to his Essay on Taste, entitled Essay on Genius that became equally successful. It was translated by Christian Garve and appeared in 1776 under the title Versitch iiber das Genie (Leipzig: Weidmannns Erbe und Reich). He also published some theological works, such as The Influence of the Pastoral Office on the Character Examined; with a View, especially, to Mr. Hume's Representation of the Spirit of that Office (1760), Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the Genius and Evidences of Christianity (1766), two volumes of sermons (1780), The Corruption of Christianity (1792), and The Pastoral 2

See vol. 3 of this collection.

Introduction

vii

('.arc ( \ 799). But he is today known mainly for his two essays on aesthetic matters. Gerard appears to have been extraordinarily industrious and diligent in the pursuit of his duties. He was in the eyes of his contemporaries 'solid rather than brilliant.' But he was also highly esteemed for his good judgement. This seems to be as true of the man as of the work. He died on 22 February 1795. The German translation does not indicate who the translator was. But it appears to have been Karl Friedrich Flogel (1729-88), who had studied theology with Sigmund Jakob Baumgarten, and philosophy with Christian Wolff and Georg Friedrich Meier, the student and follower of Alexander Gottlieb Baumgarten, who was the German founder of the discipline of 'aesthetics 1 . Flogel h i m s e l f wrote a number of books on the history of the comical genre.' He also published an anthropological textbook, entitled C,cscbichic des mcnschlicben Verstandes. Its first edition appeared in I ""65 in Breslau, and it appears to have been very important. In this work Flogel tried to trace the origins of the mental faculties of human beings to their physiological and sociological roots. But he became best known as a literary historian, specializing in the comical and grotesque. Flis view was characteri/ed by its emphasis on the lowly origins of all literary forms in general and the comical in particular. His Gescbichte des (irotesk-koniischen was not unimportant. Thus it is sometimes mentioned as one possible source of Edgar Alan Poe's conception of the grotesque. I lis translation of Gerard's Essay on Taste in I 7 66 \ \ a s a m o n g the f i r s t of his works. The translation is competent and renders Gerard's text correctly. Flogel did not write a translator's F'oreword or Introduction and did not include am c r i t i c a l comments but was content to let Gerard's work speak for i t s e l f . Gerard's /»JY on Taste was not a revolutionary work. It depends h e a v i l y on the writings of Shaftesbury, Fiutcheson and 1 lume. The first sentence of the Introduction, in which Gerard

(n'ich/cbtc tier koniischen I.ittcraUir (4 vols., I.iegnitz/Leipzig, 1784-7; reprint: Hildcsheim/New York: Olms, 1976) and (Icschichtedes Grotcsk-Koniischcn. I in l>citi\ix :ui' (ii'idiichte dcr Mcnschhcit (Liegnitz./Leipzig, 1788). 1

I he si.xond edition appeared in 1773. The third edition (Frankfurt/Main and 1 eipzig, I "hi has heen reprinted (Frankfurt/Main, 1972). On some important differences between these editions, see Hciner F. Klcmme, Kants Philosophic Jcf Sithifkts ( H a m b u r g : Felix Meincr, 19%), pp. 31-2.

viii

Introduction

maintains that taste is neither entirely the result of nature nor entirely the result of art, shows how much Gerard strove for balance. Taste has most to do with the imagination, which he understands with Hutcheson as an inner or reflected sense that is more subtle than our senses. But Gerard believed not only that taste is similar to moral sense (insofar as it is a reflected or inner sense) but also that 'the moral sense is itself a taste of superior order, by which in characters and conduct we distinguish between the right and wrong, the excellent and the faulty'. Moral concepts and aesthetic concepts are more closely connected than one might think, for virtue is beautiful and vice is ugly. While none of this is new, it does show how close Gerard was to Hume in his moral theory. But like Burke, Gerard is more interested in fundamental and simple principles. Accordingly, in the first part of his Essay he resolves the principles of taste into eight different reflected senses, namely those of novelty, grandeur, sublimity, beauty, imitation, harmony, ridicule, and virtue. In this account, association and coalescence of ideas play a large role. Thus through association an object that is not in itself beautiful, can become beautiful when associated with something that is beautiful. In the second part he tries to show how taste can be improved through the unification and improvement of its simple principles and how different faculties of the mind influence taste. Among other matters, he speaks also of the correctness of taste and thus raises implicitly the problem of the standard of taste that was later to become an important concern through Hume's essay on the standard of taste. The third and last part, which is largely repetitious, deals with the extent and the importance of taste. He also tries to show how taste arises either from 'the general laws of sensation' ('den allgemeinen Gesetzen der Sensation') or from 'certain operations of5 the imagination' ('gewissen Operationen der Einbildungskraft'). And in a very long footnote he tries to explain what a sense, and especially a sense of taste, is. In this context he makes clear that taste is not an original sense but a derivative and secondary power. 6

5

Gerard, Versuch, S. 163.

6

For a more thorough and detailed summary of Gerard's arguments in English, see G. Dickie, The Century of Taste (Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 29-54.

Introduction

ix

I he precise n a t u r e of Gerard's influence on German aesthetics and psychology is difficult to determine, if only because his theory is r a t h e r similar to that of Hume and Hutcheson. His name is u s u a l l y mentioned together with Hutcheson, Burke and Herny 1 lome (Lord Kames), and they are understood as having offered a s i m i l a r theory. Thus Johann Gottfried Herder often refers to him approvingly but in a rather non-specific way. That his early work was known to Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Moses Mendelssohn, Christian Garve, Johann Georg Hamann and I m m a n u e l K a n t , and t h a t most other German thinkers on aesthetics were acquainted with his Essay on Taste, cannot be doubted. But how precisely he contributed to the discussion is s t i l l to be investigated. Manfred Kuehn Philipps- Universitat Marburg Germany, 2001

On the s i m i l a r i t i e s an».I differences, see Dickie, The C.entury of Taste, pp. 142->l. |ohami ( l o t t l i e b Herder, SiiiiuntHche Werke, eel. Bernhard Suphan, 33 vols. ( B e r l i n : \ \ e i d m a n n s c h e Buchhandlimg, 1877-1 9 I 3), vol. 4, pp. 55, 127, 150, I S V, HO; \ o l . S, p. 452; vol. 7, pp. I'sT 7 , 304; vol. 8, p. 461; vol. 22, p. 210; vol. 24, p. l >2.

x Introduction For Further Reading Brown, P. Hume, 'Scottish Intellectual Influences on the Continent', Scottish Historical Review, vol. 11 (1913-14), pp. 121-35. Dickie, G., The Century of Taste (Oxford University Press, 1996). Giordanetti, Piero, 'Kant e Gerard. Nota sulle fonti storiche della teoria Kantaina de "genio"', Rivista di storia della filosofia (1991), pp. 661-99. Grene, Marjorie, 'Gerard's Essay on Taste', Modern Philology, vol.41 (1943-4), pp. 45-58. Hippie, Walter-John, The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory (Carbondale: Southern Illinois-University Press, 1957). , 'Introduction', in Alexander Gerard, An Essay on Taste...A Facsimile Reproduction of the Third Edition (1780) (Gainesville, Florida: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1963), pp. v-xxviii. Kallich, Martin, 'The Argument against Association of Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics', Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 15 (1954), pp. 125-36. , 'Associanist Criticism of Francis Hutcheson and David Hume', Studies in Philology, vol. 42 (1946), pp. 644-67. Kivy, Peter, The Seventh Sense (New York: Burt Franklin, 1976). Larsen, E., 'Reinventing Invention: Alexander Gerard and An Essay on Genius', Rhetorica, vol. 11 (1993), pp. 181-98. McCosh, James, The Scottish Philosophy (New York: Carter, 1911-12; repr. Bristol: Thoernmes, 1990). Stulmitz, J., 'Beauty: Some Stages in the History of Ideas', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22 (1961), pp. 185-204. Townsend, Dabney, 'From Shaftesbury to Kant', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 48 (1987), pp. 287-305. Wolf, Herman, Geschichte des Geniebegriffs in der deutschen Asthetik des 18. Jahrhunderts, I. Band. Von Gottsched his auf Lessing (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1923).

This page intentionally left blank

z

3

4

5

<5

7

8

9

JO

II

( < ) Li! cnim qraca in cloqucndo novicas £ comm u c a c i o , &: ma^is Jnopinata
12

13

'4

i.S

i6

'7

i8

19

2O

21

22

23

24

2J

26

— Lsevia, plana, Magnaque figna. Ex longo deduSa fluanc, non fefta minutitn. Quippe folct rerum nimio difperfa tumultu

Maieftate carere »ravi. Fresn. dearcc graph, ver. log, 156.204.

419.

27

Ingrcditurquc fulo, et caput inter nubila condic. Aeii. L.1V. ver. 177.

28

Et cun&a terrarum fubafta Practer atrocem animum Catonis. Hor, Sccrctosquc pios, his dantem jura Caco* neift. Virgil^

(«) Demctr.Phal.

19

(0) Homines ad Deos nulla re propiusaccedunc, . quam falute hominibus danda. ProLigar. (/;) lllud ingenium, quqtf folum populus Romantis par impcrio fuo habuic. Control1, lib. !„

3«

Si pelago Tiberim prxfcrs, urbcm adfplce utramque; Illam homines dices, hanc pofuifle Deos. Sancizar.

3*

3?

33

34

(s) Altera pars tabulx vacuanc frigida campo, Aut deferta fiet, dum pluribus altera formis Fervida mole fua fupremam exfurgic ad oram. Sed tibi fie pofitis refpondeat utraque rebus, Ut fi aliquid (urfum fe parce attolJat in una, Sic aliquid parte ex alia confurgat, et ambas Aequiparet, geminascumulando xqualiteroras, Fresn. de Arc. Graph,p. 145.

35

36

(.r) Inque figurarum cumuli's non omnibus idem Corporis infleens, motusque: vel artubus omnes Converfis paritcr non connitantur eodcm: Sed quxdam in divcrfa trahanc concraria membra, Transverfeque aliis pugnent, et cxtera fran* gant. ' Fresn. dc Art. Graph, p. 13 7. £ic

37

38

39

40

4*

(a) In plcrisque rebus incrcdibiliter hoc natura eit ipfa fabricata, — ut ea, quae maximam utilicatem in fe contmerent> eadem haberent plurimum vcl dignitatis, vel £rpe eciani venuftacis. Cic. de Oratore Lib. 111.

(•£) Cic. ibidem.

42

Sed numc non erat his locus

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

5°

51

52

53

54

55

5«

37

58

CO AdvcritztcmLy/ippum & Praxitekm accefflflc opcime affirmant. Nam Demetrius tanquam niiTiius in ea reprehenditur, &fuit fimih'tuciinfs c]uam pulchntudinis amantior. Quint. Inft. Orat. Lib. XII. Cap. 10,

59

6o

6i

62

65

64

<55

66

6?

68

69

70

71

£o) Nee infignis improbitas, cc fcclcrc iunft.i, ncc rurfus miferia infignis noicac.i ridctur: facinorof()s rnaiorc quadani \"i, cj'Jini ndiculi, vulncrari volunc; mifcros illudf nolunt, nifi fc forte ia£iant. Cic. dc Orac. Lib. 11.

72

73

74

?<5

77

78

79

So

8i

82

83

84

Lone, dc Subl.

85

(V) Tu fcgcre imperio populos, Romane memento. Hac tibi erant artes^ pacisque imponcre morcm, et debellarc fuperbos. Acn. VI, verf, §47,

86

8?

83

(x^Eft ctiam ilia platonisvera - - vox,* Omncm doftrinam Jiarum ingcnuarum & I j u m a n a r u m a i c i u m , uno quodani focicrans \'inculo contincri, - - - MJiu.s c]uidain omnium qiufi cor.rcii/us d o c t r i M r u m , conccntusquc rcpeii* tur. Cic. dc Gratore Lib, ill.

S9

9°

9i

in in fcincn Reflex, critiq. fur h poclie & fur la pcinturc. parjim.

9'<

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

IOO

tor

102

103

1C4

io5

lo6

107

Reflex, criciqucs fur la pocfie & fur lapeincurc, Part. II. §. 23.

io8

109

no

Ill

112

"3

H4

"5

n6

H7

»8

H9

dcn«

Reflex, cridq.

f u r a poeiie, Part, II. §. 22, (dj Ar vcflri proavi Pla«nnos & numeros & Laucbvereyfl/f/;niiniunipatiencericruniquc ( nc

I2O

(nc dicam ftufte) xnirati"; fimodo ego& vo5 Scimus inurbanum lepido feponere di(fhjm ft Hor. Ars poet. :a. vcr/] 270.

121

122

12

5

(T) Quam mutta vident pi&ores in umbns et in cminencia , qux nosnon vidcmus ? q u a m m u W ti, c]tiae nos fngiunt in cantu, exaudiunt in co gcnere cxcrcicati? Cic. Acad.Quaeft. lib, II,

124

125

,,Diffi,,ci1c enim diau eir, quxnam caufa lit, cur ea, ,,qux niaxime fenfus no(}ros impcllunc, voluj,ptace, ct fpecic prima acerrime commovent, ,,ab iis celerrimc faftidio quodam, ct {atictate ,,abolicnemur. Q.uanto colorum pulchritudir nc, cc varictatefioridiora func in pi£Uirisno>5 vis plcraque, (juam in veteribus? quactamen j,etiam, (i primo afpe^u nosccperunt, diutius ,,non delcftant: cum iidcm nos in antiquis ca,,hulis illu ipfo horrido obfolecoque reneanuir. J5 Qnanto molliores funt, ct dclicatiores func , 5 in cantu flcxiones, et falfx voculac, quam pccrtae cc feverx? quibus camcn nonmodo au*

r fieri.

126

,,ftent fed; fi fxpius Hunt, multitude jpfa reLicet hoc videre inrdiquis fendbus, f ,clamat. ^unguentis minus diu nosdelc&ari, fumma ec ,>acerrima fuavitate condicis, quam his modet> ratis: ec magis laudari quod t e r r a i n , quam In ipfo r^dlu s>c]uod crocum olere vidcacur. Quin* refTc modiim mollitudinls ct locvitatis. ^etiamguftatus, qui cftfenfus ex omnibus maw xime voluptarius, quippe dulcicudine pra-rcr ,,ccceros fenius commonecur, quam ciro id, j,quod valde dulce eft, afpcrnatur ac rclpuic? f)qu!s pncione uti, aut cibo dulci diucim po* ^teft? cum utroque in gcnere ea^ quac levicer ,,fenfum voluptace moveanc, facillime tugianr ^fatietacem. Sic omnibus in rebus, volupca,,tibu$ maximis faftidium finitiflium eft* c< Cic. acOrac.Lib.HL

127

(//) M. Antonius —- difertos ait fc vidifle mulcos, cloqucnrem omnino nemrticm. Infidcbat videlicet in ejus mente fpecics cloquontix^ cjuam ccrnebac aninio, re ipfa non videbac. —• Mulca cc in fc, et in aliis dcfidcrans, ncmincm plane qui re6ie appcllari eloquens poilct videbac. — — Habuit profe&o comprehenfam animo quandamformam cloquentix, cui quoniam nihil dcct'at, eos, quibus aliquid, ai)C plura decrant, in cam formam non poteratincludcre. Jpfc Demofthcnes, quanquam unus eminec intCi* omncs in omni generc diccndi, tamen non Temper implct aures r/ieas: ica funt avldz et capaces: ec Temper aliquid immenfum. infinkumque dcfideranc, GV.Orar,

I2§

(i) Plin. Hift. nac. Lib.XXXV. Cap.9.

i^9

Nam neque chorda fonura reddif, qucm vulc manus cc mcns; Nee Temper feriec, quoclcunque minabicut

arcus.

3°

J3r

iyi

'33

..Turn dcmum i n g e n i o f i leir licet, (i ad incelligcndos nos opus lit inge,,nio. — Nos rnelius, quibus fordone omnia, ^qux jiatura diftavic; qui non ornamcnta quac,,rimns, led Icnocinia," /«/?. Orat. Lib. Vlil. prucrm.

( w ) Dii calo vindic^'crunt, ne quid pofl ilium d i v i n u n ) , et inimortale faftum , rnurulc faceret. Dcberc quippe niaximo opcri hanc \cneracioncni, ut novillimum cilct, auctorcrnqiic cjus ilatiai coniecranduni, ut q u a n d o q u c i n t e r pofteros quscrcrecur, anillud jam Deus feciilct. Plm. Fancg. Trajan.

"34

,,ln cfoqucjicio corrupra ,pleraque, atqire co pcrnicionmma, quod 3 ^abundant, dulcibus vitijs." Quint, Intt.Orac-, Lib.X. Cap. i.

*35

136

n?

*38

J39

140

Boileau Remarques fur Longin. Bouhours Ma*niere dc bicn penfer. Dialog. 3.

m

(£) Cum Protogenisopus, immenfi labons &curae, fupra modum anxiemirarecur, dixit omnia fibi cum illo paria effe^ auc illi meliora; fed u:io fe pracftarc, quod rnanum ille dc tabula jiefcircc tollere; niCmorabili praccepta, nocere faepe nimiam diligentiam* Plin. Hid. natur, lib, XXXV-cap. 10,

142

r

43

'44

*45

146

147

EC nifi quae terns icmota, fuisque Temporibusdefun&a videt, faftiditetodit.

M8

T49

'5°

'5'

15*

!53

1J4

Reflex, critiques fur la poefie cc fur la peinturc. Fart, II. §.25.

J

55

J56

*57

158

159

Ubi plura nitenc non ci^o paucis Offendar maculis, quas aut Jncuria f u d i t , Aiu humana parum cavic natura.

Reflex, critiques (ur la poefic ct Air la pcinturc, Part. 11.

§.26.

*6c

i6i

i6a

163

164

165

166

it?

i68

169

Nov. Organ, lib, II. aph. a£.

170

171

( h ) Difficile eft mufare habitum animi femcl conftitutuni. Qwntil, Inft. One, lib. IV. cap. 2.

172

'73

»74

175

ij6

177

i?8

179

Jgo

i8i

i8s

'83

184

Quanta fodezza, tanto ha fplenrlore.

IV. Entrecien d' Arifte & d' Eugene.

'85

i8<5

187

(«) Nihil eft, quod ad artem redfgi poflfir, nifi illc prius, qui ilia tenet, quorum arreru inftituere vulr, habeat illam fcieneiam, ut ex ii* rebus, quarum ars nondiMn fit, arcem erficerc poiTit. — Omnia fere, quae nunc conclufa func artibus, di.sper[a et di/fipata quondam frerunt, uc in muticis, — in hac dcniquc ipfa

J88

ipfa ratione dicendi.— Adhihita eft igiturars quxdam extrinfecus ex alio genere quodam, quod fibi totum philofaphi adumunr, qux rem diflbliJtam, divulfarnqne congkitinarer, cc rationc quadam conftringerec. Cic. de Orac.

Lib. I.

189

(0) Turn funt noranda genera, ct ad certumnun i e f u m , paucicatemque revocanda. Genus auccm cfi: id, quod fui finiiles communionc q u a d a m , fpecic autem differences, duas auc plurcs coniple£icurpartes. Farcesancemfunc, qtiae generibus iis, ex quibus emananc, fubjiciuucur. Cic. ibid.

fpo

,,Duz jjvige font, atcjue efle poflunt, ad inquircndam Alcera a Icnfu et f>et inveniendamveritacem. ,particularibus advolac ad axiomata maxime f f,generalia, — atque hxc VIP in ufu eft. Alr tera a fenfu et particularibus cxcirac axiomaca, J7afcendendo contincnter ct gradatim, uc ulf,timo loco perveniacur ad maxime generalia; ,,q'uaeviaveraeft, fed intencata." Nov. Organ.

lib. I. aph. 19.

ipi

192

'93

194

195

196

197

198

l$gj

fcoe

201

2O2

203

204

205

206

2O7

20g

2O9

210

211

212

213

214

This page intentionally left blank

220

*V?1 -^*
222

223

224

225

226

This page intentionally left blank

230

2

3i

212 —J-w

233

2!M

-35

236

237

238

239

240

Quc vouliez- vous qu'il fie contrc trois? Qu'il mouruc,

Ou qu' un beau dcscspoir alors le fecouruc (a)

241

£42

243

244

2

45

246

247

This page intentionally left blank

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 6 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme

and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spalding Die Sitten-Lehrer oder Erzehlung pbilosophischer Gesprdche, ivelche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Nebst einem Schreiben an den Ubersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliederung der Schonheit, die schwankenden Begriffe von dem Geschmack festzusetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abbandlungen: 1. Die natiirliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidcnschaften. 3. Vom Trauerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Heinrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schonheit und Tugend in zu'o Abhandlungen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch iiber den Geschmack. Nebst Z;co Abhandlungen iiber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Urn. von Alembert (J766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen iiber den Ursprung unsrer Begriffe Schonen (1773)

vom Erhabnen und

Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch iiber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham

PHILOSOPHISCHE UNTERSUCHUNGEN UBER DEN URSPRUNG UNSRER BEGRIFFE VOM ERHABNEN UNO SCHONEN

Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve

With an Introduction by Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes: ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner F. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Manfred Kuehn, 2001

This volume is reproduced courtesy of Universitatsbibliothek Marburg

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION 1

Edmund Burke's A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful appeared anonymously in 1757. A second edition with significant additions and changes came out just two years later in 1759, a third in 1761, a fourth in 1764, a fifth in 1767, and so on. Altogether fourteen different editions in English appeared during Burke's lifetime. A French translation, Recherches Pbilosopbiques sur I'origine des idees que nous avons du Beau et du Sublime, fire cedes d\me dissertation sur le gout, appeared in 1765 and the German translation, based on the fifth edition, appeared in 1773. The book was accordingly very popular and had a wide distribution in the eighteenth century. From contemporary discussions and reviews it is also clear that it was not just widely available, but also highly acclaimed. Hume, who in 1759 called Adam Smith's attention to 'a very pretty Treatise on the Sublime' written by an Irish gentleman named Burke, was certainly no exception/ It also had an almost immediate impact in France and

1

Burke was the son of a solicitor. In 1744 he entered Trinity College in Dublin and moved to London in 17.50. After a period of drifting through England and France, he published in 1756 anonymously A Vindication of Natural Society, which was a satire of Viscount Bolingbroke. Burke objected to his criticism of revealed religion. He was also opposed to the notion of the 'return to Nature'. The inquiry procured him a great reputation and led to many literary and artistic friendships. The most important among these were with Samuel J o h n s o n , O l i v e r d o l d s m i t h , Sir Joshua Reynolds and David Garrick. Consequently, Burke's interests turned increasingly to politics. During his long career he was involved in many important issues. One of these was, for instance, the dispute with the American colonies starting in 1765. He made f a m o u s speeches, such as those 'On American Taxation' (1774) and 'On Moving his Resolutions for Conciliation with the Colonies' (1775). But he is best known today for his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). In a recent short account of Burke's life and thought there is much on Burke's p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y but b a r e l y a p a r a g r a p h on his aesthetics. See C. B. Macl'herson, liitrke (Oxford'University Press, 1980), p. 19.

2

Raymond K l i b a n s k y and Hrnest C. Mossner (eds.), New Letters of David Hitnie (Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 51.

V

vi

Introduction

Germany. One might therefore wonder why it took such a long time for the book to get translated into German. The reason is not hard to find: Moses Mendelssohn reviewed the Enquiry very favourably in 1758 in the Bibliothek der schonen Wissenschaften und der freyen Kiinste, one of the most influential organs of the socalled Berlin Enlightenment. He praised Burke's 'observations'. But he also claimed that these observations needed to be explained and called on the German philosophers to provide that explanation. However difficult the task might be to bring Burke's observations into the systematic form of the Wolffian philosophy, he believed that they would ultimately fit nicely. He himself, however, could not fulfill the task, and he noted 'with pleasure' that someone else would soon bring out a translation 'of this beautiful work'. The translation had already been advertised in the catalogue of the Leipzig book fair when Mendelssohn wrote the review. The translator was to be Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, who had already written to Mendelssohn on 25 November 1757 saying that he had the book and who announced a little later that he would translate it. As late as 1768, he still wanted to finish the translation. Alas, he never did, and thus it took until 1773 for the translation to appear. The translator remained anonymous, but it was Christian Garve, who at that time was almost as famous as Lessing.4 Meanwhile, Johann Gottfried Herder had also considered translating it.* 3

4

5

See G. Candrea, Der Begriff des Erhabenen bei Burke und Kant (Strassburg, 1894); W. G. Howard, 'Burke among the Forerunners of Lessing', Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, vol. 22 (1907), pp. 608-32; H. A. Wichelns, 'Burke's Essay on the Sublime and its Reviewers', Journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 21 (1922), pp. 645-61; see also 'Einfuhrung', Moses Mendelssohn, Gesammelte Schriften, Jubilaumsausgabe. vol. 4, ed. Eva J. Engel (Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: fromman-holzboog, 1977), pp. Ixxiii ff. Christian Garve (1742-98) is one of the most important philosophers of the late German Enlightenment. He is known today as one of the 'popular philosophers'. Being deeply influenced by David Hume and Adam Smith, he came into conflict with Kant after having written a review of the Critique of Pure Reason. But since his 'common sense' approach to philosophy was essentially opposed to Kant's critical philosophy, this conflict was perhaps inevitable. For more information, see Heiner F. Klemme, 'Introduction', in Reception of the Scottish Enlightenment in Germany: Six Significant Translations, 1755-1782, vol. 6 ( = A d a m Ferguson, Grundsdtze der Moralphilosophie, Leipzig, 1772) (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000), pp. v-x. See Johann Gottfried Herder, Samnitliche Werke, ed. Bernhard Suphan, 33 vols. (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhancllung, 1877-1913), vol. 22, p. 229. The book was translated one more time, namely by Friedrich Bassenge, Voin

Introduction

vii

Nevertheless, the hook had a great deal of influence even before it was translated. Part of the reason for this was Mendelssohn's review, which included a long and detailed summary of the book (30 pages). Indeed, it has been argued that Kant never read Burke's book either in the original or in translation. While this is nonsense - if only because Kant refers to the translation itself in his Critique of Judgment and even quotes from p. 223 - it shows how influential Mendelssohn was in spreading the word. His own aesthetic theory was also deeply influenced by Burke. Lessing also learned some things from him, even though he never mentioned him by name and never found it necessary to confront Burke's theory in its entirety. 6 The same can be said of many other derma n thinkers and writers. Kant compared his own transcendental exposition of aesthetic judgement with the 'physiological one of Burke and many astute thinkers among us [the Germans]', liven if he did not t h i n k that a 'merely empirical discussion of beauty and the sublime' was sufficient, it is clear that he considered the efforts of Burke and his German followers important. The 'empirical exposition of aesthetic judgment may be a first step towards accumulating the material for a higher i n v e s t i g a t i o n ' . Therefore B u r k e 'deserves to be called the foremost a u t h o r in this method of treatment'. Burke also played an important role in the works of Johann Georg I l a m a n n and Johann Gottfried Herder. Thus Hamann criticized Kant's Beobachlungen iiber das Gefiihl des Schonen und Irhaheneii of 1764 in the Konigsbergische Gelehrten und

brhahenen mid Schonen (Berlin: A u f b a u Verlag, 1956). Bassenge explicitly discusses ( r a r v e ' s translation in his Introduction (pp. 26-30), distinguishing between Burke's 'reflected' (beicufit) and his 'unreflected' terminology. He chums that while (iarve translates every part of the Enquiry correct, the whole is misleading. This criticism is, however, largely a result of Bassenge's materia l i s t i c leanings. The edition: F.dmund Burke, Philosophische Untersuchung iihcr Jen llrspntiig nnscrcr \deen I'oni hrhabenen und Schonen (Hamburg: Meincr Verlag, I 9X0), consists of Bassenge's translation with an Introduction by Werner Strube. 7 See (aines T. Bonlton, 'Introduction', in Fdmund Burke, A Philosophical

l./hjinry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful, ed. J. T. Boulton i N o t r e Dame University Press, 1968), pp. cxxiii ff. Kant, (icsjiiinii'ltc Schriften, eds. Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften et a l . , v o l . 5 ( B e r l i n , l l > ( ) ( ) et see].), p. 177. 8 K a n t , (.ii'faiiinu'lte Schriften, vol. 5, p. 277.

viii

Introduction

Politischen Zeitungen from Burke's point of view, referring to him as 'an English author'. Burke complements Kant's Observations, which taken by themselves are insufficient because they neither develop a theory of aesthetic feelings and their relation to their objects, nor say anything about their relation to our own body. Accordingly, when Herder wrote to Kant in November 1768 about 'the work of a very philosophical Britishman', which he was reading with great pleasure and which was also a v a i l a b l e in French with the title 'Recherches Philosophiques sur I'origine des idees que nous avons du Beau et du Sublime' he was not really telling Kant anything new. Even the claim that Burke was 'deeper' in some respect was not new but had been made by Hamann before.10 The German success mirrors to some extent the success in Britain and France, where Diderot found Burke extremely important. Burke's contemporaries found the Philosophical Enquiry interesting not just for aesthetic reasons but also for broader psychological, moral and theoretical concerns. This contrasts strangely with today's estimation of this work. C. B. MacPherson finds in his account of Burke's life and work: The theory of aesthetics presented in the Sublime and Beautiful is one of little theoretical interest. It has no moral dimension, apart from some homilies about the designs of the Creator, but proceeds inductively from simple physiological and psychological observations. It may be said to testify to Burke's empirical cast of mind, but it does not harness the empirical to the moral.11

9

10

11

Johann Georg Hamann, Samtntliche Werke, 6 vols., ed. Josef Nadler (Wien: Herder, 1949-57), vol. 4, pp. 289-92. See also Piero Giordanetti, 'Zur Rezeption von Edmund Burkes Schrift "A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" bei Hamann und Kant', in Johann Georg Hamann und England. Hamann und die englische Aufklarung, Acta des 7. Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums zu Marburg/Lahn, 1999, ed. Bernhard Gajek (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 295-303. Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, vol. 10, p. 78. Whether Herder was aware of this or not is an interesting question. He commented on Mendelssohn's review in his 'Viertes kritisches Waldchen', saying that it introduced Burke to Germany. See Herder, Sammtliche Werke, ed. Suphan, vol. 4, p. 103. MacPherson, Burke, p. 19.

Introduction

ix

And J. T. Boulton claims that: it would be foolish to claim that Burke made a major contribution to the discussion of taste. He reiterates the commonplaces of his time, he indulges, like his contemporaries, in dubious generalizations supported by highly selective evidence; and he gives us hardly any hint of the important developments coming later in the century. But he is distinctive chiefly by his bold associationism and by his style.12 One might ask what makes for this difference in the estimation of Burke's aesthetics by Burke's contemporaries and our own. One way to approach an answer to this question is to ask what thinkers like Mendelssohn and Kant appreciated in Burke. It was certainly not his associationism, which they encountered also in Hume - and in an even bolder form. Rather, it was his antiHumean insistence that taste, like other mental faculties, operates by fixed principles that are essentially the same in all human beings. Hume believed that 'in the production and conduct of the passions, there is a regular mechanism, which is susceptible of as accurate a disquisition as the laws of motion, optic, hydrostatics, or any other part of natural philosophy.' ' But he was sceptical t h a t such a standard could be established in taste. Moral principles and aesthetic principles are different. As he argued in his paper 'Of the Standard of Taste', it is not only 'evident that none of the rules ot composition are fixed by reasonings a priori, or can be esteemed abstract conclusions of the understanding', 14 but it is also clear that the standards of taste are more like speculative principles. They are 'in continual flux and revolution' .15 Burke, by contrast, argued that 'it is probable that the standard both ot reason and taste is the same in all human creatures'. His reason for this view is psychological. There are, for Burke, only three powers in us that are 'conversant about external objects', 12

Boulton, 'Introduction', p. xxxix.

11

Hume, h'.sfiiys II, p. 166 |= David Hume, The Philosophical Works, eds. Thomas Hill Cireen and Thomas Hodge Grose (London, 1882; reprint: Scientia Verlai; Aalcn, l%4, vol. 4)|.

14

Hume, Assays II, p. 269.

ls

Hume, l-'.sws II, p. 281.

x

Introduction

namely the senses, the imagination, and judgment or reason.16 The senses are the same in all of us. The imagination, though a sort of creative power of its own, is ultimately dependent on the senses and therefore 'there must be just as close an agreement in the imaginations as in the senses of men'. This means, according to Burke, that, in so far as Taste 'belongs to the imagination, its principle is the same in all men'. It is entirely uniform in principle and different only in degree. The differences in taste are ultimately the result of judgement, which is the other essential part of taste. All the defects of taste are therefore defects of judgement. While most of the Germans reversed the roles of imagination and judgement, thinking that judgement or understanding is the ultimate source of the principles, they liked Burke's insistence on fixed principles that are essentially the same in all human beings. Accordingly, they could make use of most of Burke's specific observations and principles, such as the definition of the sublime and the sources of beauty, even though they were radically opposed to his radical associationism. Such authors as Burke and Kant were ultimately closer than one might suppose because both tried to account for beauty subjectively and not objectively, even if the one based beauty and taste on the senses and the other on a priori judgement. Furthermore, both were equally opposed to any k i n d of relativism concerning taste and beauty, trying to show that it is ultimately based on an intersubjectively valid principle.

Manfred Kuehn Pbilipps- Universitdt Marburg Germany, 2001

16 17

IH

Burke, Enquiry, ed. Boulton, p. 14. Burke, Enquiry, ed. Boulton, p. 17. Burke, Enquiry, ed. Boulton, p. 21.

Introduction

xi

for Further Reading Braune, Frieda, Edmund Burke in Deutschland. Ein Beitragzur Geschichte des historisch-politischen Denkens (Heidelberg: Winter, \ 9 \ ^ ) . Brown, P. H u m e , 'Scottish I n t e l l e c t u a l Influences on the Continent', Scottish Historical Review, vol. 11 (1913-14), pp. 121-35. Dickie, C., The Century of Taste (Oxford University Press, 1996). Ciiordanetti, Piero, 'Zur Rezeption von Edmund Burkes Schrift "A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful" bei Hamann und Kant', in Johann Georg Hamann und England. Hamann und die englische Aufklarung. Acta des 7. Internationalen Hamann-Kolloquiums zu Marburg/Lahn, 1999, ed. Bernhard Gajek (Frankfurt am Mam: Peter Lang, 1999), pp. 295-303. Howard, W. (i., 'Burke among the Forerunners of Lessing', Proceedings of the Modern Language Association, vol. 22 ( I 90'), p p . 608-32. Kallich, Martin, 'Associanist Criticism of Francis Hutcheson and David 1 Iume\ Studies in Philology, vol. 42 (1946), pp. 644-67. MacPln-rson, C. B., Burke (Oxford University Press, 1980). Strube, Werner, 'Burkes und Kants Theorie des Schonen. Ein Vergleich', Kant-Studien, vol. 73 (1982), pp. 55-62. , 'Der Begriff des Erhabenen in der deutschsprachigen Asthetik des I 8. Jahrhunderts', in Lothar Kreimendahl, HansU l r i c h Hoche and Werner Strube (eds.), Aufkldrung und Skcpsis. I-estschrift fiir G. Gawlick (Stuttgart/Bad Cannstatt: frommann-holzboog, 1995), pp. 272-302. Stulmitz, J., 'Beauty: Some Stages in the History of \deas\Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22 ( 1 9 6 1 ) , pp. 185-204. Townsend, Dabnev, 'From Shaftesbury to Kant', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 48 (1987), pp.'287-305. W i c h e l n s , 11. A., ' B u r k e ' s Essay on the Sublime and its Reviewers', journal of English and Germanic Philology, vol. 21 ( 1 9 2 2 ) , pp. 645-61.

This page intentionally left blank

This page intentionally left blank

2

tt

4

Circa

5 Circa vilem patulumcjue morabimur orbem Undc pudor proferre pedetn vetat aut operis lex.

6

7

€

9

10

II

12

13

14

15

16

1?

i8

19

2O

2f

S3

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

3°

3*

3*

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

4«

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

5o

5*

5*

55

54

55

3«

57

58

59

6o

6i

62

63

64

65

66

6?

68

69

70

7*

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

So

8i

8a

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

^o

9i

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

JOO

10!

JOS

IOJ

JO!

io5

io6

107

His tibi me rebus quaedam diuina voluptas Percipit, atque horror, quod fie natura tua vi Tarn manifeira patet ex omni parte receda.

„ queUe,

1QS

109

ÍIO

III

"2

«3

ii4

"5

n6

ii7

"8

ii9

120

121

122

I23

All furnish'd, all in arms, All pium'd like oftriches that with the wind Baited, like eagles having lately bathed: As full of fpirit as the month of May; And gorgeous as the fuii in MidCutnmcr, Wanton as youthfull goats, wild as young bulls. I faw young Harry with his beaver on Rise from tlio ground like feather'd Mercury And vaulted with fuch eafe into his feat, As if an aagcl dropped from the clouds To turn and wind a fury Pegafus.

124

125

126

•—With the majefty of darknefs round Circles his throne.

127

128

129

130

*3*

132

133

*34 A faint fhadcm of unceitain iight Like as a Jamp, whofe Ufe doth fade axvay Or as the raoon ciothed with cloudy night Doth fliew to him, \vho waiks iu fcar ¿C great aífright.

>35

136

'37

138

139

110

141

T 2

4

'43

144

145

146

'47

H8

149

150

15*

'S«

153

'54

153

136

157

'5S

?59

i6o

i6f

102

163

164

>«5

ré6

167

168

169

170

J71

172

i73

174

175

176

177

178

179

*8o

i8i

i8*

'83

184

*85

186

J87

188

i89

joo

I 9t

192

193

194

»95

196

i97

198

i99

200

2OI

2O2

And ever againft eating cares» Lap me in foft Lydian airs;

In V Allegro.

203 In notes, with many a winding bout Of linked fweetnefs long drawn out; With wanton heed, & giddy conning, The melting voice through mazes running; Untwifting all the chains that tie The hidden foul of harmony.

204

205

200

207

20g

2Op

aio

au

212

213

si4

2*5

Si6

317

218

219

22O

221

222

223

224

225

ss6

aa?

22g

229

230

231

33s

233

334

235

230

237

238

339

240

241

243

243

244

245

246

247

348

249

^5°

35i

252

253

254

255

256

*57

258

259

260

26l

s6a

203

s64

265

266

207

268

269

27°

271

272

273

374

275

276

277

2?8

$79

2gO

28*

2g2

283

£84

235

286

*87

288

289

Tres imbris torti radios, tres nubis aquofac Addiderant; rutili tres ignis et alitis auflnj Fulgorcs nunc terrificos, fonitumque metumque Mifcebant operi, flammisque fequacibus iras.

spo

291

292

293

«94

295

396

297

O'er many a dark and dreary vale They pasf'd, and many a region dolorous; O'er many a frozen, many a fiery Alp; Rocks, caves, lakes, fens, bogs, dens & f hades, A unjverfe of death.

298

299

3oo

301

302

THE RECEPTION OF BRITISH AESTHETICS IN GERMANY: Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Volume 7

Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme

and Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany Seven Significant Translations, 1745-1776 Edited and Introduced by Heiner F. Klemme, University of Magdeburg and Manfred Kuehn, University of Marburg Volume 1 Anthony Ashley Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury Translated by Johann Joachim Spaldmg Die Sitten-Lebrer oder Erzeblung philosophischer Gesprache, welche die Natur und die Tugend betreffen. Nebst eineni Schrciben an den Ubersetzer (1745) Volume 2 William Hogarth Translated by Christlob Mylius Zergliedemng der Scbdnheit, die schwankenden Begriffe von dem Geschmack festzitsetzen (1754) Volume 3 David Hume Translated by Friedrich Gabriel Resewitz Vier Abhandlungen: 7. Die natiirliche Geschichte der Religion. 2. Von den Leidenschaften. 3. Vom Tranerspiel. 4. Von der Grundregel des Geschmacks (1759) Volume 4 Francis Hutcheson Translated by Johann Fleinrich Merck Untersuchung unsrer Begriffe von Schdnheit und 'iugend in zii'o Abbandlungen (1762) Volume 5 Alexander Gerard Translated by Karl Friedrich Flogel Versuch iiber den Geschmack. Nebst Zzco Abhandlungen fiber eben die Materie vom Herrn von Voltaire und Hrn. von Alembert (1766) Volume 6 Edmund Burke Translated by Christian Garve Philosophische Untersuchungen iiber den llrsprung unsrer Begriffe vom Erhabnen und Scbonen({773) Volume 7 Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve Versuch iiber das Genie (1776)

Printed in England by Antony Rowe Ltd, Chippenham

VERSUCH UBER DAS GENIE

Alexander Gerard Translated by Christian Garve

With an Introduction by Manfred Kuehn

THOEMMES PRESS

This edition published by Thoemmes Press, 2001

Thoemmes Press 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR, England http://www.thoemmes.com

The Reception of British Aesthetics in Germany 7 Volumes : ISBN 1 85506 899 0 Editorial selection © Heiner E. Klemme and Manfred Kuehn, 2001 Introduction © Manfred Kuehn, 2001

British Library Catalogning-in-Publication Data A CIP record of this title is available from the British Library

Publisher's Note The Publisher has gone to great lengths to ensure the quality of this reprint but points out that some imperfections in the original book may be apparent. This book is printed on acid-free paper, sewn, and cased in a durable buckram cloth.

INTRODUCTION Alexander Gerard wrote the Essay on Genius between 1758 and 1 774, while he was professor of theology at Marischal College. Because of his new duties, the writing took an inordinately long time. As he says himself in the Advertisement: his plan was made...so long ago as the year 1758. He was then in an office which favoured enquiries of this nature, his continuance in it would have afforded him the opportunity of compleating the design in a short time...but being soon after removed to an office which necessarily directed his chief attention to subjects of a different kind...he has been able to prosecute his design, with long and frequent interruptions,

Gerard i I 72<X- C >:>) was horn on 22 February 1 728, the son of a minister of a parish in Aberdcenshire, northeast Scotland. He was licensed to preach in 1748 and, after substituting first for David Fordyce, lie became professor of moral philosophy and logic at Marischal College in Aberdeen in J752. In 1760 he was named professor of divinity, and in 1773 he was appointed professor of d i v i n i t y at King's College in Aberdeen, a position he held until his death. His lectures on aesthetics as well as on many other matters appear to have been very i n f l u e n t i a l . Indeed, some have made them responsible for the flowering of l i t e r a r y c u l t u r e in Aberdeen. James Beattie, for instance, learned much from ( i e r a r d . He was also impressed by his abilities. Thus he claimed that Gerard was so effective at memori/ing sermons that after a mere two hours he could then recite them w i t h o u t omitting or changing a word. Gerard was also actively i n v o l v e d in changing the c u r r i c u l u m at Marischal College. Thus he successfully argued in his Plan of Education in the Marischal College and \ hui'ersity of Aberdeen, with the Reasons of It (1755) against the practice of teaching logic early and advised that the first year of study should be taken up by classics, the second year by history and elementary mathematics, the third year hv n a t u r a l philosophy, literature and mathematics, and the fourth year by philosophy of mind, n a t u r a l theology, ethics, jurisprudence, politics, rhetoric and metaphysics. In this c u r r i c u l u m philosophy did not form the basis of all other studies, as in most universities and colleges in Britain and elsewhere, but it was rather taken at the end, forming the crowning achievement for students at .Marischal (College. I homas Reid, who was teaching at King's College at this time, argued that the old system of 'Regents' should be retained, and that the students should first be taught the rudiments of logic and then learn to apply

V

vi

Introduction only as the immediate duties of his profession allowed him leisure."

Gerard had briefly touched on the topic of the relationship of taste and genius in his Essay on Taste, and it seems to have preoccupied him ever since that time. The history of the completion of his design can be reconstructed in part from the minutes of the Aberdeen Philosophical Society or the 'Wise Club',

them in natural and moral philosophy. King's College did not adopt the new system. Gerard became famous through his An Essay on Taste (London: A. Millar, A. Kincaid and J. Bell, 1759). He had written the hook as an entry to an essay competition on taste, sponsored by the Edinburgh Select Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Sciences, Manufactures, and Agriculture in 1756. The committee included David Hume and Adam Smith. Gerard's essay won the prize and Hume supervised its first edition. The publisher added two essays by Voltaire and d'Alembert. A second edition appeared in 1764 with the title An Essay on Taste. The Second Edition, with Corrections and Additions. To Which is Annexed, Three Dissertations...by Voltaire, D'Alembert, and Montesquieu (Edinburgh: Printed for A. Millar, A. Kincaid, & J. Bell), and a third edition in 1780. In the third edition, Gerard added a fourth part to the original three parts of the book, entitled 'Of the Standard of Taste', which represents a response to Hume's essay of the same name that had appeared in 1757, that is, a year after the original submission of Gerard's work. After his death, there was an American edition (1804). There was a French translation, Essai sur le gout, in 1766. The German translation appeared in the same year and was entitled: Versuch iiber den Geschmack v. Alexander Gerard, nebst zwei Abhandlungen iiber eben die Materie i>. Herrn v. Voltaire u. Herrn v. Alembert (Breslau and Leipzig: Johann Ernst Meyer, 1766). In 1774 he published a sequel to his Essay on Taste, entitled Essay on Genius that became equally successful. It was translated by Christian Garve and appeared in 1776 under the title Versuch iiber das Genie (Leipzig: Weidmannns Erbe und Reich). He also published some theological works, such as The Influence of the Pastoral Office on the Character Examined; with a View, especially, to Mr. Hume's Representation of the Spirit of that Office (Aberdeen: J. Chalmers, 1760), Dissertations on Subjects Relating to the Genius and Evidences of Christianity (1766), two volumes of sermons (1780), The Corruption of Christianity (1792), and The Pastoral Care (1799). But he is today known mainly for his two essays on aesthetic matters. Gerard appears to have been extraordinarily industrious and diligent in the pursuit of his duties. He was in the eyes of his contemporaries 'solid rather than brilliant'. But he was also highly esteemed for his good judgement. This seems to be as true of the man as of the work. He died on 22 February 1795. (This footnote reproduces the text of the first two paragraphs of my Introduction to Alexander Gerard's Versuch iiber den Geschmack, also published in this collection.) 2

Alexander Gerard, An Essay on Genius (1774), ed. Bernhard Fabian (Munich: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1966), p. iv.

Introduction

vii

which was established in 1758 and included such figures as John Gregory, David Skene, Robert Trail, George Campbell, John Stewart and Thomas Reid.' Gerard was one of the first elected members in March of 1758 and his first lecture dealt with 'The Nature and Variety's of Genius'. In November 1759, May 1760 and J a n u a r y I 76 1, he gave continuations of 'his former subject on genius' and in the following years - that is, up to 1773 - he read repeatedly on topics that re-appeared in his book on genius. Altogether he gave fifteen discourses - 'probably all concerned the subject of genius'. As I m m a n u e l Kant noted in his lectures on Anthropology, Gerard was neither the first, nor the only one, who had treated the concept of genius but he 'had managed to make the best observations about it'." Samuel Johnson had defined 'genius' as 'a man endowed with superior faculties' in his Dictionary (1755). There had been William Sharpe's Dissertation on Genius in I 755, William Duffs Essay on Original Genius, and Its Various Modes o/ Exertion in Philosophy and the fine Arts in 1767 and James Beattie's The Minstrel; or, The Progress of Genius in 1771 as well as a host of other works. But though Gerard's work was not among the first, it was one of the most important and it was almost immediately recognized as such. Gerard's British compatriots fudged the work even more favourably than Kant did. In the Monthly Rei'icw it was praised as 'one of the most entert a i n i n g works we have lately met with'. The reviewer noted especially that the 'design is new', the subject 'curious and interesting', the approach thorough and 'penetrating', and the writing 'perspicuous and elegant'. 1 For Gerard, genius was first and foremost a talent - something innate. 1 lowever, t h i s did not mean for him that it could not be 3 See H. Lewis Ulman, The Minutes of the Aberdeen Philosophical Society, 1758–1773 (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press,1990). 4 U l m a n , ] he Minutes, p. 3(->. 5 'Gerard, ein Fnglaiuler, hat vom Genie geschrieben, und dariiber die besten IVrraclmmgen angestellt, obgleich die Sache sonst auch bei andern Sdiriftsrellern v o r k o m i n t . ' Kant, Gesammelte Schriften, eds. Preussische Akademic- der Wis->enschaften et al., vol. 25 (Berlin, 1900 et seq.), p. 1055. 6 Mi>jitl.ily Rerieic, v o l . 52 (1775), pp. 1-9. Other reviews appeared i i'.Jhihitrgh Mj&i;ine and Review, vol. 2 (1774), pp. 588-97, and Critic Kcr/c/r,'vol. 38 ( I "74), pp. 241-51.

viii

Introduction

improved upon by education and exercise. 'Genius is properly the faculty of invention' (p. 8). Through it we make discoveries in science and in the arts. The faculty on which it is based is not sensation, memory or judgement (reason), but the imagination. Gerard believed that: However capricious and unaccountable this faculty may be often reckoned, yet it is subject to established laws; and it is capable, not only of such extent as qualifies it for collecting ideas from all parts of nature, but also of such regularity and correctness as is in great measure sufficient for avoiding all improper ideas, for selecting such as are subordinate to the design, and for disposing them into a consistent plan, or a distinct method. It is the first author of all our inventions, and has greater influence in carrying them to perfection, than we are ready to suspect. It forms what we properly call genius in every art, and in every science.... (p. 70) Still, it is necessary that it be assisted by the other faculties, and especially by judgement, which must 'conduct' and 'regulate' it (p. 71). 'Without judgement, imagination would be extravagant; but without imagination, judgment could do nothing' (p. 38). Its relation to the other two faculties, sense and memory, is 'more distant' and 'its dependence more indirect' (p. 95). After having provided in Part I of the book a definition and explication of the nature of genius, Gerard discusses in the second part what he takes to be 'the general sources of genius' and in the third and final part the different kinds of genius. The second and longest part of the book consists mainly of a discussion of the 'principles of association' of ideas and is in this regard largely dependent on Hume's Treatise of Human Nature (1739/40). Just like Hume, he distinguishes three such principles, but whereas for Hume these three are resemblance, contiguity in time or place, and cause and effect, they are for Gerard 'resemblance, contrariety and vicinity' (p. 109). The relation of cause and effect belongs with co-existence and order to higher order or compound relations, which result from the union of the simple ones (p. 118). Habit, the passions, sensations and combinations, modifications of associating principles, and the variety of judgements also have an influence on the associations, which the imagination regularly makes. Gerard

Introduction

ix

tries to show how this happens in great detail, and that genius, like any other character, depends to a great extent on the interaction of the imagination and judgement. Part III discusses the two kinds of genius, i.e. scientific genius and genius in the arts. Thus Gerard attempts to show how they differ in their relation to memory and judgement. He also argues that 'taste' or the judgement of beauty is essential to genius in the arts. G e r a r d ' s essay is t h u s not j u s t a c o n t r i b u t i o n to the discussion of genius. It is also an attempt to advance associationist psychology of the sort Hume had advanced. Reid clearly took this to be one of the virtues of the book. In Chapter 4 of his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man ( \ 788) he criticized Hume's principles of association as incomplete and calls the attention of his readers to Lord Kames's Elements of Criticism (1762) and Gerard's Essay on Genius for 'a m u c h f u l l e r and j u s t e r e n u m e r a t i o n of the causes that influence our t r a i n of thinking', saying that Reid has 'nothing to add to w h a t they have said on that subject'. But not e v e r y o n e l i k e d G e r a r d ' s t h e o r y of association. W i l l i a m Belsham, for instance, argued that Gerard's 'account of the associating principles, and many other abstruse metaphysical disquisitions' were only 'very slightly connected with the main subject'. Locke, Hartley and Hume had dealt more satisfactorily w i t h t h i s matter anyway. In Germany, the book was also well received. Indeed, it has been said that, just like the Essay on Taste, it made a great impression in Germany ('beide erregten...Aufsehen'). The reviewer in the Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek found it: 'An excellent book! Its course is as follows: Genius is expressed p r i m a r i l y by sensation (Empfindung), which results from the power of the imagination, which depends on its part on the association of ideas. Therefore, it is mainly on this matter and

Thomas Reid, Philosophical Works, 2 vols., 8th eel, ed. William Hamilton ( K d i n h u r g h , 1X95; reprint Hildesheim: Cieorg Olms, 1967), vol. I, pp. 386ff.

8 W i l l i a m Belsham, Essjys, Philosophical, Historical, and Literary (London, r8 l >), p. 385. 9 Orto S c h l a p p , Die Anfiinge von Kjnts Kritik des Geschmacks und des denies 17(->4 l>is / 7 7 > (Gottingen: Univ.-Buchtlruckerei von F. A. Huth, 1899), p. lOvi.

x

Introduction

so beautiful that this work is one of the major works on this.' 10 The translation, which appeared in 1776, was by Christian Garve (1742-98), one of the major figures in philosophy and aesthetics at that time. After studying theology and philosophy in Halle (with Georg Friedrich Meier, among others) he was for a brief period professor in Leipzig (1768-72), Garve returned for health reasons to Breslau, his hometown. He translated some of the most important Scottish philosophers into German. Apart from his translation of Gerard, there were, for instance, translations of Ferguson (with critical remarks), Edmund Burke and Adam Smith. But he also translated Cicero's On Duties (1783), Paley and Aristotle. These translations were of the highest quality. But he also did his best to further in Germany the Scottish approach to philosophy. He was mainly interested in literary criticism, aesthetics and ethics. Some of his works were: Betrachtung einiger Verschiedenheiten in den Werken der altesten und neuern Schriftsteller (1770), Versuch uber die Priifung der Fahigkeiten (1786), Uber die Schwdrmerey (1802), Uber Gesellschaft und Einsamkeit (1797-1802), Uber die Granzen des biirgerlichen Gehorsams (1800), Uber die offentliche Meinung (1802), Warum lautert sich der Geschmack im Ernsthaften friiher, als im Komischen? ( 1 8 0 0 ) , Das Christenthum als Lehrgebdude und als Institut betrachtet (1800), Ueber das Daseyn Gottes (1802), which also appeared in his collected essays, Sammlung einiger Abhandlungen (1779, 2nd ed. 1802), Versuche uber verscbiedene Gegenstande aits der Moral, der Litteratur und dem gesellschaftlichen Leben (5 vols., 1792-1802), and Vennischte Aufsatze (2 vols., 1796-1800).M Whilst Garve included neither a Preface of his own nor any comments, it is clear that his prestige helped the book in Germany. The reviewer of the book in the Gottingische Anzeigen

10Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek. Anhang zu dem fiinf und zwanzigsten bis sechs und dreifSigsten Bande, Zweyte Abteilung, p. 1091. Other reviews can be found in the Neue Bibliothek der schonen Wissenschafteu und der freyen Kiinste, vol. 17 (1775), pp. 320-23, Nener gelehrter Mercnrius, vol. 37 (1776), p. 290 and Gottingische Anzeigen von gelehrten Sachen (1776), pp. 588-97. 11 See also Heiner F. Klemme, 'Introduction', in Reception of the Scottish Enlightenment in Germany: Six Significant Translations, 1755-1782, vol. 6 (=Adam Ferguson, Grundsatze der Moralphilosophie, Leipzig, 1772) (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000), pp. v-x.

Introduction

xi

ron gelehrten Sachen of 1776 points out explicitly how 'fortunate' the hook was 'in having found a translator, who t h i n k s w i t h t h e a u t h o r a n d w h o k n e w h o w t o connect distinctness and clarity with beauty (Anmuth) and elegance'. 12 Gerard's Essay on Genius appears to have had less influence in Germany than his Essay on Taste. But this does not mean that it did not have significant effects in Germany. Of these, his influence on Johann Nicolaus I etens and Immanuel Kant was clearly the most important among the philosophers. Tetens explicitly called Gerard 'the acute observer of genius' ('der scharfs i n n i g e B e o b a c h t e r des G e n i e s ' ) in his Philosophische UntersHchnngen iiher die mensschliche Natur und ihre Entu'icklnng.' ' K a n t e x p l i c i t l y noted in his lectures on Anthropology, for instance, that the word 'genius' had been often abused and had been the occasion of futile investigations, but that Gerard's book contained the best observations: 'Genius is the originality of talent...and denotes a peculiar spirit, which always accompanies human beings, accompanies him already from birth, and rules him.' 14 By spirit he means nothing but the peculiar characteristic of a person. In another context he points out in particular that for Gerard it is especially the productive and not the reproductive imagination that characterizes a genius, since it is opposed to all forms of imitation. There can be little doubt that K a n t read Gerard and learned from him. Indeed, it has been argued recently that the development of his aesthetic theory cannot be understood without Gerard. ^ In fact, Paul Menzer had already observed earlier that a comparison of Kant's reflections before and after the appearance of Gerard's work on

12 (iottiiitfischt' Aii^e/^cn ron gelebrten Sachen (1776), pp. 588-97. 13 2 vols. (Hildcsheim/Ncw York: Georg Olm, reprint of the edition of Leipzig, 1~^ 7 K Vol. I, pp. 107 and I 19. 14 K a n t , (n'sjnimcltc Si'hrifteti, vol. 25, p. 1055. 15 Pi cm d i o r d a n c t t i , ' K a n t c dcrard. Nota sullc fonti storiche della teoria K a n t a i n a dc "genio"\ Rii'ista di storia dclla filosofia (1991), pp. 661-99. d i o r d a n c t t i shows not only that British and German philosophers shared f u n d a m e n t a l assumptions, hut also that Gerard's Essay on Genius had a fundamental influence on Kant and that especially his theory of the productive imagination cannot he understood without Gerard. Giordanetti's paper is also i m p o r t a n t for further references on Gerard's influence on German philosophy in general and K a n t in particular.

xii

Introduction

genius shows that 'the talents of genius appear at first without any internal connection, but are later characterised by just such a connection'.16 That this connection was inspired by Gerard seems clear. It is also clear that Gerard had in this way a significant indirect influence on the history of aesthetics that must be taken into consideration when his historical importance is discussed.

Manfred Kuehn Pbilipps- Universitdt Marburg Germany, 2001

16

Paul Menzer, Kant's Asthetik in ihrer Entwicklung (Berlin: Academic Verlag, 1952), p. 87.

Introduction

xiii

For Further Reading B r o w n , P. H u m e , 'Scottish I n t e l l e c t u a l Influences on the Continent', Scottish Historical Review, vol. 11 (1913-14), pp. 121-35. Dickie, G., The Century of Taste (Oxford University Press, 1996). Giordanetti, Piero, 'Kant e Gerard. Nota sulle fonti storiche della teoria K a n t a i n a de "genio"', Rivista di storm della filosofia ( 1 9 9 1 ) , pp. 661-99. Grene, Marjorie, 'Gerard's Essay on Taste"1, Modern Philology, v o l . 4 1 (1943-4), pp. 45-58. ' Hippie, W a l t e r - J o h n , The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory (Carhondale: Southern Illinois-University Press, 1957). , ' I n t r o d u c t i o n 1 , in Alexander Gerard, An Essay on Taste... A Facsimile Reproduction of the Third Edition (1780) ( G a i n e s v i l l e , Florida: Scholars 1 Press, 1963), pp. v-xxviii. Kallich, Martin, 'The Argument against Association of Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Aesthetics', Modern Language Quarterly, vol. 15 (1954), pp. 125-36. , 'Associanist Criticism of Francis Flutcheson and David Hume', Studies in Philology, vol. 42 (1946), pp. 644-67. Kivy, Peter, The Seventh Sense (New York: Burt Franklin, 1976). Larsen, F.., 'Reinventing Invention: Alexander Gerard and An Essay on (.emus', Rhetorica, vol. 1 I (1993), pp. 181-98. McCosh, James, The Scottish Philosophy (New York: Carter, 1 9 1 1 - 1 2 ; repr. Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1990). Stulnmz, |., 'Beauty: Some Stages in the Flistory of Ideas', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 22 (1961), pp. 185-204. Townsend, Dahney, 'From Shaftesbury to Kant', Journal of the History of Ideas, vol. 48 (1987), pp.'287-305. Wolf, Herman, Ceschichte des Geniehegriffs in der deutschen Asthetik des / 8. Jahrhunderts, I. Band. Von Gottschcd his auf Eessing (Heidelberg: Carl Winters Universitatsbuchhandlung, 1923).'

This page intentionally left blank

Quid illa vis, quea inveftigat occulta, quae

inventio atque excogitatio dicitur?

cic. Qu. Tufc. Lib. I.

This page intentionally left blank

Ill

ir

V

Vi

vn

yjir

r»

3

4

5

6

7

3

9

1O

II

i **

*3

J4

Hic ( quenakrljer exklrew;irkkll

vim fontionque curfus intrium capere) omuibus eloqnetie partibus exemplun et ertum dedit. Inflie. erat. lib X. cap.1

IT

i6

J?

iS

tur, id quod conftar inter omncs, pnmu« a rebus occulcis & ab ipfa narura involutis, in quibusomnc* ante cum philofojihi occupari fucrunt, avocavide philofophiain, & ad vitJin coinmunem addux flc, ('Jc. Acad. Qjclt. Jil».i. A quo luc oinnis, <|uce eft de vira & moribus philofophia manjvit. TuiV. Qaacft. L. 3. Sccrates autcin primus philofophiain devocavit dc coclo, in domos ctiain iiuroduxir, & coegit dc vira & moribus, rebusqtic boms & mails quarcrc. Cajus multiplex utio dilputaiufi, rcrutn-

'9

rerumque varieras, & ingenii magnitudo, plura

genera effecie diffentientium philofophorum

20

Quo profe&o nihil eft acutius nihil polirius Cic. Acatl. Qu«ft. l.i. Ariftotcles vir fummo ingcnio, fcisntia, copia. — Aviftotcles longe omnibus (PIatone:n fcmpcr excipio) prcftans & ingcnio & diligentia. Tufc. Quxft. 1. i. — Peripatetic! vcteres, quorum princeps Ariftoreles, quern, exccpto riatone, hand fcio un refte dixcriui principeiu philofophorum. — Nature fie ab ils invcfti^ata eft, at null* purs calo. m«ri, terns prsetenniffa fit. Qainetiam cum de r?nitn initiis otunique mundo locuti efTent ut niitlta, nun mudo probabili argumcntatione, fed etitm nccefiiiria inachctnaticonim ratione concluderent J niaximam "iateriaui ex rebus per fe invcftigatis, *d rcnun occultaruin cognitionem attulerunt. Perfccutus eft Arift. animantium omnium ortns, viAus,figures.~ Diflerendique ab iisdem non dialeilica foluni, fed etiam oratoria pneccpta funt tradira ; — Omnium fere civitatum non Grecife feltun, fed etiam barbtrie, ab Anftotcle, mores, inrtituta, difciplints — cognovimtis. Dt Fimbwt L. V. Qute tandtm •re digna literis Placoni deftjit ? Quot fxculis Artft. didicit, ut non folum, qute ad oratores & philofophos pertinent, fcientia compleiVarctur, fed inimalium fttofumquc naturae omnes perquireret? Illis enitn hec inv€uirmU fuerunt quae nobis cognofcejiUa func. Qjiintil. InJh orat. th. XII. c.U.

21

2C

23

**) II y fit un fi grand noiubre de ddcouvertes, que i'anriquuc hit a d6cerne d'un comiuun accord la premiere place parnii les geometres. Les incrhodes imaginccs par Archiinede font aufli rcconnuci j>our les premiers gcrmcs, & des gcnncsaffcs dcvxloppc's dc celks, qtii ont port6 i] HJIU ia Geometric dans ccs dcrniers terns. Wallis, bon jugc en ces matiercs, tenoigne ion admiration pour

«4

poor ce grand homm« par ces mori. Vir ft*ptnA <jui printa fxrulamenta fojuu invert, ttrum fert gttiuiifat dt qiubxt fromtvendis ttttu noftr* fltriatur. Hift. dcs Mathcm, par MontucU Part. I, 1JV.IV. f 5,

29

») Alii apud Sicyonem, alii apud CorinrHos rcpertam affinnam pi^urara, umbra hominis lineis circum-

26

cumdu£h; iraque talcm primam fuiflc. Sccun, dam fingulis coloribus, & monochromaton dichm, poftquam. operofior invent* crat: duratquc rails ctiam mmc. Invcntam lincarcm dicunc a Philgcle Aeeypn'o, vcl Clcaqth? Corjnrhio. Frimi cxc-rctiGrc Ardiccs Corinrhius, & Telcphsntcs S:cyo» nius, fine nllo ctiaiunum colorc, jam ramcn fpargcntes lineas innis. Idco & quos pingcrenr, gfcribcrc inftimtum. Primus invcnic eas colorare, tcfh (f.t fcrunt") trira, Clcophantus Corinthius. Plin. Nat. Hitt. Lib. XXXV. c. 3, Stlfce

2?

*') Eiimaruin Atheru'cnfem flgnras omncs imirtri auJum: qui«|ue inventa eius excolacrit Ciraonetn Cleomcuin. Hip caraglypha inverut; hoc eft obliquas imagines, & varie fonnare vulrus, refpicicntes, dcfpicicntes & fufpio^ciucs : articulis eriftm membra diftiaxjr, v€tws protulit, pr^terque in vcite rig«s & (\iius iovcnit, jPancus quid cm frarcr Pludiae etiam prcelinin Athcmcnfuun adverTns PcrJ'js a pud Marftthoneui faihun pinxit, iHin. ihid t c^p.8. •'*) Polygnorus Tbafms, qui priraus mulieres lucida vcfte pinxit, capita carum miris v«rficolori< lius opcruit, pluriinumque pisiiurc primus conrul:t : liqaidcm inftitnit os adapcrirc, dcntesoftca
cS

*) Omncs hi illnftres, non Mmen in quibus hsrrere expofuio debeat: properans td luinina artis, in quibu* primus effulfit ApoJIodonis Athcnicnfis. Hie primus fpecies exprimere inftiruir ; primusque glonam penicillo jure conri'Jir. Ncque aure cum rabult ullius ofiendinir, qua: oculos tcnear. Ibid. **) Zcuxis; Aglaaphon ; Apellw. Ncque corum quisquam eft, cui quidquam in arte faa dcefTe videarur. Cic de Orat. Lib. 3, ***) Zcuxini, qui rum lon^e ccreris exccllere pi^loribtis evirtimabarnr. Cic. de Invent, lib. If. Audenrem jam aliquid penicilltim ad inagnam o;Ioriam f>erduxir. — Artein ipfis flbUraui Zeuxisn ferre fccum. Plia. ibid.

2g

Pn'tni, quorum qui'dem opera non vetuftatis modo gratia vifenda funr, clari pitfores fuifle dicuntur Polygnorus &AgIaophon, quorum fimplex color ram fui ftudiofos adhuc habet, ur ilia prope rudia ac vclut futurx mox artis primordia, inaximis, qnl p*»ft cos exriterunc, autloribus prseferantur, profrie quodam inttUigendi, (ur mea ferr opinio) ttmbitx. Pott Zcuxis atqu: Parrha/ius non inulcuin crate dittanies plurimuiu arri addidc* runt. Quorum prior luminum umbrarumque iovcniffe rationem, fecund us cxaminafle fubwlius Jineas rradirur — Ira circumfcripfir omnia, uc eu:n Icgumhtoreir voccnt. Quint. Inftic. Orar. Lib.XII. c. 10. Parrhaims — <St jpfc mulra conlticuit. Primus & lyrnir.vtru: 1 piclurxdedic; piimtii ovgutias vultus & eLganriam cjpilli & venu(Urem ons, confe/uunc irufi^uui ia hna& ciciciru> palma«i adepcu*.

30

*)Timanthi vcl plwrimum affui: ingcnii. r j i t s e n i i n eft Iphigenia oratorum latidibns cclcbm.M. — Ft in omnibus cjus npcribus inrelligicur plus kinder, quam pingitur, & cum ars fumma lit, in^cnium tamen ultra arrem eft. Plin. ib;d. OpcncnJa funt quacdam, five oflendi non dcbcnr, five cxpi imi pro tlignitatc non poflunt, vt fecit Timanthcs. Quip.r. Inft. Orar. Lib. II. c. 14. **) Similis in piclura ratio eft, in qua Zctixim <5c Polygnotmn & Timanthcm & eorimi qui non funt ufi plus quam quatuor coloribus, formas &lmeanienta laudamus. Ac in Aerio, Nicomacho, Trotogene, Apcllc, jam p«rfe<5l<< funt omnia. Cic. Brut. ***) Veruin & omncs prins genirns futurosquc poftca fnperavit A{>clles— Prccipua ejus in arte vcnuftas fuit &c. Plin.jbid. Ingcnto&gratia, q u a m jpfe in fe maxime juilat, Apcllcs «ft priltanriffi0U(. Quint. Inlt. Orat. Lib. XII. & 10. Nemo

pitfer

3'

piftor —• invenras, qui Vcncris earn p-rtcm, quara Apcllcs indioaram rcliquiflct , abfulvcrcr, Oris cniin pulclinrudo rcliqiii corpoiis ir.iitandi fpcm aufercbat. Cic. de OfHc. Lib. III.

EC ali^in gJor»am ufurpavit Apelles, CUIP Protogenis ojnw iu:meim larx>* ris ao cunt fupra niuduin anxi.c inir-rcrnr. Dixie cnmi omnia iibi cum illo paria clfc u u r illc inclio* ra; fed uno ie pneitarc, quod mauum ilii H« ra« bula ncfciret tcllcrc. Plin. ibid. Cura, Pi ocogcncs pnErtantiffunus. Quinr. ibid. Nee debebat Amphioni d« difpofirunx*, nee Asclepiodorode n-onruris. Flin. ibid. L'initmxtare Asckpiodorus f u i t , qutw in fyuimeuii nuraixicur Apellc*. ibid.

32

*) Aequalis cjus fair Ariftfdes Thebtnus. Is omnitun primus minium pimur, <Sr fenius omncs ex« prcfiit. Plm. ibid. **) DiligcntjfT»m« tnnlieres p/nxic. Lumen & umbr&s ccftocivit, atquc ut cminertnt c rabulij pidur* maximc cnravit, &c. Plin. ib. cap. II. k

**) gieht rbcn tit Stam. 6.59.

33

*) Quis enim eonim, qui h*c rainora animadver* tunr, non iniellieir, Car.achi figna rigidiora e(Te» quam ur uniter.rur veritatein ? Calamidis dura Jlla quidem, fed mollior* tamrn quam Can-chi. Nondum Myronis fatis ad \eriratem perdu;h; jam tamen q»« non dubires pulchra Hicerc. P:;Iehrior* etiain Polyclcri & plane jam perfeCb, ur inihi quidem videri folenc. Gc.Brnt. — Fhidix fimulacris, qaibus nihil in illo genere perfcvtius vidcmas. Oraf. Nam duriora &Tufcanicis proxiitu Calun stque Egelias, jim minus riyda Calami s, molliora adhuc fup.« di«3:is M\Ton fecit. Diligentia & decor in Polydcto fuper c*teros. —? At qua Polyclcto dcfu»nmr, Phidic & Alcameril danrur. Fiiiri'iis ta:r.;n diis quam hyminibos efficicndis inchor arrifcx rraditar; in ebore vero Ionge citra xmtslnm. Qnint. Inft. Or. L. XII. c. lo. Euphranorein a(.:m:rar.dum f^cit, quod et catrcris oprimus irudiis inter prxcipuos, & pingcr.di tfngcndiqiic inirus idem arrifcx fuir. Ibid. ^. QUti) PUn, Hilt. Nit. L. XXXIV. c. S.

34

) Nee dubitari dcbet, quin fucrint ante Homeriun po«rfE, qnod ex iis carminibus intclligi potcft, qua jpud ilium & in Pheacum, & in proeorum epulii canumur. Cic. Brut. ) Ignotum tra^icx genus invenifle Camcenac, Dicitur, & plaurtris vexifFe poHmata Thefpi$, Quftcanerent a^rentque parundi fscibus ora. Herat. Ars Poet. v. 3 75.

35

36

37

38

39

40

Treatife on human Nature.

4*

42

*} Qn« enim forma eft ram inufirata, quam non Cbj ipfc animus poflit cffingere ? Ht qnx nunqt:aui vidimus, ca raincn formara habcamtts, oppidorum fitus, honiintim figuras. — Nihil tft enim dc quo cogitate ncqueamus. Cic. dc divin. Lib. II. »'} 3ufd?«uer tni 487©tficf.

Aniraorum eft et vis scque

43

gtque natura, ut vigetnr vigilantes, nnllo tdveatirio pulfu, fed fuo tnoto, incrcdibili quadam eclair ace. Hi cum fuftinenrar roembiis & cor pore & fenfibus, omnia certiora cernunt, cogitant, fwitiunt. Cum autem h*c TubtraOa funr, dcfcrrusque animus hnguore corporis, rum s^iwrtir jpfc per fefc. Iraque in co & form* verfanrur & tftio* ncs; & mulra audiri, multa did ridcnriir. Oc, tie dh-iiur. L II.

44-

4?

46

47

48

49

50

I Ego porro tie invcnifle qxiidem credo cum, qrti noo jadicavtt.- nee em'm contraria, comniunu ftulta invenlfle dicitnr quisqtutu, fed non viwfle. Qoiju. Inft. Oi-at. Lib.UL cap. 5.

5«

^

T

T

T9

Ndrura hurnani mgenii in agilk eft er vclox, fie in cmneiu parrem, ut ita tUxcriin (pciltt, ut nc polllr qnidem aliquid agtre tanrurn unuo>, m p l u ra vcro, non codeiu die modo, fed ecdcin tcmpun's momcnto vhn fuaoi iwpendit. Qxiint. In(t. Orar. Lib. I. c. so.

56

57

5S

f9

6o

6i

6ft

03

64

Cf

66

67

68

69

Chevalier Mfriqo — 11 ne s'eft jaraais x'ti one imagination raoins re*glec que U fwnne. S' il park tPun rofllgool ou (Tune rofe, il en die tout ce qu'on co |KW »magiix*r. Bien loin dc rcjctter ce qai (e prtfenre, il va chercher ce qui ne ft pr«Sfenre pts; JT^pujft toujo.nrs fon fujet. 4. Entret, d' Ariltc & d'Eugenc.

1*

"I

78

73

74

7?

76

77

78

7$

*) Collocare autem , crfj eft commune, ramcn ad inveniendum reforrnr. Civ- partu. Oiar. **) Sed at opera txtruentibu* iaas non eft, fix& srqu*

go

«tque macerum, Sc cetera cdificinri unlia congcrcic, nifi collocamdis us du'puncr.Hjsquc -rcificum nunus jdhibeatar: lie in d ken do qiumlibcc abuncUns rerun: copia, cuinulinn ranrum habest 2;quc congeftotn, nifi iflas eadcm difpofltio in ordinera digeftas arqne inrer fe commtfTas devhnccrit. Nee immerito fecanda qninquc Partram pofrt* eft, cam fine to prior nihi! \aJear. Neqae enirn, qcunqaam fufis omnibus membftt, ftanta Tic, ni»i «olloceror. Sed h. qtmn in corp«> ribus noftris flioromqae antmaUnui ptncm perinures et trflnsferas, licet eadcm hal*ar omaii, prodigmm Ik tauiea. LL ami ctiain levirer lo. co ojotj, perdant quo viguarunt ufum; er f .urbari exercitus fibi ipTi funt iinpedimenro. Nee mihi videnrur errarc, qui ipf«m rerum nf.ruram Uaie ordine putant; quo confufo, perirnra funt ooiDii. Qutct. luiL Orat. lab. ViL c, i.

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

33

'} Quern ardorcm ftodii cenfcris fiijffc in ArchiWde, qai dum in pulvere quzdarn defcnbit mtentius, n«. patriatn ^uidern captain efle /cnferu. Cic. dc Fin. Lib. V. • *) Erat Protogcnes i« fuburbano hortufo fuo, hoc eft Demcfrii caftriS. Neque interpttUtus prcliis, inchoata opera infcrmifit oranino. ***) Grahtms account of ptuittr*.

89

') F.Ioges dcs Savaniy Tpmc J. .., •*) Lcsp
90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

*) Nihil ell fcracius ingcniis , us prxfcrtim quat difcipliuis exculta funt. Scd ut fcgcres fscunde & uheres, non folum fruges, vcrun» criatn hcrbas eflfuiidunt inimicifTimas frugibus : ftc inrcrdutrt ex iJlis locis aur Icvia qusdim au» cau/fii alicna, aur nan tuilia gigaunrar quorum, ab or&roris jodicio deleciu^ magnus adhibcbiciu. Cn. Ortttr.

98

^9

Ellc 1'enpofte verirablemenr fur la pocfie de la joru£ilem d<S!i\Tee, donr les figures ne font pasfonvent convenables d 1'endroit, ou le poerc les inec cii ocuvre, U y i fouvenr encore plus do bri!lant & d' edit dans c«s figures que dc vente. Je veuxdirc,qu'elles furprennem dtqu'elles ebjouiflcnt rimaginjrion ; mais qu'elles n'y pc^ntnr pas diftin£emcnr des images propres 4 nous interefFcr. Voila ce yue M. Despreaux a d c l i m , le cJinqtuint du Tafle. Rtj.'ex. Gritty, fur ;<j fotf. cT fnr U pent, tcirie :. Jt3. ;+.

100

*) $ter SfctfiJi*. ittt Shiftriff. Is all rhe counfel tfatt ire two have fhftr'd, The filters vows, rhe hours that we hare fpenr, \Vhen we have chid the hally — ft-oreii rime For parting us; O f and is at! tbrgor ? Ail fcheol —days friend! hip, childhood inno» c^nco ? V-e, Hermia, iik« rwo artificial gods, CreMed wrtl> o«r iieedlts both one flower, Both on one fampler, fitting on one cufhion; Both warbiing of one fon^;, both in one key ; M if our bands, oar fides, voices & minds Hid Lccn incorp'rate.

jor

*) — — — So w« gr«w together Like to a double chrny, fccnu'ng parted, Bui yet an union in partition; Two lovely berries moulded on one ftcm ; Or with rwofccramg bodies, bur one hcarr, Two of the firft, like Drears in beraloYv, Due bur ro one ind crowned u i r h one crefl.

102

103

104

105

ic5

») Meafitrt for Mcaf*r<Jt «& $• fc. 2.

Ay, but ro die, and go ve know not Wi>«re, ^ To live in cold ath in fiery floods, Of tp rcfide Jn thrilling regions of thjk-ribbed ice, To be imprifcm'd in the viewUfs winds' And blown with reftlefs violence roand abottr Trv j-.ndj.:: \vorld. — —

107

108

109

110

*3 Atquc plerosque vid«s hcrrcntcs circa CnguJa, & duin invcniunt, & duin invent* pondcrant. Quod eriarnfi idcirco fie r e t , ut fcmp«r oprimis urerennir, abotninandi ramen h«c infeliciras crar, qiu & curfum dicimdj rcTrcnat, St calorcm cogirarionis cxringtiiT mora A diffidcntu. Qniiu. Inft. Orar. Lib. \ III. pro&ca.

111

112

113

114

UT

*) Illud qcoque ftudiofi eloquent* content, neque omnibus in caoflis ea, qux cicrcoaftr*viinu$, cunila polFe reperiri: neque cum propofita At niarena dlcendi, fcmtanda fmguli, & vclur oftitcjui pulfanda, ut fciint, »n ad probandum i d , quod intendimuj, forte reTpxjfideanl, tiiA eum Hifmnt & adhuc ttfti carcnt Infirurtto enim ftcict ip'a re* dicendi rtrdirttcm, fi Temper neceff.; lit, ut tentintes unumquodqac corum, quod fir iptum ajque toQvenietis, experitndo nofganous. Inft, Orit. Lib. V. cap, ia.

116

117

Quicquid porro animo cerimus, id omne oritut a fenfibus. Cic. de fin Lib. I.

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

*) Thoa trcmMcft tfcd th« whitencfs in rhy chc«k k Is apter than thy tongue to tell thy errand. Ev'n fuch a matt, To fainr, fo fpiritlcfs, So dull, To dead in look, fu woe — be *— gone, Drew Pnam's cartuin in the desrh of nighr, And u-ould have told him, Jult" his Troy *ts burnM; But Priarn found the fir«, ert h< his fongiw; And i my Piarcys death, ere thou reporr'lt it. Second pan of Henry IV. a^l. i. fccne ;.

J3r

*) Non enim res fora ton" rei funilis fir nr.<.-fo i ^ , fed ad ipfum , ad quort confcrcrur , !.:nilitudin?iq h a h e j r oportcr. Ad Hcren. L. IV. **) Inquukio de calorc & frijore.

131

*33

*) Tis nor ten years fine* Richard & Northumberland Did feaft together; and in rvro years afcc»Were they at wars ; it is bat eighr years fince This Piercy was the man ncarelt nn' foul, Who like a brother toiPd in my affair's, And laid his love & life under rny foot; Yf«, for my fake, ev'n toVhe eyes of Richard Gav e him defiance. Sfcr*d fart *} Htwy 1 V.aci 5.

iVene r.

'34

*) Yea there thou raak'ft roc fad, & nuk'ft me fin In envy that my Lord Northmabvland, Should

*3?

Should be rh« father of fo bleft a fon, A Ton who is (he theme of honour's, tongue : Amongtt a grove ibc very ftraighceft planr, Who is Jweer fortune'* minion and her pride, Whilii I by looking on the praife of him, Sec not and dishonour (tain the brow Of my young Harry. Firft part of Henry IV. a$. i. fc. i. *) He bur a Duke vould have his fan a king, And raik h-.i iffue like a loving Sire; Tiiou being a King, bloft with a goodly fun, Did'ft yield confcnt to difmherit him ; \Vluch. argued rhce t tooft unloving fjtkef. UnrcafauiWc creatures Cctd their jrcuoj,

And

15(5

And though man's face be fearful to their eyes, Ver in protcdtion of their render ones, Who has not feenthem (even with thofc wings Which fometimes they have uf'd with fearful flight)

Make war *ith him, who climb'd into their ncft, O/fring their own lives in their young's defence. Third part of Henry VI. tf\. 2. u. 5.

137

Nemo libenter recolit, qtu loeft Iccum.

J'S

J

39

140

*} Canffa aurcmeaeft, qucidefficit, cujus cftcau.Tj, uc vuluus mortis; ignis ardorii; iraquc nun lie caufTu intclligt debcc, ut quod cuiquc anteccdat, id ci caufTj fit, fed quod cuiquc cffkiemcr jn:ccedar. Of.
I4i

i4c

145

144

'4T

146

J

47

148

149

If*

in

M2

H3

if4

J

T5

156

M7

158

if 9

i6o

i6i

iGs

163

164

i6f

i66

i67

fStf

*) When i would pray and think, i think tnd pray To fevcral fubjc&s: hcav'n h a t h my empty words, Whilft my intention, hearing not my tongue, Anchors on Ifabcl: hcav'n's in my mouth, As if I did bur only chew irs name, And in my heart the ftrong and fwelling evil Of my conception. — Mtjfttre f«r ttitafxrc. /Ifl.i Scent it.

169

*)

— — Mercy on its! We fplir, we fplir! farewcl my wife *nd chiJdfen, Frurhcr fjrewcl! We fplir, w« fplii, we fplk! Ttutfcft. a3. t. fern, t.

170

*) Jfnf-. O i will to him and pluck out his eves. Duke. You fhall not be admitted to hu fighr. Jfrb. Unhappy Claudio! Wretched Ifabcl! injurious world! moft damn«d Angelo!

Mcaf. for Afctf. aft. 4. ft. u.

I/t

t •*>•* 172

*7?

*74

179

17(5

177

178

*) You cram rhcfc H'on'.s inro mine esrs againfr. 1 he ftomach of my fcnfe. Would i had never .MJITK-*! my djwghrcr tiurc.' For coming thence My i'un is lolt, and, in my rite, fhc too, Who is to far from Iri'y rcinov'd, I r.c'cr again f hail fee her: O thou mine heir Of Naples andaf AiiUn , what ftrangt fifh Hath nude his meal on thce? Tvr.ptfl. afi. -.. fcnc i.

179

I gO

i8i

182

183

J84-

'§5

i8$

487

iSS

Commend me to tny brother, Edmund Vork; Lo, this is all -r- nay yet depart not fo; Though th»* be all, da not fo quickly t;o ; J fhaU remember more. Bid him — oh what? W i t h all good fpccd at Plafliie to vifit me. .Alack, and wlm i"hall good old York fee there, P.ut empty lodgings, tnd unfornifhM walls, Unpeopled offices, -untrodden fton«$'? •And what hear there for welcome but my groans? 1 a:refore commend me — let him not come there To ftck our forrow that dwells every where ; All dcfolate will i from hence, *nd die ; I he Jaft Jc^ve of ihce takes my weeping eye.

Richard II. ail. i. fcene }.

rt&

Il)b

igr

My daughter! O my ducats! Omy daughter! Fled with a Chrittian! O my chriitun ducats! Jufticc, the law, my ducats, and my daughter! A fouled bag, two fealed bags of ducats, Of double ducats, ftol'n f r o m m c b y n i v d u u g h r c r ! And jewels, two ftones, rich and precious tones' Stol'n f>y my daughter! juftice! find the s>irl; bhc bath the (lone* upon her find, the d u c j r s ! Mti. '.JHt ef ^V7;.t'r .i..1..-. j'ctne t.

i.g*

193

But fofr, but Tec, or rather do not fee, My fair rofc wither; yet look up; behold, That you in pity may di/Tblve to dew, And wafh him frefh again vrith true love reart. O thou the model where old Troy did fhmd, Thou map of honour, thou King Richard's tomb And not King Richard; thou molt bcaurcous i n n , \Vhyfhouldhard favoured ^n'ct" b.1 lun^'d i n t h c c , Wh.co triumph i* Ucomc an ale- houic y u c i t ?

Richard II. aCl. >. Kcne I.

»9*

195

And here I luvc the daiuiir.cfs of car. To chck time broke in a Jisordcrci firing; But for (he concord of my ftjrc and time, Had not an ear ro hear my rrnc rune b r o k t n : I waded time, and now doth time waffc inc. For now rus time made me hisnumb'rin^ clock : My thoughts arc minutes; and with ii^hi ihcv j j v Their watches to my
196

197

igS

199

20O

cor

202

2GJ

2CU

205

co6

207

fiOg

For from his metal was his party fteeld; Which once in him abated, all the reft Turn'd on thcmfelves, like dull and heavy lead. And as the thing, that's heavy in itfelf Upon enforcement flies with greater fpced: So did our men, heavy in Hotspur's lofs Lend to this weight fuch lightnefs with their fear, That arrows fled not fwifttf coward their aim,

2O9

CIO

N~.ni :"::ui fclo .'" ['ii.-.:::n icior.i ^rsfrc^cris, r> liquu fcrro van no^ciuli fu'luleris : h c i l l o , vcluti mucrone tell, abhto duce Thebanorum , rei quoquc publicz vires hcbctstx fur.c. Huh lib. 6. ca;>. ».

an

au>

2f3

214

2Z c

2l6

»)m<no^ Madam, you have bereft me of all Words, Only my blood (peaks to you in ray veins; And there is fuch confulion in my pow'rs, As. after Tome oracion fairly fpokcn By a beloved prince, there doth appear Among the buzzing pica fed multitude, Where every fomething being blent togithcr Turns to a wild of nothing, fave of joy Expreft, and not expreft. MtrcLaiit tf yenite. «
«'7

218

219

t Gimp bcraerft i«fo Sfrfcn toJ entgrgcn^ef^fcrt/ i\5 cr glcicfo jc&cr 2frt dncn nn^frn 97««en sicbt* Contraruim eft, quod poLtum in genere diverfo, ab co cui cojurariuni dkitur, pluriiniun diitar, ut frigus calori, vitce mors. Dif^aratu:n amem eft id quod ab aliqua re per uppoftrionem ncga« tionis feparatur, lioc inodo: ftpcre «S: non fjperc. DC Invent. Lib. I.

Q20

Ml

fl22

Uc veto vtltem qaoqtie fangaine tinftam RcppcrK: -ona daos nox, inqait, perdct amamcs, £ quilxis illa^iait iouga digiiifluwa vita.

*23

S24

22f

226

*I- /

2S8

229

n *»o

-:> l

232

233

234

235

33$

237

238

239

24°

241

£42

243

044-

24f

94$

247

348

249

£fO

«* I

2f2

*f3

2f4

a>f

CjG

*) Si qn:s res in vira vidcinus, parvas, iifit^ras, quocidiar.as, eas meininifTc non folemus : proptcrct quod ir.ilia nili IKHJ atu unnurabili re cominovc* t u r animus. At fi quid videmus aut a u d i n i u j e^rcgic rtirpc, aut Jioncihim, i n u f i t a t u i n , ma ; ;:uun, incictiibilc, ritliculuni, id diu incminille cftiilHC^ rnnus. Ad tlcrtwt. Lib. 111.

257

*} Ncc d u b i u m , quin plurimum in hac re valeaf mentis i n r e n r i o , A velur acies l u m i n u t n , < profpevihi r o r u m , <]tus i n r u e r u r non avcrla. Unde accidie, ur q u ^ per plures dies kTibimus cdilcendi CJUfFa, cogitatione ipia contineamus. Q u i n r . A r c . Orit. Lih. XI. cap.r. **) Plurimuin contcrre anirmun a l i i s ro^irafionib'.ii libtrum. Quint. Itiil. Orac. Lib. XI. es]). s

25*

*) Qute acciJcmr.r in puci ui.', ineminiinus optinie &[*. Ad Hirtnn. /j^. ///.

»f9

*) Ali* inltantix dibpnt hanc alceram fpcciem.- HC qua; iu«xiirciii>piiiniiDri;r a incuco puia, & mums pixocaipara ur.ic vel p o t t ; \ c l u u iju* diLinuis iu p i K t i f i a , Jut qijo: con^iucnraiuuf a i u y rojiinuiii, etUKi p; nn.t qiijtijuc r c r u i H vic^s, iH^gis !i«iearic jn iiu-inoria. X'eiuhin. Nov. Org Lib {1 aph 2$. **} A' ! ^ dcniquc inlhntis djhunt hanc altorain fpccicm, ur quit e.xpeihmrur lit grwnriontiu e x c i f j n r meliub l u j i c a t i r , q n a m qu2 j n . r . e r \ o'.-nr. I r j q u c |] I c i i p t u i n j l i t j U o J v u . c i PC; ! c ^ c c i > , nun r.'.in Uciit JilyJ i i i c i n < ) i ; i c r JiJiiCi, quai:i J i i l l u d i^^JS dfCW

a6o

decies, t«ntando interim illud recitarc, & ubi deficit raonoru, infpicitndo libmra. Verulam. ifftti.

a6r

26ft

*) Come on Sir, here's (he place — fraud itill. How fearful! And dizzy'ris, to cart the eyes Co low ! The crows and choughs, that win» the midway air,

Show fcarcc fo great as beetles. Half \va\- dov.-n Hangs one rhat gathers f a m p h n e ; dreadful! trade! Me thinks he feems no bigger then his head. The fifhcnmn , t h a t walk upon rhe beach 'Appear" like mice; and yond rail anchoring bark Diminished to her cock, her cock a buoy, Allmoft too fmall lor light. The murnnirin^ fur^e That on the unnunihrcd idle pebbhs chafes, Cannot be heard fo high. King Ltar «i7. 4. J\\ (.

s5j

264

s67

2^6

af>7

a68

269

2?O

*7I

*) Vidit aurem hoc prudenrcr' f;vc SituonMcs five ftliui quis invenit, ca msxitnc minus c.tirigi r.onoitris, qua: cTent a ftnfu tra-lira a r q u e imprcifi; tccrrimum autem ex onmihus noUris feuiibus t(Te ftnfum videndh quart facillimc animo rencvipo.'Ie H, quflt ptrcipertntur itiribus «ur t o y i r a t i o n e , fi ttiim octilomm commendarione a;uui.> tudoientUT, uc res c*c«l, & tb afpcctus ji'Jii.io rciuocds, tonfurmttio qucrfam & unu^o, vv t i ^ u u i:j noCirttt ut ea, ^uc CDgitaado ooiuplccii iu-n po(te> !•«•, inruenilo qujii ccnernnus. d. Ji O/.if. JL. //. Alie duccm in/ljnnct rl^bnnr l i . n c jltcr.MTi ^prctem; ut qui^nid deduoic lutclk-ctu^lc ed tencndum. tcafuto (qus ricto etiiui pi*.if-uj M^CC 4n Ktmona art>4iviilO ;*tver nieinonam t-\-inl. ^/>t. O^. i*., Je Attgoi. %Jtnx. t/^. /•'. *v /•

272

*) Alia infhntifc dabr.nt hanc alterflin fpcciem ut qu?» faciunr iniprdiioncm in iflfeftu forti, incuticntcs fcilicet mctum, adnuratiunem, pudorem, dcJciUtiuncin, javciu mtuionV1^ /^fr»>.>N'ov. Or^.

273

274

275

*) Vorum & ia his qurr fc: ; pfimus coir pie-fkudis, nuiltiun valcr.r, & in jis qutt cogirjinus con:inendis, propc ftilf (cxccpta, qux pociiiima e:?, exercirarionc) divide & compoiino. N«m vjui refte divifcrir, nunquam porcrit ; n r:ruui ordine errare. — Edam qus bcnc conipofira ernnr, memoriam fcric fua ducenr. Nam ficuti facilius verfus edifcimns, quain profam o r a r i n n c m , ita profam vinilam quiin djiFolutam. QMHU. Inft. Or. Lib. XI. csp, a. *•) InvcnifTc fertar Simonides, ordinem efTo maxiine, qui memuri* lumen affcrrcc. Icaquc ii^ qui hanc parretn ingemi c.vcrceienc, locos eirc c«pien
2^6

Nam cum in loca aliqtta port tcmpus reverfi fumus, non ipfa agnofcimus tanruin, fed cdam, qua; in his fccerinms, rcminifcimHr, pcrfonzque fubeimt, nonnunquam tacitx qtioque cogitationcs in rnenrem vcvcrtuntur, Quini:. Inft. Qrat. Lib. XI, Cap. a. Atque ex ilto manipulo trium inftanriarum, videlicet brdinis, locorum arHficialis memorie, & vcrfuum, conftiruitur fpccics tina auxilii *d meinorisni. Species aiucm ilia abfcifTio infinu tc rc^e vrxriri pofllr. Cum enim quis aliquid rc« minifci,autrcvocareinmemoriam nititur, fintillarti j>renorionein habet am perccprionem ejus, quod qnzric, qiucrit trte & molitur & hac iliac difcnrIrit tanquam in ihfiniro. Qnnd fi ccrram aliquam prenocionem haheat, abfcinditur infinirum, & fie difcurfus mcmori* magis in vicino. Intribus au« te» illis inftantiis, qu« fupcrius di^e funr, pnr« notio perfpicua cfl & certa. In prima vidcliccr, deber cfle aliquid, quod congruat ordini, in fc» cunda debet cfTc imago, que rclationcm aliquam liabeac five convcnicnriam ad ilia loca ccrra : in terria debent efle vcrba, ijue cadant ir. verfum, •tque ita abfcindirur infinitum. Verulsm. Nov. Ore. ib. — Dt augm. fcitnr. Lib. V. cap >-.

277

278

*3 AIi
**) JDtr fcrglofe ifi^etnann. J. 5lufiujj.

279

28o

2fll

s$ 2

585

*34

*) Eriam ilia prevclox fere ciro ^.jyi'tnri off.cio funlia nihil in ta: q u a m diroiffa difcedit. Ncc lirrcre anm»o, qi>« duuios tffiict O-. Lii. A7. c*f. :.

cffluit, & veluti poftcrum dcbear, eft mirum niagis fine, Q*i*t. fn/?.

2$£

*S6

28:

288

289

sgo

291

292

t>93

894

29 f

296

2C)7

298

29£>

goo

3«*

3O*

303

.S
30f

306

307

3«8

3C9

3io

3ir

312

3'3

314

3IT

316

31?

3'8

319

Boyle Exper. & Confiderat. de Coloribur. Pats III. Exp. 4.

320

321

3*3

323

3*4

325

326

3T2?

J28

329

3?o

:>3*

33*

333

334

*» •» V

33^

337

None locus eft, (ut opinor) in his illud quoquc rebus Confmnarc tibi, nullam rein pofle fua vi Corporeim lurftun ferri, furfmn^ue me*re. Ncc tibi dene in eo flammarum corpora fraudem. Surfmn cmm vorfus gignumur, & augmina fuiMunc. Et furfuni nitiilx frugcs, arbulUquc crefouu; P«ndcra, quantum m ic c(t, quom dcorfum cuniU ferantur. Nee quoui fubfilium ignes fub te&a domorum, Et ccleri fiiinmd degulUnt tigna trabeiiqnc. Sponrc iut facerc id fine vi fubigcnre <:rcdendum cit,

358

fanguis Emicar cxfulrans site, i'jur^itquc cruorcni. 2sronnc vides crum, quanta vi cisjna crs!)cisque Rcfpuac humor aqutt? Nam quam tnigi* incrgimiisalruin Dire&a, & m-agna vi m u l t i prcflTnnus'^grc: Tain cupide fiirfum revomic inagis trquc ro anitric: Plus ut partc foras cincrgant, cxfilianrquc. Ntc ramen hxc, quintu' ft in fc, dubicimus, opinor, Qjin vaciuini per inane deorftim cunila feranrur. Sic igirur debcnt fljinina: quoque poflc per auras Acris cxprcffc furfum fucccdcrc, quanquam Pondcra, quantum in fe eft, dcorfura dcduccrc pugnenr. No^urnafqn^ fiKcis cocli, Aiblime volsnreis Nunnc vides.Kmgos fljinmarum duccrc crt£hi$, In quascunqucdcdjspartcis natura mearum?&c. I.ih.II. v.I$4-

339

w C*nfet

cnim, cadem ill* individua, & folida corv pou fcrri luo dcorfum ponderc ad lineam : w hunc natuulcmcllc omnium corponun inocmn.* D« Fin. lib. i. unt> un mcbrcrn un^rrn Orrcn.

34"

34*

lincaw , nunquam fore, ut atom** alcera flltcraiR poffer a r t i n ^ c r c : icaquc <• r declinare dixit tto« r::::n pc: p j u l h n n : ita cffici coinplexiones (S; copulitioius, v.1- fldhafioncs acomoruin inter fe : ex quo ctfk-cretur inundus, omncs«juc partcs muad » , quxqno in co client. Ibid.

342

343

344

*) Even light itfclf i "which every thing displays, £hon£ undiscovcrd , t i l l his brighrcr mind Untwiftcd all the fhining robe of d a y ; And, from the whitening undiftinguish'd blaze Oo'ie
34?

340

¥

) Falfc eloquence, like the prismatic gkfs, Irs gaudy colours fpreads on cv'ry place; The face of nature we not more furvey, .All glares alike, without distinction gay: Bar true expreiTion, like t-h.' unchan^in^ fun, Clears and »niproves ; whatc'ei- ic fluncs upoo, lj gilds all objcvils, but ic alters none. Eflay on Criucifm. vcrs ^n — Jig.

347

348

349

3f°

3fi

352

*) And fee where tnrly Winter paffcs orfF Far to the mirth, and calb his ruffian bUlU: HJS blsdhobey, and q u i t the howling hill, The fluttered forcll, aiul the ravag'd vale; While foftcr gales fuccced, at whole kind touch DifTolving fno\v^ in l i v i d torrents lose, The mountaius hft their gr<en heads to the fky*. Thomfon's Spiio^ v. n —17*

3?3

3>4

3ff

3?6

3?7

3f8

359

*) Optic. Qu. 24. 31. cvc.

*') Pncltly's Hiitory oi'Ileclriciry Part,I. per.4-

360

Ibid. 6.

361

Jdcirco corn's dimcnfum p a r t i b u s orbem Per duodena rcgir inur.di fol aurcus altr*. Qiimque tcncnc w c c i n u i zo::.u: q u a r u i n una corUiv-O

Semper fole rubens, & torrid* Temper ab igni: O u a t n c i r c u m cxtremx dexrra Ixvaque trahuntur, Cerulea glaa'c concrccx , a r q u c imbribus atris. Has inter mediamquc, dux n m r t a l i b u s acgris Jvdmerc concclTae ilu'um. Via lu:b per ainbas, Obliquus qua fe fignorum v e r r e r e t orclo. Mundus ut ad Scyth'um, Rhipatasque arduus *rccis C'onfurgic, prcminir Libya* devexus in Auflros. Hie vertex nobis ieaipoi f u b l u n i s : ;«t illutu Suh.pcdibusSryx ttrti videt, Atanesque profundi: ^axiuius hcic flexu linuofo elabitur annuls Circum, perquc duas in njorcm fluminis Ardos, Arclos, oceani mctuenrcs a^qu^ic tingi. J///V, ut perhibcnr, aur i n t c i n p c l r a filer nox Semper, & obcenu dcnfantur node tenebrac; Auc rcdit a nobis Aurora, dicinquc rcd«cic: Koscjuc,

362

Nosque, ubi prims equis oriue afflioeur anjheru Illic fera reuatli accendirt lumina vefsr Geriatro lib Ivaopweri

Me vcro priinum dulccs ante oinnia Mufrr, Qua rum facra fero jnvrenti pcrculfus amorc, A t v i p i a n t ; coclique vias & lldera moriltrcnt: P^fc^tis Solis varies, Luna^quc hl>orcs: Undc rremor r c r r i s : qua vi raaria alta ramcfc«ni Obiiribus r u p r i s , rurfusque in fc ipf* rcfidant: Qnid tanrum oceano properent fc tingnere fole« Hi^trni, v«l qoe tardis mora n<x3ibu$ ob/ter.

Lib. IL v.47i".

363

364

*) Summa cnim (quantum ego quidcm fendo") circa inovendos affcvihis in hoc pofita eft, ut moveamur ipfi. — Ncc incendit nifi ignis, nee madcfcimus nifi humorc: ncc res ulla dat alteri co lorcni, quern ipfa non haber. Primum eft igitur, w — aHkuinur, antc^uam a/fi^cr^ concmur. At quomodo

365

^uomodo fief, ur sffjciarmir. Xeque cnim Time rnorus in ncflra porcfhrc. Tcnrabo criam dc hoc diccrc. Qijas ;^yraa;ai- Grxci vocanc, nus fane v i f i o n c s a p p c l l c m u s : per quas imagines rerumabfentinm ita prcofcntantur a n i m o , uc eas cernere Cculis, & prxfcntcs h a b c r c v i d c a m u r ; has qtusquis bcne c o n c c p c r i t , is crit in afie^libus potcntifrimu5. H u n c q i n d e i n v o c a n t fv(^avraar;xroy, qui.fibi res, voces, tv^u?, Tccundum verum optima finget; quod q u i d c i n nobis volencibus facile continget. — I n f e q u c t u r /vapyeia, qucc a Cicerone i l l u f t r a t i o & c v i d e n r i a n o m i n a t u r ; quae nnrt Mill dicerc v i d e r u r q u a m n f U n d c r c : & atiec^us non • l i t e r , quim ii rtbus iptis i n t c r f i m u s , lequenrur. Qr.inr. In(r Orar. Lib. VI. cap. 3. Sed cum Tint alii veri a.fe^lus, alii f i S i & i m i t a t i — hi carcnc n a t u r a , idcoquc in hac re p r i m u m eft, bcnc africj, & concipere iin^vjnes reruin & canquam vcn*5 m o v c r i . Ibid. Lib. XI. cap. 3.

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

4 02

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

Fresnoy de arte graph, verf. 494.

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

Scd primus in pichira omnibus litcris crudiuis, prr.cipue arithmenca & gcomctiia. Hodem tcmpore erat Mtrrodorus piv^ov , idemque philofophus; raagnx in utraquc i'cicntia au» Aoriutis. Plin. nat! hift. Lib. 35. cap. n.

421

422

423

424