Art in Theory. Группа авторов
extract, from Discourse XIII, given on 11 December 1786, late in his career, Reynolds appears to be prepared to countenance the use of motifs drawn from outside the classical canon in order to bolster the imaginative aspects of art and its consequent impact on the spectator. In this respect he refers to the architect Vanburgh’s use of the Gothic, and William Hodges’ images of Indian – principally Mughal – architecture (cf. IIB8). For Reynolds, this is risky territory, but it seems that so long as the permitted cultural eclecticism remains in check, it may yet serve the higher ends of Art. It goes without saying that for Reynolds, those ‘higher ends’ would have remained sacrosanct. Our extracts are taken from Sir Joshua Reynolds. Discourses, edited with an introduction and notes by Pat Rogers, Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1992, pp. 196–8 and 296–7. (Further extracts from Reynolds’ writings can be found in Art in Theory 1648–1815, IIIB9, IVA7 and VA2, pp. 532–8, 651–61 and 749–52.)
discourse vii
In poetry or eloquence, to determine how far figurative or metaphorical language may proceed, and when it begins to be affectation or beside the truth, must be determined by taste; though this taste, we must never forget, is regulated and formed by presiding feeling of mankind, – by those works which have approved themselves to all times and all persons. Thus, though eloquence has undoubtedly an essential and intrinsic excellence, and immoveable principles common to all languages, founded in the nature of our passions and affections; yet it has its ornaments and modes of addresses, which are merely arbitrary. What is approved in the eastern nations as grand and majestic, would be considered by the Greeks and Romans as turgid and inflated; and they, in return, would be thought by the Orientals to express themselves in a cold and insipid manner. […]
To illustrate this by the fashion of dress, in which there is allowed to be a good or bad taste. The component parts of dress are continually changing from great to little, from short to long; but the general form still remains; it is still the same general dress, which is comparatively fixed, though on a very slender foundation; but it is on this which fashion must rest. He who invents with the most success, or dresses in the best taste, would probably, from the same sagacity employed to greater purposes, have discovered equal skill, or have formed the same correct taste, in the highest labours of art.
I have mentioned taste in dress, which is certainly one of the lowest subjects to which this word is applied; yet, as I have before observed, there is a right even here, however narrow its foundation, respecting the fashion of any particular nation. But we have still more slender means of determining, to which of the different customs of different ages or countries we ought to give the preference, since they seem to be all equally removed from nature. If an European, when he has cut off his beard, and put false hair on his head, or bound up his own natural hair in regular hard knots, as unlike nature as he can possibly make it; and after having rendered them immoveable by the help of the fat of hogs, has covered the whole with flour, laid on by a machine with the utmost regularity; if, when thus attired, he issues forth, and meets a Cherokee Indian, who has bestowed as much time at his toilet, and laid on with equal care and attention his yellow and red oker on particular parts of his forehead or cheeks, as he judges most becoming; whoever of these two despises the other for this attention to the fashion of his country, which ever first feels himself provoked to laugh, is the barbarian.
All these fashions are very innocent; neither worth disquisition, nor any endeavour to alter them; as the charge would, in all probability, be equally distant from nature. The only circumstance against which indignation may reasonably be moved, is, where the operation is painful or destructive of health; such as some of the practices at Otaheite, and the straight lacing of the English ladies….
It is in dress as in things of greater consequence. Fashions originate from those only who have the high and powerful advantages of rank, birth, and fortune. Many of the ornaments of art, those at least for which no reason can be given, are transmitted to us, are adopted, and acquire their consequence from the company in which we have been used to see them. As Greece and Rome are the fountains from whence have flowed all kinds of excellence, to that veneration which they have a right to claim for the pleasure and knowledge which they have afforded us, we voluntarily add our approbation of every ornament and every custom that belonged to them, even to the fashion of their dress. […]
discourse xiii
Architecture certainly possesses many principles in common with Poetry and Painting. Among those which may be reckoned as the first, is, that of affecting the imagination by means of association of ideas … Hence it is that towers and battlements are so often selected by the Painter and the Poet, to make a part of the composition of their ideal Landscape; and it is from hence in a great degree, that in the buildings of Vanbrugh, who was a Poet as well as an Architect, there is a greater display of imagination, than we shall find perhaps in any other, and this is the ground of the effect we feel in many of his works, notwithstanding the faults with which many of them are justly charged. For this purpose, Vanbrugh appears to have had recourse to some of the principles of the Gothick Architecture; which, though not so ancient as the Grecian, is more so to our imagination, with which the Artist is more concerned than with absolute truth.
The Barbarick splendour of those Asiatick Buildings, which are now publishing by a member of this Academy, may possibly, in the same manner, furnish an Architect, not with models to copy, but with hints of composition and general effect, which would not otherwise have occurred….
The sound rules of the Grecian Architecture are not to be lightly sacrificed. A deviation from them, or even an addition to them, is like a deviation or addition to, or from, the rules of other Arts, – fit only for a great master, who is thoroughly conversant in the nature of man, as well as all combinations in his own Art.
IIC14 Edward Gibbon (1737–94) Reflections on civilization and barbarism
Gibbon’s early life was relatively unfulfilled, but during 1759–70 he undertook a Grand Tour, culminating in a visit to Rome. By his own later account, it was while on the Capitoline Hill that he conceived the project of writing a history of Rome. This story is now regarded by academics as something of a fanciful retrospect. But it would be unsurprising if Gibbon’s personal experience of the ruins of antiquity did not count for something. All the more so when that experience was complemented by growing public concern about the fate of empires, as Britain itself seemed poised to embark on its own imperial adventure. Be that as it may, Gibbon’s great analysis of the ‘Decline and Fall’ of the Roman Empire was published in six volumes between 1776 and 1788. His fourth volume concerned the end of the empire in the west, and Gibbon concluded it with some broader reflections on civilization and barbarism, contrasting the fate of Rome with the situation of contemporary Europe (and indeed, contrasting the situation of the barbarians who brought down Rome to that of the ‘savages’ and ‘barbarians’ of his own day). The present extracts are taken from The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 4 The End of the Western Empire, edited with an introduction by Betty Radice, London: The Folio Society, 1986, pp. 372, 374 and 376–8.
The rise of a city, which swelled into an empire, may deserve, as a singular prodigy, the reflection of a philosophic mind. But the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. Prosperity ripened the principle of decay; the causes of destruction multiplied with the extent of conquest; and as soon as time or accident had removed the artificial supports, the stupendous fabric yielded to the pressure of its own weight. The story of its ruin is simple and obvious; and instead of inquiring why the Roman Empire was destroyed, we should rather be surprised that it had subsisted so long. The victorious legions, who, in distant wars, acquired the vices of strangers and mercenaries, first oppressed the freedom of the republic, and afterwards violated the majesty of the purple. The emperors, anxious for their personal safety and the public peace, were reduced to the base expedient of corrupting the discipline which rendered them alike formidable to their sovereign and to the enemy; the vigour of the military government was relaxed and finally dissolved by the partial institutions of Constantine; and the Roman world was overwhelmed by a deluge of barbarians. […]
This