Dictionary of the History of Ideas Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas |
4 | ![]() | V. |
2 | ![]() | IV. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
3 | ![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | II. |
34 | ![]() | IV. |
17 | ![]() | IV. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | I. |
1 | ![]() | I. |
![]() | VI. |
6 | ![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
6 | ![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | IV. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | IV. |
![]() | VII. |
2 | ![]() | V. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | III. |
1 | ![]() | III. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
6 | ![]() | VI. |
11 | ![]() | VI. |
1 | ![]() | III. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | III. |
3 | ![]() | I. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
5 | ![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
1 | ![]() | VI. |
4 | ![]() | V. |
3 | ![]() | IV. |
3 | ![]() | IV. |
1 | ![]() | IV. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | IV. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | VI. |
1 | ![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | III. |
![]() | II. |
![]() | I. |
6 | ![]() | II. |
1 | ![]() | VII. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | I. |
![]() | III. |
2 | ![]() | VI. |
1 |
![]() | VI. |
![]() | V. |
1 | ![]() | VII. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | V. |
![]() | Dictionary of the History of Ideas | ![]() |
BIBLIOGRAPHY
For Parts II and III (Individualism), R. Wittkower, “Indi-
vidualism in Art and Artists: A Renaissance Problem,”
Journal of the History of Ideas, 22 (1961), 291-302; R. and
M. Wittkower, Born under Saturn. The Character and Con-
duct of Artists: A Documentary History from Antiquity to
the French Revolution (London and New York, 1963), have
been used extensively.
For Part IV (Genius) the following were particularly
important: M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp: Ro-
mantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (Oxford, 1953), a
standard work; B. Fabian, Introduction to the critical edi-
tion of Alexander Gerard, An Essay on Genius, 1774
(Munich, 1966), the most stimulating recent study on the
problem of genius; P. Kaufman, “Heralds of Original Ge-
nius,” Essays in Memory of Barrett Wendell (Cambridge,
Mass., 1926); L. Pearsall Smith, “Four Words: Romantic,
Originality, Creative, Genius,” S.P.E. (Society for Pure
English), Tract No. 17 (Oxford, 1924), last reprinted as:
“Four Romantic Words,” Words and Idioms Studies in the
English Language (London, 1957), 95-114; both Smith's and
Kaufman's are pioneering papers; they have been extensi-
vely used here; H. Thüme, Beiträge zur Geschichte des
Geniebegriffs in England (Halle, 1927), a Hamburg disser-
tation, still important even though the categories used are
no longer satisfactory; H. Wolf, Versuch einer Geschichte
des Geniebegriffs in der deutschen Ästhetik des 18. Jahrhun-
derts (Heidelberg, 1923), with chapters on the conception
of genius in French and English aesthetics; E. Zilsel, Die
Entstehung des Geniebegriffs (Tübingen, 1926), still the basic
study, but scarcely goes beyond the sixteenth century.
The following bibliography in alphabetic sequence con-
tains a few items to which no reference is made in the text,
but which have proved useful in writing the article.
M. H. Abrams, see above. L. B. Alberti, On Painting, trans.
with Introduction and Notes by J. R. Spencer (London, 1956).
P. Aretino, Lettere sull'arte, ed. Camesasca (Milan, 1957),
II, 180. L. Babb, The Elizabethan Malady (East Lansing,
Mich., 1951). K. Badt, Kunsttheoretische Versuche (Cologne,
1968), with papers on “Artifex vates and artifex rhetor”
and “God and Artist.” P. Barocchi, Giorgio Vasari, La
Vita di Michelangelo, 5 vols. (Milan and Naples, 1962), IV,
1645-70. J. Bialostocki, “Terribilità,” in Stil und Überlie-
ferung in der Kunst des Abendlandes (Berlin, 1967),
III, 222-25, discusses the changing meaning of the
term. W. Blake, Poetry and Prose, ed. Geoffrey Keynes
(London, 1941), pp. 660, 770ff. A. Blunt, The Art of William
Blake (New York, 1959), Ch. 3. D. F. Bond, “The Neo-
Classical Psychology of the Imagination,” ELH (A Journal
of English Literary History), 4 (1937), 245-64, on the term
in English seventeenth-century writing. P. Booz, Der Bau-
meister der Gotik (Munich and Berlin, 1956), p. 10. E.
Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment
(first German
ed., 1932; Boston, 1955), pp. 316ff., Shaftesbury on genius.
Cennino D'Andrea Cennini, Il libro dell'arte, ed. D. V.
Thompson, Jr. (New Haven, 1932). E. R. Curtius, Euro-
päische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Bern, 1954), pp.
400-04, Imitation and Creation; 467-69, Divine Madness in
Middle Ages; 527-29, Deus Artifex; trans. W. R. Trask as
European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (Princeton,
1953). A. Dresdner, DieEnstehung der Kunstkritik (Munich,
1915; reprint 1968), with an excellent chapter on the artists
in antiquity. W. Duff, An Essay on Original Genius (London,
1767). M. Easton, Artists and Writers in Paris. The Bohemian
Idea, 1803-1867 (New York, 1964), of importance for Part
III, 4, 5 of this article. B. Fabian, see above, par. 2. C. von
Fabriczy, Filippo Brunelleschi (Stuttgart, 1892), p. 97. F.
Flora, Tutte le opere di Matteo Bandello, 2 vols. (Milan,
1934-35), I, 646. C. Frey, DieDichtungen des Michelangiolo
Buonarroti (Berlin, 1897), lxxx, 2; lxxxi. G. Gaye, Carteggio
inedito d'artisti... (Florence, 1839-40), II, 489. A. Gerard,
An Essay on Taste (Edinburgh, 1759; 3rd ed. Edinburgh,
1780), p. 165; idem, An Essay on Genius, see above, par.
2, under Fabian. C. Gilbert, “The Archbishop on the Painters
of Florence,” The Art Bulletin, 41 (1959), 76. R. Goldwater
and M. Treves, Artists on Art (New York, 1947), p. 295, from
a Courbet letter of 1861. E. Gombrich, “Botticelli's Myth-
ologies,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes,
8 (1945), 59; idem, Art and Illusion (New York, 1960), pp.
192ff.; idem, “Style,” in International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences (New York, 1968), 15, 352-61. G. F. Hartlaub,
“Caspar David Friedrichs Melancholie, in Fragen an die
Kunst (Stuttgart, 1951), pp. 217-36; idem and F. Weissenfeld,
Gestalt und Gestaltung. Das Kunstwerk als Selbstdarstellung
des Künstlers (Krefeld, 1958). K. Heitmann, Ethos des
Künstlers und Ethos der Kunst. Eine problemgeschichtliche
Skizze anlässlich Diderots (Münster, 1962), most important
contribution to the problem of relation between character
and work. F. de Hollanda, Vier Gespräche über die Malerei,
ed. J. de Vasconcellos (Vienna, 1899), p. 21, passim. E. G.
Holt, Literary Sources of Art History (Princeton, 1947), pp.
86ff., English translation of Ghiberti's autobiography. J. Jahn,
“Die Stellung des Künstlers im Mittelalter,” Festschrift
Dr. h. c. Eduard Trautscholdt (Hamburg, 1965), pp. 38-54,
A. Kalkmann, DieQuellen der Kunstgeschichte des Plinius
(Berlin, 1898). P. Kaufman, see above, par. 2. R. Klibansky,
E. Panofsky, F. Saxl, Saturn and Melancholy (London, 1964),
a basic study of which Part III, Ch. 2 is particularly relevant.
E. Kris, Psychoanalytical Explorations in Art (London, 1953),
pp. 25ff., 60. E. Kris and O. Kurz, DieLegende vom Künstler.
Ein geschichtlicher Versuch (Vienna, 1934), basic study of
traditional topoi in anecdotes about artists; pp. 56ff., for
divino artista and natural talent. G. P. Lomazzo, Trattato
dell'arte della pittura, scoltura ed architettura (Milan, 1584).
E. E. Lowinsky, “Musical Genius—Evolution and Origins
of a Concept,” The Musical Quarterly, 50 (1964), 321-40,
476-95. H. Ludwig, Leonardo da Vinci. Das Buch von der
Malerei, 3 vols. (Vienna, 1882), I, 18, artist as god; 114, the
solitary painter. E. L. Mann, “The Problem of Originality
in English Literary Criticism 1750-1800,” Philological
Quarterly, 18 (1939), 97-118, relevant for Part IV, 3. G.
Milanesi, le lettere di Michelangelo Buonarroti (Florence,
1875), No. cdlxv. S. H. Monk, The Sublime (1935; Ann Arbor,
1960), Ch. I, pp. 10ff.; idem, “A Grace Beyond the Reach
of Art,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 5 (1944), 131ff. N.
Nelson, “Individualism as a Criterion of the Renaissance,”
Journal of English and Germanic Philology, 32 (1933),
316-34, critique of Jacob Burckhardt's definition of individ-
ualism. G. Northcote, The Life of Sir Joshua Reynolds, 2
vols. (London, 1813-15), II, 322. W. von Oettingen, Über
das Leben und die Werke des A. Averlino Filarete (Leipzig,
1888), p. 272. J. Overbeck, Dieantiken Schriftquellen zur
Geschichte der bildenden Künste bei den Griechen (Berlin,
1898). E. Panofsky, Idea (Hamburg, 1924; 2nd. ed. Berlin,
1960), pp. 68-71, for Dürer's advanced conception of talent
and inspiration; idem, “Artist, Scientist, Genius: Notes on
the 'Renaissance-Dämmerung',” The Renaissance. Six Essays
(New York, 1962), pp. 173f., on the word creare in Leonardo's
writings. W. Philips, in Art and Psychoanalysis (New York,
1957), XIV. Pliny, The Elder Pliny's Chapters on the History
of Art, Commentary and Introduction by E. Sellers (London,
1896). H. Poeschel, Kunst und Künstler im antiken Urteil
(Munich, 1925). H. Read, Art and Alienation. The Role of
the Artist in Society (New York, 1967), p. 44. Sir Joshua
Reynolds, Discourses, ed, R. R. Wark (San Marino, Calif.,
1959), p. 17. J. P. Richter, ed., The Literary Works of Leo-
nardo da Vinci, 2 vols. (London and New York, 1939), I, 35,
No. 8. C. Ridolfi, le maraviglie dell'arte... (Venice, 1648),
new ed. by D. von Hadeln (Berlin, 1914-24), pp. 64f. F.
Sacchetti, Il Trecentonovelle, ed. V. Pernicone (Florence,
1947), p. 191. M. Schapiro, “On the Aesthetic Attitude in
Romanesque Art,” Art and Thought, issued in Honor of Dr.
A. K. Coomaraswamy (London, 1947), pp. 130-50. J. von
Schlosser, Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte aus den Schrift-
quellen des frühen Mittelalters (Vienna, 1891); idem, Lorenzo
Ghibertis Denkwürdigkeiten (I Commentarii) (Berlin, 1912).
B. Schweitzer, “Der bildende Künstler und der Begriff des
Künstlerischen in der Antike,” Neue Heidelberger Jahrbücher
(1925), pp. 100ff., basic for Part III, l. E. Sellers, see Pliny.
Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, Characteristicks,
3 vols. (1710-11), I, 51-53, on Divine Enthusiasm. L. Pearsall
Smith, see above, par. 2. H. Sommer, “Génie, Beiträge zur
Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes,” Marburg thesis (1943)
published by P. Sumthor, in Zeitschrift für Romanische
Philologie, 66 (1950), 170-201, concerned with French
seventeenth-century writers. H. Thüme, see above, par. 2.
Ch. de Tolnay, The Art and Thought of Michelangelo (New
York, 1964), pp. 94ff. G. Vasari, le vite de' più eccelenti
pittori, scultori ed architetti, ed. G. Milanesi, 9 vols. (Flor-
ence, 1878-85), II, 168, 204, 205, 217, 289; VI, 16. H.
Walpole, Anecdotes of Painting in England (1762), ed. R.
N. Wornum (London, 1876), I, xvii. O. F. Walzel, “Das
Prometheussymbol von Shaftesbury zu Goethe,” Neue
Jahrbücher für das klassiche Altertum, Geschichte und
deutsche Literatur, 13 (25th vol., 1910), 40-71, 133-65. B.
Weinberg, A History of Literary Criticism in the Italian
Renaissance (Chicago, 1961). R. Wellek, A History of Modern
Criticism: 1750-1950, 4 vols. (London and New Haven,
1955-65), I, 13; II, 46, 164, 299, etc., for Part IV, 4. M. L.
Wiley, “Genius: A Problem in Definition,” Studies in Eng-
lish, No. 16, The University of Texas Bulletin No. 3626 (July
8, 1936), 77-83, lexicographic definitions in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. R. Wittkower (1961), see above,
par. 1; idem, “The Young Raphael,” Allen Memorial Art
Museum Bulletin, Oberlin College, 20 (1963), 163ff.; idem,
and M. Wittkower (1963), see above, par. 1; R. Wittkower,
“Imitation, Eclecticism, and Genius,” Aspects of the Eight-
eenth Century, ed. E. R. Wasserman (Baltimore, 1965), pp.
143ff.; idem, Introduction to Masters of the Loaded Brush.
Oil Sketches from Rubens to Tiepolo, Exhibition Catalogue
(New York, 1967); idem, “The Artist,” Man Versus Society
in 18th Century Britain, ed. J. L. Clifford (Cambridge, 1968),
70-84. H. Wolf, see above, par. 2. R. Wood, An Essay on
the Original Genius and Writings of Homer (London, 1769;
1775). E. Young, Conjectures on Original Composition (Lon-
don, 1759). Zilsel, see above, par. 2.
Unless indicated otherwise translations are by the author
of the article.
RUDOLF WITTKOWER
[See also Creation; Genius; Iconography; Individualism,Types of; Mimesis; Neo-Platonism; Renaissance; Roman-
ticism; Style; Taste; Ut pictura poesis.]
![]() | Dictionary of the History of Ideas | ![]() |