JOHANN HEINRICH DAMBECK’S PRAGUE UNIVERSITY LECTURES ON AESTHETICS: AN UNKNOWN CHAPTER IN THE HISTORY OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL AESTHETICS

This article presents a summary of the main views in Dambeck’s lectures on aesthetics on the basis of all known sources and compares the views thus obtained with views developed in German aesthetics in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth century, with the aim of finding their chief source and reintegrating them both into German aesthetics and, more narrowly, into the aesthetics taught at Prague University. Johann Heinrich Dambeck constructed his lecture series on the plan of Zschokke’s textbook Ideen zur psychologischen Aesthetik (1793) which has never been taken into account in any other research on his lectures. The close link between Dambeck’s lectures and this textbook compels us to revise the current understanding of the nature of their ideas. Dambeck has so far been most often unproblematically presented as an adherent and disseminator of Kant’s and Schiller’s ideas about aesthetics in the Bohemian Lands. The key textbook on which he bases his university lecture series is, however, intentionally un-Kantian. Zschokke’s Ideen is part of the psychological-anthropological stream of LateEnlightenment German aesthetics.

The fact that the opinions about Dambeck's aesthetics are so diverse should come as no surprise. The diversity stems from the existing approaches, which are either not at all based on a thorough analysis of the lectures or come from only some of his views taken out of context. None of the published interpretations has yet to take into consideration the lectures as a whole; moreover, all of them uncritically rely on the book version, which was compiled and edited by Joseph Adolf Hanslik (1785-1859, as the source truly reflecting Dambeck's views, without looking at other sources. 7 This article seeks to close the gap: it presents a summary of the main views in Dambeck's lectures on aesthetics on the basis of the manuscript extract, which was also made by Hanslik; it looks at the other sources as well, 8  Knowledge of Dambeck's lectures on aesthetics is provided by two fundamental sources in particular: the manuscript extract and the book edition. Both were made by Hanslik: [Joseph Adolf Hanslik], 'Dambeck's Vorlesungen über Aesthetik im Auszuge: Prag 1819' , manuscript, signature XVIII E 46, National Library, Prague; Johann Heinrich Dambeck, Vorlesungen über Aesthetik, 2 vols., ed. Joseph A. Hanslik (Prague: Enders, 1822, 1823. In this description of the nature of Dambeck's aesthetics, I start primarily from the manuscript, because, as I have demonstrated, it contains a more original form of the lectures than the book. For more on the relationship between the two sources and their authenticity, see Hlobil, 'Pražské univerzitní přednášky' . For Joseph Adolf Hanslik, see Berger et al., Deutsches Literatur-Lexikon, s.v. 'Hanslick (Hanslik), Joseph (Adolf) the individual desires corresponds to the three kinds of perfection -cognitive, moral, and sensuous. Perfection always arouses delight (Wohlgefallen), enjoyment (Vergnügen), and pleasure (Lust). The non-satisfaction of desire calls forth the opposite states. These perfections cannot, however, be identified with beauty.
Dambeck understands beauty as autonomous perfection arising only with the conjunction (Verbindung) or merging (Verschmelzung) of the three preceding perfections and relating to feeling (Empfindung). Beauty cannot be experienced even in the act of (true) knowledge, or in (moral) behaviour, or (agreeable) sensuous perception. One can only feel (empfinden) it. Dambeck conceives feeling as an autonomous faculty (Empfindungsvermögen), which must not be confused either with passive sensuous knowledge based on the effect of external things on the human mind (which he called Rührung) or with the sensuous feeling (sinnliches Gefühl) of the agreeable (angenehm). Although during the sensuous feeling of the agreeable we also experience a state of pleasure (Lust), this is a pleasure of a lower level than the kind that accompanies feeling (Empfinden). It is a pleasure connected exclusively with the passive senses, unlike the pleasure of feeling (Empfinden) which is bound to ideas (Vorstellungen) that are actively formed by the higher faculties of the mind. But according to Dambeck, one may exclude sensuousness and the sensuously agreeable from beauty and art either.
He considered sensuousness and the subject matter mediated by it to be a necessary condition of art and beauty. We encounter beauty (Schönheit) not only in art, but also in nature. Beauty cannot be confused with the beautiful (das Schöne). The beautiful is universally pleasing, an idea that is unattainable and unrealizable in life. By contrast, beauty is its particular expression, created by specific circumstances of a cultivated kind (or genre) of art and by the artist himself. Beautiful feelings (schöne Empfindungen) -the actual subject matter of aesthetics as the study of aesthetic feelings (ästhetische Empfindungslehre) -are further divided by Dambeck according to the three human natures. To the cognitive faculty he ascribes the manifold (das Mannigfaltige), the identical (das Identische), variety (Verschiedenheit), uniformity (Einförmigkeit), simplicity (Einfalt), unity (Einheit), proportionality (Verhältnißmäßigkeit), similarity (Aehnlichkeit), the habitual (das Gewohnte), the suitable (das Schickliche), the unusual (das Ungewöhnliche), probability (Wahrscheinlichkeit), veracity (Wahrheit), the natural (das Natürliche), and contrast (Kontrast). To the moral faculty he ascribes legality and morality. And to the sensuous faculty he ascribes agreeableness bound to the instincts, first and foremost the instinct of self-preservation and the instinct of well-being (Trieb nach Wohlseyn). Ultimately, Dambeck distinguishes three main kinds of beauty -the sublime, the graceful, and the tragic. In sum, it is fair to say that Dambeck's aesthetic system is based on the conviction that although beauty always stems from the subject's feeling it cannot at the same time be separated from the pertinent properties of the thing, which evoke this feeling. He considers aesthetics understood in this way to be a field of study beneficial particularly for practising artists, for it provides them with a lasting source, or obligatory rules, for suitably, effectively, and successfully creating, that is, for creating in harmony with the requirements of human nature. 9 III Dambeck never cited the source from which he drew his opinions. Despite his silence, I shall take the liberty of stating, already at this point, a preliminary conclusion on the basis of this summary of his main views (and will analyse the omitted views later in this article) -namely, Dambeck, without ever admitting it, adopted the core of his aesthetic system from Heinrich Zschokke (1771Zschokke ( -1848, a Privatdozent at the University of Frankfurt an der Oder. 10 Astonishingly, Zschokke's textbook Ideen zur psychologischen Aesthetik (1793)  The manuscript lacks page numbers; only the individual booklets, bound into a single volume, are numbered, but this numbering is not always visible on the copy. Consequently, I do not refer to specific pages. 10 The manuscript does not mention Zschokke's name, but the book version of the lectures does, though only once -in the bibliography, which was probably completed by the editor, Joseph Adolf Hanslik. Dambeck,Vorlesungen,1:311. 11 For Zschokke's aesthetics, see Christian Allesch, Geschichte der psychologischen Ästhetik: Untersuchungen zur historischen Entwicklung eines psychologischen Verständnisses ästhetischer Probleme (Göttingen: Verlag der Psychologie, 1987), 289-93, and Karlheinz Barck, '"Ästhetik": Wandel ihres Begriffs im Kontext verschiedener Disziplinen und unterschiedlicher Wissenschaftskulturen' , in 'Die Interdisziplinarität der Begriffsgeschichte' , ed. Gunter Scholz, supplement, Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte S1 (2000): S55-62. 12 Both aestheticians were linked by Zimmermann when he included their books in a single group of eclectic works that are 'theils auf Kant-Schiller'schen Kriticismus, theils auf englischen Empirismus und theils auf Jacobi'sche Gefühlstheorie gestützt' , but he did so without any analysis or mutual comparison, merely including them in one of his bibliographies. Robert Zimmermann, Geschichte der Aesthetik als philosophischer Wissenschaft (Vienna: Braumüller, 1858), 423-24. 13 In that sense, merely the similarly between Dambeck's summarized views and the Preface (Vorbericht) speaks volumes; there, in a nutshell, Zschokke expresses the basis of psychological aesthetics. Heinrich Zschokke, Ideen zur psychologischen Aesthetik (Berlin: Kunze, 1793), vii-xxiv. textbook comprises an introduction (pp. 1-32) and four parts. The first part is concerned with the essence and the aim of fine art (pp. 35-67); the second, with the beautiful (pp. 68-175); the third, with taste (pp. 176-228); and the fourth, with aesthetic feelings (pp. 229-396 another. Following the traditional practice, Zschokke includes in his the definition of aesthetics as a field of study, including a concise history of it, but also describes the emergence and development of art, and presents a concise classification of the various kinds of art. By contrast, Dambeck concentrates exclusively on a definition of aesthetics. He defines its subject matter and tries in a Zschokkean way to clarify the differences amongst the key terms 'Empfindung' , 'Gefühl' , 'Rührung' , 'Anschauung' , 'Vorstellung' , and 'Begriff' . He also presents a realist definition of aesthetics, and explains its aims and uses. He did not include the passages about art in his introduction, reserving the subsequent section for them.

Part One
The organization and content of the introduction to Part One, which is concerned with art, is different in each of the two texts. Dambeck does not develop his definitions of art and classifications until this point, and works with somewhat different initial concepts than Zschokke. I shall return later in our discussion to 14 I first always give the heading of the part in Zschokke, then in Dambeck: 'Einleitung zur psychologischen Aesthetik' / 'Einleitung'; 'Ueber das Wesen und den Zweck der schönen Kunst' / 'Vom Wesen der schönen Kunst überhaupt'; 'Kritik des Schönen' / 'Versuch einer Theorie des Schönen'; 'Ueber den ästhetischen Geschmack' / 'Vom Geschmack + Vom Genie'; 'Aesthetische Pathologie' / 'Eigentliche ästhetische Empfindungslehre' . 15 For example, Zschokke, Ideen, 230. Ibid., 37-47. 17 Ibid., 47-57. 18 Ibid., 57-58. 19 Ibid., 57-64. In this part, the principle is presented only as 'Mittheilung der Empfindungen' , but already in the preface (p. xi) and later also in § 62 (pp. 169-75) Zschokke discusses 'schöne Empfindungen' , which clearly reveals his intention. That is why I am concerned here with 'beautiful feelings' . See also ibid., 229. 20 Ibid., 60n2. 21 Zschokke also discusses the ideal, but only as a feature of genius, not as broadly as Dambeck. Ibid.,215. in which he classifies and broadly characterizes the individual kinds of art. This part, whose manuscript is about sixty pages long, is without a counterpart in Zschokke's work, because the classification of art in the Introduction is truly concise and tends to overlap with the introductory sections of Part One of Dambeck's exposition. (I shall also analyse the sources of Dambeck's classification of art below.)

Part Two
Both scholars reserve Part Two for the beautiful, but they each have again organized the introduction to this section differently. Zschokke's introduction is longer, and comprises a survey of various theories of beauty followed by their critique. 22 He pays the most attention to the theories of Karl Philipp Moritz (1756-1793) and Immanuel Kant, criticizing both especially because they have intentionally forced out sensuality (Reiz, Rührung) from beauty. Moreover, Zschokke criticizes Kant's influential theory also for its being largely useless in the practice of art. 23 In the next part of his exposition, which explains beauty from man's sensually rational nature, Dambeck again adheres to Zschokke. Both scholars make beauty contingent upon feeling, and connect it to the three basic faculties and the corresponding three kinds of perfection (cognitive, moral, and sensuous).
Dambeck repeats Zschokke's distinction between the beautiful as an idea and beauty as its particular expression, as well as the view that one encounters beauty in art and in nature. He also adopts the exposition of the ideal of beauty. He skips over only the sections about its universality 24 and the concluding summary section, in which Zschokke, now wholly and without digressions, again presents the principle of aesthetics -the 'freie Mittheilung schöner Empfindungen' -as universally valid, useful both for artists and for critics. 25 Moreover, Dambeck includes in this section reflections rebutting possible reservations and objections to his advocating the idea that beauty is contingent upon morality. In sum, it is fair to say that neither the additions nor the omissions fundamentally change the meaning of the exposition of this part.

Part Three
We have already considered the principal difference in the organization of the exposition of Part Three of Zschokke's and Dambeck's texts. In Part Three, 'Concerning Aesthetic Taste' , Zschokke includes an exposition of genius, which 22 Ibid., 68-109. 23 Ibid., 88-104. 24 Ibid., 148-63. 25 Ibid., 169-75. Of the differences between the two expositions, one has to point out Dambeck's omission of Zschokke's reflections on whether the sex drive or the social instinct comes first, as well as the interpretation of taste as the sensus communis and reflections on the relationship between taste and morality. The omission of these points does not fundamentally change the meaning of the source. That is also true of the omitted part about beauty being contingent on morality, for Dambeck has already elaborated on this topic in sufficient measure and in a similar way in the part on beauty; moreover, like Zschokke, he returns to it also in the last part, on beautiful feelings. 27 Apart from the omissions, one also notes comparatively long and numerous additions in this part. Dambeck expands the exposition with observations relating to the causes of differences in taste, to the instruments for cultivating taste, and to the various kinds of taste. But not even these differences cause a fundamental tension amongst the ideas between the two expositions.
Dambeck proceeds similarly also in the part concerned with the topic of genius as a self-constituting creative force. Here too he has slightly expanded Zschokke's expositions. He explores, for example, the difference between 'being a genius' and 'having genius' , and classifies various kinds of genius according to different fields, and, using Shakespeare as his example, 28 he extensively analyses the connection between artistic genius and bad taste. He completely adheres to Zschokke's enumeration of the traits of genius. Both scholars include in this list a vivid imagination that supplies art with its subject matter; understanding (Verstand) able to infuse material with form; sensibility as a source of artistic manners, and a perspicacious spirit. In greater detail than Zschokke, Dambeck describes how understanding operates, and again also describes the features (  Ibid., 234-65. 31 Here again one sees differences in the headings of the individual parts and sections. See, in particular, the more precise headings of the parts discussing the relationship between the feelings and the individual natures. I always first give the heading in Zschokke, and then in Dambeck: 'Welche Empfindungen soll der edle Künstler mittheilen?' / 'Nähere Untersuchung des Charakters schöner Empfindungen in Bezug auf die Gesetze erkennender Natur'; 'Das thebanische Gesetz: eis to kreitton mimeisthai' / 'Nähere Untersuchung des Charakters schöner Empfindungen in Bezug auf die Forderungen sittlicher Natur'; 'Sinnliche Natur' / 'Nähere Untersuchung des Charakters schöner Empfindungen in Bezug auf die Forderungen sinnlicher Natur' . beauty. With the help of this conception, he endeavours to support an explanation of borderline cases, where a thing awakens delight (Wohlgefallen), without us even knowing its purpose, always at the level of the features of things, not exclusively with reference, like Kant, to the harmonic play of subjective cognitive faculties. Zschokke understands proportionality as a formal feature that evokes delight, but in itself, without a link to suitable material, is not yet (nor can it ever be) beauty. He was unable to imagine beauty without content, which is why he criticized Kant's formalistic conception of beauty. 32  The same conclusion holds also for the book version, which adheres to Zschokke, it seems, even more strikingly -namely, making argumentation more precise using Zschokke's arguments, or including notes and a bibliography. A definitive confirmation of this conclusion would require a proper analysis. 36 The question arises as to why Dambeck was silent about Zschokke's Ideen. The work was not mentioned even in the announcements of the collegia of aesthetics, which appear in the university lecture lists. Though one can only speculate as to why, the most likely reason is that the Court in Vienna had set different textbooks for instruction in aesthetics -namely, Johann Joachim Eschenburg, Entwurf einer Theorie und Literatur der schönen Wissenschaften (Berlin: Nicolai, 1783), and Johann August Eberhard, Theorie der schönen Künste und Wissenschaften, 3rd ed. (Halle: Waisenhaus, 1790). 37 For example, the conviction that beauty can only be felt was widely shared, and appears in all the textbooks that Dambeck could draw upon. The linking of beauty and the agreeable (das Angenehme) or its being contingent upon morality was also widespread. 38 Though one can safely disregard them, that does not mean Dambeck did not know, or could not know, other possible sources. 39 In preparing the book version, Hanslik clearly also struggled with the lack of cohesion in Dambeck's lectures. Good evidence of that is the numerous additions and corrections in terminology. For more on this, see Hlobil, 'Pražské univerzitní přednášky' . Not even Hanslik managed satisfactorily to clean up the exposition, which was mercilessly pointed out even by contemporaneous critics. See the anonymous review 'Prag bei Enders: Vorlesungen über die Aesthetik von Joh. Heinr. Dambeck' , Allgemeines Repertorium der neuesten in-und ausländischen Literatur 5, no. 3 (1823): 35-37. The places where Dambeck's changes contributed to making Zschokke's exposition more precise are rare. Among the most striking are the headings of the three parts of the discussions on beautiful feelings in relation to the cognitive, moral, and sensuous faculties (see note 31) and his moving the exposition of genius from the part on taste to a separate part. But then the question remains whether the additions making it more precise were not Hanslik's. 40 The manuscript extract of Dambeck's lectures contains a minimum of references to works by specific authors. Of those that I identified as important sources of his lectures, he mentions only Friedrich Bouterwek. Hanslik's editorial work probably included, among other things, the completion of pertinent bibliographies. Bouterwek's conception of art as an activity that leads human beings to Humanität. 45 Bouterwek's influence can be traced also in other parts of the lectures. Dambeck often repeats the view that beauty is necessarily a relational concept For the most recent work on Clodius's aesthetics, see Richter,History of Poetics,[68][69][70][71][72] As with Krug's classification of the individual kinds of art, Dambeck somewhat departs from Clodius's original definition of the contingent and non-contingent arts when he describes the first group as arts for external use and external needs, and the second as arts that are not limited to external need, are guided by the ideals to which no object of experience corresponds, and are intended exclusively for immediate aesthetic delight (Wohlgefallen). Christian August Heinrich Clodius, Entwurf einer systematischen Poetik, nebst Collectaneen zu ihrer Ausführung, vol. 1 (Leipzig: Breitkopf, 1804), 5. 52 Zschokke,Ideen,ix,53. 53 Karl Heinrich Heydenreich, System der Aesthetik (Leipzig, 1790;repr. Hildesheim: Gerstenberg, 1978), 150-53. For Heydenreich's aesthetics, see Paul Schlüter, Carl Heinrich Heydenreichs System der Ästhetik (Bleicherode: Nieft, 1939). Apart from Zschokke's reservations about Kant's decision to exclude sensuality from taste, beauty, and art, and attacking the formalistic conception of beauty and the uselessness of the Critique of Judgement in a work of art, see particularly the preface to Zschokke, Ideen, ix-xi, ixx-xxii. Bouterwek's conception of aesthetics was also anti-Kantian, though Kant is not explicitly named in it. Bouterwek stated his aim as follows: 'Vom höchsten Standpunkte des unmittelbaren Bewußtseyns aus, unabhängig von allen transcendentalen und metaphysischen Schulbegriffen, die Empfindung des Schönen zu erklären, und dieser Erklärung gemäß zur Beurtheilung des Schönen in der Natur und Kunst richtige Grundsätze aufzustellen und zu entwickeln. ' Bouterwek,Ästhetik,[21][22] For similar reflections, see 'Die physiologischen und die transcendentalen Eintheilungen der schönen Künste, wie sie auch immer ausfallen mögen, gehen die Aesthetik nichts an.' Ibid., 267. Bouterwek in particular then criticized Kant's decision to exclude sensuality from the pure judgement of taste. Ibid., 13-15. Reservations about Kant's Critique of Judgement in the form of corrections and explanations of his alleged views are to be found in Heydenreich, System, 81-85, 109-10. 57 Krug and Clodius were far more favourably inclined to the Critique of Judgement. Krug, in particular, in the two books adheres to Kant and tries to systematize Kant's ideas and to apply them broadly to the whole subject of aesthetics.
(Annehmlichkeit) from beauty, taste, and art, and they sought their reintegration.
They did not reconcile themselves to Kant's transcendentally subjective solution to questions of aesthetics, and also sought, despite the acknowledged priority of subjective feeling, to keep the qualities of beautiful things at the centre of aesthetics research. They linked these qualities to the concept of the perfections, which were no longer conceived in strictly objective terms, but rather in connection with the three human natures. In sum: the axiom of Zschokke's, Bouterwek's, Heydenreich's, and Dambeck's aesthetics stems from a conviction about the subjectively objective nature of beauty, that is, its link not only with the subject's feelings, but also with the properties of the object, which these feelings awaken by having an effect on man in harmony with his nature.  Barck et al. (Stuttgart: Metzler, 2000), 329-31. even as an expansion, as he himself said, of 'such a fortuitously elaborated' theory. 61 Zschokke did not see, or rather was unable to see, the fundamental, insurmountable difference between his own exposition and the expositions in the vein of the Critiques. It aptly confirms the way in which he viewed the creation of aesthetics as a respected academic field. Typically of him, Zschokke gave most of the credit for the ennoblement of aesthetics to a disparate trio of authors: Johann Georg Sulzer, Karl Heinrich Heydenreich, and Immanuel Kant, without setting any divisions amongst their views. In a single breath he calls them all thinkers 'welche durch ihre Bemühungen das brache, wüste Feld der Aesthetik mit vorzüglichem Glück bearbeiteten, die Gränzen derselben berichtigten und Ordnung hineinführten' . 62 Dambeck took a similar approach. At Prague University, without admitting it, he spread Zschokke's 'Empfindungsästhetik' while openly advocating selected views of Schiller and Kant. 63 The result of this syncretizing approach was a partial shift of Zschokke's reflections on art from empiricism towards the suprasensual Ideals and a contribution to Humanität, two ideas -let us recall -declared not only by Kant and Schiller, but also in contemporaneous textbooks. The relationship between the anthropological-psychological current and the transcendentalist-idealist current of German aesthetics was clearly notat least on the part of the first group of aestheticians -purely negative, even though they did not accept the transcendental method, the unignorable basis of Kant's Critiques. Ibid., 27. Zschokke may have been inspired to that attitude by Heydenreich, who also expressed admiration for Kant's Critiques, and also took issue with the views in his own expositions, without even realizing that his 'Empfindungsästhetik' contradicts the transcendental view. Heydenreich, System, xxxvi, 82. 63 Dambeck, following Zschokke, did not hesitate to describe Kant as an example of a scholarly genius or to advocate his views on the relationship between art and nature. morality towards the bottom of the list, 64 Dambeck's lecture series was conceived as psychological-anthropological 'Empfindungslehre' . Dambeck drew the impulses for its creation from contemporaneous textbooks written in German at universities outside the Austrian Monarchy, which were newer than the textbooks set by