Bodmer_Publication

exceptions, which he ascribes to “pretentious”
empiricism, from the quest for
rules in true science (18).
19 Ultimately, the idealism provides direction
for the empiricism, it determines the
questions that are to be asked and
answered. The collecting of facts needs to
be guided by ideas (33/34). Or: there is
no atheoretical knowledge.
20 In Burke, the sublime is characterized by
the failure of rational thought to grasp an
overpowering phenomenon. Humboldt,
who is here claiming the sublime for
science, cannot accept this, but neither
can he ignore it. Thus, Nature remains
overpowering for him and it is mastered,
in a coincidentia oppositorum that can
only be resolved in a higher spirituality
or intelligence – which actually does
appear on the horizon.
21 It is closely associated with myth, and much
of this actually reads like an anticipation
of Cassirer’s Philosophy of Symbolic Forms.
22 American criticism has a natural affinity
towards an “Americanization” of Bodmer.
Thus Porter connects J. F. Blumenbach,
Wied’s academic mentor in Göttingen, and
Thomas Jefferson as influences of equal
importance on the project of the journey:
“From 1832 to 1834 Maximilian would
personify the currents from Göttingen
and from Monticello in his North American
expedition.” (Porter 2002: 30) Porter does
not bring forward a reliable set of sources
for this contention – his view would seem
to spring from his interest in “Bodmer’s
place in the painting of the West.” The
phrase is Bernard deVoto’s (1947: 402), and
it has been echoed by many voices since,
which have seen in this body of paintings
a medium of great importance in the
construction of American identity.
23 Wied 1850: 106
24 Koerner 1990: 116
25 The notion of character enables one to
relate to Feest’s attempt to understand
Bodmer’s portraits as the products of his
mastery of landscape painting: “Bodmer’s
ability to represent the physiognomies
of Native Americans more correctly than
his contemporaries cannot be overlooked
and has often been commented upon.
The most probable explanation, by the
way, lies in the fact that Bodmer’s training
had primarily been in landscape painting
and that consequently he drew faces like
landscapes, exaggerating their proportions
a little, rather than obeying academic
notions of portraiture that had been de -
rived from the characteristics of Euro -
pean faces.” (Feest 1996: 139 – 140)
26 Liebersohn’s (1998) well-informed book
on Aristocratic Encounters very ably
describes this context for Bodmer/Wied.
27 Tyler’s (2004: 21) quotation from Humboldt
indicates clearly enough that the object is
the generalized nobility of a highly
developed humanity, not class arrogance.
28 Cf. Koerner (1990: 115) on Franz Boas’
criticism.
29 Porter (2002: 76), too, engages the question
hierarchy vs. egalitarianism, and he does
so in an interesting manner: via a
reconstruction of Wied’s encounter of,
and interaction with, the Indians.
30 The conflict can lead to very conflicting
and inconsistent discussions – cf.,
for example, Wilderotter (1986) who,
apart from this, is a mine of interesting
information.
31 We have again something like Benjamin’s
combination of culture and barbarism.
32 Unless one wishes contend, for example,
that the idealistic nexus of knowledge
and sensual satisfaction through beauty
is obsolete. I happen to find such an
ahistorical position simply uninteresting.
33 Cf. Draper 1943
34 That such a world view may then again
absorb a Christian religiousness cannot
be denied; nor can the presence of a
minoritarian affirmative tradition within
Christianity. But to postulate the negativity
of the here and now is a tendency that
results (logically) from the human need
for salvation. It also results (politically)
from the fact that it bestows power on the
church as an institution and on the
individual cleric.
Translation of German
sources by the author
120