Manet and Music?Das Musikalische? in PaintingThe core issue of this treatise is the demand how music can be represented in painting. Music and painting are autonomous, categorically different arts. Music is an audibility structure, painting a visibility structure, both are experienced only by the particular sensorium. If a specific one is missing, the respective art form is not perceptible and the notion remains empty. Admittedly certain inter-terms may be constituted by auditory and visual perception such as rhythm, timbre and form, however they will remain subject to the particular art form as a separate element of expression: Picturesque rhythm and musical rhythm converge by abstraction merely in pretence. The definition of rhythm as a controlled time series does phenomenally neither cope with painting nor with music. Therefore painting can never express music, but no doubt its image ? ?das Musikalische?. It points out that something is outside the visual, what painting cannot achieve, but let it appear. An inactive musician is adequate to the image, not a playing one, since he presupposes listening experience, thus an unattainable postulate of painting. A difference is made between the specific ?das Musikalische?, which denotes music phenomena, and the unspecific ?das Musikalische?, which connotes music by a tertium comparationis.Manet avoided this sound-picture-problem in all his paintings and depicted music, just as ?das Musikalische?, as the transcendent of painting, shown by various techniques: Indirectly as a mirror image, as the beginning or the end of a musical performance, as a symbol, as a dance, as a metaphor.Being an undiluted painter Manet has never exceeded the limits of painting and thus implied music metaphorically by ?das Musikalische?.