Produced by Margo Romberg, Karl Eichwalder and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This
book was produced from scanned images of public domain
material from the Google Print project.)









                          New York University

                     OTTENDORFER MEMORIAL SERIES OF
                          GERMANIC MONOGRAPHS

                                No. 3

                             TIECK'S ESSAY

                               ON THE

                       BOYDELL SHAKSPERE GALLERY


                                 BY

                         GEORGE HENRY DANTON


                            INDIANAPOLIS

                      EDWARD J. HECKER, PRINTER

                                1912




                       This Paper Is Dedicated
                            To the Memory
                                 of
                          Oswald Ottendorfer




PREFACE


The material which was originally pland for my monograf in the
Ottendorfer series has since been independently publisht by Steinert in
his dissertation and book on Tieck's color sense and by O. Fischer in an
article, "Ueber Verbindung von Farbe und Klang" in the _Zeitschrift fuer
Æsthetik_. These three works renderd the publication of my material
superfluous, made a change of plan necessary and the result is that my
monograf has been very much delayd in appearing.

As far as I know, there is no other study of Tieck's first critical
paper. I found it worth while to do this monograf because the comparison
with the original engraving brought out so many interesting facts, threw
light on Tieck's erly critical method, explaind his taste, showd his use
of sources and above all, contradicted the positiv assertion of Haym
that Lessing's influence is nowhere discernible. The meny interesting
facts about the gallery itself that came to light in the course of the
paper, the meny questions about it which I was unable to solv, may
perhaps become the matter of another article.

The "Gallery" is for us now a revenant of a past and somewhat impossible
generation. A certain air of English commercial roastbeefism clings to
it. It is an England, the art of which knows nothing of Constable and
still less of Turner, an England which loves Shakspere without reading
him--as Tieck suspected--and whose gallofobia does not recognize the det
to France and the French elements in this very series. As an
interpretation of Shakspere, it is no more than on a plane with Colly
Cibber. Tieck saw this and felt it, but could not make clear to himself
what was wrong with it. The plates belong in parlors of the haircloth
age, where indeed, they may still often be found. It is before the day
of the painted snowshovel and the crayon portrait, but the delicacy of
the Adams' decorations has gone out and the new strength of Romanticism
has not come in. There is surely no tuch of the Elizabethan or Jacobean
spirit.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the various members of the
staffs of the Stanford University and the Columbia University Libraries,
of the Congressional and New York Public Libraries for their aid;
especially to thank Mr. Weitenkampf for his very great help on technical
matters. Mr. L. L. Mackall also furnisht me with very valuable
information. The paper underwent a most searching criticism at the hands
of Professor Wilkens, of New York University and I wish to express my
especial indetedness to him for his assistance in the matter. To
Professor McLouth my thanks are due for a constant kindly interest in me
as Ottendorfer fellow. Finally, it is a plesant duty to express my
appreciation of the benefits derived from that Fellowship and to thank
the Committee for having made me its third incumbent.

                                                                G. H. D.
    Indianapolis, Ind., September, 1911.





TIECK'S ESSAY ON THE BOYDELL SHAKSPERE GALLERY


Tieck's attack[1] on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery[2] was his first
publisht critical production. It is significant to note that this first
essay in criticism delt both with Shakspere and with art, that is, with
the ruling passion of Tieck's life and with one of the strongest of his
secondary interests. The passion for Shakspere with the concomitant
sense of close personal relationship with him, came to be a major part
of Tieck's being and is clearly indicated even before this article.[3]
Tieck's decided aversion to the English national standpoint toward
Shakspere is strongly exprest in the essay. The man who later vainly
tried to convert Coleridge to a point of view with respect to the
dramatist that was opposed to all that was national and English, does
not, as a mere lad, hesitate to venture his douts as to whether the
English nation is equal to the task of illustrating its greatest
poet.[4]

These illustrations are known as the Boydell Shakspere Gallery. They
were the idea of the engraver, Alderman John Boydell,[5] who wisht to
set up a great national monument to the genius of Shakspere and, at the
same time, to foster a school of historical painting in a land where
heretofore the portrait alone had attaind to any degree of
excellence.[6] The "Gallery" was begun in 1789 and was completed in
1803. At no sparing of expense to himself--the entire cost was upward of
£100,000--Boydell commissiond some of the best artists and engravers of
the time to portray scenes from all of Shakspere's plays. The oil
paintings, about 100 in number, were to be permanently housd in a
gallery bilt for the purpose in London and were to be bestowd on the
nation as a perpetual memorial to the great playwright's genius. The
Napoleonic wars, "that Gothic and Vandalic revolution," and the deth in
poverty of Boydell, renderd necessary the disposal of the collection by
lottery (1804). The lucky ticket was held by a London connoisseur named
Tassie. At his deth the collection was scatterd, tho subsequently a few
of the pictures were recollected and are now in the Shakspere Memorial
in Stratford.[7]

The plates from these pictures are, all in all, no better and no worse
than engravings of the day are likely to be. It is illustration work in
which the story interest is the predominant feature. Interpretation of
Shakspere takes precedence over art, and even Boydell places the painter
below the poet and speaks disparagingly of the ability of the former to
understand and to portray. The purposes of the "Gallery" harmonize with
Tieck's point of view and his predilection for the interpretativ in
criticism minimizes the esthetic aspects of his discussion.

Tieck's essay is in the form of four letters, and was written while he
was a student at the University of Göttingen. It had the approval of his
teacher, Johann Dominik Fiorillo, (himself afterward well-known as the
author of an extensiv history of art,) tho it was not especially written
under Fiorillo's gidance.[8] It was intended, on the surface at least,
as an open and emfatic protest agenst the too lavish praise of the
plates in the journals. The general tone, then, is polemic tho directed
agenst no particular person or article.

In the preface to his critical works[9] Tieck asserts that the article
is a product of the year 1793 and that it was published in 1794. It
appeared in the _Neue Bibliothek der schœnen Wissenschaften und
freyen Kuenste_, 55ten Bandes zweytes Stück, pages 187-226, which bears
the date 1795,[10] and according to the Messkatalog, did not appear till
Michaelmas of that year.[11] Tieck's memory, therefore, faild him as to
the date of publication and he has also fallen into a slite error, or
rather inaccuracy, in regard to the time of origin. The article could
not have been completed within the calendar year 1793, because a number
of the plates that Tieck discusses are dated December 24, 1793, and
could hardly hav got to the continent in the same year. While it may be
possible that the plates were postdated, there is no evidence of such
fact at hand. Moreover, the "Gallery" was reviewd in the _Gœttinger
Gelehrte Anzeigen_ under dates about six months after the appearance of
the individual plates in England and these reviews, as will be shown
hereafter, were extensivly used by Tieck. In these reviews, the plates
are always spoken of as recently arrived. The prints were issued
regularly to the subscribers, of whom the University, according to the
Ms. catalog in the Boston Public Library, was one.[12] It is hardly to
be supposd that the young student would have erlier access to the
pictures than the reviewer for the semi-official university publication.
This reviewer was Heyne[13] who afterward mediated the publication of
Tieck's article. The article was no dout written before Tieck settled in
Berlin in the Fall of 1794 but its writing went out over the confines of
1793. The next series of plates appeard in June, 1794, and is not
included in Tieck's article, tho this is no proof that the article was
completed before June, since the plates probably did not arrive in
Germany till well in the Summer.

Tieck's essay has been almost entirely neglected by Tieck scholars. It
is not a great piece of constructiv criticism, nor can it be said to
contain the ripe judgments of a mature mind. It is, however, a fresh
and, on the whole, convincing analysis of the plates and as such
deserves a careful examination. It will be seen that the article has a
very definit foundation in preceding criticism but that Tieck, tho
borrowing freely from one source at least, namely the _Gœttinger
Gelehrte Anzeigen_, has not slavishly plagiarized nor has he been servil
in his adoption of the ideas of others. And it is also worth noting that
Tieck's criticism was regarded as sufficiently authorativ by Fiorillo to
have been used as a partial source for the latter's critique of the
Boydell plates.

Tieck claims that the praise of the "Gallery" in the contemporary
magazines is excessiv. This claim is exaggerated. Meny important
magazines do not discuss the plates even where there was an excellent
opportunity. So, for example, Wieland's _Mercur_ and Nicolai's
_Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek_ do not mention them, tho from time to
time engravings from other contemporary paintings are discust. For
instance, Nicolai's journal has one long discussion of the state of
contemporary art, especially of engraving (No. 110, 1792) but omits all
reference to the Boydell series. The criticism in Meusel's _Museum fuer
Kuenstler_ is on the whole, destructiv. One discussion, for example,
(No. IV, page 99) is a violent attack on engraving in general and calls
the "Gallery," "Diese die Malerei zu grunde richtende Gelegenheit," and
condems the "Krämergeist" at the bottom of the enterprize. The value of
line in engraving is, however, pointed out, and Bartolozzi and Ryland,
who had but little to do with the series are faintly praisd. Other
mention in Meusel's magazines is either entirely unoriginal summary
(_Museum_, VI, 352) or mere cursory comment (_Miscellaneen_, Stück 30.)
The articles on caricature (Neue _Miscellaneen_ X., 154 and Archiv I,
66) are so late that they cannot be taken into consideration in
connection with Tieck's paper.

With the _Gœttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen_ the case is different.[14]
Tieck saw and used its articles as a basis for his work, tho the credit
of having written the first connected essay from a single viewpoint
belongs to him. The not over laudatory criticisms of the _Anzeigen_ are
often paralel, even down to the wording of details with Tieck's
judgments, but it would be a mistake to suppose that Tieck used the
articles without having seen the engravings and without having given the
pictures careful consideration. The fact that Tieck follows the errors
of the _Anzeigen_ is significant, but it is equally significant that he
corrects the errors of the magazine from his stock of observd judgments.
Generally, where Tieck follows the _Anzeigen_ most closely he is at his
worst. The somewhat superficial and scanty remarks of the journal were
no surrogate for the clear vision and power of adaptibility of the young
man. Tieck's personal regard for Shakspere, which amounted to a real
passion, was entirely wanting.

The use of the articles in the _Anzeigen_ must be shown in detail, and
Tieck's indetedness must be definitly brought out. Paralels will
sometimes show convergence and sometimes divergence of ideas, but in
general it will be seen that Tieck practically never used his material
without some personal addition.

There is one set of cases which is peculiar and which deservs special
attention. The plates in question are: "Much Ado," III, 1, ditto IV, 2,
and "As You Like It," last scene.

A word of explanation in regard to the Boydell plates is necessary. From
the original paintings there were two sets of plates engraved, known as
the large plates (L) and the small plates (S). The small plates were in
all but a few cases done from different pictures than were the large
ones. These large plates are those usually known as the Boydell Gallery.
Both sets were issued serially; the large set was also bound and issued
as a separate volume in 1803, and the small plates were used as
illustrations for the Steevens Shakspere edition of 1802, the letter
press of which also seems to have been issued in parts before the bound
volumes were finally put on the market. The bulk of Tieck's criticisms
applies to the large plates tho he has a few remarks on the small ones
as well. When he discusses the small plates, he always mentions the
fact, except in the three cases just cited. These are three of the cases
where L and S coincide in subject matter and where additional S plates
were afterwards printed as a gratuitous gift to the subscribers.[15]
These plates are among the first discust by the _Anzeigen_ (1791, page
1794) which mention the fact of the plates being for the Shakspere
edition, and that the extra plates are to be furnisht to make up for the
duplication of subject matter in these cases of L and S. This is what is
meant by the sentence, "Es wird sogar die Austauschung des einen Kupfers
künftig versprochen," a statement that corresponds perfectly with the
remark in the later Boydell catalog that this promis has been fulfild.
Tieck does not notis this statement of the _Anzeigen_ but treats these S
plates as if they were L, yet gives the names of the engravers of S.
This would look like a clear case of careless copying from the
_Anzeigen_ if it were not clear from the additions that Tieck makes to
the latter's criticism that he saw the plates too. The explanation of
the discrepancy may be that Tieck when he was writing his article
consulted the _Anzeigen_ for the facts in regard to the engravers, did
not notis that the S plates were referd to and carelessly copied down
what he saw.

I shall now examin in detail some of the paralel criticisms.

Much Ado, II; 4, G. G. A. 1791, page 1794: ... "wo in der Trauung statt
des Jaworts Pedro die Hero für keine reine Jungfer erklärt, und Hero in
Ohnmacht fällt; ... Das beste Stück von allen in Rücksicht der
Composition, Ausdrucks und Auswahl des Lichtes nur ist die Stellung der
Hauptperson ein wenig zu theatralisch; sonst aber alles gut geordnet;
schöne Contraste von Licht und Ruhe für das Auge."

Tieck, page 19: "Das zweite Blatt enthält die Vertossung der Hero ...
und dies ist offenbar eines der vorzüglichsten. Das Licht ist sehr gut
geordnet, das Auge findet sogleich unter den Gruppen einen Ruhepunkt;
nur hat Hamilton dem Claudio eine zu theatralische Stellung und dem
Leonato zu wenig Ausdruck gegeben."

Tieck carries the praise of the _Anzeigen_, the "Das beste Stück" of
which refers only to the group under immediate discussion, to the whole
series. He takes his main critical vocabulary from the prototype and
adds the original differentiation of Claudio and Leonato to which
reference must be made later.

"Much Ado," IV, 2; G. G. A., 1791, page 1794: ... "ein Gemisch von
verkrüppelten, unedeln Caricaturen ohne alle Grazie ... Zu bedauren ist
die Kunst, die an den Stich verwendet ist; denn der Stich ist einer der
besten." Tieck's criticism of this plate is paralel in so far as he
praises the mechanical perfection of the engraver, who is Heath of S,
and not Simon of L. So far we have the blind following of the model. But
Tieck also makes the picture a basis for a long discussion of caricature
and of thoro condemnation of Smirke, who is also no favorit of the
_Anzeigen_. As Tieck's letters show a profuse use of the word
caricature, he need not be especially indeted to the _Anzeigen_ for it.

"Richard III," I, 1, G. G. A., 1791, page 1795. Here Tieck's borrowing
is direct. G. G. A.: "Eine schlechte Composition, ohne Ausdruck." Tieck,
page 27: "Die Composition ist schlecht, alle Figuren sind ohne
Ausdruck." G. G. A.: "Eine Menge Reflexe, Wiederscheine s. w. aber alles
dieses macht keine Wirkung, und das Auge findet keinen Ruhepunkt."
Tieck, page 28: "und sucht durch unendlich viele Wiederscheine ... dass
das Auge bei den vielen Lichtmassen gar keine Ruhe findet." But again,
besides these verbal and associational paralels, Tieck has added a free
treatment of the composition, an examination of the drawing of the
figures, of which there is no hint in the model and, all in all, makes
the criticism his own. The impulse certainly came from the _Anzeigen_,
but the whole critique is a product of Tieck's self.

"Richard III," IV, 3, G. G. A., 1791, page 1795: "Stellung gezwungen."
Tieck, page 28: "Der Mörder unnatürlich." Here Tieck borrowed the idea
and after an examination of the plate changed the wording.

"As You Like It," II, 1, G. G. A., 1793, page 561: "Ein treffliches
Landschaftsgemälde." Tieck, page 18: "die reizende Landschaft." An
examination of the whole of Tieck's criticism shows that he has added a
characterization of Jacques, has discust the choice of this particular
subject, and in this connection shows especially that the plate under
discussion is only a vignette to the plays and not a part of the real
play itself.

"As You Like It," last scene, G. G. A., 1793, pages 561-2: "Orlando, der
mit zeimleich ausgespreizeten Beinen." Tieck, page 18: "Seine
augespreizten Beine machen ihn widrig." Here Tieck has taken an
externality of the description and has given it a point. The use of the
word "widrig" gives a new tuch.

"Romeo and Juliet," I, 5, G. G. A.: "die Hauptfiguren muss man suchen."
Tieck, page 29: "Die Hauptfiguren findet man nur mit einiger Mühe."
Notis, however, how Tieck then goes on independently to giv his own
point: "den Vater der Julie kann man nur errathen; Julie selbst hat
wenig Character. Tybald ist die ausdruckvollste Figur auf diesem
Blatte." Tieck also quotes in full the passage beginning, "If I profane
with my unworthy hand" which the _Anzeigen_ only indicates. This might
be laid to yuthful pedantry, were the whole not made far clearer for the
entire citation.

"Romeo and Juliet," IV, 5, G. G. A., 562: "Julia nach genommenem
Schlaftrunk für todt gehalten, mit den Worten des Mönchs: Peace ho for
shame! ff. Dieser tröstend, die Mutter die Hände ringend, Paris Julien
umfassend, ein Stück mit vielem Affect" ... Tieck, page 30: "Julie hat
den Schlaftrunk genommen und scheint gestorben, ihre Aeltern sowie ihr
Bräutigam Paris sind in Verzweifelung, der Pater sucht Alle zu trösten."
In the discussion of the small plate which follows, the _Anzeigen_
points out the changes which have been made on it, this being one of the
supplementary small plates for the 1802 text edition. Tieck also notises
the fact of the change but that he took his information not only from
the _Anzeigen_ but from an examination of the original is proved by his
additions to the information of the _Anzeigen_. Tieck's comment is,
"Mehrere unnütze Personen weggelassen." This reason goes at least one
step farther than the _Anzeigen_ comment. In the magazine, the effect of
the double light in L is adversly criticized. Tieck adds to this, "Der
alte Capulet hat auf beiden Blättern wenig Ausdruck." That both Tieck
and the magazine use the fraze "tut ... Wirkung" in this place seems of
secondary importance. A mere linguistic reminiscence, where it is not
connected with an idea, is not influence. This must be sought in basic
ideas, in hints which point the way for new lines of thought, in an
adoption of facts. An author like Tieck shows independence when he adds,
eliminates and remolds what he receives, even tho the form of the
thought clings often to him.

So, then, when the _Anzeigen_ (1793, page 562) has the fraze "Julie in
dem Grabgewölbe erwachend," the fact that Tieck (page 30) introduces his
criticism with the words, "Julie erwacht, als der Mönch eben in das
Gewölbe tritt," is of slite consequence. This is a simple description of
fact. Of much more importance is the fact that the magazine goes on to
point out that not nature but the stage should be the model for the
painter in this case, a doctrin which Tieck not only does not mention,
but in fact, utterly rejects when the time comes to discuss it in the
course of the treatment.

In the criticism of Schiavonetti's plate after Angelica Kaufmann (G. G.
A., 1793, page 903; Tieck, pages 16-17) Tieck agrees with the _Anzeigen_
but is thoroly independent in his resoning and adds constantly to what
the magazine asserts. That both find the disguisd Julia beautiful is not
unresonable, and as the disguise is a part of the play it is not strange
that Tieck mentions it. In the same section of the magazine is a passage
which finds a later echo in Tieck. "König Lear reisst sich die Kleider
vom Leibe" (903). Tieck (32): "und reisst sich endlich die Kleider ab."
The verbal paralelism has significance here only because there are other
hints at this time which may hav aided Tieck: e. g., the fact that the
artist has departed from the scene as Shakspere portrayd it. Tieck is
definit in stating just who is added, which proves that he knew his
Shakspere and saw the plate. Tieck also points out the spiritual
difference between Shakspere and the "famous West," a distinct addition
to the matter in the _Anzeigen_. "Winter's Tale," II, 3, G. G. A., 1794,
page 9: "Der eifersüchtige Leontes lässt den Antigonous bey seinem ihm
vorgehalten Schwerte schwören, dass er das Kind, das ihm seine Gemahlin
geboren hatte, in eine Einöde aussetzen will. Sind gemeine Figuren."
Notis how in Tieck, while the general terms of the description are the
same, because following the line of least resistance in externalities,
the whole discussion takes on an individual character, and is expanded
into a critique of Opie's drawing which was always unsatisfactory to
Tieck. Tieck (page 21): "Der eifersüchtige Leontes lässt den Antigonus
schwören, das Kind auszusetzen.... An den Darstellungen aus diesem
Stücke ist viel zu tadeln, vorzüglich an dieser ersten Scene. Leontes,
die Hauptperson, ist steif und ohne allen Ausdruck, alle übrigen
Personen sind dick und plump gezeichnet und ganz ohne alle Bedeutung.
Leontes lässt den Antigonus, so wie Hamlet seine Gefährten, bei seinem
Schwerte schwören. Schauspieler und Zeichner aber fehlen, wenn sie es so
vorstellen, wie Opie es hier gethan hat. Die alten Schwerter bilden oben
am Griffe ein Kreuz und auf dieses legte man die Hand, in Ermangelung
eines eigentlichen Crucifixes.... In diesem Blatte entdecken sich auch
bald viele Fehler in der Zeichnung. Das Auge wird von der Hauptperson
auf die Lichtmasse, folglich, auf das Kind hingezogen; die Hauptfigur
tritt gar nicht genug hervor, sondern hängt mit den hinter ihr stehenden
zusammen; die Köpfe im Hintergrunde sind eben so gross, wie die der
vorderen Personen. Alles verräth den ungeübten Künstler." As an example
of Tieck's rejection of the opinion of the G. G. A., the discussion of
"Winter's Tale," V, 3, will suffice. This is the statue scene which
Tieck absolutely condems on account of poor engraving, expression and
posing. Where the magazine says "Die Statue, der man es doch sehr gut
ansieht, das es eine lebende Figur ist, macht grosse Wirkung." Tieck
(22) contradicts thus: "Die Statue ist sehr unnatürlich, sie sieht mehr
einem Geiste, als einem Menschen ähnlich."

There are, finally, three further cases in which Tieck takes a hint from
the _Anzeigen_ and develops it. "2 Henry VI," III, 3, (1794, page 10):
"Kardinal Beauford ... ein scheuslicher Anblick, in mehr als einem
Verstande." Tieck (page 25): "Dieses abscheuliche Blatt." But Tieck, in
a passage too long to quote, goes on to giv cogent reasons for not
liking the picture, not one of which is derived from the _Anzeigen_. The
other passages from the "Merry Wives" (I, 1 and II, 1, G. G. A., 1794,
page 970; Tieck, 11-12) take the hint that Smirke drew caricatures and
not human beings and borrow the adjectiv "widrig." With this slender
borrowing Tieck develops a full discussion of Smirke and of these
plates with no further assistance from the _Anzeigen_ than a hint on the
engraving of textiles.

These passages on "Henry VI" and on the "Merry Wives" are doubly
interesting, however, because they show that Tieck's judgment of Smirke
and Northcote offers a very close paralel to that of the magazine.
Tieck's reasons are fuller, but they show no more ability in Tieck than
in the reviewer of the _Anzeigen_ to understand some of the most
characteristic features of English humor as exemplified in Smirke, while
the pupil and biografer of Sir Joshua fares badly because of his alleged
bad composition and poor light effects. It will be shown later that on
both of these latter questions Tieck held views quite independent of the
_Anzeigen_.

Of Kirk's plate from "Titus Adronicus" the G. G. A., 1794, page 970,
says, "Den Ausdruck an der Lavinia abgerechnet ein gut Stück." Tieck
(28) begins with a weak, "an dem Blatte ... ist vielleicht viel zu loben
und wenig zu tadeln" but "rights himself like a soldier" thus, "Man
sieht, dass der Künstler eine sehr richtige Idee von der Composition
hat, und dass er seinem Gegenstand mit Geschmack und Delicatesse zu
behandeln weiss. Er lässt uns die abgeschnittenen Arme der Lavinia nur
vermuthen; der geschickt geworfene Schleier entzieht unserm Auge den
unangenehmen Anblick," etc.

The examples and paralels alredy given cover practically all of the
points of similarity between Tieck and his model. They show that Tieck
used the _Anzeigen_ constantly and minutely but they can not fail to
impress the reader with the fact that Tieck invariably rises above the
plane of the jottings in the magazine in form and in substance. The
content of Tieck's criticisms is very much greater than that of his
prototype and the form is far more polisht. These apercus of Heyne did
not prevent Tieck's independent thinking; they never fettered him. He
followd them in a number of places in his paper and once or twice falls
into their error thru youthful carelessness or misapprehension. They did
not often confuse his judgment or hamper his vision. He never ruthlessly
plagiarizd them. That they were a source can not be denied, but that
they form the real basis of Tieck's critique is not for a moment
tenable. This came unquestionably from himself, and he must be given
credit or blame for the good or bad in it.

Tieck set about the task of criticising the "Boydell Gallery" with no
diffidence, but with many misgivings, amounting almost to prejudises, as
to the valu of the set of plates. He was aware that this work was
intrinsically in a class which is, all in all, artistically inferior.
His judgments are objectiv, but they promis no prescience of a higher, a
more spiritual attitude toward art. Art in this case servs
interpretation and the struggle away from what the plates represent has
hardly commenced. Tieck feels that the whole group does not do Shakspere
justis, but he nowhere says that the subjectiv interpretation of the
poet must remain the lasting one for the individual; indeed he asserts
quite the contrary on the very first page of his paper. It is to be
expected that Tieck's common sense and fancy should rebel at the
platitudinarianism of the pictures; that at times he is no more than on
the plane of the sentimental "Enlightenment" is also to be expected. The
valu of the study is in such harsh negativ criticism as it exercises
where emfasis is false or where bad taste prevails in the performance of
the artists' task.

Tieck came to the work with a good first-hand knowledge of Shakspere and
this lessens the juvenile and jejune qualities of his work. He is weaker
on the comedies than on the trajedies, for the former require a keener
sensing of English life than it was possible for Tieck to hav obtaind at
the time of writing. But even for the comedies, some of his observations
are very just and show that he could interpret Shakspere with sense and
precision. The present discussion will attempt to find out by a careful
examination of the plates just what Tieck saw in these pictures and how
far his interpretation was right. The results should show, in a general
way, something of the powers of interpretation possest by the youthful
Tieck, and how this power of interpretation conditiond his judgments.

The general theoretical standpoint upon which the essay was written is
that of Lessing, and a careful perusal will show that Haym was wrong
when he postulated no Lessing influence on the article.[16] Tieck's
letters to Wackenroder show that he was reading the Laokoon at this
time, but even if a preoccupation with Lessing were not easily
postulable, the matter of the paper itself will show a distinct
recrudescence of Lessing's ideas. And not only Lessing, but the school
of critics out of which Lessing arose, e. g., Winkelmann and DuBos,
were also a part of Tieck's reading.[17]

The article has a total lack of coloristic reflexes; it emfasizes form,
if not line; its thoro reasonableness takes into consideration all that
Lessing has stood for in the domain of art. It has the same standpoint
as that of a Goethe returnd from Italy and of a Karl Philipp Moritz from
whom, to be sure, Tieck was turning away in disgust.[18]

The article fails to solv the problem in Tieck's mind of reconciling his
natural desire away from the regulated and calm with the current and
traditional in British art. The conflict is between a desire in theory
for moderated effects, for the toning down of emotion, and a desire, in
practis, for strong contrast and superlativ effects. Lessing, in art the
enemy of all realism, finds in Tieck a condemer of Hogarth, a
condemnation that persists in Tieck as late as the essay on the erly
English Theater (1828),[19] and persists on grounds similar to the
fundamental principle of beauty laid down by Lessing.

It would be a mistake to argu from the foregoing that in this article
Tieck was not a realist, or at least strongly inclined toward realism in
his practis. His realism was that of the yung enthusiast for whom each
variation from the sense of his idol was a blasfemy, and he points out
(page 24) that there can be none of that deception of the senses which
is a part of the pictorial arts where "ich irgend eine auffallende
Unnatürlichkeit entdecke; denn die Nachahmung der Natur ist der Zweck
des Künstlers." Such strict imitation of nature is more to be expected,
to be sure, in the work of the lesser lights, such as are the men who
did the pictures for the "Gallery," than in the work of a real genius,
and one is glad to overlook, in the works of the latter, those minor
faults which almost entirely disappear in the face of a thousand
beauties. So, says Tieck (page 14) "who would pass by the divine
masterpieces of a Rafael and yet with weighty mien find fault with the
bad coloring of a single garment?" There are clearly two kinds of
artist. The one is the genius who may be carried too far by his
enthusiasm, the other is the colder painter, who by his choice of
subject, composition, correctness of drawing, and grace must make up for
his lack of genius, and who can not hope to attain the emotional effects
of his rival, but who must be content to arouse a cooler feeling, that
is, the satisfaction of the spectator. In this series, where genius is
excluded from the outset, Tieck expects a strict adherence to fact, to
verisimilitude, and the correct interpretation of Shakspere must be
insisted on.

In order that the soul may get an immediate enjoyment of the work of
art, Tieck recommends (page 4) that the painter choose well-known
subjects. He says: "The soul passes immediately to the enjoyment of the
work of art and curiosity does not stand in the way of his enjoyment as
in the case of obscure or unknown subjects. I am alredy prepared for the
sentiment that the work of art is to arouse in me, and surrender myself
all the more willingly to the illusion. If the subject of the picture is
in itself beautiful and sublime, or if a great poet has furnisht the
painter with the invention, the composition and the emotions, our
enthusiasm is arousd, we giv our wonder and our delight to the painter."

The painter, then, is only an interpreter of the poet, whose purpose it
is to seize the spirit of the poet, to portray those fine and spiritual
ideas which only a related genius can grasp and make concrete by an
appeal to the senses thru color-magic[20] the intangible creations of
the poet's brain. He makes lasting what the reader gets but a fleeting
glimpse of, and what even the actor can giv but little permanence (page
3).[21]

Whether or not Tieck was influenced by the prospectus to the set,
indeed, whether he saw it or not, there is no way of knowing, but his
statement that these pictures in their entirety will form a national
gallery of historical paintings which will drive the scenes from Greek
mythology out of England, is much like Boydell's own statement of
purpose mentiond above. It is also an erly paralel to the Romantic
insistence on a new mythology, a nativ mythology, rather than one drawn
from foren sources which was a part of Friedrich Schlegel's canon.

The engravings as such are treated by Tieck under five different heds.
These are: the mechanical technique, drawing with perspectiv and line,
composition (which Tieck does not clearly differentiate from design),
expression and choice of subject. These five heds comprize all the
points in which the pictures are treated, but not each picture is
treated from all five. The five giv, however, the full range of Tieck's
ideas on the engravings. They show the things that attracted his
attention, and where the influence of the _Anzeigen_ is felt, they serv
to show how different, after all, his own ideas were. Often the magazine
does not tuch one or more points of the five.

Tieck's discussion of the technique of the engravings is, as may be
expected, rather thin, and the frazes that he uses are stereotyped.
Several of the plates praisd by him are quite without merit and such
generalities as, "schön gestochen," "vorzüglich," "vortrefflich gut,"
are not very significant. Negativ praise like "nichts zu tadeln" or "die
Ausführung verdient alles Lob" show that on technical points Tieck was
judging very superficially and that his attention to the "Gallery" had
been attracted by something else than the perfection of the plates.

These engravings are in the now old-fashiond stipple, tho parts of them
are in line. At the time of writing, Tieck may not hav known the
difference between line and stipple, tho in "Zerbino" a reference to the
"pointed manner," used in a punning way, shows that by that time Tieck
had become acquainted with it.[22] Nor does Tieck indicate in any way
the "Gallery's" sparing use of the increasingly popular mezzotint. He
makes no mention of the line manner of Flaxman, if he knew him. He does
not see that the line engravings in the set are poorer all thru than the
stipple prints, and that in some of the line plates the cutting is so
deep and the execution so clumsy that the resulting plates are muddy and
crude and are lacking in tone, grace, and even in exactness of
execution.

In one or two places where satin is excellently reproduced, Tieck
praises the texture of the fabrics. The large plate by Simon from the
"Merry Wives" has a wonderful lace apron which a recent writer on
engraving has cald one of the best examples of the stipple manner.[23]
As Tieck refers to the other fabrics on the plate, which is one of those
with duplicated subject and which in the _Anzeigen_ seems only to hav
been discust in the S form, it seems clear that Tieck also saw L here,
as S is by no means so fine a plate; in fact L has the best fabrics in
the series.

Of the twenty-four large plates discust by Tieck, there are only
thirteen which receive technical criticisms and of these thirteen, three
are lumpt together under one comment so that in all there are only ten
separate technical criticisms. Of these, six occur in the first six
plates and with the eighteenth plate, Kirk's scene from "Titus
Andronicus," the criticism of the mechanical side ends with a weak,
"sehr gut gestochen," showing that Tieck did not progress in his
technical criticisms. His interest in the engravings as engravings waned
as the essay proceeded: it never rose above an attention to textiles
and, even there, Tieck did not see all the finer differentiations of
velvet, chiffon and lace, tho the fine satins distinctly appeald to him.
Perhaps as fair an example as any of his inexactness, is his praise of
the plate from "As You Like It" in which Jacques lies watching the
wounded deer (II, 1). This is one of the poorest of the plates and yet
Tieck says, "Die Ausführung verdient alles Lob." Fittler's plate from
"Winter's Tale" (IV, 2), while weak and without character, is not as bad
either in actual cutting or in general managment, and yet Tieck condems
it unmercifully. So, too, the bad plates by Middiman come in for no
special condemnation from Tieck, tho Middiman is by far the worst
engraver in the series, and is particularly bad after Hodges, the plates
after whom Tieck saw.[24]

Drawing, as such, fares rather better than engraving, tho less than half
the pictures are criticized from this standpoint. Colorless expressions
like "Keine Fehler" and "Viele Fehler" are not wanting and in many cases
where whole bodies are out of drawing or where individual parts are bad
Tieck has nothing to say.

It is especially interesting to note that Tieck finds the drawing of
Angelika Kaufmann without error. ("Two Gent. Verona," last scene). Here
he declares that no clumsy clothing conceals the figures, but the lines
are well brought out under the garments. The disguised Julia is at once
recognizable in spite of her masculin attire, and the manner of the
artist is "graziös." An examination of the figure shows that Julia's
figure has something of the immature in it and that the face is rather
boyish. One thinks at once of the somewhat malicious words of Friedrich
Schlegel to his brother, "Wie Angelika Kaufmann, der die Busen und
Hüften, auch immer wie von selbst aus den Fingern quellen." Both Tieck
and Schlegel felt the sensuous charm of the painter whose best known
self-portrait is in the garb of a Vestal Virgin, tho the Schlegels,
like Georg Forster, had no illusions as to the qualities of her art.[25]

Engravings in stipple emfasize less than line engravings mere questions
of drawing. It is perhaps with some instinctiv feeling for this that
Tieck suggests that one of Hamilton's pictures has been hurt by the bad
engraving, just as certain other plates have gaind thru the engraver
(page 22). The hint for this point came originally from the _Anzeigen_
but Tieck has developt it. While it is now no longer possible to check
up each plate with its corresponding picture, it is true that the
engravers were relatively better craftsmen, as a rule, than the
painters. In hardly any one case is the painting a sample of the best
work of the artist. Often, as in the case of Sir Joshua Reynolds, the
painting redounds but little to his credit.[26] Where, as in the case of
Barry, Sir Joshua's great rival, the picture is reckond with his
superior work, the only conclusion is that Barry was a very bad artist
and so Tieck considers him. The engravers, on the other hand, had had no
better chance in years to exhibit their art than in this imposing
series, and most of the best names in stipple appear in it. The best
that Tieck does to recognize this fact is in the occasional lament for
the waste of good labor on a bad subject or painting (e. g., page 20).

Besides having the good feeling for the human form under the garment, as
in the case of the figure of Julia and of those of Mrs. Ford and Mrs.
Page by Smirke, Tieck also criticizes several cases of misdrawing. So,
the clumsy legs of one of Opie's figures are scored and in blaming this
failing of Opie, Tieck hits one of the most pronounced weaknesses of
that artist both in the "Gallery" and in Bell's British Theater. But
Opie, the "Comedy Wonder," is hardly the "ungeübter Künstler" that Tieck
makes him out to be. Here Tieck, following the criticism of the
_Anzeigen_, from which he may have got the hint on Opie's drawing,
develops the criticism too far and goes astray. There is a constant
suspicion that Tieck is trying to master a jargon.

Often it is a mere chance whether Tieck will see or not see a
peculiarity. Some of the sentimental, foolish, and misdrawn hands escape
his notis, whereas in other cases he criticizes them.

Perhaps the best example of Tieck's criticism of drawing is that of
Northcote's plate to "Richard III." (III, 1, page 27). He says, "Der
alte Cardinal scheint ganz verzeichnet zu sein, man ist ungewiss, ob er
steht oder kniet: in beiden Fällen ist die Zeichnung fehlerhaft."
Tieck's strictures are correct. The space from the waist down is found
upon examination to be abnormally long for a kneeling person, and
groteskly short for one standing. Tieck's critique is good, for it
points out the error and the reason, and shows that in any case the
alternativ is a bad one.

Tho Tieck may hav been over-kind to Angelika Kaufmann, he quite agrees
with his contemporaries in the condemnation of another German Swiss
living in England, namely Füessli, whom he calls one of the worst of the
admirers of Michaelangelo. The michaelangelesk school of the day faild
in its expression of great muscular effort, in that it put for strength
distortion and violence. Füessli was one of the most important
adherents, or rather, was the greatest representativ of the fad perhaps
anywhere and seems therby to hav largely incurd the displesure of his
German critics. That Tieck really understood Michaelangelo is shown by
his later article in the "Phantasien über die Kunst." He defends him
from the charge of having drawn to show his knowledge of anatomy and
among other things, exclaims on his "greatness, his wild grace, his
fearful beauty."[27] But Tieck had no use for those of his imitators who
caught only the extravagance of his figures and debased his Titanic
creations into bizarre contortions by over-emfasis on mere muscle.

That Tieck was not unconscious of the effect of mere line is shown by
his pointing out the unplesantness of the line made by Leontes' figure
in Hamilton's picture of the statu scene from "Winter's Tale."
Awkwardness and violence, anything that savord of "affectation and
bombast," where in Shakspere "power and energy" are found, met Tieck's
disapproval. So this figure of Leontes, so Orlando standing with his
legs far apart, so the faces drawn by Füessli. Wherever there were
violent angles, sharp points and corners, Tieck felt himself ill at
ease. When he saw in some of Füessli's plates faces which giv the
impression of the plaster blocks of the art schools that are used to
draw from the cast, the square chins, the noses, either very pointed or
cut off square, imprest him as repulsivly inhuman. "Widrig, unnatürlich,
abgeschmackt, manierirt," are the terms applied to Füessli's cursing
scene from Lear.

It would hav been interesting had Tieck seen Füessli's later scenes in
the "Gallery." The Bottom scenes from the "Midsummer Night's Dream" show
that fantastic imagination which was the artist's strong point. All the
forms from the fairy world were there, Moth, Peascod and a welth of
other spirits. There is a distinct appeal to the imagination which
justifies the painter of "Die Nachtmahr," tho the faces of Titania and
Oberon are here too hard and sullen. But the imagination shown has a
curious similarity with the work of Tieck in his later stories such as
"Die Elfen," and which has so warm an afterglow in "Die Vogelscheuche."

Composition means for Tieck especially order. He has not yet lernd the
principle of triangulation of arrangement enunciated by Caroline in the
"Gemälde" essay in the _Athenaeum_. He expects no more than that the
principle character shall be in an important place in the picture and
insists that the lighting devices serv to throw such personages into
relief. So when the perspectiv is bad it is because of the wrong emfasis
on the principal figures rather than that the harmony of the whole is
disturbed by a wrong arrangement.

What irritates Tieck especially is an arrangement of figures in the
picture in the regular semi-circle borrowd directly from the theater.
The evil of unnaturalness which such attitudinizing brings with it, is
enhanced by light effects drawn from the same source. So, for example,
where the light is that of a lamp, only so much light as a lamp would
giv, or the effect of natural lamp-light is allowable. If, on the other
hand, the sunlight streams into the room, the source of the sunlight
should be evident as outside the room. Tieck might hav mentiond as an
example of this some of the fine interiors of Pieter De Hoogh. The light
effects should not be harsh but graded down so that no violent light
contrasts occur within the same room. The light, too, should be broken
up, not kept in a mass as if it were a separate entity to be treated
apart from all other objects.

All this is perfectly resonable and not especially technical. It is
conveyd in stray hints rather than in any set discussion of light
effects in any one place. Often, too, Tieck's dislike for some other
aspect of a painter's work leads him astray on this point. This is tru
in the case of Northcote, whose really good treatment of the high
lights Tieck has in one or two cases entirely overlookt. There seems to
hav been a distinct appeal made, too, by the sheen and glitter of
certain textiles and the scintillating, flickering light of the later
periods of Tieck's work is presaged as erly as this. On the whole,
however, it is not the glitter of the world of out-of-doors, but of the
world of the shut-in, of the world of little things which appeals so
strongly to Tieck and which he treated with such banality in the story
"Ulrich der Empfindsame."

Thus, Tieck's landscape criticism is very bad and even tho, as has been
pointed out, the basis for his adjectivs lies in the _Anzeigen_
articles, his expansion beyond them brings no real betterment. In the
plate from "Love's Labor Lost" (IV, 1, page 9), when Tieck was feeling
his way into his subject, his general impression was one of plesure, and
so the landscape is "reizend." In the whole essay, "reizend" is the only
constructiv epithet applied to landscape and it occurs only twice.
Hamilton's landscape is purely conventional and, except for a vista, of
which Tieck was all his life fond, offers nothing to commend it. The
failure of Tieck to judge rightly must be laid at the door of too great
reliance on the _Anzeigen_.

Tieck criticizes only one other landscape as such, tho in a third case a
landscape background is discust adversly. For the scene from "As You
Like It" in which Jacques watches the wounded deer the term "reizend"
seems quite impossible. Engraved by Middiman after Hodges, a combination
which augurs ill, the scene is without dout the worst in every way that
Tieck saw. The composition is bad: Jacques, a figure without grace of
expression, sprawls in a comedy landscape and the features of the
wounded deer hav a strong Hebraic cast. Here, if ever, the scene is
drawn from the stage and not from nature and stage properties are models
for tree and foliage. When Tieck says that the scene is one to arouse
cheerfulness in the beholder, he is correct but not in the sense that he
ment. The reliance on his source is not enuf to account for his
aberration; the failure to judge aright must be laid at Tieck's door.

After pointing out the value of the whole, and the effect made by the
light of the torch held by Gloster ("Lear," III, 4), Tieck shows that
this effect, striking as it is, detracts from the unity of the
composition, since it shifts the emfasis from Lear and his pain. Lear,
morover, is not the Lear of Shakspere but a giant, and the effect of
this Herculean form is made further improbable by the exaggeration of
the wind blowing from all directions in the picture and driving the
garments of Lear with it, winding them impossibly about him. The effect
of these draperies, says Tieck, is baroque and there is no thought of
quiet strength or noble simplicity.[28]

In the composition of this picture Tieck also notises that the figure of
Edgar is practically the same as that of a figure in West's Deth of
General Wolf. A comparison with the latter picture at once reveals the
justness of Tieck's observation. The figure of the Indian seated in the
foreground is strikingly like that of Edgar, both in form and in general
expression, and it is evident that West has repeated himself. In
general, Tieck does not make comparisons of this kind. He confines his
remarks to the picture itself, and probably was not well acquainted with
the run of contemporary British art.[29]

Tieck's judgment of composition did not go far beyond this emfasis on
the principal figure. A general series of colorless frases like "gut
geordnet" occurs, but expresses only a mild acquiescence in the
arrangement. Tieck was fond of the posing sentimentalities of groups
like the landscape plate from "Love's Labor Lost," but he tries hard to
get away from them toward a realism which drew upon actual perception
for its postulates and which was not based upon premises--inadequate for
art--of Shakspere illustration. On the other hand, and here he departs
constantly from the canon of Lessing, there is no striving for abstract
beauty. Charm and grace, beauty in motion as it is exprest by the female
figure in Anne Page and a few other cases, are Tieck's nearest approach
to it.[30]

The general reason for Tieck's failure is that in actuality these
pictures were not ugly or inartistic to him. Where he criticizes it is
oftenest the idea; the execution and the relation to an abstract
standard are of less consequence, and his theory once more limps behind
his practis. He may berate Hogarth as an artist without beauty but it is
clear that his extoling of Rafael is a mere matter of fashion; he is in
the same category with Domenichino, whom Tieck's generation and the next
succeeding one considerably overestimated. In Michaelangelo, Tieck
knows the strength of the drawing and not the wistfulness that pervades
even the most Titanic of the master's creations. In general, affectation
of pose, mannerism and preciosity are Tieck's bane only where the
sentimental is not concernd.

An interesting commendation of the composition of a plate is that of
Kirk's picture from "Titus Adronicus" (IV, 1). Tieck likes the plate
because of its taste and delicacy in only suggesting the mutilated arms
of Lavinia. Kirk has avoided the frank naturalism of the original by the
use of draperies, and this appeals to Tieck as a toning down and is in
line with what had been suggested before in regard to Tieck's attitude.

This plate has an accessory which Tieck objects to, namely the over
large colum in the background. Usually, but not in this case, Tieck
criticises the accessories from the standpoint of the stickler for
historical accuracy, rather than for any artistic merit or demerit. So
the tomb of the Capulets in "Romeo and Juliet" is not Italian of the
period, and the dresses of the women in "Merry Wives" are in violation
of the sumptuary laws of the time.[31] In the deth of Mortimer (1 "Henry
VI.," V, 2) the family tree lying on the ground adds a tuch of symbolism
which Tieck approves, tho in the same scene he criticizes the mean
character of the prison, saying that for such a noble prisoner a better
place of incarceration would hav been found.

Tieck makes no clear distinction between passing expression (Ausdruck)
and permanency of feature (Miene). His discussion of expression goes
hand in hand with composition, since, as was mentiond above, composition
has so close a relation to the placing of the principal character. There
is a definit point of view, however, in Tieck's discussions of
composition; in his strictures and encomiums on expression of face and
figure it is practically impossible to find a consistent _pou sto_. In
places, his powers of observation seem to hav deserted him and his
lapses are not attributable to a too great leaning on the articles in
the _Anzeigen_. Tieck's theoretical discussion of the common-sense
element in these illustrations may be ever so clear and his demands on
the artist may be ever so high, but his practical application of these
principles is by no means as strict as might be expected. Indeed, in
theory Tieck demands one thing and in practis another.

It is Tieck's desire that the artist should catch the individual note in
these figures and raise it to an ideal, that he should choose the
expression with care and never sacrifice it to coloring or drapery and
that he should avoid all necessity of using symbols to designate his
characters. But when Tieck actually examins the pictures, he stresses
theatrical pose or mien and pays no attention to those obvious tricks
whereby expression is obtainable: the skilful use of light and shade on
the face, the treatment of the lines of the mouth, and the placing of
the eyes. Occasionally, as in the ball scene in "Romeo and Juliet," it
seems as if the treatment of the eyes of a figure--in this case that of
Tybalt--attracted his attention, but there are so many other plates in
which the eyes are quite as good and are nevertheless past over, that
the instance of Tybalt seems fortuitous.

Tieck uses the expressions "ohne Ausdruck," "wenig Ausdruck" and "ohne
Charakter," "wenig Charakter" almost exclusively in his negativ
criticism of the plates and his positiv criticism substitutes "viel" for
"wenig." Such frases are not very definit and Tieck misapplies them
constantly. In four out of the five cases of Tieck's largest caption,
"ohne Ausdruck," he is certainly incorrect and the postulation of "wenig
Ausdruck" is wrong in at least two out of the three cases. It is not a
matter of personal opinion nor can it be a difference in point of view
between the twentieth century and the end of the eighteenth. It is
largely bad judgment on Tieck's part. In the three cases where Tieck
sees "vielen Ausdruck" not one is in reality especially distinguisht for
vividness. Two even vie with the most expressionless in feature and hav
no special pretentions to significance of posture. In the five plates
where Tieck uses "ohne Charakter" or "wenig Charakter," the epithets are
in general tru.

Tieck got the hint for an advers criticism of the faces of Mrs. Ford and
Mrs. Page from the _Anzeigen_. He exclaims, expanding his model, "Welch'
widrige Gesichter! welch' uninteresante Figuren!" There is in the pose
of Mrs. Page a most awkward droop of the neck, but in Mrs. Ford's face
there is a rollicking Irish drollery, a freshness of complexion and a
witchery of the eyes that are quite charming. The painting was by
Peters, whose "sprightly humor" was so much admired by his
contemporaries.

One of the two pictures of Leontes in the "Winter's Tale" shows his
giving the oath to Antigonous to destroy the child. In Leontes' frowning
face Tieck sees no expression, altho it is unquestionably one of the
most lively of the series. The stiffness of pose that Tieck objects to
in the picture may well be accounted for by the full suit of armor that
Leontes wears. The face is far more expressiv than that of the other
Leontes picture and yet Tieck's judgment on them is the same.

One of the most striking failures on Tieck's part to see character
interpretation of real subtlety is in Northcote's portrayal of "Richard
III." There can be no dout that Tieck's general dislike of the artist,
which was based on the adverse criticisms of the _Anzeigen_, led his
judgment astray. The face of Richard is all in all the most
characteristic of the series in so far as Tieck saw the series.
Richard's "subtle, false and trecherous" look with the smile of his grim
humor is well caught; the eyes and mouth are excellent and giv a very
adequate idea of the deviltry of the man, of his lewd cunning and his
scheming. What Tieck might well hav objected to is the sentimentalizing
of the two princes whom the artist has transmogrified into fat little
babies, just as in the next picture the two hav become well-fed little
beef-eaters.

As Tieck fails to see sentimentality in this picture, so he misses
extravagance in the church scene from "Much Ado." Tieck borrowd much in
this discussion from the _Anzeigen_ but his remarks on expression are
his own. He says that Leonato has too little expression. There can be no
dout as to the figure intended for Leonato. Claudio is identified by a
very theatrical gesture and by a Mefistofelian Don Juan behind him. The
fainting Hero, over whom Beatrice is bending, falls into Benedix' arms.
The only other figure, that of an older man, and who therefore cannot be
Benedix, is standing in a most theatrical posture with clencht fists,
eyes upturnd, rigid and ridiculous. If Tieck ment that this figure
should represent Leonato, he has shot wide of the mark in his criticism
and displays a most unrefined love of the melodramatic. Figures like
this are not often found in the "Gallery." Ordinarily excess of
sentiment and a cheap display of emotion giv way to stiffness and
awkwardness.

Tieck was dissatisfied with all the reproductions of Lear. They hav all
too much of the gigantic, too little of the childish old man. He points
out that the face as drawn by Füessli expresses nothing but rage; the
same exaggeration is found in the drawing of West who sacrifices truth,
nature and emotion to a striking first impression. Barry's Lear only
excites laughter and the lack of expression in the face is made up by
the storm-wind in the hair. Again, however, issu must be taken with
Tieck's attitude, for it is impossible to regard these faces as
expressionless. It is not that they hav too little, but too much, and of
a wrong kind. Tieck nowhere draws the clear distinction and nowhere
makes it evident that he regards "Ausdruck" as a term to be interpreted
in any but a common sense way.

It seems apparent that those plates which had a certain sentimentality,
a certain saccharin quality appeald to Tieck. He likes the prettiness of
Anne Page and cleverly notes the touch of scorn in her face. If he had
recalled Reynolds' Mrs. Siddons he would hav recognized the same trait
of hardness around the mouth, a line that is often found in the pictures
of English women. Perhaps Tieck's interest went hand in hand with his
enthusiasm for Rafael, and lack of discrimination lets him take all as
of equal value. The face of young Lucius in "Titus Adronicus" and the
face of Juliet in the tomb are examples of this. Tieck argues that the
boy has a good deal of expression, but a cool observer can see only
melodrama in the pose and blankness in the face. The most interesting
thing about the plate has escaped Tieck's attention, namely that both of
Titus' hands are represented. It seems an especially noteworthy omission
in a picture which Tieck praises for not showing the stumps of
Lavinia.[32]

Tieck several times criticizes a picture for making a good first
impression and then not being able to stand the test of close
observation. An example of this is Northcote's portrayal of Mortimer and
York (1 "Henry VI.," II, 5) which is really spoild according to Tieck by
the strong light masses which at first sight seem very striking. These
light masses throw the main figure into relief, but Tieck objects to the
unnatural posture of the dying man. Close examination of the figure
reveals the fact that Mortimer is really well drawn; the lines of the
drapery distort the general impression, but that part of the drawing
comprising the actual sitting figure is that of a broken old man, fallen
in a heap and dying. Any one who has seen Irving's masterly
representation of the dying Louis cannot but be imprest by the
verisimilitude of Northcote's presentation. What Tieck says of the minor
characters on the plate is true; they are expressionless in the extreme.

Tieck is fully justified in calling Reynolds' scene from "Henry VI."
"dieses abscheuliche Blatt," where the word "abscheulich" is reminiscent
of the _Anzeigen_. He asks further, "Ist dies der Künstler der Familie
des Ugolino?"[33] With much better right he might hav askt, "Is this the
painter of the 'Age of Innocence' and the man who loved to paint
children?" Both the Shakspere plate and the stiff Ugolino picture
attempt to portray the horrible, and the only other plate that Sir
Joshua did for the "Gallery," namely, the Hecate plate from "Macbeth,"
the same selection of a grewsome subject is made. Neither of these
pictures can be sed to conform with Reynolds' well-known doctrin that
the function of art is to arouse the imagination, for in these pictures
there is nothing left for the imagination but exhaustion. They show a
vein of the bizarre without the great fancy of Füessli and are realistic
to a degree that stopt at nothing. It is not to be wonderd at that Tieck
exhausts himself in condemnation of the plate that he saw.

It is plain that Tieck saw in the plate a caricature and an evasion. The
caricature was the dying man and the evasion was the veild face of the
young king. Tieck felt that the artist had veild the face of his
character to conceal his want of skill in the portrayal of a supreme
moment of emotion. Here Tieck certainly breaks with the doctrin of
Lessing who praised the expedient of Timanthes in veiling the face of
Agamemnon at the sacrifice. Tieck tacitly accuses Reynolds of shirking
an obvious task. He wisht something superlativ, whether in fleeting
expression or in that permanency which is caused by iterativ emotion.
Such a desire, the emfasizing of Shakspere's "Kraft" and "Energie"
leaves him on the plane of the Storm and Stress in his attitude toward
the British poet.[34] If the words of Sir Joshua himself are to be taken
as a criterion, his theory is different from his practis in this case,
and Tieck has condemd him out of his own mouth.

Beauford, whom Tieck calls a caricature, certainly leaves nothing to
the imagination, as Reynolds wisht for art.[35] Tieck's description of
the figure is apt, "Beauford liegt da, mit den Zähnen grinsend, das Bett
in Verzuckungen kneifend, eine ekelhafte, verzerrte Caricatur, über die
man lachen könnte, wenn sie etwas weniger abscheulich wäre. Genie and
Enthusiasmus können hier die Hand und Kritik unmöglich irre geführt
haben; denn weder das eine, noch der andere gehört dazu, um diese Züge,
diese Umrisse hervorzubringen."

The word caricature is, even before he found it in the _Anzeigen_, a
term of deepest reproach with Tieck. In his essays to Wackenroder he
says, speaking of a certain actor, "Ich gestehe dass er vielleicht viele
Scenen natürlich und einige komish darstellt, aber nach meinem Urtheil
spielt er in keiner einzigen schön, mit einem Worte, er macht
Carrikatur, und die kann nie schön sein, wenn sie auch noch so vielen
Ausdruck hat. Das Komische und das Schreckhafte gränzen überhaupt
vielleicht näher aneinander, als man glaubt ... Vielleicht ist das wahre
komische Spiel so wie Unzelmann est giebt, alles so leicht, so
übergehend, keine Periode, keine Idee, keine Stellung möglichst
festgehalten, keine Grimasse in Stein verwandelt."

After pointing out the value of the unspoild taste of childhood in
matters of esthetic judgment, Tieck continues: "Du kannst leicht die
Erfahrung machen, dass Carrikaturen den Kindern nie gefallen, denn sie
erkennen in ihnen nur mit Mühe den Menschen wieder, sie fürchten sie
wirklich; sie können ungleich länger eine andre Figur ohne Ausdruck und
bestimmten Charakter betrachten, ja tagelang darüber brüten, und
Ausdruck und Charakter hineintragen, hundert Träume spinnen sich in
ihrer Seele aus, ... Carrikaturen gefallen überhaupt vielleicht nur
einem kalten nördlichen Volke, dessen Gefühl für den feinen Stachel der
stillen Schönheit zu grob ist, oder die schon die Schule der Schönheit
durchgegangen sind, und deren übersatten Magen nur noch die gewürztesten
Speisen reizen können, die es daher gern sehen, wenn die Schönheit dem
Ausdruck aufgeopfert wird, weil sie in der Schönheit keinen lebenden
Ausdruck mehr finden. Du wirst sehen, dass ich hier nicht bloss von der
komischen Carrikatur spreche, sondern von jedem Ausdruck irgend einer
Leidenschaft, der die Schönheit ausschliesst." He then goes on to
indicate the relation of what he had sed to Lessing and confesses his
indetedness to him in the matter. The highest effects when used in
sculpture and painting are also caricature.[36]

Paralel to this statement in the letters is the discussion in the essay
of the valu of the comedies of Shakspere over his tragedies as material
for illustration. Tieck says (page 15), "Im Trauerspiele ersteigen
meistentheils gerade die schönsten Scenen eine Höhe des Effects, die der
Maler schwerlich ausdrücken kann, ohne widrig zu werden. Der
Schauspieler verliert schon oft jene Grazie, die jedem Kunstwerke nöthig
ist, wenn er manche Scenen der tragischen Kraft so wiedergeben will, wie
er sie im Dichter findet, doch kann die Mimik hier noch das Unangenehme
vermeiden; der Malerei ist es aber meist unmöglich, denn jene
Verzerrungen, die auf der Bühne nur vorübergehend sind, werden hier
bleibend gemacht; dort erschrecken sie durch ihr plötzliches Entstehen
und Verschwinden, hier werden sie ekelhaft, weil durch das Feststehende
und Bleibende des Widrigen der dargestellte Mensch zum Thier herabsinkt.
Jemehr der Maler den Affekt hinauftreibt, desto mehr nimmt er zugleich
Interesse und Tadel von seinem Helden. Die höchsten Grade des Zorns, der
Wuth oder der Verzweifelung bleiben im Gemälde stets unedel; selbst der
Wahnsinn muss hier mit einer gewissen Schüchternheit auftreten, und im
höchsten Entzücken muss ein sanfter Wiederschein der Melancholie
leuchten." The relation of this to Lessing, both in the "Laokoon" and in
the "Dramaturgie" is at once apparent.

The dislike for caricature centers around the comic efforts of Smirke
for whom Tieck has hardly a good word to say. In the discussion of
Reynolds' picture, Tieck remarks, half in jest, that he regrets his
strictures on Smirke in the face of this greater caricature by Reynolds.
The sum total of his criticisms of Smirke is unjust: thruout the series
and especially in some of the plates that Tieck saw, this painter has
caught the comic spirit well, and tho overpraisd by his contemporaries,
has done some very clever work both in the "Gallery" and in Bell's
"British Theater."[37]

Tieck's principal censures are directed against the figure of Simple in
the "Merry Wives" and that of Dogberry in the comic trial in "Much Ado."
Simple is for Tieck neither the character as Shakspere conceived him,
nor is he funny. It is again, says Tieck, a mere exaggeration,
tantamount to a confession of inability. That the spectator cannot laugh
at the character is the artist's greatest punishment; in overstepping
the just limits of the comic and the natural, he has made the figure
insignificant. Unlike Hogarth, says Tieck, Smirke has not the power of
expressing character by means of the distortions of the exterior. To put
an artist below Hogarth is with Tieck to put him very low; in this
respect he stands on the plane of August von Schlegel in the _Athenæum_
and has not risen to the level of admiration for the Englishman
displayed by Novalis in the "Fragments."

The best that Tieck can say for the Dogberry scene as a whole is, that
in spite of its exaggerations, it has much comic power. But, he goes on
to explain, it is a far different thing for Smirke to exaggerate than
for Shakspere, for the latter always draws human beings, while the
figures of the former are at times hardly to be distinguisht from apes.

To a certain extent the figure of Dogberry and more especially the face,
justify Tieck's repugnance. In its way, the face is fully as bad as that
of Reynolds' Beauford. Tieck says, "Selbst ein vertrauter Leser des
Shakspeare findet sich nicht in den hier dargestellen Caricaturen, von
denen die Hauptperson in einer Wuth, die lächerlich sein soll, so
ekelhaft verzerrt wird, dass man nur ungern mit dem Blick auf dieser
Zeichnung verweilt." This is in every respect tru. Smirke has here mist
all the comic elements of the character, and has produced not the
ridiculous malapropian Dogberry but a demoniac grinning mask of a face
and a twisted, distorted and frenzied figure. Tieck proceeds, "Ein
Künstler, der die komischen Scenen des Shakspeare darstellen will,
sollte doch von seinem Dichter so viel gelernt haben, dass dieser seine
Caricaturen nie ohne eine gewisse Portion von phlegmatischer Laune
lässt, die so oft unser Lachen erregt, und aus der blossen Erfahrung
sollte er wissen, dass selbst der lächerlichste Zwerg, wenn er schäumt,
in eben dem Augenblicke aufhört lächerlich zu sein. Jedes Subject hört
auf, komisch zu sein, sobald ich es in einen hohen Grad von Leidenschaft
versetze. Denn das Lächerliche in den Charakteren entsteht gewöhnlich
nur durch die seltsam widersprechende Mischung des Affects und des
inneren Phlegma; wenigstens so hat Shakspeare seine wirklich komischen
Personen gezeichnet. Der Mangel an Genie zeigt sich gewöhnlich in
Uebertreibung und gesuchten Verzerrungen des Körpers."[38]

The scene from the "Merry Wives" in which Dr. Cajus catechizes William
on his Latin, represents very well the type of scene the choice of which
Tieck condems as unsuited for representation. It is not because there
was something in the humor of them that Tieck did not grasp, but because
he rejects on principle all that is secondary and episodical. Such
scenes as are told and not acted, that is, the epic portions of the
plays, as well as the reflectiv and filosofical portions would hav to be
excluded. It is the fate of the principal characters which is of prime
importance, and the moment must be chosen with their activities in view.
This emfasis on the principal character is also strongly reminiscent of
the doctrin of Lessing's "Dramaturgie." It has been shown how it affects
what Tieck has to say about composition and it is the prime factor in
his feeling for what is the proper moment and subject of representation.

Some of the scenes which Tieck rejects are Hodges' picture of the
melancholy Jacques, and the murder of the princes in "Richard III."
Neither of these is acted out on the stage. From the "Merry Wives" he
proposes Falstaff's three adventures: the basket scene, the Witch of
Brentford scene and the final torturing of Falstaff by the practical
jokers. These giv a chance for variety of grouping and a gradation of
expression in all the chief characters of the play. The scene in which
the two women read identical letters from Falstaff, Tieck regards as the
worst possible, for reasons that he says he need not recall but which
are obviously those of lack of stress on the main character.

The scenes that Tieck recommends were actually chosen by the artists
whose work appears later in the series and so Tieck's judgment is, in a
way, confirmd. These scenes are the skeleton of the farce element and
bring out the structure of the Falstaff plot which Tieck evidently
regards as the main theme. It is interesting to note, however, how
little the choice of subject has to do with the artistic merit or
demerit of the plates. The subsequent plates, which would hav fully
satisfied Tieck's requirements as to the moment of presentation are
artistically among the worst in the series.

The two scenes from "As You Like It" suggested by Tieck, the one where
Adam admonishes Orlando (II, 3) and the scene in the forest where
Orlando enters bearing Adam on his shoulders (II, 7) hav not the same
structural relation to the whole as hav those from the "Merry Wives."
These moments lend themselves very well to representation but are chosen
on another basis of judgment. They show that for Tieck Orlando was of
more importance than Rosalind, for he suggests no scene with her in it
as especially representativ of the play. In the first of these two
scenes, the action has already begun; the scene is the culmination of
the episode containing the first relation of the brothers. It is in
itself not a vital part of the action. The scene in the forest, on the
other hand, has more of the qualities demanded by Tieck: a variety of
characters and an important moment. This is a moment--tho not the
initial one--when Orlando's fortunes mend and he comes to his frends.
The scene in which he first meets the Duke's party is of more
significance. It seems as if the governing principle is contrast rather
than a desire for elucidation of structure in serial arrangment. Orlando
and Adam, ill-fortune and good luck, are juxtaposed.

Tieck conjectures that the eavesdropping scene from "Much Ado" (III, 1)
is included in the collection because it was played by popular actresses
of the contemporary English stage. Tieck misses the structural
importance of the scene. It is apart of the intrigue; it has a direct
effect on Beatrice who comes from it a changed woman. To Tieck, however,
it ment as little as the similar eavesdropping scene from "Love's Labor
Lost" (IV, 3), in which play he claims there is no suitable scene for
representation.

The scene from "Winter's Tale" in which Perdita welcomes the disguised
Duke (IV, 3), offering him flowers the while, is condemd in favor of the
one immediately following in which the Duke discloses himself. Here
again Tieck stresses the contrast and wishes a climax, a dramatic
moment. So he praises such scenes as the putting away of Hero at the
altar and the deth of Beauford, however much he derides the execution of
the latter, by Reynolds.

For the sake of bringing out the wretchedness of this execution, Tieck
points out that tho he has often before bewaild the choice of moment,
he cannot do so in this case for no better could hav been selected. He
details the good points in the scene: "Man denke sich einen Bösewicht
auf dem Todtenbette, den die Verzweifelung wahnsinnig gemacht hat, der
keine Seligkeit hofft; diesen besucht in seiner Todesstunde Heinrich,
der junge gefühlvolle König, ein Schwarmer in der Religion, der von
diesem Anblick auf das tiefste gerührt wird; Warwick und Salisbury, zwei
männliche Krieger, begleiten ihn hierher. Beauford ist die Hauptperson,
alle Zuschauer haben ihre gauze Aufmerksamkeit auf ihn gerichtet. Der
Künstler hätte hier rühren und erschüttern können; ich sehe in Gedanken
den weichen Heinrich Thränen vergiessen, im schönsten Contrast mit dem
Cardinal, der ihn, in der Abwesenheit seines Geistes, kalt und ohne
Bewusstsein anstarrt. Warwick und Salisbury, weniger gerührt, aber doch
interessante Physiognomien, die durch leichtere Nuancen von einander
unterschieden sind. So sehe ich in der Phantasie das schönste tragische
Gemälde ..."

In "Romeo and Juliet" the choice of the ball scene meets with Tieck's
disapproval. The scene is "Ohne Wirkung." Tieck's main reason why the
scene is not good is that the painter has interpreted literally the
metafor, "My lips two blushing pilgrims stand" and has represented Romeo
in the garb of a pilgrim to correspond to Juliet's anser, "Good
pilgrim." As Tieck rightly points out, there is no need for such a gise.
The choice of the more highly keyd situation at the supposed deth of
Juliet meets with Tieck's approval and shows that where there is a
choice, the emfasis of his selection is apt to be on the superlativ
moment.[39]

One other idea seems to be in Tieck's mind and it is hard to believe
that he was not unconsciously influenced by the stage presentation of
the plays when formulating it. That is the desire to hav a number of
people in the picture. Nearly all the plates that he condems hav but few
characters and his dictum of variety demands a reasonable number to
choose from. This dramatic point of view is in accord with his attitude
in all other fases of the discussion. It has been pointed out how rarely
the artistic makes the prime appeal to him.

Tieck's second point in regard to choice of subject is that the comedies
offer a wider field and a better opportunity than the tragedies. The
general basis for this notion is allied to his theory of the
worthlessness of caricature, that is, that there is an exaggeration, an
overacting of the part possible in tragedy that is less likely to occur
in comedy.

The statement of the evils of exaggeration is very sweeping and includes
in some of its details both comedy and tragedy: "Der dramatische Dichter
hat Momente in seinen Schauspielen, die kein Pinsel oder Griffel jemals
darstellen kann; ich meine jene Sprünge und überraschenden Wendungen des
Affectes, jene fürchterlichen Blitze des Genies, bei denen der Zuschauer
zusammenfährt, wo der Dichter unerwartet durch eine neue verdrängt:
diese Momente sind oft die glänzendsten des Schauspiels, und bei keinem
Dichter finden sie sich so häufig als bei Shakspeare in seinen
Tragödien." Tieck's illustration for this is the passage from Lear
beginning, "No, I will weep no more," etc. He continues, "welcher Maler
wird es wagen, wenn er den Sinn ganz durchdringt, ... diese Stelle auf
die Leinwand zu werfen? So innig diese Verse beim Lesen oder bei der
Darstellung rühren, so frostig würden sie vielleicht als ein Gemälde
dargestellt erscheinen: oder wenn sie auch hier rührten, so würde das
Gemälde doch nie jene Erschütterung in uns erregen, jenes Anschlagen von
hundert Gefühlen. Man würde immer nur den weinenden Lear sehen oder den
erzürnten Vater, der sich zur Kälte zwingt; das Ineinanderschmelzen
dieser beiden Empfindungen, verbunden mit der Verstandesschwäche, die
dem Schmerz endlich ganz erliegt und Wahnsinn wird, wäre selbst ein
Rafael unmöglich: hier steht ein grosser Grenzstein zwischen dem Gebiet
des Malers und des Dichters."

The result of overstepping these bounds is that the painter is likely to
enter into rivalry with the poet, to feel his lack of ability in the
struggle and to produce empty declamation insted of a work of the
creativ imagination and to offer to the spectator nothing for either
imagination or reason.

But in the comedies there are many moments which almost force themselves
on the painter. These are scenes in which he can portray the poet just
as he finds him and in which his rivalry is legitimate and, indeed, may
tend to make him surpass the poet. If he can do this it will be by
bringing out more plainly the light shades of the poet's meaning and he
will become a commentator, so to speak, of these. Under such
circumstances, the painter must be very careful to choose just the most
beautiful and most interesting passages.

The relation to Lessing is again at once clear. The culminating moment
of passion as it appears in the tragedies is not suitable from the
artistic point of view for reproduction but the comedies, from their
admixture of the flegmatic, the almost imperativ concomitant of
Shaksperean humor, tone down this superlativ expression and are
therefore within the pale. How Tieck carries out his theory in practis,
has been sufficiently shown: his love for the sentimental and
melodramatic, for the climatic and striking lead him to neglect his
delimiting theoretical remarks.

Before leaving the discussion of Tieck's article, it may be well to
compare it with another contemporary treatment of the Boydell Gallery.
This is by the famous traveler and publicist, George Forster. It was
Forster's account which furnisht Fiorillo with much of his data for the
treatment of the "Gallery" in his history of British art, but it is
hardly likely that the account is a source for Tieck. I hav no external
evidence and the internal evidence is entirely negativ.

If Friedrich Schlegel's estimate of Forster's artistic capabilities be
accepted, it is just such pictures as these, where the social interest
is great and the artistic valu is secondary, that should bring out
Forster's strength of judgment. Forster was also a finely discriminating
amateur, with a decided sense of tactile form based on a sincere love of
Greek art and confirmd by a study of Winkelmann and Lessing, beyond whom
he past in his appreciation of the portrait and the landscape and of the
coloring of the great masters.

Forster's essay, "Die Kunst und das Zeitalter" (1791), was written about
the time that he saw the Boydell pictures. It shows his attitude toward
Greek art and givs more than a hint of his standards which point so
clearly toward Schiller. His "Ansichten vom Niederrhein," especially the
discussions of the galleries and collections at Düsseldorf, Brussels and
Antwerp fully express his ideas on Dutch and Flemish art, especially
emfasizing the characteristics of Rubens for whose fleshy types Forster
had little use.

In the discussion of British art which comes as an appendix to the
"Ansichten," Forster includes a rather detaild description of the
Boydell paintings. He did not see the engravings, or rather, his
description is based on the paintings as they hung in the gallery in
Pall Mall and so the material of this sketch in two parts, is in one way
fundamentally different from that of Tieck. All the discussion of
technique in which Tieck was so weak, is entirely lacking in Forster.
His point of view, too, is different. He is the traveld, experienced man
from whose traind eye and broad judgment more may be expected than from
the student Tieck. There is, as Friedrich Schlegel says, an
out-of-doorness in Forster's work that Tieck could never hav had; the
over-emfasis on Shakspere on the part of the latter is only one product
of his inexperience.

In spite of all this, it is surprizing to find what correspondences
there are between the student Tieck and the more traind Forster. The
latter who knew vastly more of English life than Tieck, fails to
understand it in just those vital points where Tieck went farthest
astray. Smirke and Peters fare badly at his hands, perhaps because of a
certain puritanism in his atitude, or to quote Schlegel, because "Keine
Vollkommenheit der Darstellung konnte ihn mit einem Stoff aussöhnen, der
sein Zartgefühl verletzte, seine Sittlichkeit beleidigte oder seinen
Geist unbefriedigt liess." For this reason he can call one of the Peters
paintings from the "Merry Wives" a brothel (ein Speelhuis) or refer to
the women of that artist as "lockere Nymphen."

Besides the same general dislike for the caricatures of Smirke that was
noted in all previous instances, there is the usual praise of Hodges,
the usual condemnation of Opie's bad drawing. Füessli, too, comes in for
his share of the blame: "Der Beifall, welchen Füesslis Gemälde in
England erhalten, bezeichnet mehr als alles die Ueberspannung des
dortigen Kunstgeschmacks. Dieser junge Schweizer ... brachte nebst der
Kenntniss akademischer Modelle sein malerisches Kraftgenie mit sich über
das Meer; seiner Phantasie ward es wohl unter wilden Traumgestalten und
Bildern des Ungewöhnlichen. Diese Stimmung ... verführte ihn nur gar zu
bald zu allen Ausschweifungen der Manier. Es ist zwar leicht das
Alltägliche zu vermeiden, indem man Kontorsionen darstellt ..." (page
466). Again: "Es sind nicht Menschen, die dieser Künstler phantasiert,
sondern Ungeheuer in halb menschlicher Gestalt, mit einzeln sehr gross
gezeichneten und sehr verzerrten, verunstalteten Theilen und
Proportionen: ausgerenkte Handgelenke, aus dem Kopfe springende Augen,
Bocksphysiognomien u. s. f...." (page 503). Northcote is damned with the
faint praise "Nicht ohne Verdienst," a frase that clings to the
characterizations of his work from the _Anzeigen_ to Fiorillo. Barry is
shown to lack grace, noble greatness and beauty. His distorted figures
border on caricature and his forms are of giants, colossi. His coloring
is bad in spite of his theoretical knowlege and good drawing.

Forster sees thru Angelika Kaufmann and Hamilton better than Tieck did.
Hamilton's paintings are "Machwerk" and his figures move in
"Tanzschritt," while Angelika's are hermafroditic (page 501). "Die
deutsche Muse Angelika verbarg die Inkorrektheit und das Einerlei ihrer
allzuschlanken Figuren unter dem Schleier der Grazie und Unschuld" (page
459).

For Forster, Shakspere is the most logical portrayer of nature that ever
existed; he meets the painter halfway in his work by his excellent
characterization of the salient features of a personage and so givs the
painter sharply defined subjects for his fantasy. For the artists of the
British school this is especially valuable because effect is their
highest aim and beauty only secondary. Extremes of passion,
astonishment, surprize are strivn for. "Sie hascht nach der Wahrheit der
Natur in ihren grässlichen Augenblicken und erlaubt ihrer Phantasie den
verwegenen Flug, nicht in das schöne Feenland des Ideals sondern in die
verbotene Region der Geister und Gespenster."

But while the general condemnation of British artists shows far more
perspectiv than is found in Tieck, the acquaintance with the details of
Shakspere's plays is never drawn on to point out any defects in choice
of subject matter. Forster can refer to the acted plays from an
experience that was at this time still denied Tieck, but this experience
does not result in any well-defined theory of Shakspere-illustration as
a whole and as we found Tieck to hav. The melancholy Jacques in the
forest is a good scene for Forster, whereas Tieck rejected it as having
no structural relation to the rest of the play. Forster finds it worthy
of portrayal as one of the moments arising from Shakspere's variety of
scene, character and condition of life, to say nothing of the chance to
show the lonesome melancholy stag by the famous animal painter, Gilpin!

On Reynolds' famous Beauford picture, Tieck and Forster are entirely at
odds. For Tieck the execution is terrible, the choice of subject
satisfactory. For Forster, the choice is inexcusable, the execution in
part masterly; a dying criminal in his last throes seems to Forster an
utterly impossible subject for representation. So with Kirk's picture
from "Titus Adronicus": in spite of the attempt to meliorate the
impression of the butcherd Lavinia, the whole picture remains for
Forster a disgusting sight. The conclusion is obvious: Forster's sense
of delicacy rebeld at the crass and brutal; wildness and terror shockt
him.

But if Tieck's article compares favorably with Forster's in all points
respecting the "Gallery" itself, it must be confest that the political,
patriotic note, the application to Germany of the principles of national
betterment in art which arose in the mind of Boydell, escape him. He was
not, of course, like Forster, a political writer, and revolutionary
conditions had no immediate interest for him as for the older man. And
so his art criticism does not look forward to Germany as does Forster's
or as does that of a propagandist like Kleist in his _Abendblætter_
article. Tieck does not rise above the milieu; the "Gallery" offers no
hold with which to test contemporary art in his own land. It is only a
beginning, clearsighted in part and in general sustaind, an ernest of
what the matured criticism of the Romantic school was later on to do.




NOTES

[1] Die Kupferstiche nach der Shakspeare-Gallerie in London. Briefe an
    einen Freund. 1793. "Kritische Schriften," vol. I, pages 3-34. [Kr.
    Sch.]

[2] For full title, see bibliografy.

[3] E. g. in the letters.

[4] Krit. Sch. I, 4. Jean Paul, Titan, I, 42. [Berlin, 1827.]

[5] 1719-1804.

[6] Preface to the Prospectus and quoted in the preface to the
    "Gallery."

[7] The facts on the "Gallery" are pretty well scatterd. The
    statements in Allibone are not all correct. See Graves, "New
    Light on Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery," _Magazine of Art_, vol.
    XXI, page 143 ff. For some details as to the disposition of the
    pictures, see "Notes and Queries," series 2, vol. VIII, vol. IX,
    313, vol. X, 52. Also Pye, "Patronage of British Art," London,
    1848.

[8] Preface to critical works.

[9] Page 7.

[10] Copy in the Columbia University Library.

[11] Mr. L. L. Mackall kindly furnisht me with this information.

[12] This Ms. (79 pp., vellum, quarto) contains the signatures
    of all the subscribers or their agents. Romney, Warren Hastings,
    Wedgewood, the King, the Queen and the Prince Regent besides a
    number of English "persons of quality" are represented. The
    poets are conspicuously wanting. The King of England gave the
    copy to the University Library. Cp. _Gœttinger Gelehrte
    Anzeigen_ (G. G. A.) 1791, page 1793; 1793, page 561.

[13] At least until after the time concerned here. This from
    Wüstenfeld on the contributor to the _Anzeigen_ furnisht by
    Professor Wilkens.

[14] The plates which come into consideration and the order in which
    they occur in Tieck are as follow:

    "Love's Labor Lost," Tieck, page 9, (1) IV, 1 (G. G. A., 1794, page
      10); (2) IV, 2, small plates; (3) V, 2.

    "Merry Wives of Windsor," Tieck, page 10, I, 1 (G. G. A., 1794,
      page 969); page 12, II, 1 (G. G. A., 1794, page 969); page 13
      (G. G. A., page 959); page 13, I, 4; IV, 1, small plates (G. G.
      A., 1794, page 970); V, 5.

    "Twelfth Night," II, 3 (G. G. A., 1794, page 970); Tieck, page 15. A
      small plate.

    "Two Gent. Verona," Tieck, page 16, Last Scene (G. G. A., 1793, page
     903); 17, IV, 3. Small plate.

    "As You Like It," Tieck, page 17, II, 1 (G. G. A., 1793, page
      561); page 17, last scene (G. G. A., 1793, page 561).

    "Much Ado About Nothing," Tieck, page 19, III, 1 (G. G. A.,
      1791, page 1794); IV, 1; IV, 2.

     "Winter's Tale," Tieck, page 21, II, 3 (G. G. A., 1794, page 9);
      IV, 3; V, 3; page 22, two small plates (G. G. A., 1794, page
      10).

    I "Henry VI.," Tieck, page 24, II, 5 (G. G. A., 1794, page 970).

    II "Henry VI.," Tieck page 25, III, 3 (G. G. A., 1794, page 10).

    "Richard III.," Tieck, page 27, III, 1 (G. G. A., 1791, page
      1794).

    "Titus Andronicus," Tieck, page 28, IV, 1 (G. G. A., 1794, page
      970); page 29 (G. G. A. 1794, page 970).

    "Romeo and Juliet," Tieck, page 30, I, 5 (G. G. A., 1793, page 561);
      IV, 5 (G. G. A. page 561); V, 3 (G. G. A., 1793, page 562).

    "King Lear," Tieck, page 31, I, 1 (G. G. A., 1793, page 903-4);
      page 32, III, 4 (G. G. A. 1793, page 904); page 33, last scene
      (G. G. A., 1793, page 904); page 34 (G. G. A., 1793, Page 904).

Tieck mentions in all 39 plates; of these 24 are large plates
    and the rest small ones. In only 6 instances does Tieck enter
    into even a slite criticism of the small plates. In some cases,
    his remarks are so meager that it is only by a comparison with
    the original that we can tell what plate he means.

[15] Boydell's Catalog, page 28 ff. It may be worth while to
    mention in this connection that the Catalog has a number of
    errors in the list of these supplementary plates. The proof was
    red carelessly and the results are jumbled. Only by a careful
    comparison with the originals in the 1802 edition, for the
    results of which there is no room here, can this be straightend
    out.

[16] "Romantische Schule," page 57-8.

[17] For possible influence of Du Bos, cf. Tieck's doctrin of
    poetry as an imitativ art. Kr. Sch., page 24. See Howard,
    _Publications of the Mod. Lang. Assn._, vol. XXII, page 4. The
    letters to Wackenroder in Holtei, 300 Briefe, etc.

[18] Volbehr, Dessoir, Stöcker. D. L. D.

[19] Kr. Sch. I, 321. It is doutful if Tieck knew any of the
    Hogarth Shakspere plates. The dates of issu (Dobson, pp. 310,
    340 ff.) are all later than the writing of the Boydell article.
    For Tieck and Hogarth, Köpke, I, page 148.

[20] Of course the emfasis on color is entirely wanting in the
    body of the work. Tieck nowhere in the essay points out how
    engraving can suggest color.

[21] Literary paralels are at once apparent. So, Schiller's
    Prolog to "Wallenstein."

[22] Schriften, vol. X, pages 302-3.

[23] Weitenkampf, 155.

[24] One or two actual errors of fact hav crept into the paper.
    Kyder for Ryder and Northcate for Northcote. The latter error
    and Tieck's Slatbard may hav arisn, as Professor Wilkens
    suggested to me, from Tieck's notoriously bad handwriting which
    was misinterpreted by the compositor. At any rate, Tieck made no
    later effort to correct. The "Rev." before Peters' name misled
    both Tieck and Forster into laying too much emfasis on his
    sacerdotal function. The G. G. A. calls him a dilettante.

[25] Walzel, 279; Sulger-Gebing, 41, 154. Engel ("Angelika
    Kaufmann," 36, 37, 43) while not denying her preference for this
    dress, is of the opinion that it was not suited to her. "Im
    Schäferkleide, den Hirtenstab in der Hand, Atlaspantöffelchen an
    den Füssen, ein bebändertes Hütchen auf der gepuderten Coiffure,
    umgeben von einem Hofstaat schöngeistiger Verehrer und
    Verehrerinnen, so hatte sie unzweifelhaft eine weit natürlichere
    und tüchtigere Figur gemacht als in der Vestalinnentracht die
    sie--das Bregenzerwaldnymphlein--in der Folgezeit zu bevorzugen
    pflegte."

[26] Biografers of Sir Joshua generally agree that his pictures
    in this series, with the possible exception of "Puck," are
    failures. Boydell paid 400 and 1500 guineas for the two largest
    and this was considerd by some an exorbitant price.

[27] Minor's edition, pages 27, 30.

[28] There is the possibility of a crude symbolism having been
    intended for Shakspere's "Blow, winds," etc.

[29] The West picture was very popular. Cf. _Teutsche Mercur_,
    1791, pages 445-6, for a criticism of Berger's engraving from
    it.

[30] See, 300 Bfe. page 79.

[31] This is a difficult point to decide. The citizen class was
    limited by such sumptuary laws as is shown by the records, but
    most writers agree that the violations were open and common.

[32] The figure with the helmet is unquestionably that of
    Marius, the tribune. He enters from the street and is drest in
    street costume. Titus, who has been in the house, wears only a
    fillet around his hed. In the play, Marius commands the boy to
    stand near him for refuge, but in the picture the moment just
    previous is chosen, when the boy is still near his grandfather.
    Forster wrongly holds that the helmeted figure is Titus.

[33] Cf. A. W. v. Schlegel in _Athenæum_, 2, 212, "Man kennt
    Reynolds Ugolino aus dem Kupferstiche: es ist ein alter Mann,
    der hungert, aber es ist nicht Ugolino." For his criticism of
    Boydell, 2, 198.

[34] Marie Joachimi-Dege has given a very careful account of the
    erly Romantic and Storm and Stress attitude toward Shakspere.
    Her book needs supplementation thru a study of the Romantic
    Shakspere criticism, written from the English point of view.

[35] In his Academy discourses. Bohn ed., vol. I, page 460 ff.
    Reynolds points out that those who praise the "invention" of
    Timanthes in the Agamemnon picture hav not been painters but
    literary men. They use it as an illustration of their own art.
    He says, "I fear that we have but very scanty means of exciting
    those powers over the imagination which make so very
    considerable and refined a part of poetry. (Cf. Boydell's
    preface.) It is a doubt with me if we should even make the
    attempt. The chief, if not the only occasion which the painter
    has for this artifice, is when the subject is improper to be
    more fully represented, either for the sake of decency, or to
    avoid what would be disagreeable to be seen; and this is not to
    raise or increase the passions, which is the reason given for
    this practice, but on the contrary to diminish their effect....
    We cannot ... recommend an undeterminate manner or vague ideas
    of any kind, in a complete or finished picture. This notion,
    therefore, of leaving anything to the imagination opposes a very
    fixed and indispensible rule in our art,--that everything shall
    be carefully and distinctly expresst, as if the painter knew,
    with correctness and precision, the exact form and character of
    whatever is introduced into the picture. This ... must not be
    sacrificed ... for uncertain and doubtful beauty which, not
    naturally belonging to our art, will probably be sought for
    without success." After praising the artifis of Timanthes,
    Reynolds goes on to say, "Suppose this method of leaving the
    expression of grief to the imagination, to be ... the invention
    of the painter and that it deserves all the praise that has been
    given to it, it is still a trick that will serve only once;
    whoever does it a second time, will not only want novelty, but
    will be justly suspected of using artifice to evade
    difficulties. If difficulties overcome make a great part of the
    merit of Art, difficulties evaded can deserve but little
    commendation." Among the names of those who discuss the "trick"
    Lessing's is, of course, wanting. Gilray's satirical plate on
    Boydell should be compared for this and other points. Copy in N.
    Y. Public Library.

[36] In this connection, the letters mention Engel's
    "Mimik"(1785).

[37] Some of the latter pictures by Smirke are very fine; e. g.,
    the face of Jessica which justifies the statement of the Dict.
    Nat. Biog. that Smirke had "good drawing, refinement, quiet
    humor." Bryan has a cooler comment: "Smirke was well spoken of
    in the comedy vein." Tieck likes him better in tragedy (page
    34). Fiorillo's comment is "Seit Hogarths Zeiten hat kein
    Künstler so viel Charakter oder so viel Ausdruck in seine
    Figuren gebracht, noch eine Scene mit so viel echter Laune
    bearbeitet."

[38] To me the Tieck-Schlegel translation of this scene misses
    all the best points of the original. To be sure, Tieck had
    nothing to do with its translation. (Friesen, I, 136; Sybel,
    III, 463 ff). It was not that Tieck was not interested in puns,
    altho the Dr. Cajus scene seems uninteresting to him on that
    account. Tieck himself made a good many puns. Cf.
    "Viehsiognomie," the first lines of his sonnet on the sonnet and
    the "gemein" from the _Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek_ in
    "Das jüngste Gericht." His sensing of English puns seems not to
    hav been so keen. So in a discussion of Mss. readings toward the
    end of the essay on the erly English Theater (Kr. Sch. I, 320)
    after calling one faulty reading "Unsinn" he continues, "In
    derselben Rede:


        If you can construe but your doctor's bill
        Parse your wife's waiting woman, etc.


     Parse? Was kann das bedeuten? Pierce ist dem aufmerksamen Auge
     leserlich genug." Tieck seems to hav mist the play on the
     grammatical idea. To be sure, I hav not seen the Ms., but Tieck
     was no very careful reader or copyist.

[39] This is a scene where Tieck saw both L. and S. There were
    two different paintings of the same subject, one with fewer
    figures, and Tieck rightly points out that the less crowded one
    is the better. One of the engravings is by W. Blake and is not
    given in any list of that artist's work. Mr. W. G. Robertson,
    the most recent biografer of Blake informs me in a letter that
    he does not know it.




A PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY


Athenæum. Eine Zeitschrift von A. W. Schlegel und Friederich
    Schlegel, Zweiter Band. Berlin, 1799.

Boydell, John.
    Catalogue of the ... Shakspeare Gallery, London, 1789. The first
      edition of the catalog givs the painters' names only: subsequent
      editions add the names of the engravers. There are copies of the
      various editions in the Columbia, Harvard and New York Public
      Libraries.
    A Catalogue of Prints ... comprising the stock of J. and J.
      Boydell, London, 1808.
        Copy in N. Y. Public Library.
    A Collection of prints from pictures painted for the purpose of
      illustrating the dramatic works of Shakespeare, by the artists
      of Great Britain. London ... 1803, 2 vols. in one, atlas folio.
        There are many copies in the U. S. and there is also an American
        reprint with letterpress explanatory of the plates.

Dessoir, M. K. P. Moritz als Aesthetiker.

Dobson, Austin. William Hogarth, New York and London, 1907.

Engel, J. J. Ideen zu einer Mimik, 1848.

Engel. Angelika Kaufmann, 1903.

Fiorillo, J. D. Geschichte der zeichnenden Künste, etc. Bd. V.
    Geschichte der Malerei in Grossbrittanien. Göttingen, 1808.

Forster, Georg. Sämmtliche Schriften, III. Leipzig, 1843.

Friessen, H. von. Ludwig Tieck. Erinnerungen eines alten
    Freundes. Wien, 1872.

Göttingen. Anzeigen für Gelehrte Sachen, etc. The volumes from
    1791 to 1803 were used.

Haym, R. Die romantische Schule, 1870.

Holtei, K. Drei hundert Briefe aus zwei Jahrhunderten,
    Hannover, 1872.

Joachimi-Dege, M. Deutsche Shakspeare-Probleme im XVIII.
    Jahrhundert und im Zeitalter der Romantik. Leipzig, 1907.

Köpke, R. Ludwig Tieck, Leipzig, 1855.

Minor, J. Friedrich Schlegel. Seine prosaischen
    Jugendschriften, Wien 1906.

Tieck und Wackenroder. Kürschners D. N. L. Bd. 145.

Moritz, K. P. Ueber die nachahmende Bildung des Schönen. In D.
    L. D.

Reynolds, J. Academy Discourses. Bohn Edition, London, 1846.

Shakspere, W. The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, London,
    1802.
      This is the Steevens edition in nine volumes. Copy in New
      York Public Library.

Spooner, Shearjashub. Prospectus for publishing an American
    edition of Boydell's illustrations of Shakespeare, N. Y., 1848.

Sulger-Gebing. Die Brüder A. W. und F. Schlegel und die
    bildende Kunst, 1897.

Sybel. Erinnerungen an F. von Uechtritz. Leipzig, 1884.

Volbehr. Goethe und die bildende Kunst, 1897.

Walzel, O. F. Friedrich Schlegel's Briefe an seinen Bruder
    August Wilhelm. Berlin, 1890.

Wietenkampf, F. How to appreciate prints. New York, 1908.

Zelak. Tieck und Shakspere. Tarnopol, 1900.


       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Notes

There is much idiosyncratic spelling in both English and German. This
has been retained, apart from the following four typos:

page 15 "sehn" amended to "sehr";

page 30 "obobserver" amended to "observer";

page 40 "int he" amended to "in the";

page 54 "Grossbittanien" amended to "Grossbrittanien".

On page 32, the typo "est giebt" has been left unchanged: it could be
either "es giebt" or "erst giebt" (more likely).

Also on p. 32 "zu grob ist" should probably be "zu groß ist", but has
been left unchanged, as the letter ß does not appear elsewhere in the
text.

Three obvious errors in punctuation have also been amended, as follows:

page 12 "page 28." amended to "page 28:";

page 34 "darstellen will." amended to "darstellen will,";

page 41 Tanzschritt," amended to "Tanzschritt";

page 44 "G. G. A.." amended to "G. G. A.,".

page 48 "in in Das" amended to "in Das".

Anchors for footnootes 31 and 36 are missing. They have been inserted in
the most likely locations.