Chapter II: Part 2

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. _Goettinger 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.

<pre id="pg-footer">