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 schoenen 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 _Goettinger
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 _Goettinger
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 _Goettinger 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.