light of the torch held by Gloster ("Lear," III, 4), Tieck shows that
this effect, striking as it is, detracts from the unity of the
composition, since it shifts the emfasis from Lear and his pain. Lear,
morover, is not the Lear of Shakspere but a giant, and the effect of
this Herculean form is made further improbable by the exaggeration of
the wind blowing from all directions in the picture and driving the
garments of Lear with it, winding them impossibly about him. The effect
of these draperies, says Tieck, is baroque and there is no thought of
quiet strength or noble simplicity.[28]
In the composition of this picture Tieck also notises that the figure of
Edgar is practically the same as that of a figure in West's Deth of
General Wolf. A comparison with the latter picture at once reveals the
justness of Tieck's observation. The figure of the Indian seated in the
foreground is strikingly like that of Edgar, both in form and in general
expression, and it is evident that West has repeated himself. In
general, Tieck does not make comparisons of this kind. He confines his
remarks to the picture itself, and probably was not well acquainted with
the run of contemporary British art.[29]
Tieck's judgment of composition did not go far beyond this emfasis on
the principal figure. A general series of colorless frases like "gut
geordnet" occurs, but expresses only a mild acquiescence in the
arrangement. Tieck was fond of the posing sentimentalities of groups
like the landscape plate from "Love's Labor Lost," but he tries hard to
get away from them toward a realism which drew upon actual perception
for its postulates and which was not based upon premises--inadequate for
art--of Shakspere illustration. On the other hand, and here he departs
constantly from the canon of Lessing, there is no striving for abstract
beauty. Charm and grace, beauty in motion as it is exprest by the female
figure in Anne Page and a few other cases, are Tieck's nearest approach
to it.[30]
The general reason for Tieck's failure is that in actuality these
pictures were not ugly or inartistic to him. Where he criticizes it is
oftenest the idea; the execution and the relation to an abstract
standard are of less consequence, and his theory once more limps behind
his practis. He may berate Hogarth as an artist without beauty but it is
clear that his extoling of Rafael is a mere matter of fashion; he is in
the same category with Domenichino, whom Tieck's generation and the next
succeeding one considerably overestimated. In Michaelangelo, Tieck
knows the strength of the drawing and not the wistfulness that pervades
even the most Titanic of the master's creations. In general, affectation
of pose, mannerism and preciosity are Tieck's bane only where the
sentimental is not concernd.
An interesting commendation of the composition of a plate is that of
Kirk's picture from "Titus Adronicus" (IV, 1). Tieck likes the plate
because of its taste and delicacy in only suggesting the mutilated arms
of Lavinia. Kirk has avoided the frank naturalism of the original by the
use of draperies, and this appeals to Tieck as a toning down and is in
line with what had been suggested before in regard to Tieck's attitude.
This plate has an accessory which Tieck objects to, namely the over
large colum in the background. Usually, but not in this case, Tieck
criticises the accessories from the standpoint of the stickler for
historical accuracy, rather than for any artistic merit or demerit. So
the tomb of the Capulets in "Romeo and Juliet" is not Italian of the
period, and the dresses of the women in "Merry Wives" are in violation
of the sumptuary laws of the time.[31] In the deth of Mortimer (1 "Henry
VI.," V, 2) the family tree lying on the ground adds a tuch of symbolism
which Tieck approves, tho in the same scene he criticizes the mean
character of the prison, saying that for such a noble prisoner a better
place of incarceration would hav been found.
Tieck makes no clear distinction between passing expression (Ausdruck)
and permanency of feature (Miene). His discussion of expression goes
hand in hand with composition, since, as was mentiond above, composition
has so close a relation to the placing of the principal character. There
is a definit point of view, however, in Tieck's discussions of
composition; in his strictures and encomiums on expression of face and
figure it is practically impossible to find a consistent _pou sto_. In
places, his powers of observation seem to hav deserted him and his
lapses are not attributable to a too great leaning on the articles in
the _Anzeigen_. Tieck's theoretical discussion of the common-sense
element in these illustrations may be ever so clear and his demands on
the artist may be ever so high, but his practical application of these
principles is by no means as strict as might be expected. Indeed, in
theory Tieck demands one thing and in practis another.
It is Tieck's desire that the artist should catch the individual note in
these figures and raise it to an ideal, that he should choose the
expression with care and never sacrifice it to coloring or drapery and
that he should avoid all necessity of using symbols to designate his
characters. But when Tieck actually examins the pictures, he stresses
theatrical pose or mien and pays no attention to those obvious tricks
whereby expression is obtainable: the skilful use of light and shade on
the face, the treatment of the lines of the mouth, and the placing of
the eyes. Occasionally, as in the ball scene in "Romeo and Juliet," it
seems as if the treatment of the eyes of a figure--in this case that of
Tybalt--attracted his attention, but there are so many other plates in
which the eyes are quite as good and are nevertheless past over, that
the instance of Tybalt seems fortuitous.
Tieck uses the expressions "ohne Ausdruck," "wenig Ausdruck" and "ohne
Charakter," "wenig Charakter" almost exclusively in his negativ
criticism of the plates and his positiv criticism substitutes "viel" for
"wenig." Such frases are not very definit and Tieck misapplies them
constantly. In four out of the five cases of Tieck's largest caption,
"ohne Ausdruck," he is certainly incorrect and the postulation of "wenig
Ausdruck" is wrong in at least two out of the three cases. It is not a
matter of personal opinion nor can it be a difference in point of view
between the twentieth century and the end of the eighteenth. It is
largely bad judgment on Tieck's part. In the three cases where Tieck
sees "vielen Ausdruck" not one is in reality especially distinguisht for
vividness. Two even vie with the most expressionless in feature and hav
no special pretentions to significance of posture. In the five plates
where Tieck uses "ohne Charakter" or "wenig Charakter," the epithets are
in general tru.
Tieck got the hint for an advers criticism of the faces of Mrs. Ford and
Mrs. Page from the _Anzeigen_. He exclaims, expanding his model, "Welch'
widrige Gesichter! welch' uninteresante Figuren!" There is in the pose
of Mrs. Page a most awkward droop of the neck, but in Mrs. Ford's face
there is a rollicking Irish drollery, a freshness of complexion and a
witchery of the eyes that are quite charming. The painting was by
Peters, whose "sprightly humor" was so much admired by his
contemporaries.
One of the two pictures of Leontes in the "Winter's Tale" shows his
giving the oath to Antigonous to destroy the child. In Leontes' frowning
face Tieck sees no expression, altho it is unquestionably one of the
most lively of the series. The stiffness of pose that Tieck objects to
in the picture may well be accounted for by the full suit of armor that
Leontes wears. The face is far more expressiv than that of the other
Leontes picture and yet Tieck's judgment on them is the same.
One of the most striking failures on Tieck's part to see character
interpretation of real subtlety is in Northcote's portrayal of "Richard
III." There can be no dout that Tieck's general dislike of the artist,
which was based on the adverse criticisms of the _Anzeigen_, led his
judgment astray. The face of Richard is all in all the most
characteristic of the series in so far as Tieck saw the series.
Richard's "subtle, false and trecherous" look with the smile of his grim
humor is well caught; the eyes and mouth are excellent and giv a very
adequate idea of the deviltry of the man, of his lewd cunning and his
scheming. What Tieck might well hav objected to is the sentimentalizing
of the two princes whom the artist has transmogrified into fat little
babies, just as in the next picture the two hav become well-fed little
beef-eaters.
As Tieck fails to see sentimentality in this picture, so he misses
extravagance in the church scene from "Much Ado." Tieck borrowd much in
this discussion from the _Anzeigen_ but his remarks on expression are
his own. He says that Leonato has too little expression. There can be no
dout as to the figure intended for Leonato. Claudio is identified by a
very theatrical gesture and by a Mefistofelian Don Juan behind him. The
fainting Hero, over whom Beatrice is bending, falls into Benedix' arms.
The only other figure, that of an older man, and who therefore cannot be
Benedix, is standing in a most theatrical posture with clencht fists,
eyes upturnd, rigid and ridiculous. If Tieck ment that this figure
should represent Leonato, he has shot wide of the mark in his criticism
and displays a most unrefined love of the melodramatic. Figures like
this are not often found in the "Gallery." Ordinarily excess of
sentiment and a cheap display of emotion giv way to stiffness and
awkwardness.
Tieck was dissatisfied with all the reproductions of Lear. They hav all
too much of the gigantic, too little of the childish old man. He points
out that the face as drawn by Füessli expresses nothing but rage; the
same exaggeration is found in the drawing of West who sacrifices truth,
nature and emotion to a striking first impression. Barry's Lear only
excites laughter and the lack of expression in the face is made up by
the storm-wind in the hair. Again, however, issu must be taken with
Tieck's attitude, for it is impossible to regard these faces as
expressionless. It is not that they hav too little, but too much, and of
a wrong kind. Tieck nowhere draws the clear distinction and nowhere
makes it evident that he regards "Ausdruck" as a term to be interpreted
in any but a common sense way.
It seems apparent that those plates which had a certain sentimentality,
a certain saccharin quality appeald to Tieck. He likes the prettiness of
Anne Page and cleverly notes the touch of scorn in her face. If he had
recalled Reynolds' Mrs. Siddons he would hav recognized the same trait
of hardness around the mouth, a line that is often found in the pictures
of English women. Perhaps Tieck's interest went hand in hand with his
enthusiasm for Rafael, and lack of discrimination lets him take all as
of equal value. The face of young Lucius in "Titus Adronicus" and the
face of Juliet in the tomb are examples of this. Tieck argues that the
boy has a good deal of expression, but a cool observer can see only
melodrama in the pose and blankness in the face. The most interesting
thing about the plate has escaped Tieck's attention, namely that both of
Titus' hands are represented. It seems an especially noteworthy omission
in a picture which Tieck praises for not showing the stumps of
Lavinia.[32]
Tieck several times criticizes a picture for making a good first
impression and then not being able to stand the test of close
observation. An example of this is Northcote's portrayal of Mortimer and
York (1 "Henry VI.," II, 5) which is really spoild according to Tieck by
the strong light masses which at first sight seem very striking. These
light masses throw the main figure into relief, but Tieck objects to the
unnatural posture of the dying man. Close examination of the figure
reveals the fact that Mortimer is really well drawn; the lines of the
drapery distort the general impression, but that part of the drawing
comprising the actual sitting figure is that of a broken old man, fallen
in a heap and dying. Any one who has seen Irving's masterly
representation of the dying Louis cannot but be imprest by the
verisimilitude of Northcote's presentation. What Tieck says of the minor
characters on the plate is true; they are expressionless in the extreme.
Tieck is fully justified in calling Reynolds' scene from "Henry VI."
"dieses abscheuliche Blatt," where the word "abscheulich" is reminiscent
of the _Anzeigen_. He asks further, "Ist dies der Künstler der Familie
des Ugolino?"[33] With much better right he might hav askt, "Is this the
painter of the 'Age of Innocence' and the man who loved to paint
children?" Both the Shakspere plate and the stiff Ugolino picture
attempt to portray the horrible, and the only other plate that Sir
Joshua did for the "Gallery," namely, the Hecate plate from "Macbeth,"
the same selection of a grewsome subject is made. Neither of these
pictures can be sed to conform with Reynolds' well-known doctrin that
the function of art is to arouse the imagination, for in these pictures
there is nothing left for the imagination but exhaustion. They show a
vein of the bizarre without the great fancy of Füessli and are realistic
to a degree that stopt at nothing. It is not to be wonderd at that Tieck
exhausts himself in condemnation of the plate that he saw.
It is plain that Tieck saw in the plate a caricature and an evasion. The
caricature was the dying man and the evasion was the veild face of the
young king. Tieck felt that the artist had veild the face of his
character to conceal his want of skill in the portrayal of a supreme
moment of emotion. Here Tieck certainly breaks with the doctrin of
Lessing who praised the expedient of Timanthes in veiling the face of
Agamemnon at the sacrifice. Tieck tacitly accuses Reynolds of shirking
an obvious task. He wisht something superlativ, whether in fleeting
expression or in that permanency which is caused by iterativ emotion.
Such a desire, the emfasizing of Shakspere's "Kraft" and "Energie"
leaves him on the plane of the Storm and Stress in his attitude toward
the British poet.[34] If the words of Sir Joshua himself are to be taken
as a criterion, his theory is different from his practis in this case,
and Tieck has condemd him out of his own mouth.
Beauford, whom Tieck calls a caricature, certainly leaves nothing to
the imagination, as Reynolds wisht for art.[35] Tieck's description of
the figure is apt, "Beauford liegt da, mit den Zähnen grinsend, das Bett
in Verzuckungen kneifend, eine ekelhafte, verzerrte Caricatur, über die
man lachen könnte, wenn sie etwas weniger abscheulich wäre. Genie and
Enthusiasmus können hier die Hand und Kritik unmöglich irre geführt
haben; denn weder das eine, noch der andere gehört dazu, um diese Züge,
diese Umrisse hervorzubringen."
The word caricature is, even before he found it in the _Anzeigen_, a
term of deepest reproach with Tieck. In his essays to Wackenroder he
says, speaking of a certain actor, "Ich gestehe dass er vielleicht viele
Scenen natürlich und einige komish darstellt, aber nach meinem Urtheil
spielt er in keiner einzigen schön, mit einem Worte, er macht
Carrikatur, und die kann nie schön sein, wenn sie auch noch so vielen
Ausdruck hat. Das Komische und das Schreckhafte gränzen überhaupt
vielleicht näher aneinander, als man glaubt ... Vielleicht ist das wahre
komische Spiel so wie Unzelmann est giebt, alles so leicht, so
übergehend, keine Periode, keine Idee, keine Stellung möglichst
festgehalten, keine Grimasse in Stein verwandelt."
After pointing out the value of the unspoild taste of childhood in
matters of esthetic judgment, Tieck continues: "Du kannst leicht die
Erfahrung machen, dass Carrikaturen den Kindern nie gefallen, denn sie
erkennen in ihnen nur mit Mühe den Menschen wieder, sie fürchten sie
wirklich; sie können ungleich länger eine andre Figur ohne Ausdruck und
bestimmten Charakter betrachten, ja tagelang darüber brüten, und
Ausdruck und Charakter hineintragen, hundert Träume spinnen sich in
ihrer Seele aus, ... Carrikaturen gefallen überhaupt vielleicht nur
einem kalten nördlichen Volke, dessen Gefühl für den feinen Stachel der
stillen Schönheit zu grob ist, oder die schon die Schule der Schönheit
durchgegangen sind, und deren übersatten Magen nur noch die gewürztesten
Speisen reizen können, die es daher gern sehen, wenn die Schönheit dem
Ausdruck aufgeopfert wird, weil sie in der Schönheit keinen lebenden
Ausdruck mehr finden. Du wirst sehen, dass ich hier nicht bloss von der
komischen Carrikatur spreche, sondern von jedem Ausdruck irgend einer
Leidenschaft, der die Schönheit ausschliesst." He then goes on to
indicate the relation of what he had sed to Lessing and confesses his
indetedness to him in the matter. The highest effects when used in
sculpture and painting are also caricature.[36]
Paralel to this statement in the letters is the discussion in the essay
of the valu of the comedies of Shakspere over his tragedies as material
for illustration. Tieck says (page 15), "Im Trauerspiele ersteigen
meistentheils gerade die schönsten Scenen eine Höhe des Effects, die der
Maler schwerlich ausdrücken kann, ohne widrig zu werden. Der
Schauspieler verliert schon oft jene Grazie, die jedem Kunstwerke nöthig
ist, wenn er manche Scenen der tragischen Kraft so wiedergeben will, wie
er sie im Dichter findet, doch kann die Mimik hier noch das Unangenehme
vermeiden; der Malerei ist es aber meist unmöglich, denn jene
Verzerrungen, die auf der Bühne nur vorübergehend sind, werden hier
bleibend gemacht; dort erschrecken sie durch ihr plötzliches Entstehen
und Verschwinden, hier werden sie ekelhaft, weil durch das Feststehende
und Bleibende des Widrigen der dargestellte Mensch zum Thier herabsinkt.
Jemehr der Maler den Affekt hinauftreibt, desto mehr nimmt er zugleich
Interesse und Tadel von seinem Helden. Die höchsten Grade des Zorns, der
Wuth oder der Verzweifelung bleiben im Gemälde stets unedel; selbst der
Wahnsinn muss hier mit einer gewissen Schüchternheit auftreten, und im
höchsten Entzücken muss ein sanfter Wiederschein der Melancholie
leuchten." The relation of this to Lessing, both in the "Laokoon" and in
the "Dramaturgie" is at once apparent.
The dislike for caricature centers around the comic efforts of Smirke
for whom Tieck has hardly a good word to say. In the discussion of
Reynolds' picture, Tieck remarks, half in jest, that he regrets his
strictures on Smirke in the face of this greater caricature by Reynolds.
The sum total of his criticisms of Smirke is unjust: thruout the series
and especially in some of the plates that Tieck saw, this painter has
caught the comic spirit well, and tho overpraisd by his contemporaries,
has done some very clever work both in the "Gallery" and in Bell's
"British Theater."[37]
Tieck's principal censures are directed against the figure of Simple in
the "Merry Wives" and that of Dogberry in the comic trial in "Much Ado."
Simple is for Tieck neither the character as Shakspere conceived him,
nor is he funny. It is again, says Tieck, a mere exaggeration,
tantamount to a confession of inability. That the spectator cannot laugh
at the character is the artist's greatest punishment; in overstepping
the just limits of the comic and the natural, he has made the figure
insignificant. Unlike Hogarth, says Tieck, Smirke has not the power of
expressing character by means of the distortions of the exterior. To put
an artist below Hogarth is with Tieck to put him very low; in this
respect he stands on the plane of August von Schlegel in the _Athenæum_
and has not risen to the level of admiration for the Englishman
displayed by Novalis in the "Fragments."
The best that Tieck can say for the Dogberry scene as a whole is, that
in spite of its exaggerations, it has much comic power. But, he goes on
to explain, it is a far different thing for Smirke to exaggerate than
for Shakspere, for the latter always draws human beings, while the
figures of the former are at times hardly to be distinguisht from apes.
To a certain extent the figure of Dogberry and more especially the face,
justify Tieck's repugnance. In its way, the face is fully as bad as that
of Reynolds' Beauford. Tieck says, "Selbst ein vertrauter Leser des
Shakspeare findet sich nicht in den hier dargestellen Caricaturen, von
denen die Hauptperson in einer Wuth, die lächerlich sein soll, so
ekelhaft verzerrt wird, dass man nur ungern mit dem Blick auf dieser
Zeichnung verweilt." This is in every respect tru. Smirke has here mist
all the comic elements of the character, and has produced not the
ridiculous malapropian Dogberry but a demoniac grinning mask of a face
and a twisted, distorted and frenzied figure. Tieck proceeds, "Ein
Künstler, der die komischen Scenen des Shakspeare darstellen will,
sollte doch von seinem Dichter so viel gelernt haben, dass dieser seine
Caricaturen nie ohne eine gewisse Portion von phlegmatischer Laune
lässt, die so oft unser Lachen erregt, und aus der blossen Erfahrung
sollte er wissen, dass selbst der lächerlichste Zwerg, wenn er schäumt,
in eben dem Augenblicke aufhört lächerlich zu sein. Jedes Subject hört
auf, komisch zu sein, sobald ich es in einen hohen Grad von Leidenschaft
versetze. Denn das Lächerliche in den Charakteren entsteht gewöhnlich
nur durch die seltsam widersprechende Mischung des Affects und des
inneren Phlegma; wenigstens so hat Shakspeare seine wirklich komischen
Personen gezeichnet. Der Mangel an Genie zeigt sich gewöhnlich in
Uebertreibung und gesuchten Verzerrungen des Körpers."[38]
The scene from the "Merry Wives" in which Dr. Cajus catechizes William
on his Latin, represents very well the type of scene the choice of which
Tieck condems as unsuited for representation. It is not because there
was something in the humor of them that Tieck did not grasp, but because
he rejects on principle all that is secondary and episodical. Such
scenes as are told and not acted, that is, the epic portions of the
plays, as well as the reflectiv and filosofical portions would hav to be
excluded. It is the fate of the principal characters which is of prime
importance, and the moment must be chosen with their activities in view.
This emfasis on the principal character is also strongly reminiscent of
the doctrin of Lessing's "Dramaturgie." It has been shown how it affects
what Tieck has to say about composition and it is the prime factor in
his feeling for what is the proper moment and subject of representation.
Some of the scenes which Tieck rejects are Hodges' picture of the
melancholy Jacques, and the murder of the princes in "Richard III."
Neither of these is acted out on the stage. From the "Merry Wives" he
proposes Falstaff's three adventures: the basket scene, the Witch of
Brentford scene and the final torturing of Falstaff by the practical
jokers. These giv a chance for variety of grouping and a gradation of
expression in all the chief characters of the play. The scene in which
the two women read identical letters from Falstaff, Tieck regards as the
worst possible, for reasons that he says he need not recall but which
are obviously those of lack of stress on the main character.
The scenes that Tieck recommends were actually chosen by the artists
whose work appears later in the series and so Tieck's judgment is, in a
way, confirmd. These scenes are the skeleton of the farce element and
bring out the structure of the Falstaff plot which Tieck evidently
regards as the main theme. It is interesting to note, however, how
little the choice of subject has to do with the artistic merit or
demerit of the plates. The subsequent plates, which would hav fully
satisfied Tieck's requirements as to the moment of presentation are
artistically among the worst in the series.