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.