Reynolds points out that those who praise the "invention" of
Timanthes in the Agamemnon picture hav not been painters but
literary men. They use it as an illustration of their own art.
He says, "I fear that we have but very scanty means of exciting
those powers over the imagination which make so very
considerable and refined a part of poetry. (Cf. Boydell's
preface.) It is a doubt with me if we should even make the
attempt. The chief, if not the only occasion which the painter
has for this artifice, is when the subject is improper to be
more fully represented, either for the sake of decency, or to
avoid what would be disagreeable to be seen; and this is not to
raise or increase the passions, which is the reason given for
this practice, but on the contrary to diminish their effect....
We cannot ... recommend an undeterminate manner or vague ideas
of any kind, in a complete or finished picture. This notion,
therefore, of leaving anything to the imagination opposes a very
fixed and indispensible rule in our art,--that everything shall
be carefully and distinctly expresst, as if the painter knew,
with correctness and precision, the exact form and character of
whatever is introduced into the picture. This ... must not be
sacrificed ... for uncertain and doubtful beauty which, not
naturally belonging to our art, will probably be sought for
without success." After praising the artifis of Timanthes,
Reynolds goes on to say, "Suppose this method of leaving the
expression of grief to the imagination, to be ... the invention
of the painter and that it deserves all the praise that has been
given to it, it is still a trick that will serve only once;
whoever does it a second time, will not only want novelty, but
will be justly suspected of using artifice to evade
difficulties. If difficulties overcome make a great part of the
merit of Art, difficulties evaded can deserve but little
commendation." Among the names of those who discuss the "trick"
Lessing's is, of course, wanting. Gilray's satirical plate on
Boydell should be compared for this and other points. Copy in N.
Y. Public Library.
[36] In this connection, the letters mention Engel's
"Mimik"(1785).
[37] Some of the latter pictures by Smirke are very fine; e. g.,
the face of Jessica which justifies the statement of the Dict.
Nat. Biog. that Smirke had "good drawing, refinement, quiet
humor." Bryan has a cooler comment: "Smirke was well spoken of
in the comedy vein." Tieck likes him better in tragedy (page
34). Fiorillo's comment is "Seit Hogarths Zeiten hat kein
Künstler so viel Charakter oder so viel Ausdruck in seine
Figuren gebracht, noch eine Scene mit so viel echter Laune
bearbeitet."
[38] To me the Tieck-Schlegel translation of this scene misses
all the best points of the original. To be sure, Tieck had
nothing to do with its translation. (Friesen, I, 136; Sybel,
III, 463 ff). It was not that Tieck was not interested in puns,
altho the Dr. Cajus scene seems uninteresting to him on that
account. Tieck himself made a good many puns. Cf.
"Viehsiognomie," the first lines of his sonnet on the sonnet and
the "gemein" from the _Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek_ in
"Das jüngste Gericht." His sensing of English puns seems not to
hav been so keen. So in a discussion of Mss. readings toward the
end of the essay on the erly English Theater (Kr. Sch. I, 320)
after calling one faulty reading "Unsinn" he continues, "In
derselben Rede:
If you can construe but your doctor's bill
Parse your wife's waiting woman, etc.
Parse? Was kann das bedeuten? Pierce ist dem aufmerksamen Auge
leserlich genug." Tieck seems to hav mist the play on the
grammatical idea. To be sure, I hav not seen the Ms., but Tieck
was no very careful reader or copyist.
[39] This is a scene where Tieck saw both L. and S. There were
two different paintings of the same subject, one with fewer
figures, and Tieck rightly points out that the less crowded one
is the better. One of the engravings is by W. Blake and is not
given in any list of that artist's work. Mr. W. G. Robertson,
the most recent biografer of Blake informs me in a letter that
he does not know it.
A PARTIAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Athenæum. Eine Zeitschrift von A. W. Schlegel und Friederich
Schlegel, Zweiter Band. Berlin, 1799.
Boydell, John.
Catalogue of the ... Shakspeare Gallery, London, 1789. The first
edition of the catalog givs the painters' names only: subsequent
editions add the names of the engravers. There are copies of the
various editions in the Columbia, Harvard and New York Public
Libraries.
A Catalogue of Prints ... comprising the stock of J. and J.
Boydell, London, 1808.
Copy in N. Y. Public Library.
A Collection of prints from pictures painted for the purpose of
illustrating the dramatic works of Shakespeare, by the artists
of Great Britain. London ... 1803, 2 vols. in one, atlas folio.
There are many copies in the U. S. and there is also an American
reprint with letterpress explanatory of the plates.
Dessoir, M. K. P. Moritz als Aesthetiker.
Dobson, Austin. William Hogarth, New York and London, 1907.
Engel, J. J. Ideen zu einer Mimik, 1848.
Engel. Angelika Kaufmann, 1903.
Fiorillo, J. D. Geschichte der zeichnenden Künste, etc. Bd. V.
Geschichte der Malerei in Grossbrittanien. Göttingen, 1808.
Forster, Georg. Sämmtliche Schriften, III. Leipzig, 1843.
Friessen, H. von. Ludwig Tieck. Erinnerungen eines alten
Freundes. Wien, 1872.
Göttingen. Anzeigen für Gelehrte Sachen, etc. The volumes from
1791 to 1803 were used.
Haym, R. Die romantische Schule, 1870.
Holtei, K. Drei hundert Briefe aus zwei Jahrhunderten,
Hannover, 1872.
Joachimi-Dege, M. Deutsche Shakspeare-Probleme im XVIII.
Jahrhundert und im Zeitalter der Romantik. Leipzig, 1907.
Köpke, R. Ludwig Tieck, Leipzig, 1855.
Minor, J. Friedrich Schlegel. Seine prosaischen
Jugendschriften, Wien 1906.
Tieck und Wackenroder. Kürschners D. N. L. Bd. 145.
Moritz, K. P. Ueber die nachahmende Bildung des Schönen. In D.
L. D.
Reynolds, J. Academy Discourses. Bohn Edition, London, 1846.
Shakspere, W. The Dramatic Works of William Shakspeare, London,
1802.
This is the Steevens edition in nine volumes. Copy in New
York Public Library.
Spooner, Shearjashub. Prospectus for publishing an American
edition of Boydell's illustrations of Shakespeare, N. Y., 1848.
Sulger-Gebing. Die Brüder A. W. und F. Schlegel und die
bildende Kunst, 1897.
Sybel. Erinnerungen an F. von Uechtritz. Leipzig, 1884.
Volbehr. Goethe und die bildende Kunst, 1897.
Walzel, O. F. Friedrich Schlegel's Briefe an seinen Bruder
August Wilhelm. Berlin, 1890.
Wietenkampf, F. How to appreciate prints. New York, 1908.
Zelak. Tieck und Shakspere. Tarnopol, 1900.
* * * * *
Transcriber's Notes
There is much idiosyncratic spelling in both English and German. This
has been retained, apart from the following four typos:
page 15 "sehn" amended to "sehr";
page 30 "obobserver" amended to "observer";
page 40 "int he" amended to "in the";
page 54 "Grossbittanien" amended to "Grossbrittanien".
On page 32, the typo "est giebt" has been left unchanged: it could be
either "es giebt" or "erst giebt" (more likely).
Also on p. 32 "zu grob ist" should probably be "zu groß ist", but has
been left unchanged, as the letter ß does not appear elsewhere in the
text.
Three obvious errors in punctuation have also been amended, as follows:
page 12 "page 28." amended to "page 28:";
page 34 "darstellen will." amended to "darstellen will,";
page 41 Tanzschritt," amended to "Tanzschritt";
page 44 "G. G. A.." amended to "G. G. A.,".
page 48 "in in Das" amended to "in Das".
Anchors for footnootes 31 and 36 are missing. They have been inserted in
the most likely locations.