932z 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 Di9 
 
gorfe Untoertfttp 
 
 OTTENDORFER MEMORIAL SERIES OF 
 GERMANIC MONOGRAPHS 
 
 No. 3 
 
 TIECK'S ESSAY 
 
 ON THE 
 
 BOYDELL SHAKSPERE GALLERY 
 
 BY 
 
 GEORGE HENRY DANTON 
 
gorfe iHn 
 
 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 
 
Paper 3 Pebtcateb 
 tlje Jl^emorp 
 of 
 <&ttenborfer 
 
PREFACE 
 
 'T'HE material which was originally pland for my monograf in 
 1 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 jEsthetik. 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 criti- 
 cal 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, ex- 
 plaind his taste, showd his use of sources and above all, con- 
 tradicted 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 some- 
 what impossible generation. A certain air of English commer- 
 cial 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 suspect- 
 ed 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 Gibber. 
 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 por- 
 trait, 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 Uni- 
 versity 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 
 
 'T'lECK'S attack 1 on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery 2 was his first 
 1 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 Shak- 
 spere 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 Eng- 
 lish nation is equal to the task of illustrating its greatest poet. 4 
 
 These illustrations are known as the Boydell Shakspere Gal- 
 lery. They were the idea of the engraver, Alderman John Boy- 
 dell, 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 ex- 
 pense to himself the entire cost was upward of ;ioo,ooo Boy- 
 dell 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 revo- 
 lution," and the deth in poverty of Boydell, renderd necessary 
 the disposal of the collection by lottery (1804). The lucky tick- 
 et was held by a London connoisseur named Tassie. At his deth 
 the collection was scatterd, tho subsequently a few of the pic- 
 tures were recollected and are now in the Shakspere Memorial 
 in Stratford. 7 
 
8 
 
 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 illustra- 
 tion 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 disparag- 
 ingly 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 min- 
 imizes 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 Gottingen. 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 par- 
 ticular person or article. 
 
 In the preface to his critical works 9 Tieck asserts that the ar- 
 ticle is a product of the year 1793 and that it was published in 
 1794. It appeared in the Neue Bibliothek der schcenen Wisscn- 
 schaften und freyen Kuenste, 55ten Bandes zweytes Stiick, pages 
 187-226, which bears the date 1795, 10 and according to the Mess- 
 katalog, did not appear till Michaelmas of that year.- 1 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 re- 
 gard 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 evi- 
 dence of such fact at hand. Moreover, the "Gallery" was re- 
 viewd in the Gaettinger 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. cata- 
 log 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 publi- 
 cation. 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 preced- 
 ing criticism but that Tieck, tho borrowing freely from one 
 source at least, namely the Gcettinger 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 criti- 
 cism was regarded as sufficiently authorativ by Fiorillo to have 
 been used as a partial source for the latter's critique of the Boy- 
 dell plates. 
 
 Tieck claims that the praise of the "Gallery" in the contem- 
 porary 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 Mer- 
 fur and Nicolai's Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek do not mention 
 them, tho from time to time engravings from other contempor- 
 ary paintings are discust. For instance, Nicolai's journal has 
 one long discussion of the state of contemporary art, espe- 
 cially of engraving (No. no, 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 "Kramergeist" at the 
 bottom of the enterprize. The value of line in engraving is, 
 however, pointed out, and Bartolozzi and Ryland, who had but 
 
10 
 
 little to do with the series are faintly praisd. Other mention 
 in MeusePs magazines is either entirely unoriginal summary 
 (Museum, VI, 352) or mere cursory comment (Miscellaneen, 
 Stuck 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 Gazttinger 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 de- 
 tails with Tieck's judgments, but it would be a mistake to sup- 
 pose that Tieck used the articles without having seen the en- 
 gravings and without having given the pictures careful consider- 
 ation. 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 de- 
 tail, and Tieck's indetedness must be definitly brought out. 
 Paralels will sometimes show convergence and sometimes diver- 
 gence of ideas, but in general it will be seen that Tieck practi- 
 cally 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, i, ditto IV, 2, and "As You Like It," last scene. 
 
 A word of explanation in regard to the Boydell plates is nec- 
 essary. 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 is- 
 sued as a separate volume in 1803, and the small plates were 
 
11 
 
 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 Kupf ers kiinf tig 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 Anzei&cn 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 re- 
 ferd 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 fiir keine reine Jung- 
 fer erklart, und Hero in Ohnmacht fallt; . . . Das beste Stuck 
 von alien in Riicksicht der Composition, Ausdrucks und Auswahl 
 des Lichtes nur ist die Stellung der Hauptperson ein wenig zu 
 theatralisch; sonst aber alles gut geordnet; schone Contraste 
 von Licht und Ruhe fiir das Auge. " 
 
 Tieck, page 19: "Das zweite Blatt enthalt die Vertossung 
 der Hero . . . und dies ist offenbar eines der vorziiglichsten. 
 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 Aus- 
 druck gegeben." 
 
12 
 
 Tieck carries the praise of the Anzeigen, the "Das beste 
 Stiick" of which refers only to the group under immediate dis- 
 cussion, to the whole series. He takes his main critical vocabu- 
 lary 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 verkruppelten, 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 me- 
 chanical 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, I, 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 Re- 
 flexe, Wiederscheine s. w. aber alles dieses macht keine Wir- 
 kung, 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 fin- 
 det. " But again, besides these verbal and associational paralels, 
 Tieck has added a free treatment of the composition, an exam- 
 ination 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 crit- 
 ique is a product of Tieck's self. 
 
 "Richard III," IV, 3, G. G. A., 1791, page 1795: "Stellung 
 gezwungen." Tieck, page 28. "Der Morder unnaturlich. " 
 Here Tieck borrowed the idea and after an examination of the 
 plate changed the wording. 
 
 "As You Like It," II, i, G. G. A., 1793, page 561: "Em 
 treffliches Landschaf tsgemalde. " 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 dis- 
 
13 
 
 cust 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 
 mansuchen." Tieck, page 29: "Die Hauptfiguren findet man 
 nur mit einiger Miihe. " 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 un- 
 worthy 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 genom- 
 menem Schlaftrunk fur todt gehalten, mit den Worten des 
 Monchs: Peace ho for shame! ff. Dieser trostend, die Mutter 
 die Hande ringend, Paris Julien umfassend, ein Stuck mit vielem 
 Affect" . . . Tieck, page 30: "Julie hat den Schlaftrunk ge- 
 nommen und scheint gestorben, ihre Aeltern sowie ihr Brauti- 
 gam Paris sind in Verzweifelung, der Pater sucht Alle zu tros- 
 ten. " 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 in- 
 formation of the Anzeigen. Tieck's comment is, "Mehrere un- 
 nutze 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 Blattern wenig Aus- 
 druck. " That both Tieck and the magazine use the fraze "tut 
 . . . Wirkung" in this place seems of secondary importance. 
 
14 
 
 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 adop- 
 tion 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 Grabgewolbe erwachend," the fact that Tieck 
 (page 30) introduces his criticism with the words, "Julie erwacht, 
 als der Monch eben in das Gewolbe tritt," is of slite conse- 
 quence. 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 Kauf- 
 mann(G. G. A., 1793, page 903; Tieck, pages 16-17) Tieck agrees 
 with the Anzeigen but is thoroly independent in his reson- 
 ing 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. "Konig 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 eifersiichtige Leontes lasst den Antigo- 
 nous bey seinem ihm vorgehalten Schwerte schworen, dass er 
 das Kind, das ihm seine Gemahlin geboren hatte, in eine Einode 
 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 
 
15 
 
 discussion takes on an individual character, and is expanded 
 into a critique of Opie's drawing which was always unsatisfac- 
 tory to Tieck. Tieck (page 21): "Der eifersiichtige Leontes 
 lasst den Antigonus schworen, das Kind auszusetzen. . 
 An den Darstellungen aus diesem Stticke ist viel zu tadeln, vor- 
 ziiglich an dieser ersten Scene. Leontes, die Hauptperson, ist 
 steif und ohne alien Ausdruck, alle iibrigen Personen sind dick 
 und plump gezeichnet und ganz ohne alle Bedeutung. Leontes 
 lasst den Antigonus, so wie Hamlet seine Gefahrten, bei seinem 
 Schwerte schworen. 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 Cruci- 
 fixes. ... In diesem Blatte entdecken sich auch bald 
 viele Fehler in der Zeichnung. Das Auge wird von der Haupt- 
 person auf die Lichtmasse, folglich, auf das Kind hingezogen; 
 die Hauptfigur tritt gar nicht genug hervor, sondern hangt mit 
 den hinterihr stehenden zusammen; die Kopfe im Hintergrunde 
 sind eben so gross, wie die der vorderen Personen. Alles ver- 
 rath denungeubten Kiinstler." As an example of Tieck's rejec- 
 tion 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 sehn gut ansieht, das es eine lebende Figur ist, macht 
 grosse Wirkung." Tieck (22) contradicts thus: "Die Statue ist 
 sehr unnatiirlich, sie sieht mehr einem Geiste, als einem Men- 
 schen ahnlich." 
 
 There are, finally, three further cases in which Tieck takes a 
 hint from the Anzeigen and develops it. "2 Henry VI," III, 3, 
 (i794 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 pic- 
 ture, not one of which is derived from the Anzeigen. The other 
 passages from the "Merry Wives" (I, I and II, I, G. G. A., 1794, 
 page 970; Tieck, 11-12) take the hint that Smirke drew carica- 
 tures and not human beings and borrow the adjectiv "widrig. " 
 With this slender borrowing Tieck develops a full discussion of 
 
16 
 
 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 
 A nzeigen. 
 
 Of Kirk's plate from "Titus Adronicus" the G. G. A., 1794, 
 page 970, says, "Den Ausdruck an der Lavinia abgerechnet 
 ein gut Stuck." 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 
 Kiinstler eine sehr richtige Idee von der Composition hat, und 
 dass er seinem Gegenstand mit Geschmack und Delicatesse zu 
 behandeln weiss. Er lasst uns die abgeschnittenen Arme der 
 Lavinia nur vermuthen; der geschickt geworfene Schleier ent- 
 zieht 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 inde- 
 pendent 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. 
 
17 
 
 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, ar- 
 tistically 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 no- 
 where says that the subjectiv interpretation of the poet must re- 
 main the lasting one for the individual; indeed he asserts quite 
 the contrary on the very first page of his paper. It is to be ex- 
 pected 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 nega- 
 tiv 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 inter- 
 pretation 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 
 
18 
 
 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 considera- 
 tion 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 turn- 
 ing away in disgust. 18 
 
 The article fails to solv the problem in Tieck's mind of re- 
 conciling 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 
 (i828), 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 enthus- 
 iast 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 Unnatiirlichkeit entdecke; 
 denn die Nachahmung der Natur ist der Zweck des Kiinstlers. " 
 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, 
 
19 
 
 but who must be content to arouse a cooler feeling, that is, the 
 satisfaction of the spectator. In this series, where genius is ex- 
 cluded 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 will- 
 ingly 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 en- 
 thusiasm 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 know- 
 ing, 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 
 BoydelPs 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 SchlegePs canon. 
 
 The engravings as such are treated by Tieck under five differ- 
 ent 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 
 
20 
 
 five giv, however, the full range of Tieck's ideas on the engrav- 
 ings. 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 maga- 
 zine 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 with- 
 out merit and such generalities as, "schon gestochen," "vor- 
 ziiglich," "vortrefflich gut," are not very significant. Negativ 
 praise like "nichts zu tadeln" or "die Ausf tinning 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 pun- 
 ning 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 result- 
 ing 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 Si- 
 mon 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 
 
21 
 
 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 me- 
 chanical side ends with a weak, "sehr gut gestochen," showing 
 that Tieck did not progress in his technical criticisms. His in- 
 terest in the engravings as engravings waned as the essay pro- 
 ceeded: 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, i). This is one of the poorest 
 of the plates and yet Tieck says, "Die Ausfiihrung verdient alles 
 Lob." Fittler's plate from "Winter's Tale" (IV, 2), while 
 weak and without character, is not as bad either in actual cut- 
 ting or in general managment, and yet Tieck condems it unmer- 
 cifully. 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. Col- 
 orless 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 draw- 
 ing of Angelika Kaufmann without error. ("Two Gent. Ve- 
 rona," 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 "grazios." 
 An examination of the figure shows that Julia's figure has some- 
 thing 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 Hiiften, auch immer wie von selbst aus den Fingern quel- 
 len. " Both Tieck and Schlegel felt the sensuous charm of the 
 painter whose best known self-portrait is in the garb of a Vestal 
 
22 
 
 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 feel- 
 ing 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 rec- 
 ognize 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 "ungeiibter Kiinstler" 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 > "Richard III." (Ill, i, page 27). 
 
23 
 
 He says, "Der alte Cardinal scheint ganz verzeichnet zu sein, 
 man ist ungewiss, ob er steht oder kniet: in beiden Fallen ist die 
 Zeichnung f ehlerhaf t. " Tieck's strictures are correct. The 
 space from the waist down is found upon examination to be ab- 
 normally 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 an- 
 other German Swiss living in England, namely Fiiessli, 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. Fiiessli was one of the most important adherents, or 
 rather, was the greatest representativ of the fad perhaps any- 
 where 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 iiber 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 extrava- 
 -gance of his figures and debased his Titanic creations into bi- 
 zarre 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 Fiiessli. Wherever there were violent angles, 
 sharp points and corners, Tieck felt himself ill at ease. When 
 he saw in some of Fiiessli'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, 
 unnatiirlich, abgeschmackt, manierirt, " are the terms applied to 
 Fiiessli's cursing scene from Lear. 
 
24 
 
 It would hav been interesting had Tieck seen Fiiessli's later 
 scenes in the "Gallery." The Bottom scenes from the "Mid- 
 summer 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 Elf en," 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 enunci- 
 ated by Caroline in the "Gemalde" 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 prin- 
 cipal figures rather than that the harmony of the whole is dis- 
 turbed 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 attitudiniz- 
 ing 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 evi- 
 dent as outside the room. Tieck might hav mentiond as an ex- 
 ample of this some of the fine interiors of Pieter De Hoogh. The 
 light effects should not be harsh but graded down so that no vio- 
 lent light contrasts occur within the same room. The light, 
 too, should be broken up, not kept in a mass as if it were a sep- 
 arate 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 
 
25 
 
 treatment of the high lights Tieck has in one or two cases en- 
 tirely 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 An- 
 zeigen articles, his expansion beyond them brings no real better- 
 ment. In the plate from ''Love's Labor Lost" (IV, I, page 9), 
 when Tieck was feeling his way into his subject, his general im- 
 pression 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 land- 
 scape 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. En- 
 graved 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. 
 
 After pointing out the value of the whole, and the effect made 
 by the light of the torch held by Gloster ("Lear," III, 4), Tieck 
 shows that this effect, striking as it is, detracts from the unity of 
 
26 
 
 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 
 f rases like "gut geordnet" occurs, but expresses only a mild acqui- 
 escence in the arrangement. Tieck was fond of the posing sen- 
 timentalities 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 Shak- 
 spere illustration. On the other hand, and here he departs con- 
 stantly from the canon of Lessing, there is no striving for ab- 
 stract beauty. Charm and grace, beauty in motion as it is ex- 
 prest 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 ab- 
 stract 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: 
 
27 
 
 one considerably overestimated. In Michaelangelo, Tieck knows 
 the strength of the drawing and not the wistfulness that per- 
 vades even the most Titanic of the master's creations. In gen- 
 eral, 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, i). Tieck likes 
 the plate because of its taste and delicacy in only suggesting the 
 mutilated arms of Lavinia. Kirk has avoided the frank natural- 
 ism 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 sug- 
 gested 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. In the deth of Mortimer (i "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 de- 
 mands on the artist may be ever so high, but his practical appli- 
 cation of these principles is by no means as strict as might be 
 expected. Indeed, in theory Tieck demands one thing and in 
 practis another. 
 
28 
 
 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 sym- 
 bols to designate his characters. But when Tieck actually ex- 
 amins the pictures, he stresses theatrical pose or mien and pays 
 no attention to those obvious tricks whereby expression is ob- 
 tainable: 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 never- 
 theless past over, that the instance of Tybalt seems fortuitous. 
 
 Tieck uses the expressions "ohne Ausdruck," "wenig Aus- 
 druck" and "ohne Charakter, " "wenig Charakter" almost ex- 
 clusively 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 Aus- 
 druck" 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 eigh- 
 teenth. 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, expand- 
 ing 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 contem- 
 poraries. 
 
29 
 
 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 ac- 
 counted 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 char- 
 acter 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 re- 
 marks 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 
 
30 
 
 hav all too much of the gigantic, too little of the childish old man. 
 He points out that the face as drawn by Fuessli expresses nothing 
 but rage; the same exaggeration is found in the drawing of West 
 who sacrifices truth, nature and emotion to a striking first im- 
 pression. Barry's Lear only excites laughter and the lack of ex- 
 pression 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 senti- 
 mentality, 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 wom- 
 en. Perhaps Tieck's interest went hand in hand with his enthu- 
 siasm 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 ob- 
 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 repre- 
 sented. 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 ob- 
 servation. An example of this is Northcote's portrayal of Morti- 
 mer and York (i "Henry VI.," II, 5) which is really spoild ac- 
 cording 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 dy- 
 ing 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 
 
31 
 
 heap and dying. Any one who has seen Irving's masterly repre- 
 sentation of the dying Louis cannot but be imprest by the veri- 
 similitude 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 "abscheu- 
 lich" is reminiscent of the Anzeigen. He asks further, "1st dies 
 der Kiinstler der Familie des Ugolino?" 33 With much better 
 right he might hav askt, "Is this the painter of the 'Age of In- 
 nocence' 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 pic- 
 tures 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 
 Fiiessli and are realistic to a degree that stopt at nothing. It is 
 not to be wonderd at that Tieck exhausts himself in condemna- 
 tion 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 ex- 
 pedient 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 ex- 
 pression 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 dif- 
 ferent from his practis in this case, and Tieck has condemd him 
 out of his own mouth. 
 
 Beauford, whom Tieck calls a caricature, certainly leaves 
 
32 
 
 nothing to the imagination, as Reynolds wisht for art. 35 Tieck's 
 description of the figure is apt, "Beauford liegt da, mit den 
 Zahnen grinsend, das Bett in Verzuckungen kneifend, eine 
 ekelhafte, verzerrte Caricatur, iiber die man lachen konnte, 
 wenn sie etwas weniger abscheulich ware. Genie and Enthusi- 
 asmus konnen hier die Hand und Kritik unmoglich irre gefuhrt 
 haben; denn weder das eine, noch der andere gehort dazu, um 
 diese Ziige, diese Umrisse hervorzubringen. " 
 
 The word caricature is, even before he found it in the Anzei- 
 gen, 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 natiirlich und einige komish dar- 
 stellt, aber nach meinem Urtheil spielt er in keiner einzigen 
 schon, mit einem Worte, er macht Carrikatur, und die kann nie 
 schon sein, wenn sie auch noch so vielen Ausdruck hat. Das 
 Komische und das Schreckhafte granzen iiberhaupt vielleicht 
 naher aneinander, als man glaubt . . . Vielleicht ist das 
 wahre komische Spiel so wie Unzelmann est giebt, alles so leicht, 
 so iibergehend, keine Periode, keine Idee, keine Stellung mog- 
 lichst festgehalten, keine Grimasse in Stein verwandelt. " 
 
 After pointing out the value of the unspoild taste of child- 
 hood in matters of esthetic judgment, Tieck continues: "Du 
 kannst leicht die Erfahrung machen, dass Carrikaturen den Kin- 
 dern nie gefallen, denn sie erkennen in ihnen nur mit Miihe den 
 Menschen wieder, sie fiirchten sie wirklich; sie konnen ungleich 
 langer eine andre Figur ohne Ausdruck und bestimmten Charak- 
 ter betrachten, ja tagelang dariiber briiten, und Ausdruck und 
 Charakter hineintragen, hundert Traume spinnen sich in ihrer 
 Seele aus, . . . Carrikaturen gefallen iiberhaupt vielleicht 
 nur einem kalten nordlichen Volke, dessen Gefiihl fur den feinen 
 Stachel der stillen Schonheit zu grob ist, oder die schon die 
 Schule der Schonheit durchgegangen sind, und deren iibersatten 
 Magen nur noch die gewiirztesten Speisen reizen konnen, die es 
 daher gern sehen, wenn die Schonheit dem Ausdruck aufgeopfert" 
 wird, weil sie in der Schonheit keinen lebenden Ausdruck mehr 
 finden. Du wirst sehen, dass ich hier nicht bloss von der ko- 
 mischen Carrikatur spreche, sondern von jedem Ausdruck irgend 
 einer Leidenschaft, der die Schonheit ausschliesst." He then 
 goes on to indicate the relation of what he had sed to Lessing 
 
33 
 
 and confesses his indetedness to him in the matter. The high- 
 est effects when used in sculpture and painting are also carica- 
 ture. 
 
 Paralel to this statement in the letters is the discussion in the 
 essay of the valu of the comedies of Shakspere over his trag- 
 edies as material for illustration. Tieck says (page 15), "Im 
 Trauerspiele ersteigen meistentheils gerade die schonsten Scenen 
 eine Hohe des Effects, die der Maler schwerlich ausdriicken 
 kann, ohne widrig zu werden. Der Schauspieler verliert schon 
 oft jene Grazie, die jedem Kunstwerke nothig ist, wenn er 
 manche Scenen der tragischen Kraft so wiedergeben will, wie er 
 sie im Dichter findet, doch kann die Mimik hier noch das Unan- 
 genehme vermeiden; der Malerei ist es aber meist unmoglich, 
 denn jene Verzerrungen, die auf der Biihne nur voriibergehend 
 sind, werden hier bleibend gemacht; dort erschrecken sie durch 
 ihr plotzliches Entstehen und Verschwinden, hier werden sie 
 ekelhaft, weil durch das Feststehende und Bleibende d6s Widri- 
 gen der dargestellte Mensch zum Thier herabsinkt. Jemehr der 
 Maler den Affekt hinauftreibt, desto mehr nimmt er zugleich 
 Interesse und Tadel von seinem Helden. Die hochsten Grade 
 des Zorns, der Wuth oder der Verzweif elung bleiben im Gemalde 
 stets unedel; selbst der Wahnsinn muss hier mit einer gewissen 
 Schuchternheit auftreten, und im hochsten Entziicken muss ein 
 sanfter Wiederschein der Melancholic leuchten." The relation 
 of this to Lessing, both in the "Laokoon" and in the "Drama- 
 turgic" 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 
 
34 
 
 as Shakspere conceived him, nor is he funny. It is again, says 
 Tieck, a mere exaggeration, tantamount to a confession of inabil- 
 ity. 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 ex- 
 pressing 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 Athenceum and has not risen to the level of ad- 
 miration for the Englishman displayed by Novalis in the "Frag- 
 ments." 
 
 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 especial- 
 ly 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 lacherlich sein soil, 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 Kiinstler, der die komischen Scenen des Shak- 
 speare darstellen will, sollte doch von seinem Dichter so viel ge- 
 lernt haben, dass dieser seine Caricaturen nie ohne eine gewisse 
 Portion von phlegmatischer Laune lasst, die so oft unser Lachen 
 erregt, und aus der blossen Erfahrung sollte er wissen, da'ss 
 selbst der lacherlichste Zwerg, wenn er schaumt, in eben dem 
 Augenblicke aufhort lacherlich zu sein. Jedes Subject hort auf, 
 komisch zu sein, sobald ich es in einen hohen Grad von Leiden- 
 schaft versetze. Denn das Lacherliche in den Charakteren ent- 
 steht gewohnlich nur durch die seltsam widersprechende Mi- 
 
35 
 
 schung des Affects und des inneren Phlegma; wenigstens so hat 
 Shakspeare seine wirklich komischen Personen gezeichnet. 
 Der Mangel an Genie zeigt sich gewohnlich in Uebertreibung 
 und gesuchten Verzerrungen des Korpers. " 38 
 
 The scene from the "Merry Wives" in which Dr. Cajus cate- 
 chizes William on his Latin, represents very well the type of 
 scene the choice of which Tieck condems as unsuited for repre- 
 sentation. It is not because there was something in the humor 
 of them that Tieck did not grasp, but because he rejects on prin- 
 ciple 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 ex- 
 cluded. 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 "Drama- 
 turgic." 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 "Rich- 
 ard 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 tortur- 
 ing 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 skele- 
 ton of the farce element and bring out the structure of the Fal- 
 staff 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 re- 
 quirements as to the moment of presentation are artistically 
 among the worst in the series. 
 
36 
 
 The two scenes from "As You Like It" suggested by Tieck, 
 the one where Adam admonishes Orlando (II, 3) and the scene 
 in the forest where Orlando enters bearing Adam on his shoulders 
 (II, 7) hav not the same structural relation to the whole as hav 
 those from the "Merry Wives." These moments lend them- 
 selves 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 Or- 
 lando'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, i) 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 a part 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 represen- 
 tation. 
 
 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 execu- 
 tion, Tieck points out that tho he has often before bewaild the 
 
37 
 
 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 Bosewicht auf dem Todtenbette, 
 den die Verzweifelung wahnsinnig gemacht hat, der keine Selig- 
 keit hofft; diesen besucht in seiner Todesstunde Heinrich, der 
 junge gefiihlvolle Konig, ein Schwarmer in der Religion, der 
 von diesem Anblick auf das tiefste geriihrt wird; Warwick und 
 Salisbury, zwei mannliche Krieger, begleiten ihn hierher. Beau- 
 ford ist die Hauptperson, alle Zuschauer haben ihre ganze Auf- 
 merksamkeit auf ihn gerichtet. Der Kunstler hatte hier riihren 
 und erschiittern konnen; ich sehe in Gedanken den weichen 
 Heinrich Thranen vergiessen, im schonsten Contrast mit dem 
 Cardinal, der ihn, in der Abwesenheit seines Geistes, kalt und 
 ohne Bewusstsein anstarrt. Warwick und Salisbury, weniger 
 geriihrt, aber doch interessante Physiognomien, die durch 
 leichtere Nuancen von einander tinterschieden sind. -So sehe 
 ich in der Phantasie das schonste tragische Gemalde . . . " 
 
 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 pil- 
 grims 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 de- 
 sire 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 dra- 
 matic 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 
 
38 
 
 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 GrifTel jemals darstellen kann; ich meine 
 jene Spriinge und iiberraschenden Wendungen des Affectes, jene 
 fiirchterlichen Blitze des Genies, bei denen der Zuschauer zu- 
 sammenfahrt, wo der Dichter unerwartet durch eine neue ver- 
 drangt: diese Momente sind oft die glanzendsten des Schau- 
 spiels, und bei keinem Dichter finden sie sich so haufig als bei 
 Shakspeare in seinen Tragodien." 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 Lein- 
 wand zu werfen? So innig diese Verse beim Lesen oder bei 
 der Darstellung riihren, so frostig wiirden sie vielleicht als ein 
 Gemalde dargestellt erscheinen: oder wenn sie auch hier riihr- 
 ten, so wiirde das Gemalde doch nie jene Erschiitterung in uns 
 erregen, jenes Anschlagen von hundert Gefiihlen. Man wiirde 
 immer nur den weinenden Lear sehen oder den erziirnten Vater, 
 der sich zur Kalte zwingt; das Ineinanderschmelzen dieser bei- 
 den Empfindungen, verbunden mit der Verstandesschwache, 
 die dem Schmerz endlich ganz erliegt und Wahnsinn wird, ware 
 selbst ein Rafael unmoglich: 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 w 7 ith the poet, to feel his lack of abil- 
 ity 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 rival- 
 ry 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 
 
39 
 
 commentator, so to speak, of these. Under such circumstances, 
 the painter must be very careful to choose just the most beauti- 
 ful and most interesting passages. 
 
 The relation to Lessing is again at once clear. The culmin- 
 ating 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 im- 
 perativ 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 theoreti- 
 cal remarks. 
 
 Before leaving the discussion of Tieck's article, it may be well 
 to compare it with another contemporary treatment of the Boy- 
 dell 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 capabili- 
 ties 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 color- 
 ing 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 Diisseldorf, Brussels and Antwerp 
 fully express his ideas on Dutch and Flemish art, especially em- 
 fasizing the characteristics of Rubens for whose fleshy types 
 Forster had little use. 
 
40 
 
 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 int he 
 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 en- 
 tirely 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 pro- 
 duct of his inexperience. 
 
 In spite of all this, it is surprizing to find what correspond- 
 ences 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 Dar- 
 stellung konnte ihn mit einem Stoff aussohnen, der sein Zart- 
 gefiihl 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 Speel- 
 huis) 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. 
 Fiiessli, too, comes in for his share of the blame: "Der Beifall, 
 welchen Fiiesslis Gemalde 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 iiber 
 das Meer; seiner Phantasie ward es wohl unter wilden Traumge- 
 stalten und Bildern des Ungewohnlichen. Diese Stimmung 
 . . . verfiihrte ihn nur gar zu bald zu alien Ausschweifungen 
 der Manier. Es ist zwar leicht das Alltagliche zu vermeiden, 
 indem man Kontorsionen darstellt . . ."(page 466). Again: 
 
41 
 
 "Es sind nicht Menschen, die dieser Kiinstler phantasiert, son- 
 dern 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 Inkorrekt- 
 heit und das Einerlei ihrer allz'uschlanken Figuren imter 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 per- 
 sonage 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 sec- 
 ondary. Extremes of passion, astonishment, surprize are strivn 
 for. "Sie hascht nach der Wahrheit der Natur in ihren grass- 
 lichen Augenblicken und erlaubt ihrer Phantasie den verwegenen 
 Flug, nicht in das schone 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 Shak- 
 
42 
 
 spare'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 repre- 
 sentation. 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 re- 
 beld 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 Abendblcetter 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 
 
 'Die Kupferstiche nach der Shakspeare-Gallerie in London. 
 Brief e 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 i7i9-i8o4. 
 
 6 Preface to the Prospectus and quoted in the preface to the 
 "Gallery." 
 
 7 The facts on the "Gallery" are pretty well scatterd. The state- 
 ments 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 disposi- 
 tion 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. 
 
 IO Copy in the Columbia University Library. 
 
 "Mr. L. L. Mackall kindly furnisht me with this information. 
 
 I2 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 repre- 
 sented. The poets are conspicuously wanting. The King 
 of England gave the copy to the University Library. Cp. 
 Gcet finger Gelehrte Anzeigen (G. G. A.) 1791, page 1793; 
 1793, Page 561. 
 
 I3 At least until after the time concerned here. This from Wiisten- 
 feld on the contributor to the Anzeigen furnisht by Profes- 
 sor Wilkens. 
 
 I4 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, (i) IV, i (G. G. A., 
 1794, Page 10); (2) IV, 2, small plates; (3) V, 2. 
 
44 
 
 "Merry Wives of Windsor," Tieck, page 10, I, i (G. G. 
 
 A., 1794, page 969); page 12, II, i (G. G. A., 1794, 
 
 page 969); page 13 (G. G. A,, page 959); page 13, I, 4; 
 
 IV, i, 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, i (G. G. A., 1793, 
 
 page 561); page 17, last scene (G. G. A., 1793, page 561). 
 "Much Ado About Nothing," Tieck, page 19, III, i (G. 
 
 G. A., 1791, page 1794); IV, i; 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, i (G. G. A., 1791, 
 
 page 1794). 
 "Titus Andronicus, " Tieck, page 28, IV, i (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., 1793, page 561); V, 3 (G. 
 <4 G. A., 1793, Page 562). 
 
 "King Lear," Tieck, page 31, I, i (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 com- 
 parison with the original that we can tell what plate he 
 means. s 
 
 I5 Boydell's Catalog, page 28 ff. It may be worth while to men- 
 tion in this connection that the catalog has a number of er- 
 rors in the list of these supplementary plates. The proof 
 
45 
 
 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. 
 
 l6 "Romantische Schule," page 57-8. 
 
 I7 For possible influence of Du Bos, cf. Tieck's doctrin of poetry 
 as an imitativ art. Kr. Sch., page 24. See Howard, Pub- 
 lications of the Mod. Lang. Assn., vol. XXII, page 4. The 
 letters to Wackenroder in Holtei, 300 Briefe, etc. 
 
 l8 Volbehr, Dessoir, Stocker. D. L. D. 
 
 I9 Kr. Sch. I, 321. It is doutful if Tieck knew any of the Ho- 
 garth 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, Kopke, I, page 148. 
 
 ^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. 
 
 "Literary paralels are at once apparent. So, Schiller's Prolog 
 to "Wallenstein." 
 
 "Schriften, vol. X, pages 302-3. 
 
 23 Weitenkampf, 155. 
 
 ^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 Wil- 
 kens suggested to me, from Tieck's notoriously bad hand- 
 writing 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 lay- 
 ing too much emfasis on his sacerdotal function. The G. G. 
 A. calls him a dilettante. 
 
 25 Walzel, 279; Sulger-Gebing, 41, 154. Engel ("Angelika Kauf- 
 mann," 36, 37, 43) while not denying her preference for this 
 dress, is of the opinion that it was not suited to her. "Im 
 Schaferkleide, den Hirtenstab in der Hand, Atlaspantoffel- 
 chen an den Fiissen, ein bebandertes Hiitchen auf der ge- 
 puderten Coiffure, umgeben von einem Hofstaat schongeist- 
 iger Verehrer und Verehrerinnen, so hatte sie unzweifelhaft 
 eine weit natiirlichere und tiichtigere Figur gemacht als in 
 der Vestalinnentracht die sie das Bregenzerwaldnymphlein 
 in der Folgezeit zu bevorzugen pflegte. " 
 
46 
 
 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 Mmor's edition, pages 27, 30. 
 
 28 There is the possibility of a crude symbolism having been in- 
 tended 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. 
 
 3 See, 300 Bfe. page 79. 
 
 is a difficult point to decide. The citizen class was limit- 
 ed by such sumptuary laws as is shown by the records, but 
 most writers agree that the violations were open and com- 
 mon. 
 
 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 grand- 
 father. Forster wrongly holds that the helmeted figure is 
 Titus. 
 
 33 Cf. A. W. v. Schlegel in Athenceum, 2, 212, "Man kennt Rey- 
 nolds 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 Shak- 
 spere. Her book needs supplementation thru a study of the 
 Romantic Shakspere criticism, written from the English 
 point of view. 
 
 35 In his Academy discourses. Bohn ed., vol. I, page 460 ff. 
 Reynolds points out that those who praise the "invention" 
 of Timanthes in the Agamemnon picture hav not been 
 painters but literary men. They use it a& 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. 
 
47 
 
 (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 dimin- 
 ish 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 oj 
 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. Gil- 
 ray's satirical plate on Boydell should be compared for this 
 and other points. Cop} 7 in N. Y. Public Library. 
 
 36 In this connection, the letters mention Engel's 4 'Mimik"(i785). 
 
 37 Some of the latter pictures by Smirke are very fine; e. g., the 
 face of Jessica which justifies the statement of the Diet. 
 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 Kiinstler so viel Charakter oder 
 so viel Ausdruck in seine Figuren gebracht, noch eine Scene 
 mit so viel echter Laune bearbeitet. " 
 
48 
 
 38 To me the Tieck-Schlegel translation of this scene misses all 
 the best points of the original. To be sure, Tieck had noth- 
 ing 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" iromtheAllgemeinc dentscke Bibliothek in 
 in "Das jiingste 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 aufmerk- 
 samen 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 
 
 Athenaeum. 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 en- 
 gravers. 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 Kiinste, etc. Bd. V. 
 Geschichte der Malerei in Grossbittanien. Gottingen, 1808. 
 Forster, Georg. Sammtliche Schriften, III. Leipzig, 1843. 
 Friessen, H. von. Ludwig Tieck. Erinnerungen eines alten 
 
 Freundes. Wien, 1872. 
 Gottingen. Anzeigen fur 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, Han- 
 nover, 1872. 
 
 Joachimi-Dege, M. Deutsche Shakspeare-Probleme im XVIII. 
 Jahrhundert und im Zeitalter der Romantik. Leipzig, 1907. 
 Kopke, R. Ludwig Tieck, Leipzig, 1855. 
 
50 
 
 Minor, J. Friedrich Schlegel. Seine prosaischen Jugendschrif- 
 
 ten, Wien 1906. 
 
 Tieck und Wackenroder. Kiirschners D. N. L. Bd. 145. 
 Moritz, K. P. Ueber die nachahmende Bildung des Schonen. 
 
 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 Bruder 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. 
 
THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE 
 STAMPED BELOW 
 
 AN INITIAL FINlToF 25 CENTS 
 
 WILL BE ASSESSED FOR FAILURE TO RETURN 
 THIS BOOK ON THE DATE DUE. THE PENALTY 
 WILL INCREASE TO SO CENTS ON THE FOURTH 
 DAY AND TO $1.OO ON THE SEVENTH DAY 
 OVERDUE. 
 
R ETURN TO th 
 
 i -year loans may he 
 
 to NRLF ' rec harged hv hr/ 
 
 Renewals and rech* 9 b ks 
 
 mac/ e 4 days 
 
 E ^ STAMPED BELOW