Tieck's Essay on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery Part 1

Tieck's Essay on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery.

by George Henry Danton.

PREFACE

The material which was originally pland for my monograf in the Ottendorfer series has since been independently publisht by Steinert in his dissertation and book on Tieck's color sense and by O. Fischer in an article, "Ueber Verbindung von Farbe und Klang" in the _Zeitschrift fuer aesthetik_. These three works renderd the publication of my material superfluous, made a change of plan necessary and the result is that my monograf has been very much delayd in appearing.

As far as I know, there is no other study of Tieck's first critical paper. I found it worth while to do this monograf because the comparison with the original engraving brought out so many interesting facts, threw light on Tieck's erly critical method, explaind his taste, showd his use of sources and above all, contradicted the positiv a.s.sertion of Haym that Lessing's influence is nowhere discernible. The meny interesting facts about the gallery itself that came to light in the course of the paper, the meny questions about it which I was unable to solv, may perhaps become the matter of another article.

The "Gallery" is for us now a revenant of a past and somewhat impossible generation. A certain air of English commercial roastbeefism clings to it. It is an England, the art of which knows nothing of Constable and still less of Turner, an England which loves Shakspere without reading him--as Tieck suspected--and whose gallofobia does not recognize the det to France and the French elements in this very series. As an interpretation of Shakspere, it is no more than on a plane with Colly Cibber. Tieck saw this and felt it, but could not make clear to himself what was wrong with it. The plates belong in parlors of the haircloth age, where indeed, they may still often be found. It is before the day of the painted snowshovel and the crayon portrait, but the delicacy of the Adams' decorations has gone out and the new strength of Romanticism has not come in. There is surely no tuch of the Elizabethan or Jacobean spirit.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank the various members of the staffs of the Stanford University and the Columbia University Libraries, of the Congressional and New York Public Libraries for their aid; especially to thank Mr. Weitenkampf for his very great help on technical matters. Mr. L. L. Mackall also furnisht me with very valuable information. The paper underwent a most searching criticism at the hands of Professor Wilkens, of New York University and I wish to express my especial indetedness to him for his a.s.sistance 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 inc.u.mbent.

G. H. D.

Indianapolis, Ind., September, 1911.

TIECK'S ESSAY ON THE BOYDELL SHAKSPERE GALLERY

Tieck's attack[1] on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery[2] was his first publisht critical production. It is significant to note that this first essay in criticism delt both with Shakspere and with art, that is, with the ruling pa.s.sion of Tieck's life and with one of the strongest of his secondary interests. The pa.s.sion for Shakspere with the concomitant sense of close personal relationship with him, came to be a major part of Tieck's being and is clearly indicated even before this article.[3]

Tieck's decided aversion to the English national standpoint toward Shakspere is strongly exprest in the essay. The man who later vainly tried to convert Coleridge to a point of view with respect to the dramatist that was opposed to all that was national and English, does not, as a mere lad, hesitate to venture his douts as to whether the English nation is equal to the task of ill.u.s.trating its greatest poet.[4]

These ill.u.s.trations are known as the Boydell Shakspere Gallery. They were the idea of the engraver, Alderman John Boydell,[5] who wisht to set up a great national monument to the genius of Shakspere and, at the same time, to foster a school of historical painting in a land where heretofore the portrait alone had attaind to any degree of excellence.[6] The "Gallery" was begun in 1789 and was completed in 1803. At no sparing of expense to himself--the entire cost was upward of 100,000--Boydell commissiond some of the best artists and engravers of the time to portray scenes from all of Shakspere's plays. The oil paintings, about 100 in number, were to be permanently housd in a gallery bilt for the purpose in London and were to be bestowd on the nation as a perpetual memorial to the great playwright's genius. The Napoleonic wars, "that Gothic and Vandalic revolution," and the deth in poverty of Boydell, renderd necessary the disposal of the collection by lottery (1804). The lucky ticket was held by a London connoisseur named Ta.s.sie. At his deth the collection was scatterd, tho subsequently a few of the pictures were recollected and are now in the Shakspere Memorial in Stratford.[7]

The plates from these pictures are, all in all, no better and no worse than engravings of the day are likely to be. It is ill.u.s.tration work in which the story interest is the predominant feature. Interpretation of Shakspere takes precedence over art, and even Boydell places the painter below the poet and speaks disparagingly of the ability of the former to understand and to portray. The purposes of the "Gallery" harmonize with Tieck's point of view and his predilection for the interpretativ in criticism minimizes the esthetic aspects of his discussion.

Tieck's essay is in the form of four letters, and was written while he was a student at the University of 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 particular person or article.

In the preface to his critical works[9] Tieck a.s.serts that the article is a product of the year 1793 and that it was published in 1794. It appeared in the _Neue Bibliothek der schnen Wissenschaften und freyen Kuenste_, 55ten Bandes zweytes Stuck, pages 187-226, which bears the date 1795,[10] and according to the Messkatalog, did not appear till Michaelmas of that year.[11] Tieck's memory, therefore, faild him as to the date of publication and he has also fallen into a slite error, or rather inaccuracy, in regard to the time of origin. The article could not have been completed within the calendar year 1793, because a number of the plates that Tieck discusses are dated December 24, 1793, and could hardly hav got to the continent in the same year. While it may be possible that the plates were postdated, there is no evidence of such fact at hand. Moreover, the "Gallery" was reviewd in the _Gttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen_ under dates about six months after the appearance of the individual plates in England and these reviews, as will be shown hereafter, were extensivly used by Tieck. In these reviews, the plates are always spoken of as recently arrived. The prints were issued regularly to the subscribers, of whom the University, according to the Ms. catalog in the Boston Public Library, was one.[12] It is hardly to be supposd that the young student would have erlier access to the pictures than the reviewer for the semi-official university publication.

This reviewer was Heyne[13] who afterward mediated the publication of Tieck's article. The article was no dout written before Tieck settled in Berlin in the Fall of 1794 but its writing went out over the confines of 1793. The next series of plates appeard in June, 1794, and is not included in Tieck's article, tho this is no proof that the article was completed before June, since the plates probably did not arrive in Germany till well in the Summer.

Tieck's essay has been almost entirely neglected by Tieck scholars. It is not a great piece of constructiv criticism, nor can it be said to contain the ripe judgments of a mature mind. It is, however, a fresh and, on the whole, convincing a.n.a.lysis of the plates and as such deserves a careful examination. It will be seen that the article has a very definit foundation in preceding criticism but that Tieck, tho borrowing freely from one source at least, namely the _Gttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen_, has not slavishly plagiarized nor has he been servil in his adoption of the ideas of others. And it is also worth noting that Tieck's criticism was regarded as sufficiently authorativ by Fiorillo to have been used as a partial source for the latter's critique of the Boydell plates.

Tieck claims that the praise of the "Gallery" in the contemporary magazines is excessiv. This claim is exaggerated. Meny important magazines do not discuss the plates even where there was an excellent opportunity. So, for example, Wieland's _Mercur_ and Nicolai's _Allgemeine deutsche Bibliothek_ do not mention them, tho from time to time engravings from other contemporary paintings are discust. For instance, Nicolai's journal has one long discussion of the state of contemporary art, especially of engraving (No. 110, 1792) but omits all reference to the Boydell series. The criticism in Meusel's _Museum fuer Kuenstler_ is on the whole, destructiv. One discussion, for example, (No. IV, page 99) is a violent attack on engraving in general and calls the "Gallery," "Diese die Malerei zu grunde richtende Gelegenheit," and condems the "Kramergeist" at the bottom of the enterprize. The value of line in engraving is, however, pointed out, and Bartolozzi and Ryland, who had but little to do with the series are faintly praisd. Other mention in Meusel's magazines is either entirely unoriginal summary (_Museum_, VI, 352) or mere cursory comment (_Miscellaneen_, 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 _Gttinger Gelehrte Anzeigen_ the case is different.[14]

Tieck saw and used its articles as a basis for his work, tho the credit of having written the first connected essay from a single viewpoint belongs to him. The not over laudatory criticisms of the _Anzeigen_ are often paralel, even down to the wording of details with Tieck's judgments, but it would be a mistake to suppose that Tieck used the articles without having seen the engravings and without having given the pictures careful consideration. The fact that Tieck follows the errors of the _Anzeigen_ is significant, but it is equally significant that he corrects the errors of the magazine from his stock of observd judgments.

Generally, where Tieck follows the _Anzeigen_ most closely he is at his worst. The somewhat superficial and scanty remarks of the journal were no surrogate for the clear vision and power of adaptibility of the young man. Tieck's personal regard for Shakspere, which amounted to a real pa.s.sion, was entirely wanting.

The use of the articles in the _Anzeigen_ must be shown in detail, and Tieck's indetedness must be definitly brought out. Paralels will sometimes show convergence and sometimes divergence of ideas, but in general it will be seen that Tieck practically never used his material without some personal addition.

There is one set of cases which is peculiar and which deservs special attention. The plates in question are: "Much Ado," III, 1, ditto IV, 2, and "As You Like It," last scene.

A word of explanation in regard to the Boydell plates is necessary. From the original paintings there were two sets of plates engraved, known as the large plates (L) and the small plates (S). The small plates were in all but a few cases done from different pictures than were the large ones. These large plates are those usually known as the Boydell Gallery.

Both sets were issued serially; the large set was also bound and issued as a separate volume in 1803, and the small plates were used as ill.u.s.trations for the Steevens Shakspere edition of 1802, the letter press of which also seems to have been issued in parts before the bound volumes were finally put on the market. The bulk of Tieck's criticisms applies to the large plates tho he has a few remarks on the small ones as well. When he discusses the small plates, he always mentions the fact, except in the three cases just cited. These are three of the cases where L and S coincide in subject matter and where additional S plates were afterwards printed as a gratuitous gift to the subscribers.[15]

These plates are among the first discust by the _Anzeigen_ (1791, page 1794) which mention the fact of the plates being for the Shakspere edition, and that the extra plates are to be furnisht to make up for the duplication of subject matter in these cases of L and S. This is what is meant by the sentence, "Es wird sogar die Austauschung des einen Kupfers kunftig versprochen," a statement that corresponds perfectly with the remark in the later Boydell catalog that this promis has been fulfild.

Tieck does not notis this statement of the _Anzeigen_ but treats these S plates as if they were L, yet gives the names of the engravers of S.

This would look like a clear case of careless copying from the _Anzeigen_ if it were not clear from the additions that Tieck makes to the latter's criticism that he saw the plates too. The explanation of the discrepancy may be that Tieck when he was writing his article consulted the _Anzeigen_ for the facts in regard to the engravers, did not notis that the S plates were referd to and carelessly copied down what he saw.

I shall now examin in detail some of the paralel criticisms.

Much Ado, II; 4, G. G. A. 1791, page 1794: ... "wo in der Trauung statt des Jaworts Pedro die Hero fur keine reine Jungfer erklart, und Hero in Ohnmacht fallt; ... Das beste Stuck von allen in Rucksicht 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 fur das Auge."

Tieck, page 19: "Das zweite Blatt enthalt die Vertossung der Hero ...

und dies ist offenbar eines der vorzuglichsten. Das Licht ist sehr gut geordnet, das Auge findet sogleich unter den Gruppen einen Ruhepunkt; nur hat Hamilton dem Claudio eine zu theatralische Stellung und dem Leonato zu wenig Ausdruck gegeben."

Tieck carries the praise of the _Anzeigen_, the "Das beste Stuck" of which refers only to the group under immediate discussion, to the whole series. He takes his main critical vocabulary from the prototype and adds the original differentiation of Claudio and Leonato to which reference must be made later.

"Much Ado," IV, 2; G. G. A., 1791, page 1794: ... "ein Gemisch von 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 mechanical perfection of the engraver, who is Heath of S, and not Simon of L. So far we have the blind following of the model. But Tieck also makes the picture a basis for a long discussion of caricature and of thoro condemnation of Smirke, who is also no favorit of the _Anzeigen_. As Tieck's letters show a profuse use of the word caricature, he need not be especially indeted to the _Anzeigen_ for it.

"Richard III," I, 1, G. G. A., 1791, page 1795. Here Tieck's borrowing is direct. G. G. A.: "Eine schlechte Composition, ohne Ausdruck." Tieck, page 27: "Die Composition ist schlecht, alle Figuren sind ohne Ausdruck." G. G. A.: "Eine Menge Reflexe, Wiederscheine s. w. aber alles dieses macht keine Wirkung, und das Auge findet keinen Ruhepunkt."

Tieck, page 28: "und sucht durch unendlich viele Wiederscheine ... da.s.s das Auge bei den vielen Lichtma.s.sen gar keine Ruhe findet." But again, besides these verbal and a.s.sociational paralels, Tieck has added a free treatment of the composition, an examination of the drawing of the figures, of which there is no hint in the model and, all in all, makes the criticism his own. The impulse certainly came from the _Anzeigen_, but the whole critique is a product of Tieck's self.

"Richard III," IV, 3, G. G. A., 1791, page 1795: "Stellung gezwungen."

Tieck, page 28: "Der Morder unnaturlich." Here Tieck borrowed the idea and after an examination of the plate changed the wording.

"As You Like It," II, 1, G. G. A., 1793, page 561: "Ein treffliches Landschaftsgemalde." Tieck, page 18: "die reizende Landschaft." An examination of the whole of Tieck's criticism shows that he has added a characterization of Jacques, has discust the choice of this particular subject, and in this connection shows especially that the plate under discussion is only a vignette to the plays and not a part of the real play itself.

"As You Like It," last scene, G. G. A., 1793, pages 561-2: "Orlando, der mit zeimleich ausgespreizeten Beinen." Tieck, page 18: "Seine augespreizten Beine machen ihn widrig." Here Tieck has taken an externality of the description and has given it a point. The use of the word "widrig" gives a new tuch.

"Romeo and Juliet," I, 5, G. G. A.: "die Hauptfiguren muss man suchen."

Tieck, page 29: "Die Hauptfiguren findet man nur mit einiger Muhe."

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 pa.s.sage beginning, "If I profane with my unworthy hand" which the _Anzeigen_ only indicates. This might be laid to yuthful pedantry, were the whole not made far clearer for the entire citation.

"Romeo and Juliet," IV, 5, G. G. A., 562: "Julia nach genommenem Schlaftrunk fur todt gehalten, mit den Worten des Monchs: Peace ho for shame! ff. Dieser trostend, die Mutter die Hande ringend, Paris Julien umfa.s.send, ein Stuck mit vielem Affect" ... Tieck, page 30: "Julie hat den Schlaftrunk genommen und scheint ges...o...b..n, ihre Aeltern sowie ihr Brautigam Paris sind in Verzweifelung, der Pater sucht Alle zu trosten."

In the discussion of the small plate which follows, the _Anzeigen_ points out the changes which have been made on it, this being one of the supplementary small plates for the 1802 text edition. Tieck also notises the fact of the change but that he took his information not only from the _Anzeigen_ but from an examination of the original is proved by his additions to the information of the _Anzeigen_. Tieck's comment is, "Mehrere unnutze Personen weggela.s.sen." 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 Ausdruck." That both Tieck and the magazine use the fraze "tut ... Wirkung" in this place seems of secondary importance. A mere linguistic reminiscence, where it is not connected with an idea, is not influence. This must be sought in basic ideas, in hints which point the way for new lines of thought, in an adoption of facts. An author like Tieck shows independence when he adds, eliminates and remolds what he receives, even tho the form of the thought clings often to him.

So, then, when the _Anzeigen_ (1793, page 562) has the fraze "Julie in dem 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 consequence. This is a simple description of fact. Of much more importance is the fact that the magazine goes on to point out that not nature but the stage should be the model for the painter in this case, a doctrin which Tieck not only does not mention, but in fact, utterly rejects when the time comes to discuss it in the course of the treatment.

In the criticism of Schiavonetti's plate after Angelica Kaufmann (G. G.

A., 1793, page 903; Tieck, pages 16-17) Tieck agrees with the _Anzeigen_ but is thoroly independent in his resoning and adds constantly to what the magazine a.s.serts. 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 pa.s.sage 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 eifersuchtige Leontes la.s.st den Antigonous bey seinem ihm vorgehalten Schwerte schworen, da.s.s 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 discussion takes on an individual character, and is expanded into a critique of Opie's drawing which was always unsatisfactory to Tieck. Tieck (page 21): "Der eifersuchtige Leontes la.s.st den Antigonus schworen, das Kind auszusetzen.... An den Darstellungen aus diesem Stucke ist viel zu tadeln, vorzuglich an dieser ersten Scene. Leontes, die Hauptperson, ist steif und ohne allen Ausdruck, alle ubrigen Personen sind d.i.c.k und plump gezeichnet und ganz ohne alle Bedeutung.

Leontes la.s.st 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 Crucifixes.... In diesem Blatte entdecken sich auch bald viele Fehler in der Zeichnung. Das Auge wird von der Hauptperson auf die Lichtma.s.se, folglich, auf das Kind hingezogen; die Hauptfigur tritt gar nicht genug hervor, sondern hangt mit den hinter ihr stehenden zusammen; die Kopfe im Hintergrunde sind eben so gross, wie die der vorderen Personen. Alles verrath den ungeubten Kunstler." As an example of Tieck's rejection of the opinion of the G. G. A., the discussion of "Winter's Tale," V, 3, will suffice. This is the statue scene which Tieck absolutely condems on account of poor engraving, expression and posing. Where the magazine says "Die Statue, der man es doch sehr gut ansieht, das es eine lebende Figur ist, macht grosse Wirkung." Tieck (22) contradicts thus: "Die Statue ist sehr unnaturlich, sie sieht mehr einem Geiste, als einem Menschen ahnlich."

There are, finally, three further cases in which Tieck takes a hint from the _Anzeigen_ and develops it. "2 Henry VI," III, 3, (1794, page 10): "Kardinal Beauford ... ein scheuslicher Anblick, in mehr als einem Verstande." Tieck (page 25): "Dieses abscheuliche Blatt." But Tieck, in a pa.s.sage too long to quote, goes on to giv cogent reasons for not liking the picture, not one of which is derived from the _Anzeigen_. The other pa.s.sages from the "Merry Wives" (I, 1 and II, 1, G. G. A., 1794, page 970; Tieck, 11-12) take the hint that Smirke drew caricatures and not human beings and borrow the adjectiv "widrig." With this slender borrowing Tieck develops a full discussion of Smirke and of these plates with no further a.s.sistance from the _Anzeigen_ than a hint on the engraving of textiles.

These pa.s.sages on "Henry VI" and on the "Merry Wives" are doubly interesting, however, because they show that Tieck's judgment of Smirke and Northcote offers a very close paralel to that of the magazine.

Tieck's reasons are fuller, but they show no more ability in Tieck than in the reviewer of the _Anzeigen_ to understand some of the most characteristic features of English humor as exemplified in Smirke, while the pupil and biografer of Sir Joshua fares badly because of his alleged bad composition and poor light effects. It will be shown later that on both of these latter questions Tieck held views quite independent of the _Anzeigen_.

Of Kirk's plate from "t.i.tus 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, da.s.s der Kunstler eine sehr richtige Idee von der Composition hat, und da.s.s er seinem Gegenstand mit Geschmack und Delicatesse zu behandeln weiss. Er la.s.st uns die abgeschnittenen Arme der Lavinia nur vermuthen; der geschickt geworfene Schleier entzieht unserm Auge den unangenehmen Anblick," etc.