Tieck's Essay on the Boydell Shakspere Gallery Part 2

It seems apparent that those plates which had a certain sentimentality, a certain saccharin quality appeald to Tieck. He likes the prettiness of Anne Page and cleverly notes the touch of scorn in her face. If he had recalled Reynolds' Mrs. Siddons he would hav recognized the same trait of hardness around the mouth, a line that is often found in the pictures of English women. Perhaps Tieck's interest went hand in hand with his enthusiasm for Rafael, and lack of discrimination lets him take all as of equal value. The face of young Lucius in "t.i.tus Adronicus" and the face of Juliet in the tomb are examples of this. Tieck argues that the boy has a good deal of expression, but a cool observer can see only melodrama in the pose and blankness in the face. The most interesting thing about the plate has escaped Tieck's attention, namely that both of t.i.tus' hands are represented. It seems an especially noteworthy omission in a picture which Tieck praises for not showing the stumps of Lavinia.[32]

Tieck several times criticizes a picture for making a good first impression and then not being able to stand the test of close observation. An example of this is Northcote's portrayal of Mortimer and York (1 "Henry VI.," II, 5) which is really spoild according to Tieck by the strong light ma.s.ses which at first sight seem very striking. These light ma.s.ses throw the main figure into relief, but Tieck objects to the unnatural posture of the dying man. Close examination of the figure reveals the fact that Mortimer is really well drawn; the lines of the drapery distort the general impression, but that part of the drawing comprising the actual sitting figure is that of a broken old man, fallen in a heap and dying. Any one who has seen Irving's masterly representation of the dying Louis cannot but be imprest by the verisimilitude of Northcote's presentation. What Tieck says of the minor characters on the plate is true; they are expressionless in the extreme.

Tieck is fully justified in calling Reynolds' scene from "Henry VI."

"dieses abscheuliche Blatt," where the word "abscheulich" is reminiscent of the _Anzeigen_. He asks further, "Ist dies der Kunstler der Familie des Ugolino?"[33] With much better right he might hav askt, "Is this the painter of the 'Age of Innocence' and the man who loved to paint children?" Both the Shakspere plate and the stiff Ugolino picture attempt to portray the horrible, and the only other plate that Sir Joshua did for the "Gallery," namely, the Hecate plate from "Macbeth,"

the same selection of a grewsome subject is made. Neither of these pictures can be sed to conform with Reynolds' well-known doctrin that the function of art is to arouse the imagination, for in these pictures there is nothing left for the imagination but exhaustion. They show a vein of the bizarre without the great fancy of Fuessli and are realistic to a degree that stopt at nothing. It is not to be wonderd at that Tieck exhausts himself in condemnation of the plate that he saw.

It is plain that Tieck saw in the plate a caricature and an evasion. The caricature was the dying man and the evasion was the veild face of the young king. Tieck felt that the artist had veild the face of his character to conceal his want of skill in the portrayal of a supreme moment of emotion. Here Tieck certainly breaks with the doctrin of Lessing who praised the expedient of Timanthes in veiling the face of Agamemnon at the sacrifice. Tieck tacitly accuses Reynolds of shirking an obvious task. He wisht something superlativ, whether in fleeting expression or in that permanency which is caused by iterativ emotion.

Such a desire, the emfasizing of Shakspere's "Kraft" and "Energie"

leaves him on the plane of the Storm and Stress in his att.i.tude toward the British poet.[34] If the words of Sir Joshua himself are to be taken as a criterion, his theory is different from his practis in this case, and Tieck has condemd him out of his own mouth.

Beauford, whom Tieck calls a caricature, certainly leaves nothing to the imagination, as Reynolds wisht for art.[35] Tieck's description of the figure is apt, "Beauford liegt da, mit den Zahnen grinsend, das Bett in Verzuckungen kneifend, eine ekelhafte, verzerrte Caricatur, uber die man lachen konnte, wenn sie etwas weniger abscheulich ware. Genie and Enthusiasmus konnen hier die Hand und Kritik unmoglich irre gefuhrt haben; denn weder das eine, noch der andere gehort dazu, um diese Zuge, diese Umrisse hervorzubringen."

The word caricature is, even before he found it in the _Anzeigen_, a term of deepest reproach with Tieck. In his essays to Wackenroder he says, speaking of a certain actor, "Ich gestehe da.s.s er vielleicht viele Scenen naturlich und einige komish darstellt, 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 uberhaupt vielleicht naher aneinander, als man glaubt ... Vielleicht ist das wahre komische Spiel so wie Unzelmann est giebt, alles so leicht, so ubergehend, keine Periode, keine Idee, keine Stellung moglichst festgehalten, keine Grima.s.se in Stein verwandelt."

After pointing out the value of the unspoild taste of childhood in matters of esthetic judgment, Tieck continues: "Du kannst leicht die Erfahrung machen, da.s.s Carrikaturen den Kindern nie gefallen, denn sie erkennen in ihnen nur mit Muhe den Menschen wieder, sie furchten sie wirklich; sie konnen ungleich langer eine andre Figur ohne Ausdruck und bestimmten Charakter betrachten, ja tagelang daruber bruten, und Ausdruck und Charakter hineintragen, hundert Traume spinnen sich in ihrer Seele aus, ... Carrikaturen gefallen uberhaupt vielleicht nur einem kalten nordlichen Volke, dessen Gefuhl fur den feinen Stachel der stillen Schonheit zu grob ist, oder die schon die Schule der Schonheit durchgegangen sind, und deren ubersatten Magen nur noch die gewurztesten 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, da.s.s ich hier nicht bloss von der komischen 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 and confesses his indetedness to him in the matter. The highest effects when used in sculpture and painting are also caricature.[36]

Paralel to this statement in the letters is the discussion in the essay of the valu of the comedies of Shakspere over his tragedies as material for ill.u.s.tration. Tieck says (page 15), "Im Trauerspiele ersteigen meistentheils gerade die schonsten Scenen eine Hohe des Effects, die der Maler schwerlich ausdrucken 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 Unangenehme vermeiden; der Malerei ist es aber meist unmoglich, denn jene Verzerrungen, die auf der Buhne nur vorubergehend sind, werden hier bleibend gemacht; dort erschrecken sie durch ihr plotzliches Entstehen und Verschwinden, hier werden sie ekelhaft, weil durch das Feststehende und Bleibende des Widrigen der dargestellte Mensch zum Thier herabsinkt.

Jemehr der Maler den Affekt hinauftreibt, desto mehr nimmt er zugleich Interesse und Tadel von seinem Helden. Die hochsten Grade des Zorns, der Wuth oder der Verzweifelung bleiben im Gemalde stets unedel; selbst der Wahnsinn muss hier mit einer gewissen Schuchternheit auftreten, und im hochsten Entzucken muss ein sanfter Wiederschein der Melancholie leuchten." The relation of this to Lessing, both in the "Laokoon" and in the "Dramaturgie" is at once apparent.

The dislike for caricature centers around the comic efforts of Smirke for whom Tieck has hardly a good word to say. In the discussion of Reynolds' picture, Tieck remarks, half in jest, that he regrets his strictures on Smirke in the face of this greater caricature by Reynolds.

The sum total of his criticisms of Smirke is unjust: thruout the series and especially in some of the plates that Tieck saw, this painter has caught the comic spirit well, and tho overpraisd by his contemporaries, has done some very clever work both in the "Gallery" and in Bell's "British Theater."[37]

Tieck's princ.i.p.al censures are directed against the figure of Simple in the "Merry Wives" and that of Dogberry in the comic trial in "Much Ado."

Simple is for Tieck neither the character as Shakspere conceived him, nor is he funny. It is again, says Tieck, a mere exaggeration, tantamount to a confession of inability. That the spectator cannot laugh at the character is the artist's greatest punishment; in overstepping the just limits of the comic and the natural, he has made the figure insignificant. Unlike Hogarth, says Tieck, Smirke has not the power of expressing character by means of the distortions of the exterior. To put an artist below Hogarth is with Tieck to put him very low; in this respect he stands on the plane of August von Schlegel in the _Athenaeum_ and has not risen to the level of admiration for the Englishman displayed by Novalis in the "Fragments."

The best that Tieck can say for the Dogberry scene as a whole is, that in spite of its exaggerations, it has much comic power. But, he goes on to explain, it is a far different thing for Smirke to exaggerate than for Shakspere, for the latter always draws human beings, while the figures of the former are at times hardly to be distinguisht from apes.

To a certain extent the figure of Dogberry and more especially the face, justify Tieck's repugnance. In its way, the face is fully as bad as that of Reynolds' Beauford. Tieck says, "Selbst ein vertrauter Leser des Shakspeare findet sich nicht in den hier dargestellen Caricaturen, von denen die Hauptperson in einer Wuth, die lacherlich sein soll, so ekelhaft verzerrt wird, da.s.s 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 Kunstler, der die komischen Scenen des Shakspeare darstellen will, sollte doch von seinem Dichter so viel gelernt haben, da.s.s dieser seine Caricaturen nie ohne eine gewisse Portion von phlegmatischer Laune la.s.st, die so oft unser Lachen erregt, und aus der blossen Erfahrung sollte er wissen, da.s.s 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 Leidenschaft versetze. Denn das Lacherliche in den Charakteren entsteht gewohnlich nur durch die seltsam widersprechende Mischung des Affects und des inneren Phlegma; wenigstens so hat Shakspeare seine wirklich komischen Personen gezeichnet. Der Mangel an Genie zeigt sich gewohnlich in Uebertreibung und gesuchten Verzerrungen des Korpers."[38]

The scene from the "Merry Wives" in which Dr. Cajus catechizes William on his Latin, represents very well the type of scene the choice of which Tieck condems as unsuited for representation. It is not because there was something in the humor of them that Tieck did not grasp, but because he rejects on principle all that is secondary and episodical. Such scenes as are told and not acted, that is, the epic portions of the plays, as well as the reflectiv and filosofical portions would hav to be excluded. It is the fate of the princ.i.p.al characters which is of prime importance, and the moment must be chosen with their activities in view.

This emfasis on the princ.i.p.al character is also strongly reminiscent of the doctrin of Lessing's "Dramaturgie." It has been shown how it affects what Tieck has to say about composition and it is the prime factor in his feeling for what is the proper moment and subject of representation.

Some of the scenes which Tieck rejects are Hodges' picture of the melancholy Jacques, and the murder of the princes in "Richard III."

Neither of these is acted out on the stage. From the "Merry Wives" he proposes Falstaff's three adventures: the basket scene, the Witch of Brentford scene and the final torturing of Falstaff by the practical jokers. These giv a chance for variety of grouping and a gradation of expression in all the chief characters of the play. The scene in which the two women read identical letters from Falstaff, Tieck regards as the worst possible, for reasons that he says he need not recall but which are obviously those of lack of stress on the main character.

The scenes that Tieck recommends were actually chosen by the artists whose work appears later in the series and so Tieck's judgment is, in a way, confirmd. These scenes are the skeleton of the farce element and bring out the structure of the Falstaff plot which Tieck evidently regards as the main theme. It is interesting to note, however, how little the choice of subject has to do with the artistic merit or demerit of the plates. The subsequent plates, which would hav fully satisfied Tieck's requirements as to the moment of presentation are artistically among the worst in the series.

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 themselves very well to representation but are chosen on another basis of judgment. They show that for Tieck Orlando was of more importance than Rosalind, for he suggests no scene with her in it as especially representativ of the play. In the first of these two scenes, the action has already begun; the scene is the culmination of the episode containing the first relation of the brothers. It is in itself not a vital part of the action. The scene in the forest, on the other hand, has more of the qualities demanded by Tieck: a variety of characters and an important moment. This is a moment--tho not the initial one--when Orlando's fortunes mend and he comes to his frends.

The scene in which he first meets the Duke's party is of more significance. It seems as if the governing principle is contrast rather than a desire for elucidation of structure in serial arrangment. Orlando and Adam, ill-fortune and good luck, are juxtaposed.

Tieck conjectures that the eavesdropping scene from "Much Ado" (III, 1) is included in the collection because it was played by popular actresses of the contemporary English stage. Tieck misses the structural importance of the scene. It is apart of the intrigue; it has a direct effect on Beatrice who comes from it a changed woman. To Tieck, however, it ment as little as the similar eavesdropping scene from "Love's Labor Lost" (IV, 3), in which play he claims there is no suitable scene for representation.

The scene from "Winter's Tale" in which Perdita welcomes the disguised Duke (IV, 3), offering him flowers the while, is condemd in favor of the one immediately following in which the Duke discloses himself. Here again Tieck stresses the contrast and wishes a climax, a dramatic moment. So he praises such scenes as the putting away of Hero at the altar and the deth of Beauford, however much he derides the execution of the latter, by Reynolds.

For the sake of bringing out the wretchedness of this execution, Tieck points out that tho he has often before bewaild the choice of moment, he cannot do so in this case for no better could hav been selected. He details the good points in the scene: "Man denke sich einen Bosewicht auf dem Todtenbette, den die Verzweifelung wahnsinnig gemacht hat, der keine Seligkeit hofft; diesen besucht in seiner Todesstunde Heinrich, der junge gefuhlvolle Konig, ein Schwarmer in der Religion, der von diesem Anblick auf das tiefste geruhrt wird; Warwick und Salisbury, zwei mannliche Krieger, begleiten ihn hierher. Beauford ist die Hauptperson, alle Zuschauer haben ihre gauze Aufmerksamkeit auf ihn gerichtet. Der Kunstler hatte hier ruhren und erschuttern 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 geruhrt, aber doch interessante Physiognomien, die durch leichtere Nuancen von einander unterschieden 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 pilgrims stand" and has represented Romeo in the garb of a pilgrim to correspond to Juliet's anser, "Good pilgrim." As Tieck rightly points out, there is no need for such a gise.

The choice of the more highly keyd situation at the supposed deth of Juliet meets with Tieck's approval and shows that where there is a choice, the emfasis of his selection is apt to be on the superlativ moment.[39]

One other idea seems to be in Tieck's mind and it is hard to believe that he was not unconsciously influenced by the stage presentation of the plays when formulating it. That is the desire to hav a number of people in the picture. Nearly all the plates that he condems hav but few characters and his dictum of variety demands a reasonable number to choose from. This dramatic point of view is in accord with his att.i.tude in all other fases of the discussion. It has been pointed out how rarely the artistic makes the prime appeal to him.

Tieck's second point in regard to choice of subject is that the comedies offer a wider field and a better opportunity than the tragedies. The general basis for this notion is allied to his theory of the worthlessness of caricature, that is, that there is an exaggeration, an overacting of the part possible in tragedy that is less likely to occur in comedy.

The statement of the evils of exaggeration is very sweeping and includes in some of its details both comedy and tragedy: "Der dramatische Dichter hat Momente in seinen Schauspielen, die kein Pinsel oder Griffel jemals darstellen kann; ich meine jene Sprunge und uberraschenden Wendungen des Affectes, jene furchterlichen Blitze des Genies, bei denen der Zuschauer zusammenfahrt, wo der Dichter unerwartet durch eine neue verdrangt: diese Momente sind oft die glanzendsten des Schauspiels, und bei keinem Dichter finden sie sich so haufig als bei Shakspeare in seinen TraG.o.dien." Tieck's ill.u.s.tration for this is the pa.s.sage from Lear beginning, "No, I will weep no more," etc. He continues, "welcher Maler wird es wagen, wenn er den Sinn ganz durchdringt, ... diese Stelle auf die Leinwand zu werfen? So innig diese Verse beim Lesen oder bei der Darstellung ruhren, so frostig wurden sie vielleicht als ein Gemalde dargestellt erscheinen: oder wenn sie auch hier ruhrten, so wurde das Gemalde doch nie jene Erschutterung in uns erregen, jenes Anschlagen von hundert Gefuhlen. Man wurde immer nur den weinenden Lear sehen oder den erzurnten Vater, der sich zur Kalte zwingt; das Ineinanderschmelzen dieser beiden 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 with the poet, to feel his lack of ability in the struggle and to produce empty declamation insted of a work of the creativ imagination and to offer to the spectator nothing for either imagination or reason.

But in the comedies there are many moments which almost force themselves on the painter. These are scenes in which he can portray the poet just as he finds him and in which his rivalry is legitimate and, indeed, may tend to make him surpa.s.s the poet. If he can do this it will be by bringing out more plainly the light shades of the poet's meaning and he will become a commentator, so to speak, of these. Under such circ.u.mstances, the painter must be very careful to choose just the most beautiful and most interesting pa.s.sages.

The relation to Lessing is again at once clear. The culminating moment of pa.s.sion as it appears in the tragedies is not suitable from the artistic point of view for reproduction but the comedies, from their admixture of the flegmatic, the almost imperativ concomitant of Shaksperean humor, tone down this superlativ expression and are therefore within the pale. How Tieck carries out his theory in practis, has been sufficiently shown: his love for the sentimental and melodramatic, for the climatic and striking lead him to neglect his delimiting theoretical remarks.

Before leaving the discussion of Tieck's article, it may be well to compare it with another contemporary treatment of the Boydell Gallery.

This is by the famous traveler and publicist, George Forster. It was Forster's account which furnisht Fiorillo with much of his data for the treatment of the "Gallery" in his history of British art, but it is hardly likely that the account is a source for Tieck. I hav no external evidence and the internal evidence is entirely negativ.

If Friedrich Schlegel's estimate of Forster's artistic capabilities be accepted, it is just such pictures as these, where the social interest is great and the artistic valu is secondary, that should bring out Forster's strength of judgment. Forster was also a finely discriminating amateur, with a decided sense of tactile form based on a sincere love of Greek art and confirmd by a study of Winkelmann and Lessing, beyond whom he past in his appreciation of the portrait and the landscape and of the coloring of the great masters.

Forster's essay, "Die Kunst und das Zeitalter" (1791), was written about the time that he saw the Boydell pictures. It shows his att.i.tude 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 Dusseldorf, Brussels and Antwerp fully express his ideas on Dutch and Flemish art, especially emfasizing the characteristics of Rubens for whose fleshy types Forster had little use.

In the discussion of British art which comes as an appendix to the "Ansichten," Forster includes a rather detaild description of the Boydell paintings. He did not see the engravings, or rather, his description is based on the paintings as they hung in the gallery in Pall Mall and so the material of this sketch in two parts, is in one way fundamentally different from that of Tieck. All the discussion of technique in which Tieck was so weak, is entirely lacking in Forster.

His point of view, too, is different. He is the traveld, experienced man from whose traind eye and broad judgment more may be expected than from the student Tieck. There is, as Friedrich Schlegel says, an out-of-doorness in Forster's work that Tieck could never hav had; the over-emfasis on Shakspere on the part of the latter is only one product of his inexperience.

In spite of all this, it is surprizing to find what correspondences there are between the student Tieck and the more traind Forster. The latter who knew vastly more of English life than Tieck, fails to understand it in just those vital points where Tieck went farthest astray. Smirke and Peters fare badly at his hands, perhaps because of a certain puritanism in his at.i.tude, or to quote Schlegel, because "Keine Vollkommenheit der Darstellung konnte ihn mit einem Stoff aussohnen, der sein Zartgefuhl verletzte, seine Sittlichkeit beleidigte oder seinen Geist unbefriedigt liess." For this reason he can call one of the Peters paintings from the "Merry Wives" a brothel (ein Speelhuis) or refer to the women of that artist as "lockere Nymphen."

Besides the same general dislike for the caricatures of Smirke that was noted in all previous instances, there is the usual praise of Hodges, the usual condemnation of Opie's bad drawing. Fuessli, too, comes in for his share of the blame: "Der Beifall, welchen Fuesslis 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 uber das Meer; seiner Phantasie ward es wohl unter wilden Traumgestalten und Bildern des Ungewohnlichen. Diese Stimmung ... verfuhrte ihn nur gar zu bald zu allen Ausschweifungen der Manier. Es ist zwar leicht das Alltagliche zu vermeiden, indem man Kontorsionen darstellt ..." (page 466). Again: "Es sind nicht Menschen, die dieser Kunstler phantasiert, sondern Ungeheuer in halb menschlicher Gestalt, mit einzeln sehr gross gezeichneten und sehr verzerrten, verunstalteten Theilen und Proportionen: ausgerenkte Handgelenke, aus dem Kopfe springende Augen, Bocksphysiognomien u. s. f...." (page 503). Northcote is d.a.m.ned 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, n.o.ble greatness and beauty. His distorted figures border on caricature and his forms are of giants, colossi. His coloring is bad in spite of his theoretical knowlege and good drawing.

Forster sees thru Angelika Kaufmann and Hamilton better than Tieck did.

Hamilton's paintings are "Machwerk" and his figures move in "Tanzschritt," while Angelika's are hermafroditic (page 501). "Die deutsche Muse Angelika verbarg die Inkorrektheit und das Einerlei ihrer allzuschlanken Figuren unter dem Schleier der Grazie und Unschuld" (page 459).

For Forster, Shakspere is the most logical portrayer of nature that ever existed; he meets the painter halfway in his work by his excellent characterization of the salient features of a personage and so givs the painter sharply defined subjects for his fantasy. For the artists of the British school this is especially valuable because effect is their highest aim and beauty only secondary. Extremes of pa.s.sion, astonishment, surprize are strivn for. "Sie hascht nach der Wahrheit der Natur in ihren gra.s.slichen 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-ill.u.s.tration as a whole and as we found Tieck to hav. The melancholy Jacques in the forest is a good scene for Forster, whereas Tieck rejected it as having no structural relation to the rest of the play. Forster finds it worthy of portrayal as one of the moments arising from Shakspere's variety of scene, character and condition of life, to say nothing of the chance to show the lonesome melancholy stag by the famous animal painter, Gilpin!

On Reynolds' famous Beauford picture, Tieck and Forster are entirely at odds. For Tieck the execution is terrible, the choice of subject satisfactory. For Forster, the choice is inexcusable, the execution in part masterly; a dying criminal in his last throes seems to Forster an utterly impossible subject for representation. So with Kirk's picture from "t.i.tus Adronicus": in spite of the attempt to meliorate the impression of the butcherd Lavinia, the whole picture remains for Forster a disgusting sight. The conclusion is obvious: Forster's sense of delicacy rebeld at the cra.s.s 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 _Abendblaetter_ article. Tieck does not rise above the milieu; the "Gallery" offers no hold with which to test contemporary art in his own land. It is only a beginning, clearsighted in part and in general sustaind, an ernest of what the matured criticism of the Romantic school was later on to do.

NOTES

[1] Die Kupferstiche nach der Shakspeare-Gallerie in London. Briefe an einen Freund. 1793. "Kritische Schriften," vol. I, pages 3-34. [Kr.

Sch.]

[2] For full t.i.tle, see bibliografy.