Part 3

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. Engraved 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 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 frases like "gut geordnet" occurs, but expresses only a mild acquiescence in the arrangement. Tieck was fond of the posing sentimentalities 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 Shakspere illustration. On the other hand, and here he departs constantly from the canon of Lessing, there is no striving for abstract beauty. Charm and grace, beauty in motion as it is exprest 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 abstract 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 one considerably overestimated. In Michaelangelo, Tieck knows the strength of the drawing and not the wistfulness that pervades even the most Titanic of the master's creations. In general, 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, 1). Tieck likes the plate because of its taste and delicacy in only suggesting the mutilated arms of Lavinia. Kirk has avoided the frank naturalism 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 suggested 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.[31] In the deth of Mortimer (1 "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 demands on the artist may be ever so high, but his practical application of these principles is by no means as strict as might be expected. Indeed, in theory Tieck demands one thing and in practis another.

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 symbols to designate his characters. But when Tieck actually examins the pictures, he stresses theatrical pose or mien and pays no attention to those obvious tricks whereby expression is obtainable: 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 nevertheless past over, that the instance of Tybalt seems fortuitous.

Tieck uses the expressions "ohne Ausdruck," "wenig Ausdruck" and "ohne Charakter," "wenig Charakter" almost exclusively 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 Ausdruck" 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 eighteenth. 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, expanding 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 contemporaries.

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 accounted 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 character 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 remarks 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 hav all too much of the gigantic, too little of the childish old man. He points out that the face as drawn by Füessli expresses nothing but rage; the same exaggeration is found in the drawing of West who sacrifices truth, nature and emotion to a striking first impression. Barry's Lear only excites laughter and the lack of expression 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 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 "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 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 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 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 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 Künstler 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 Füessli 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 attitude 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 Zähnen grinsend, das Bett in Verzuckungen kneifend, eine ekelhafte, verzerrte Caricatur, über die man lachen könnte, wenn sie etwas weniger abscheulich wäre. Genie and Enthusiasmus können hier die Hand und Kritik unmöglich irre geführt haben; denn weder das eine, noch der andere gehört dazu, um diese Züge, 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 dass er vielleicht viele Scenen natürlich und einige komish darstellt, aber nach meinem Urtheil spielt er in keiner einzigen schön, mit einem Worte, er macht Carrikatur, und die kann nie schön sein, wenn sie auch noch so vielen Ausdruck hat. Das Komische und das Schreckhafte gränzen überhaupt vielleicht näher aneinander, als man glaubt ... Vielleicht ist das wahre komische Spiel so wie Unzelmann est giebt, alles so leicht, so übergehend, keine Periode, keine Idee, keine Stellung möglichst festgehalten, keine Grimasse 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, dass Carrikaturen den Kindern nie gefallen, denn sie erkennen in ihnen nur mit Mühe den Menschen wieder, sie fürchten sie wirklich; sie können ungleich länger eine andre Figur ohne Ausdruck und bestimmten Charakter betrachten, ja tagelang darüber brüten, und Ausdruck und Charakter hineintragen, hundert Träume spinnen sich in ihrer Seele aus, ... Carrikaturen gefallen überhaupt vielleicht nur einem kalten nördlichen Volke, dessen Gefühl für den feinen Stachel der stillen Schönheit zu grob ist, oder die schon die Schule der Schönheit durchgegangen sind, und deren übersatten Magen nur noch die gewürztesten Speisen reizen können, die es daher gern sehen, wenn die Schönheit dem Ausdruck aufgeopfert wird, weil sie in der Schönheit keinen lebenden Ausdruck mehr finden. Du wirst sehen, dass ich hier nicht bloss von der komischen Carrikatur spreche, sondern von jedem Ausdruck irgend einer Leidenschaft, der die Schönheit 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 illustration. Tieck says (page 15), "Im Trauerspiele ersteigen meistentheils gerade die schönsten Scenen eine Höhe des Effects, die der Maler schwerlich ausdrücken kann, ohne widrig zu werden. Der Schauspieler verliert schon oft jene Grazie, die jedem Kunstwerke nöthig 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 unmöglich, denn jene Verzerrungen, die auf der Bühne nur vorübergehend sind, werden hier bleibend gemacht; dort erschrecken sie durch ihr plötzliches 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 höchsten Grade des Zorns, der Wuth oder der Verzweifelung bleiben im Gemälde stets unedel; selbst der Wahnsinn muss hier mit einer gewissen Schüchternheit auftreten, und im höchsten Entzücken 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 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 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 _Athenæum_ 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 lächerlich sein soll, 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 Künstler, der die komischen Scenen des Shakspeare darstellen will, sollte doch von seinem Dichter so viel gelernt haben, dass dieser seine Caricaturen nie ohne eine gewisse Portion von phlegmatischer Laune lässt, die so oft unser Lachen erregt, und aus der blossen Erfahrung sollte er wissen, dass selbst der lächerlichste Zwerg, wenn er schäumt, in eben dem Augenblicke aufhört lächerlich zu sein. Jedes Subject hört auf, komisch zu sein, sobald ich es in einen hohen Grad von Leidenschaft versetze. Denn das Lächerliche in den Charakteren entsteht gewöhnlich 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 gewöhnlich in Uebertreibung und gesuchten Verzerrungen des Körpers."[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 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 "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.