Tieck's essay is in the form of four letters, and was written while he was a student at the University of Göttingen. 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 asserts that the article is a product of the year 1793 and that it was published in 1794. It appeared in the Neue Bibliothek der schœnen Wissenschaften und freyen Kuenste, 55ten Bandes zweytes Stück, 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 Gœttinger 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 analysis 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 Gœttinger 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 "Krämergeist" 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, Stück 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 Gœttinger 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 passion, 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 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 Kupfers künftig 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 für keine reine Jungfer erklärt, und Hero in Ohnmacht fällt; ... Das beste Stück von allen in Rücksicht der Composition, Ausdrucks und Auswahl des Lichtes nur ist die Stellung der Hauptperson ein wenig zu theatralisch; sonst aber alles gut geordnet; schöne Contraste von Licht und Ruhe für das Auge."