The Discourses of Sir Joshua Reynolds formulate a theory of painting which elevates that art to a kinship with the then more firmly established art of poetry. On the ground that painting is no mere handicraft, the great president of the Royal Academy recommended to his pupils “not the industry of the hands, but of the mind,” and insisted that a successful painter “stands in need of more knowledge than is to be picked off his palette.” This general assertion is then amplified, in one of the most significant passages of the lectures. “Every man,” Reynolds continued, “whose business is description, ought to be tolerably conversant with the poets, … that he may imbibe a poetical spirit, and enlarge his stock of ideas. He ought not to be wholly unacquainted with that part of philosophy which gives an insight into human nature… . He ought to know something concerning the mind, as well as a great deal concerning the body of man.”

There is a fairly general agreement among the critics that the First Part of Henry the Sixth was not originally written by Shakespeare, but was revised by him, that it is the play which Henslowe recorded as “new” on March 3, 1591/2, and frequently enough thereafter to attest that it was one of the most popular pieces of the day, and that it was this same popular piece to which Nashe referred in the always quoted passage in Pierce Penilesse (1592): “How would it have ioyed braue Talbot (the terror of the French), to think that after he had lyen two hundred yeare in his Toomb, he should triumph againe on the Stage and haue his bones new embalmed with the teares of ten thousand spectators at least (at several times) who in the Tragedian that represents his person imagine they behold him fresh bleeding.” There seems no sufficient reason for doubting these natural conjectures. The play was included in the First Folio, which indicates that it was at least in part Shakespeare's work; it was not mentioned by Meres, which seems to imply that it was not fundamentally his; it was acted by Lord Strange's company, which would accord with its being revised rather than originally written by Shakespeare. It is such a play as, judging by the other notable successes of the time, would be immensely popular; and it answers perfectly to Nashe's reference.

Viewed from any angle Shakespeare's Troilus and Cressida is an unattractive play. The heroine is a wanton. Ulysses reads her at a glance and finds

language in her eye, her cheek, her lip,
Nay, her foot speaks; her wanton spirits look out
At every joint and motive of her body.

He sets her down at once as “a daughter of the game,” and at every opportunity the foul-mouthed Thersites corroborates this description. “They say Diomedes keeps a Trojan drab,” he monologizes, “and uses the traitor Calchas his tent. I'll after; ”2 and in the rather awkward scene in which Cressida's perfidy is revealed to Troilus, he gleefully whispers: “Any man may sing her, if he can take her cliff. She's noted.”

Als Vorbedürfnis für das Studium der deutschen Dramaturgie in ihrer historischen Entwicklung erscheint ein Überblick der wichtigsten ästhetischen Anschauungen zuvörderst unentbehrlich. Statt jedoch dazu die Hilfe der historischen Ästhetik einzurufen, wird in dieser Arbeit der Versuch gewagt, den ästhetischen Hintergrund aus den Äusserungen zeitgenössischer Dramatiker herauszuforschen und neu zu beleben. Der Hilferuf an die Ästhetik wäre hier übrigens unbeachtet verklungen, denn die Geschichte der Ästhetik hat bis jetzt fast ausschliesslich das an sich Wertvolle und Interessante, oder das Historisch-bedeutende berücksichtigt. Andererseits zieht die angewandte Ästhetik der litterarischen Kunstform, nämlich die Kritik, meistens nur die Berufskritiker und kaum je das Massenpublikum in ihre Betrachtung hinein. Eine kulturgeschichtliche Ästhetik, ebensosehr bemüht, die pathetisch-nüchternen Ideale des Bürger- oder Volksdramas darzustellen, gibt es bis heute noch nicht. Und doch hätten solche Studien für die Ästhetik, wie für die Litteraturgeschichte, ohne Zweifel ihren Nutz. Deshalb, und mehr noch, weil das Material bei den Vorarbeiten zu einer Geschichte der deutschen Dramaturgie leicht erreichbar war, ist folgender Versuch entstanden.

Kölbing in his work on the Ipomédon of Hue de Rotelande finds in this charming romance of the latter half of the twelfth century the “tendenz, characterzeichnung und handlung,” that class it unmistakably with the romances of the Round Table, and recognizes most particularly upon it the influence of the Charette and the Yvain of Chrétien de Troyes.

Theories offering interpretations of Chaucer's Parlement of Foules based upon the orthodox belief that the central incident of the poem is in some way connected with a royal marriage have at least refused to do loyal service at one prominent point. No theory of historical allegory has yet explained in a wholly satisfactory manner the outstanding fact that the Parlement of Foules is artistically a well rounded poem, and yet contains an unfinished story. Why does not the formel eagle choose her mate after our interest has been aroused in the pleadings of her lovers?