The Project Gutenberg eBook of Hogarth's Works, by John Ireland and John Nichols.

The no Dedication

Not Dedicated to any Prince in Christendom
for fear it might be thought an
Idle piece of Arrogance.

Not Dedicated to any man of quality
for fear it might be thought too assuming.

Not Dedicated to any learned body
of Man, as either of the universityes, or the
Royal Society, for fear it might be thought
an uncommon piece of Vanity.

Nor Dedicated to any one particular Friend
for fear of offending another.

Therefore Dedicated to nobody.
But if for once we may suppose
Nobody to be every body, as Every body
is often said to be nobody, then is this work
Dedicated to every body.

LIST OF PLATES

ADVERTISEMENT.

The manuscripts from which the principal parts of this volume are compiled were written by the late Mr. Hogarth; had he lived a little longer, he would have methodized and published them.[1] On his decease, they devolved to his widow, who kept them sacred and entire [2] until her death, when they became the property of her relation and executrix, Mrs. Lewis, of Chiswick, by whose kindness and friendship they are now in my possession.

This is the fair and honest pedigree of the Papers, which may be thus divided:—

I. Hogarth's life, comprehending his course of study, correspondence, political quarrels, etc.

II. A manuscript volume, containing the autographs of the subscribers to his "Elections," and intended print of "Sigismunda;" and letters to and from Lord Grosvenor relative to that picture.

III. The manuscript of the Analysis of Beauty, corrected by the author, with the original sketches, and many remarks omitted in the printed copy.

IV. A supplement to the Analysis, never published; comprising a succinct history of the arts in his own time, his account of the institution of the Royal Academy, etc.

V. Sundry memoranda relative to the subject of his satire in several of his prints.

These manuscripts being written in a careless hand, generally on loose pieces of paper, and not paged, my first endeavour was to find the connection, separate the subjects, and place each in its proper class. This, in such a mass of papers, I found no very easy task; especially as the author, when dissatisfied with his first expression, has frequently varied the form of the same sentence two or three times: in such instances I have selected that which I thought best constructed. Every paper has been attentively examined, and is to the best of my judgment arranged as the author intended. I have incorporated Hogarth's account of the Arts, Academy, etc., with his narrative of his own life; and to keep distinct the various subjects on which he treats,[xi] divided the whole into chapters. Where from negligence or haste he has omitted a word, I have supplied it with that which the context leads me to believe he would have used. Where the sentences have been very long, I have occasionally broken them into shorter paragraphs, and sometimes tried to render the style more perspicuous, by the retrenchment of redundant expressions; but in every case the sense of the author is faithfully adhered to.

As he has usually given the progress of his life, opinions, etc. in the first person, I have adopted the same rule; and to distinguish my own remarks from Hogarth's narrative, the beginning of each sentence written by him is marked with inverted commas. His correspondence is regulated by the dates of the letters; and the copies from sketches in the MS. Analysis are placed in the chapter which contains Hogarth's account of that publication.

In the papers which relate to the subject of his satire in some of his prints, he appears to have projected more than his life allowed him to perform; the few remarks which he made are inserted in the Appendix.

Prints are in general designed to illustrate books, but the Editor's part of this volume is written to illustrate Prints. He is apprehensive that the whole will stand in need of much indulgence, but certain that the errors, whatever they may be, do not[xii] originate in a want of diligence. To his thanks for the flattering reception of the first Edition, and rapid sale of the first and second Editions of the two preceding volumes, he has only to add his reasons for bringing forward this third. When they were published, he had neither seen the MSS., nor ever heard that Hogarth had written anything for the press, except the Analysis of Beauty. When he some time after obtained the papers, he considered them as a very valuable acquisition, and was vain enough to think that by arranging them he could compile a volume which would gratify the admirers of Hogarth; and in the hope that the life, opinions, criticisms, and correspondence of this great and original genius will excite and gratify curiosity, he respectfully submits the following pages to the candour and indulgence of the public.

HOGARTH.

INTRODUCTION.

Mr. Walpole (in p. 160 of his Anecdotes) gravely declares that Hogarth had but slender merit as a painter, and in colouring proved no greater a master. By the six pictures of "Marriage à la Mode," both these declarations are answered and refuted.

Mr. Nichols (in p. 449 of his Anecdotes), at the same time that he kindly acknowledges "Hogarth's hand was faithful to character," roundly asserts that as an engraver his merits are inconsiderable; that he wants clearness; that his strokes sometimes look as if fortuitously disposed, and sometimes thwart each other in almost every possible direction. He adds, "that what the artist wanted in skill, he strove to make up in labour; but the result of it was a universal haze and indistinctness, that, by excluding force and transparency, rendered several of his larger plates less captivating than they would have been had he entrusted the sole execution of them to either[2] Ravenet or Sullivan." This is very severe; but is it true? If the "Harlot's" and "Rake's Progress," the "Enraged Musician," "Strolling Actresses," "Medley," and many other prints produced by his own graver, are attentively examined, I think the strokes will not be found to be fortuitously disposed: every touch tells, and gives that expression which the artist intended. As to his striving to make up for his want of skill by labour, I believe him to have been a prodigy of industry, but do not discover the result that is suggested by Mr. Nichols. We may possibly annex different ideas to the words. Johnson describes a universal haze as a fog, a mist; and indistinctness he defines to be confusion, uncertainty, obscurity,—faults which were never attributed to William Hogarth. Neither have I before heard it said that his prints want force: energy is in general their leading characteristic. As to transparency, if Mr. Nichols means that they have not that gauzy, glittering tone which marks many of our modern productions, I humbly conceive the artist did not desire such distinction; neither did he wish his works to be classed with such pretty performances: he was superior to the tricks of art, rejected all unnecessary flourish, and aimed at convincing the mind rather than dazzling the eye.

The two most difficult things in painting are character and drawing; and they are least under[3]stood by the crowd, who are invariably attracted by colour and glare. But for my own part, so far am I from thinking his style unsuitable to his subject, that I cannot conceive any manner in which his prints could be engraved that would be equal to his own. I prefer it to the most laboured copies of those miniature masters who, by fine finishing, fritter away all force.

Thus much may suffice for Mr. Nichols, from whom I am sorry to differ, as I owe him thanks for much useful information; but with the next critic upon the list it is dangerous to disagree.

For the talents of Mr. James Barry, Professor of Painting to the Royal Academy, I have the highest respect; his pictures in the Adelphi are an honour to the artist, and to the nation. In the sixth, representing the state of final retribution, he gives Hogarth a seat in Elysium; but in p. 162 of his description of the picture, etc. (published for Cadell), he has drawn this great artist in so motley a garb as leaves the reader in some doubt whether censure or praise predominates, and confers on poor Hogarth a sort of degrading immortality.

The Professor begins by admitting that "Hogarth's merit entitles him to an honourable place amongst the artists in Elysium, and that his little compositions 'tell' their own story with more facility than is often found in the elevated and more noble inven[4]tions of Raphael;" yet adds, "it must be honestly confessed that in what is called knowledge of the figure, foreigners have justly observed Hogarth is often so raw and unformed as hardly to deserve the name of an artist." Though he is often thus raw and unformed, yet Mr. Barry acknowledges that "this capital defect is not often perceivable, as examples of the naked and of elevated nature but rarely occur in his subjects, which are for the most part filled with characters that in their nature tend to deformity." Sometimes, I admit; but surely not for the most part. "Besides, his figures are small, and the junctures and other difficulties of drawing that might occur in their limbs are artfully concealed with their clothes, rags, etc." Mr. Barry surely does not mean that Hogarth needed any artifice to conceal an ignorance of anatomy, because Mr. Barry knows that many of his works prove a perfect knowledge of the figure. The Professor thus continues:—

"What would atone for all his defects, even if they were twice told, is his admirable fund of invention, ever inexhaustible in its resources; and his satire, which is always sharp and pertinent, and often highly moral, was (except in a few instances, where he weakly and meanly suffered his integrity to give way to his envy) seldom or never employed in a dishonest or unmanly way." A few instances! I do not believe it possible to point out one. Seldom or[5] never! Why is the Professor so parsimonious in his praise? He might safely have said never. It has been the fashion to call Hogarth an envious man; I cannot conjecture why. The critic surely does not mean to insinuate that there was any violation of integrity in Hogarth's retaliating the pictured shapes upon Wilkes and Churchill, or that he envied the character of the late worthy Chamberlain of the city of London!

Mr. Barry goes on: "Few have attempted to rival him in his moral walk. The line of art pursued by my very ingenious predecessor and brother Academician, Mr. Penny, is quite distinct from that of Hogarth, and is of a much more delicate and superior relish; he attempts the heart, and reaches it, whilst Hogarth's general aim is only to shake the sides." Whoever will turn over a portfolio of Hogarth's prints, will find that his satire had sometimes a higher aim. "In other respects no comparison can be thought of,"—in good truth, it cannot,—"as Mr. Penny has all that knowledge of the figure and academical skill which the other wanted." Can Mr. Barry conceive it possible that posterity will think Mr. Penny's line of art of a superior relish to that of Hogarth! Mr. Penny's academical skill I do not contest; but to say that Hogarth wanted all that knowledge of the figure, etc., is rather too much. I know that imperfections may be pointed out in some[6] of his works, but they had their origin in carelessness rather than ignorance.

Mr. Barry concludes by remarking, that "perhaps it may be reasonably doubted whether the being much conversant with Hogarth's method of exposing meanness, deformity, and vice, in many of his works, is not rather a dangerous, or at least a worthless pursuit; which, if it does not find a false relish, and a love of, and search after, satire and buffoonery in the spectator, is at least not unlikely to give him one."

That the Professor of Painting, after acknowledging Hogarth's satire was highly moral, should be apprehensive that contemplating such of his works as expose meanness, deformity, and vice, is dangerous, I cannot comprehend!

Considering their genius, general good tendency, and boundless variety, it would have been more candid to have viewed them through the medium of his beauties, than thus have distorted his faults, and reluctantly admitted his merits; but to such criticism his own works supply a short answer.

An instance of this occurred in 1762, when the author of the North Briton, among some other malign remarks, inserted the following paragraph:—"I have for some time observed Hogarth's setting sun: he has long been very dim, and almost shorn of his beams." A few weeks after the appearance of this candid critique, Hogarth published his "Medley," which,[7] considered in the first and second state, has more mind, and is marked with deeper satire, than all his other works!

By fastidious connoisseurs it has been said that his scenes are sometimes low and vulgar; but he carried into every subject the energy of genius, and marked every countenance with the emotions of the soul. He had powers more than equal to ascending into a higher region, though, as he might have lost in utility what he gained in dignity, this adherence to terrestrial objects is not much to be regretted. Had he wandered in heathen mythology, and chosen to people his canvas with demigods instead of the "Harlot's Progress," we might have had the "Loves of Venus and Adonis;" and in the place of the "Stages of Cruelty," the "Labours of Hercules."

To enumerate the little critics that stepped forth with the kind intention of unpluming this "eagle tow'ring in his pride of place," would be waste of ink; had they succeeded to their wish, not a feather would have been left in his wing. As an artist, he might have soared superior to their efforts; but when he commenced author, they found him within their reach, and renewed their attack with redoubled acrimony.

Mr. Wilkes, in the North Briton above quoted, calls him the supposed author of the Analysis. By some he was said to have borrowed a part of the work, and by others to have stolen the whole; nay, I have more[8] than once been seriously assured that every line was written by his friends. To this I can now reply in a style similar to that of the peripatetic, who, being told by a philosopher that there was no such thing as motion, gravely rose from his seat and walked across the room. I can produce the original manuscript, with the red chalk corrections by his own hand.[3] This supplement to that work, Hogarth wrote to vindicate himself from these and similar aspersions. In explaining his motives, he is led into stating his professional opinions; and in that part which relates to the Royal Academy, predicts that, on the plan they set out, the institution could never be of material use to the Arts. For one who is neither artist, associate, nor academician, to assert that Hogarth's prophecy is fulfilled, might be deemed too assuming. But, with little more claim to connoisseurship than I derive from a long and unreserved intimacy with some of the first painters of this country, I am led to fear that the wish their late President expressed in his first discourse is not likely to be speedily realized. He hopes that "the present age may vie in Arts with that of Leo the Tenth; and that 'the dignity of the dying Art' (to make use of an expression of Pliny) may be revived under the reign of George the Third."

This discourse was read in 1769; yet (let it not be told in Gath, nor whispered in the streets of Askelon), when in 1797 the students of the Royal Academy produced their drawings for the silver medal, not one of them was found worthy of the prize; and what (considering the recent discovery of the Venetian secret) was still more strange, all the pictures sent by the candidates for the prize of painting were rejected, and voted out of the room! This circumstance the Professor of Painting has recorded in his letter to the Dilettanti Society, and candidly admits that the fault does not lie with the students, but is in the Institution!

If it should be thought that Hogarth, in the course of his narration, seems too tremblingly alive, and sometimes offended where offence was not meant, let it be recollected that he must have felt superior to men whom the public preferred. To rank him with Kent, Jervas, Highmore, Hudson, Hayman, or any of that school of mannerists who figured in the different periods of his life, is classing a giant among pigmies. His works will bear the relative test of times when the Arts may be higher than they were then or are now; and I am fully conscious that this Memoir must derive its principal interest from the celebrity of the artist, who, like Louis de Camoëns, was a distinguished actor in the scenes he describes.

CONTAINING MANY CIRCUMSTANCES RELATIVE TO HIS LIFE, AND OPINIONS OF THE ARTS, ARTISTS, ETC. OF THE TIMES IN WHICH HE LIVED; AND SUNDRY MEMORANDA RELATIVE TO HIS PRINTS.

CHAPTER I.

HOGARTH'S OWN ACCOUNT OF HIS BIRTH AND EARLY EDUCATION. REASONS FOR HIS BEING APPRENTICED TO A SILVER-PLATE ENGRAVER; WITH WHICH EMPLOYMENT BECOMING DISGUSTED, HE COMMENCES AN ENGRAVER ON COPPER. METHOD OF STUDY. THE FATE OF THE FIRST PRINT HE PUBLISHED, ETC.

The print here alluded to, I apprehend to be that now entitled the "Small Masquerade Ticket," or "Burlington Gate," published in 1724, in which the follies of the town are very severely satirized by the representation of multitudes, properly habited, crowding to the masquerade,[13] opera, pantomime of Doctor Faustus, etc., while the works of our greatest dramatic writers are trundled through the streets in a wheel-barrow, and cried as waste paper for shops.

As a further illustration of the taste of the times, the artist has given a view of Burlington Gate, with a figure, I believe, intended to represent the then fashionable artist, William Kent, on the summit, brandishing his palette and pencils, and placed in a more elevated situation than either Michael Angelo or Raphael, who, seated beneath, become the two supporters to this favourite of Lord Burlington.

To this popular artist, architect, and improver of gardens, Hogarth seems to have had an early dislike, founded in some degree on his being, as he really was, a most contemptible painter; and probably heightened by his ranking higher, with those who led the fashion of the day, than that very superior artist, Sir James Thornhill.

COPY OF KENT'S ALTAR-PIECE,[14]

which, combined with the inscription engraved beneath, is a very bitter satire on the painter; though it must be acknowledged that the original, which has been for many years in the vestry-room of St. Clement Danes, amply justifies the ridicule.

"A letter from a parishioner of St. Clement Danes, to Edmund (Gibson), Lord Bishop of London, occasioned by his Lordship's causing the picture over the altar to be taken down, with some observations on the use and abuse of church paintings in general, and of that picture in particular."

In this tract, after some compliments to the prelate, the writer works himself into a violent rage at the introduction of this piece of popish foppery, and asks some questions which in a degree elucidate part of the inscription under Hogarth's copy:—

"To what end or purpose was it put there, but to affront our most gracious sovereign, by placing at our very altar the known resemblance of a person who is the wife of his utter enemy, and pensioner to the whore of Babylon?

"When I say the known resemblance, I speak not only according to my own knowledge, but appeal to all mankind who have seen the Princess Sobieski, or any picture or resemblance of her, if the picture of that angel in the white garment and blue mantle, which is there supposed to be beating time to the music, is not directly a great likeness of that princess.

"Whether it was done by chance or on purpose, I shall not determine; but be it which it will, it has given great offence, and your Lordship has acted [25]the part of a wise and good prelate to order its removal."

It was probably during the time of Hogarth's apprenticeship that he engraved the annexed print, entitled

THE RAPE OF THE LOCK.

I by no means think, as Mr. Nichols asserts, that this is one of the poorest of Hogarth's performances; for though slight, and not intended to be impressed on paper, the air of the figures is easy, and the faces, especially those of Sir Plume and the heroine of the story, extremely characteristic. It is said to have been engraven on the lid of a snuff-box for some gentleman characterized in Pope's admirable mock-heroic poem, probably Lord Petre, who is here represented as holding the lock of hair in his left hand. Sir Plume,—the round-faced and insignificant Sir Plume,—

for Sir George Brown, who was the only one of the party that took the thing serious. He was angry that the poet should make him talk nothing but nonsense; and, in truth (as Mr. Warburton adds), one could not well blame him.

As this little story was intended to be viewed on[26] gold, the figures in the copy are not reversed, but left as they were originally engraven on the box; from which I believe there are only three impressions extant, one of which was sold by Greenwood at Mr. Gulston's sale, on the 7th of February 1786, for £33.

The following account of the persons for whom Hogarth painted several of his early pictures is copied from his own handwriting, and may sometimes be useful in tracing the pedigree of a portrait.

By this list, it appears that the two pictures of "Before and After" were painted for a Mr. Thomson; but as it is not probable that Hogarth delineated this subject twice, I think that these two pictures were the property of the late Lord Besborough. They were sold on his Lordship's demise, in February 1801, at Christie's rooms.

With this his memorandum ends; and I regret that he has not recorded the prices he received for the pictures. Mr. Nichols conjectures that they were originally very low; he is most probably right with respect to those that were painted in the early part of Hogarth's life. But let it be recollected that for the portrait of Garrick in Richard III. he received two hundred pounds, which, as the artist himself remarks, was a more liberal remuneration than had been paid to any contemporary painter. When my late friend Mr. Gainsborough began to paint portraits at Bath (at a period when much higher prices were paid), his general rule was five guineas for a three-quarters portrait.

Below is inserted a copy from one of Hogarth's early engravings, the arms of the Duchess of Kendal, mistress to George I., probably done on a piece of plate at the time he was Gamble's apprentice. The original, of the same size, is in the Editor's possession. It is drawn in a correct and spirited style; and considering the age of the artist, and the purpose for which it was engraven, not demanding much attention or exertion, gave some promise of the excellence which he afterwards attained.

In this point of view, to an admirer of Hogarth it becomes in some degree interesting, which will, I hope, plead my apology for the insertion of this solitary specimen of his boyish heraldry. On no other ground should so insignificant a production as a coat of arms have found a place in this volume.

CHAPTER II.

MARRIES. PAINTS SMALL CONVERSATIONS, WHICH SUBJECTS HE QUITS FOR FAMILIAR PRINTS. ATTEMPTS HISTORY; BUT FINDING IT IS NOT ENCOURAGED IN ENGLAND, RETURNS TO ENGRAVING FROM HIS OWN DESIGNS. OCCASIONALLY TAKES PORTRAITS LARGE AS LIFE, FOR WHICH HE INCURS MUCH ABUSE. TO PROVE HIS POWERS AND VINDICATE HIS FAME, PAINTS THE ADMIRABLE PORTRAIT OF CAPTAIN CORAM, AND PRESENTS IT TO THE FOUNDLING HOSPITAL.

"I then married, and commenced painter of small conversation pieces, from twelve to fifteen inches high. This having novelty, succeeded for a few years. But though it gave somewhat more scope to the fancy, was still but a less kind of drudgery; and as I could not bring myself to act like some of my brethren, and make it a sort of a manufactory to be carried on by the help of background and drapery painters, it was not sufficiently profitable to pay the expenses my family required. I therefore turned my thoughts to a still more novel mode, viz. painting and engraving modern moral subjects, a field not broken up in any country or any age.

"The reasons which induced me to adopt this mode[30] of designing were, that I thought both writers and painters had, in the historical style, totally overlooked that intermediate species of subjects which may be placed between the sublime and grotesque; I therefore wished to compose pictures on canvas, similar to representations on the stage, and further hope that they will be tried by the same test, and criticised by the same criterion. Let it be observed, that I mean to speak only of those scenes where the human species are actors, and these I think have not often been delineated in a way of which they are worthy and capable.

"In these compositions, those subjects that will both entertain and improve the mind bid fair to be of the greatest public utility, and must therefore be entitled to rank in the highest class. If the execution is difficult (though that is but a secondary merit), the author has a claim to a higher degree of praise. If this be admitted, comedy in painting as well as writing ought to be allotted the first place, as most capable of all these perfections, though the sublime, as it is called, has been opposed to it. Ocular demonstration will carry more conviction to the mind of a sensible man, than all he would find in a thousand volumes; and this has been attempted in the prints I have composed. Let the decision be left to every unprejudiced eye; let the figures in either pictures or prints be considered as players dressed either for the sublime,—for[31] genteel comedy,[15] or farce,—for high or low life. I have endeavoured to treat my subjects as a dramatic writer: my picture is my stage, and men and women my players, who by means of certain actions and gestures are to exhibit a dumb show.

"Before I had done anything of much consequence in this walk, I entertained some hopes of succeeding in what the puffers in books call the great style of history painting; so that without having had a stroke of this grand business before, I quitted small portraits and familiar conversations, and with a smile at my own temerity, commenced history painter, and on a great staircase at St. Bartholomew's Hospital painted two Scripture stories (the 'Pool of Bethesda' and the 'Good Samaritan'), with figures seven feet high. These I presented to the charity,[16] and thought they might serve as a specimen to show that were there an inclination in England for encouraging historical pictures, such a first essay might prove the painting them more easily attainable than is generally imagined. But as religion, the great promoter of this [32]style in other countries, rejected it in England, I was unwilling to sink into a portrait manufacturer; and, still ambitious of being singular, dropped all expectations of advantage from that source, and returned to the pursuit of my former dealings with the public at large. This I found was most likely to answer my purpose, provided I could strike the passions, and by small sums from many, by the sale of prints which I could engrave from my own pictures, thus secure my property to myself.

"In pursuing my studies, I made all possible use of the technical memory which I have before described, by observing and endeavouring to retain in my mind lineally such objects as best suited my purpose; so that be where I would, while my eyes were open, I was at my studies, and acquiring something useful to my profession. By this means, whatever I saw, whether a remarkable incident or a trifling subject, became more truly a picture than one that was drawn by a camera-obscura. And thus the most striking objects, whether of beauty or deformity, were by habit the most easily impressed and retained in my imagination. A redundancy of matter being by this means acquired, it is natural to suppose I introduced it into my works on every occasion that I could.

"By this idle way of proceeding I grew so profane as to admire nature beyond the first productions of art, and acknowledged I saw, or fancied, delicacies in[33] the life so far surpassing the utmost efforts of imitation, that when I drew the comparison in my mind, I could not help uttering blasphemous expressions against the divinity even of Raphael Urbino, Correggio, and Michael Angelo. For this, though my brethren have most unmercifully abused me, I hope to be forgiven. I confess to have frequently said, that I thought the style of painting which I had adopted, admitting that my powers were not equal to doing it justice, might one time or other come into better hands, and be made more entertaining and more useful than the eternal blazonry and tedious repetition of hackneyed, beaten subjects, either from the Scriptures or the old ridiculous stories of heathen gods; as neither the religion of one or the other requires promoting among Protestants, as it formerly did in Greece, and at a later period in Rome.[17]

"For these and other heretical opinions, as I have before observed, I was deemed vain, and accused of enviously attempting what I was unable to execute.

"The chief things that have brought much obloquy[34] on me are: First, the attempting portrait-painting; Secondly, writing the Analysis of Beauty; Thirdly, painting the picture of 'Sigismunda;' and, Fourthly, publishing the first print of 'The Times.'

"In the ensuing pages it shall be my endeavour to vindicate myself from these aspersions, and each of the subjects taken in the order they occurred shall be occasionally interspersed with some thoughts by the way on the state of the arts, institution of a Royal Academy, Society of Arts, etc., as being remotely, if not immediately, connected with my own pursuits.

"Though small whole lengths and prints of familiar conversations were my principal pursuit, yet by those who were partial to me I was sometimes employed to paint portraits as large as life, and for this I was most barbarously abused. My opponents acknowledged, that in the particular branches to which I had devoted my attention I had some little merit; but as neither history nor portrait were my province, nothing but what they were pleased to term extreme vanity could induce me to attempt either one or the other; for it[35] would be interfering in that branch of which I had no knowledge, and in which I had therefore no concern.

"At this I was rather piqued, and, as well as I could, defended my conduct and explained my motives. Some part of this defence it will be necessary to repeat; and it will also be proper to recollect, that after having had my plates pirated in almost all sizes, I, in 1735, applied to Parliament for redress, and obtained it in so liberal a manner as hath not only answered my own purpose, but made prints a considerable article in the commerce of this country; there being now more business of this kind done here than in Paris, or anywhere else, and as well.

"The dealers in pictures and prints found their craft in danger by what they called a new-fangled innovation. Their trade of living and getting fortunes by the ingenuity of the industrious has, I know, suffered much by my interference; and if the detection of this band of public cheats and oppressors of the rising artists be a crime, I confess myself most guilty.

"To put this matter in a fair point of view, it will be necessary to state the situation of the arts and artists at this period. In doing which, I shall probably differ from every other author, as I think the books hitherto written on the subject have had a tendency to confirm prejudice and error, rather than[36] diffuse information and truth. My notions of painting differ not only from those who have formed their opinions from books, but from those who have taken them upon trust.

"I am therefore under the necessity of submitting to the public what may possibly be deemed peculiar opinions, but without the least hope of bringing over either men whose interests are concerned, or who implicitly rely upon the authority of a tribe of picture dealers and puny judges that delight in the marvellous, and determine to admire what they do not understand; but I have hope of succeeding a little with such as dare to think for themselves, and can believe their own eyes.

"As introductory to the subject, let us begin with considering that branch of the art which is termed still life—a species of painting which ought to be held in the lowest estimation.

"Whatever is or can be perfectly fixed, from the plainest to the most complicated object, from a bottle and glass to a statue of the human figure, may be denominated still life. Ship and landscape painting ought unquestionably to come into the same class; for if copied exactly as they chance to appear, the painters have no occasion of judgment; yet with those who do not consider the few talents necessary, even this tribe sometimes pass for very capital artists.

[37]

"'Well painted, and finely pencilled!' are phrases perpetually repeated by coach and sign painters. Merely well painted or pencilled is chiefly the effect of much practice; and we frequently see that those who are in these particulars very excellent cannot advance a step further.

"As to portrait-painting, the chief branch of the art by which a painter can procure himself a tolerable livelihood, and the only one by which a lover of money can get a fortune; a man of very moderate talents may have great success in it, as the artifice and address of a mercer is infinitely more useful than the abilities of a painter. By the manner in which the present race of professors in England conduct it, that also becomes still life as much as any of the preceding. Admitting that the artist has no further view than merely copying the figure, this must be admitted to its full extent; for the sitter ought to be still as a statue, and no one will dispute a statue being as much still life as fruit, flowers, a gallipot, or a broken earthen pan. It must, indeed, be acknowledged they do not seem ashamed of the title, for their figures are frequently so executed as to be as still as a post. Posture and drapery, as it is called, is usually supplied by a journeyman, who puts a coat, etc. on a wooden figure like a jointed doll, which they call a layman, and copies it in every fold as it chances to come; and all this is done at[38] so easy a rate, as enables the principal to get more money in a week than a man of the first professional talents can in three months. If they have a sufficient quantity of silks, satins, and velvets to dress their layman, they may thus carry on a very profitable manufactory without a ray of genius. There is a living instance well known to the connoisseurs in this town, of one of the best copiers of pictures, particularly those by Rubens, who is almost an idiot.[18] Mere correctness, therefore, if in still life, from an apple or a rose, to the face,—nay, even the whole figure, if you take it merely as it presents itself,—requires only an exact eye and an adroit hand. Their pattern is before them, and much practice with little study is usually sufficient to bring them into high vogue. By perpetual attention to this branch only, one should imagine they would attain a certain stroke—quite the reverse; for though the whole business lies in an oval of four inches long, which they have before them, they are obliged to repeat and alter the eyes, mouth, and nose, three or four times before they can make it what they think[39] right. The little praise due to their productions ought, in most cases, to be given to the drapery-man, whose pay is only one part in ten, while the other nine, as well as all the reputation, is engrossed by the master phiz-monger for a proportion which he may complete in five or six hours; and even this, little as it is, gives him so much importance in his own eyes, that he assumes a consequential air, sets his arms akimbo, and, strutting among the historical artists, cries, 'How we apples swim!'

"For men who drudge in this mechanical part merely for gain, to commence dealers in pictures is natural. In this, also, great advantage may accrue from the labour and ingenuity of others. They stand in the catalogue of painters; and having little to study in their own way, become great connoisseurs, not in the points where real perfection lies, for there they must be deficient, as their ideas have been confined to the oval; but their great inquiry is, how the old masters stand in the public estimation, that they may regulate their prices accordingly, both in buying and selling. You may know these painter-dealers by their constant attendance at auctions. They collect under pretence of a love for the arts, but sell, knowing the reputation they have stamped on the commodity they have once purchased, in the opinion of the ignorant admirer of pictures, drawings, and prints, which, thus warranted, almost in[40]variably produce them treble their original purchase money, and treble their real worth. Unsanctioned by their authority,[19] and unascertained by tradition, the best preserved and highest finished picture (though it should have been painted by Raphael) will not, at a public auction, produce five shillings; while a despicable, damaged, and repaired old canvas, sanctioned by their praise, shall be purchased at any price, and find a place in the noblest collections. All this is very well understood by the dealers, who, on every occasion where their own interest is concerned, are wondrously loquacious in adoring the mysterious beauties! spirited touches! brilliant colours! and the Lord knows what, of these ancient worn-out wonders! But whoever should dare to hint that (admitting them to be originally painted by Raphael) there is little left to admire in them, would be instantly stigmatized as vilifying the great masters, and, to invalidate his judgment, accused of envy and self-conceit. By these misrepresentations, if he has an independent fortune, he only suffers the odium; but if a young man, without any other property than his talents, presumes boldly to give an opinion, he may be undone by his temerity; for[41] the whole herd will unite and try to hunt him down.

"Such is the situation of the arts and artists at this time. Credulity,—an implicit confidence in the opinions of others,—and not daring to think for themselves, leads the whole town into error, and thus they become the prey of ignorant and designing knaves.

"With respect to portrait-painting, whatever talents a professor may have, if he is not in fashion, and cannot afford to hire a drapery-man, he will not do; but if he is in vogue, and can employ a journeyman and place a layman in the garret of his manufactory, his fortune is made, and, as his two coadjutors are kept in the background, his own fame is established.

"If a painter comes from abroad, his being an exotic will be much in his favour; and if he has address enough to persuade the public that he had brought a new discovered mode of colouring, and paints his faces all red, all blue, or all purple, he has nothing to do but to hire one of these painted tailors as an assistant, for without him the manufactory cannot go on, and my life for his success.

"Vanloo,[20] a French portrait-painter, being told that the English were to be cajoled by any one who[42] had a sufficient portion of assurance, came to this country, set his trumpeters to work, and by the assistance of puffing monopolized all the people of fashion in the kingdom. Down went at once *,—*,—*,—*,—*,— etc. etc. etc.,[21] painters who before his arrival were highly fashionable and eminent, but by this foreign interloper were driven into the greatest distress and poverty.

"By this inundation of folly and fuss, I must confess I was much disgusted, and determined to try if by any means I could stem the torrent, and 'by opposing end it.' I laughed at the pretensions of these quacks in colouring, ridiculed their productions as feeble and contemptible, and asserted that it required neither taste nor talents to excel their most[43] popular performances. This interference excited much enmity, because, as my opponents told me, my studies were in another way. You talk, added they, with ineffable contempt of portrait-painting; if it is so easy a task, why do not you convince the world by painting a portrait yourself? Provoked at this language, I one day at the Academy in St. Martin's Lane put the following question: Supposing any man at this time were to paint a portrait as well as Vandyke, would it be seen or acknowledged, and could the artist enjoy the benefit or acquire the reputation due to his performance?

"They asked me in reply if I could paint one as well? and I frankly answered, 'I believed I could.'[22] My query as to the credit I should obtain if I did, was replied to by Mr. Ramsay, and confirmed by the president and about twenty members present: 'Our opinions must be consulted, and we will never allow it.' Piqued at this cavalier treatment, I resolved to try my own powers; and if I did what I attempted, determined to affirm that I had done it. In this decided manner I had a habit of speaking; and if I only did myself justice, to have adopted half words would have been affectation. Vanity, as I understand it, consists in affirming you have done that[44] which you have not done, not in frankly asserting what you are convinced is truth.

"A watchmaker may say, 'The watch which I have made for you is as good as Quare, or Tompion, or any other man could have made.' If it really is so, he is neither called vain nor branded with infamy, but deemed an honest and fair man for being as good as his word. Why should not the same privilege be allowed to a painter? The modern artist, though he will not warrant his works as the watchmaker, has the impudence to demand twice as much money for painting them as was charged by those whom he acknowledges his superiors in the art.

"Of the mighty talents said to be requisite for portrait-painting I had not the most exalted opinion, and thought that, if I chose to practise in this branch, I could at least equal my contemporaries, for whose glittering productions I really had not much reverence. In answer to this there are who will say with Peachum in the play, 'All professions be-rogue one another;' but let it be taken into the account that men with the same pursuits are naturally rivals, and when put in competition with each other must necessarily be so,—what racer ever wished that his opponent might outrun him? what boxer ever chose to be beat in pure complaisance to his antagonist? The artist who pretends to be pleased and gratified when he sees himself excelled by his competitor[45] must have lost all reverence for truth, or be totally dead to that spirit which I believe to be one great source of excellence in all human attempts; and if he is so polite and civil as to confess superiority in one he knows to be his inferior, he must be either a fool or an hypocrite, perhaps both. If he has temper enough to be silent, it is surely sufficient; but this I have seldom seen, even amongst the most complaisant and liberal of the faculty.

"Those who will honestly speak their feelings must confess that all this is natural to man. One of the highest gratifications of superiority arises from the pleasure which attends instructing men who do not know so much as ourselves; but when they verge on being rivals, the pleasure in a degree ceases. Hence the story of Rubens advising Vandyke to paint horses and faces, to prevent, as it is said, his being put in competition with himself in history-painting. Had either of these great artists lived in England at this time, they would have found men of very moderate parts—mere face painters—who, if they chanced to be in vogue, might with ease get a thousand a year, when they with all their talents would scarcely have found employment.

"To return to my dispute with Mr. Ramsay on the abilities necessary for portrait-painting: as I found the performances of professors in this branch of the art were held in such estimation, I determined to[46] have a brush at it. I had occasionally painted portraits; but as they required constant practice to take a likeness with facility, and the life must not be rigidly followed, my portraitures met with a fate somewhat similar to those of Rembrandt. By some they were said to be nature itself, by others declared most execrable; so that time only can decide whether I was the best or the worst face painter of my day, for a medium was never so much as suggested.

"The portrait which I painted with most pleasure, and in which I particularly wished to excel, was that of Captain Coram, for the Foundling Hospital; and if I am so wretched an artist as my enemies assert, it is somewhat strange that this, which was one of the first I painted the size of life, should stand the test of twenty years' competition, and be generally thought the best portrait in the place, notwithstanding the first painters in the kingdom exerted all their talents to vie with it.[23] To this I refer Mr. Rams-eye[24] and his quick-sighted and impartial coadjutors."

CAPTAIN THOMAS CORAM

was born in the year 1668, bred to the sea, and passed the first part of his life as master of a vessel trading to the colonies. While he resided in the vicinity of Rotherhithe, his avocations obliging him to go early into the city and return late, he frequently saw deserted infants exposed to the inclemencies of the seasons, and through the indigence or cruelty of their parents left to casual relief or untimely death. This naturally excited his compassion, and led him to project the establishment of an hospital for the reception of exposed and deserted young children; in which humane design he laboured more than seventeen years, and at last, by his unwearied application, obtained the Royal Charter, bearing date the 17th of October 1739, for its incorporation.

He was highly instrumental in promoting another good design, viz. the procuring a bounty upon naval stores imported from the colonies to Georgia and Nova Scotia. But the charitable plan which he lived to make some progress in, though not to complete, was a scheme for uniting the Indians in North America more closely with the British Government,[48] by an establishment for the education of Indian girls. Indeed, he spent a great part of his life in serving the public, and with so total a disregard to his private interest, that in his old age he was himself supported by a pension of somewhat more than an hundred pounds a year,[25] raised for him at the solicitation of Sir Sampson Gideon and Dr. Brocklesby, by the voluntary subscriptions of public-spirited persons, at the head of whom was the late Frederick Prince of Wales. On application being made to this venerable and good old man to know whether a subscription being opened for his benefit would not offend him, he gave this noble answer: "I have not wasted the little wealth of which I was formerly possessed in self-indulgence or vain expenses, and am not ashamed to confess that in this my old age I am poor."

This singularly humane, persevering, and memorable man died at his lodgings near Leicester Square, March 29, 1751, and was interred, pursuant to his own desire, in the vault under the chapel of the Foundling Hospital, where an historic epitaph records his virtues, as Hogarth's portrait has preserved his honest countenance.

Though thus in a state of warfare with his brother artists, he was occasionally gratified by the praise of men whose judgment was universally acknowledged, and whose sanction became an higher honour, from its being neither lightly nor indiscriminately given.[51] The following letter from the facetious Mr. George Faulkner notices the estimation in which the author of The Battle of the Books held the painter of "The Battle of the Pictures:"—

Hogarth about this time painted the portrait of Dr. Benjamin Hoadley, Bishop of Winchester, which, though rather French, is in a grand style. Concerning it, Dr. John Hoadley wrote the following whimsical epistle to the artist:—

CHAPTER III.

OF ACADEMIES. HOGARTH'S OPINION OF THAT NOW DENOMINATED ROYAL; AND OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF ARTS, MANUFACTURES, AND COMMERCE, GIVING PREMIUMS FOR PICTURES AND DRAWINGS.

Among Hogarth's loose papers I found the rough draft of a letter (addressed but not directed) to a nobleman, declaring his disapprobation of a scheme by which certain projectors were endeavouring to establish a Royal Academy, and stating that he had a plan which would be much more useful. I do not know that he ever sent the epistle, or admitting he did, that it was honoured with an answer. But as I think it probable he had given the subject some consideration, with the hope of bringing his project to bear, and that in the following pages relative to the Royal Academy he has stated what he meant to have said to the Peer, I have inserted it:—

"Much has been said about the immense benefit likely to result from the establishment of an academy[56] in this country; but as I do not see it in the same light with many of my contemporaries, I shall take the freedom of making my objections to the plan on which they propose forming it; and as a sort of preliminary to the subject, state some slight particulars concerning the fate of former attempts at similar establishments.

"The first place of this sort was in Queen Street, about sixty years ago; it was begun by some gentlemen-painters of the first rank, who in their general forms imitated the plan of that in France, but conducted their business with far less fuss and solemnity; yet the little that there was, in a very short time became the object of ridicule. Jealousies arose, parties were formed, and the president and all his adherents found themselves comically represented as marching in ridiculous procession round the walls of the room. The first proprietors soon put a padlock on the door; the rest, by their right as subscribers, did the same, and thus ended this academy.

"Sir James Thornhill, at the head of one of these parties, then set up another in a room he built at the back of his own house,—now next the playhouse,—and furnished tickets gratis to all that required admission; but so few would lay themselves under such an obligation, that this also soon sunk into insignificance. Mr. Vanderbank headed the rebellious party, and converted an old Presbyterian meeting-house[57] into an academy, with the addition of a woman figure, to make it the more inviting to subscribers. This lasted a few years; but the treasurer sinking the subscription money, the lamp, stove, etc. were seized for rent, and that also dropped.

"Sir James dying, I became possessed of his neglected apparatus; and thinking that an academy conducted on proper and moderate principles had some use, proposed that a number of artists should enter into a subscription for the hire of a place large enough to admit thirty or forty people to draw after a naked figure. This was soon agreed to, and a room taken in St. Martin's Lane. To serve the society, I lent them the furniture which had belonged to Sir James Thornhill's academy; and as I attributed the failure of that and Mr. Vanderbank's to the leading members assuming a superiority which their fellow-students could not brook, I proposed that every member should contribute an equal sum to the establishment, and have an equal right to vote in every question relative to the society. As to electing presidents, directors, professors, etc., I considered it as a ridiculous imitation of the foolish parade of the French Academy, by the establishment of which Louis XIV. got a large portion of fame and flattery on very easy terms. But I could never learn that the arts were benefited, or that members acquired any other advantages than what arose to a few leaders[58] from their paltry salaries, not more I am told than £50 a year; which, as must always be the case, were engrossed by those who had most influence, without any regard to their relative merit.[31] As a proof of the little benefit the arts derived from this Royal Academy, Voltaire asserts that, after its establishment, no one work of genius appeared in the country: the whole band, adds the same lively and sensible writer, became mannerists and imitators.[32] It may be said in answer to this, that all painting is but imitation. Granted; but if we go no further than copying what has been done before, without entering into the spirit, causes, and effects, what are we doing? If we vary from our original, we fall off from it, and it ceases to be a copy; and if we strictly adhere to it, we can have no hopes of getting beyond it; for 'if two men ride on a horse, one of them must be behind.'

[59]

"To return to our own academy. By the regulations I have mentioned of a general equality, etc., it has now subsisted near thirty years, and is, to every useful purpose, equal to that in France, or any other; but this does not satisfy. The members, finding his present Majesty's partiality to the arts, met at the Turk's Head in Gerard Street, Soho, laid out the public money in advertisements to call all sorts of artists together, and have resolved to draw up and present a ridiculous address to King, Lords, and Commons to do for them what they have (as well as it can be) done for themselves. Thus to pester the three great estates of the empire, about twenty or thirty students, drawing after a man or a horse, appears, as it must be acknowledged, foolish enough; but the real motive is, that a few bustling characters, who have access to people of rank, think they can thus get a superiority over their brethren, be appointed to places, and have salaries as in France, for telling a lad when an arm or a leg is too long or too short.

"Not approving of this plan, I opposed it; and having refused to assign to the society the property which I had before lent them, I am accused of acrimony, ill-nature, and spleen, and held forth as an enemy to the arts and artists. How far their mighty project will succeed, I neither know nor care; certain I am it deserves to be laughed at, and laughed at it[60] has been.[33] The business rests in the breast of Majesty, and the simple question now is, whether he will do what Sir James Thornhill did before him, i.e. establish an academy with the little addition of a royal name, and salaries for those professors who can make most interest and obtain the greatest patronage. As his Majesty's beneficence to the arts will unquestionably induce him to do that which he thinks most likely to promote them, would it not be more useful if he were to furnish his own gallery with one picture by each of the most eminent painters among his own subjects? This might possibly set an example to a few of the opulent nobility; but even then it is to be feared that there never can be a market in this country, for the great number of works which, by encouraging parents to place their children in this line, it would probably cause to be painted. The world is already glutted with these commodities, which do not perish fast enough to want such a supply.

"In answer to this and other objections which I have sometimes made to those who display so much zeal for increasing learners, and crowding the profession,[61] I am asked if I consider what the arts were in Greece, what immense benefits accrued to the city of Rome from the possession of their works, and what advantages the people of France derive from the encouragement given by their Royal Academy? It is added, why cannot we have one on the same principles? That we may not be led away by sounds without meaning, let us take a cursory view of these things separately, and in the same order that they occurred.

"The height to which the arts were carried in Greece was owing to a variety of causes, concerning some of which we can now only form conjectures. They made a part of their system of government, and were connected with their modes of worship. Their temples were crowded with deities of their own manufacture, and in places of public resort were depicted such actions of their fellow-citizens as deserved commemoration; which, being displayed in a language legible to all, incited the spectator to emulate the virtues they represented. The artists who could perform such wonders were held in an estimation of which we can hardly form an idea; and could we ascertain the rewards they received, I think it would be found that they were most liberally paid for their works, and might therefore devote much more time than we can afford to rendering them perfect.

[62]

"With all this, even there, the arts had but a slow rise; and when they had attained their highest state of perfection, the Romans (having previously plundered and butchered their own neighbours) attacked and conquered the Greeks, and robbed them also of their portable treasures, particularly their statues and pictures.[34] To sculpture and painting, war is a most destructive enemy; the rage of conquest, civil broils, and intestine quarrels, necessarily put a stop to the exercise of the imitative arts, which lay in a dormant state until they were revived by the introduction of a new religion; this, in the magnificent style it was there brought forward, called upon sculpture and painting for their auxiliary aid. The admirable specimens that during the perturbed period above alluded to had been hidden in the earth, were now restored to light, eagerly sought for, and in some cases appropriated to purposes diametrically opposite to their pagan origin.[35] Even those that were mutilated were held in the most enthusiastic admiration. The 'Torso,' and many other inimitable specimens, prove that their admiration was just. The contemplation [63]of such works would naturally produce imitators, who in time rivalled, but never could equal, their originals. These remains of ancient grandeur being thus added to their new productions, and both interwoven, forming a sort of ornamental fringe to their gaudy religion, Rome became a kind of puppet-show to the rest of Europe; and, whatever it might be to their visitors, was certainly very advantageous to themselves. The arts are much indebted to Popery, and that religion owes much of its universality to the arts.

"France, ever aping the magnificence of other nations, has in its turn assumed a foppish kind of splendour sufficient to dazzle the eyes of neighbouring states, and draw vast sums of money from this country. We cannot vie with these Italian and Gallic theatres of art, and to enter into competition with them is ridiculous; we are a commercial people, and can purchase their curiosities ready made, as in fact we do, and thereby prevent their thriving in our native clime. If I may be permitted to compare great things with small, this nation labours under similar disadvantage to the playhouse in Goodman's Fields, which, though it might injure, could never rival the two established theatres, so much more properly situated, in any degree material to itself.

"In Holland, selfishness is the ruling passion; in England, vanity is united with it. Portrait-painting[64] therefore ever has, and ever will succeed better in this country than in any other.[36] The demand will be as constant as new faces arise; and with this we must be contented, for it will be vain to attempt to force what can never be accomplished, or at least can never be accomplished by such institutions as Royal Academies on the system now in agitation. Upon the whole, it must be acknowledged that the artists and the age are fitted for each other. If hereafter the times alter, the arts, like water, will find their level.

"Among other causes that militate against either painting or sculpture succeeding in this nation, we must place our religion; which, inculcating unadorned simplicity, does not require—nay, absolutely forbids—images for worship, or pictures to excite enthusiasm. Paintings are considered as pieces of furniture, and Europe is already overstocked with the works of other ages. These, with copies countless as the sands on the sea-shore, are bartered to and fro, and quite sufficient for the demands of the curious, who naturally prefer scarce, expensive, and far-fetched productions to those which they might have on low terms at home. Who can be expected[65] to give forty guineas for a modern landscape, though in ever so superior a style, when he can purchase one which, for little more than double the sum, shall be sanctioned by a sounding name, and warranted original by a solemn-faced connoisseur? This considered, can it excite wonder that the arts have not taken such deep root in this soil as in places where the people cultivate them from a kind of religious necessity, and where proficients have so much more profit in the pursuit? Whether it is to our honour or disgrace, I will not presume to say, but the fact is indisputable, that the public encourage trade and mechanics rather than painting and sculpture. Is it then reasonable to think that the artist, who, to attain essential excellence in his profession, should have the talents of a Shakspeare, a Milton, or a Swift, will follow this tedious and laborious study merely for fame, when his next-door neighbour, perhaps a porter-brewer or an haberdasher of smallwares, can without any genius accumulate an enormous fortune in a few years, become a lord mayor or a member of Parliament, and purchase a title for his heir? Surely no; for as very few painters get even moderately rich, it is not reasonable to expect that they should waste their lives in cultivating the higher branch of the art until their country becomes more alive to its importance, and better disposed to reward their labours.

[66]

"These are the true causes that have retarded our progress; and for this shall a nation, which has in all ages abounded in men of sound understanding and the brightest parts, be branded with incapacity by a set of pedantic dreamers, who seem to imagine that the degrees of genius are to be measured like the degrees on a globe, determine a man's powers from the latitude in which he was born, and think that a painter, like certain tender plants, can only thrive in a hothouse? Gross as are these absurdities, there will always be a band of profound blockheads ready to adopt and circulate them, if it were only upon the authority of the great names by which they are sanctioned.[37]

"To return to our Royal Academy. I am told that one of their leading objects will be sending young men abroad to study the antique statues, etc. Such kind of studies may sometimes improve an exalted genius, but they will not create it; and whatever has been the cause, this same travelling to Italy has, in several instances that I have seen, seduced the student from nature, and led him to paint marble figures,—in which he has availed himself of the great works of antiquity, as a coward does when he puts on the armour of an Alexander; for with similar[67] pretensions and similar vanity, the painter supposes he shall be adored as a second Raphael Urbino.

"The fact is, that everything necessary for the student in sculpture or painting may at this time be procured in London. Of the 'Venus' and the 'Gladiator' we have small casts; and even the 'Torso,' by which Michael Angelo asserted he learned all he knew of the art, has been copied in a reduced size, and the cast, by which the principle may be clearly seen, is sold for a few shillings. These small casts, if quite correct, are full as useful to the student as the originals; the parts are easier comprehended, they are more portable to place in different lights, and of an even colour, while the old Parian marbles are apt to shine, dazzle, and confound the eye. If this be doubted, let a plaster figure be smoked and oiled, and the true dimensions of the muscles can be no more distinguished than those of a sooty chimney-sweeper.

"After all, though the best statues are unquestionably in parts superlatively fine, and superior to nature, yet they have invariably a something that is inferior.

"As to pictures, there are enough in England to seduce us from studying nature, which every man ought to do if he aims at any higher rank than being an imitator of the works of others; and to such servile spirits I will offer no advice.

[68]

"In one word, I think that young men by studying in Italy have seldom learnt much more than the names of the painters; though sometimes they have attained the amazing power of distinguishing styles,[38] and knowing by the hue of the picture the hard name of the artist,—a power which, highly as they pride themselves upon it, is little more than knowing one handwriting from another. For this they gain great credit, and are supposed vast proficients because they have travelled. They are gravely attended to by people of rank, with whom they claim acquaintance, and talk of the antique in a cant phraseology made up of half or whole Italian, to the great surprise of their hearers, who become gulls in order to pass for connoisseurs,—wonder with a foolish face of praise, and bestow unqualified admiration on the marvellous bad copies of marvellous bad originals which they have brought home as trophies, and triumphantly display to prove their discernment and taste.

"Neither England nor Italy ever produced a more contemptible dauber than the late Mr. Kent; and yet he gained the prize at Rome, in England had the first people for his patrons, and, to crown the whole, was appointed Painter to the King. But in this country such men meet with the greatest encouragement,[69] and soonest work their way into noblemen's houses and palaces.[39]

"To conclude, I think that this ostentatious establishment can answer no one valuable purpose to the arts, nor be of the least use to any individual, except those who are to be elected professors and receive salaries for the kind superintendence they will exercise over such of their brethren as have not so much interest as themselves.[40]

"Many of the objections which I have to the institution of this Royal Academy apply with equal force to the project of the Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, for distributing premiums for drawings and pictures; subjects of which they are totally ignorant, and in which they can do no possible service to the community.

"It is extremely natural for noblemen, or young people of fortune who have travelled and seen fine pictures and statues, to be planet-struck with a desire of being celebrated in books, like those great men of whom they have read in the lives of the painters, etc.; for it must be recollected that the popes, princes, and cardinals who patronized these painters, have been [70]celebrated as creators of the men who created those great works:

'Shar'd all their honours, and partook their fame.'

"The 'Dilettanti' had all this in prospect when they offered to establish a drawing-school, etc. at their own expense; for here they expected to be paramount. But when those painters who projected the scheme presumed to bear a part in the direction of the school, the 'Dilettanti' kept their money, and rejected them with scorn,—the whole castle fell to the ground, and has been no more heard of.[41]

[71]

"This society of castle-builders have a similar idea. They wish first to persuade the world that no genius can deserve notice without being first cultivated under their direction, and will ultimately neither foster nor encourage any artist that has not been brought up by themselves.

"The sounding title of a society for the encouragement of arts, manufactures, and commerce, with two or three people of rank at their head, attracted a multitude of subscribers. Men when repeatedly applied to were unwilling to refuse two guineas a year; people of leisure, tired of public amusements, found themselves entertained with formal speeches from men who had still more pleasure in displaying their talents for oratory. Artificers of all descriptions were invited, and those who were not bidden strained every nerve to become members, and appear upon the printed list as promoters of the fine arts. By this means they were consulted in their several professions, and happy was he who could assume courage enough to speak, though ever so little to the purpose.

"The intention of this great society is unquestionably laudable; their success in subscriptions astonishing. How far their performances have been equal to their promises, it is not my business to inquire; but as, while I had the honour of being a member, my opinion was frequently asked on some[72] points relating to my own profession, I venture to lay it before the reader with the same frankness that I then gave it.

"When the society was in its infancy they gave premiums for children's drawings, and for this—'Let children lisp their praise.'[42] It was asserted that we should thus improve our own manufactures, and gravely asked by these professed encouragers of the commerce of their country, if the French children being instructed in drawing did not enable that people to give a better air to all the articles they fabricated. I answered positively, NO; and added, that thus trumpeting their praise was a degradation of our own country, and giving to our rivals a character which they had no right to. Were this point[73] debated, French superiority would be supported by fashionable ladies, travelled gentlemen, and picture-dealers. In opposition to them, would be those who are capable of judging for themselves, the few that are not led away by popular prejudices, and the first artists in the kingdom. These, I am conscious, would be a minority, but composed of men that ought to have weight, and whose opinion and advice should have been taken before the plan was put in execution.

"Of the immense improvement that is to take place in our manufactures from boys of almost every profession being taught to draw, I form no very sanguine expectations.

"To attain the power of imitating the forms of letters with freedom and precision in all their due proportions and various elegant turns, as Snell has given them, requires as much skill as to copy different forms of columns and cornices in architecture, and might with some show of propriety be said to demand a knowledge of design; yet common sense and experience convince us that the proper place for acquiring a fine hand is a writing-school. As measuring is but measuring, I do not think that a tailor would make a suit of clothes fit better from having been employed twice seven years in taking the dimensions of all the bits of antiquity that remain[74] in Greece.[43] How absurd would it be to see periwig-makers and shoemakers' boys learning the art of drawing, that they might give grace to a peruke or a slipper! If the study of Claude's landscapes would benefit the carver of a picture-frame, or the contemplation of a finely-painted saucepan by Teniers or Bassan would be an improvement to a tinman, it would be highly proper for this society to encourage them in the practice of the arts. But as this is not the case, giving lads of all ranks a little knowledge of everything is almost as absurd as it would be to instruct shopkeepers in oratory, that they may be thus enabled to talk people into buying their goods, because oratory is necessary at the bar and in the pulpit. As to giving premiums to those that design flowers, etc. for silks and linens, let it be recollected that these artisans copy the objects they introduce from nature,—a much surer guide than all the childish and ridiculous absurdities of temples, dragons, pagodas, and other fantastic fripperies which have been imported from China.

"As from all these causes (and many more might be added) it appears that a smattering in the arts can be of little use except to those who make painting their sole pursuit, why should we tempt such[75] multitudes to embark in a profession by which they never can be supported? For historical pictures there never can be a demand:[44] our churches reject them; the nobility prefer foreign productions; and the generality of our apartments are too small to contain them. A certain number of portrait-painters, if they can get patronized by people of rank, may find employment; but the majority even of these must either shift how they can amongst their acquaintance, or live by travelling from town to town like gipsies. Yet, as many will be allured by flattering appearances, and form vague hopes of success, some of the candidates must be unsuccessful; and men will be rendered miserable who might have lived comfortably enough by almost any manufactory, and will wish that they had been taught to make a shoe, rather than thus devoted to the polite arts.[45] When I once stated something like this to [76]the society, a member humanely remarked, that the poorer we kept the artists, the cheaper we might purchase their works."

These two societies, of whose projects and practice Hogarth seems to have entertained very similar opinions, became for a short time so far connected, that where one held their meetings the other exhibited their pictures. The donations in painting which Hogarth and several other artists had made to the Foundling Hospital had much engaged the public attention; and the painters finding the effects they produced, determined to try the fate of an exhibition of their work; in consequence of which, on the 27th of February 1760, Mr. Hayman, then chairman of the committee of artists, wrote a letter to the society for encouragement of arts, requesting permission for the painters to exhibit at their great room opposite Beaufort Buildings in the Strand; and in the following May they accordingly made their first Exhibition. This proved very attractive; and, from the money paid for admission, they were soon enabled to relieve not only the indigent of their own body, but also aliens; and to establish themselves into a regular institution by the name of "A Society of Artists, associated for the relief of the distressed and decayed of their own body, their widows, and children." For these humane purposes[77] they agreed to form a fund. As far as this plan went it had Hogarth's approbation; and for their Exhibition Catalogue of 1761 he made two designs, which were engraved by Mr. Charles Grignion, and of which the following are copies:—

FRONTISPIECE
TO THE CATALOGUE OF THE ARTISTS' EXHIBITION, 1761.

Erected in the cleft of a rock, we have here a building intended for a reservoir of water; and by the bust of his present Majesty being placed in a niche of an arch, which is lined with a shell and surmounted by a crown, we must suppose it a royal reservoir. The mouth of a mask of the British lion is made the water-spout for conveying a stream into a garden-pot, which a figure of Britannia holds in her right hand, and, with her spear in the left, is employed in sprinkling three young trees, the trunks of which are entwined together, and inscribed, "Painting, Sculpture, Architecture." These promising saplings are planted upon a gentle declivity. Painting is on the highest ground, and Sculpture on the lowest. It is worthy of remark that the fructifying[78] stream which issues from the watering-pot falls short of the surface on which is planted the tree inscribed Painting, and goes beyond the root of that termed Sculpture; so that Architecture, which is much the loftiest and most healthy tree, will have the principal benefit of the water. If the tree of Painting is attentively inspected, it will be found stunted in its growth, withered at the top, and blest with only one flourishing branch, which, if viewed with an eye to what the artist has previously written, seems intended for portrait-painting. The tree which is the symbol for Sculpture appears to bend and withdraw itself from the reservoir;[47] one branch from the centre of the trunk is probably funereal, and intended to intimate sepulchral monuments. The top, being out of sight, is left to the imagination.

Those who wish to inquire how far this allegorical and sylvan symbol has proved prophetic of the unequal encouragement now given to the different branches of the arts, may go to Somerset House, contemplate the building, pay their shilling, and walk through the rooms of the Royal Academy during the time of their annual exhibition!

TAIL-PIECE
TO THE ARTISTS' CATALOGUE.

As a contrast to Britannia nurturing the trees that are introduced in the last print, a travelling monkey in full dress is in this industriously watering three withered and sapless stems of what might once have been flowering shrubs, and are inscribed "Exotics." These wretched remnants of things which were, are carefully placed in labelled flower-pots: on the first is written, "Obiit 1502;" on the second, "Obiit 1600;" and on the third, "Obiit 1606." Still adhering to the hieroglyphics in his frontispiece, Hogarth introduces these three dwarfish importations of decayed nature to indicate the state of those old and damaged pictures which are venerated merely for their antiquity, and exalted above all modern productions, from the name of a great master, rather than any intrinsic merit. To heighten the ridicule, he has given his monkey a magnifying glass that will draw forth hidden beauties, which to common optics are invisible.

So great was the demand for the catalogues with[80] the illustrative prints of Hogarth, that the two first done were soon worn down, and Mr. Grignion was employed to engrave others from the same drawings. Beneath those that were first made there are no mottoes; and the word obiit is written obit. This was perhaps a mistake of either the painter or writing engraver, though I think it barely possible that the former might mean to pun on the connoisseurs being bubbled by dealers in old pictures—O! BIT.

The opinion Hogarth has, in the preceding pages, given of the taste and judgment of the public in his own day may at first sight seem rather harsh, but was in a degree justified by the scandalous inattention with which the town received his six inimitable pictures of "Marriage à la Mode;" they were, on the 6th of June 1750, sold by a kind of auction to Mr. Lane of Hillingdon for one hundred and twenty guineas! Being in Carlo Maratt frames that cost the artist four guineas each, his real remuneration for painting this admirable series was but a few shillings more than one hundred pounds.[49] Such are the rewards of genius. Low as this sum was, a Mr. Perry, being eleven months afterwards erroneously informed that[81] still less had been the highest sum offered, and that they were not sold, wrote the following letter with an increased bidding. This gentleman's name is inserted in Hogarth's subscription book as a subscriber for four sets of "The Elections," with this remarkable memorandum:—"4th April 1754.—The whole eight guineas paid at the time of subscribing." Out of near six hundred names, I find only two (viz. Henry Raper, Esq., and Mr. Perry) who paid more than half the money in the first subscription.

"Dear Sir,—I was this day informed by a friend of mine in the city that seventy-five pounds only was bid for your pictures of 'Marriage à la Mode;' and this I hope will excuse my bidding you so small a sum as one hundred and twenty pounds for them; so much are they worth of my money; with a promise never to sell them to any picture-trader or connoisseur-monger so long as you or I shall live.

"If in this foolish and grossly-imposed on genera[82]tion there should not be found one man wiser than myself, I must insist on having this bidding deposited in your cabinet.—I am, dear Sir, your most obedient servant,

Car. Perry.

"May 15, 1751."

[83]

CHAPTER IV.

THE MOTIVES BY WHICH HOGARTH WAS INDUCED TO PUBLISH HIS ANALYSIS OF BEAUTY; THE ABUSE IT DREW UPON HIM, AND HIS VINDICATION OF HIMSELF AND THE VOLUME. HE IS ELECTED A MEMBER OF THE IMPERIAL ACADEMY AT AUGSBURG, AND APPOINTED SERJEANT PAINTER TO THE KING.

Hogarth finding his prints were become sufficiently numerous to form a handsome volume, in the year 1745 [50] engraved his own portrait as a frontispiece. In one corner of the plate he introduced a painter's palette, on which was a waving line inscribed "The Line of Beauty." This created much curious speculation, and, as he himself expresses it, "The bait soon took, and no Egyptian hieroglyphic ever amused more than it did for a time. Painters and sculptors came to me to know the meaning of it, being as much puzzled with it as other people, till it came to have some explanation; then, indeed, but not till then, some found it out to[84] be an old acquaintance of theirs,[51] though the account they could give of its properties was very near as satisfactory as that which a day-labourer, who constantly uses the lever, could give of that machine as a mechanical power." "They knew it as Falstaff did Prince Henry—by instinct!"

This crooked line drew upon him a numerous band of opponents, and involved him in so many disputes, that he at length determined to write a book, explain his system, and silence his adversaries. When his intentions were known, those who acknowledged his claim to superiority as an artist were apprehensive that, by thus wandering out of his sphere and commencing author, he would lessen his reputation. Those who ridiculed his system presumed that he would thus overturn it; and the few who envied and hated the man, rejoiced in sure and certain hope that he would write himself into disgrace. All this he laughed at, and in the following little epigram whimsically enough describes his own feelings:—

"What! a book, and by Hogarth! then twenty to ten,

All he's gained by the pencil he'll lose by the pen.

Perhaps it may be so; howe'er, miss or hit,

He will publish,—here goes,—it's double or quit."

Notwithstanding this pleasantry preceding the[85] publication, he frankly acknowledges that the uncharitable spirit with which he was in consequence assailed, and the squabbles it drew him into with those of his own profession, and the dabblers in the arts, gave him greater uneasiness than was balanced by its general success. Thus does he express himself:—

"My preface and introduction to the Analysis contain a general explanation of the circumstances which led me to commence author; but this has not deterred my opponents from loading me with much gross and, I think, unmerited obloquy; it therefore becomes necessary that I should try to defend myself from their aspersions.

"Among many other high crimes and misdemeanours of which I am accused, it is asserted that I have abused the great masters. This is so far from being just, that when the truth is fairly stated it may possibly appear that the professional reputation of these luminaries of the arts is more injured by the wild and enthusiastic admiration of those who denominate themselves their fast friends, than by men who are falsely classed as their enemies.

"Let us put a case: suppose a brilliant landscape had been so finely painted by a first-rate artist, that the trees, water, sky, etc. were boldly though tenderly relieved from each other, and the eye of the spectator might, as it were, travel into the scenery;[86] and suppose this landscape, by the heat of the sun, the ravages of time, or the still more fatal ravages of picture-cleaners, was shorn of its beams and deprived of all its original brightness; let me ask whether the man who will affirm that this almost obliterated, unharmonious, spotty, patchwork piece of antiquity is in the state that it first came out of the artist's hands, does not abuse the painter?[52] and whether he who asserts that though it might once have been bright and clear it is now faded, does not thus place the defects to the proper account, and consequently defend him?

"So far from attempting to lower the ancients, I have always thought, and it is universally admitted, that they knew some fundamental principles in nature which enabled them to produce works that have been the admiration of succeeding ages; but I have not allowed this merit to those leaden-headed imitators,[87] who, having no consciousness of either symmetry or propriety, have attempted to mend nature, and in their truly ideal figures gave similar proportions to a Mercury and a Hercules.

"This, and many other opinions which I have ventured to advance, has roused a nest of hornets from whose stings I would wish to guard myself, as I am conscious that they will try to condemn all my works by my own rules. To disappoint these insects I have, in my explanatory prints, done the Antinous, Venus, etc. in a slighter style than the other figures, to show that they are introduced as mere references to the originals; and I will not now attempt to paint my Goddess of Beauty.[53] Who can tell how long the artist was employed in giving such exquisite grace to the Grecian Venus? he might perhaps think that a single super-excellent statue would confer immortality, and was sufficient for a whole life. Can any one expect to see equal perfection in that which is done in little, and in a short space of time?

"With respect to beauty, though men felt its effects, yet both artists and others appeared to me to be totally ignorant of its principles, and contented themselves with bestowing undistinguishing praise, and giving us cold and servile copies of the fine[88] models of antiquity, without making any inquiry into the system by which they were produced. The few who wished to learn the principles found themselves so bewildered and confounded by the vague and contradictory opinions which they had heard and read concerning beauty and grace, that they began to suspect the whole to be an illusion, and that neither one nor the other existed except in fancy and imagination. This should excite less surprise, from its having sometimes happened in a matter of an infinitely higher and more important nature; and were it politically right, it is possible that a small octavo might be written, which would start as many folios of theological controversy as would fill Westminster Hall, though the whole put together might be mere lumber, and of no more use than waste paper. But this by the by. To return into my own path, and resume the reasons that induced me to tread it in a new character. In doing this, it will be proper to give a succinct statement of the strange way in which this subject has been treated by preceding writers.

"The first attempts that were made to fix true ideas of taste upon a surer basis, were by natural philosophers, who, in their amplified contemplations on the universal beauty displayed in the harmony and order of nature, very soon lost themselves; an event that, from the way in which they set out, was inevitable: for, if I may be permitted to adopt an[89] allegorical figure, it necessarily led them into the wide road of Order and Regularity, which they unexpectedly found crossed and intersected by many other paths that led into the Labyrinths of Variety; where, not having passed through the Province of Painting, they became confused, and could never find their way. To explaining the order and usefulness of nature they might be equal; but of her sportiveness and fancy they were totally ignorant. To extricate themselves from these difficulties, they ascended the Mound of Moral Beauty, contiguous to the open field of Divinity, where, rambling and ranging at large, they lost all remembrance of their former pursuit.

"These gentlemen having failed, it was next suggested that the deeply read and travelled man was the only person fully qualified to undertake the task of analyzing beauty. But here let it be observed, that a few things well seen, and thoroughly understood, are more likely to furnish proper materials for this purpose than the cursory view of all that can be met with in a hasty journey through Europe.

"Nature is simple, plain, and true in all her works; and those who strictly adhere to her laws, and closely attend to her appearances in their infinite varieties, are guarded against any prejudiced bias from truth; while those who have seen many things that they cannot well understand, and read many books which[90] they do not fully comprehend, notwithstanding all their pompous parade of knowledge, are apt to wander about it and about it, perpetually perplexing themselves and their readers with the various opinions of other men.

"The knowledge necessary for writing a work on the arts, differs as much from that acquired by the simple traveller, as the art of simpling doth from the science of botany. Taking the grand tour to see and pick up curiosities, which the travellers are taught nicely to distinguish from each other by certain cramp marks and hard names, may, with no great impropriety, be termed 'going a simpling;' but with this special difference, that your 'field simpler' never picks up a nettle for a marsh-mallow,—a mistake which your 'tour simpler' is very liable to.

"As to those painters who have written treatises on painting, they were in general too much taken up with giving rules for the operative part of the art to enter into physiological disquisitions on the nature of the objects. With respect to myself, I thought I was sufficiently grounded in the principles of my profession to throw some new lights on the subject; and though the pen was to me a new instrument, yet, as the mechanic at his loom may possibly give as satisfactory an account of the materials and composition of the rich brocade he weaves as the smooth-tongued mercer surrounded with all his parade of showy[91] silks, I trusted that I might make myself tolerably understood by those who would take the trouble of examining my book and prints together; for as one who makes use of signs and gestures to convey his meaning in a language of which he has little knowledge, I have occasionally had recourse to my pencil. For this I have been assailed by every profligate scribbler in town, and told that though 'words are man's province,' they are not my province; and that though I have put my name to the Analysis of Beauty, yet (as I acknowledge having received some assistance from two or three friends) I am only the supposed author. By those of my own profession I am treated with still more severity; pestered with caricature drawings, and hung up in effigy in prints; accused of vanity, ignorance, and envy; called a mean and contemptible dauber; represented in the strangest employments, and pictured in the strangest shapes,—sometimes under the hieroglyphical semblance of a satyr, and at others under the still more ingenious one of an ass.[54]

[92]

"Not satisfied with this, finding that they could not overturn my system, they endeavoured to wound the peace of my family. This was a cruelty hardly to be forgiven: to say that such malicious attacks[93] and caricatures did not discompose me, would be untrue, for to be held up to public ridicule would discompose any man; but I must at the same time add that they did not much distress me. I knew[94] that those who venture to oppose received opinions must in return have public abuse: so that, feeling I had no right to exemption from the common tribute, and conscious that my book had been generally well[95] received, I consoled myself with the trite observation that every success or advantage in this world must be attended by some sort of a reverse; and that though the worst writers and worst painters have traduced[96] me, by the best I have had more than justice done me. The partiality with which the world has received my works, and the patronage and friendship with which some of the best characters in it have honoured the author, ought to excite my warmest gratitude, and demands my best thanks. It enables me to despise this cloud of insects; for happily, though their buzzing may tease, their stings are not mortal."

That these hard blows of his adversaries were felt, and felt keenly, appears from the whole tenor of his language; but his mortifications were in a degree balanced. The annexed letter, from a man of Warburton's literary fame, was a flattering testimony to his talents, though a gentleman to whom I read it observed, that the Doctor might be as much actuated by a fear of his satire as admiration of his abilities. It enclosed a £10 bank note. By his friend Rouquet he was informed that his book was eagerly expected in Paris, and told in a note from the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, that it would have a place in the University library:—

For Mr. Hogarth.

"Dear Sir,—I was pleased to find by the public papers that you have determined to give us your original and masterly thoughts on the great principles of your profession.

[97]

"You ow [55] this to your country, for you are both an honour to your profession and a shame to that worthless crew professing vertu [55] and connoisseurship, to whom all that grovel in the splendid poverty of wealth and taste are the miserable bubbles.

"I beg you would give me leave to contribute my mite towards this work, and permit the enclosed to entitle me to a subscription for two copies.

"I am, dear Sir (with a true sense of your superior talents), your very affectionate humble servant,

"W. Warburton.

"P. P., March 28, 1752."

To Mr. Hogarth.

"Dear Sir,—I expected to have been in England about this time, but find myself disappointed by the tediousness of the progress of what I have begun; and business coming in very smartly, I believe I shall stay here some months longer than I proposed at first, therefore shall indulge myself with the pleasure of writing these till I enjoy that of your conversation. I have a thousand observations to impart to you when we meet—some that will please you, some that you will think inaccurate, but all such as will not allow us time to yawn when we see one another. First, I hope you are in perfect health, and the next[98] news I want to hear is, when your book is to be published. I have raised some expectations about it amongst artists and virtuosi here, and hope to have the first that shall come over, that I may boast of your friendship, by being the first usher of a performance which I am sure will make many people wish they were acquainted with you. The humbug virtu is much more out of fashion here than in England. Free-thinking, upon that and other topics, is, if possible, more prevalent here than amongst you. Old paintings and old stories fare much alike. A dark picture is become a damned picture, as the soul of the dealer; and, consequently, modern performances are much encouraged,—and mine amongst them,—for I have met with a reception much beyond what I expected, or they deserved. This circumstance has made Paris more agreeable to me than it would have been without it. I pass my time in it very swiftly, perpetually employed in a great variety of unavoidable business. The days succeed one another with great rapidity. Nevertheless, I think I don't enjoy so good a health as in England, though I was often ill there; but the hurry I have been in this six months, which cannot be described, may be the reason of it. I am afflicted with a continual headache, which I have not been subject to this five-and-twenty years, and which, if it should not abate, will occasion my return before business will well admit. I suppose[99] you have before this time some spring days at Ivy Hall. I shall have no country air this year, but am going to lodge in the most open part of the town, which I hope will do instead, that is, upon the Quay de Conti, next to College Mazarine, where I shall be in three weeks ready to receive the answer that I beg you will favour me with.—I am, Sir, your humble servant,

"Rouquet.

"Paris, March 22, 1753."

To Mr. Hogarth, in Leicester Fields.

"Cambridge, Nov. 28, 1753.

"Sir,—I return you thanks for your book, which came to my hand last night, and for which I will find a place in the University library. I have read it over with pleasure, and have no doubt but that many others will do the same, as there can be no one here to whom Mr. Hogarth's name will not be an inducement to inquire into anything that comes from his hand.—I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

"P. Yonge."

Hogarth presented another copy to the Royal Society; and by several of his books that were sent abroad, he found that, however captiously the work had been treated by some of his own countrymen, it[100] had its admirers on the Continent. From Mr. Reiffsten of Cassel, in consequence of this publication, he received a letter couched in most complimentary terms, inviting him to become a counsellor and member of the Imperial Academy at Augsburg,—an invitation which, by his reply, he appears to have accepted.

An Italian translation of his Analysis was published at Leghorn, dedicated, "All' illustrissime Signora Diana Molineux Dama Inglese." It had been previously done into German by Mr. Mylins, a new edition of whose translation is thus pompously announced by Mr. C. F. Vok, in a written paper I found among Hogarth's manuscripts:—

Advertisement for a New Edition of Mr. Hogarth's "Analysis of Beauty."

"If ever a work met with great applause and deserved still more, it was certainly Mr. Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty. The literary journals and newspapers have amply and handsomely noticed it. The author made the beauty of forms, which was the object of his art, at the same time the subject of his philosophical meditations, and fell at last upon a system which was meant to ascertain in some degree the various conceptions of mankind concerning the agreeable, and to banish from the learned as well as[101] the vulgar the absurd proverb, that men neither can nor ought to dispute about Taste. 'Tis therefore to him we are indebted if the word beautiful, to which people daily fix a thousand different ideas, becomes for the future as much an object of reflection as it has hitherto been of sensation. Yet this work does not contain empty and fruitless speculations, which, when they are not of practical use, justly merit the name of whim and chimera; but its utility is equally extensive with its subject, viz. the beauty of forms, and all arts and sciences that have a relation to it will borrow new light from the performance. The philosopher, the naturalist, the antiquarian, the orator (both in the pulpit and on the stage), the painter, the statuary, the dancing-master, must consider it as a book essentially necessary to them; and not only to them, but also to those persons who are vain of being thought connoisseurs, yet often form such contradictory and inadequate judgment of what relates to the imitation of natural beauty, that they but too plainly betray their want of fixed and determinate ideas. One may venture to affirm that the utility of Mr. Hogarth's system will soon extend itself into the empire of fashion; for even there, where nothing reigned but occasional caprice, now something of certainty may take its place by the assistance of this theory.

"Mr. Mylins when in England translated it into[102] German, under the author's inspection; his translation was printed in London, and contains only twenty-two sheets in quarto, and the two prints, yet was it sold for five dollars."

Mr. Vok proposes taking subscriptions of one dollar for his edition, which is not to be sold under two dollars to non-subscribers. He further promises to annex a short description of Mr. Hogarth's prints, translated from the French, and engages that the work shall be ready in six weeks from the time of his proposals, which he dates from Berlin, 1st July 1754.

Mr. Reiffsten's Letter to Mr. Hogarth.

"Sir,—An universal reputation, and undisputed title to superiority, cannot but draw upon you the importunities of those who are ambitious of an acquaintance with men of genius. Ever since my first perusing the Analysis of Beauty, in which the author is no less to be admired than the artist, I have been on the watch for a favourable opportunity of contributing my share, though ever so small, to the thanks of the public. In that ingenious and elaborate composition you are allowed by all men of taste to have dispelled the mist and cleared the difficulties that had previously attended a problem in painting, of exquisite[103] nicety and the greatest moment. The most eminent masters and most sagacious theorists had travelled in the dark, or wandered through mazes in a fruitless search after beauty. To you alone it was reserved to unravel her windings, reveal her charms to open view, and fix her hidden though genuine excellence.

"At length, sir, the opportunity I had so long coveted seems to offer itself, of course. It is owing to the erection of an Imperial Academy at Augsburg, for the study and improvement of arts and letters. I am commissioned as a deputy from the whole body to interpret their sentiments, and to inform you how highly they value and respect your uncommon talents and capacity. Proud of the acquisition of one no less distinguished in the republic of letters than in the commonwealth of arts, they earnestly desire you would accept the diploma of counsellor and honorary member of their Academy. It is ready to be drawn up, and will not fail being despatched so soon as they are sure of your approbation; which, 'tis hoped, will not be refused by one who has deserved so well of all lovers of taste and genius. But before you take this step it is but natural you should ask in what consists the Academy of which you are solicited to become a member, and whose existence, probably enough, is not so much as suspected in England. To obviate so proper an inquiry, suffer me, sir, to acquaint you in a few words with its origin, constitution, and design.

[104]

"About three or four years since, some artists of Augsburg formed themselves into a society, in order to promote and encourage the imitative arts, especially painting and engraving. They applied to the Emperor for protection, which was graciously granted. Soon after they published, at their own expense, a few select pieces; but finding that the polite arts cannot be brought to perfection without the help of literature, and that to excel an artist must be something of a scholar himself, or be assisted by men of learning, they associated those to their body by whom they might be furnished with instructions in writing upon the two above-mentioned branches, and a correspondence both within the empire and abroad properly carried on. Having thus far met with success, they began to extend their views, and endeavoured to fix an institution for teaching methodically the art of drawing or designing—an establishment much wanted here in Germany. This scheme being laid before the Imperial Court, the society obtained an ample charter and considerable privileges. It was incorporated under the denomination of 'an Academy of Arts and Letters,' and the Emperor was pleased to illustrate it with his own name. He conferred the honour of knighthood upon the president, and the title of imperial counsellor on the director, empowering the members to choose those officers themselves; and, moreover, to appoint counsellors and professors[105] to direct the teaching publicly the learned languages and the liberal arts, with several other concessions concerning the printing and publishing of their works.

"To crown their hopes, a common stock was still wanting for the supply of unavoidable expenses, such as salaries to masters and teachers, charges of the press, etc. On this account they had recourse to a tontine,—a kind of lottery, consisting of annuities for life,—which has met with tolerable success, and will produce a capital sufficient to defray all necessary disbursements. But till this end be compassed, the Academy confines itself to the publishing (by means of artist members) plates engraved after the original paintings of the best masters; and by the help of such members as are men of letters, a journal or periodical pamphlet, consisting of memoirs or essays concerning those arts whose foundation is laid in designing. The first part, by way of specimen, is to come out before the close of this year, and it will be regularly continued every month in the next.

"The chief materials are to be compiled by members settled at Rome, Paris, Dresden, Stuttgard, Copenhagen, Cassel, etc.

"How happy should we think ourselves, sir, if, not only suffering your name to be joined in our lists to those of Mengs, Lelio, Meilens, De Marcii, Wille Schmid, Preissler, etc., you would, like those artists, assist us with your pen, and give us a sketch of the[106] present improved state of the imitative arts in Great Britain! What can be conceived more conducive to form and refine our taste, elevate our ideas, and kindle our emulation, than to be informed by yourself, with your manner of operating in those unparalleled originals, whose striking beauties and glowing expressions we closely study in the printed copies; and to be favoured at least with some hints of those pieces we still expect from your warm and masterly pencil?

"But I have too much reason to apprehend that, for a first letter, this will appear tedious; a favourable answer I shall look upon as a permission to explain myself more at large. In hopes of receiving it, I remain, with the highest esteem and regard, Sir, etc. etc. etc.

"I. F. Reiffsten.

"Cassel, March 25th, 1757.

"My address is, Governor of the Payes."

Mr. Hogarth's Answer.

"Sir,—On the receipt of your polite letter, dated Cassel, March 25th, I was most agreeably surprised, nor could I help being much elated, at finding the very handsome invitation therein given to me to become a member of so worthy and respectable a corporation[107] as the Imperial Society of Augsburg; on which account let me request it as a favour that you will be so good as to pay my proper compliments to the gentlemen belonging to it, and at the same time assure them that I with eagerness accept the honour they are pleased to confer upon me, and that they may depend upon my best endeavours to merit their good opinion, by strictly obeying to the utmost of my power such commands as they may think fit to honour me with, tending to the advancement of the laudable design they wisely began, and have since so successfully carried on.

"With respect to the kind opinion you are pleased to entertain of me and my performances, I sincerely return you thanks. And believe me, Sir, the above valuable mark of distinction, which must always tend greatly to my reputation, is still the more grateful to me, as it may occasionally be the means of my corresponding with you,—a happiness much to be coveted by, Sir, etc. etc.,

"Wm. Hogarth.

"London, April 18, 1757.

"A Monsieur Reiffsten."

In addition to the high and sounding title of Counsellor and Honorary Member of the Imperial Academy at Augsburg, conferred upon Hogarth in[108] the German diploma, he was, on the 6th of June 1757, still further dignified by being appointed Serjeant Painter to the King of Great Britain, and entered on the duties of his office on the 16th of the following July. On the demise of George the Second, his post necessarily became vacant; his present Majesty's warrant for reinstating him is in my possession. I have annexed a copy, which shows that the salary was ten pounds per annum, payable quarterly. In one of his manuscripts I find the following memorandum of the interest by which he obtained the place, and its annual profits:—

"Having, just after my brother's death, obtained, by means of my friend Mr. Manning and the Duke of Devonshire, which might not have exceeded one hundred a year to me for trouble and attendance; but by two portraits at more than eighty pounds each, the last occasioned by his present Majesty's accession, and some other things, it has for these last five years been, one way or other, worth two hundred pounds per annum."

Who these portraits were, or for whom they were painted, I know not. By his manner of expressing himself, I should suppose that they were royal, and, as is customary, presented to some of the ambassadors, in which case they were probably sent to the Continent.

[109]

"George R.

"Whereas the King, our late royal grandfather, of glorious and happy memory, by his letters patent, under his Great Seal of Great Britain, and bearing date the sixth day of June, in the thirtieth year of his reign, did grant unto William Hogarth, Esq., the office of Serjeant Painter of all his said late Majesty's works, as well belonging to his royal palaces or houses as to his great wardrobe, or otherwise to hold the said office to the said William Hogarth during his said late Majesty's pleasure: And by the force of a statute made in the sixth year of the reign of Queen Anne, the said William Hogarth did continue in the said office for the space of six months, computed next after the demise of his said late Majesty, and he the said William Hogarth still continues therein, by or under our royal proclamation, in such behalf issued: And whereas our gracious intentions are to re-grant the said office to the said William Hogarth, our will and pleasure is, that you forthwith prepare a Bill for our royal signature, to pass our Great Seal of Great Britain, to revoke and determine the said recited letters patent of our said late royal grandfather, and to remove and discharge the said William Hogarth from the office whereunto he was thereby appointed; and to contain our grant unto our trusty and well-beloved, the said William[110] Hogarth, of the office of Serjeant Painter of all our works, as well belonging to all our royal palaces or houses as to our great wardrobe, or otherwise, to hold and exercise and enjoy the said office to the said William Hogarth, during our pleasure by himself, or his sufficient deputy or deputies, together with the yearly fee or salary of ten pounds, payable at the receipt of our Exchequer, out of any of our revenues there applicable to the uses of our civil government, unto the said William Hogarth, for the exercise and execution of the said office, and to commence from the time to which he was last paid thereupon, by virtue of or under the letters patent before recited, and to be computed payable and paid from such the commencement thereof by the day, or for the quarter, as the case may require, to and for the then next ensuing usual quarterly day of payment in the year; and from thenceforth quarterly, at the four most usual quarterly days of payment in the year, by even and equal portions during his continuance in the said office; and together with all other fees, liveries, profits, commodities, and advantages to the said office belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and in as full, ample, and beneficial manner and form to all intents and purposes as he the said William Hogarth held, exercised, and enjoyed, or might have held, exercised, and enjoyed in the said office, by virtue of or under the said recited[111] letters patent of our said royal grandfather; and you are to insert in the said Bill all such apt clauses, directions, authorities, and powers as were contained in the said former grant of the said office, and such others as you shall think necessary for our service, and for making our grant hereby intended to the said William Hogarth most firm, valid, and effectual; and for so doing this shall be your warrant.

"Given at our Court at St. James's, the 30th day of October 1761, in the second year of our reign.

"By his Majesty's command,
"Holles Newcastle.
"North.
"James Oswald.

"To our Attorney or Solicitor General.

"William Hogarth, Esq., Serjeant Painter of his Majesty's Works.—Office renewed."

The following oracular prediction I found among his papers, in the handwriting of his friend Townley:—

"From an old Greek Fragment.

"There was an ancient oracle delivered at Delphos which says that the source of beauty should never again be rightly discovered till a person should arise[112] whose name was perfectly included in the name of Pythagoras; which person should again restore the ancient principle on which all beauty is founded.

" Πυθάγορας	Pythagoras.
" Ὄγαρϑ	Hogarth."

THE VASE.

"Is man no more than this? consider him well."—Shakspeare.

THE VASE.

As Dr. Townley, in the foregoing mythological fragment, chooses to suppose that in the Greek particles which compounded the name of Pythagoras were to be found the letters Hogarth; Hogarth, with a whimsicality somewhat similar, sported an opinion that the first man who made a well-formed vase took another man for his model. In page 78 of his Analysis, he remarks "that the exact cross of two equal lines cutting each other in the middle, as fig. 69, would confine the figure of a man drawn conformably to them, to the disagreeable character of his being as broad as he is long. And the two lines crossing each other, to make the height and breadth of a figure, will want variety a contrary way, by one line being very short in proportion to the other, and are therefore also incapable of producing a figure of tolerable variety. To prove this, it will be very easy[113] for the reader to make the experiment by drawing a figure or two (though ever so imperfectly), confined within these limits.

"There is a medium between these, proper for every character, which the eye will easily and accurately determine.

"Thus, if the lines, fig. 70, were to be the measure of the extreme length or breadth, set out either for the figure of a man or a vase, the eye soon sees the longest of these is not quite sufficiently so in proportion to the other for a genteel man, and yet it would make a vase too taper to be elegant; no rule or compasses would decide this matter either so quickly or so precisely as a good eye."

I apprehend that Hogarth intended to have introduced this vase into the second print of his Analysis, but found he had not room; for, on the same piece of paper with the drawing, he thus continues the subject:

"We cannot wonder that many writers should have imagined that the different orders of architecture have been taken from the human form, since both are governed by the same principles of fitness, strength, and beauty.[56] The general opinion that the Corinthian[114] capital was taken from a basket and dock leaves, may be supported on the same grounds."

This leads him to one of his favourite ideas, a new order of architecture.

HINTS FOR A NEW CAPITAL.

DESIGNS FOR CAPITALS.

Three of the examples are selected from the most grotesque and ridiculous objects; the other two from flowers; and the Bohemian feathers seem slight essays to prove what he frequently advanced, that though he considered the ancient orders with reverence, yet being the productions of men, men might without heresy venture to vary from them. He remarks: "That churches, palaces, prisons, common houses, and summer houses might be built more in distinct characters than they are, by contriving orders suitable to each; whereas, were a modern architect to build a palace in Lapland or the West Indies, Palladio must be his guide, nor would he dare to stir a step without his book."

"This architects peremptorily assert is the only rule, nor dare they deviate from the established orders. Should you press them hard for a reason, they will tell you no man has yet been able to equal what has been already done; which though I admit, yet have I ventured to assert, and now repeat, that the most [115]beautiful order in the architecture of the ancients will perfectly agree with the rules of composition laid down in the Analysis, and that new orders, adapted to various purposes, may be still invented. I cannot help thinking it is possible that a man who understood drawing, though he had never seen a column, might, by applying the straight and waving line, and correcting simplicity by variety, produce one with equal beauty to any of them.

"In architecture, after FITNESS hath been strictly and geometrically complied with, all the additional members or parts may, by attention to the proper rules of composition, be continually varied and yet be pleasing. For example, if the capitals composed of the confined shapes of hats and wigs can be rendered tolerable, what might not be done by selecting the elegant varieties which are displayed in feathers, flowers, shells, etc.?"[57]

[116]

ROUND AND SQUARE HEADS.

SQUARE & ROUND HEADS.

The five heads in the annexed plate are copied from sketches in my possession, and all of them seem to have been intended for the illustration of his Analysis, in which he remarks, that "the particular expressions of a face or movement of a feature which becomes one person shall be disagreeable in another, just as such expressions or turns happen to fall in with the lines of beauty or the reverse; for this reason there are pretty frowns and disagreeable smiles: the lines that form a pleasing smile about the corners of the mouth have gentle windings, as fig. 1,[58] but lose their beauty in the full laugh; the expression of excessive laughter, oftener than any other, gives a sensible face a silly or disagreeable look, as it is apt to form regular plain lines about the mouth (like a parenthesis), which sometimes appear like crying."

"In what we call plain lines there is this constant and remarkable effect, that as they are more or less conspicuous in any kind of character or expression in the face, they bring along with them certain degrees[117] of a foolish or a ridiculous aspect. The inimitable Butler knew this, and describes the beard of Hudibras, fig. 2:

'In cut and dye so like a tile,

A sudden view it would beguile.'

"To set this in an outréd light, see fig. 4,[59] a face almost as square as a die; and fig. 5, as truly round as a globe. The effect of the latter is rather ridiculous than ugly. Sir Plume's empty look, described in the 'Rape of the Lock,' would not be near so vacant without the idea of roundness:

'With round unthinking face.'

"The dialogue between Cleopatra and the Messenger, relative to the person of Octavia, proves that Shakspeare, who seems to have seen through all nature, saw this in the same light."[60]

To No. 3 he thus alludes in his Analysis, p. 128, but has not engraved it in his explanatory plate, though it would certainly have been a better example than his old man's head, fig. 98:—

"Human nature can hardly be represented more [118]debased than in the character of the Silenus, where the bulging line runs through all the features of the face, as well as the other parts of this swinish body; whereas, in the satyr of the wood, though the ancients have joined the brute with the man, we still see preserved an elegant display of serpentine lines that renders it graceful." His manuscript continues:—

"The fine airs and graceful turns and windings of such a head were produced by adhering to this line; and it was this Mr. Pope conceived of Raphael and Guido in his epistle to Mr. Jarvis, the king's painter, or he meant nothing:

'Each heavenly piece unwearied we compare,

Match Raphael's grace with thy loved Guido's air,

Carracci's strength, Correggio's softer line,

Paulo's free stroke,' etc.

"We must not seek for examples in any of the works Mr. Pope recommends, for whatever was painted by his friends had his unqualified praise.[61] He would have said the same of Mr. Kent. Poets are the fountains of flattery, as kings are the fountains[119] of honour. The former can with as much ease make one man an inspired painter, as the latter can create another right honourable, without either of the parties producing their credentials."[62]

HERCULES, HENRY VIII., AND A FRENCH DANCING-MASTER.

HERCULES, HENRY 8^TH & A FRENCH DANCING MASTER.

In Hogarth's manuscript of the Analysis, facing the chapter on Fitness, I found a red-chalk sketch of these three figures, which (with slight variations) he has introduced in his illustrative prints. They are copied as an example of the manner in which he sketched his first thoughts: they seem placed together to contrast the easy and natural turn of the Hercules with the stiff and artificial attitudes assumed by the other two figures, in both of which uniformity is the leading principle. Relative to this, Hogarth, in p. 20 of the Analysis, puts the following query:—

"If uniform objects were agreeable, why is there[120] such care taken to contrast and vary all the limbs of a statue? Were the eye pleased with uniformity, the picture of Henry VIII. would be preferable to the finely contrasted figures of Guido and Correggio; and the Antinous' easy sway must submit to the stiff and straight figure of the dancing-master.

"The 'Hercules' by Glycon (fig. 1) hath all its parts finely fitted for purposes of the utmost strength that the texture of the human form will bear. The back, breast, and shoulders have huge bones, and muscles adequate to the supposed active strength of its upper parts; but as less strength was required for the lower parts, the judicious sculptor, contrary to all modern rule of enlarging every part in proportion, lessened the size of the muscles gradually down towards the feet, and for the same reason made the neck larger in circumference than any part of the head; otherwise the figure would have been burdened with an unnecessary weight, which would have been a drawback from his strength, and, in consequence of that, from his characteristic beauty. These seeming faults, which show the superior anatomical knowledge as well as judgment of the ancients, are not to be found in the leaden imitations near Hyde Park."

The bluff and boisterous Henry VIII. is described in the same volume as forming a complete X with his legs and arms; and the pert and prim dancing-master is so accomplished a person, that were he to[121] see his scholar in the easy and gracefully-turned attitude of the Antinous, he would cry shame! tell him he looked as crooked as a ram's horn, and bid him hold up his head, as he himself did. This figure is said to be intended for Essex the dancing-master.

The very different position in which these three strongly contrasted characters place their legs and feet is worthy of observation.

CHARLES I., ITALIAN JUPITER, ETC.

I. CHARLES I. II. HENRIETTA MARIA. III. GROTESQUE ORNAMENT. IV. ITALIAN JUPITER.

These figures, as well as the preceding, are copied from sketches in the MS. of the Analysis; the Italian Jove, grasping a thunderbolt, is intended for Monsieur Desnoyer dancing in a grand ballet. A reduced copy of the figure is in the first plate to the Analysis, placed as a companion to Quin in the character of Brutus; and it must be acknowledged that the English actor, in a wig which Gorgon's self might own, is as fair a representative of a Roman general as the dancer is of a deity.

The figures 1 and 2 are from Vandyke's portraits of Charles I. and Henrietta Maria. The former is copied from one of that great painter's portraits, and almost wholly made up of straight lines; the latter, though drawn with an easy and elegant air, Hogarth considers as not composed on the principle[122] of the waving line, which he says Vandyke seems never to have thought of. Thus does he characterize that artist in the page that faced the sketches:—

"Rubens knew the waving line, but his contours are rather overcharged. Vandyke, his scholar, perhaps for fear of running into what he might think gross in his master's manner, imitated nature just as it chanced to present itself; and having an exact eye, produced portraits which abound with delicacy and simplicity; but when nature flagged he was tame, not knowing that principle which might have raised his ideas. His best works are, however, marked with grace."

No. 3 is intended to represent one of those clumsy, grotesque ornaments with which our cathedrals abound, where a winged figure, perched in the niche of an arch behind a shield, seems intended as a guardian angel to the dust of the deceased hero, whose armorial bearing is sometimes displayed in the front.

The last engraving which I have taken from the manuscript of the Analysis, makes an easy and elegant form; and I have ventured to introduce it in the title-page to this volume. The original drawing is on the same leaf with two sketches of an ill-shaped candlestick and torch thistle (Nos. 40 and 42), in the first plate to the Analysis. I think it may be denominated "The Dolphin Candlestick," as it is com[123]posed of dolphins and snakes, so twisted as to combine his favourite serpentine line, and crowned with the iris and lily. In his MS., after remarking that "our furniture and utensils are generally as tasteless and inelegant as straight and unvaried lines can make them,"—and producing as examples the ill-shaped candlesticks, etc., which are engraved in his first plate,—he concludes by observing, "It is said in vindication of such forms, that they are adhered to for the sake of simplicity; but this might be preserved, and yet some portion of beauty introduced, did they combine their little variations by the proper rules."

"Let the 'Dolphin Candlestick,' composed of serpentine lines varying with each other, be compared with No. 40, plate I, which is made up of plain unvaried parts, and it will show, in a much clearer view than can be expressed by words, the necessity of variety to constitute beauty.

"Nature gives us a few examples of tasteless forms in the torch thistle, and some other ill-shaped exotics to be found in green-houses, which form a striking contrast to such flowers as the Chalcedonian iris and lily, whose enchanting beauty proceeds from their variety—these two flowers united form a nozzle to the candlestick above alluded to."

Notwithstanding Hogarth's perpetual reference to the line of grace and analysis of the line of beauty,[124] he has been generally said to be totally incapable of imparting either one or the other to his figures. Mr. Nichols, in his Anecdotes, insists on his notorious deficiency in what is styled "the graceful," and in page 48 quotes Mr. Garrick's opinion to corroborate his own. The writer of the North Briton, No. 17, boldly asserts that he never caught a single idea of beauty, grace, or elegance. Mr. Walpole, who is generally candid and liberal in his praise, declares him totally devoid of the principle, and, quoting the first plate of his Analysis as an example, concludes the sentence by remarking, that "the two figures of a young lord and lady, which are added as samples of grace," are strikingly stiff and affected. I do not know that the artist intended them to be otherwise; he has not referred to them as models in his book, and, it is but fair to think, meant them as leading figures, less outré in their forms, but nearly as affected in their graces, as the other dancers. His object seems to be, exemplifying grace by what it is not rather than by what it is. Whatever were his motives for thus amplifying awkwardness in the Wandsworth assembly,[63] the annexed design, which may be considered as its contrast, he has either composed on a different principle, or, by a most happy and singular accident, grouped some very easy and elegant forms with much taste.

[125]

THE DANCE

THE DANCE.

Was designed and engraved in the year 1723 for the first volume of De la Mottraye's Travels. In p. 159, this tedious writer tells us, in some very ill-arranged sentences, that the Greek women in the isle of Scio, where the scene is laid, have a striking pre-eminence over those of any other island in the Archipelago for beauty as well as gaiety, and, some say, likewise for complaisance. They verify the proverb, "Merry as a Greek," dance every Sunday or holiday in the open air, and in ring, as represented in the print; and on such occasions wine is not spared.[64] He describes fig. 1 as a chief woman of Smyrna, and fig. 7 as her daughter; fig. 4 as a Greek woman of Constantinople, and fig. 3 as a country girl of Scio, in a habit peculiar to that place.

From these slender materials the artist made his design in a style which proves (notwithstanding the total deficiency of taste alleged by his biographers), that at this early period of his life he had the power of delineating figures with some portion of grace.

It may possibly be asked, why examples of this do not more frequently occur in his other works? To which I can only answer, that his scenes were almost invariably laid in his own country, where he[126] painted objects as he saw them; and whatever grace the Grecian habit might give to the beauties of Scio, the Germanic garb, in which the beauties of Britain then disguised themselves,

"Chastely conceal'd each charm from every eye."

Mr. Benjamin Wilson the painter, in the letter that follows, puts a query concerning a disputed point in perspective, which was adopted by Hogarth, in support of his friend Kirby, who, in the epistle that succeeds it, after returning his acknowledgments for the drawing that Sullivan engraved for his book, requests the author of the Analysis to give him some supplementary support in his doctrine of parallel columns, etc., for the volume he was then printing on perspective. This Hogarth did not then comply with; but when Mr. Highmore, a short time afterwards, attacked the system and its author in the preface of a pamphlet, Hogarth, in support of both, and to ridicule the erroneous principles of his opponent, wrote Kirby some whimsical strictures, which have been already published in the Graphic Illustrations. As they are immediately connected with the letter which is subjoined, I have inserted them in a note, and added such extracts from Highmore's and Kirby's prefaces as may elucidate the subject in debate, and enable the reader to draw his own conclusions:—

[127]

To Wm. Hogarth, Esq., Chiswick.

"Dear Sir,—When you come to town, I shall be very glad to show you further advantages which I have gathered from your excellent Analysis. I assure you I think myself greatly indebted to you, and know of no method to repay you, but to acknowledge it as I improve, that the world may have one instance of your invariable principles being true. An odd appearance was mentioned to me lately, which it seems is a fact. A parallelogram, viewed obliquely at a given distance, forms a different representation when seen through a telescope than it does when viewed with the naked eye. In the one case the remote end of the parallelogram appears larger than the near end, whilst in the other case it appears smaller than the near end.

"Q. Do your disputants (in relation to the columns) suppose a given point? If so, they will not regard the eye as you do. Excuse haste.—I am, Sir, etc.,

"B. Wilson."

For Mr. Hogarth.

"Ipswich, May 3d, 1753.

"Dear Sir,—Ever since I received the favour of your drawing, I have been in expectation of having[128] my Preface printed, but have been continually disappointed, which was the reason of my not returning you my most hearty thanks for the above favour long before this time, and therefore I hope your goodness will excuse it.

"The design which you have favoured me with is the best that can be thought of for its intended purpose, as it tends to recommend the study of perspective by exposing the mistakes of those artists who are ignorant of it in such a striking manner as is peculiar to the genius of Mr. Hogarth. I intend to have it engraved by Mr. Sullivan, and shall send it to him as soon as I know how to direct to him, unless any other person is more agreeable to you for that purpose.

"I have enclosed my Preface for your inspection, and one page of the work itself as a specimen of the paper and letter, and shall be glad if they please you. My intention in the three last paragraphs [65] will be obvious at first sight, and I hope you will not think them unnecessary.

[129]

"But, good sir, give me leave to ask you (for you have given me much assurance by your friendship, and particularly by your promise), have you thought any more of what we have so often discoursed upon in relation to parallel columns, etc.? I am more and more convinced of the justness of your reasoning[130] upon that subject, and shall think myself prodigiously honoured if you annex something of that kind to my work; for then I shall have you both in my front and rear, and shall not be afraid even of the d—l himself when I am so guarded. If the little witlings despise the study of perspective, I'll give 'em a thrust with my[131] frontispiece which they cannot parry; and if there be any that are too tenacious of mathematical rules, I'll give them a cross-buttock with the 'Dissertations,' and crush them into as ill-shaped figures as those they would draw by adhering too strictly to the rules of perspective.

[132]

"I have nothing more to add but my humble thanks for all your favours; and I shall be glad to know if you intend doing anything as you proposed. And am, with compliments to Lady Thornhill, Mrs. Hogarth, etc., your most obliged and obedient humble servant,

"Jos. Kirby.

"P.S.—I cannot fix the time when my work will be published, but it is printing with the utmost expedition."

For another of Mr. Kirby's publications Hogarth designed a frontispiece, which was engraved by Mr. Woollet, and is prefixed to "The Perspective of Architecture, deduced from the principles of Doctor Brook Taylor, begun by order of his present Majesty when Prince of Wales." I have annexed a copy.

FRONTISPIECE TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF ARCHITECTURE.

It is thus explained by Mr. Malton in the appendix to his Treatise on Perspective:—

"Here is a curious frontispiece, designed by Mr. Hogarth, but not in the same ludicrous style as the former (i.e. the frontispiece to Kirby's Perspective): it [133]were to be wished that he had explained its meaning; for, being symbolical, the meaning of it is not so obvious as the other (that on false perspective). To me it conveys the idea which Milton so poetically describes of the angel Uriel gliding down to Paradise on a sunbeam; but the young gentleman has dropped off before he had arrived at his journey's end, with Palladio's book of architecture on his knees. A ray of light from the sun, rising over a distant mountain, is directed to a scroll on the ground on which are two or three scraps of perspective, over which, supported by a large block of stone, is the upper part of a sceptre broke off; the shaft, very obliquely and absurdly inclined, somewhat resembling the Roman fasces, and girt above with the Prince of Wales' coronet as an astragal, through which the fasces rise and swell into a crown adorned with embroidered stars; this is the principal object, but most vilely drawn. The ray passes through a round temple at a considerable distance, which is also falsely represented, the curves being, for the distance, too round, and consequently the diminution of the columns is too great. It appears to pass over a piece of water: on this side the ground is fertile and luxuriant with vegetation, abounding with trees and shrubs; on the other side it is rocky and barren. What is indicated by this seems to be, that where the arts are encouraged by the rays of royal favour, they will thrive and[134] flourish; but where they are neglected, and do not find encouragement, they will droop and languish."[66]

On the ray from the sun rising over a distant mountain, etc., so facetiously treated by Mr. Malton, some light is thrown in a manuscript chapter of the Analysis, where Hogarth, describing painters' colours, remarks that—

[135]

"Sir Isaac Newton's theory of light and colours, though excellent in itself, is an inquiry of so different a nature from ours, that were we to take this great philosopher as our guide, he would not assist but mislead us, as he did Dr. Brook Taylor, the ingenious author of the best book on perspective that ever was written. The Doctor printed an appendix to this work, which he entitled, A New Theory for Mixing Colours, taken from Sir Isaac Newton's optics; but his project, though ingenious in speculation, is altogether impracticable in painting."

This observation Hogarth follows by the annexed remarks on those visionaries who had puzzled the doctrine of colours with minute and unnecessary divisions, and adopted a strange notion that these divisions were governed by the same laws as music:—

"Both Albert Durer and Lomazzo, who wrote on painting, had this conceit; and so much was Père Castle, a French theoretical doctor, impressed with the idea, that with infinite pains and trouble he contrived a harpsichord to play harmonious composition of colours! On this he wrote a book, and built a system in which prism colours were his notes; these the keys of his instrument were to produce at pleasure. But surely he could not have been drawn into such an absurdity without having first persuaded himself that colours and sounds were of the same nature, and that the like disposition of them both would answer the[136] same purpose, i.e. that a jig in notes would be a jig in colours.[67] I should not be much surprised if some native of that nation of taste contrived an instrument for cookery on a similar plan.[68] This would without doubt be adopted in England, where it must unquestionably have great encouragement. How pleasant would it be to mark Monsieur de Quisiney at his harpsichord, composing a grand festino for the entertainment of foreign ministers; and would the inventor compose a banquet for an installation, or a feast for a Lord Mayor's day, it would ensure him the hearts of both courtiers and citizens. What delight would it afford to a certain eminent composer to see his two favourite sciences thus united![69]

[137]

"The fact is, that though compositions of music and colours may illustrate each other in their principles, they very essentially differ in their effects. The notes on a scale in music will range similar to the colours in a rainbow, or to those separated by the prism, but their operations are precisely opposite.

"For example, let all the keys of an harpsichord be pressed down at one stroke, and the ear will be offended with harsh, jarring, and confused sounds; but if you run your fingers along them in succession, it produces a sort of harmony. In colours it is[138] directly the reverse; for though the varied hues of the rainbow strike the eye agreeably at first sight, yet were flickering colours to follow each other in quick succession, the optic nerve would suffer pain in proportion as the tints were more or less vivid, and played in quick or slow time."

These observations are followed by some hints on easy deportment, and succeeded by the following desultory thoughts, which in his manuscript Hogarth entitles "A Supplementary Chapter on Dress:"—

"Dress is so copious a topic, that it would afford sufficient matter for a large volume. The amazing force and folly of fashion is placed in a most ridiculous point of view in an old book called the Artificial Changeling, where the author not only describes the uncouth, wild, and extravagant mode of clothing the body in different ages and countries, but also states many detestable and barbarous customs of whole nations, who mould and torture the human frame to destroy its original form. Some of the customs that he enumerates are, I believe, still practised, particularly in China, where the feet of the females are bandaged to prevent their growing; and among the Hottentots, where, to improve their children's faces, they break the gristles of their noses. Such is the force of habit, that the eye is soon reconciled, and these horrid disproportions and deformities are considered as beauties.

[139]

"In this country, fancy and the love of change, to which we may sometimes add public and private interest, have generally given the lead to fashion; nor is it to be objected to,—sumptuary laws are not consonant to the spirit of a free people. In dress nothing need be restrained except the folly (I had almost said wickedness) of changing the form or colour of nature.[70]

"As to the fashion of men's dresses, if they are not rendered inconvenient, it is of little consequence: the tailors may contrive them as they will.[71] But for the sex to whom nature has been so bountiful to disguise [140]their enchanting forms, and sacrifice ease, elegance, and grace on the shrine of fashion, is defying symmetry and thwarting nature, which, in their capricious variations, they should sometimes suffer to take fancy by the hand. The principles laid down for sculpture, etc., will apply to dress; and fitness, propriety, and convenience being first established, it should be rendered pleasing. Attention to a few plain and simple rules would be conducive to its being made so.

"For a degree of uniformity there is a necessity, as without it our habits would be neither commodious nor comfortable; but when uniformity can be corrected by taste, or rendered less obtrusive by slight variations, the appearance will be more graceful and becoming. Thus, feathers, jewels, and flowers should usually be worn on one side of the head.

"Painters describe this disposition of ornament, etc. by the word picturesque, and have contrived what they call a fancy dress. This is wholly at their own disposal, and they profess to combine in it all the principles of beauty. But, unhappily, should their figures walk across the room, these fantastic garments would drop from their shoulders. Were they contrived with a little attention to common sense, they might have their uses. Such a succedaneum would not only keep their works out of the reach of ill-natured critics, by covering false anatomy, etc., but[141] give an artist such latitude for light and shadow as might enable him to shine in the grand historical style; though in painting the manners of the present day, where dress forms a part of the character, he might be totally at a loss. On the same ground that I think it more difficult to delineate scenes built on real life than to display such as originate in fiction, I believe it an easier task to write tragedy than comedy: I mean true comedy, not a Dutch droll. Dress is in some cases an index to the mind, and characters in improper habits would destroy the illusion at the best performed play.

"Simplicity, little as it is attended to, is the most attractive principle of beauty. By this I mean that the habit should not be divided into too many parts, like an old-fashioned furbelowed and flounced petticoat: this preposterous mode confounds the eye, and gives an idea of rags and tatters. The plain unadorned dress of a country girl is often more engaging than the richest court habit, in which beauty is frequently obscured, overwhelmed, and buried by gaudy and heavy ornaments that totally destroy the effect they are intended to produce. Yet here, as in composition, simplicity must be corrected by intricacy, to prevent its degenerating into meanness. Parts of every dress should be loose, and at liberty to play into folds, some of which will move with the figure; nay, it sometimes produces grace to contrive[142] things to rest in winding forms, as is demonstrated by the figure of a sphinx.

"Quantity, as I have before remarked, adds dignity; robes of state are always made large and full; the long sweeping trains of queens have a majestic effect. To attain this, the ladies endure great fatigue, and encumber themselves with an enormous hoop petticoat, as much as they would by carrying a pair of panniers on their hips. While they preserve the figure of the pyramid, this produces some degree of dignity, but excess renders it ridiculous.

"The horse-grenadier, mounted, caparisoned with his sword and other accoutrements, gives a good example of the noble effect of quantity, so combined as to come within pyramidal lines. What a contrast would it produce, to see the little jockey fitted, trimmed, and pared down for a race, riding by the side of him!"

Hogarth concludes with a remark, which intimates that he had originally intended to have inserted the preceding chapter in his Analysis, but altered his plan and reserved it for his intended Supplement:—

CHAPTER V.

HOGARTH'S INDUCEMENT TO PAINTING THE PICTURE OF SIGISMUNDA. HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH LORD GROSVENOR ON THIS SUBJECT, CONTRASTED BY TWO LETTERS FROM LORD CHARLEMONT, FOR WHOM HE HAD PREVIOUSLY PAINTED AN INTERESTING SCENE. ORIGIN OF THE QUARREL WITH WILKES AND CHURCHILL, WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE PRINT OF THE BEAR, ETC.; AND THE ARTIST'S DEATH.

The particulars relative to the picture of "Sigismunda," Hogarth has himself inserted in his subscription-book, on the leaves of which he has pasted his correspondence with Lord Charlemont and Lord Grosvenor, and a proof print of MacArdell's copy from Correggio's picture. In a little blue memorandum book he resumes the subject, and concludes with a narrative of his quarrel with Wilkes and Churchill, which ends with the word Finis.

In these and some other loose papers, after having stated the professional injury which he had sustained from his opponents asserting, and the public believing, that he could not paint portraits, he continues:—

This transaction having given rise to many ridiculous falsehoods, the following unvarnished tale will set the whole in its true light:—

To vindicate his fame, Hogarth at one time determined to have the picture engraved, and Mr. Ravenet undertaking it, "a subscription for the print was begun March 2d, 1761;[79] but, some time afterwards, finding that Mr. Ravenet was under articles not to work for any one except Mr. Boydell for three years then to come, the subscription was put a stop to, and the money returned to the subscribers, there being no other engraver at leisure capable of doing it as it should be done."

CORREGGIO'S SIGISMUNDA.

On the comparative merit of the two pictures of "Sigismunda" there have been various opinions. By the foregoing narrative it appears that Hogarth never paid so much attention to any preceding production; but in works of imagination success is not always proportionate to labour, and his performance might not be equal to his exertions. Be that as it may, this was the criterion by which he estimated its worth; and by the political disputes in which he was afterwards engaged with Wilkes and Churchill, this estimation was turned against himself. His opponents discovered his parental partiality for "Sigismunda;" and to wound the artist in his most vulnerable part, they mangled her without mercy.

Mr. Walpole's critique did not appear until after Hogarth's death; but when he gravely states Hogarth's[156] performance to be more ridiculous than anything the artist had ever ridiculed, it ceases to be criticism. The best reply to so extravagant an assertion, is the original picture now in the possession of Messrs. Boydell, which, though not well coloured, and rather French, is marked with mind, and would probably have been better had it not been so often altered on the suggestions of different critical friends. Mr. Walpole contrasts it with that painted by Correggio (or Furino), on which, at the expense of the poor English artist, he bestows most extravagant and unqualified praise; asserting that it is impossible "to see the picture, or read Dryden's inimitable tale, and not feel that the same spirit animated both poet and painter." That the reader may form his own opinion by comparison, I have annexed a copy from MacArdell's admirable print; and as both sides ought to be heard, I have subjoined the following remarks from the Monthly Register of Literature, vol. ii., in which is a critique (possibly written by Mr. Joshua Kirby), as extravagant in the abuse of this picture as Mr. Walpole is in its praise. It is here stated that these observations were written for private use by a professional man whose name is well known as the author of a treatise on painting and perspective; it begins with some remarks on Miss Edwards' sale in 1746, and concludes with several strictures on Sir Luke Schaub's in April 1756: "Sir Luke's pictures[157] (only 178) sold for £7784! a lucky collection for his heir, but unlucky for Sir Luke's reputation as a judge of painting." After several severe remarks on some of the preceding lots, the writer observes of "No. 59,—'Sigismunda Weeping over the Heart of Tancred,' called a Correggio,—that this picture is an undoubted copy; nothing in the character of Sigismunda but sorrow to recommend it. The painter might take it from his cook-maid, there being nothing elegant or delicate in her appearance. The virtuosi ran it up to £400; but Sir Thomas Sebright, at the desire of the proprietor, bought it in for £404, 5s. He soon discovered his mistake, for in reality it was worth no more than ten guineas."

Though I cannot consent to view this picture through the medium of Mr. Walpole's overcharged panegyric, which gives to the artist a power that is not in the art, and seems heightened for the pure purpose of sinking Hogarth by the contrast; yet I by no means meet this indiscriminate and unfounded censure. It is many years since I saw the picture in the Duke of Newcastle's collection, and I then thought it sublimely conceived and finely coloured. MacArdell's print gives a faithful representation of the character, and the annexed head is a correct copy.

Hogarth still bearing in mind this transaction, in which he thought himself very ill-used, continues his[158] narrative, and concludes with a recital of the circumstances which occasioned his quarrel with Mr. Wilkes, etc.; this much hurt his feelings, and in the progress of it I have ever thought he was unjustly and most inhumanly treated:—

Such is the candid and dispassionate appeal which this unequalled artist and excellent man makes to his contemporaries and to posterity.

In October 1764, he died of an aneurism at his house in Leicester Fields. His remains were removed to his family vault at Chiswick. The epitaph by Dr. Johnson, and that written by Mr. Garrick and inscribed on his monument, are in the first volume of Hogarth Illustrated.

In the Public Ledger of November 19, 1764, his friend Doctor Townley paid the following tribute to his talents and virtues:—

DESCRIPTION OF THE PRINTS, Etc.

With talents equally honourable to himself, his country, and the age in which he lived, Hogarth did not leave his widow possessed of much more than arose from the sale of his prints. But during the twenty-five years which she survived him, she had the higher and more exalted gratification of finding that his reputation increased, and his fame acquired stability by time.

In the year 1780, the late Horace Lord Orford published his Anecdotes, in which he has introduced Hogarth's catalogue and character. The volume printed at Strawberry Hill, he (with the preceding part of the work) presented to Mrs. Hogarth. The books were accompanied with the following handsome apology for his strictures on the genius of her husband:[81]—

In nine years after the receipt of this letter, Mrs. Hogarth died, bequeathing her property to her relation, Mrs. Mary Lewis of Chiswick, by whose kindness and friendship I am in possession of the manuscripts which form the basis of the foregoing sheets, the following most singular and curious print of "Enthusiasm Delineated," etc. etc. etc.

ENTHUSIASM DELINEATED,

"Idolatry is not only an accounting and worshipping that for God which is not God, but it is also a worshipping the true God in a way unsuitable to His nature, and particularly by the mediation of images and corporeal resemblances."—South.

Such was the opinion of Dr. South, and such the opinion of Hogarth, when he designed this very extraordinary print, the intention of which is to give "a lineal representation of the strange effects resulting from literal and low conceptions of sacred beings, as also of the idolatrous tendency of pictures in churches, and prints in religious books," etc. To exemplify this, he has parodied the productions of[170] several eminent masters, whose works, having been generally painted under the direction of cardinals, popes, etc., are chiefly on religious subjects; and by the artists absurdly attempting to represent what are not properly objects of sight, that which they intended to be sublime is rendered in the highest degree ridiculous. To burlesque the idolatrous symbols with which they have peopled their canvas, place the popish doctrine of transubstantiation [84] in its true point of view, unmask hypocrisy, and check the progress of those enthusiastic delusions which Bishop Lavington properly terms "Religion run Mad,"[85] are the author's leading objects.

To effect these purposes, he has delineated what we may fairly denominate a powerful preacher, who from his countenance, and what is hinted at in the scale of vociferation at his left hand, seems treating his congregation with a bull roar. He may be considered as either a Methodistical Papist or a Popish [171]Methodist, for his shaven crown intimates that he is a Jesuit; and the harlequin's jacket underneath his gown denotes the versatility of his religious professions. This Proteus of the pulpit poises a puppet in each hand; that in the left represents the devil grasping a gridiron; in his right he holds the triple figure with the triangular emblem, by which Raphael and some other painters have profanely presumed to personify the Deity.[86]

Exemplifying sacred mysteries by these absurd theorems is surely open to the severest satire; and to heighten his ridicule, the artist has, by adding three legs to the triangle, rendered it a complete trivet, and given to his jesuitical and theatrical declaimer (who, as his text intimates, "speaks as a fool") a pointed antithesis,—"If you do not believe in this trivet, you shall broil on that gridiron." Dangling on pegs around the pulpit, and to be exhibited as there shall be occasion, are six other puppets, copied from the absurd misrepresentations which some of the old masters have made of Adam and Eve, Peter and Paul, Moses and Aaron. Adam and Eve are a little caricatured, but evidently intended to hint at the dry designs of Albert Durer. Adam,[172] though naked, has the air of a first-rate coxcomb. Eve, encircled with a zone of fig leaves, has neither grace in her step nor dignity in her gesture. Peter, displaying his ponderous key, and pulling off Paul's black periwig, is copied from Rembrandt, and to him referred in Hogarth's inscription. Paul, with a beard of Hudibrastic cut and dye, being low of stature, is elevated by high-heeled shoes, and armed with two swords: that in his hand, massy as the weapon wielded by John a Gaunt; the other, which, like the dagger of Hudibras, might serve as its page, tucked to his side.

Moses and Aaron, one bearing the tables and the other an incense pot, are retreating to the other side. The Jewish lawgiver's having made many ordinances concerning food, may be hinted at by his being crowned with a porridge pot; the two feet may serve for horns. The bells on the hem of Aaron's garments are sufficiently obvious, and, as saith Master Thomas Goodwin, in his Civil and Ecclesiastical Rites—"By the bells are typed the sound of his doctrine."

The nobleman in a pew beneath, unquestionably refers to some known character; but for whom it is meant I am unable to determine. He may either be a peer who was at that time very constant in his attendance at the Tabernacle, or a wolf who has found his way into the fold, and is prowling among[173] the lambs of the flock. His face presents the index of a mind in which hypocrisy is united with another passion, and is in an eminent degree characteristic. The holy fervour [87] of the female, who, seduced by the tender touches of an earthly lover, lets her celestial model fall to the ground, is equally remarkable. A ragged figure [88] in the same pew, dropping his tears into a bottle, we know, by his rueful countenance, his handcuffs, and the letter T marked on his cheek, to be a repentant thief. A tattered and coal-black proselyte at the foot of the reading-desk, inspired [174]with the epidemical enthusiasm of the place, is embracing the idolatrous image of her adoration, which in colour is similar to herself.

As sculptors and painters have thought fit to denominate a child's head, with duck wings, "Cherubin;"[89] Hogarth, to one of these infantine fancies, has whimsically enough added a pair of duck's feet. The well-fed figure in the desk may perhaps be meant as an overcharged portrait of Whitfield. The fainting female in the corner of the print was intended for Mrs. Douglas of the Piazza, who, after a most licentious life, became a rigid devotee, and was Sam. Foote's original for Mother Cole. The Jew, with an insect between his nails, has a fine air of head. On the book open before him is a print of "Abraham offering up Isaac."[90]

The figures in the background it is not necessary to enumerate: they are sighing, weeping, groaning! The four most obtrusive convey a severe satire on transubstantiation. A Turk looking through the window, is evidently laughing at their absurdities, [175]and thanking Mahomet that he has been early initiated in the Koran. A dog, with "Whitfield" on his collar, seated upon a hassock, and howling in concert with the preacher, is admirably designed.

The figure of a pigeon impressed on the Methodist's brain, is intended to intimate that if the Holy Spirit gets into the head instead of the heart, it will create that confusion of intellect described in the mental thermometer which rises out of it, and which is crowned by a dove on the point of a triangle.

Thus did this great artist express his "First Thought," but afterwards erased, or essentially altered every figure except two, and on the same piece of copper: we find his variations so multifarious as to render it nearly a new print, which he entitled

CREDULITY, SUPERSTITION, AND FANATICISM.

The preacher and the devil, except in a few shadows added to a handkerchief, are left as in the first state, and these are the only figures that are so left; from them and the background it is positively ascertained that the first and second engravings are on the same copperplate. Raphael's strange symbol of the Deity the artist has struck out, and in the place of it inserted a witch upon a broomstick; in[176]stead of the puppets representing Adam and Eve, Peter and Paul, Moses and Aaron, we have Mrs. Veale's ghost, Julius Cæsar's apparition, and the shade of Sir George Villiers.

The nobleman, and lady dropping her deified image in the pew beneath the pulpit, are discarded, and a pair of vulgar and uninteresting characters put in their room. The handcuffed felon is obliterated, and his place supplied by two figures, one weeping, the other asleep. The ragged woman hugging a model is altered to the boy of Bilson; and on the hassock, where was the howling dog, is a shoeblack's basket, with Whitfield's Journal placed upon King James's Demonology. The characters of cherubin and seraph are changed; and though the duck's wings are left, the legs are lopped off. In the place of the corpulent and consequential clerk, the artist has inserted a meagre and moon-eyed monster, with wings that either grow out of his shoulders, or appertain to a foul fiend planted behind him and acting as his prompter. Mother Douglas is beaten out of the copper, and in her room Hogarth has introduced Mrs. Tofts and her rabbits, one of the popular impositions of his own day. The smelling-bottle applied to recover Mrs. Douglas from fainting, is with Mrs. Tofts very properly changed to a dram glass. The Jew is altered, and altered for the worse: the print of "Abraham and Isaac," in a book before him, is[177] obliterated, and a knife inscribed "bloody," and laid upon an altar, supplies its place. In the characters of the common people of the congregation there are several variations; the models which some of them held in their arms are totally changed. The pigeon in the Methodist's brain is discarded; in the place of the inscription in the top division of the thermometer he has inserted the Cock Lane ghost; and instead of the glory, which in the "First Thought" crowned the whole, we have the Tedworth Drummer, a tale which, had it not given the subject for Addison's comedy, would have been long since forgotten. On the scale of vociferation and the chandelier, the names of W—d and Romaine are only to be found in the present state of the plate; in the scale of the thermometer there are numerous alterations. In "The Medley," the artist has made an addition, and placed Wesley's Sermons and Glanville's book On Witches as supporters to the Methodist's brain. To do this, and introduce the rabbits on the foreground, he has brought his work so near the bottom of his plate as not to leave room for a title, which, with the quotation from St. John, "Believe not every spirit," etc., is, in the present state of the plate, engraven on another piece of copper.

Many little variations besides those I have noted will appear by a comparison of the two designs; one is worthy of particular attention. In the print of[178] "Enthusiasm Delineated," the inscriptions on the thermometer, etc., are evidently from the burin of Hogarth; in the print of "The Medley," every inscription, even those which in each impression contain the same words, are the work of a writing engraver, from which I am inclined to believe, that in the first state the artist never trusted the plate out of his own hands.

With respect to the comparative merit of the two prints, I think of the "First Thought" what Mr. Walpole in his Anecdotes asserts of the "Second," that "for useful and deep satire, it is the most sublime of all his works." It forms one great whole; and the skill with which he has appropriated the absurd symbols of painters, and combined the idolatrous emblems of Popery with the mummery of modern enthusiasts, presents a trait of his genius hitherto unknown; displays the powers of his mind on subjects new to his pencil, and shows an extent of information and depth of thought that is not to be found in any of his other works.

In "The Medley" the artist has changed his ground, attacked follies of another description, and in the place of Enthusiasm introduced Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism. In his management of them he has shown much genius, and by his transition from one object to another, and the many metamorphoses of his characters, displayed a power of assimilating,[179] aptness of appropriating, and versatility of pencil hardly to be paralleled, and proved that his invention was inexhaustible. With all this, it must be acknowledged that some of the local credulities which he has there depicted were of so temporary and trifling a nature, that even now they are hardly recollected by any other circumstances than having been introduced in this print.

Ten or twelve figures engraved on the background are not in the "First Thought:" two of them, viz. a crazed convert terrified by a lay preacher, are admirably descriptive; but as to the residue of this half-price audience, met together to be miserable, they add to the number without much increasing the force, destroy the pyramid, and hurt the general effect;—if they are intended to stand on the floor, they are too high; if on benches, too low. The effect of this print is further injured by the alteration of the clerk. In the first state, his ample breadth of face and black periwig render him a leading character, and give him the rank of principal figure. The thin-visaged, hungry harpy in "The Medley" has no importance, neither is there any principal figure in that print. A little cherub Mercury, crowned with a postilion's cap, and bearing in his mouth a letter directed to St. Moneytrap, is an afterthought, and only to be found in the second impression.

If I am asked what were the artist's inducements[180] for making so many alterations, I can account for it in no other way than by supposing some friend suggested that the satire would be mistaken, and that there might be those who would suppose his arrows were aimed at religion, though every shaft is pointed at the preposterous masquerade habit in which it has been frequently disguised.

Considering the time that must have been employed in beating out the old figures, the trouble of polishing the copper, etc., it seems rather extraordinary that he should not have wholly discarded his plate of the "First Thought," and taken another piece of copper for the second. It is probable that the alterations were made by degrees, and before the author was fully satisfied with his design, became much more numerous than he had at first intended.[91]

TASTE IN HIGH LIFE

The picture from which this print was copied, Hogarth painted by the order of Miss Edwards, a [181]woman of large fortune, who, having been laughed at for some singularities in her manners, requested the artist to recriminate on her opponents, and paid him sixty guineas for his production.

It is professedly intended to ridicule the reigning fashions of high life in the year 1742. To do this the painter has brought into one group an old beau and an old lady of the Chesterfield school, a fashionable young lady, a little black boy, and a full-dressed monkey. The old lady, with a most affected air, poises between her finger and thumb a small tea-cup, with the beauties of which she appears to be highly enamoured.

The gentleman, gazing with vacant wonder at that and the companion saucer which he holds in his hand, joins in admiration of its astonishing beauties!

This gentleman is said to be intended for Lord Portmore, in the habit he first appeared at Court on his return from France. The cane dangling from his wrist, large muff, long queue, black stock, feathered chapeau, and shoes, give him the air of

The old lady's habit, formed of stiff brocade, gives her the appearance of a squat pyramid, with a grotesque head at the top of it. The young one is fondling a little black boy, who on his part is playing with a petite pagoda. This miniature Othello has been said to be intended for the late Ignatius Sancho, whose talents and virtues were an honour to his colour. At the time the picture was painted he would have been rather older than the figure; but as he was then honoured by the partiality and protection of a noble family, the painter might possibly mean to delineate what his figure had been a few years before.

The little monkey, with a magnifying glass, bag-wig, solitaire, laced hat, and ruffles, is eagerly inspecting a bill of fare, with the following articles pour[183] dinner: cocks' combs, ducks' tongues, rabbits' ears, fricasey of snails, grande d'œuts beurre.[92]

In the centre of the room is a capacious china jar; in one corner a tremendous pyramid composed of packs of cards; and on the floor, close to them, a bill inscribed, "Lady Basto D^r to John Pip, for cards—£300."

The room is ornamented with several pictures; the principal represents the Medicean Venus on a pedestal, in stays and high-heeled shoes, and holding before her a hoop petticoat somewhat larger than a fig-leaf; a Cupid paring down a fat lady to a thin proportion, and another Cupid blowing up a fire to burn a hoop petticoat, muff, bag, and queue wig, etc. On the dexter side is another picture representing Monsieur Desnoyer, operatically habited, dancing in a grand ballet, and surrounded by butterflies, etc., inscribed "Insects," and evidently of the same genus with this deity of dance. On the sinister is a drawing, denominated "Exotics," consisting of queue and bag-wigs, muffs, solitaires, petticoats, French-heeled shoes, and other fantastic fripperies.

Beneath this is a lady in a pyramidical habit walking the park; and, as the companion picture, we have a blind man walking the streets.

As Hogarth made this design from the ideas of Miss Edwards, it has been said that he had no great partiality for his own performance, and that, as he never would consent to its being engraved, the drawing from which the print is copied was made by the connivance of one of her servants.[93] Be that as it may, his ridicule on the absurdities of fashion,—on the folly of collecting old china,—cookery,—card-playing, etc., is pointed, and highly wrought.

At the sale of Miss Edwards' effects at Kensington, the original picture was purchased by the father of Mr. Birch, surgeon, of Essex Street, Strand.

FARINELLI, CUZZONI, AND SENESINO,

are here the representatives of "the majesty of Egypt, a morsel for a monarch," and "the foremost man of all this world;"[95] they were the three principal performers in Handel's opera of Ptolomeo, performed in the year 1728. There have been some suspicions of its not being Hogarth's design, and from the characters more than bordering on caricature, etc., I once inclined to that opinion; but from the general spirit of the satire, and the same figures being introduced in nearly the same attitudes in the first print Hogarth ever published (see p. 22), there is little doubt of its being his production.

The position (for it can hardly be called an attitude) in which the painter has placed Farinelli, is fully warranted [186]by the writer of a pamphlet, entitled Reflections on Theatrical Expression in Tragedy, etc., published in 1755. These Reflections are admirably contrasted by the exaggerated compliment with which the author of the Divine Legation honours the divine Senesino. The two quotations follow:—

"I shall therefore, in my further remarks on this article, go back to the old Italian theatre, when Farinelli drew everybody to the Haymarket. What a pipe! what modulation! what ecstasy to the ear!—but, heavens! what clumsiness! what stupidity! what offence to the eye! Reader, if of the city, thou mayst probably have seen in the fields of Islington or Mile-End, or if thou art in the environs of St. James's, thou must have observed in the park, with what ease and agility a cow, heavy with calf, has rose up at the command of the milkwoman's foot. Thus from the mossy bank sprung up the divine Farinelli. Then with long strides, advancing a few paces, his left hand settled upon his hip in a beautiful bend, like that of an old-fashioned caudle-cup, his right hand remained immoveable across his manly breast till numbness called its partner to supply its place, when it relieved itself in the position of the other handle to the caudle-cup, etc."—Reflections, etc.

With respect to the other genius of Italian song, Mr. Nichols very justly observes that his dignity must have been wonderful, or the following passage[187] in Dr. Warburton's Inquiry into the Causes of Prodigies and Miracles (printed in 1727) affords a most notorious example of the bathos:—

"Observe," says he (p. 60), "Sir Walter Raleigh's great manner of ending the first part of the History of the World: 'By this, which we have already set down, is seen the beginning and end of the three first monarchies of the world, whereof the founders and erectors thought that they never could have ended; that of Rome, which made the fourth, was also at this time almost at the highest. We have left it flourishing in the middle of the field, have rooted up or cut down all that kept it from the eyes and admiration of the world; but after some continuance it shall begin to lose the beauty it had, the storms of ambition shall beat the great boughs and branches one against another, her leaves shall fall off, her limbs wither, and a rabble of barbarous nations enter the field and cut her down.' What strength of colouring! what grace, what nobleness of expression! with what a majesty does he close his immortal labour! It puts one in mind of the so much admired exit of the late famed Italian singer!" (Senesino.[96]) What a climax!

A WOMAN SWEARING HER CHILD TO A GRAVE CITIZEN.

These curious rhymes, engraven under the original print, in a degree describe the plot of the play, and the characters of the performers in this religious ceremony; for as such does Picart class a copy which he has introduced in the fourth volume of his work,[98] accompanied with the following explanation:—

"Many other customs might find a place here, and [189]delight the readers by their comical singularity, but we dare not crowd in too great a number of those trifles, as not being properly religious ceremonies; which therefore, till approved of by the church, or by the governor of it, prescribed by ecclesiastical laws or formularies, we shall omit, except two or three of the most remarkable. The first is what the description here annexed calls the breeding woman's oath,—a custom not to be met with in other countries,—which is so fantastical, or rather unjust, that it would be a prejudice to the laws of England if we were to judge of their equity by that practice. Suppose any of these girls, which may be called amphibious (being neither wives nor virgins), is found to be with child. She does not, or will not, pretend to know the father of this child. In order to free herself from the trouble of maintaining it when born, she looks out for some rich man, upon whom she intends to father it. Generally they say she pitches upon some good citizen, though she does not know him, or maybe has never seen him. Then she goes before a Justice of the Peace, summons the pretended father to appear before him, and in his presence swears upon the Bible, which the clerk holds to her, that she[190] owns and declares that such a one whom she has summoned to appear is the father of the child. How far the equivocal expressions and restrictions of that oath may excuse her from perjury, let a good casuist be the judge. However, the man thus named and sworn to by this formality of law is obliged to pay an arbitrary fine, and to agree upon a sum of money for the maintenance of the child."—Picart's Religious Ceremonies, p. 83.

The original picture from which this print was engraven was one of Hogarth's early productions, and is in the possession of the Rev. Mr. Whalley, at Ecton, Northamptonshire. In the disposition of the figures, etc., it has a more than accidental resemblance to a picture by Heemskirk, which was in the possession of Mr. Watson, surgeon, Rathbone Place, where all the male figures are monkeys; all the females, cats; and which in the year 1772 was engraved in mezzotinto by Dickinson, and entitled "The Village Magistrate."

A small copy from Hogarth's print is introduced as the headpiece to a tale printed in Banks' Works, vol. i. p. 248, entitled "The Substitute Father."

THE FOUNDLINGS.

The last print represented what Mr. Picart chose to call a religious ceremony,—in this we have a scene which may properly be so denominated; for surely rescuing deserted, unoffending, and helpless innocence from destruction, providing an asylum for childhood, initiating youth in habits of industry, and rendering those whose parents were unable to protect them useful members of society, is a religious as well as a political institution.

Hogarth, by presenting some of his works to the Foundling Hospital, was in fact an early benefactor[192] to the charity. He made the annexed design for the use of this institution; it was engraved by F. Morellon la Cave, as the headpiece to a power of attorney from the trustees of the charity to those gentlemen who were appointed to receive subscriptions towards the building, etc.

The artist has made his old friend Captain Coram a principal figure; and as this excellent and venerable man was in fact the founder of the charity, it is with great propriety he is introduced. Before him the beadle of the Hospital carries an infant, whose mother, having dropped a dagger with which she might have been momentarily tempted to destroy her child, kneels at his feet; while he, with that benevolence with which his countenance was so eminently marked, bids her be comforted, for her babe will be nursed and protected.

On the dexter side of the print is a new-born infant, left close to a stream of water, which runs under the arch of a bridge. Near a gate, on a little eminence in the pathway above, a woman leaves another child to the casual care of the next person who passes by. In the distance is a village with a church.

In the other corner are three boys coming out of a door with the king's arms over it; as emblems of their future employments, one of them poises a plummet, a second holds a trowel, and a third, whose [193]mother is fondly pressing him to her bosom, has in his hand a card for combing wool. The next group, headed by a lad elevating a mathematical instrument, are in sailors' jacket and trousers; those on their right hand, one of whom has a rake, are in the uniform of the school.

The attributes of the three little girls in the foreground—a spinning-wheel, sampler, and broom—indicate female industry and ingenuity.

It must be admitted that the scene here represented is a painter's anticipation, for the charter was not granted until October 1739, and this design was made only three years afterwards; but the manner in which the charity has been since conducted has realized the scene.

FRONTISPIECE TO TERRÆ FILIUS.

The work to which this is a frontispiece was written by Nicholas Amhurst, author of the Craftsman, and published in the year 1726. The leading object of this writer is to satirize the Tory principles of the University of Oxford; but as the book does not abound in subjects for the pencil, Hogarth has selected a scene described in No. 33, published 8th May 1721, which contains "Advice to all gentlemen schoolboys, etc., who are designed for the University[194] of Oxford." In the part which forms the subject for this print, the writer thus cautions them:—

"Have a particular regard how you speak of those gaudy things which flutter about Oxford in prodigious numbers in summer time, called 'Toasts;' take care how you reflect on their parentage, their condition, their virtue, or their beauty,—ever remembering that

especially when they have spiritual bravoes on their side, to revenge their cause on every audacious contemner of Venus and her altars.

"Not long ago a bitter lampoon was published on the most celebrated of these petticoat professors. As soon as it came out the town was in an uproar, and a very severe sentence was passed upon the author of this anonymous libel, to discover whom no pains were spared. All the disgusted ill-natured fellows in the University were, one after another, suspected upon this occasion. At last, I know not how, it was peremptorily fixed upon one, whether justly or not I cannot say; but the parties offended resolved to make an example of somebody for such an enormous crime, and one of them (more enraged than the rest) was heard to declare, 'that right or wrong, that impudent scoundrel (mentioning his name) should be expelled by G—; and that she had interest enough [195]with the President and Senior Fellows of his College to get his business done.' Accordingly, within a year after this, he was (almost unanimously) expelled from his fellowship, in the presence of some of the persons injured, who came thither to see the execution.

was the thesis pitched upon by the excluding doctors for the under-graduates to moralize upon, in a public exercise upon this occasion; and as it is a very wholesome maxim, I leave it, my little lads, to your serious meditation."

To the figures introduced in this print the original artist has given a spirit worthy of Callot; and the copy hereto annexed has been thought correct and animated.

THE SEPULCHRE.

It has been frequently and truly remarked, that in either historical or serious subjects Hogarth did not excel; but to prove that even in this walk he was considerably above mediocrity, and that the reader may be enabled to judge for himself, I have selected the annexed print, which forms one compartment of the altar-piece to St. Mary Redcliffe's, Bristol, for the painting of which he received five hundred pounds.

The centre division, which is much the largest, represents the Ascension. The rays emanating from the ascending Deity, and beaming through the interstices of the surrounding clouds, are tenderly and brilliantly touched. In the foreground, St. Thomas on one knee, with his hands clasped together, is eagerly looking up with an expression of wonder and astonishment. On the other side is St. Peter, in a reclining posture. Near the centre, St. John, with a group made up of the other Apostles, attentively listening to the two men in white, who appeared on this occasion. The background is on one side closed with tremendous rocks; on the other, under the skirts of low-hung clouds in the distance, appears part of the magnificent city of Jerusalem, illuminated by a flash of lightning, which, darting from a darkened sky, casts a livid gloom over the whole.

The compartment on the right hand represents the rolling of the stone and sealing the sepulchre in the presence of the high priest; the exertion displayed in this is happily contrasted by the tenderness and elegant softness displayed in the companion picture here copied, where the Marys approach the empty sepulchre. The angel, speaking and pointing up to heaven with an expression which explains itself—to singular beauty, sweetness, and benevolence, unites great elevation of character, and the native dignity of a superior being.

The foregoing remarks, with some little variations, are extracted from an article in the Critical Review for June 1756, which, being written while the artist was living, were possibly seen and approved by himself.

The writer concludes by remarking, that the purchasing such a picture for their church does great honour to the opulent city for which it was painted, and is the likeliest means to raise a British School of Artists; though it would be a just subject of public regret if Mr. Hogarth should abandon a branch of painting in which he stands alone, unrivalled and inimitable, to pursue another in which so many have already excelled.

From the "Sealing the Sepulchre" and this print there are two large mezzotintos by J. Jenner. The centre compartment has not been engraved.

THE POLITICIAN.

One of our old writers gives it as his opinion, that "there are only two subjects which are worthy the study of a wise man, i.e. religion and politics." For the first, it does not come under inquiry in this print; but certain it is, that too sedulously studying the[198] second has frequently involved its votaries in many most tedious and unprofitable disputes, and been the source of much evil to many well-meaning and honest men. Under this class comes the "Quidnunc" here portrayed; it is said to be intended for a Mr. Tibson, laceman in the Strand, who paid more attention to the affairs of Europe than to those of his own shop. He is represented in a style somewhat similar to that in which Schalcken painted William the Third,[100]—holding a candle in his right hand, and eagerly inspecting the Gazetteer of the day. Deeply interested in the intelligence it contains concerning the flames that rage on the Continent, he is totally insensible of domestic danger, and regardless of a flame which, ascending to his hat,

From the tie-wig, stockings, high-quartered shoes, and sword, I should suppose it was painted about the year 1730, when street robberies were so frequent in the metropolis that it was customary for men in trade to wear swords; not as now (1803), to preserve their religion and liberty from foreign invasion, but to defend their own pockets from domestic collectors.

The original sketch Hogarth presented to his friend Forrest; it was etched by Sherwin, and published 1775.

THE MATCHMAKER.

The two agreeable persons here introduced formed part of a group in an unfinished picture painted by Hogarth. They were some years since engraved on two copperplates; but as I thought that was placing still further apart the hands of those twain whom the holy service of matrimony was soon to unite, I have here brought them into one, and in this we are presented with the bride and that useful agent of Hymen, denominated a Matchmaker. We see nothing of the bridegroom but his hand and arm; from which, the countenance of the lady, and the character of the go-between, we may fairly infer he is young, and regret that the artist did not complete the trio, and place him as a contrast to the antiquated virgin with whom he is to be united. By the beauty spots on her face, she wishes to conceal the ravages of time; and from her laced lappets, cuffs, robings, and brocaded silk, we may suppose she is rich. As to the share which the venerable person who provides her with[200] a husband is to have for his reward—it depends upon the bargain. I have been told that in this masquerade matrimony, the master of the ceremonies, or lord of the bedchamber (which the reader pleases), is paid by both the contracting parties.

Some of my readers may possibly imagine that the tribe of Matchmakers, like the race of wolves, is extinct in England; but this is so far from being the case, that there is now in the neighbourhood of Piccadilly a regular office,[101] where any gentleman or gentlewoman, first paying a stipulated sum for entrance money, may disclose their virtuous wishes, [201]and be provided with partners for life,—or as long as they can agree.

THE MAN OF TASTE.

The circumstance on which this print is built is thus described by Dr. Johnson:—

"Mr. Pope published in 1731 a poem called False Taste, in which he very particularly and severely criticises the house, the furniture, the gardens, and the entertainments of Timon, a man of great wealth and little taste. By Timon he was universally supposed, and by the Earl of Burlington, to whom the poem is addressed, was privately said, to mean the Duke of Chandos, a man perhaps too much delighted with pomp and show, but of a temper kind and beneficent, and who had consequently the voice of the public in his favour. A violent outcry was therefore raised against the ingratitude and treachery of Pope, who was said to have been indebted to the patronage of Chandos for a present of a thousand pounds, and who gained the opportunity of insulting him by the kindness of his invitation. The receipt of the thousand pounds Pope publicly denied; but from the reproach which the attack on a character so amiable brought upon him, he tried all means of escaping. The name of Cleland was employed in[202] an apology [102] by which no man was satisfied; and he was at last reduced to shelter his temerity behind dissimulation, and endeavoured to make that disbelieved which he never had confidence openly to deny. He wrote an exculpatory letter to the Duke, which was answered with great magnanimity by a man who accepted his excuse without believing his professions. He said, that to have ridiculed his taste or his buildings had been an indifferent action in another man, but that in Pope, after the reciprocal kindness that had been exchanged between them, it had been less easily excused."—Johnson's Life of Pope.

Soon after the publication of the poem alluded to, Hogarth made this design, which presents a view of Burlington Gate. On the front, as a crooked compliment to the noble proprietor, he has inscribed the word "Taste;" and as a standing proof of the projector being entitled to the appellation, placed a statue of his grand favourite William Kent triumphantly [203]brandishing his palette and pencils on the summit, with two reclining figures representing Raphael and Michael Angelo for his supporters.[103] Standing on a scaffold board beneath them, Mr. Pope, in the character of a plasterer, is whitewashing the front, and whirling his brush with a spirit that produces a shower of liquid pearl which dismays and defiles the passengers beneath; the principal of these, intended for the Duke of Chandos, holds his hat over his head to shelter himself in his retreat. The torrent is not confined to his Grace's person, but lavishly scattered over his carriage and attendants, among whom is a blackamoor in the way of being whitewashed. The clergyman, whom I believe intended for the duke's chaplain,[104] is escaping round the carriage.

An old military character, who as well as the chaplain is got out of the poet's vortex, is rubbing off the stains which he has previously contracted.

Climbing a ladder reared against the scaffold, we have Lord Burlington doing the office of a labourer, [204]and arrayed in a tie-wig, with a pair of compasses [106] suspended to the riband of his order, and carrying to his little active workman a hand-hawk, on which is a portion of what I am told the bricklayers call "fine stuff," to mix up more whitening for beautifying the front of his own gate, and defiling the garments of every passenger. This, it must be acknowledged, our poetical plasterer performs with distinguished dexterity: he at the same time covers the corrosions in the front, dashes a plenteous shower on those that come near it, and so kicks the bottom of a pail which hangs to his short ladder, that a copious stream flows on the head of a gentleman beneath.

This double distribution of flattery and satire is amply exemplified in the Epistle to Lord Burlington; where the poet, by contrasting the feeble and imperfect efforts of those he abuses with the superior and superlative genius of the peer,[107] elevates the powers [205]of his own patron, and sinks those of all his competitors.

The print from which this is copied was prefixed to a pamphlet, entitled A Miscellany of Taste, by Mr. Pope, etc., containing his epistles, with notes, etc. There are two other engravings from the same[206] design, one larger and one smaller than the print annexed. In the former of these, Mr. Pope has a tie-wig on.[109]

HENRY FIELDING.

This admirable writer was born at Sharpham Park, in Somersetshire, near Glastonbury, April 22, 1707. His father, Edmund Fielding, served in the wars under the Duke of Marlborough, and arrived at the rank of lieutenant-general at the latter end of George I. or beginning of George II. He was grandson to an Earl of Denbigh, and nearly related to the Duke of Kingston, and many other noble families. His mother was the daughter of Judge Gould, the grandfather of Sir Henry Gould, one of the Barons of the Exchequer.

Henry received the first rudiments of his education from the Rev. Mr. Oliver, to whom we may judge he [207]was not under very considerable obligations, from the humorous and striking portrait given of him afterwards, under the name of Parson Trulliber, in Joseph Andrews. From Mr. Oliver's care he was removed to Eton school, where he had the advantage of being early known to many of the first people in the kingdom,—namely, Lord Lyttelton, Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Sir Charles Hanbury Williams, and the late Mr. Winnington.

At this great seminary of education he gave distinguished proofs of strong and peculiar powers; and when he left the place, was said to be uncommonly versed in the Greek authors, and an early master of the Latin classics: for both which he retained a strong predilection in all the subsequent periods of his life. Thus accomplished, he went from Eton to Leyden, and there continued to show an eager thirst for knowledge, and to study the civilians with unwearied assiduity for two years; when, remittances failing, he was obliged to return to London, not then quite twenty years old.

The comedy called Don Quixote in England, was planned at Leyden, and completed on his return to London; where, from some cause or other, he was induced to bring it on the stage before it was properly wrought up, so that by this first essay he gained no dramatic reputation. Nor were his other productions for the playhouse much more popular;[208] for though he wrote eight comedies and fifteen farces, they have not generally proved what are termed stock plays;[110] and yet from several of them, particularly Pasquin, succeeding and successful writers for the stage have borrowed some of their best speeches.

He died at Lisbon, to which place he went for the recovery of his health, in the year 1754, aged 47.

Of his talents, he has left memorials that will never die while the English nation retains a taste for genuine and Cervantic humour: his features posterity would have only known by description, had not his friend Hogarth, to whom he had often promised to sit, made this drawing; for, singular as it may seem, though this admirable writer lived on intimate terms with the best artists of the day, no portrait of him was ever painted.

Many strange stories have been told of the manner in which the drawing was made, such as, the hint being taken from a shade which a lady cut with scissors; of Mr. Garrick having put on a suit of his old friend's clothes, and making up his features and assuming his attitude for the painter to copy, etc. etc. These are trifling tales to please children, and echoed[209] from one to another, because the multitude love the marvellous.

The simple fact is, that the painter of the "Distressed Poet," and the author of Tom Jones, having talents of a similar texture, lived in habits of strict intimacy; and Hogarth being told, after his friend's death, that a portrait was wanted as a frontispiece to his works, sketched this from memory.

The drawing was engraved by Mr. Basire, and is said, by those who knew the original, to be a faithful resemblance. This print is copied from a proof I had from Mrs. Lewis, and taken before the ornaments were inserted.[111]

SIMON LORD LOVAT.

Simon Lord Lovat was born in the year 1667; his father was the twenty-second person who had enjoyed the title of Lovat in lineal descent. His mother was Dame Sybilla Macleod, daughter of the Chief of the clan of the Macleods, so famous for its unalterable loyalty to its princes.

Buchanan relates a marvellous story of the family at the battle of Loch Lochlie, 1544. In this battle Lord Lovat, his four brothers, his three sons, and the whole clan of the Frazers, were cut to pieces; but if we are to believe this tale, the clan was afterwards restored by a kind of miracle. The passage is curious:—

"About this time, by the instigation, as it is thought, of the Earl of Huntly, a battle was fought in which almost the whole clan of the Frazers was exterminated. There was an old quarrel between the Frazers and the Macdonalds, which had been rendered illustrious by the many bloody engagements to which it had given birth. Huntly, in the meantime, was deeply irritated that the Frazers alone, among so many neighbouring clans, should reject his protection. He had just collected the neighbouring islanders, and made an incursion upon the estates of the Earl of Argyll; and while every other clan had exerted its whole force in his favour, there was scarcely an individual in the whole clan of Frazer that had not ranged himself under the enemy's standard. For this time, however, the feud was composed without an engagement; and the forces of each party having disbanded themselves, returned to the respective clans. The Macdonalds meantime, instructed by the Earl of Huntly, collected their whole force, and, having taken their enemy by surprise, [211]engaged in a most obstinate battle. The unfortunate clan, overpowered by the greatest inequality of numbers, were killed to a man. Thus a family the most numerous, and who had often deserved well of the Scottish weal, had wholly perished, unless, as it seems just to believe, the Divine Providence had not interfered in their favour. Of the heads of the clan, eighty persons had left their wives pregnant at home, and each of them in her turn was delivered of a male child, who all attained safe to man's estate."—Buchanan, lib. xv. p. 532. Pity but they had been twins!

Thus much may suffice for the character of his progenitors; as to his own,[112] he wrote a narrative in French stating his conduct, connections, treatment at the Court of St. Germains, etc. These memoirs,[113] [212]which are brought no further than the year 1715, were translated and printed several years ago; but, for some political or family reasons, not published until 1797. They contain many curious particulars of his life, much of which, both then and in every subsequent period, had great need of an apology. On his tergiversation in the rebellion of 1745, Sir William Young, one of the managers appointed for conducting the prosecution, makes the following observations:—"Your Lordships have already done national justice on some of the principal traitors who appeared in open arms against his Majesty by the ordinary course of law; but this noble Lord, who in the whole course of his life has boasted of his superior cunning in wickedness, and his ability to commit frequent treasons with impunity, vainly imagined that he might possibly be a traitor in private, and rebel only in his heart, by sending his son and his followers to join the Pretender, and remaining at home himself, to endeavour to deceive his Majesty's faithful subjects; hoping he might be rewarded for his son's services if successful, or his son alone be the sufferer for his offences if the undertaking failed. Diabolical cunning! Atrocious impiety!"—State Trials, vol. iv. p. 627.

These are hard and heavy accusations; but the fact is, that whoever becomes the biographical advocate of Lord Lovat will find it useful to adopt the[213] plan recommended to the writer who wished to draw a fair character of that all-accomplished statesman, William Pulteney, Earl of Bath:

Notwithstanding all this, his conduct previous to execution was manly and spirited. When advised by his friends to throw himself at his Majesty's feet and petition for mercy, he absolutely refused, said that he was old and infirm, and his life not worth asking. When informed that an engine was to be made for his execution like that called "the Maiden," provided long since for state criminals in Scotland, he commended the contrivance, observing that, as his neck was short, the executioner would be puzzled to find it out with his axe; and if such a machine were used, it would get the name of "Lord Lovat's Maiden."[114]

When he was brought from Scotland to be tried in London, Hogarth having previously known him, went to meet him at St. Albans for the purpose of taking his portrait, and at the "White Hart" in that town[214] found the hoary peer under the hands of his barber. The old nobleman rose to salute him (according to the Scotch and French fashion) with so much eagerness, that he left a large portion of the lather from his beard on the face of his old friend.

He is drawn in the attitude of enumerating by his fingers the rebel forces, "Such a general had so many men," etc.; and I am informed the portrait is in air, character, and feature, a most faithful resemblance of the original.

NINE PRINTS FOR DON QUIXOTE.

The first of these prints is copied from a plate in Jarvis' quarto translation of this inimitable work; it has neither painter nor engraver's name, but carries indisputable marks of the pencil and burin of Hogarth. The second is from an unfinished print in my possession, which I think by the same artist. The six which follow were designed for Lord Carteret's Spanish edition, published in the year 1738; but as they are etched in a bold and masterly style, I suppose the noble peer did not think they were pretty enough to embellish his volume, and therefore laid them aside for Vandergucht's engravings from Vanderbank's designs. Hogarth's six plates remaining in the hands of Mr. Tonson, his Lordship's publisher, were at his death bought by Mr. Dodsley, from[215] whom they were purchased by Messrs. Boydell, in whose possession they now remain. While in Dodsley's hands, references to the chapters and corresponding pages in Jarvis' translation were engraved under each.

The last scene, representing "Sancho's Feast," is copied from an incomparable print engraved at an early period of Hogarth's life, and published by Overton and Hoole, price one shilling. The subject of this is exactly consonant to Hogarth's genius, and was probably selected by the artist to show how happily he could enter into the spirit of a writer whose turn of mind seems so congenial to his own. Had Cervantes been an Englishman, I think he would have contemplated our national follies through the same medium that they were seen by Hogarth, and probably selected similar scenes as subjects for his satire. He lived in an age and country where one gigantic folly

He touched the phantom with his pen, and it vanished; but as folly is in some cases the parent of virtue, may not chivalry and romance, ridiculous as they are in the eye of reason, give birth to an ardour of spirit which aggrandizes and elevates a nation? To a sedate and saturnine people, a spice of absurdity may have its use, were it only to give motion to those[216] virtues which without it might stagnate. Divested of that frenzy, which at the same time that it ruffles and impairs their reason, awakes and rouses their spirits, a whole nation, like a man-of-war becalmed, may be undulated by ineffectual motion, until they drop into a sort of mental stupor, unmarked by any other distinctions than those that arise from stately indolence, haughty solemnity, and supercilious dignity.

I will not presume to say that Spain is exactly in this situation; but if it were, other causes may have contributed to the change. If such are to be the consequences of a nation's becoming wise, a tincture of folly is rather to be desired than dreaded.

As to the hero of this admirable tale, the Knight of the Sorrowful Countenance, who has been the cause of more laughter than either the Knights of Arthur's Round Table, or any other knights ancient or modern, how can we sufficiently admire him! A paragon of patience and perseverance, unconquerable fortitude and proud honour, who in his lucid intervals reasoned like a philosopher, and was invariably actuated by the most exalted motives; deemed himself bound to defend the weak against the strong, chastise indolence, redress injuries, and free those who were in bonds! That this ardent, heroic, and dignified character, with motives so pure, an heart so excellent, and virtues that elevate, adorn,[217] and irradiate human nature, should be led by an enthusiasm which fevered his imagination into absurdities that expose him to derision, and, like Samson, brought forth to make sport for the multitude, is mortifying to humanity; and I must confess, that with me, the laugh which the author's irresistible humour invariably excites is accompanied by a pitying sigh for the hero of this history, who is, after all, so superlatively happy in his ideal importance, that there is a degree of cruelty in destroying the illusion. The adage, "You think you are happy because you are wise; I think I am wise because I am happy," is not easily confuted.[115]

But this admirable romance carries me further than I intended. I was led into it by considering the comparative merit of Cervantes and Hogarth, in doing which, it is proper to observe that the motley follies of England (diametrically opposite to those of Spain) are changeable as an April day. Our English moralist (for surely he is worthy of the title) transferred them to his canvas or copper, and exposed them by pointed ridicule.

But his satiric histories had a higher and still more useful direction. They were calculated to encourage industry, and promote humanity in the lower orders of[218] society, by exhibiting the baneful consequences of idleness and cruelty; and to check the ostentatious follies of those in a higher rank, by pointing out the happiness attendant on the practice of virtue, and the consequent misery of dissipation, sensuality, and vice.

I hope the warmest admirers of Cervantes will not be offended if I venture to assert that these were objects of more national and individual importance than was the extirpation of knight-errantry.

Both these great men may be considered as universal classics; for while Cervantes delights the learned and the illiterate in his own country, and is translated and eagerly read in France, Italy, Germany, and England, while the artists of all these nations emulate each other in delineating the scenes he has described, and every age and rank peruse Don Quixote with pleasure,—the fame of Hogarth is not bounded by the shores of Albion, but takes as wide a circuit through Europe, and his pictured stories are contemplated with admiration by men of every clime.[116]

Could their congenial spirits witness the tribute posterity pay to their talents, how would they be gratified! Large as is their portion of fame, they were little favoured by fortune. Hogarth, after a long life[219] of persevering industry, died comparatively poor. As to the maimed hero of Spain, when the learned Don Gregorio Mayans y Siscar, at the request of Lord Carteret, collected materials for his life, he could neither learn where he was born nor where he died. Sevilla, Madrid, Esquivias, Toledo, Lucena, and Alcazor de San Juan, contended for the honour of his birth, whom living they had suffered to languish in a prison.

He was born in Alcala de Henares, in the year 1547, and died at Madrid, April 23, 1616, on the same nominal day with Shakspeare; so that Spain and England lost their two great luminaries at the same period, nor have succeeding centuries produced a successor worthy of ascending either of their vacant thrones.

From the similarity of their genius, it was reasonable to expect that Hogarth would excel in delineating the scenes described by Cervantes; and though our great painter of nature succeeded better in subjects drawn from the rich storehouse of his own mind than in those described by others, yet in the portraits of the knight, and knight companions, he has adhered very closely to their leading characteristics, which are thus depicted by Cervantes:—

"The age of our gentleman bordered upon fifty years; he was of a robust constitution, spare-bodied, of a meagre visage, and a very keen sportsman.

"Rozinanté was so long and lank, so thin and lean, so like one labouring with an incurable consumption, as did clearly show with what propriety his master so entitled him. Sancho Panza, or Canzas, was so called, because he had a great belly, a short stature, and thick legs."[117]

To attempt a description of the nine following prints in any other words than those of Cervantes, would be absurd and vain; to suppose that the greatest part of my readers had not perused Don Quixote, would be an insult on their taste. I will therefore take it for granted that the following scenes are in their recollection. The few that have not read this admirable romance have a pleasure to come; as an inducement to their embracing it, I will insert little more than a reference to the page in Shelton, whose quaint old English has perhaps more serious Cervantic humour than either Jarvis' or Smollett's modern translations. My edition is that of 1675.

PLATE I.
THE FIRST SALLY IN QUEST OF ADVENTURES.

The original from which this plate is copied is in Jarvis' quarto translation, without either painter's or engraver's name; but the style of the etching, and air [221]of the figures, indisputably determine the artist. It represents our heroic candidate for fame, before he had received the honour of knighthood, at the door of an inn, which he considered as a castle; the host holding his horse's bridle, and two young female travellers looking with astonishment at his figure. In the distance is a swineherd blowing his horn, which our adventurer mistakes for a trumpet sounded by a dwarf on the battlements, to announce his approaching the portico of the castle.—Vide Shelton, p. 3.

PLATE II.
THE INNKEEPER.

The original of this print is in my possession, and was designed to represent the innkeeper conferring the order of knighthood on Don Quixote, but for some cause, not now known, never finished. The artist probably intended that it should form a part of the series begun for Lord Carteret, but the other six being discarded, never completed his design; though a slight outline of the Don kneeling to receive his new honours is discernible in the corner of the print. Mine host, though a large man, is a less portly personage than the author describes. This print is not in any of the catalogues of Hogarth's works, but the style leaves little doubt of the artist.

In the plate from Vanderbank, in Jarvis' quarto,[222] representing the whole scene, the innkeeper has a more than accidental resemblance to this figure.

PLATE III.
THE FUNERAL OF CHRYSOSTOM.

The stern attention which our Don gives to the Shepherdess Marcella, who is vindicating herself to those that surround the corpse, well expresses his determination to defend her cause, and protect her from insult. The shepherd in a similar attitude to the soldier in Vandyke's "Belisarius," and Sancho blubbering with his finger in his eye, are well-imagined; but the figure of Marcella is affected and stiff, and the shepherd on her right hand has more city pertness than rural simplicity.

Vanderbank has taken this scene for one of the prints in Jarvis' translation, and by placing Marcella where she ought to be, on the summit of the rock, rendered his design more picturesque than Hogarth's.—Vide Shelton, p. 10.

PLATE IV.
THE INNKEEPER'S WIFE AND DAUGHTER ADMINISTERING CHIRURGICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA.

Don Quixote's adventure with the Yanguessian carriers having terminated in his being most bountifully [223]beaten, he is here represented in the hay-loft of a very sorry inn, attended by the hostess and her daughter, Maritornes, and his faithful squire; the two former administering comfort to his sufferings, the third holding a candle; and the last, with a most rueful countenance, bewailing his own unfortunate participation in the buffetings of his lord and master.

The picture which Cervantes draws of Maritornes, Hogarth has well transferred to the copper. Thus is she portrayed:—

"From head to heel she was not seven palms [118] high, and burdened with shoulders that forced her to look down more than she wished. Added to this, she was broad-faced, flat-pated, saddle-nosed, blind of one eye, and could scarcely see out of the other."

The hostess could not have been better marked by the pencil of Teniers; the owl perched over her head should not be overlooked. That, as well as the rope hung to a beam, cracked walls, etc. etc., added to the miserable figure of the knight reclined on his hard pallet, display variety of wretchedness. I do not recollect to have seen a print in which the light is more judiciously distributed; in this and every other particular, I think it much superior to the same scene designed by Vanderbank in Jarvis' quarto translation.—Vide Shelton, p. 29.

PLATE V.
DON QUIXOTE SEIZES THE BARBER'S BASIN FOR MAMBRINO'S HELMET.

In this print the face and figure of the fierce knight is spirited; the terror and astonishment of the discomfited barber well expressed, and the triumphant shout of Sancho in the distance admirably characteristic. Notwithstanding this, I think that Vanderbank's design for Jarvis, where the squire is brought into the foreground, contemplating the glittering prize, is a better chosen point of time. To Sancho he has given a mixture of cunning and simplicity which I have seldom seen so happily displayed; and taken as a whole, it is perhaps a superior plate to Hogarth's.—Vide Shelton, p. 42.

PLATE VI.
DON QUIXOTE RELEASES THE GALLEY SLAVES.

The moment taken in this busy scene is when our valorous knight, after having unhorsed one of the guards, is engaged with the other; while Sancho, willing to bear his part in the adventure, helps to extricate Gines de Passamonte from his bonds.

In this, as in some other of Hogarth's designs, the artist not having taken the trouble of reversing his drawing, the figures are left-handed. The character of Sancho, and two or three of the slaves, is admirable.

I think the whole design much superior to Vanderbank's in Jarvis' translation, where the scene is chosen after the discomfiture of the Guards; for to two or three of the thieves Vanderbank has given the countenances of apostles. His whole print is tame, feeble, and spiritless.—Vide Shelton, p. 47.

PLATE VII.
THE FIRST INTERVIEW OF THE VALOROUS KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA WITH THE UNFORTUNATE KNIGHT OF THE ROCK.

This interview, which took place in the mountains of Sierra Morena, Cervantes thus describes:—

"Cardenio approached with a grave pace, and in a hoarse voice saluted them with great courtesy. Don Quixote returned his greeting with no less complaisance, and pressed him strongly in his arms, as if they had been long acquainted. The Knight of the Rock, after he had been thus embraced, retreated a few steps, and, laying his hand on the Don's shoulder, perused his face with such earnestness, as though he were desirous of recollecting if he had ever seen him before, and no less admired Don Quixote's strange figure than himself was admired by our heroic knight-errant."

This is the point of time which Hogarth has chosen; and the wild eye of Cardenio, the placid benevolence of Don Quixote, and the shrewdness[226] of the goatherd, are well opposed. From the air, attitude, and action of Sancho, I should have imagined the period to be after he had been mauled by the madman, did not the two knights so strongly determine it to be before.

In Vanderbank's design of the same subject (vide Jarvis' quarto), the figure of Sancho is tolerable, but the Don is vapid and ill-drawn; and Cardenio's head, like that of Medusa, looks as if it were encircled with snakes.—Vide Shelton, p. 51.

PLATE VIII.
THE CURATE AND BARBER DISGUISING THEMSELVES TO CONVEY DON QUIXOTE HOME.

Don Quixote's old neighbours, the curate and barber, being desirous of checking his wandering disposition, are here disguising themselves for an interview, in which they hoped to bring him home, where they trusted he might again live as an old Christian ought to do. In pursuance of this plan, the barber procured an ample beard made from the tail of a pied ox; and the curate assumed the habit of a distressed virgin, and framed a tale of having been wronged by a naughty knight, to punish whom the Don was to be entreated to follow wherever this afflicted fair one should lead.

The dressing-room for this masquerade is the [227]kitchen of an inn; out of the door, astride on a bench, inhaling copious draughts from a leathern bottle, Sancho gives some life to a little landscape in the distance.—Vide Shelton, p. 60.

PLATE IX.
SANCHO'S FEAST.

Though Don Quixote is the ostensible hero of this admirable history, I have sometimes thought that Sancho was the author's favourite character. He is here represented as Governor of Barataria, and seated in the spacious hall of a sumptuous palace, surrounded with all the pompous parade of high rank, and encircled by numerous attendants.[119] A band of musicians in an adjoining gallery strike up a symphony to gratify his ear, and a table is spread with every dainty to feast his eye and fret his soul; for however magnificent the appendages of this mock monarch, the instant he attempts to taste the solid comforts of government, the loaves and fishes evade his grasp, are touched by the black rod, and vanish!

he curses the gaudy unsubstantial pageant, vows[228] vengeance on the Doctor, and swears that he will offer up both him and every physical impostor in the island as a sacrifice to his injured and insulted appetite.

Hogarth has here caught the true spirit of the author, and given to this scene the genuine humour of Cervantes. The rising choler of our Governor is admirably contrasted by the assumed gravity of Doctor Pedro Rezio. The starch and serious solemnity of a straight-haired student who officiates as chaplain, is well opposed by the broad grin of a curl-pated blackamoor. The suppressed laughter of a man who holds a napkin to his mouth forms a good antithesis to the open chuckle of a fat cook. Sancho's two pages bear a strong resemblance to the little punch-maker in the Election Feast, and though well conceived, might have had more variety; they present a front and back view of the same figure. To two females on the Viceroy's right hand there may be a similar objection.

The original print was designed and engraved at a very early period of Hogarth's life. As it was finished with more neatness than any of the eight which he afterwards etched for the same work, the copy is attempted in a similar style.

In the drawing, Sancho was originally portrayed with a full face; but Hogarth, judiciously thinking a profile would be preferable, fixed a bit of paper [229]over his first thought, and altered it to the state in which it is here engraved.

The design that Vanderbank made from the same scene is cold and uninteresting; in another by Hayman, prefixed to Smollett's coarse translation, Sancho is fat enough for Falstaff, and the Doctor looks like a fellow dressed up to play the part of a conjuror in a puppet-show.—Vide Shelton, p. 221.

HEIDEGGER IN A RAGE.

The spirited sketch from which this is copied has been thought the work of P. Mercier; but some of my subscribers thinking it bore a strong resemblance to Hogarth, I at their request submitted it to public opinion. It arose from the following circumstance:—

The late Duke of Montagu invited Heidegger to a tavern, where he was made drunk, and fell asleep; in that situation a mould of his face was taken, from which was made a mask; and the Duke provided a man of the same stature to appear in a similar dress, and wear it to personate Heidegger on the night of the next masquerade, when George the Second (who was apprised of the plot) was to be present. On his Majesty's entrance, Heidegger, as was usual, bade the music play "God save the King;" but no sooner was his back turned, than the impostor, assuming his voice and manner, ordered them to play "Charley[230] over the Water." On this Heidegger raged, stamped, swore, and commanded "God save the King." The instant he retired, the impostor returned and ordered them to resume "Charley." The musicians thought their master drunk, but durst not disobey. The scene now became truly comic. Shame! shame! resounded from all parts of the theatre. Heidegger offered to discharge his band, when the impostor advanced and cried out in a plaintive tone, Sire, the whole fault lies with that devil in my likeness. This was too much: poor Heidegger turned round, grew pale, but could not speak. The Duke, seeing it take so serious a turn, ordered the fellow to unmask. Heidegger retired in great wrath, seated himself in an arm-chair, furiously commanded his attendants to extinguish the lights, and swore he would never again superintend the masquerade, unless the mask was defaced and the mould broken in his presence. For this purpose the man on his knee has a mallet stuck in his girdle.

THE LARGE MASQUERADE TICKET.

As the first print which Hogarth published on his own account, usually denominated "The Small Masquerade Ticket," represents a large company eagerly pressing to the door of a masquerade, we have here the interior of the room crowded with a countless [231]multitude of grotesque characters, celebrating the orgies of the place, which, in the following references engraved under the original print, are thus described:—

"A, a sacrifice to Priapus. B, a pair of Lecherometors, showing y^e company's inclinations as they approach 'em. Invented for the use of ladys and gentlemen by y^e ingenious Mr. H——r" (Heidegger).

This titular divinity of the gardens being thus considered as the god of their idolatry, his Term is entitled to the first notice. The arched niche in which it is placed is terminated by a goat's head, ornamented with a pair of branching antlers, and decorated with festooned curtains. Beneath is an altar, the base of which is relieved with rams' heads and flowers; and three pair of stags' horns are fixed to the top.

As a companion to it, the united statues of a Venus and Cupid, both of them masked, are placed on the opposite side of the print. Cupid, who is a very well-drawn and spirited little figure, "has bent his bow to shoot at random," and Venus seems contemplating the rise and fall of the mercury in one of those instruments which the reference informs us is to show the inclinations of all that approach it. The niche in which these divinities are placed is not only decorated with curtains, but crowned with cooing doves. An altar beneath has on it three or four[232] bleeding hearts, which, being close to the blaze, are in the way of being broiled. On the base are queue-wigs, bag-wigs, etc.

This may suffice for the presiding deities of the diversion; the head of their high priest, the renowned Heidegger, master of the mysteries and manager in chief, is placed on the front of a large dial, fixed lozenge-fashion at the top of the print, and I believe intended to vibrate with the pendulum, the ball of which hangs beneath, and is labelled "Nonsense." On the minute finger is written "Impertinence," and on the hour hand, "Wit:" which seems to intimate nonsense every second, impertinence every minute, and wit once an hour! The time is half-past one—the witching hour of night; 1727, the date of the year this print was published, is on the corners of the clock.

Recumbent on the upper line of this print, and resting against the sides of the dial, the artist has placed our British lion and unicorn renverse (such, I think, is the term in heraldry), lying on their backs, and each of them playing with its own tail; the lion sinister, and the unicorn dexter. The supporters of our regal arms being thus ludicrously introduced, may perhaps allude to the encouragement George the Second gave to Heidegger, who at that period might be said to

and who, by thus kindly superintending the pleasures of our nobles, gained an income of £5000 a year, and, as he frequently boasted, laid out the whole in this country.

Beneath is a framed picture of a Bacchanalian scene; and on each side, shelves with pyramids of jellies, sweetmeats, etc., inscribed "Provocatives." On two labels placed before them is written, "Supper below."

A pair of instruments, somewhat similar to the mental thermometer in "The Medley," are fixed on each side: on that next to Venus and Cupid is written, "cool, warm, dry, changeable, hot, moist, fixt;" on the other, "expectation, hope, hot desire, extreme hot, moist, sudden cold."

The motley crew who make up the crowd it is not easy to describe, for every one present assumes a false character.

Here are priests of all persuasions—Brahmins, friars, drones, monks, and monkeys not a few.

A figure of Time with his scythe, eagerly pressing towards the altar with rams' heads, is arrested in his course by a sort of slaughterman, with a mask, shaven[234] crown, and short apron, who violently grasps his wing with one hand, and with the other lifts up a hatchet, which with fatal force he aims at his head. For sanctuary, this feeble figure lays hold of one of the horns of the altar, but is frustrated in his attempt to reach the steps by a bishop, who, with his sacrificing knife, coolly stabs him to the heart; while a monkey, in the habit of a chorister, holds a basin to catch the blood, the fumes from which he snuffs up with ineffable delight. This I apprehend to be a metaphorical view of a prelate killing Time at a masquerade.

Next to this group is a Mother Shipton, hooking on the arms of a clown; and near them a harlequin endeavouring to draw the attention of a graceful columbine from a turban'd Turk, who attempts to seduce her from her party-coloured gallant. A female, with the mask of a monkey's head, salutes a nun in a black veil; and while an old Capuchin, with the face of an ape, whispers soft things to a young girl, a fellow somewhat like Tiddy-doll draws up her head-dress to a point, like a fool's cap. A man in the right-hand corner, solicitous to give a glass of wine to one of the sisterhood, lifts up her veil for the purpose of her drinking it.[120]

ADDENDA.

AN EMBLEMATIC PRINT ON THE SOUTH SEA.

The two prints here given are selected as two of the earliest avowed productions of Hogarth. The allegory in both is somewhat obscure; but the figures are in the manner of Callot, and in a spirited and masterly style. They were both published in 1721, and are a proof that at this early period the admirable vein of satire which he possessed was directed against the vices and follies of the age.

In the first of them we see (to use an expression of Mr. Walpole) "the Devil cutting Fortune into collops," to gratify the avaricious hopes of the adventurers in the South Sea Bubble; and persons ascending the ladder to ride upon wooden horses; alluding to the desperate game which was played by the South Sea Directors in England in the year 1720, to the utter destruction of many opulent families. The little figure with his hand in the pocket of a fat personage was supposed by Mr. Steevens to have[238] been intended for Pope, who profited by the South Sea scheme; and the fat man to be meant for Gay, who was a loser in that iniquitous project. Mr. John Law, a native of Edinburgh, was the projector of this bubble; and was also author of the famous Mississippi scheme in France, by which he ruined thousands. To escape popular vengeance he fled to Venice, where he died in poverty in 1729.

THE LOTTERY.

Under the print of "The Lottery," the artist has given a full description of his own ideas, which otherwise, at this distance of time, it would have been difficult to elucidate.

MASQUERADES AND OPERAS—BURLINGTON GATE.

This satirical performance of Hogarth, which is commonly called "The Small Masquerade Ticket," is supposed to have been invented and drawn at the instigation of Sir James Thornhill, out of revenge, because Lord Burlington had preferred Mr. Kent before him to paint for George the Second at his palace at Kensington; and the leader of the figures hurrying to a masquerade, crowned with a cap and bells, and a garter round his right leg, has been said to be intended for that monarch, who was very [239]partial to those nocturnal amusements, and bestowed a thousand pounds towards their support. The purse with a label "£1000," which the satyr holds immediately before him, gives some probability to the supposition.

The kneeling figure on the show-cloth, pouring gold at the feet of Cuzzoni the Italian singer (who is drawing the money towards her with a rake), represents the Earl of Peterborough; and on the label is written, "Pray accept £8000." Mr. Heidegger, the regulator of the masquerade, is also exhibited at a window, with the letter H under him. Of the three figures in the centre of the plate, the middle one is Lord Burlington, a nobleman of considerable taste in painting and architecture. On one side of him is Mr. Campbell the architect; on the other, some artist now unknown. On a board is a display of the words, "Long Room: Fawkes' dexterity of hand." On the opposite corner is the figure of Harlequin, pointing to a label, on which is written, "Dr. Faustus is here." This was a pantomime performed to crowded houses throughout two seasons.

In this print all the figures have a strong resemblance to those of Callot; and the follies of the town are very severely satirized by the representation of multitudes, properly habited, crowding to the masquerade, opera, and pantomime; whilst the works of[240] our greatest dramatic writers are trundled through the streets in a wheel-barrow, and cried as waste paper for shops; among these may be distinguished Shakspeare, Ben Jonson, Dryden, Congreve, Otway, Farquhar, and Addison. In the first copy of this print, instead of Ben Jonson's name on a label, we have "Pasquin, N^o XI." This was a periodical paper published in 1722-3; and the number specified is particularly severe on operas, etc.

As a further illustration of the taste of the times, the artist has given a view of Burlington Gate, with a figure, I believe, intended to represent the then fashionable artist William Kent, on the summit, brandishing his palette and pencils, and placed in a more elevated situation than either Michael Angelo or Raphael, who, seated beneath, become the two supporters to this favourite of Lord Burlington.

Some verses (and those not always the same) engraved on a separate piece of copper are found under the first impressions. For example, under the earliest impressions of 1724:

I have been the more particular in describing this plate, as it appears to have been the first which Hogarth published on his own account, and respecting which he pathetically says: "I had to encounter a monopoly of printsellers, equally mean and destructive to the ingenious; for the first plate I published, called 'The Taste of the Town,' in which the reigning follies were lashed, had no sooner begun to take a run, than I found copies of it in the print-shops vending at half price, while the original prints were returned to me again; and I was thus obliged to sell the plate for whatever these pirates pleased to give me, as there was no place of sale but their shops. Owing to this and other circumstances, by engraving, until I was near thirty, I could do little more than maintain myself; but even then I was a punctual paymaster."

BEGGARS' OPERA BURLESQUED.

This plate seems at once to represent the exhibition of The Beggars' Opera, and the rehearsal of an Italian one. In the former, all the characters are drawn with the heads of different animals: as Polly with a cat's; Lucy with a sow's; Macheath with that of an ass; Lockit, and Mr. and Mrs. Peachum, with those of an ox, a dog, and an owl. In the latter, several noblemen appear conducting the chief female singer forward on the stage; and perhaps are offering her money, or protection from a figure that is rushing towards her with a drawn sword.

Harmony, flying in the air, turns her back on the English playhouse, and hastens towards the rival theatre. Musicians stand in front of the former, playing on the Jew's harp, the salt-box, the bladder and string, bagpipes, etc. On one side are people of distinction, some of whom kneel, as if making an offer to Polly, or paying their adorations to her. To these are opposed a butcher, etc., expressing similar applause. Apollo and one of the muses are fast asleep beneath the stage. A man is indelicately seated under a wall hung with ballads, and showing his contempt of such compositions by the use he makes of them. A sign of the star, a gibbet, and some other circumstances less intelligible, appear in the background.

TWELVE PRINTS OF HUDIBRAS.

This well-imagined series of plates was designed by Hogarth, and engraved by himself, for the matchless poem of Butler. Each plate is illustrated by an appropriate quotation from the facetious satirist; and as our ingenious artist formed his designs from an attentive perusal of the poem, his engravings, and the extracts selected under each of them, reciprocally explain each other. "His 'Hudibras,'" says Mr. Walpole, "was the first of his works that marked him as a man above the common; yet," adds the critic, somewhat too fastidiously, "what made him then noticed now surprises us, to find so little humour in an undertaking so congenial to his talents."

The original title ran thus: "Twelve excellent and most diverting Prints, taken from the celebrated Poem of Hudibras, wrote by Samuel Butler; exposing the villany and hypocrisy of the times. Invented and engraved on twelve copperplates by William Hogarth; and are humbly dedicated to William Ware, Esq., of Great Houghton, in Northamptonshire, and Mr. Allan Ramsay, of Edinburgh."

Allan Ramsay subscribed for thirty sets, and the[244] number of subscribers amounted to one hundred and ninety-two. The original plates were afterwards purchased by Mr. Philip Overton. They subsequently passed into the hands of the late Mr. Robert Sayer; and it is certain that Hogarth often lamented the having parted with his property in them without ever having had an opportunity to improve them.

In the first of these plates is a portrait inscribed, "Mr. Samuel Butler, born 1612, Author of Hudibras, died 1680." The basso-relievo of the pedestal represents Butler's Genius in a car, lashing round Mount Parnassus, in the persons of Hudibras and Ralpho, Rebellion, Hypocrisy, and Ignorance, the reigning vices and follies of the time. In the scene of the Committee (Plate IX.), one of the members has his gloves on his head. "I am told," says Mr. Steevens, "this whimsical custom once prevailed among our sanctified fraternity; but it is in vain, I suppose, to ask the reason why." This doubt, however, has since produced from a respectable divine an intimation that he has frequently heard his father, who died some years ago at an advanced age, notice the custom of placing the gloves on the head at church as not uncommon in cold weather.

In the earliest impressions of Plate XI., the words "Down with the Rumps" are not inserted on the scroll.

JUST VIEW OF THE BRITISH STAGE.

Mr. Walpole, in his Catalogue, thus describes this plate: "Booth, Wilkes, and Cibber, contriving a Pantomime; a Satire on Farces."

Though the inscription engraved under it is sufficiently explanatory, it may be added that Mr. Devoto was scene-painter either to Drury Lane or Lincoln's-Inn Fields, and also to Goodman's Fields Theatre; that the ropes mentioned in the inscription are no other than halters, suspended over the heads of the three managers; and that the labels issuing from their respective mouths convey the following characteristic words. The airy Wilkes, who dangles the effigies of Punch, exclaims, "Poor R—ch! faith, I pitty him." The Laureate Cibber, who is amusing himself with playing with harlequin, invokes the muse painted on the ceiling: "Assist, ye sacred Nine!" And the solemn Booth, letting down the figure of Jack Hall into the forica, is most tragically exclaiming, with an oath, "Ha! this will do." At the same instant Ben Jonson's ghost is rising through the stage, and insulting a pantomime statue fallen from its base. Over the figure of Hall is suspended a parcel of waste paper, consisting of leaves torn from The Way of the World, Hamlet, Macbeth,[246] and Julius Cæsar. A fiddler is seen hanging by a cord in the air, and performing, with a scroll before him, which proclaims, "Music for the What" [meaning perhaps the "What d'ye call it"] entertainment. A pamphlet on the table exhibits a print of Jack Sheppard in confinement. A dragon is also preparing to fly; a dog thrusts his head out of the kennel; a flask acquires motion by machinery, etc. The countenances of Tragedy and Comedy, on each side of the stage, are concealed by the bills for Harlequin Dr. Faustus, Harlequin Shepherd, etc.

EXAMINATION OF BAMBRIDGE.

This very fine picture, Hogarth himself tells us, was painted in 1729 for Sir Archibald Grant of Monymusk, Bart., at that time Knight of the Shire for Aberdeen, and one of the Committee represented in the painting,—many of whom attended daily, and some of them twice a day.

That every other figure in this print is a genuine portrait, there cannot be the least doubt, though at this distant period it is not possible to identify the particular persons; they are all, however, to be found in the following list of the names of the Committee:—

"The scene," says Mr. Walpole, "is the Committee. On the table are the instruments of torture. A prisoner in rags, half-starved, appears before them; the poor man has a good countenance, that adds to the interest. On the other hand is the inhuman gaoler. It is the very figure that Salvator Rosa would have drawn for Iago in the moment of detection. Villany, fear, and conscience are mixed in yellow and livid on his countenance; his lips are contracted by tremor, his face advances as eager to lie, his legs step back as thinking to make his escape; one hand is thrust precipitately into his bosom, the fingers of the other are catching uncertainly at his button-holes. If this was a portrait, it is the most striking that ever was drawn; if it was not, it is still finer."

This Committee was first appointed, Feb. 25, 1728-9, to examine into the state of the gaols within the kingdom; and the persons here represented under examination were—Thomas Bambridge, then Warden of the Fleet Prison, and John Huggins, his predecessor in that office. Both were declared "notoriously guilty of great breaches of trust, extortions, cruelties, and other high crimes and misdemeanours." It was the unanimous resolution of the Committee, "That Thomas Bambridge, the acting Warden of the Prison of the Fleet, hath wilfully permitted several debtors to the Crown in great sums of money, as well as debtors to divers of his Majesty's subjects, to escape; hath been guilty of the most notorious breaches of his trust, great extortions, and the highest crimes and misdemeanours in the execution of his said office; and hath arbitrarily and unlawfully loaded with irons, put into dungeons, and destroyed, prisoners for debt under his charge, treating them in the most barbarous and cruel manner, in high violation and contempt of the laws of this kingdom." Bambridge was in consequence disqualified by Act of Parliament; and he cut his throat twenty years after.

It was also resolved, "That John Huggins, Esq., late Warden of the Prison of the Fleet, did, during the time of his wardenship, wilfully permit several considerable debtors in his custody to escape; and [249]was notoriously guilty of great breaches of his trust, extortions, cruelties, and other high crimes and misdemeanours, in the execution of the said office;" and he was for some time committed to Newgate, but afterwards lived in credit to the age of ninety.

KING HENRY VIII. AND ANNA BULLEYN.

This plate, copied from a painting in the portico of the old great room in Vauxhall Gardens, has very idly been imagined to contain the portraits of Frederick Prince of Wales, and the beautiful but unfortunate Lady Vane; but the stature and faces both of the lady and Henry are totally unlike their supposed originals.

CROWNS, MITRES, MACES, ETC.

This plate forms so important a feature in the annals of Hogarth, that it requires his own elucidation:—

The statute, which took place June 24, 1735, was drawn up by our artist's friend Mr. Huggins, who took for his model the eighth of Queen Anne in favour of literary property. But it was not so accurately executed as entirely to remedy the evil; for, in a cause founded on it, which came before Lord Hardwicke in Chancery, that excellent lawyer determined that no assignee, claiming under an assignment from the original inventor, could take any benefit by it.

Hogarth, immediately after the passing of the Act, published this print with the following inscription:—

"In humble and grateful acknowledgment
of the grace and goodness of the Legislature,
manifested in the Act of Parliament for the Encouragement
of the Arts of Designing, Engraving, etc.,
obtained by the Endeavours, and almost at the sole Expense,
of the Designer of this Print in the Year 1735;
by which,
not only the Professors of those Arts were rescued
from the Tyranny, Frauds, and Piracies
of Monopolizing Dealers,
and legally entitled to the Fruits of their own Labours;
but Genius and Industry were also prompted
by the most noble and generous Inducements to exert themselves.
Emulation was excited;
Ornamental Compositions were better understood;
and every Manufacture, where Fancy has any concern,
was gradually raised to a pitch of Perfection before unknown;
insomuch, that those of Great Britain
are at present the most elegant
and the most in Esteem of any in Europe."

The royal Crown at the top is darting its rays on mitres, coronets, the Chancellor's great seal, the[251] Speaker's hat, etc. etc.; and on a scroll is written, "An Act for the Encouragement of the Arts of Designing, Engraving, and Etching, by vesting the properties thereof in the inventors and engravers, during the time therein mentioned."

The plate was afterwards used as a receipt for the subscriptions to his four prints of "The Election."

In 1767, three years after Hogarth's death, his widow stated, in a petition to the House of Commons, "that she was informed that a Bill was depending in the House to amend an Act made in the eighth year of the reign of his late Majesty, for the encouragement of the arts of designing, engraving, and etching: that her late husband was the inventor, engraver, and publisher of various designs—moral, humorous, and historical; the sole property whereof was vested in him by the said Act for the term of fourteen years; that her chief support arose from the sale of her late husband's works; that, since his decease, many persons had copied, printed, and published several of those works, and still continued to do so; and that the sale of those spurious copies, both at home and for exportation, had already been a great prejudice to the petitioner, and, unless timely prevented, would deprive her of her chief support and dependence; and praying that provision might be made for vesting in her the property of her said husband's works." The petition was thought reason[252]able; and a clause was added to the Bill for "vesting in, and securing to, Jane Hogarth, widow, the property in certain prints."

THE ROYAL MASQUERADE.

This very interesting scene, which may be dated early in 1755, is thus anticipated by Mr. Walpole, in a letter to Mr. Richard Bentley, Dec. 24, 1754:—"The Russian ambassador is to give a masquerade for the birth of the little great prince (the Czar, Paul I.). The King lends him Somerset House: he wanted to borrow the palace over against me, and sent to ask it of the cardinal-nephew (Henry Earl of Lincoln, nephew to the Duke of Newcastle, to whose title he succeeded), who replied, 'Not for half Russia!'"

The print abounds with real portraits of personages of the first distinction, of whom several may be identified by the following extract from the Gentleman's Magazine, vol. xxv. p. 89:—"Feb. 6.—The Russian ambassador gave a most magnificent ball at Somerset House. His Majesty came a little after eight, dressed in a black domino, tie-wig, and gold-laced hat. Her Royal Highness the Princess of Wales was in a blue and silver robe, and her head greatly ornamented with jewels. The Prince of Wales was in a pink and silver dress. Prince Edward in a pink satin waistcoat, [253]with a belt adorned with diamonds. Princess Augusta in a rich gold stuff. The Duke (of Cumberland) was in a Turkish dress, with a large bunch of diamonds in his turban. A noble lady shone in the habit of a nymph, embroidered over with stars studded with brilliants to the amount of £100,000. In short, the dresses of the whole assembly were the richest that could possibly be devised upon such an occasion; and the whole entertainment, particularly the desert, was the most elegant that expense could furnish. Few exhibitions of this kind have equalled it,—none excelled it. The number of persons were above a thousand."

The original painting formed part of the fine collection of the late Roger Palmer, Esq., on whose death it devolved, with the rest of a very ample property, to his only sister, Elizabeth, wife of the brave and benevolent Captain Joseph Budworth, who assumed the name and arms of Palmer.

RICH'S TRIUMPHANT ENTRY.

This plate represents the removal of Rich, and his scenery, authors, actors, etc., from Lincoln's-Inn Fields to the new house. The scene is the area of Covent Garden, across which, leading toward the door of the theatre, is a long procession, consisting of a cart loaded with thunder and lightning, per[254]formers, etc.; and at the head of them Mr. Rich (invested with the skin of the famous dog in Perseus and Andromeda) riding with his mistress in a chariot driven by harlequin, and drawn by satyrs.

Some indifferent verses, which accompanied the original publication, allude to Walker and Hall, the original Macheath and Lockit, and conclude thus:

By the "Man of Taste," Mr. Pope was apparently designed. He is represented in his tie-wig, at a dark corner of the Piazza, amusing himself (not very delicately) with the Beggars' Opera. The letter P is over his head; his little sword is significantly placed, and the peculiarity of his figure is well preserved. The reason why our artist has assigned such an employment to him, we can only guess. It seems, indeed, from Dr. Johnson's Life of Gay, that Pope did not think the Beggars' Opera would succeed. Swift, however, was of the same opinion; and yet the former supported the piece on the first night of exhibition, and the latter defended it in his Intelligencer against the attacks of Dr. Herring, then Preacher to the Society of Lincoln's-Inn, and afterwards [255]Archbishop of Canterbury. Hogarth might be wanton in his satire, might have founded it on an idle report, or might have sacrificed truth to the prejudice of Sir James Thornhill, whose quarrel on another occasion he is supposed to have taken up, when he ridiculed the translator of Homer, in a view of "The Gate of Burlington House."

THE POOL OF BETHESDA, AND THE GOOD SAMARITAN.

These magnificent prints are placed among the early productions of Hogarth, as the paintings from which they are copied were completed in 1737; and in 1748 a small copy of the "Pool of Bethesda" was engraved by Ravenet, as a frontispiece to Stackhouse's Family Bible.

Mr. Walpole observes, that "the burlesque turn of our artist's mind mixed itself with his most serious compositions; and that, in the 'Pool of Bethesda,' a servant of a rich ulcerated lady beats back a poor man (perhaps woman) who sought the same celestial remedy." To this I may add, that the figure of the priest, in the "Good Samaritan," is supremely comic, and rather resembles some purse-proud burgomaster, than the character it was designed to represent.

In the "Pool of Bethesda" is introduced, as I was assured by Dr. Ducarel, a faithful portrait of Nell[256] Robinson, a celebrated courtezan, at whose shrine both Hogarth and the Doctor had in early life occasionally paid their devoirs.

On the subject of these two very fine prints, it will not only be candid, but amusing and instructive, to transcribe Hogarth's own unvarnished remarks:—

While these pictures were in progress, it was announced that "among the governors of St. Bartholomew's Hospital was lately chosen Mr. William Hogarth, the celebrated painter, who, we are told, designs to paint the staircase of the said hospital, and thereby become a benefactor to it by giving his labours gratis." And a newspaper of July 14, 1737, says, "Yesterday the scaffolding was taken down from before the picture of 'The Good Samaritan,' which is esteemed a very curious piece."

Hogarth paid his friend Lambert for painting the landscape in this picture; and to the imaginary merits of his coadjutor, the Analysis, p. 26, thus bears testimony: "The sky always gradates one way or other, and the rising or setting sun exhibits it in great perfection; the imitating of which was Claude de Lorraine's peculiar excellence, and it is now Mr. Lambert's."

Both pictures, which appear of an oblong square in the engravings, in the originals are surrounded with scroll-work which cuts off the corners of them, etc. All these ornaments, together with compartments carved at the bottom, were the work of Mr. Richards. These the late Mr. Alderman Boydell caused to be engraved on separate plates, and appended to those above them, on which sufficient space had not been left. Hogarth requested that these paintings might never be varnished. They appear, therefore, to disadvantage, the decorations about them having, within these few years past, been highly glazed.

"The Pool of Bethesda" has suffered much from the sun; and "The Good Samaritan," when cleaned about the year 1780, was pressed so hard against the straining frame, that several creases were made in the canvas.

MARTIN FOLKES, ESQ.

This elegant scholar was a mathematician and antiquary of much celebrity in the philosophical annals of literature. In 1713, at the early age of 24, he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1741 was elected President. Mr. Folkes was also an early Member of the Society of Antiquaries, having been elected in 1719-20; and his communications to both societies were numerous and valuable. His knowledge in ancient and modern coins was very extensive; and the most important work he produced, was The History of the English Gold and Silver Coin, from the Conquest to his own time.

Algernon, the famous Duke of Somerset, who had been many years President of the Society of Antiquaries, dying February 9, 1749-50, Mr. Folkes, who was then one of the Vice-Presidents, was immediately chosen to succeed his Grace; and was continued President by the Charter of Incorporation of that Society, November 2, 1751. But he was soon disabled from presiding in person either in that or the Royal Society, being seized, on the 26th of September the same year, with a palsy, which deprived him of the use of his left side. On the 30th of November 1753, he resigned the Presidentship of the Royal Society; but continued President of the Society of [261]Antiquaries till his death. After having languished nearly three years, a second attack of his disorder, on the 25th of June 1754, put an end to his life on the 28th of that month.

BISHOP HOADLEY.

This portrait is in grand style, though rather in the French manner. The painting, and the plate engraved from it by Baron, were carefully preserved in the Bishop's family.

Dr. Benjamin Hoadley, a prelate of considerable eminence, was born November 4, 1676; educated at Catharine Hall, Cambridge; elected Lecturer of St. Mildred, Poultry, 1701; Rector of St. Peter-le-Poor in 1704, and of Streatham in 1710; King's Chaplain, February 16, 1715-16; Bishop of Bangor, March 18 following; translated to Hereford in 1721, to Salisbury in 1723, and in 1734 to Winchester, which he held nearly twenty-seven years, till on April 17, 1761, at his house at Chelsea, in the same calm he had enjoyed amidst all the storms that blew around him, he died, full of years and honours, beloved and regretted by all good men, in the 85th year of his age. Few writers of eminence have been so frequently or so illiberally traduced; yet fewer still have had the[262] felicity of living till a nation became their converts, and of knowing "that sons have blushed their fathers were their foes." His useful labours, which will ever be esteemed by all lovers of the natural, civil, and religious rights of Englishmen, were collected in 1773, in three folio volumes.

The Bishop had two sons: Benjamin Hoadley, M.D., F.R.S., Physician to Frederick Prince of Wales, and to George the Second; of high rank in his profession; and well known by many valuable writings, more especially by his comedy of The Suspicious Husband. He died, in his father's lifetime, in 1757. The other son, the Rev. Dr. John Hoadley, Chancellor of Winchester, was also a most amiable man, and an elegant poet. He was the editor of his father's collected works, introduced by a well-digested biographical memoir. He died March 10, 1776; and with him the name of Hoadley became extinct. His relict, who long survived him, possessed several original paintings by Hogarth, which were afterwards the property of the late Mr. Archdeacon D'Oyley.

MR. RANBY'S HOUSE AT CHISWICK.

This view, etched by Hogarth in 1748 without any inscription, was first published by his widow in 1781.

HYMEN AND CUPID.

This neat plate was engraved as a ticket for the masque of Alfred, performed in 1748, at Cliveden House, before the Prince and Princess of Wales, on the Princess Augusta's birthday. It was afterwards intended as a receipt for "Sigismunda."

FALSE PERSPECTIVE.

Early in 1753, Hogarth presented to his friend Mr. Joshua Kirby this whimsical satirical design; which arose from the mistakes of Sir Edward Walpole, who was learning to draw without being taught perspective: an anecdote recorded by Mr. Steevens, on Sir Edward's own authority.

To point out in a strong light the errors which would be likely to happen from the want of acquaintance with those principles, Hogarth's design was produced.

A traveller is represented on an eminence, lighting his pipe from a candle presented to him by a woman from a chamber-window at the distance of at least a mile. We are also astonished at the representation near it, of a crow seated on the spray of a tree, without incommoding by its weight the tender sprouts issuing from its branches; and our astonishment[264] increases when we recollect that this tree, if weighed in the balance with the bird, would hardly be found to preponderate. The tree on which the feathered animal is so securely stationed is, however, of a much greater height and magnitude than those which are nearer, and which gradually diminish as they approach the foreground. The sheep, taking example from the trees, are very large at a distance, but regularly become minute by their proximity, the nearest being almost invisible. Both ends of the church, the top, and the whole extent of one side of it, are clearly seen. To take the view which Hogarth has represented, we must, at the same time, be above, at each end, and in front of that parochial erection; but he has not been so complaisant as to favour us with the sight of the road on the bridge, which the vessel seems determined to sail over, while the waggon and horses appear floating on the other side. A fellow in a boat, nearly under the bridge, is attempting to shoot a swan on the other side of it; though, as he is situated, he cannot possibly have a view of the object whose destruction he pretends to be aiming at. The waggon and horses, which are supposed to be on the bridge, are more distant than the tree which grows on the further side.

Many other absurdities are visible in this curious perspective view, which are too obvious to escape observation: such as the signpost extending to a [265]house at the distance of half a mile, and the remote row of trees concealing part of the nearer sign of the half-moon; the angler's line interfering with another belonging to his patient brother, though at a considerable distance from each other; and the tops and bottoms of the barrels being equally visible.

The favour of this communication was gratefully acknowledged by Kirby, who in 1754 prefixed it to Dr. Brook Taylor's Method of Perspective made easy both in Theory and Practice, with a dedication to Hogarth, who subsequently furnished him with a serious design for the plate which is described at page 132.

THE FARMER'S RETURN.

The little drama by Mr. Garrick, in which this exquisite frontispiece first appeared, was thus prefaced: "The following interlude was prepared for the stage, merely with a view of assisting Mrs. Pritchard at her benefit; and the desire of serving so good an actress is a better excuse for its defects than the few days in which it was written and represented. Notwithstanding the favourable reception it has met with, the author would not have printed it, had not his friend Mr. Hogarth flattered him most agreeably, by thinking the farmer and his family not unworthy of a sketch of his pencil. To him, therefore, this trifle,[266] which he has so much honoured, is inscribed, as a faint testimony of the sincere esteem which the writer bears him, both as a man and an artist."

The original drawing was given to Mr. Garrick, and was in the possession of his widow during her life.

The receipt for "The March to Finchley," which accompanies this plate, has been already described.

TRISTRAM SHANDY.

For this popular work of his friend Lawrence Sterne, Hogarth furnished two frontispieces; one in 1759, for the second volume; the other in 1761, for the fourth.

The first of these is taken from the chapter in which Corporal Trim is represented reading a sermon to Tristram's father, Uncle Toby, and Dr. Slop, the latter of whom is fallen asleep, and who was intended for Dr. John Burton, a physician of great eminence at York, well known as an able and industrious antiquary, and also as a sturdy Jacobite.

The second frontispiece represents the christening, so humorously described in the fourteenth chapter of the fourth volume of Tristram Shandy.

FOUR HEADS FROM THE CARTOONS.

These heads were copied from the cartoons at Hampton Court; and Mr. Walpole, speaking of Sir James Thornhill's attention to these celebrated pictures, has the following remark: "He made copious studies of the heads, hands, and feet, and intended to publish an exact account of the whole for the use of students; but his work never appeared."

As this plate was found among others engraved by Hogarth, it might probably have been one of his early performances. His widow, in 1781, directed a few impressions to be taken from it; which were sold in Leicester Square.

THE SHRIMP-GIRL.

In this portrait from the life, first published in 1782, from the original sketch in oil, are united the talents of Hogarth and Bartolozzi; but the plate, which is executed in the dotted manner then so much in fashion, should have been etched, or engraved, like those excellent performances by Bartolozzi after the drawings of Guercino; as spirit, rather than delicacy, is the characteristic of our artist's shrimp-girl.

LORD HOLLAND.

This is a serious portrait, from a drawing by Hogarth in 1757, of that celebrated nobleman, whom he afterwards introduced in the second plate of "The Times," as the powerful antagonist of Lord Bute.

The public life of this great statesman is too well known to need recital here. Let it suffice to say, that in 1756 he resigned the office of Secretary at War to Mr. Pitt; and in the following year was appointed Paymaster of the Forces, which he retained until the commencement of the reign of King George III. May 6, 1762, his lady was created Baroness Holland; and April 16, 1763, he himself was advanced to a peerage, by the title of Baron Holland of Foxley, Wilts. In the latter part of his life he amused himself by building, at a vast expense, a fantastic villa at Kingsgate, and died July 1, 1774, in his 69th year.

EARL OF CHARLEMONT.

James Caulfield, son of James Viscount Charlemont, was born August 18, 1728; succeeded to his hereditary honours, April 21, 1734; and in December 1782, was raised to an earldom. He was F.R.S., F.S.A., and LL.D.; and died August 4, 1799, aged 70.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

This fine print exhibits an inside view of the House of Commons, from an original painting taken in 1726 or 1727, and now in the possession of the Earl of Onslow.

The prominent portraits are those of the Right Hon. Arthur Onslow, the then Speaker; Sir Robert Walpole, the Prime Minister; Sidney Godolphin, Esq., Father of the House; Colonel Onslow; Sir James Thornhill; Sir Joseph Jekyll; Edward Stables, Esq., Clerk of the House; Mr. Askew, Clerk-Assistant, and several others in the background.

DEBATES ON PALMISTRY.

The figures employed in the study of palmistry seem to have been designed for physicians and surgeons of an hospital, who are debating on the most commodious method of receiving a fee, inattentive to the complaints of a lame female who solicits assistance. A spectre, resembling the royal Dane, comes out behind, perhaps to intimate that physic and poison will occasionally produce similar effects. A glass-case containing skeletons is open; a crocodile hangs overhead; and an owl, emblematic of this sapient consistory, is perched on a high stand.

Mr. Steevens conjectured that this might have been a repented effort of hasty spleen against the officers of St. Bartholomew's, who might not have treated some recommendation of a patient from our artist with all the respect and attention to which he thought it was entitled: but this is mere supposition.

THE STAYMAKER.

The humour in this print is not very striking. The male staymaker seems to be taking professional liberties with a female in the very room where her husband sits, who is playing with one of his children presented to him by a nurse, perhaps with a view to call off his attention from what is going forward. The hag shows her pretended love for the infant by the mode in which she is kissing him. A maidservant holds a looking-glass for the lady, and peeps significantly at the operator from behind it. A boy with a cockade on, and a little sword by his side, appears to observe the familiarities already mentioned, and is strutting up fiercely towards the staymaker, while a girl is spilling some liquor in his hat.

CHARITY IN THE CELLAR.

The original picture from which this print was engraved, was painted for the late Lord Boyne. It [271]represents a convivial party assembled in a cellar over a hogshead of claret, who, it is said, resolved not to separate till they had drunk all the wine it contained. Whether such a circumstance really gave rise to the picture or not, it is unnecessary to inquire. It is too well known that the habit of drinking to excess, among all classes of society, existed at the time of Hogarth to such a degree as to draw the particular attention of this distinguished painter to it; and it is not perhaps too much to say, that the most distinguished preachers, or most able moral writers, have not done more to drive this odious and degrading vice from society than has been effected by the valuable pencil of Hogarth. The individuals here represented were members of a society well known by the name of the "Hell-fire Club." In the centre is the portrait of Sir Philip Hoby, seated on the cask. Behind him, with his hand held up, is that of Mr. De Grey, and below him is the portrait of Lord J. Cavendish, who has drawn a spigot from the cask to let the wine flow into a bowl. Opposite to him Lord Sandwich is represented kneeling down to draw in the intoxicating draught; and behind him (extended on a form) is also Lord Galway. The grouping of the four centre figures is an ingenious imitation of a statue of Charity which is seen in the cellar. The position of the bottles brings the comparison still nearer, and is one of those little incidents[272] for which Hogarth was so particularly distinguished from all other painters, in omitting nothing that might carry out his intention and make himself understood.

The devotedness of this group to the object for which they are assembled is extremely well portrayed. The positions of the figures are easy, and the principle of observing the pyramidal form (so often insisted upon as necessary to beauty in the grouping of figures) is here strikingly exemplified. It is impossible to show a more unconquerable love for the intoxicating draught than is expressed in the portrait of Lord Galway. Unable to stand, he has placed himself on his back in such a manner that the liquor from the cask above him is flowing into his mouth; and he has perhaps been represented by Hogarth as thus persevering in the fatal habit, in order to show the excess to which it was then carried, and is a forcible point in the painter's composition.

The picture is now in the possession of the present Lord Boyne, and the print from it, which we have added to our present edition, is not to be found in any other of the collected works of Hogarth.

SIX TICKETS.

The several designs collected in this plate require no particular description. They are given as specimens [273]of the facility with which Hogarth descended to minor subjects, at the same time embellishing them with strokes of his peculiar vein of pleasantry and humour; and each of them sufficiently evinces the purpose it was intended to recommend.

1. For the Mock Doctor. 2. For Pasquin. 3. For the Beggars' Opera. 4. For Joe Miller. 5. Thomas Figg, the noted prize-fighter. 6. The Ram Inn at Cirencester.

NOTES.

SOUTHWARK FAIR.

MARRIAGE A LA MODE.

HARLOT'S PROGRESS.

RAKE'S PROGRESS.

IDLE AND INDUSTRIOUS APPRENTICE.

THE TIMES.

FOUR TIMES OF THE DAY.

ENRAGED MUSICIAN.

SIGISMUNDA.

THE BEGGARS' OPERA.

SLEEPY CONGREGATION.

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST

1720.

1. W. Hogarth, engraver, with two figures and two Cupids, "April y^e 20. 1720." I have seen a print on which was written, in Hogarth's hand, "Near the Black Bull, Long Lane." Of this card there is a modern copy.

1721.

1. An Emblematic Print on the South Sea; W. Hogarth, inv. et sc. Sold by Mrs. Chilcot in Westminster Hall, and B. Caldwell, printseller, in Newgate Street. Second state—Printed for Bowles. Third state—Without any publisher's name. Some wretched stanzas are engraved beneath the print.

2. The Lottery; W. Hogarth, inv. et sculp. Sold by Chilcot and Caldwell, price 1s. Second state—Printed for Chilcot. Third state—For Sympson. And in a fourth—For Bowles—"price 1s." is erased. An explanation with references is engraved beneath.

The allegory of both these prints is obscure, but the figures are in the manner of Callot, and in a spirited and masterly style.

1723.

Eighteen plates to Aubry de la Mottraye's Travels. Hogarth's name on fourteen of them. As these prints have such references as are[286] hardly intelligible, and as Mr. Nichols' numbers and mine do not exactly agree, I have given a slight hint of the subject of each.

5. Vas mirabile ex integro Smaragdo, Genoæ, etc.

Tom. i. No. 9.—Tiara Patriarchalis Græca.

Tom. i. No. 10.—A Lady and Black in a Bath. No name legible.

Tom. i. No. 11.—Dance of Elegant Female Figures. Vide p. 125.

No. 15.—A Procession.

Tom. i. No. 17.—A Group of Figures in Turbans.

Tom. i. No. 18.—A Scene in the Seraglio.

Tom. ii. No. 3.—Park of the Artillery.

Tom. ii. No. 5.—"Bender."—Portrait of Charles XII.

Tom. ii. No. 8.—Head of Charles XII., etc.

Tom. ii. No. 9, Plate I.—Fodina Argentea Sahlensis.

Tom. ii. No. 9, Plate I.—Ditto.

Tom. ii. No. 11.—Fodina Terrea Danmorensis.

Tom. ii. No. 14.—A Lapland Hut, with Reindeer, etc.

To this catalogue, I think we may add No. 13, Tom. i., and Tom. i. No. 16, as well as the figures at the comers of Tom. ii. No. 26 A, and those in Tom. ii. C, of which there is a modern copy under the name of The Five Muscovites.

1724.

1. Seven small prints to the new Metamorphosis of Lucius Apuleius of Medaura; printed for Sam. Briscoe, 12mo, 2 vols.; one of the plates without Hogarth's name. The hints for these figures are taken from the prints in a translation, 2 vols. octavo, printed for the same bookseller in 1708. A most contemptible modern imposition sometimes appears under the title of An Eighth Apuleius.

2. Masquerades and Operas—Burlington Gate; W. Hogarth, inv. et sculp. Vide p. 22. In the early impressions, the name of Pasquin, No. 11, is inserted as a label on a book in a wheel-barrow, where we have now Ben Jonson. Eight lines engraved on a separate piece of copper are sometimes found under the first impression: they begin—

"Could now dumb Faustus, to reform the age," etc.

Beneath them is, "price 1s." To the second impression—

"O how refined, how elegant we're grown!" etc.

The print is sometimes found without any lines. In this Hogarth's[287] name is inserted within the frame of the plate. To the copy there are also eight lines, beginning—

"Long has the stage productive been," etc.

1725.

1. Five Small Prints for the translation of Cassandra, in 5 vols. duodecimo; W. Hogarth, inv. et sculp.

2. Fifteen Headpieces for the Roman Military Punishments, by John Beaver, Esq., engraved in the style of Callot.

The Plate to chap. xvii., "Pay stopped wholly or in part," etc., differs from that sold with the set. At the bottom of the former, in the book we read, "W. Hogarth, invent. sculpt.;" the latter has, "W. Hogarth, invent. et fec." The former has a range of tents behind the pay-table. These are omitted in the latter, which likewise exhibits an additional soldier, attendant on measuring out the corn, etc.

A little figure of a Roman General in the title-page may possibly be by Hogarth, though his name is not to it.

3. A Copy from Kent's Altar-Piece, vide p. 23. This was usually printed on blue paper. In the original the word "wings" is terminated with a long ſ. In a modern copy this error is corrected.

4. A Scene in Handel's opera of Ptolomeo. Vide p. 184. There is a copy of the same size.

5. Booth, Wilkes, and Cibber, contriving a Pantomime.

1726.

1. Frontispiece to Terræ-filius. Vide p. 193.

2. Twenty-six Figures on two large sheets; engraved for a Compendium of Military Discipline, by J. Blackwell. No engraver's name.

3. Twelve Prints for Hudibras—the large set. In Plate II (the earliest impressions) the words, "Down with the Rumps," are not inserted on the scroll. "Printed and sold by P. Overton, near St. Dunstan's Church, in Fleet Street, and J. Cooper, in James Street, Covent Garden."

Now printed for Sayer, Fleet Street.

A Print representing Hudibras and Sidrophel, and taken off in colours, was in 1782 engraved by T. Gaugain.

[288]

3. Seventeen Small Prints for Hudibras, with Butler's head. The portrait is evidently copied from White's mezzotinto of John Baptist Monnoyer. The same designs on a large scale, with some slight variations, were engraved by J. Mynde for Grey's edition of Hudibras, published in 1724. Hogarth has evidently taken the hints for his figures, grouping, etc., from a small edition of this poem published in 1710.

Copies are inserted in Townley's translation of Hudibras into French, published in 1757.

Many of them were copied by Ross, with violent alterations, for Dr. Nashe's splendid edition of Hudibras, published in 1795.

4. Cunicularii, or the Wise Men of Godliman in Consultation. A burlesque on the Believers in Mrs. Tofts, the rabbit-breeder.

1727.

1. Music introduced to Apollo by Minerva; Hogarth, fecit. Frontispiece to some book of music, or ticket for a concert.

2. Large Masquerade Ticket. Vide Frontispiece and p. 230. In the earliest impressions, the word "Provocatives" has instead of V the open vowel U. It was afterwards amended, but the mark remains.

3. Frontispiece to Leveridge's Songs; no engraver's name. Mr. Molteno informs me he has seen an impression of this, with the sky partly erased, and a player's ticket engraved in the place. The title-page to this work is, I believe, also by Hogarth.

1728.

1. Head of Hesiod, from the bust at Wilton; for Cook's translation.

Rich's Glory, or his Triumphant Entry into Covent Garden. W. H. E^t SULP. Contemptible!

Of this there is a modern copy.

3. The Beggars' Opera. The title over the print in letters disproportionably large.

4. The same; the lines under it engraved in a different manner. "Sold at the print shop in the Strand," etc.

5. A copy of the same, under the title of "The Opera House, or the Italian Eunuchs' Glory," etc.

[289]

1729.

1. Henry Eighth and Anne Bullen; with lines by Allan Ramsay, beginning—

"Here struts old pious Harry, once the Great."

2. The same plate without any verses.

There is a coarse copy, I think engraved on pewter.

The original picture was painted for the portico at Vauxhall.

3. Frontispiece to Miller's Comedy of the Humours of Oxford; engraved by Vandergucht.

1730.

1. Two Prints for Perseus and Andromeda.

2. Gulliver presented to the Queen of Babilary; engraved by Vandergucht. Frontispiece to Lockman's translation of John Gulliver's Travels. A wretched design.

1731.

1. Frontispiece to Molière's L'Avare.

2. To Le Cocu Imaginaire; prefixed to Molière's Plays in French and English.

3. Frontispiece to Fielding's Tom Thumb; engraved by Vandergucht. Grotesque, and good.

4. Frontispiece to Mitchell's Opera of the Highland Fair; engraved by Vandergucht.

1732.

1. Sarah Malcolm, executed March 7th, 1732, etc.; W. Hogarth (ad vivum), pinxit et sculpsit.

2. An engraved copy of ditto.

3. Ditto mezzotinto.

4. Part graven and part mezzotinto.

5. Another copy, with the addition of a clergyman holding a ring.

6. A wooden cut in the Gentleman's Magazine for March 1733.

7. A small copy from a small whole length, in the possession of Josiah Boydell, Esq.

The first, Hogarth sculpsit, is very scarce.

8. The Man of Taste. Pope with a tie-wig on.

9. The same in a smaller size; Pope in a cap. Prefixed to a[290] pamphlet entitled "A Miscellany of Taste, by Mr. Pope, etc." Vide p. 201.

10. The same, in a still smaller size, coarsely engraved.

1733.

1. The Laughing Audience. Subscription-ticket to the Rake's Progress, and Southwark Fair, which were originally delivered to subscribers at a guinea and a half.

The receipt was afterwards cut off. Of this print there is a coarse copy.

2. Southwark Fair. The show-cloth, representing the Stage Mutiny, is copied from an etching by John Laguerre. The paint-pot and brushes, which Hogarth has added to the figure with a cudgel in his hand, has been said to allude to John Ellis the painter; is it not quite as probable that it alludes to Jack Laguerre?

3. Judith and Holofernes. Engraved by Vandergucht. Frontispiece to the Oratorio of Judith, by William Huggins, Esq.

4. Boys Peeping at Nature. Subscription-ticket to the Harlot's Progress. The receipt was afterwards erased, and the following receipt, very neatly engraved, supplied its place:

"Received ——, 1737, half a guinea, being the first payment for five large prints—one representing a Strolling Company of Actresses dressing themselves in a barn; and the other four—Morning, Noon, Evening, and Night; which I promise to deliver on Lady-day next, on receiving half a guinea more."

"N.B.—They will be twenty-five shillings after the subscription is over."

A modern copy of this receipt in aquatinta was published in 1781.

2. Another print on the same subject, with considerable variations, designed as a receipt for Moses brought to Pharaoh's Daughter, and St. Paul before Felix, for which he afterwards substituted the burlesque Paul.

In one of Hogarth's MSS., introductory to his intended description of his prints, I find the following notices of the pictures of the Harlot's and Rake's Progresses:

"Mr. Rouquet's account of my prints finishes with a description of the March to Finchley. The picture was disposed of by lottery (the only way a living painter has any chance of being paid for his time) for three hundred pounds; by the like means most of my former[291] pictures were sold. Those of the Harlot's and Rake's Progress have, it seems, been since destroyed by fire,[122] with many other fine pictures, at the country house of the gentleman who bought them.[123] It is reported, and very remarkable if true, that a most magnificent clock-work organ, being left exposed to the conflagration, was heard in the midst of the flames to play several pleasing airs."

1733 and 1734.

The Harlot's Progress, in six plates.

Plate 1. Second state—Feet to the old woman. Shadow thrown by one house upon another. London added to the letter the parson is reading. Cross put in the centre of the margin, as indeed it is to the second state of the five that follow.

Plate 2. The shadows on the black boy's drapery, etc. are so sudden that he looks like a magpie. I have a copy of this print, of the same size, and well engraved; the situation of the figures reversed, with the strange variations of a shepherd and shepherdess, in the two pictures that were of Jonah and David, in the original.

Plate 3. A sort of sugar dish placed near the punch-bowl, in the first state, is in the second changed to a bottle. In a set of wretched copies, possibly made from the original pictures, and exhibited at Christie's in the year 1792, the woman dangling a watch is painted without stockings.

Plate 4. Second state—Damages in the ceiling stopped up: shadow added on the wall close to the hoop petticoat: the dog much blacker. In a print in my possession, the cross is inserted before any of these variations were made.

Plate 5. Second state—Dr. Rock's name inscribed on the paper: cap of the woman near the dying figure lowered.

Plate 6. The mask on the bottle inscribed "Nants," has a most ludicrous appearance. The shadows, especially that on the forehead of the girl near the clergyman, are much heightened in the second state.

2. Rehearsal of the Oratorio of Judith.

Ticket for a Modern Midnight Conversation. The singers of the [292]different parts of bass, tenor, and treble, may be easily distinguished; and it is worthy of remark, that the notes before them are in the same key with the performers' voices. The receipt was afterwards cut off the plate.

3. A Midnight Modern Conversation.

Second state—The right hand and skirt of a man fallen on the ground stronger shadowed, and the lines over a vessel in the corner intersected.

1735.

1. The Rake's Progress, in eight plates.

Plate 1. First state—A book "Mem^dum 1721, May 3d. My son Tom came from Oxford. 4th, dined at the French Ordinary. 5th of June, put off my bad shilling." Second state—The book erased to insert the cover of a Bible as the sole of a shoe. The girl's face altered for the worse. Woollen-draper's shop-bill omitted.

Plate 2. First state—"Prosperity with Horlots smile." Second state—Altered to Harlots.

Plate 3. First state—Dated June y^e 24th, 1735. Second state—June 25th, and a laced hat put on the head of the girl sitting next to the Rake. Pontac's head introduced in the place of a mutilated Cæsar.

Plate 4. Second state—Shoeblack stealing the cane, erased, and his place supplied by a group of gambling boys. This design is unquestionably much improved by the alterations.

Plate 5. Second state—The right foot of the bridegroom, which gave a tottering awkwardness to the figure, omitted. The maidservant's face altered. The hand of the figure looking out of the gallery blackened. In this print the artist has introduced a portrait of his favourite dog Trump.

Plate 6. Second state—Rays round the candle stronger.

In the original sketch, the principal figure was not, as now, upon his knees, but seated.

Plate 7. In the very earliest impressions, Plate 7 is not inserted in the margin.

Plate 8. Second state—Head of the woman with a fan altered, and affectedly turning away from the mad monarch. A halfpenny, with a figure of Britannia, 1763, fixed against the wall, to intimate what the artist thought the state of the nation. "Retouch'd by the author, 1763."

It should seem that the man sitting by the figure inscribed "Charm[293]ing Betty Careless," went mad for love. Dr. Monro, I am told, asserts that not more than one or two men have become mad from love in the course of a hundred years. Shakspeare has not, as I recollect, drawn one man mad from that cause. I find by Hogarth's memorandum that the original pictures were sold to Francis Beckford, Esq., for £184, 16s.

1736.

1. Two prints of Before and After. See p. 26.

2. The Sleeping Congregation.

First state—"Dieu et mon droit," under the king's arms, not inserted: the angel has a pipe in his mouth. Second state—The above motto added, the angel's pipe effaced, and the lines of the triangle doubled. Third state—Inscribed on the side of the print: "Retouched and improved, April 21, 1762, by the author."

3. The Distressed Poet.

First state—Pope thrashing Curl, and four lines from the Dunciad inscribed under the print. Second state—In the place of Pope, etc., view of the gold mines of Peru; and the four lines from the Dunciad erased. This has been conjectured to be a portrait of Lewis Theobald, and in 1794 a copy of the head with his name annexed to it was published for Richardson. The original picture is in the collection of Lord Grosvenor.

4. Right Honourable Frances Lady Byron.

Whole-length mezzotinto by Faber. The best impressions are usually in brown ink. The plate was afterwards cut down to a half-length.

5. Arms of the Undertakers' Company.

The three figures at top are Dr. Ward, Chevalier Taylor, and Mrs. Mapp, the bone-setter; though it has been said, that the figure supposed to be Mrs. Mapp was intended for Sir Hans Sloane. First state—"One compleat Docter," etc. Second state—The spelling corrected.

1737.

1. The Lecture, "Datur vacuum." In the early impressions, the words "datur vacuum" are not printed. Hogarth sometimes wrote them in with a pen.

Æneas in a Storm.

[294]

1738.

1. The four parts of the Day.

Morning. The sky singularly muddy to express snow. The figure of the shivering boy was, in 1739, copied by F. Sykes, and is strangely enough christened by collectors, The Half-starved Boy.

Noon. In the second state—Shadows heightened.

Evening. In early impressions the man's hands are printed in blue, and the woman's face and neck in red; but they have been sometimes so stamped in later impressions, where the rail-post is crossed with intersecting lines, and the clearness of the water much injured.

In Hogarth's first design (engraved by Baron), the little girl with the fan was omitted; but the artist thinking his delineation would be improved by it, afterwards inserted it with his own burin. I have seen three impressions in this state; one of them, then thought to be unique, was purchased at Greenwood's Rooms, at Mr. Gulston's sale, by Mr. Thane, for the late Mr. G. Stevens, at the price of £47.

Night. The Salisbury flying coach has been thought to be a burlesque on a late noble peer, who delighted in driving his own horses.

I find by Hogarth's memorandum, that Sir William Heathcote purchased the picture of Morning for twenty guineas, and that of Night for £27, 6s. Noon was sold for £38, 17s., and Evening for £39, 18s., to the Duke of Ancaster.

2. Strolling Actresses dressing in a Barn.

Second state—The woman holding a cat has her coiffure lowered, and the female greasing her hair with a candle is divested of her feathers. Head of the sable goddess Night blacker, and her hair more woolly. Damages in the roof of the barn repaired; all the shallows darker.

By an account in one of Hogarth's books, the original picture was first sold to Francis Beckford, Esq., for £27, 6s. By him, though at so low a price, returned! and afterwards sold for the same sum to Mr. Wood of Littleton, in whose possession it still remains.

1739.

1. The Foundlings.

Engraved by Morrellon la Cave. Vide p. 191.

1741.

The Enraged Musician.

[295]

Mr. Cricket has an impression, taken before the man blowing a horn, cats, steeple, play-bill, or drag were introduced. In this very curious, and I believe unique print, the dustman is without a nose, the chimney-sweeper has a grenadier's cap on, and a doll is placed under the trap, composed of bricks, etc.

In the early impressions, the horse's head is white; in its present state, black: and the dog, drag, hatchet, etc. considerably darker than when first engraved.

1742.

1. Martin Folks, Esq., half-length; W. Hogarth, pinxit et sculpsit. In early impressions, the name of W. Hogarth, etc. is not inserted.

2. The same, in mezzotinto, engraved by Faber. The original picture from which both these prints are taken is in the meeting-room of the Royal Society, Somerset Place.

3. The Charmers of the Age. A sketch, no name. Of this there is a spirited modern copy.

4. Taste in High Life. Vide p. 186.

1743.

1. Benjamin Hoadley, Bishop of Winchester; engraved by Baron.

A small oval from the same picture was, in 1759, engraved by Sherlock.

2. Captain Thomas Coram; a three-quarters mezzotinto; admirably engraved by M'Ardell.

3. Coarsely copied in the London Magazine.

A copy of the full-length picture in the Foundling Hospital was, in 1797, engraved by Nutter, and published by Mr. Cribb of Holborn. Vide p. 47.

5. Characters and Caricaturas; subscription-ticket to Marriage à la Mode. "For a further explanation of the difference betwixt Character and Caricatura, see y^e Preface to Jo^h Andrews."

"Received April ——, of ——, half a guinea, being the first payment for six prints called Marriage à la Mode, which I promise to deliver when finished, on receiving half a guinea more.

"N.B.—The price will be one guinea and an half after the time of subscribing."

On this print Hogarth makes the following remark:—

"Being perpetually plagued, from the mistakes made among the[296] illiterate, by the similitude in the sound of the words character and caricatura, I, ten years ago, endeavoured to explain the distinction by the above print; and as I was then publishing Marriage à la Mode, wherein were characters of high life, I introduced the great number of faces there delineated (none of which are exaggerated), varied at random, to prevent, if possible, personal application when the prints should come out.

'We neither this nor that Sir Fopling call,

He's knight o' th' shire, and represents you all.'

This, however, did not prevent a likeness being found for each head, for a general character will always bear some resemblance to a particular one."

1745.

1. Marriage à la Mode, in six plates.

Plate 1. The coronet impressed on the dog in the print is not in the picture. I have this series of prints in the state they were left by the original engravers, and all of them, though delicately engraved, are in some degree spotty. In the second state of Plate 1, there are evident marks of the burin of Hogarth in the faces of the Citizen and Peer; and each of the characters, especially the latter, is improved. The French portrait he has designedly thrown more out of harmony than it was at first; the fringe to the canopy over the nobleman is much darker; a shadow thrown on the building seen out of the window, and on the light parts of the two dogs. Third state—All the shadows blacker. Engraved by G. Scotin. Guido's Judith, which forms the subject of one of the pictures, Hogarth copied from a print engraved by Dupuis.

Plate 2. First state—A lock of hair on the forehead of the lady, generally inserted with Indian ink, but sometimes left without. Second state—Lock of hair engraved, and shadows on the carpet, etc. stronger. Engraved by B. Baron.

Plate 3. In the original picture, an alembic under the table is seen through the cloth. In the second state of the print, the character of the nobleman's face is altered; the bow under his chin is broader, and the shadows on the sole of his right shoe considerably strengthened. Girl's cloak and woman's apron darker than at first. Third state—I discover no alterations, except the shadows being darkened. Engraved by B. Baron.

Plate 4. One of the newspapers of March 1798, in a critique upon[297] the opera, remarked, that "in playing upon the pianoforte, the celebrated Dusek displayed a brilliancy of finger which no eulogium could do justice to!" This is lofty language, and might be very properly applied to the figure of Carestini in this print, for that mountain of mummy displays a glittering ring upon every finger of his left hand. His face, as well as that of the Countess, is in the third impression essentially altered; the curtains, frames, etc. are also of a much darker hue. Engraved by S. Ravenet.

Plate 5. Second state—All the lights, figures on the tapestry, etc., are kept down, and the whole print brought to a more still and sombre hue. Woman's eye, eyebrow, and neck strengthened: nostril made wider. Counsellor's leg and thigh intersected with black lines, instead of the delicate marks and dots first inserted. Third state—Bears evident marks of a coarser burin than that of Ravenet. Engraved by R. F. Ravenet.[124]

Mr. Nichols states that this background was engraved by Ravenet's wife; but I am informed by Mr. Charles Grignion, who at that period knew the family intimately, that she could not engrave. That, concerning the background of this print, Ravenet had a violent quarrel with Hogarth; who, thinking the figures in the tapestry, etc. too obtrusive, obliged him to bring them to a lower tone (without any additional remuneration), a process that must have taken him up a length of time, which no man but an engraver can form an idea of.

Plate 6. With a slight alteration, the crying old woman would be very like one of the laughing old women in the Laughing Audience. Second state—The whole of the print rendered less brilliant, but more in harmony. Drapery of the dying woman improved. Third state—The shadows of this, as of the other five, were rendered still stronger by the last alterations, made a short time before Hogarth's death.

Of the original pictures, now in Mr. Angerstein's collection, I have already spoken. If considered in the various relations of invention, composition, drawing, colouring, character, and moral tendency, I do not think it will be easy to point out any series of six pictures, painted by any artist of either ancient or modern times, from which they will not bear away the palm.

Among Mr. Lane's papers was found a written description of Marriage à la Mode, which the family believe to be Hogarth's explanation, either copied from his own handwriting, or given verbally to Mr.[298] Lane at the time he purchased the pictures. This was copied and inserted in the second edition of Hogarth Illustrated, and may be had gratis by any of the purchasers of the first.

Messrs. Boydell have employed Mr. Earlom to engrave the whole series, in the same size as the original pictures.

2. A small portrait of Archbishop Herring, surrounded with a trophy, placed as a headpiece to the printed speech addressed to the Clergy of York, September 24th, 1745. William Hogarth, pinx.; C. Mosely, sculp.

3. The same head was afterwards cut off the plate, and printed without the speech.

A larger portrait was in the year 1750 engraved by Baron.

4. The Battle of the Pictures. Ticket to admit persons to bid for his works at an auction.

5. Mask and Palette. Subscription-ticket to Garrick in Richard III. A copy from this was published in 1781.

1746.

1. Simon Lord Lovat. Vide p. 209.

The second impressions are marked "price 1s."

Of this there have been several copies; I have one of the head in a watch paper.

Lavater has introduced this print in his Essays on Physiognomy.

2. Mr. Garrick in the character of Richard III.

Engraved by Wm. Hogarth and C. Grignion.

Mr. Charles Grignion (whose professional talents have for more than half a century been an honour to the arts) informed me that Hogarth etched the head and hand, but finding the head too large, he erased it and etched it a second time, when seeing it wrong placed upon the shoulders, he again rubbed it out, and replaced it as it now stands, remarking—"I never was right until I had been wrong."

3. Subscription-ticket to the March to Finchley, which was originally published at 7s. 6d.

Among a stand of various weapons, bagpipes, etc., the artist has introduced a pair of scissors cutting out the Arms of Scotland.

1747.

1. The Stage Coach, or Country Inn Yard. In the very earliest[299] impressions, a flag behind the wheel of the coach is without an inscription. In the second, "No Old Baby;" which words, in the present state of the plate, are done away, and the flag obliterated.

2. Industry and Idleness, in twelve plates, designed and engraved by Wm. Hogarth.

Plate 1. In the very early impressions, Plate 1 is not inserted. Second state—Shadows strengthened.

Plate 2. Second state—Shadows on the organ, etc. deeper.

Plate 3. Second state—Lines stronger.

Plate 4. Second state—Lines strengthened. The cat in this print is vilely drawn.

Plate 5. Tender lines in the offing worn out, broader lines in the faces. Lavater has introduced a small outline of this print in his Essays on Physiognomy.

Plate 6. First state—Goodchild and West, instead of West and Goodchild, to which the sign was afterwards altered.

Plate 7. Second state—Darker shadows behind the broken cup, and bottles on the chimney-piece, etc.

Plate 8. Second state—Shadows strengthened. The head of the fat Citizen in a tie-wig has been copied in a larger size by Bartolozzi. The scene is laid in Fishmonger's Hall, where the effigies of Sir William Walworth still remain, with the following quaint and memorable inscription beneath:—

"Brave Walworth, knight, Lord Maior, that slew

Rebellious Tyler in his alarms;

The king therefore did give in lieu,

The dagger to the city arms."

Plate 9. Second state—Character of the woman taking a bribe altered; the whole print more black.

Plate 10. Second state—Shadows heightened.

Plate 11. Second state—Shadows in the parson's face, pigeon, etc., stronger.

Plate 12. Second state—Coachman's coat darker, and a stripe of lace down the arm obliterated. The mass of figures that surround the coach made much darker. In the original they come too forward, but the characters are now hurt by the intersecting lines.

Of these twelve plates there are tolerably correct copies of the same size.

The following memoranda relative to this series, which I found among[300] Hogarth's papers, seems addressed to some one whom he intended to continue Rouquet's descriptions:—

"The effects of Idleness and Industry, exemplified in the conduct of two fellow-'prentices. These twelve prints were calculated for the instruction of young people; and everything addressed to them is fully described in words as well as figures. Yet to foreigners a translation of the mottoes,[125] the intention of the story, and some little description of each print, may be necessary. To this may be added, a slight account of our customs—as boys being usually bound for seven years, etc.

"Considering the persons they were intended to serve, I have endeavoured to render them intelligible, and cheap as possible.[126] Fine engraving is not necessary for such subjects, if what is infinitely more material, viz. character and expression, is properly preserved. Suppose the whole story were made into a kind of tale, describing in episode the nature of a night-cellar, a marrow-bone concert, a Lord Mayor's show, etc.

"These prints I have found sell much more rapidly at Christmas than at any other season."

3. Jacobus Gibbs Architectus; W. Hogarth, delin.; J. M'Ardell, fecit. Partly mezzotinto, partly graved. No date.

4. Ditto, engraved by Baron.

5. Ditto, by ditto.

6. Another copy, with the addition of "Architectus, A.M. and F.R.S.," was published 1750. Of the last print I have an impression where the background is completed, but nothing more of the head than the bare outline. This is a curiosity somewhat similar to a picture without a horse by Wouvermans.

Besides these, there is a small profile of Gibbs in a circle, which I do not think Hogarth's,—at least it is uncertain.

7. Arms of the Foundling Hospital, printed on the tops of the indenture.

8. The same in a smaller size, employed as a vignette to Psalms, Hymns, and Anthems, and also to an account of the institution of the hospital, etc.

Of the original pen-and-ink drawing there is a modern copy.

9. A Wooden Cut—headpiece to the Jacobites' Journal; a newspaper set up and supported by Henry Fielding. This print (of which [301]there is a modern copy in aquatinta) was prefixed to six or seven of the earliest papers, and then set aside. Mine is dated "2d January 1747. No. 5."

1748.

1. View of Mr. Ranby's House at Chiswick; etched by Hogarth, without any inscription. Afterwards "published for Jane Hogarth," etc., 1st May 1781.

2. Hymen and Cupid; two figures, with the view of a magnificent villa in the distance. No inscription. This was engraved as a ticket for the Masque of Alfred, performed at Cliveden House before the Prince and Princess of Wales on the Princess Augusta's birthday. It was afterwards intended to be used as a receipt to the Sigismunda; on the earliest impressions, "£2, 2s." is usually written.

1749.

The Gate of Calais; engraved by C. Mosely. The original picture is in the possession of the Earl of Charlemont.

Of this print Hogarth thus writes:—"After the March to Finchley, the next print I engraved was the Roast Beef of Old England,[127] which took its rise from a visit I paid to France the preceding year. The first time an Englishman goes from Dover to Calais, he must be struck with the different face of things at so little a distance. A farcical pomp of war, pompous parade of religion, and much bustle with very little business. To sum up all, poverty, slavery, and innate insolence, covered with an affectation of politeness, give you even here a true picture of the manners of the whole nation. Nor are the priests less opposite to those of Dover than the two shores. The friars are dirty, sleek, and solemn; the soldiery are lean, ragged, and tawdry; and as to the fishwomen, their faces are absolute leather.

"As I was sauntering about and observing them, near the gate which, it seems, was built by the English when the place was in our possession, I remarked some appearance of the arms of England on the front. By this and idle curiosity I was prompted to make a sketch of it, which being observed, I was taken into custody; but not attempting to cancel any of my sketches or memorandums, which were found to be merely those of a painter for his private use, without any[302] relation to fortification, it was not thought necessary to send me back to Paris.[128] I was only closely confined to my own lodgings till the wind changed for England, where I no sooner arrived than I set about the picture; made the gate my background; and in one corner introduced my own portrait,[129] which has generally been thought a correct likeness, with the soldier's hand upon my shoulder. By the fat friar who stops the lean cook that is sinking under the weight of a vast sirloin of beef, and two of the military bearing off a great kettle of soup maigre, I meant to display to my own countrymen the striking difference between the food, priests, soldiers, etc. of two nations so contiguous, that in a clear day one coast may be seen from the other. The melancholy and miserable Highlander, browsing on his scanty fare, consisting of a bit of bread and an onion, is intended for one of the many that fled from this country after the rebellion in 1745."

2. Portrait of John Palmer, Esq.; W. Hogarth, pinx.; B. Baron, sculp. A small head inserted under a view of the church of Ecton, Northamptonshire.

3. Head of Hogarth in a cap, with a pug dog, and a palette with the line of beauty, etc.; inscribed "Gulielmus Hogarth se ipse pinxit et sculpsit, 1749."

The same portrait in mezzotinto.

(The engraving was copied from a picture now in the collection of J. J. Angerstein, Esq., from which another copy, engraved by Benjamin Smith, was in 1795 published by Messrs. Boydell. In this the three books are lettered Shakspeare, Swift, Milton's Paradise Lost, and the line on the palette inscribed, "The Line of Beauty and Grace.")

In the year 1763 Hogarth erased his own head from the plate, and in its place inserted "The Bruiser, C. Churchill (once the Rev^d.!), in the character of a Russian Hercules, regaling himself after having killed the monster Caricatura, that so sorely galled his virtuous friend the heaven-born Wilkes."

First state—Three of the upper knots on the club are left white (white lies), and a line inscribed "the line of Beauty," drawn on the palette. Second state—The knots shaded, and a political print introduced on the palette.

Third state—The letters "N. B.," and the word "Infamous" [303]inscribed on the club; and "Dragon of Wantley" added at the end of "I warrant ye." "Price 1s. 6d." instead of "1s."

In the year 1758 Hogarth published a full-length of his own portrait, painting the Comic Muse; inscribed "W. Hogarth, serjeant painter to his Majesty,"—"Engraved by W. Hogarth." This being a mistake of the writing engraver, the painter altered it to "the face engraved by W. Hogarth." Third impression—"The face engraved by W. Hogarth" omitted. Fourth state—"Serjeant painter," etc. scratched over with the graver. Present state—The face retouched. Comedy also has the face and mask marked with black; and on the pillar is written, "Comedy, 1764." No other inscription beneath the print but "W. Hogarth, 1764."

The original small whole-length picture from which it is copied was sold by Greenwood after Mrs. Hogarth's death. The companion portrait of Mrs. Hogarth is in the possession of Mrs. Lewis of Chiswick.

A portrait of Hogarth was in 1781 engraved in mezzotinto by Charles Townley from a picture painted by Weltdon, and finished by Hogarth, now in the possession of James Townley, Esq. A portrait, copied from that in the Gate of Calais, I have seen prefixed to a dull pamphlet, published in 1781, entitled A Dissertation on Mr. Hogarth's six Prints lately published, viz. Gin Lane, Beer Street, and the Four Stages of Cruelty. I have a small engraving of his head, I believe done for the Universal Magazine, in which he looks like a village schoolmaster. An etching of his head by S. Ireland was prefixed to a catalogue of Hogarth's works, sold by Christie, in May 1797. Two small portraits have been engraved for watch-papers. A head in the dotted style has been engraved for Mr. Jeffrey, Pall Mall, but is not published.

1750.

The March to Finchley; engraved by Luke Sullivan. Dedicated to the King of Prusia: thus was the word spelt in the prints delivered to the subscribers. A few early impressions were dated 30th December 1750; but the 30th being that year on a Sunday, it was altered to the 31st. A print in the collection of Dr. Ford is inscribed "Printed and published by W^m. Hogarth," instead of " Printed for W^m. Hogarth, and published," etc. In the etching, of which very few were struck off, the woman to whom an officer presents a letter on[304] the point of a pike, turns her head the contrary way to what she does in the print.

Second impression—The spelling of Prussia corrected; bunch of grapes at the Adam and Eve enlarged; catching lights given to the laced hats in the group beneath it; belt added to the Duke of Cumberland's portrait. Third state—"Retouched and improved by W^m. Hogarth; and republished June 12th, 1761."

I have an early impression of this print in which the dedication to the King of Prussia does not appear, and it might pass for a proof. On inquiry I find that, upon one of Hogarth's fastidious friends objecting to its being dedicated to a foreign potentate, he replied, "If you disapprove of it, you shall have one without any dedication;" and took off a few impressions, covering the dedication with fan paper.

Sullivan was so eccentric a character, that while he was employed in engraving this print, Hogarth held out every possible inducement to his remaining at his house in Leicester Square night and day; for if once Luke quitted it, he was not visible for a month. It has been said, but I know not on what authority, that for engraving it he was paid only one hundred pounds.

In the original picture, which is in the Foundling Hospital, the old man to whom a Frenchman is giving a letter has a plaid waistcoat.

1751.

1. Beer Street. In the first state—The blacksmith is lifting up a Frenchman; in the second—The Frenchman is properly discarded, and a shoulder of mutton supplies his place.

2. Gin Lane. I have been told that in a print in the collection of Lord Exeter there are numerous though trifling variations; but I never saw it.[130]

Of their intentions, Hogarth gives the following account:—"When these two prints were designed and engraved, the dreadful consequences[305] of gin-drinking appeared in every street. In Gin Lane, every circumstance of its horrid effects is brought to view in terrorem. Idleness, poverty, misery, and distress, which drives even to madness and death, are the only objects that are to be seen; and not a house in tolerable condition but the pawnbroker's and gin-shop.

"Beer Street, its companion, was given as a contrast, where that invigorating liquor is recommended in order to drive the other out of vogue. Here all is joyous and thriving: industry and jollity go hand in hand. In this happy place the pawnbroker's is the only house going to ruin; and even the small quantity of porter that he can procure is taken in at the wicket, for fear of further distress."

3. The Four Stages of Cruelty—

Plate 1. Shadows strengthened.

Plate 2. Shadows heightened.

Plate 3. The whole print somewhat darker.

Plate 4. This, and the five last-mentioned prints, were, on common paper, marked "price 1s.;" on superior paper, "1s. 6d." The stamp by which the artist marked the "6d." was cut by himself on a halfpenny, now in my possession. Of Plates 3 and 4 there are wooden cuts, which were engraved under Hogarth's inspection.

The motives by which Hogarth was induced to make the designs, he thus describes:—

"The leading points in these as well as the two preceding prints, were made as obvious as possible, in the hope that their tendency might be seen by men of the lowest rank. Neither minute accuracy of design nor fine engraving were deemed necessary, as the latter would render them too expensive for the persons to whom they were intended to be useful; and the fact is, that the passions may be more forcibly expressed by a strong, bold stroke, than by the most delicate engraving. To expressing them as I felt them, I have paid the utmost attention; and as they were addressed to hard hearts, have rather preferred leaving them hard, and giving the effect, by a quick touch, to rendering them[306] languid and feeble by fine strokes and soft engraving, which require more care and practice than can often be attained, except by a man of a very quiet turn of mind. Masson, who gave two strokes to every particular hair that he engraved, merited great admiration; but at such admiration I never aspired, neither was I capable of obtaining it if I had.

"The prints were engraved with the hope of, in some degree, correcting that barbarous treatment of animals, the very sight of which renders the streets of our metropolis so distressing to every feeling mind. If they have had this effect, and check the progress of cruelty, I am more proud of having been the author than I should be of having painted Raphael's Cartoons.

"The French, among their other mistakes respecting our tragedies, etc., assert that such scenes could not be represented except by a barbarous people. Whatever may be our national character, I trust that our national conduct will be an unanswerable refutation."[131]

4. Paul before Felix; "designed and scratched in the true Dutch taste by W^m. Hogarth." Under the second impression, "designed and etched in the ridiculous manner of Rembrandt by W^m. Hogarth." The drowsy angel was (I have been told) intended as a portrait of Luke Sullivan. The advocate is said to be designed for Dr. King. See Worlidge's View of Lord Westmoreland's Installation.

Second state—A little devil sawing off the leg of the apostle's stool.

This very whimsical print was originally given as a receipt to the Pharaoh's Daughter and the serious Paul before Felix, and sealed with a palette and pencils, engraven on a small ring which Hogarth usually wore, and which Mrs. Lewis has since presented to me. The early proofs are usually stained with bister. Hogarth always gave the print to such of his friends as wished for it; but finding demands too frequent, cut the engraved receipt from the copper, and sold it at 5s. From this print in its first state he took a few reverses.

1752.

1. Paul before Felix.

"And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled."

[307]

"Engraved by W^m. Hogarth, from his original painting in Lincoln's-Inn Hall, and published as the Act directs, Feb. 5, 1752."

2. The same subject, with fewer figures, and those reversed on the plate. This, though not good, is, in arrangement, design, and engraving, much superior to the preceding. The same text and inscription, "from his original painting," etc., is continued, though that first mentioned is the copy from the picture in Lincoln's-Inn Hall.

"Published Feb. 5, 1752. Engraved by Luke Sullivan."

In the second state—A quotation from Dr. Warton's Essay on the Genius and Writings of Pope was inserted in one corner of the margin; but the critique which it contained being founded in a mistake, which the Doctor in the second edition very liberally retracted, Hogarth, in some of the succeeding impressions, covered the quotation with paper when the print was taken off, and afterwards entirely effaced it from the copper.

In the present state of the plate, the date of publication and name of the engraver are taken out.

3. Moses brought to Pharaoh's Daughter.

"From the original painting in the Foundling Hospital; engraved by Will^m. Hogarth and Luke Sullivan."

"Published Feb. 5, 1752, according to Act of Parliament; W. Hogarth, pinxt."

The second state has the same quotation from Dr. Warton as the preceding print, and for the same cause it was afterwards effaced from the copper.

Third impression; "W. Hogarth, pinxt., and published according to," etc., effaced, and its place supplied by "published as the Act directs, Feb. 5, 1752."

Columbus breaking the Egg. Ticket to the Analysis. "Rec^d. Nov^r. 30, 1752, of Nath^l. Garland, Esq., five shillings, being the first payment for a short tract in quarto, called the Analysis of Beauty, wherein forms are considered in a new light," etc.

1753.

The receipt cut off and inscribed, "designed and etched by W^m. Hogarth, Dec^r. 1, 1753."

2. Analysis of Beauty, two plates.

Plate 1. In an impression in the possession of Mr. Baker, "ET TU BRUTE" is engraved on the pedestal on which Quin stands in the character of Brutus.

[308]

In the second state, though this inscription is erased, on close inspection some of the letters are still visible.

Plate 2. First state—A vacant chair under the figure of Henry VIII. The principal figure is said to be a portrait of the Duke of Kingston.

Second state—Altered to a portrait of his present Majesty: the position of the right hand, etc. changed; the riband to the necklace of the principal female figure lengthened, and a sleeping figure put in the vacant chair. In the present state—The necklace riband is made still longer.

3. Frontispiece to Kilby's Perspective; engraved by Sullivan.

1754.

Election Entertainments, etc.

Hogarth's subscription-book, with the names of all, and autographs of most of the subscribers, is in my possession; and by this it appears that the subscription to the first print of an Election Entertainment, or to the complete set, commenced 28th March 1754. From this time to the 31st of May in the same year, there were 461 subscribers to the first print, and 127 to the complete set. The leading names on the list are the Prince of Wales, the Princess-Dowager of Wales, and Prince Edward; but the first person that has any money annexed to his signature is the Right Hon. Henry Fox, afterwards Lord Holland.

The subscription for the remaining three prints was opened 24th Feb. 1755, and closed 28th August 1756. To this there were only 165 subscribers, so that there were 296 names to the first print who did not continue to subscribe to the other three.

As a receipt to these prints, he gave the following engraving, with emblematical devices of Crowns, Mitres, etc., published in the year 1736, as a headpiece to an inscription expressing his gratitude to the Legislature for passing the Act to protect prints from piracy, etc.:—

Crowns, Mitres, Maces, etc.

"Received 4th May 1754, of Mr. King, 5s., being the first payment for a print representing an Election Entertainment, which I promise to deliver when finished on the receipt of five shillings and sixpence more. Wm. Hogarth."

"N.B.—The price will be raised when the subscription is over."

Second state—Receipt for one guinea, being the first payment for the four prints. In this, the receipt for 5s. appears to have been[309] covered with paper while the impressions were taken off, and that for a guinea, engraved on another piece of copper, stamped beneath.

Third state—Receipt for 15s., being the first payment "for three prints representing the polling," etc.

Four Prints of an Election.

Plate 1. An Election Entertainment.

It has been said that Hogarth attempted to finish this plate without taking a single proof from it, to examine the effect as he proceeded in his work. Be that as it may, the little alterations are more numerous than in any of his other prints; and that in the inscription, stating the whole to be engraved by Hogarth, being so often inserted and repeatedly effaced, I am unable to account for.

First state—"Painted, and the whole engraved by W^m. Hogarth," "Published 24th Feb. 1755," and "Inscribed to the Right Honourable Henry Fox, etc. etc. etc."

Seven cut lemons on a piece of paper close to the punch-tub; four hats in the corner; "For our Country," on the riband in the striped cap of the butcher pouring out gin. A salt-cellar and a bit of bread near the fork upon the table.

Second state—The two words, "the whole," in the inscription, scratched over with black lines; the drapery, stockings, etc. on the table before Richard Slim made much darker; the hand of the fat old woman, close to the candidate, removed from under her apron, and hanging down by her side, by which the shoulder, elbow, etc. are thrown out of drawing; her countenance less clear, and a single tooth, very conspicuous in the first impression, is here removed. Shadow on the top of the wainscot in the left corner effaced. Half a casement near the painting of a landscape changed to a window-shutter; the king's head, frame, and background behind it, lighter; the salt-cellar and bit of bread removed from the table; lemons taken out, and the tub, pail, and foreground below them much lighter; the boy's napkin darker. The butcher's cap, in which was "For our Country," has now "PRO PATRIA," and is not striped; the open-back chair in which he was seated in the first state, is here filled up to a cushion back. The words, "sure votes" and "doubtful," in the attorney's book, are re-engraved. Both leaves are shadowed, and the centre line from top to bottom, which in the first state was with the "sure votes," is here transferred to the "doubtful." Two pearly drops are trickling from the parson's forehead. Four windows are added to a house seen out of the open[310] casement; a pair of scissors suspended to the Methodist tailor's apron-string, and the pen, stuck under the wig of the fellow who offers him a bribe, which in the first state was with the feather outwards, is now properly altered to the quill outwards. There are several other little variations in the shadows which seem generally intended to bring the print into harmony; and I think have their effect, for it is more still, and in better keeping than in the first state.

Third state—The cross strokes of the graver on the words "the whole," in the inscription, nearly burnished out. One hat added in the corner, and another placed on the bench near the scabbard and gloves. The face, knot, etc. of the little girl near the candidate darkened; and the hair of the fellow smoking him much shadowed, and rendered less woolly. Character of face of the boy pouring punch altered, and hair made much darker.

Fourth state—The words "the whole" again inserted; the W is different, and engraving not so good as in the first state: the shadow on the top of the wainscot, close to the landscape, again restored. A strong shadow on the lower part of the round table in the corner burnished down.

Fifth, which is the present state—The words "the whole" again completely effaced by black lines. The masses somewhat stronger, and the shadows on the round table in the corner, especially on the edge, made darker.

I have this print in all the states here described, and believe that the third and fourth are very uncommon.

On the butcher with "PRO PATRIA" in his cap, and his wounded companion, Hogarth makes the following remark:—

"These two patriots, who, let what party will prevail, can be no gainers, yet spend their time, which is their fortune, for what they suppose right, and for a glass of gin lose their blood, and sometimes their lives, in support of the cause, are, as far as I can see, entitled to an equal portion of fame with many of the emblazoned heroes of ancient Rome; but such is the effect of prejudice, that though the picture of an antique wrestler is admired as a grand character, we necessarily annex an idea of vulgarity to the portrait of a modern boxer. An old blacksmith in his tattered garb is a coarse and low being; strip him naked, tie his leathern apron round his loins, chisel out his figure in freestone or marble, precisely as it appears—he becomes elevated, and may pass for a philosopher, or a Deity."

Plate 2. Canvassing for Votes.

[311]

"Engraved by C. Grignion, published 20th February 1757," and inscribed to Sir Charles Hanbury Williams.

In this admirable print I discover no variations, except that the lion's teeth are, in the second impression, removed; and the lines throughout having been re-entered, are somewhat darker than in the first state.

Plate 3. The Polling.

"Engraved by Hogarth and Le Cave, published 20th February 1758," and inscribed to the Hon. Sir Ed. Walpole.

In an etching (touched in the shadows by Hogarth) which I have of this plate, the blind voter going up the steps has not any bandage over his eyes. The cockade of the sick figure just before him is not of sufficient length for the words "true blue" now inserted, and probably an afterthought. The fellow before him with a pipe in his mouth, in the print is without a nose, but in the etching has a very large one; while the man to whom this old smoker is presenting tobacco, and who in the print has so speculative and carbuncled a proboscis, has, in the etching, scarcely any nose at all. The book in the pocket of Dr. Shebeare is so much intersected as not to admit of the inscription, afterwards added, of ("the 6th letter to the"), without the strokes being burnished out.

Second impression—"Milicia Bill," awkwardly inscribed on the maimed voter's skirt, intended to appear as a paper hanging out of his pocket.

Plate 4. Chairing the Members.

"Engraved by W. Hogarth and F. Aviline; published 1st January 1758," and inscribed to the Hon. George Hay, one of the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty.

Second impression—The word INDINTUR (indenture) written on the scroll hanging out of the attorney's window.

1756.

1. France and England, in two plates, "designed and etched by Hogarth," and published March 8, 1756.

In the very early impressions of these prints, the titles France and England are not inserted.

1758.

The Bench, "designed and engraved by W. Hogarth," and published 4th September 1758.

[312]

This plate, in its first state, exhibits the inside of the Court of Common Pleas, the king's arms at top. Portraits of the following judges are beneath it:—Hon. William Noel; Sir John Willes, Lord Chief Justice; Hon. Mr. Justice, afterwards Earl Bathurst; Sir Edward Clive.

Over the print is written "Character;" under it, "Of the different meanings of the words Character, Caricatura, and Outré, in painting and drawing." This is followed by a long explanatory inscription engraved on another piece of copper. The original picture, which is somewhat different from the print, was once the property of Sir George Hay, and is now in the possession of Mr. Edwards.

Present state of the plate—The word Character is effaced, and the king's arms discarded, and its place supplied by eight caricatured heads, on which the artist worked the day before he died. Below the inscription is inserted—

"The unfinished group of heads in the upper part of this print was added by the author in October 1764, and was intended as a further illustration of what is here said concerning character, caricatura, and outré. He worked upon it the day before his death, which happened the 26th of that month."

The mistakes which Hogarth's friends frequently made in the meaning of the words character, caricatura, etc., seem to have dwelt much on his mind. In one of his MSS. he has given the following thoughts on the subject:—

"I have ever considered the knowledge of character, either high or low, to be the most sublime part of the art of painting or sculpture, and caricatura as the lowest—indeed, as much so as the wild attempts of children when they first try to draw: yet so it is, that the two words, from being similar in sound, are often confounded. When I was once at the house of a foreign face-painter, and looking over a legion of his portraits, Monsieur, with a low bow, told me that he infinitely admired my caricatures! I returned his congé, and assured him that I equally admired his.

"I have often thought that much of this confusion might be done away, by recurring to the three branches of the drama, and considering the difference between comedy, tragedy, and farce. Dramatic dialogue, which represents nature as it really is, though neither in the most elevated nor yet the most familiar style, may fairly be denominated comedy: for every incident introduced might have thus happened; every syllable have been thus spoken, and so acted in common life.[313] Tragedy is made up of more extraordinary events. The language is in a degree inflated, and the action and emphasis heightened. The performer swells his voice, and assumes a consequence in his gait; even his habit is full and ample, to keep it on a par with his deportment. Every feature of his character is so much above common nature, that were people off the stage to act, speak, and dress in a similar style, they would be thought fit for Bedlam. Yet with all this, if the player does not o'erstep the proper bounds, and, by attempting too much, become swoln, it is not caricatura, but elevated character. I will go further, and admit, that with the drama of Shakspeare, and action of Garrick, it may be a nobler species of entertainment than comedy.

"As to farce, where it is exaggerated, and outré, I have no objection to its being called caricature, for such is the proper title."

1759.

1. The Cockpit. "Designed and engraved by Wm. Hogarth," and published November 5, 1759.

2. Frontispiece to Tristram Shandy, vol. 2; engraved by S. Ravenet.

3. Another copy, by the same engraver, in which a hat and cloak are introduced, and the faces of his father and uncle Toby much inferior to the former plate. A print for the 4th volume, representing the christening, was published in 1761. "F. Ravanet, sculp."—for thus is the name here written. A print of the same size was engraved from the same design by J. Ryland. The original drawings are in the possession of Mrs. Nicol.

1760.

1. Frontispiece to Brook Taylor's Perspective of Architecture. "W. Hogarth, 1760; W. Woollet, sculp." Vide p. 132.

2. Mr. Huggins, a small circular plate. Hogarth, pinx.; Major, sculp. Engraved for a translation of Dante, of which a specimen only was published.

1761.

1. Frontispiece to the catalogue of pictures exhibited at Spring Gardens; engraved by Grignion. Vide p. 77.

2. Another print from this design, by the same engraver.

3. Tail-piece to the catalogue. The word obiit spelt obit. Vide p. 79. In a second plate this error is corrected.

[314]

4. Hogarth's Gate of Calais; and Relapse, or Virtue in Danger, and three portraits, were in this exhibition.

5. Time Smoking a Picture. Subscription-ticket to Sigismunda. I have seen an impression of this print without the name "Crates" in the inscription.

6. "The Five Orders of Periwigs, as they were worn at the late coronation, measured architectonically."

Second impression—The spelling in the word "advertisement" corrected, by an e inserted on the neck of the Duchess of Northumberland. This is a pointed ridicule on Stewart's Antiquities of Athens, in which the measurements of all the members of the Greek architecture are given with minute accuracy. Hogarth's opinion of his labours may be gathered from the following fragment, which he wrote concerning this print:—

"There is no great difficulty in measuring the length, breadth, or height of any figures, where the parts are made up of plain lines. It requires no more skill to take the dimensions of a pillar or cornice, than to measure a square box; and yet the man who does the latter is neglected, and he who accomplishes the former is considered as a miracle of genius; but I suppose he receives his honours for the distance he has travelled to do his business."

7. Frontispiece to the Farmer's Return from London; engraved by J. Basire. Of this plate there is an admirable copy with the same name, and a vile imitation without any name.

Enthusiasm Delineated.

A reduced copy and description of this very singular print, which was the first thought for the Medley, is in p. 169. A copy of the same size was published by the editor of this volume in 1796.

1762.

1. Credulity, Superstition, and Fanaticism: A Medley. "Designed and engraved by Wm. Hogarth," and published March 15, 1762. Vide p. 175.

2. The Times, Plate 1; "designed and engraved by W. Hogarth," and published Sept. 7, 1762. In the first impression—A figure of Henry VIII. is exalted on stilts, and blowing up the flames; in the second—The monarch is erased, and Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, introduced in his place.

The Times, Plate 2, was engraved soon after, but withheld from the public until Mrs. Hogarth's death, when the plate was purchased[315] by Messrs. Boydell, and published May 29, 1790. Part of the sky is left unfinished.

3. T. Morell, S. T. P. S. S. A.; "W. Hogarth, delin.;" "James Basire, sculp." Some impressions are without either the inscription of "Thesaurus" or "Ætat. 60."

A correct copy has the same painter and engraver's name.

4. Henry Fielding, Ætatis 48; "W. Hogarth, delin.;" "James Basire, sculp." A few impressions were taken off before the frame and ornaments were inserted. The copy in p. 206 is taken from one of them in my possession.

1763.

1. "John Wilkes, Esq., drawn from the life, and etched in aquafortis by William Hogarth. Price 1s."

4. The Weighing House. Frontispiece to Clubbe's Physiognomy; W. Hogarth, del.; Luke Sullivan, sculp.

Another copy, without either painter or engraver's name, which the late W. Ryland told me was engraved by him, and the heads afterwards touched upon by Hogarth. Prefixed to Clubbe's works, in two vols.

A small copy was engraved for an octavo edition of the same pamphlet.

1764.

The Bathos. "Designed and engraved by Wm. Hogarth," and published March 3, 1764.

1767.

Satan, Sin, and Death: Milton's Paradise Lost, B. 2. Engraved by C. Townley, and intended to have been published April 15, 1767; but when a few impressions were taken off, the plate was destroyed. One of the copies of this strange and incomprehensible print is in the possession of Mr. Bellamy, Charlotte Row.

A print of a smaller size, with some variations, has been since engraved by Ogbourne, and I have seen one of a larger size, of a similar description, without any name.

The Good Samaritan. Engraved by Ravenet and Delatre, and published Feb. 24, 1772, by J. Boydell. Hogarth's first sketch is in the possession of Mr. Bellamy.

The Pool of Bethesda. Engraved by Ravenet and Picot as a companion to the preceding print. These engravings were copied from the[316] pictures in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. A small copy of the latter was, in 1748, engraved by Ravenet for S. Austen, as a frontispiece to Stackhouse's Bible.

1775.

The Politician; etched by J. K. Sherwin, and published by Jane Hogarth, 1774, Oct. 31. Vide p. 197. In the early impressions the figure "5" and 31st October, are usually inserted with a pen.

1781.

1. A small and slight etching, conjectured to be Solsull, a maker of punches for engravers. "S. J. fecu., 1781."

2. Four Heads from the Cartoons at Hampton Court; an early etching by Hogarth, published by Mrs. Hogarth, May 14, 1781.

The Matchmaker. Vide p. 199.

1782.

1. The Staymaker.

2. Debates in Palmistry.

3. Portrait of Henry Fox, Lord Holland.

4. Portrait of James Caulfield, Earl of Charlemont.

The four last articles are slightly etched by Joseph Haynes, from very bald and unfinished sketches by Hogarth. The plates are in the possession of Mr. Jeffrey, Pall Mall.

5. The Shrimp Girl. Engraved in the dotted style by Bartolozzi. Had this unrivalled artist etched this print in the manner he did Guercino's drawings, he would have transferred the true spirit of the original. As it is, we have Hogarth translated into Italian.

It was published by Mrs. Hogarth in 1782, by subscription, with the five following prints engraved by Livesay.

6 and 7. Portraits of Gabriel Hunt and Benjamin Read.

8, 9, and 10. Three plates from sketches by Hogarth, designed for the monument and epitaph of George Taylor.

11. Nine prints for Hogarth's Tour, from drawings by Scott, etc., engraved by Livesay, accompanied with nine pages of letterpress.

12. Hogarth's Crest. A spiral shell painted on his carriage, and since his death copied by Livesay.

13. Eta Beta Py. Prefixed to the title of the second edition of Mr. Nichols' Anecdotes.

[317]

14. An Old Parson's Head, most admirably marked; engraved in the dotted style.

1785.

The four which follow were etched by S. Ireland.

1. Orator Henley Christening a Child. From an unfinished sketch by Hogarth.

2. A Small Landscape.

3. Head of a Female Moor.

4. Head of Diana.

The Portrait of a Young Girl, from a picture in the possession of Mrs. Hogarth, was about this time very delicately engraved by Martha Knight, Brompton.

1790.

1. The Beggars' Opera. Engraved by Blake, and published by Messrs. Boydell, from a picture in the collection of the Duke of Leeds.

2. Sealing the Sepulchre: from the Altar-piece in St. Mary Redcliffe's, Bristol; engraved in a large mezzotinto by J. Jenner.

3. The Sepulchre; engraved from the same altar-piece as a companion, with the title of The Resurrection. Vide p. 195.

1792.

1. The Indian Emperor, or Conquest of Mexico; from the original picture in the collection of Lord Holland; engraved by R. Dodd, and published by Messrs. Boydell.

2. Sigismunda. Engraved by Benj. Smith, and published by Messrs. Boydell, who possess the original picture, from which there was an etching by Basire in Hogarth's lifetime; and from the sketch a print in mezzotinto was a few years since engraved by Dunkarton.

Prints of Uncertain Date.

Some of the following prints are insignificant enough, others are curious, but all derive their principal value from being the work of Hogarth. I have noted the prices at which a few of them sold, and think it probable that No. 30 produced more money at Mr. Gulston's sale than the artist received for engraving the twenty-nine preceding prints:—

[318]

Coats of Arms.

1. A Gryffon with a Flag. A crest.

2. Lord Aylmer's Coat of Arms. A copy sold for £7, 10s. in Mr. Gulston's sale.

3. Lord Radnor's Coat of Arms.

4. A large Coat of Arms, with Terms of the Four Seasons.

5. A Coat of Arms, with two Slaves as trophies.

6. Another with two Boys as Terms.

7. Foreign Coat of Arms; supporters, a Savage and Angel.

8. The Duchess of Kendal's Arms. Vide p. 28. A copy sold in Mr. Gulston's sale for £4.

9. Another, for a silver tea-table, larger, but not so neatly engraved. Sold in the same sale for £6.

10. Another.

11. With a male shield, probably a mistake of the engraver's.

12. A Coat of Arms, engraved on a silver tea-table.

13. The same ornaments left, and Sir Gregory Page's arms inserted in their place. At Sir Gregory's sale, the table was purchased by Mr. Morrison, who, after taking off twenty-five impressions, melted the plate.

14. The Chudleigh Arms. Motto: Aut vincam, aut peribo.

15. Arms of Gore, engraved on a silver waiter.

16. Arms of John Holland, herald painter; a book plate. In the second impressions the lion is of a smaller size, and eight fleur-de-lis instead of the seven originally inserted.

17. Arms of George Lambart. Said to have been a book-plate for Lambert the painter. If it was so, it is passing strange that the name should be thus spelt.

Shop-bills.

18. A large Angel, holding a palm in his left hand: a shop-bill for Ellis Gamble, at the Golden Angel, Cranbourn Street, Leicester Fields, has sold for £7, 7s.

19. A contracted copy of the above.

20. Another, somewhat different, in the collection of Mr. Walpole.

21. A Turk's Head: a shop-bill for John Barker, goldsmith, Lombard Street.

Of the head there is a modern copy.

22. A shop-bill for Mrs. Holt, at the Italian Warehouse in the Strand; with the Duke of Tuscany's and the Florence arms; and views of Naples, Venice, Genoa, and Leghorn at the four corners. A copy sold in Mr. Gulston's sale for £6, 6s.

[319]

23. Shop-bill, for his sisters, Mary and Ann Hogarth, at the King's Arms, joining to the Little Britain gate. People in a shop, etc., has sold for £8, 8s.

Tickets, etc.

24. A Ticket for the benefit of Spiller the player.

25. A Ticket for the benefit of Millward.

26. Ticket for a burial. Sold in Gulston's sale for £5, 7s. 6d.

27. A Ticket for the school at Tiverton, Devonshire.

28. The Great Seal of England.

29. Impression from a tankard belonging to a club of artists, who, as I have been told, met at the sign of a Shepherd and his Flock, Clare Market. This design is in a good taste. On the dexter side, as a supporter, a man making a drawing; and on the sinister, a man modelling a figure. In the centre is a Shepherd and his Flock, etc. A copy sold in Mr. Gulston's sale for £10.

Miscellaneous.

30. A small oval print of the Rape of the Lock, engraved on a snuff-box. Vide p. 25. Sold, Feb. 7, 1786, at Mr. Gulston's sale for £33.

31. An Emblematic Print, representing Agriculture, etc.

32. A Hieroglyphic Print, representing Royalty, Episcopacy, and Law, composed of emblematic attributes, etc., abounds in wit and satire. Of this there is a good copy by Samuel Ireland.

33. Two small prints for books 1st and 3d of Milton's Paradise Lost. W. Hogarth, inv. et sculp. These two prints were in Mr. Gulston's sale sold for sixteen guineas; but the original plate of that for book 3d has been lately discovered, and is now in the possession of Mr. Vincent.

34. A Woman swearing a Child to a grave Citizen. W. Hogarth, pinx.; J. Sympson, jun., fecit. Vide p. 188. Another copy is in Picart's Religious Ceremonies.

35. Orator Henley Christening a Child. John Sympson, jun., fecit. The impressions are usually taken off in green. A copy of this also is in Picart's Religious Ceremonies.

36. The Mystery of Masonry brought to light by the Gormagons. Hogarth, inv. et sculp.

The second impression published for Sayer.

37. The Political Glyster, "Nahtanoi Tfiws" (Swift's name spelt backwards), engraved on one corner, and on the other, Dr. O'Garth,[320] sculp. It was originally inscribed, "the punishment inflicted on Samuel Gulliver," etc.; but when the plate came into the hands of Mr. Sayer, he added the present retrograde and ridiculous inscription.

38. Six small prints, engraved for an early edition of King's Pantheon.

Nine Prints for "Don Quixote."

39. Plate 1.—Is inserted without either painter or engraver's name, is in Jarvis' quarto translation. Vide p. 220.

40. Plate 2.—Was probably engraved for Lord Carteret's Don Quixote, but not introduced; one figure only being finished, and the plate cut. Vide p. 221.

41. Plate 3.—Engraved for the same work, but never inserted. Vide p. 222.

42. Plate 4.—Had the same fate. Vide p. 222.

43. Plate 5.—Was equally unfortunate. Vide p. 224.

44. Plate 6.—Not approved. Vide p. 224.

45. Plate 7.—Not inserted. Vide p. 225.

46. Plate 8.—Not introduced; but with the other five came into the hands of Mr. Dodsley, who sold a few of the first impressions, and afterwards inserted references corresponding with Jarvis' translation. Vide p. 226.

47. Plate 9.—Sancho's Feast. Vide p. 227.

48. The Master of the Vineyard, engraved for Horneck's Happy Ascetic.

49. Gustavus, Lord Viscount Boyne, etc. Whole-length mezzotinto, engraved in Ireland. W. Hogarth, pinx.; Ford, fecit. The original picture is in the possession of Mr. Bellamy. A copy of the print sold in Gulston's sale for £2, 13s.

50. Mr. Pine (the mezzotinto engraver), in the manner of Rembrandt, both his hands resting upon a cane. Printed for George Pulley, etc.

51. Another head of Mr. Pine; mezzotinto by M'Ardell. I am much inclined to think that this is an alteration of the Plate No. 50. Be that as it may, it is in every respect superior. Repaired copies, with the inscription erased, are sometimes sold as Proofs.

52. Daniel Lock, Esq., F.S.A., mezzotinto. W. Hogarth, pinx.; J. M'Ardell, fecit. Price 1s. 6d.

53. Ticket for the London Hospital, with Richmond Arms.

54. The same, larger, without the Arms, by Grignion.

55. Another, with a view of the London Hospital.

56. The London Infirmary for charitably relieving sick and diseased[321] manufacturers, seamen, etc. A blank certificate for pupils in surgery and anatomy.

57. A Witch on a Broomstick. Frontispiece to a pamphlet written by Dr. Gregory Sharpe, but never published, inscribed Front-is-piss.

58. The Discovery, or a Black Woman in Bed.

A copy from Hogarth's Piquet, or Virtue in Danger, has been engraved by Cheesman, and will be shortly published. The portraits of five gentlemen who met to drink a hogshead of claret, which they finished before they separated; of a nobleman and gentleman fighting with a watchman; and an etching, copied from a small picture on the back of a copperplate, have been some years advertised.

A portrait of Sir Alexander Schomberg, engraved by Townley from a portrait by Hogarth.

A work, consisting of copies, the same size as the original prints, and modestly entitled "Hogarth Restored," is now publishing in numbers. The twelve originals of Industry and Idleness, Hogarth published at twelve shillings. In this Restoration, the twelve copies amount to thirty!

An Illustration of Hogarth, in the German language, by J. C. Lichtenberg, with reduced copies from the prints, by J. Ripenhausen, has been published at Gottingen, in numbers at 15s. each. The same plates are used for a work, also publishing at Gottingen, on a similar plan, with the illustrations in French.

Many of the following articles, and others not worth enumeration, imputed trash and libel not his own, have been foisted into auctioneers' catalogues, sold for large sums, warranted originals, and

Ascribed to Hogarth.

1. Coat of Arms, from a large silver tea-table. Under the Arms are a Shepherd and his Flock.

2. Shop-bill for Peter de la Fontaine.

3. The Oratory. Orator Henley on a scaffold.

4. A Ticket for H. Fielding. Scene Pasquin.

5. A Ticket for H. Fielding. Scene the Mock Doctor.

6. A Ticket for James Figg the prize-fighter.

7. A Ticket for the benefit of Joe Miller.

8. The Gin-drinkers.

9. Jack in Office; a Ticket-porter, etc.

10. The complicated Richardson. Nauseous!

[322]

11. Pug the Painter. Sometimes ascribed to Hogarth.

12. St. Mary's Chapel, 12 at Night. Probably Vandergucht's. Sold as Hogarth's in Gulston's sale for £3, 4s.

13. Farinelli, Cuzzoni, and Heidegger: said to be designed by the Countess of Burlington, and etched by Goupy.

14. Frontispiece to eight views in Richmond gardens.

15. Frontispiece to Love in a Hollow Tree.

16. Ten prints to Butler's posthumous works; published in 1730. The same designs were published in 2 vols. twelves, in 1717. Some of them are much like Hogarth.

17. Samuel Butler, author of Hudibras. Coarsely engraved in an oval.

18. Thomas Pellet, M.D., President of the College of Physicians. W. Hogarth, pinx.; C. Hall, sculp.

19. William Bullock, the comedian. W. Hogarth, pinx.; C. Hall, sculp.

20. A scene of a pantomime entertainment lately exhibited, designed by a Knight of Malta. Satire on the royal incorporated artists.

An etched outline of a larger size, with some additions, was afterwards published, and inscribed No. 2.

21. The Calves' Head Club. I think, designed and engraved by Vandergucht.

22. Rape of the Smock. A palpable imposition.

23. Lovat's Ghost on Pilgrimage. A mezzotinto copy was published May 1, 1788.

24. Four small prints of Lord Lovat's Trial, etc.

25. A dotted print of Jenny Cameron.

26. Two figures, designed for Lord Melcombe and Lord Winchelsea. Hogarth, inv.; F. B. (F. Bartolozzi), sculp.; designed by Lord Townshend.

27. North and South of Great Britain. W. Hogarth, del.; F. B. (Bartolozzi), sculp. Really designed by Sandby.

28. Inside of an Opera House, scene a prison, sold as Hogarth's at Gulston's sale, March 1, 1786, for £2, 4s.

29. The Scotch Congregation.

30. The Search Night. J. Fielding, sculp. Two cards were afterwards engraved from the same design.

31. Hogarth's cypher, with his name under it. A plate for books.

32. A living Dog is better than a dead Lion; or, the Vanity of Human Glory: a design for the monument of General Wolfe, 1760.

[323]

33. The Five Muscovites. Copied from De la Mottraye's Travels.

A full-length print of a Savoyard Girl has been lately engraved from a picture painted by Hogarth.

Prints Published to Ridicule the "Analysis," "Times," etc.

1. "A New Dunciad; done with a view of fixing the fluctuating ideas of taste," etc.

2. A Mountebank demonstrating to his admiring audience that crookedness is most beautiful.

3. The Author run mad.

4. An Author sinking under the weight of his Analysis.

5. "The Analyst," etc. etc. "in his own Taste." A vile, nauseous, and vulgar print.

6. Pugg's Graces, etched from his original daubing.

7. The Temple of Ephesus in Flames, etc.; inscribed "A self-conceited Dauber," etc., and extremely well etched.

8. "Burlesque sur le Burlesque," with a French inscription: a large print.

9. "The second edition," with an English inscription, and some slight variations.

10. Burlesque of the Burlesque Paul; magic lantern, etc.

11. The Painter's March from Finchley. "Dedicated to the King of the Gypsies, as an encourager of Art, etc."

12. The Butifyer, a touch upon the Times, Plate 1.

13. The Times, Plate 2.

14. The Times, Plate 1, 1762. Hogarth's head, with the body of an ass, at the top of a ballad.

15. The Raree Show, a political contrast to the Times.

16. The Boot and the Blockhead.

17. The Vision, or M——n—st—l Monster.

18. John Bull's House in Flames.

19. The Bruiser Triumphant, with a curtain inscribed, "A Harlot blubbering over a Bullock's Heart."

20. Tit for Tat.

21. The Bear and Pugg: a small print.

22. The Snarling Cur chastised.

23. The Hungry Tribe of Scribblers and Etchers.

24. The Grand Triumvirate, or Champions of Liberty; with three foolish acrostics of Wilkes, Bute, and Hogarth.

[324]

I had nearly forgotten two curiosities, which, though received in all the catalogues, and unquestionably genuine, can hardly be classed as prints. One is entitled Hogarth's Cottage, engraved for Mr. Camfield, a surgeon, on a breeches button the size of a half-crown, from Hogarth's design, of which an etched copy by S. Ireland was published March 1, 1786. The other, being impressions taken from nine quadrille fish, was published in 1792, with the title of—

Pisces, one of the signs of the Zodiac.

To enter into the spirit of the last article, the reader must be informed that Hogarth never played at cards; and that while his wife and a party of friends were so employed, he occasionally took the quadrille fish, and cut upon them scales, fins, heads, etc., so as to give them some degree of character. Three of these little aquatic curiosities which remained in the possession of Mrs. Lewis, she presented to me, and I have ventured to insert them as

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The Dedication, of which I have prefixed a fac-simile, was written for that work.

[2] I am authorized to say that during her life Mrs. Hogarth never parted with any of his papers, except a loose leaf or some such trifle, which in one or two instances she gave to such as wished to possess a little specimen of Hogarth's handwriting.

[3] The printed sheets were occasionally corrected by his friend Townley, etc. The Editor will have great pleasure in showing the MSS. to any gentleman who will do him the honour of inspecting them.

[4] Rouquet's book was written in French, and describes the "Harlot's" and "Rake's Progress," "Marriage à la Mode," and "March to Finchley."

[5] When I wrote the two former volumes of Hogarth Illustrated, I had not seen the MSS. which I now lay before the reader, nor did I know that there were any such papers. His own declaration corroborates the following conjecture relative to his early bias to the arts:—"Young Hogarth had an early predilection for the arts, and his future acquirements give us a right to suppose he must have studied the curious sculptures which adorned his father's spelling-books, though he neglected the letterpress; and when he ought to have been storing his memory with the eight parts of speech, was examining the allegorical apple-tree which decorates the grammar."—Hogarth Illustrated, vol. i. p. 27.

[6] The dictionary here alluded to, Mrs. Lewis of Chiswick presented to the Editor of this volume. It is a thick quarto, containing an early edition of Littleton's Dictionary, and also Robertson's Phrases, with numerous corrections to each, and about 400 pages of manuscript close written. On the marginal leaf is inscripted in Hogarth's handwriting, "The manuscript part of this dictionary was the work of Mr. Richard Hogarth." Another volume of this work is in the possession of J. Bindley, Esq., of the Stamp Office.

[7] Hogarth's father came to the metropolis in company with Dr. Gibson, the late Bishop of London's brother, and was employed as corrector of the press, which in those days was not considered as a mean employment.

[8] By Sir James Thornhill, afterwards his father-in-law.

[9] Though averse, as he himself expresses it, to coldly copying on the spot any objects that struck him, it was usual with him when he saw a singular character, either in the street or elsewhere, to pencil the leading features and prominent markings upon his nail, and when he came home, to copy the sketch on paper, and afterwards introduce it in a print. Several of these sketches I have seen, and in them may be traced the first thoughts for many of the characters which he afterwards introduced in his works.

[10] As this was the doctrine I preached as well as practised, an arch brother of the pencil once gave it this turn, that the only way to draw well, was not to draw at all; and, on the same principle, he supposed that if I wrote an essay on the art of swimming, I should prohibit my pupil from going into the water until he had learnt.

[11] If Hogarth calls himself idle, who shall dare to denominate himself industrious?

[12] Hudibras was published in 1726, so that his father probably died about the year 1721, leaving two daughters, Mary and Anne, besides his son William, who, on the leaf of an old memorandum book in my possession, after mentioning the time of his own birth and baptism, thus continues:

"Mary Hogarth was born November 10th, 1699.
Ann Hogarth, two years after in the same month.
Taken from the Register at Great St. Bartholomew's."

[13] The leader of the figures hurrying to a masquerade, crowned with a cap and bells, and a garter round his right leg, has been supposed to be intended for George II., who was very partial to these nocturnal amusements, and is said to have bestowed a thousand pounds towards their support. The purse with the label £1000, which the satyr holds immediately before him, gives some probability to the supposition. The kneeling figure on the show-cloth, pouring gold at the feet of Cuzzoni, the Italian singer (with the label, "Pray accept £8000"), has been said to be designed for Lord Peterborough.

[14] As this print, to heighten the burlesque, was almost invariably impressed on blue paper, I have stamped the annexed copy on the same colour.

[15] It has been truly observed that comedy exhibits the character of a species,—farce of an individual. Of the class in which Hogarth has a right to be placed, there can be little doubt: he wrote comedies with a pencil.

[16] For these pictures he was elected a governor of the hospital. On the top of the staircase, beneath the cornice, is the following inscription: "The historical paintings of this staircase were painted and given by Mr. William Hogarth, and the ornamental paintings at his expense, A.D. 1736."

[17] The Reformed religion is, in almost all its branches, rather a drawback than an assistance to art. Thus are its effects described by Mr. Barry: "Where religion is affirmative and extended, it gives a loose and enthusiasm to the fancy, which throws a spirit into the air and manners, and stamps a diversity, life, quickness, sensibility, and expressive significance over everything they do. In another place it is more negative and contracted: being formed in direct opposition to the first, its measures were regulated accordingly; much pains were taken to root out and to remove everything that might give wing to imagination, and so to regulate the outward man by a torpid inanimate composure, gravity, and indifference, that it may attend to nothing but mere acts of necessity, everything else being reputed idle and vain. They have had as few words as buttons, the tongue spoke almost without moving the lips, and the circumstances of a murder were related with as little emotion as an ordinary mercantile transaction."—Barry on the Arts, p. 214.

[18] Hogarth may possibly allude to Ranelagh Barret, who, I learn from Mr. Walpole, was thus employed; and, being countenanced by Sir Robert Walpole, copied several of his collection, and others for the Duke of Devonshire and Dr. Mead. He was indefatigable,—executed a vast number of works,—succeeded greatly in copying Rubens, and died in 1768. His pictures were sold by auction in the December of that year.

[19] In part of this violent philippic Hogarth may possibly glance at the late President of the Royal Academy, whom, it has been said, but I think unjustly, he envied. In Sir Joshua's very early pictures there is not much to envy; they gave little promise of the taste and talents which blaze in his later works.

[20] Vanloo came to England with his son in the year 1737.—Walpole's Anecdotes.

[21] I am not sufficiently versed in the palette biography of the day to know who are the painters that these stars, etc. etc. etc. allude to. Abbé le Blanc, in his letter to the Abbé du Bos on the state of painting and sculpture in England, notices the whole body in the following very flattering terms: "The portrait painters are at this day more numerous and worse in London than ever they have been. Since Mr. Vanloo came hither, they strive in vain to run him down; for nobody is painted but by him. I have been to see the most noted of them; at some distance one might easily mistake a dozen of their portraits for twelve copies of the same original. Some have the head turned to the left, others to the right; and this is the most sensible difference to be observed between them. Moreover, excepting the face, you find in all the same neck, the same arms, the same flesh, the same attitude; and to say all, you observe no more life than design in those pretended portraits. Properly speaking, they are not painters; they know how to lay colours on the canvas, but they know not how to animate it. Nature exists in vain for them; they see her not, or if they see her, they have not the art of expressing her."

[22] Sir Francis Bacon somewhere remarks, that in the flight of Fame she will make but slow progress without some feathers of ostentation.

[23] The rival portraits here alluded to are: George the Second, patron of the foundation, by Shackleton; Lord Dartmouth, one of the vice-presidents, by Mr. Reynolds (afterwards Sir Joshua); Taylor White, treasurer of the Hospital, in crayons, by Coates; Mr. Milner and Mr. Jackson, by Hudson; Dr. Mead, by Ramsay; Mr. Emmerson, by Highmore; and Francis Fauquier, Esq., by Wilson.

To say that it is superior to these is but slight praise; independent of this relative superiority, it will not be easy to point out a better painted portrait. The head, which is marked with uncommon benevolence, was in 1739 engraved in mezzotinto by M'Ardell.

[24] Thus does Hogarth pun upon the name of Mr. Ramsay, who he seems to think peered too closely into his prints, though he acknowledges that, in a book entitled The Investigator, Ramsay has treated him with more candour than any of his other opponents.

[25] Upon the death of Coram this pension was continued to poor old Leveridge, for whose volume of songs Hogarth had, in 1727, engraved a title-page and frontispiece, and who at the age of ninety had scarcely any other prospect than that of a parish subsistence.

[26] How very inferior was this to the portrait of Coram! But the genuine benevolence and simplicity which beams in the countenance of the friend and protector of helpless infancy is not calculated to strike the million so forcibly as the dramatic perturbation of a guilty tyrant. In this, as in some other cases, the purchaser seems to have paid for the player rather than the picture. It was painted for the late Mr. Duncombe, of Duncombe Park, Yorkshire.

[27] By both the artists and connoisseurs of his own day he was accused of having stolen the ideas contained in his "Essay" from Lomazzo. Several prints which were published in support of this opinion will be noticed.

[28] The fable here alluded to is entitled, A Painter who pleased everybody and nobody:

"So very like a painter drew,

That every eye the picture knew.—

His honest pencil touch'd with truth,

And mark'd the date of age and youth;"

But see the consequence:

"In dusty piles his pictures lay,

For no one sent the second pay."

Finding the result of truth so unpropitious to his fame and fortune, he changed his practice:

"Two bustos fraught with every grace,

A Venus, and Apollo's, face

He placed in view;—resolved to please,

Whoever sat, he drew from these."

This succeeded to a tittle:

"Through all the town his art they prais'd,

His custom grew, his price was rais'd."

[29] The "Distressed Poet," "Enraged Musician," and a companion print on painting which, though advertised, was never published, are the three here alluded to.

[30] In his description of the Legion Club, after portraying many of the characters with most pointed severity, Swift thus exclaims:

"How I want thee, humorous Hogarth!

Thou, I hear, a pleasant rogue art!

Were but you and I acquainted,

Every monster should be painted.

You should try your graving tools

On this odious group of fools;

Draw the beasts as I describe them;

Form their features while I gibe them;

Draw them like, for I assure ye,

You will need no caricatura.

Draw them so that we may trace

All the soul in every face."

[31] The designer of a print which was published in 1753, and intended to burlesque some of the figures in the Analysis of Beauty, seems to have believed that Hogarth intended to have published his objections to the establishment of the academy. The print is entitled "Pugg's Graces," and the artist is represented with the legs of a satyr, and painting "Moses before Pharaoh's Daughter." One of his hoofs rests on three books, the lowest of which is labelled Analysis of Beauty. A little lower in the print is an open volume, on one page of which is written, Reasons against a Public Academy, 1753; and on the other, No Salary.

[32] Louis XIV. founded an academy for the French at Rome; but Poussin and Le Sueur, painters who have done the most credit to France, were prior to the establishment.

[33] The late Sir Robert Strange seems to have entertained an opinion somewhat similar:—"Academies, under proper regulations, are no doubt the best nurseries of the fine arts. But when the establishment of the Royal Academy at London is impartially examined, it will not, I am afraid, reflect that credit we wish upon the annals of its royal founder."—Strange's Inquiry, p. 61.

[34] "Of the estimation in which they were held, and the taste with which they were contemplated by the Romans, we may form some judgment by a general assuring a soldier, to whom he gave in charge a statue which was the work of Praxiteles, that if he broke it, he should get another as good made in its place."

[35] Transmigrations of heathen deities into apostles, etc., have been too frequent to need particular enumeration.

[36] Sir Godfrey Kneller knew this, and made the most of his labours. He used to say, in his own vindication, that historical painting only revived the memory of the dead, who could give no testimony of their gratitude; but when he painted the living, he gained what enabled him to live from their bounty.

[37] The president Montesquieu, the Abbés Winckelmann, Du Bos, and Le Blanc, have gravely asserted, that from the coldness of our climate, and other causes equally curious, we can never succeed in anything that requires genius.

[38] "Their mode of judging subjects them to continual imposition; for what is called manner is easily copied by the lowest performer: he only fails in beauty, delicacy, and spirit!"

[39] One specimen of Mr. Kent's talents in painting is in page 39. Mr. Walpole's description of some of his other pictures, and the history of his patronage, amply illustrate Hogarth's opinion of the artist's abilities in that branch.

[40] How far the present situation of the Royal Academy and the arts has fulfilled or contradicted this opinion, I will not presume to determine.

[41] Mr. Strange, in his Inquiry into the Rise and Establishment of the Royal Academy of Arts of London, places the causes of this disagreement in a point of view somewhat different from Mr. Hogarth's narrative; but in their account of the consequences the narrators precisely agree:—

"A society, composed of a number of the most respectable persons in this country, commonly known by the name of the 'Dilettanti,' made the first step towards an establishment of this nature. That society having accumulated a considerable fund, and being really promoters of the fine arts, generously offered to appropriate it to support a public academy.

"General Gray, a gentleman distinguished by his public spirit and fine taste, was deputed by that society to treat with the artists. I was present at their meeting. On the part of our intended benefactors, I observed that generosity and benevolence which are peculiar to true greatness; but on the part of the majority of the leading artists, I was sorry to remark motives, apparently limited to their own views and ambition to govern, diametrically opposite to the liberality with which we were treated. After various conferences, the 'Dilettanti' finding that they were to be allowed no share in the government of the academy, or in the appropriating their own fund, the negotiation ended."—Strange's Inquiry, p. 62.

[42] This society was first projected by Mr. William Shipley, who was very active in his endeavours to establish it. Their original proposal was, to "give premiums for the revival and advancement of those arts and sciences which are at a low ebb amongst us; as poetry, painting, tapestry, architecture, etc." The plan, in the latter end of the year 1753, was laid before Dr. Hales and Mr. Baker, by whom it was introduced to Lord Romney and Lord Folkestone, who warmly patronized the institution.

In March 1754, they met at Rathmell's Coffeehouse, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden. Their first premium for the best drawing by boys and girls under fourteen years of age was £15; but as the subscribers were then too few in number to raise the proposed sum, the two above-named noblemen made good a considerable deficiency. They next met at the Circulating Library, in Crane Court, Fleet Street, and on the 10th of January 1755 at Peele's Coffeehouse, where the first premium of £5 for the best drawing by boys under the age of fourteen was adjudged to Mr. Richard Cosway.

[43] "Swift's Laputa tailor made all his clothes by mathematical rules, and there was no objection to them,—except that they never fitted those for whom they were made."

[44] Little did Hogarth imagine that a man lived in his own time, who, by a great commercial enterprise, should awaken the spirit of the nation to historical and poetical paintings from the drama of Shakspeare. This drama has been a school for the representation of all the passions, and opened to the artist a new mine of rich materials for displaying the mirror of life in the colours of nature. The Shakspeare Gallery has been followed by undertakings of a similar description, and, all united, have afforded a patronage to the arts which had been vainly sought for among the nobility, and given to such painters as had the power, a fair opportunity of confuting the visionary assertion, that it was not possible for an Englishman to paint a good historical picture.

[45] How far Hogarth's prediction has been fulfilled, by the repentance of some painters who may have been thus dragged into the temple of taste, those painters only can determine.

[46] The hope of the arts is in the patronage of the sovereign.

[47] A great personage once remarked that sculpture was too cold and chilling for this climate.

[48] What shall we say of these, if fame is denied to the living?

[49] On Mr. Lane's death they became the property of his nephew, Colonel Cawthorn; and on the 5th of February 1797, were sold by auction at Christie's room, and purchased by Mr. Angerstein for one thousand guineas.

It has frequently been the fate of painters, as well as poets, to have their works disregarded until the authors were out of the hearing of praise or censure. Young, in his Love of Fame, speaking of the value which a writer's death gave to his productions, neatly enough concludes with an allusion to Tonson the bookseller:

"This truth sagacious Tonson knew full well,

And starv'd his authors that their works might sell."

[50] Such is the date both in his MS. and the preface to the Analysis, though under the print he has engraven, "Se ipse pinxit et sculpsit, 1749." It is probable that in the first instance he meant to speak of the painting it was taken from, which is now in the possession of Mr. Angerstein.

[51] To this he evidently alludes in giving the well-known story of Columbus breaking the egg as a subscription-receipt to his Analysis of Beauty.

[52] Sir Joshua Reynolds, whose lectures are, generally speaking, the best rules conveyed in the best language, in his discourse, read December 11th, 1769, acknowledges "that old pictures celebrated for their colouring are often so changed by dirt and varnish, that we ought not to wonder if they do not appear equal to their reputation in the eyes of unexperienced painters or young students." But he asserts "that an artist whose judgment is matured by long observation considers rather what the picture once was than what it is at present. He has acquired a power by habit of seeing the brilliancy of tints through the cloud by which it is obscured."

Don Quixote, through the cloud of dirt and deformity which obscured a vulgar country wench, discovered the brilliant beauties of that peerless princess, the Lady Dulcinea del Toboso! Such is the power of enchantment.

[53] I do not know what Hogarth here alludes to; perhaps to some figure that he had threatened to paint as an exemplification of his system.

[54] In this notice of the writers by whom he was attacked, he particularly alludes to the North Briton, No. 17. As to the crooked compliments paid him by his brethren in art, they were numerous indeed.

Among his papers I found a tolerably spirited drawing in pen and ink, entitled "A Christmas Gambol from Leicester Square to Westminster Hall," representing the artist with ass's ears, stripped, and tied to a cart's tail, and an old fellow with a long wig and cat-o'-nine-tails in his hand, lashing his naked back, and exclaiming, "You'll write books, will ye!" A barber's block, fixed on a straight pole, is stuck at the head of the cart, and labelled, "Perpendicular and beautiful blockhead." The horse is led by a vulgar drayman, whose locks being so dishevelled as to form a kind of glory, are inscribed, "Lines of beauty." Over the head of the painter is this motto: "'Twere better a millstone had been tied about thy neck, and (THOU) cast into the sea."

The following specimen of polite satire and curious orthography crowns the whole:—

"N.B.—Speedily will be published, an apology, in quarto, called Beauty's Defiance to Charicature; with a very extraordinary frontispiece, a just portraiture (printed on fool's-cap paper), and descriptive of the punishment that ought to be inflicted on him that dare give false and unnatural descriptions of beauty, or charicature great personages; it being an illegal as well as a mean practice; at the same time flying in the face of all regular bred gentlemen painters, sculptures, architects—in fine—arts and sciences."

Numerous prints were published in ridicule of his system and himself.

In a set of engravings, entitled "The New Dunciad, done with a view of fixing the fluctuating ideas of taste, dedicated to his friend Beauty's Analyzer," I find several prints with mottoes, which, in most vile and vulgar phrase, ridiculed both author and book. Some of them are not destitute of humour; but all would ere now have been consigned to oblivion, had not they been occasionally collected as relatives to Hogarth. One of them is entitled "Pugg's Graces, etched from his ORIGINAL daubing."

In this the artist is represented at his easel, with Lomazzo in his pocket, and with a satyr's feet (one of which rests on some copies of his Analysis), and painting the picture of "Pharaoh's Daughter." He is accompanied by a fat and a lean connoisseur; the former shows evident marks of admiration, but the latter holds the Analysis in his left hand, and appears rather puzzled. A figure in the background, who, to show that he is a judge, is arrayed in a gown, a band, and ample periwig, shows evident marks of disgust. Three naked and most filthy female figures, one of them fat as was Bright of Malden, and another tall and thin as a splinter of the Monument, are intended to represent "Pugg's graceless Graces." One of these beauties rests her foot on a box inscribed, "For the March presented to the Foundling Hospital, with a gilded frame for the admiration of the public." The other is seated on a chest of drawers, on which are written under the word FOLLY, "Bid for by Pugg's friends, £50, £100, £120." This most pointed piece of wit evidently alludes to the auction of "Marriage à la Mode," which has been already noticed. On the upper part of the print is a head, entitled "A modern cherubin," with a bag-wig on, and a stick bent into a waving line in his mouth, a satyr holding a medallion, on which is a head with a cap and bells, and many other curious allusions to the serpentine line. On the floor are a pair of stays, a pair of boots, a pair of candlesticks, etc. etc., allusive to the prints to the Analysis. Beneath is a grotesque figure of a devil, with a little incubus, masks, etc., holding in his hand a piece of paper, which seems a leaf of the book, and is inscribed, "To be continued."

A. C. Invt. et Sculp.—Published according to Act of Parliament, 1753-4.

On the back of this delicate satire is printed the following address:—

"TO THE PUBLIC.

"I propose to publish by subscription an Analysis of the Sun, in which I will show the constituent parts of which it is composed, and of which it ought to have been composed.

"I will compute exactly its magnitude and quantity of matter, both as it is, and as it ought to have been constructed.

"As to the supposed motion of the sun or earth, I shall prove that Ptolemy and Copernicus were neither of them right in any part of their conjectures; and that consequently Kepler, Des Cartes, Cassini, Leibnitz, and Sir Isaac Newton are absolutely wrong.

"I will likewise refute that vulgar error, that the sun, with respect to our earth, is the cause of light and heat; and I will show how they are caused.

"I will prove that the figure of our earth is an inverted . And lastly, I will demonstrate that their systems show nothing of my line of beauty.

"This work will be printed on a new invented fool's-cap paper, at half a guinea to subscribers; but to those who do not subscribe, it will be fifteen shillings.

"Subscriptions will be taken in by the etcher of this plate, and at my house, at the sign of the Harlot's Head in Leicester Fields.

"N.B.—It will be in vain for astronomers, foreign or domestic, to crowd my house for information in their art; I grant them leave to subscribe, which is all the favour they are to expect from me.

"W. H."

In a well-etched print which, on a monumental stone placed in the corner, the engraver has chosen to denominate "A self-conceited arrogant dauber, grovelling in vain to undermine the ever-sacred temple of the best painters, sculptors, architects, etc., in imitation of the impious Herostratus, who with sacrilegious flame destroyed the temple of Diana to perpetuate his name to posterity."

We have here a very rich and well-imagined column, the base ornamented with historical bas-relief; and between a serpent, which is spirally twisted round a circular pillar, are portraits of painters, sculptors, etc. At the bottom of this, on his knees, and still with satyr's legs and feet, and a pen stuck in his hat, the artist has represented Hogarth; who, attended by a well-dressed connoisseur in the character of his torch-bearer, accompanied by his favourite dog, and armed with his palette knife, is grubbing up whatever he can find under it. No. 3, the inscription informs us, is "A satyr ready to lash the scribbler away;" and by the same authority we learn that No. 4 are "Geese," which being placed close to this emulator of the fame of Erostratus, "greedily swallows whatever he can rake up with his palette knife," etc. etc. etc. The print is enriched with cypress trees, capitals, well-formed vases, and superb edifices; the whole (for it is a night scene) is lighted up by the temple of Diana in flames. Beneath it is the waving line in a small triangle, and the following verses:—

"The vile Ephesian, to obtain

A name—a temple fires;

Observe, friend H—g—th, 'twas in vain,

He had not his desires.

You might with reason, sure, expect

Your fate would be the same;

Men first thy labours will neglect,

Next quite forget thy name."

One nauseous delineation is entitled, "The Artist in his own Taste;" and another, "The Author run mad." In one he is represented as "A mountebank, demonstrating to his admiring audience that crookedness is most beautiful;" and in another of a larger size, entitled "The Burlesquer Burlesqued," depicted with satyr's legs, painting what the designer calls "A history piece, suitable to the painter's capacity, from a Dutch manuscript." This history piece is a copy of the Dutch delineation of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, by pointing a blunderbuss at his head, with an angel hovering over the figures, etc. The lives of Rembrandt, Rubens, Vandyke, and other eminent painters, are ingeniously imagined to be torn in pieces to make a window-blind for the author of the Analysis of Beauty; which book, with allusions to it, are displayed in different parts of the print, and in a storied border at the bottom it appears to be selling for waste paper.

Of this engraving, the satire of which is principally levelled at the burlesque "Paul before Felix," there are two editions; the first, for the more extensive circulation of Hogarth's fame, and the benefit of such foreigners as do not understand English, has an explanation in French.

[55] The Doctor's orthography is adhered to.

[56] Mr. Emlyn, of Windsor, who in 1782 published A Proposition for a New Order in Architecture, thus divides them: "The Doric was composed on the system of manly figure and strength, of robust and Herculean proportions; the Ionic, on the model of the easy, delicate, and simple graces of female beauty, to which the Corinthian on a similar design adapted a system of more artificial and complicated elegance."

[57] Among Hogarth's papers I found the following notice, in which he evidently glances at Athenian Stuart:—

"Now in hand, and will be published in about two months' time, a short addenda or supplement to the Analysis of Beauty, wherein, by the doctrine of varying lines, it will plainly be shown that a man who had never seen or heard of Roman architecture might, by adhering to these lines, produce new and original forms.

"The number of pompous and expensive books of architecture which have been lately published, consist of little more than examples of the variations that were made among the ancients; and nice and useless disputes about which were the most elegant, without assigning any other reason for their choice than the authority of the columns they have measured, which gives them no other merit than that of mere pattern drawers."

[58] This quotation is from p. 130, and refers to two heads in the second plate, Nos. 108 and 9, one of which has a slight tendency to a smile, and the other has a broad grin. The head here copied, in point of character, comes between them.

[59] This is copied from the MS. of the Analysis, where he had made the drawings of the "Round and Square Heads," which he evidently intended to have introduced in his plate.

[60] "Cleop. Bear'st thou her face in mind?
Is't long or round?

"Mess. Round even to faultiness.

"Cleop. For the most part, they are foolish that are so."

[61] This truth is amply verified in the epistle above quoted:

"Oh, lasting as thy colours may they shine,

Free as thy stroke, yet faultless as thy line!

New graces yearly like thy works display,

Soft without weakness, without glaring gay;

Led by some rule that guides but not constrains,

And finish'd more through happiness than pains."

In what light can we consider the character painted by the bard when we compare it with the pictures painted by the artist? It has been truly said, that "the poet has enshrined the feeble talents of the painter in the lucid amber of his glowing lines."

The conclusion of his epitaph on Sir Godfrey Kneller affords another notable example:—

"Living, great Nature fear'd he might outvie

Her works; and dying, fears herself may die."

[62] Were the head of the "Satyr of the Wood" (No. 3) close shaved, and dignified with a clerical periwig, it would bear a strong resemblance to Sir Joshua Reynolds' portrait of the author of Tristram Shandy.

[63] Which he is said to have caricatured in this plate.

[64]

"Sing—we will drink nothing but Lipari wine."—Rehearsal.

[65] The last paragraph in his preface, p. 10, begins as follows:—

"That perspective is an essential requisite to a good painter, is attested by all our most eminent artists, and confirmed by almost every author who has wrote upon painting. Nay, the very term 'painting' implies perspective; for to draw a good picture is to draw the representation of nature as it appears to the eye; and to draw the perspective representation of any object, is to draw the representation of that object as it appears to the eye. Therefore the terms 'painting' and 'perspective' seem to be synonymous, though I know there is a critical difference between the words. I would not be understood to mean that a person is always to follow the rigid rules of perspective, for there are some cases in which it may be necessary to deviate from them; but then he must do it with modesty, and for some good reason, as we have shown in the course of this work. Nor would I be thought to desire the artist to make use of scale or compasses upon all occasions, and to draw out every line and point to a mathematical exactness, as the design of this work is quite the reverse: it is to teach the general rules of perspective, and to enforce the practice of it by easy and almost self-evident principles; to assist the judgment and to direct the hand, and not to perplex either by unnecessary lines or dry theorems."

The publication of this drew forth Mr. Highmore, who, in the preface of a pamphlet with the following title, now become very scarce, gave his decided opposition to the system:—

"A Critical Examination of those two Paintings on the ceiling of Whitehall, in which Architecture is introduced, so far as relates to the Perspective, together with the discussion of a question which has been the subject of debate among painters. Written many years since, but now first published, by J. Highmore. Printed for Nourse, 1754."

The question Mr. Highmore professes to discuss is by himself stated as follows, viz.:—

"Whether a range of columns, standing on a line parallel to the picture, ought to be painted according to the strict rules of perspective; that is, whether those columns, in proportion as they recede from the centre of the picture, should be drawn broader than that directly opposite to the eye, as the rules require; or whether (because they really in nature appear less, in proportion as they are more distant) they ought not to be made less, or at most, equal to each other in the picture?...

"Mr. Kirby says, p. 70 of his first part: 'Since the fallacies of vision are so many and great, etc., it seems reasonable not to comply with the strict rules of mathematical perspective, in some particular cases (as in this before us), but to draw the representations of objects as they appear to the eye,' etc. But I would ask, How? By guess, or by some rule? And if by any, by what rule are they to be drawn contrary to, or different from, the strict mathematical perspective rules?"

In reply to these and many other strictures contained in the preface, Hogarth wrote some remarks to Mr. Kirby, in which he asks, "Whether an oval or egg can be the true representation of a sphere or ball? or whether buildings should be drawn by any such rule as would make them appear tumbling down, and be allowed to be truly represented, because the designer of them is able to show how a spectator may, in half an hour's time, be placed at such a point as would make them all appear upright? as by a like trick or contrivance the oval may be foreshortened so as to appear a circle."

He further asks, "Would a carpenter allow fourteen inches to be the true representation of a foot-rule, since in no situation whatever can the eye possibly see it so?"

Again: "Did ever any history-painter widen or distort his figures as they are removed from the centre of his picture? Or would he draw a file of musqueteers in that manner, when the last man in the rank would be broader than high? Why would he then serve a poor column or pedestal thus, when, poor dumb things, they cannot help themselves? And are all objects exempt from the rules of perspective except buildings? Did Highmore ever so much as dream of an intervening plane when he had been drawing a family piece with four or five people in a row, so as to distort the bodies and forms of those who had the misfortune to be placed nearest to the side of the frame? And what satisfaction would it be to his customers to tell them they were only disposed by the true rules of perspective, and might be seen in their proper shape again if they would give themselves the trouble of looking through a pin hole at a certain distance, which, by learning perspective, they might be able to find in half an hour's time; or, to save themselves that trouble, they might get a painter to lug them about till their eye was brought to the proper point. He then observes, that he would not have the intervening plane wholly rejected, but that it should be laid aside when it begins to do mischief, or is of no use; for it is no doubt as necessary to painters of architecture as scaffolding is to builders; but, like the latter, is always to be taken away when the work comes to be finished; and every defect that either may have occasioned must be corrected by the eye, which is capable to judge of the most complicated objects, perspectively true, where the dry mathematics of the art are left far behind as incapable of lending the least assistance.

"These things our mathematicians are strangers to,—therefore, in my opinion, have rated them too high. Dr. Swift thought mere Philos a ridiculous sort of people, as appears by a song of his on two very remarkable ones—Whiston and Ditton. I forget it particularly, but it was about the longitude being mist on by Whiston, and not better hit on by Ditton: sing Whiston, etc. etc. Ditton has wrote a good book on speculative perspective."

Hogarth then alludes to Highmore's critique on Rubens' ceiling at Whitehall, and asks, "What is it but what almost every child knows, even without the knowledge of perspective? viz. that parallel lines always meet in a point, and that he has with penetration discovered. Oh, wonderful discovery! that Rubens, unskilfully, has kept them parallel in his column, to embellish which he has tacked two fibs: one, that the error was owing to the drawing them as they would appear to the eye; the other, that the historical figures are truly in perspective; whereas King James, the principal, has a head widened or distorted, though it goes off from the eye almost as much as he would have the side columns, which are the subjects of controversy."

[66] Though Mr. Malton's description is built on fancy as much as Mr. Hogarth's design, it must be acknowledged that some of his criticism is just. With respect to the column, nothing either elevated or grand has yet been produced by violently deviating from the first models. Mr. Emlyn, in the year 1782, published a proposition for a sixth order, which in some points resembles Hogarth's. The plan of his column is to represent the particular character of our English chivalry in its most illustrious order—the order of the Garter: it is to be composed of the single trunks of trees; his capitals are to be copied from the plumage of the knights' caps, with the Ionic volutes interwoven and bound together in the front, with the star of the order between them. The fluting of the trunk is cabled, and the cables hollow and filled with the English arrow, the feathered end rising out of each of them. The ornament of the frieze over the columns is a plume of three ostrich feathers, etc. etc. etc.

Sir Joshua Reynolds, in his discourse delivered December 10, 1776, gives the following strong reasons against any new order succeeding:—

"Though it is from the prejudice we have in favour of the ancients, who have taught us architecture, that we had adopted likewise their ornaments; and though we are satisfied that neither nature nor reason are the foundation of those beauties which we imagine we see in that art; yet if any one, persuaded of this truth, should therefore invent new orders of equal beauty, which we will suppose to be possible, yet they would not please; nor ought he to complain, since the old has that great advantage of having custom and prejudice on its side. In this case we leave what has every prejudice in its favour, to take that which will have no advantage over what we have left, but novelty, which soon destroys itself, and at any rate is but a weak antagonist against custom."

[67] "On our own stage we have seen dances in which the ingenious composer thought he represented the four seasons, the four elements, and the five senses. These jigs conveyed about as much meaning as dancing odes or dancing sermons."

[68] Mr. Rouquet, enamel painter to the King of France, in his book on The Present State of the Arts in England, printed for Nourse in 1755, after enumerating chasing, engraving, painting, sculpture, architecture, etc., as arts that are practised in England, concludes with a chapter on the Art of Cookery, which he thus gravely introduces:—

"There is an art, the only one that can justly pretend to unite pleasure with absolute utility; but this art, born in servitude, to which it is still condemned, notwithstanding its extreme importance, is reckoned ignoble, for which reason some perhaps will be surprised at seeing me give it a place in this work; I mean the art of preparing aliments."

[69] This is a palpable hit at Handel. In a caricatured portrait, entitled "The Charming Brute," this great composer is delineated sitting on a hogshead with the profile of a boar, a bill of fare, and other emblems of voluptuousness scattered round him. Published March 21, 1754. Motto on a scroll, "I am myself alone," and under the print these lines:—

"The figure's odd, yet who would think,

Within this tomb of meat and drink

There dwells the soul of soft desires,

And all that harmony inspires?

Can contrast such as this be found

Upon the globe's extensive round?

There can! yon hogshead is his seat,

His sole diversion is to eat."

When Handel had once a large party to dinner, the cloth being removed, he introduced plain port. Having drank four or five glasses with his guests, he suddenly started up—exclaimed—"I have a thought!" and stalked out of the room, to which after a short absence he returned. Having drank a few more glasses he uttered the same sentence—again retreated, and again returned. It was naturally supposed that he wished to commit to paper some idea that struck him at the moment, and passed over; but, when in less than an hour he a third time started—growled out—"I have a thought!" and a third time left the company, one of the gentlemen privately followed, and traced him into another apartment, where, on looking through the keyhole, he saw this great master of music kneel down to a hamper of champagne, that he might more conveniently reach out a flask, which having nearly finished, he returned to his friends!

[70] In Hogarth's time the forms of nature were tortured and disguised by stiff stays: the ladies of the present day are not guilty of this error. As to the bloom of Circassia, the less that is said about it the better.

[71] However unimportant Hogarth thought the cut of a coat, certain adepts in the art, about two years since, published a half-guinea book, on the scientific acquisitions necessary to make a perfect tailor!

"This day is published, price 10s. 6d., The Tailor's Complete Guide, or a Comprehensive Analysis of Beauty and Elegance of Dress; containing rules for cutting out garments of every kind, and fitting any person with the greatest accuracy and precision. Also plain directions how to avoid the errors of the trade in misfitting, and pointing out the method of rectifying what may be done amiss; to which is added a description to cut out and make the patent plastic habits and clothes without the usual seams, now in the highest estimation with the nobility and gentry, according to the patent granted by his Majesty; the whole concerted and devised by a society of adepts in the profession.

⁂ "This work was undertaken solely for the benefit of the trade, to instruct the rising generation, and perfectly to complete them in the art and science of cutting out clothes. The copperplates consist of each separated part, which will on the first view convince the uninformed mind that with a little attention he may be a complete tailor."

[72] Hogarth might conceive that, by rendering the habits of his early figures more conformable to the fashion of the times, when they were altered he improved them. Collectors are of a different opinion, though it must be acknowledged that, in Plate IV. of "The Rake's Progress," the humour is much heightened by introducing a group of vulgar minor gamblers in the place of the shoeblack.

[73] The picture was exhibited at Spring Gardens in the year 1761, with the title of "Piquet, or Virtue in Danger," and is still in the collection of the nobleman for whom it was painted.

It may fairly be considered as a moral lesson against gaming. The clock denotes five in the morning. The lady has lost her money, jewels, a miniature of her husband, and the half of a £500 bank note, which, by a letter lying on the floor, she appears to have recently received from him. In fine, all is lost except her honour; and in this dangerous moment she is represented perplexed, agitated, and irresolute. A print of it has lately been finely engraved by Mr. Cheesman.

[74] In the little memorandum book from which I extracted this, Hogarth has inserted the following note (without the translation) from Horace. I do not produce it as a proof that he was a Latin scholar, but suppose that the lines were pointed out by some literary friend, and he thus applied them:—

"Segnius irritant animos dimissa per aures,

Quam quæ sunt oculis commissa fidelibus."

"What we hear,

With weaker passion will affect the ear,

Than when the faithful eye beholds the part."

—Francis.

[75] The artist requested his widow would not sell it during her lifetime for less than £500. She abided by his injunction. Since her death it was put up to auction at Greenwood's rooms, and purchased by Messrs. Boydell: it is in their possession now.

I some years since saw a picture of "Lucretia," by Domenichino, in the collection of Mr. Welbore Ellis Agar, which in air, attitude, and expression, bore a strong resemblance to Hogarth's "Sigismunda."

[76] "The Altar-piece to St. Mary Redcliffe's, Bristol," for which he received five hundred pounds, and the "Paul before Felix," painted for Lincoln's-Inn Hall.

[77] That this picture was much abused is certain, but it is equally certain that the painter had occasionally some consolatory compliments. Robert Lloyd, in one of his fables, asserts that "Sigismunda"

"Shall urge a bold and proper claim

To level half the ancient fame."

A writer in the Public Advertiser, March 7, 1761, honours it with the following stanzas:—

"Upon seeing the picture of 'Sigismunda,' painted by Hogarth.

"Antiquity, be dumb! no longer boast

Arts yet unrivall'd or invention lost:

From Greece, whose taste was fashion'd into law,

From far-fam'd Greece, one instance let us draw.

Atrides' grief Timanthes strove to paint,

But found his art was foil'd, his colours faint:

A veil conceal'd the inexpressive face,

And what was want of power was call'd 'a grace.'

In Sigismund the mind no want supplies,

The painter trusts his genius to your eyes;

Passion's warm tints beneath his pencil glow,

And from the canvas starts the living woe.

At length be just—throw prejudice aside;

The modern shows—what the Greek could but hide.

Then from the ancient take the palm away,

And crown the greatest Artist of his day."

—Howard.

[78] N.B.—At Sir Luke Schaub's sale, Sir Richard Grosvenor bid four hundred pounds for a less picture, said to be a "Correggio," but really painted by an obscure French artist.

[79] It appears by the subscription-book that it closed March 26. During this time there were fifty subscribers at half a guinea each; the receipts were given on the print of "Time Smoking a Picture." The first name is that of Dr. Garnier, for two prints; the last, who also subscribes for two prints, is Mr. Thomas Hollis. This gentleman would not receive back the guinea he had paid, and it was given to a public charity. Among the names are the late Philip Thicknesse, Dr. Hunter, Samuel Curteis of Wapping, and David Garrick; against each of the subscriptions is marked, "Money returned."

Under the direction of Hogarth, Mr. Basire made an etching from "Sigismunda," but it was never finished. A drawing in oil was made from it by Mr. Edwards, and it was a few years since engraved in mezzotinto by Dunkerton. Mr. Ridley engraved it for Messrs. Boydell, and a reduced copy is in the first volume of Hogarth Illustrated.

[80] The chosen band who then directed the storm, having dragged poor "Sigismunda" into their political vortex, the cannibal caricaturists of the day tore her in pieces as a carcase for the hounds, and rioted over her mangled remains.

One of these political slaughtermen, in a print entitled "The Bruiser Triumphant," describes Sigismunda in the character of a harlot blubbering over a bullock's heart. In another, elegantly inscribed "Tit for Tat," Hogarth is represented painting Wilkes' portrait, and a bloated and filthy figure displayed in the background baptized Sigismunda. Many other wretched and contemptible squibs were hurled about on the same occasion. Besides this public abuse, some of the anonymous versifiers of the day, who were not yet important enough to figure in a newspaper or flutter in a magazine, condescended to notice his political errors, and for the gratification of the artist transmitted their effusions to Leicester Fields.

The following stanzas I found among his other papers, addressed

"To the Author of the Times.

"Why, Billy, in the vale of life,

Show so much rancour, spleen, and strife?

Why, Billy, at a statesman's whistle,

Drag dirty loads and feed on thistle?

Did any of the long-ear'd tribe

E'er swallow half so mean a bribe?

Pray have you no sinister end,

Thus to abuse the nation's friend?

His country's and his monarch's glory,

Who prais'd no man as Whig or Tory.

His country is his dearest mother,

And every honest man his brother.

Not so your patron can appear,

He buys up scrip, and stops the arrear;

His practice still, in every station,

To serve himself and starve the nation.

Then, Billy, in the vale of life,

Desist from all this noise and strife;

For though the hint perhaps is bold,

I tell thee thou art growing old.

Read coolly, o'er thy evening glass,

Toledo's bishop in Gil Blas."

Christening the author of the North Briton "his country's and his monarch's glory," leads us to suspect that the ingenious gentleman who fabricated the above rhymes had some little portion of party prejudice. The Quaker who wrote the annexed letter and epigram, which, as well as the verses that follow, were amongst Hogarth's manuscripts, was moved by a very different spirit:—

"Of the eighth month, the 20th day, 1763.

"Friend Hogarth,—I am one of those people, by a sort of disrespectful appellation, called Quakers; for we strive to abound in the milk of human kindness, and prefer the dove to the serpent. I know thee not but by thy works and fame as an ingenious artist in thine own way. I have seen thy compositions and handy works, and think them not only ingenious, but moral, and even more than dramatic, perfectly epic; so that I think thou deservest the character of the Epic painter, which I hereby bestow upon thee, and by which thou shalt be distinguished in future generations; for if I do not much mistake the matter, thy name will be had in honour when thine adversaries shall have perished,—I would have said, and shall stink,—but that they do already. I have hereby sent thee an epigram, such as my spirit dictated to me. I fear it hath too much in it of the gall of bitterness. But I will tell thee, friend Hogarth, I am a man of some small property and authority, having cattle under me; and when the brutes are poisoned, I cure them with wormwood. Let not thy noble spirit that is in thee be diverted from its true and masterly turn of exposing licentiousness, vice, hypocrisy, faction, and apostasy.—Thine in all brotherly and good wishes,

"Ephraim Knox."

An Epigram.

To the Rev. Charles Churchill, Esquire, etc.

"Thou boast'st, vain Churchill, with thy gray goose quill,

Thou'st kill'd, or surely wilt poor Hogarth kill.

Alas! he (with the world) will only smile

At self-importance in a frippery style.

'Churchill, stand forth!'—I call thee not my friend;—

The sober dictates of my lines attend.

"Wast thou, like Hogarth, in thine own way good,

Thou in the reading-desk might'st yet have stood;

Though poor,—perhaps a reputable curate,—

Sad! that thy stubborn heart is yet obdurate.

Without fair hope of pension or of place,

To make a shipwreck of divinest grace!"

—Ephraim Knox.

To Mr. Hogarth.

"Brighthelmstone, July 9, 1763.

"Sir,—You see the effects of the salt waters here; they incline us to scribble by way of amusement. I have sent you the following stanzas, which you may print or do what you please with:—

To the Rev. C. Churchill.

"Non ut pictura poesis."

"Dear Churchill, what ill-fated hour

Has put thee into Hogarth's power?

This railing shows how much you're hurt,

While Hogarth nothing meant but sport;

Transmitting unto future times

What might not live in Churchill's rhymes,—

The perfect hero, poet, sage!

The pride, the wonder of the age!

That form,—which eating Peers admired,—

Which heaven-born liberty inspir'd!

Which keeps our ministers in awe,

And is from justice screen'd by law!

"The sad resource to which you're driven,

Appears by your appeal to heaven:

A place ne'er thought on once before,—

Withdraw th' appeal and give it o'er.

You must proceed by different ways;

Your only court's the Common Pleas.

"Horace was wrong when once he said,

Hogarth and he were of a trade.

No varying verse, howe'er divine,

Can match with Raphael's stronger line.

The pencil, like contracted light,

Strikes with superior force the sight.

"Churchill, be wise: in time retire,

While Hogarth yet suspends his fire;

There's something in thee like a spell,

Though we can't love,—we wish thee well.

You ne'er can wish to purchase shame,

By driving on a losing game:

His feeble hand, though you despise it,

Will make you tremble, should he rise it:

Already has his fancy hit on

A frontispiece for the North Briton;

Where in full view the virtuous pair

Shall thus their various merits share.

"Thy rose and Bible thrown aside,

And the long cassock's tatter'd pride;

His liberal hand shall in their stead

Place nettles circling round thy head,

Entwin'd with thistles fully blown,

To wear these honours all thy own!

"Next, round thy friend, and all in taste,

See every social virtue plac'd;

Fair Truth and modest Candour joined,—

Those softer emblems of the mind;

Faction expiring by his pen,

And Loyalty restor'd again;

Whilst he regards not this or that,

Secure of T—— and of P——.

"The piece thus finish'd for our view,

The lines correct, the likeness true,

Hogarth, ensur'd of future fame,

Shall consecrate to Churchill's name."

[81] I think the reader will agree with me, that such assertions as the following demanded an apology:—

"His (Hogarth's) works are his history. As a painter he had but slender merit; in colouring he proved no greater a master: his force lay in expression, not in tints and chiaroscuro."—Anecdotes of Painting, vol. iv. p. 160.

How was it possible for Mr. Walpole to have written the foregoing lines after having seen the pictures of "Marriage à la Mode"?

[82] The last volume was not published till October 9, 1780, though printed in 1771.—Advertisement to vol. iv.

[83] The reader is referred to Vol. II. Plate 70, where the picture is given in its perfected state.

[84] Archbishop Tillotson remarks in one of his sermons, that Hocus Pocus is derived from Hoc est Corpus.

[85] "This new dispensation (Methodism) is a composition of enthusiasm, superstition, and imposture. When the blood and spirits run high, inflaming the brain and imagination, it is most properly enthusiasm, which is religion run mad. When low and dejected, causing groundless terrors, or the placing the great duty of man in little observances, it is superstition, which is religion scared out of its senses. When any fraudulent dealings are made use of, and any wrong projects carried on under the mask of piety, it is imposture, and may be termed religion turned hypocrite."—Lavington's Enthusiasm of Methodists and Papists Compared, vol. i. p. 79.

[86] Mahomet being once asked, What is this Alla, whom thou declarest unto the people? with much more exalted and sublime ideas, replied, "It is he who derives being from himself; from whom all others derive their being; and to whom there is no likeness in the whole extent of space."

[87] Bishop Lavington, after quoting many of the legends of St. Catherine and St. Teresa, and the journals of modern Methodists, which in a very similar style describe their divine love, concludes as follows:—

"'Tis true indeed, as the legendaries own, that St. Catherine was slandered as a fond and light woman, and St. Teresa kept such bad company, that most persons concluded celestial visions were not compatible with her kind of life; but all this may be reconciled; for these excesses of the spiritual and carnal affections are nearer allied than is generally thought, arising from the same irregular emotions of the blood and animal spirits; and the patient is hurried on either way, according to the nature of the object; and I am much mistaken, and so is history too, if some of the warmest and most enthusiastic pretenders to the love of God have not entertained the same violence of passion (not quite so spiritual) for their neighbours."—Lavington's Enthusiasm of Papists and Methodists Compared, vol. i. p. 57.

[88] Let it not be supposed that because the female mendicant and her handcuffed neighbour are half naked, they are in any degree ashamed. "Among the Papists there are religious orders who profess to prefer food, bed, and raiment of the vilest sort for their greater spiritual proficiency; and St. Philip Nerius was such a lover of poverty, that he frequently besought Almighty God to bring him to such a state as to stand in need of a penny, and find nobody that would give him one."—Lavington's Enthusiasm, etc.

[89] What renders this still more curious is, that the word signifies "oxen."

[90] When this circumstance was once mentioned to Dr. Rundle, as a striking instance of Abraham's obedience, the Doctor in reply said, that however it might be generally understood,—if he had been a Justice of Peace in Abraham's parish, he would have committed him till he found sufficient bail for his good behaviour. Some good-natured friend repeated this speech to Queen Caroline, and it retarded Rundle's promotion for many years.

[91] Of the plate in its first state there are only two impressions, both of them in the possession of the Editor, who has published a correct copy of the same size, which may be had from him or from Messrs. Boydell.

On the margin of these two prints Hogarth has inserted slight pen-and-ink sketches of "A Monk as a Windmill," "the Hopper of a Mill," etc. These are copied in the annexed plate of reference, and in a degree elucidated by the following passage in Burnet's Travels through Switzerland, etc., p. 232:—

"Over a popish altar at Worms is a picture one would think invented to ridicule transubstantiation. There is a windmill, and the Virgin throws Christ into the hopper, and he comes out at the eye of the mill all in wafers, which some priest takes up to give to the people. This is so coarse an emblem, that one would think it was too gross even for Laplanders; but a man that can swallow transubstantiation will digest this likewise."

Of painters presuming to explain the Trinity by a triangle, Hogarth and Swift thought alike:

"If God should please to reveal unto us this great mystery of the Trinity, or some other mysteries in our holy religion, we should not be able to understand them unless He would bestow on us some new faculties of the mind."—Swift.

[92]

"For eating and drinking we know the best rules,

Our fathers and mothers were blockheads and fools;

'Tis dress, cards, and dancing, alone should engage

This highly enlighten'd and delicate age."

[93] Since the publication of the first edition of this volume, a print of a larger size has been copied from the picture by Mr. T. Philips.

[94] These raptures were expensive. The lavish profusion which our people of rank then displayed in their presents to this band of quavering exotics is scarcely credible. The Daily Advertiser gives a list of some of the contributors, and states Farinelli's share at more than £2000 a year; to which if we add his salary £1500 and casual presents, his annual income must have been more than four thousand pounds!

[95] See Shakspeare's Julius Cæsar and Antony and Cleopatra.

[96] Of this gentleman there is a tolerably good mezzotinto print, engraved by Kirkall from a picture by Goupy, with the following curious inscription from the Italian:—

"Renown'd Sienna gave him birth and name,

Kind Heaven his voice, and harmony his fame.

While here the great and fair their tribute bring,

The deaf may wonder whence his merits spring,

But all think Fortune just that hear him sing."

There is a portrait of Carlo Broschi Detto Farinelli, Amiconi pinxit. C. Grignion sculp. small circle.

[97] Art of Spelling, The Complete Justice, etc. This austere magistrate has been said to be intended for Sir Thomas De Veil, who raised himself from the rank of a common soldier to a station in which he made a considerable figure; but De Veil wrote French and English, and was both intelligent and active.

[98] Religious Ceremonies of all Nations, published at Amsterdam in 1735. He entitles this print, "Le Serment de la Fille qui se trouve enceinte." On the same page he has introduced a copy from Sympson's print of orator Henley christening a child, and calls it "Le Baptême Domestique."

[99] The gates of this charity were for several years open to the orphans of those who fell in the battles of their country. A great number of the children who became orphans by the battle of Minden were admitted into this Hospital.

[100] When Schalcken once painted a portrait of King William, he requested his Majesty to hold the candle; this the monarch did till the tallow ran down upon his fingers. To justify this piece of ill-breeding, the painter drew his own portrait in the same situation.

[101] The conductors of this office have printed proposals, stating their terms, etc.; but the business is sometimes transacted by individuals, through the medium of the public prints. The following advertisements are copied from the daily papers:—

Matrimony.

"A gentleman of honour and property having in his disposal at present a young lady of good family, with a fortune of sixty thousand pounds on her marrying with his approbation, would be very happy to treat with a man of fortune and family, who may think it worth his while to give the advertiser a gratuity of five thousand pounds. Direct, etc."

Matrimony.

"A gentleman who hath filled two succeeding seats in Parliament, is near sixty years of age, lives in great splendour and hospitality, and from whom a considerable estate must pass if he dies without issue, hath no objection to marry any single lady, provided the party be of genteel birth, polite manners, and five, six, seven, or eight months advanced in her pregnancy. Address to —— Brecknock, Esq., etc."—Pub. Adv., April 16, 1776.

[102] The apology here alluded to was made in a letter to the author of the Beggars' Opera, dated December 16, 1731, and ushered into the world as written by a Mr. Cleland, who had a few years before sent a letter to the publisher of the Dunciad, explaining the author's motives for writing the poem, and subjoining a list of the books in which he had been abused, etc. This Pope printed; and this, as well as the letter to Mr. Gay, it was universally believed was written by Pope. In a note to the letter to Gay, printed in the same volume with the Dunciad, the poet, after giving Mr. Cleland a very high character for diligence, punctuality, etc., concludes: "and yet for all this, the public will not allow him to be the author of this letter."

[103] Hogarth has introduced these three figures in rather a better style, in his print of "The Small Masquerade Ticket, or Burlington Gate."

[104] Mr. Pope has honoured this dignified divine with a slight stroke in the Epistle to Lord Burlington, and note on the lines—

"To rest, the cushion and soft Dean invite,

Who never mentions hell to ears polite."[105]

[105] "A reverend Dean, preaching at Court, threatened the sinner with punishment in a place he thought it not decent to name in so polite an assembly."—P.

[106] To this architectural ornament he has an unquestionable right. His Lordship (besides other buildings) designed the Dormitory at Westminster School, the Assembly Room at York, Lord Harrington's at Petersham, and General Wade's in Cork Street. The latter, though ill-contrived and inconvenient, had so beautiful a front, that Lord Chesterfield said, "As the General could not live in it at his ease, he had better take a house over against it, and look at it."

[107]

"Yet shall (my Lord) your just, your noble rules,

Fill half the land with imitating fools,

Who random drawings from your sheets shall take,

And of one beauty many blunders make."

His Lordship was then publishing copies from the designs of Palladio and Inigo Jones.

The elegant but ill-natured stanzas which allude to the Duke of Chandos, beginning, "At Timon's villa let us pass a day," everybody knows. The delicately turned compliments to Lord Burlington display the poet's art; his precepts on ornamental gardening prove his taste and judgment. I cannot resist the temptation of recalling six or eight lines to the reader's recollection, were it only to subjoin Dr. Warburton's curious note, which admirably illustrates the remark that

"A perfect judge will read each work of wit

With the same spirit that its author writ:"—

"Consult the Genius of the place in all;[108]

That tells the waters or to rise or fall;

Or helps the ambitious hill the heavens to scale,

Or scoops in circling theatre the vale;

Calls in the country, catches opening glades,

Joins willing woods, and varies shades from shades.

Now breaks or now directs th' intending lines,

Paints as you plant, and as you work designs."

[108]

THE NOTE!

"First, the Genius of the place 'tells the waters,' or only simply gives directions: then he 'helps the ambitious hill,' or is a fellow-labourer: then again, he 'scoops the circling theatre,' or works alone, or in chief. Afterwards, rising fast in our idea of dignity, he 'calls in the country,' alluding to the orders of princes in their progress, when accustomed to display all their state and magnificence. His character then grows sacred, 'he joins willing woods,' a metaphor taken from one of the offices of the priesthood, till at length he becomes a divinity, and creates, and presides over the whole."—Warburton's edit. of Pope, 1752, vol. iii. p. 285.

Would the reader wish a better specimen of the Bishop's taste!

[109] An artist in the year 1762 stole Hogarth's thunder, and aimed the bolt at the head of him who had forged it. In a print entitled "The Butifyer, or a Touch upon the Times," he is represented in the character of a shoeblack, blackening a great jack-boot, and bespattering the surrounding crowd.

Beneath is inscribed, "With what judgment ye judge, shall ye be judged."—Matt. chap. vii. ver. 2; and,

"In justice to Mr. Hogarth, the engraver of this plate declares to the public he took the hint of 'The Butifyer' from a print of Mr. Pope whitewashing Lord Burlington's gate, and at the same time bespattering the rest of the nobility."

[110] Fielding and Hogarth had in some respects similar powers and similar want of success in things for which they seemed peculiarly gifted. Admirable as was the dialogue of the comic characters in Fielding's novels, he was unable to give them stage effect; and though Hogarth saw nature in all her varieties, and gave to every face the index of their mind, he rarely succeeded in historical pictures.

[111] This etching is so nearly a fac-simile of the original, that when it was brought home Hogarth mistook it for his own drawing, which, considering of no value, he threw into the fire, whence it was snatched by Mrs. Lewis, though not before the paper was scorched.

Hogarth made a very whimsical design for Fielding's tragedy of tragedies, Tom Thumb the Great. It was engraved by Vandergucht, and is prefixed to the play published by Lowndes, etc.

[112] Mr. King, in his Observations on Ancient Castles, observes that "Lord Lovat was one of the last chieftains that preserved the rude manners and barbarous authority of the early feudal ages. He resided in a house which would be esteemed but an indifferent one for a very private plain country gentleman in England, as it had properly only four rooms on a floor, and those not large. Here, however, he kept a sort of court, and several public tables, and a numerous body of retainers always attending. His own constant residence, and the place where he always received company, even at dinner, was the very same room where he lodged; and his lady's sole apartment was her bedroom; and the only provision for the lodging of the servants and retainers was a quantity of straw, which they spread every night on the floors of the lower rooms, where the whole inferior part of the family, consisting of a very great number of persons, took up their abode!"—Archæologia, vol. iv.

[113] By a book on the table, inscribed Memoirs, Hogarth seems to allude to the manuscript.

[114] In the name by which the old peer supposed the Maiden was to be distinguished in a future age, he was mistaken. The Guillotine is an improvement of the Maiden; so that, though France has been the first to bring it into universal practice, Scotland is entitled to the whole honour of the invention.

[115] The mad peer in Pope's imitation of Horace was not very grateful to the d—d doctor:

"Who, from a patriot of distinguished note,

Blister'd and bled him to a single vote."

[116] A complete set of reduced copies from his prints are now publishing at Gottingen, with illustrations in the German and French languages.

[117] Jarvis and Smollett have strangely translated it "spindle-shanked," which by no means accords with the rest of his figure.

[118] Jarvis oddly enough translates it seven feet.

[119] Let it not be said in objection that many of the attendants are idle lookers on, and most of them laughing at their governor; for I am told a similar practice has sometimes prevailed in more regular governments.

[120] The original and scarce print from which this was copied, I owe to the kindness of Sir James Lake, Bart., who did me the honour of presenting it to me.

[121] Noble's Contin. to Grang., B. iii. p. 418.

[122] In this circumstance the artist must have been misinformed. At the fire he mentions, five of the Harlot's Progress were burnt; the sixth is now in the possession of Lord Charlemont. The eight of the Rake's Progress were not destroyed.

[123] Francis Beckford, Esq., to whom I find, by one of Hogarth's memorandums, they were sold for £88, 4s.

[124] The R must have been a mistake of the writing-engraver. Ravenet's christened names were Simon Francis.

[125] The mottoes were selected by the Reverend Arnold King.

[126] The twelve prints were originally published at 12s.

[127] So does he express himself in the MS., though the Roast Beef was published March 6, 1749, and the March, December 31, 1750.

[128] It has been said that Hogarth never went farther into France than Calais; this proves he had reached Paris.

[129] This was afterwards copied for a watch-paper.

[130] About eight years after the publication of these prints, when there was an Act in contemplation relative to the distilleries, Hogarth received the following anonymous letter:—

"December 12, 1759.

"Sir,—When genius is made subservient to public good, it does honour to the possessor, as it is expressive of gratitude to his Creator, by exerting itself to further the happiness of His creatures. The poignancy and delicacy of your ridicule has been productive of more reformation than more elaborate pieces would have effected. On the apprehension of opening the distillery, methinks I hear all good men cry, Fire!—it is therefore the duty of every citizen to try to extinguish it. Rub up, then, Gin Lane and Beer Street, that you may have the honour and advantage of bringing the two first engines to the fire; and work them manfully at each corner of the building; and instead of the paltry reward of thirty shillings allowed by Act of Parliament, receive the glorious satisfaction of having extinguished those fierce flames which threaten a general conflagration to human nature, by pouring liquid fire into the veins of the now brave Britons, whose robust fabrics will soon fall in when these dreadful flames have consumed the inside timbers and supporters.—I am, Sir, yours, etc.,

"An Englishman."

[131] Humanity and tenderness of mind were the leading characteristics of my most valued and most regretted friend Mortimer: he would not have trod on a worm; yet in painting subjects from which the common eye would revolt, he had the greatest delight.

	PAGE
Fac-simile Autograph—"The No Dedication,"	Frontispiece to
	face Title.
Dolphin Candlestick,	Title Page.
Do.(described),	123
Kent's Altar-Piece,	24
The Rape of the Lock,	26
Arms of the Duchess of Kendal,	28
Frontispiece to Artists' Catalogue,	78
Tail-Piece to Do.,	78
The Vase,	114
Do.(described),	112
Hints for a New Capital,	114
Round and Square Heads,	114
Do.(described),	116
Hercules, Henry viii., and a French Dancing-Master,	114
Do.(described),	119
Charles i., Henrietta Maria, Italian Jupiter, etc.,	124
[vi] The Dance,	124
Frontispiece to the Perspective of Architecture,	132
Taste in High Life,	180
Farinelli, Cuzzoni, and Senesino,	184
A Woman swearing her Child to a grave Citizen,	188
The Foundlings,	192
Captain Thomas Coram,	192
Frontispiece to Terræ Filius,	194
The Sepulchre,	194
The Politician,	198
The Matchmaker,	200
The Man of Taste,	202
Henry Fielding,	206
Simon Lord Lovat,	210
Nine Plates for Don Quixote:
Plate I. The First Sally in Quest of Adventure,	220
Plate II. The Innkeeper,	220
Plate III. The Funeral of Chrysostom,	222
Plate IV. The Innkeeper's Wife and Daughter administering Chirurgical Assistance to the poor Knight of La Mancha,	222
Plate V. Don Quixote seizes the Barber's Basin for Mambrino's Helmet,	224
Plate VI. Don Quixote releases the Galley Slaves,	224
Plate VII. First Interview of Don Quixote with the Knight of the Rock,	226
Plate VIII. The Curate and Barber disguising themselves to convey Don Quixote home,	226
Plate IX. Sancho's Feast,	228
[vii] Heidegger in a Rage,	230
Large Masquerade Ticket,	230
The South Sea Bubble,	238
The Lottery,	238
Masquerades and Operas—Burlington Gate,	238
Beggars' Opera Burlesqued,	242
Twelve Plates of Butler's Hudibras,	242
Just View of the British Stage,	246
Examination of Bambridge,	246
Henry viii. and Anna Bulleyn,	248
Crowns, Mitres, Maces, etc.,	246
Do.(described),	249
The Royal Masquerade,	252
Rich's Triumphant Entry,	254
Mr. Ranby's House at Chiswick,	254
Do.(described),	262
Hymen and Cupid,	254
Do.(described),	263
The Pool of Bethesda,	256
The Good Samaritan,	256
Martin Folkes, Esq.,	260
Bishop Hoadley,	262
False Perspective,	264
Inhabitants of the Moon,	264
Receipt for Print of March to Finchley,	264
The Farmer's Return,	266
[viii] Gravity,	266
Frontispieces to Tristram Shandy,	266
Four Heads from the Cartoons,	268
The Shrimp-Girl,	268
Lord Holland,	268
Earl of Charlemont,	268
The House of Commons,	270
Debates on Palmistry,	270
The Staymaker,	270
Charity in the Cellar,	270
Six Tickets,	272

James Oglethorpe, Esq., Chairman.

The Right Hon. the Lords
	{ Finch.	General Wade.
	{ Morpeth.	Humphrey Parsons, Esq.
	{ Inchequin.	Hon. Robert Byng.
	{ Percival.	Edward Houghton, Esq.
	{ Limerick.	(Judge-Advocate.)
Sir Robert Sutton.		Captain Vernon.
Sir Robert Clifton.		Charles Selwyn, Esq.
Sir Abraham Elton.		Velters Cornwall, Esq.
Sir Edward Knatchbull.		Thomas Scawen, Esq.
Sir Humphrey Herries.		Francis Child, Esq.
Hon. James Bertie.		William Hucks, Esq.
Sir Gregory Page.		Stampe Brooksbank, Esq.
Sir Archibald Grant.		Charles Withers, Esq.
Sir James Thomhill.		John La Roche, Esq.
Gyles Earle, Esq.		Mr. Thomas Martin.

HOGARTH'S WORKS: WITH LIFE AND ANECDOTAL DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS PICTURES. —◆— THIRD SERIES.

LIST OF PLATES

ADVERTISEMENT.

HOGARTH.

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

COPY OF KENT'S ALTAR-PIECE,[14]

THE RAPE OF THE LOCK.

CHAPTER II.

CAPTAIN THOMAS CORAM

CHAPTER III.

FRONTISPIECE TO THE CATALOGUE OF THE ARTISTS' EXHIBITION, 1761.

TAIL-PIECE TO THE ARTISTS' CATALOGUE.

CHAPTER IV.

THE VASE.

HINTS FOR A NEW CAPITAL.

ROUND AND SQUARE HEADS.

HERCULES, HENRY VIII., AND A FRENCH DANCING-MASTER.

CHARLES I., ITALIAN JUPITER, ETC.

THE DANCE

FRONTISPIECE TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF ARCHITECTURE.

CHAPTER V.

CORREGGIO'S SIGISMUNDA.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PRINTS, Etc.

ENTHUSIASM DELINEATED,

CREDULITY, SUPERSTITION, AND FANATICISM.

TASTE IN HIGH LIFE

FARINELLI, CUZZONI, AND SENESINO,

A WOMAN SWEARING HER CHILD TO A GRAVE CITIZEN.

THE FOUNDLINGS.

FRONTISPIECE TO TERRÆ FILIUS.

THE SEPULCHRE.

THE POLITICIAN.

THE MATCHMAKER.

THE MAN OF TASTE.

HENRY FIELDING.

SIMON LORD LOVAT.

NINE PRINTS FOR DON QUIXOTE.

PLATE I. THE FIRST SALLY IN QUEST OF ADVENTURES.

PLATE II. THE INNKEEPER.

PLATE III. THE FUNERAL OF CHRYSOSTOM.

PLATE IV. THE INNKEEPER'S WIFE AND DAUGHTER ADMINISTERING CHIRURGICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA.

PLATE V. DON QUIXOTE SEIZES THE BARBER'S BASIN FOR MAMBRINO'S HELMET.

PLATE VI. DON QUIXOTE RELEASES THE GALLEY SLAVES.

PLATE VII. THE FIRST INTERVIEW OF THE VALOROUS KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA WITH THE UNFORTUNATE KNIGHT OF THE ROCK.

PLATE VIII. THE CURATE AND BARBER DISGUISING THEMSELVES TO CONVEY DON QUIXOTE HOME.

PLATE IX. SANCHO'S FEAST.

HEIDEGGER IN A RAGE.

THE LARGE MASQUERADE TICKET.

ADDENDA.

AN EMBLEMATIC PRINT ON THE SOUTH SEA.

THE LOTTERY.

MASQUERADES AND OPERAS—BURLINGTON GATE.

BEGGARS' OPERA BURLESQUED.

TWELVE PRINTS OF HUDIBRAS.

JUST VIEW OF THE BRITISH STAGE.

EXAMINATION OF BAMBRIDGE.

KING HENRY VIII. AND ANNA BULLEYN.

CROWNS, MITRES, MACES, ETC.

THE ROYAL MASQUERADE.

RICH'S TRIUMPHANT ENTRY.

THE POOL OF BETHESDA, AND THE GOOD SAMARITAN.

MARTIN FOLKES, ESQ.

BISHOP HOADLEY.

MR. RANBY'S HOUSE AT CHISWICK.

HYMEN AND CUPID.

FALSE PERSPECTIVE.

THE FARMER'S RETURN.

TRISTRAM SHANDY.

FOUR HEADS FROM THE CARTOONS.

THE SHRIMP-GIRL.

LORD HOLLAND.

EARL OF CHARLEMONT.

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.

DEBATES ON PALMISTRY.

THE STAYMAKER.

CHARITY IN THE CELLAR.

SIX TICKETS.

NOTES.

SOUTHWARK FAIR.

HOGARTH'S WORKS:
WITH
LIFE AND ANECDOTAL DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS PICTURES.
—◆—
THIRD SERIES.

FRONTISPIECE
TO THE CATALOGUE OF THE ARTISTS' EXHIBITION, 1761.

TAIL-PIECE
TO THE ARTISTS' CATALOGUE.

PLATE I.
THE FIRST SALLY IN QUEST OF ADVENTURES.

PLATE II.
THE INNKEEPER.

PLATE III.
THE FUNERAL OF CHRYSOSTOM.

PLATE IV.
THE INNKEEPER'S WIFE AND DAUGHTER ADMINISTERING CHIRURGICAL ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA.

PLATE V.
DON QUIXOTE SEIZES THE BARBER'S BASIN FOR MAMBRINO'S HELMET.

PLATE VI.
DON QUIXOTE RELEASES THE GALLEY SLAVES.

PLATE VII.
THE FIRST INTERVIEW OF THE VALOROUS KNIGHT OF LA MANCHA WITH THE UNFORTUNATE KNIGHT OF THE ROCK.

PLATE VIII.
THE CURATE AND BARBER DISGUISING THEMSELVES TO CONVEY DON QUIXOTE HOME.

PLATE IX.
SANCHO'S FEAST.