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 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 understood 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 inventions 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 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 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, 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 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.
ANECDOTES OF AN ARTIST, WHO HELD, AS 'TWERE, THE MIRROR UP TO NATURE.
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.
Compiled from his Original Manuscripts, in the possession of JOHN IRELAND.
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. "As many sets of my works have been lately sent to foreign countries, and others sold to persons who, from their ignorance of the particular circumstances at which I aimed, have mistaken their meaning and tendency, I have been told that a short account of such parts as are obscure, or have been most liable to misconstruction, in those prints that are not noticed in Mr. Rouquet's book,[4] would be highly acceptable. "I am further told, that the public have sometimes expressed a curiosity to know what were the motives by which the author was induced to make choice of subjects so different from those of other painters, and what were his modes of study in a walk which had not been trode by any other man. These reasons will, I hope, be deemed a sufficient apology for my attempting the following brief history; in which must necessarily be introduced my opinion of the present state of the arts, and conduct of contemporary artists, and a vindication of myself and my productions from the aspersions which they have so liberally bestowed upon each. "With respect to my life,—to begin sufficiently early,—I was born in the city of London, on the 10th day of November 1697, and baptized the 28th of the same month. My father's pen, like that of many other authors, did not enable him to do more than put me in a way of shifting for myself. As I had naturally a good eye and a fondness for drawing, shows of all sorts gave me uncommon pleasure when an infant; and mimicry, common to all children, was remarkable in me. An early access to a neighbouring painter drew my attention from play, and I was at every possible opportunity employed in making drawings. I picked up an acquaintance of the same turn, and soon learnt to draw the alphabet with great correctness. My exercises when at school were more remarkable for the ornaments which adorned them, than for the exercise itself.[5] In the former I soon found that blockheads with better memories could much surpass me, but for the latter I was particularly distinguished. "Besides the natural turn I had for drawing rather than learning languages, I had before my eyes the precarious situation of men of classical education. I saw the difficulties under which my father laboured, and the many inconveniences he endured from his dependence being chiefly on his pen, and the cruel treatment he met with from booksellers and printers, particularly in the affair of a Latin Dictionary,[6] the compiling of which had been a work of some years. It was deposited in confidence in the hands of a certain printer; and during the time it was left, letters of approbation were received from the greatest scholars in England, Scotland, and Ireland. But these flattering testimonies from his acquaintance (who, as appears from their letters which I have still by me, were of the first class) produced no profit to the author.[7] It was therefore very conformable to my own wishes that I was taken from school and served a long apprenticeship to a silver-plate engraver. "I soon found this business in every respect too limited. The paintings of St. Paul's Cathedral and Greenwich Hospital,[8] which were at that time going on, ran in my head, and I determined that silver-plate engraving should be followed no longer than necessity obliged me to it. Engraving on copper was, at twenty years of age, my utmost ambition. To attain this it was necessary that I should learn to draw objects something like nature instead of the monsters of heraldry; and the common methods of study were much too tedious for one who loved his pleasure and came so late to it, for the time necessary to learn in the usual mode would leave me none to spare for the ordinary enjoyments of life. This led me to considering whether a shorter road than that usually travelled was not to be found. The early part of my life had been employed in a business rather detrimental than advantageous to those branches of the art which I wished to pursue, and have since professed. I had learned by practice to copy with tolerable exactness in the usual way, but it occurred to me that there were many disadvantages attending this method of study, as having faulty originals, etc.; and even when the pictures or prints to be imitated were by the best masters, it was little more than pouring water out of one vessel into another. Drawing in an academy, though it should be after the life, will not make the student an artist; for as the eye is often taken from the original to draw a bit at a time, it is possible he may know no more of what he has been copying when his work is finished than he did before it was begun. "There may be, and I believe are, some who, like the engrossers of deeds, copy every line without remembering a word; and if the deed should be in law Latin or old French, probably without understanding a word of their original,—happy is it for them, for to retain would be indeed dreadful. "A dull transcriber who, in copying Milton's Paradise Lost, hath not omitted a line, has almost as much right to be compared to Milton as an exact copier of a fine picture by Rubens hath to be compared to Rubens. In both cases the hand is employed about minute parts, but the mind scarcely ever embraces the whole. Besides this, there is an essential difference between the man who transcribes the deed and he who copies the figure; for though what is written may be line for line the same with the original, it is not probable that this will often be the case with the copied figure: frequently far from it. Yet the performer will be much more likely to retain a recollection of his own imperfect work than of the original from which he took it. "More reasons, not necessary to enumerate, struck me as strong objections to this practice, and led me to wish that I could find the shorter path; fix forms and characters in my mind, and, instead of copying the lines, try to read the language, and, if possible, find the grammar of the art, by bringing into one focus the various observations I had made, and then trying by my power on the canvas how far my plan enabled me to combine and apply them to practice. "For this purpose I considered what various ways, and to what different purposes, the memory might be applied, and fell upon one which I found most suitable to my situation and idle disposition. "Laying it down first as an axiom, that he who could by any means acquire and retain in his memory perfect ideas of the subjects he meant to draw, would have as clear a knowledge of the figure as a man who can write freely hath of the twenty-four letters of the alphabet and their infinite combinations (each of these being composed of lines), and would consequently be an accurate designer. "This I thought my only chance for eminence, as I found that the beauty and delicacy of the stroke in engraving was not to be learnt without much practice, and demanded a larger portion of patience than I felt myself disposed to exercise. Added to this, I saw little probability of acquiring the full command of the graver in a sufficient degree to distinguish myself in that walk; nor was I, at twenty years of age, much disposed to enter on so barren and unprofitable a study as that of merely making fine lines. I thought it still more unlikely, that by pursuing the common method and copying old drawings, I could ever attain the power of making new designs, which was my first and greatest ambition. I therefore endeavoured to habituate myself to the exercise of a sort of technical memory; and by repeating in my own mind the parts of which objects were composed, I could by degrees combine and put them down with my pencil. Thus, with all the drawbacks which resulted from the circumstances I have mentioned, I had one material advantage over my competitors, viz. the early habit I thus acquired of retaining in my mind's eye, without coldly copying it on the spot, whatever I intended to imitate.[9] Sometimes, but too seldom, I took the life for correcting the parts I had not perfectly enough remembered, and then I transferred them to my compositions. "My pleasures and my studies thus going hand in hand, the most striking objects that presented themselves, either comic or tragic, made the strongest impression on my mind; but had not I sedulously practised what I had thus acquired, I should very soon have lost the power of performing it. "Instead of burdening the memory with musty rules, or tiring the eyes with copying dry and damaged pictures, I have ever found studying from nature the shortest and safest way of attaining knowledge in my art.[10] By adopting this method I found a redundancy of matter continually occurring. A choice of composition was the next thing to be considered, and my constitutional idleness[11] naturally led me to the use of such materials as I had previously collected; and to this I was further induced by thinking that, if properly combined, they might be made the most useful to society, in painting, although similar subjects had often failed in writing and preaching. "To return to my narrative: the instant I became master of my own time, I determined to qualify myself for engraving on copper. In this I readily got employment; and frontispieces to books, such as prints to Hudibras, in twelves, etc., soon brought me into the way. But the tribe of booksellers remained as my father had left them when he died about five years before this time,[12] which was of an illness occasioned partly by the treatment he met with from this set of people, and partly by disappointment from great men's promises; so that I doubly felt this usage, which put me upon publishing on my own account. But here again 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 at 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." 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. Hogarth the year following published his 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. This picture produced a small tract, with the following title:— "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 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,— "Of amber snuff-box justly vain, And the nice conduct of a clouded cane;" 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 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. "Account taken, January 1, 1731, of all the pictures that remain unfinished.—Half payment received. A family piece, consisting of four figures, for Mr. Rich, 1728. An assembly of twenty-five figures, for Lord Castlemain, August 28, 1729. Family of four figures; Mr. Wood, 1728. A conversation of six figures; Mr. Cock, Nov. 1728. A family of five figures; Mr. Jones, March 1730. The Committee of the House of Commons, for Sir Archibald Grant, Nov. 5, 1729. The Beggar's Opera; ditto. Single figure; Mr. Kirkham, April 18, 1730. Family of nine; Mr. Vernon, Feb. 27, 1730. Another of two; Mr. Cooper. Another of five; Duke of Montague. Two little pictures; ditto. Single figure; Sir Robert Pye, Nov. 18, 1730. Two little pictures, called "Before and After," for Mr. Thomson, Dec. 7, 1730. A head, for Mr. Sarmond, Jan. 12, 1730-31. Pictures bespoke for the present year 1731." 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. "'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 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 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 invariably 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. Hogarth thus resumes his narrative:— "For the portrait of Mr. Garrick in Richard III. I was paid two hundred pounds[26] (which was more than any English artist ever received for a single portrait), and that, too, by the sanction of several painters who had been previously consulted about the price, which was not given without mature consideration. "Notwithstanding all this, the current remark was, that portraits were not my province, and I was tempted to abandon the only lucrative branch of my art, for the practice brought the whole nest of phiz-mongers on my back, where they buzzed like so many hornets. All these people have their friends, whom they incessantly teach to call my women harlots, my 'Essay on Beauty' borrowed,[27] and my composition and engraving contemptible. "This so much disgusted me, that I sometimes declared I would never paint another portrait, and frequently refused when applied to; for I found by mortifying experience, that whoever would succeed in this branch must adopt the mode recommended in one of Gay's fables, and make divinities of all who sit to him.[28] Whether or not this childish affectation will ever be done away, is a doubtful question: none of those who have attempted to reform it have yet succeeded; nor, unless portrait-painters in general become more honest, and their customers less vain, is there much reason to expect they ever will." 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. 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:"— To Mr. William Hogarth, at his house in Leicester Fields, London. "Sir,—I was favoured with a letter from Mr. Delany, who tells me that you are going to publish three prints.[29] Your reputation here is sufficiently known to recommend anything of yours, and I shall be glad to serve you. The duty on prints is ten per cent. in Ireland. You may send me fifty sets, provided you will take back what I cannot sell. I desire no other profit than what you allow in London to those who sell them again. I have often the favour of drinking your health with Doctor Swift, who is a great admirer of yours, and hath made mention of you in his poems with great honour,[30] and desired me to thank you for your kind present, and to accept of his service.—I am, Sir, your most obedient and most humble servant, "George Faulkner. "Dublin, Nov. 15, 1740." 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:— To Mr. Wm. Hogarth. "Dear Billy.—You were so kind as to say you would touch up the Doctor if I would send it to town. Lo! it is here. I am at Alresford for a day or two, to shear my flock and to feed 'em (money, you know, is the sinews of war); and having this morning taken down all my pictures, in order to have my room painted, I thought I might as well pack up Dr. Benjamin, and send him packing to London. My love to him, and desire him, when his wife says he looks charmingly, to drive immediately to Leicester Fields (Square I mean, I beg your pardon), and sit an hour or two, or three, in your painting-room. Do not set it by and forget it now,—don't you. My humble service waits upon Mrs. Hogarth, and all good wishes upon your honour; and I am, dear Sir, your obliged and affectionate "J. Hoadley." (end of section floral icon)
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:— "My Lord,—Mr. Martin has informed me that when some of my thoughts relative to the establishment of a public academy are put into writing, you will peruse them. I have made a rough sketch, but to fit it for inspection will require much time, which it will be needless to take till I have your Lordship's opinion on two or three leading points on which the whole will turn, and which I cannot with propriety commit to paper. A verbal statement of them will not take up more than half an hour; and if, when known, they are not concurred in, I will not take up your Lordship's time by arguing on their propriety. But I am vain enough to think, that though I must say strong, and perhaps startling things, with regard to myself and others, I can prove every position which I shall advance. "I have reason to believe that another project is in hand: this the author will naturally defend in opposition to mine, but it shall not create controversy; for being now upwards of sixty years of age, and in a very poor state of health, I would rather lose a favourite point than break a night's rest. "Mr. Ramsey, if I judge right, is no stranger to the plan I allude to, and I know his opinion differs from mine, and am firmly persuaded his interest will induce him to support it.—I am, my Lord, etc., "W. H." "Much has been said about the immense benefit likely to result from the establishment of an academy 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 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 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.' "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 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, 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. "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 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 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 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. "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 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. "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, 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 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] "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 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 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 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 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 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 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. "Et spes et ratio studiorum in CÆsare tantum."[46]—Juv. FRONTISPIECE TO ARTISTS' CATALOGUE 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 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. "Esse quid hoc dicam? vivis quod fama negatur!"[48]—Mart. TAILPIECE TO 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 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 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. To Mr. Hogarth. "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 generation 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." (end of section floral icon)
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 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 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; 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, 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 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 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 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 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] "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 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 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 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 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. "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 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 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 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 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 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 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. "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 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 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 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 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. "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 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 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 whose name was perfectly included in the name of Pythagoras; which person should again restore the ancient principle on which all beauty is founded. | " ???????a? | Pythagoras. | | " ??a?? | Hogarth." | THE VASE. "Is man no more than this? consider him well."—Shakspeare. 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 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 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. 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 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]
ROUND AND SQUARE 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 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 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 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 8TH & 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 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 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 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 composed 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, 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. 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 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:— 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 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. "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 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 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. "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. 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 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 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— "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 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] "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 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. "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 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 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 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:— "The even and uniform colour of the hair, by encompassing the face as a frame doth a picture, contrasts with harmonious colour its variegated and enclosed composition, and adds more or less beauty thereto, according to the manner it is disposed. This graceful ornament may, with some propriety, be called the head-dress, and comes under that class; but as dress in general is a matter of no small importance to a great part of the world, it deserves to be treated more copiously than this volume will admit of. It shall therefore be deferred till a more convenient opportunity offers, when the Supplement shall be published." (end of section floral icon)
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:— "Being thus driven out of the only profitable branch of my profession, I at first thought of attaching myself to history-painting; but in this there was no employment, for in forty years I had only two orders of any consequence for historical pictures. This was rather mortifying; and being, by the profits of my former productions and the office of serjeant painter, tolerably easy in my circumstances, and thoroughly sick of the idle quackery of criticism, I determined to quit the pencil for the graver. In this humble walk I had one advantage; the perpetual fluctuations in the manners of the times enabled me to introduce new characters, which being drawn from the passing day, had a chance of more originality and less insipidity than those which are repeated again, and again, and again from old stories. Added to this, the prints which I had previously engraved were now become a voluminous work, and circulated not only through England, but over Europe. These being secured to me by an Act which I had previously got passed, were a kind of an estate; and as they wore, I could repair and re-touch them, so that in some particulars they became better than when first engraved.[72] "While I was making arrangements to confine myself entirely to my graver, an amiable nobleman (Lord Charlemont) requested that, before I bade a final adieu to the pencil, I would paint him one picture; the subject to be my own choice, and the reward—whatever I demanded. The story I pitched upon was a young and virtuous married lady, who, by playing at cards with an officer, loses her money, watch, and jewels; the moment when he offers them back in return for her honour, and she is wavering at his suit, was my point of time.[73] "The picture was highly approved of, and the payment was noble; but the manner in which it was made, by a note enclosed in one of the following letters, was to me infinitely more gratifying than treble the sum:— From Lord Charlemont to Mr. Hogarth. "Mount Street, 19th Aug. 1759. "Dear Sir,—I have been so excessively busied with ten thousand troublesome affairs, that I have not been able to wait upon you according to my promise, nor even to find time to sit for my picture. As I am obliged to set out for Ireland to-morrow, we must defer that till my return, which will be in the latter end of January, or in the beginning of February at furthest. I am still your debtor, more so indeed than I ever shall be able to pay; and did intend to have sent you before my departure what trifling recompense my abilities permit me to make you. But the truth is, having wrong calculated my expenses, I find myself unable for the present even to attempt paying you. However, if you be in any present need of money, let me know it, and as soon as I get to Ireland I will send you, not the price of your picture, for that is inestimable, but as much as I can afford to give for it.—Sir, I am, with the most sincere wishes for your health and happiness, your most obedient humble servant, Charlemont. To Mr. Hogarth. "Dublin, 29th January 1760. "Dear Sir,—Enclosed I send you a note upon Nesbitt for one hundred pounds; and considering the name of the author, and the surprising merit of your performance, I am really much ashamed to offer such a trifle in recompense for the pains you have taken, and the pleasure your picture has afforded me. I beg you would think that I by no means attempt to pay you according to your merit, but according to my own abilities. Were I to pay your deserts, I fear I should leave myself poor indeed. Imagine that you have made me a present of the picture, for literally as such I take it, and that I have begged your acceptance of the enclosed trifle. As this is really the case, with how much reason do I subscribe myself, Your most obliged humble servant, Charlemont. "This elevating circumstance had its contrast, and brought on a train of most dissatisfactory circumstances, which by happening at a time when I thought myself, as it were, landed, and secure from tugging any longer at the oar, were rendered doubly distressing. "A gentleman (now a nobleman) seeing this picture, pressed me with much vehemence to paint another for him upon the same terms. To this I reluctantly assented; and as I had been frequently flattered for my power of giving expression, I thought the figure of Sigismunda weeping over the heart of her lover would enable me to display it. Impressed with this idea, I fixed upon this very difficult subject. My object was dramatic, and my aim to draw tears from the spectator,—an effect I have often witnessed at a tragedy; and it therefore struck me that it was worth trying if a painter could not produce the same effect, and touch the heart through the eye, as the player does through the ear.[74] Thus far I have been gratified: I have more than once seen the tear of sympathy trickle down the cheek of a female while she has been contemplating the picture. "As four hundred pounds had a short time before been bid for a picture of 'Sigismunda,' painted by a French master, but falsely ascribed to Correggio, four hundred pounds was the price at which I rated this.[75] "By any other of my pursuits I could have got twice the sum in the time I devoted to it; nor was it more than half what a fashionable face-painter would have gained in the same period. Upon these grounds I put it at this sum; see the letter, and see the answer. It ended by my keeping the picture in my painting-room, and his Lordship keeping his money in his pocket. Had it been Charlemont!" This transaction having given rise to many ridiculous falsehoods, the following unvarnished tale will set the whole in its true light:— "January 1764. "The picture of 'Sigismunda' was painted at the earnest request of Sir Richard Grosvenor (now Lord Grosvenor) in the year 1759, at a time when Mr. Hogarth had fully determined to leave off painting, partly on account of ease and retirement, but more particularly because he had found by thirty years' experience that his pictures—except in an instance or two, mentioned in the note[76]—had not produced him one quarter of the profit that arose from his engravings. However, the flattering compliments, as well as generous offers, made him by the above gentleman (who was immensely rich), prevailed upon the unwary artist to undertake this difficult subject, which being seen and fully approved of by his Lordship whilst in hand, was, after much time, and the utmost efforts, finished. But how! the painter's death (as usual) can only positively determine. The price required for it was therefore not on account of its value as a picture, but proportioned to the value of the time it took in painting. "This nobleman in the interim fell into the clutches of the dealers in old pictures; the treatment a man who painted new ones was to expect where these gentry once get a footing[77] so much alarmed the artist, that he thought it best to set his Lordship at full liberty to take or reject the picture by writing the following letter, and putting him in mind of the agreement which was made when the work was undertaken:— Mr. Hogarth's Letter to Sir Richard Grosvenor. "Sir,—I have done all I can to the picture of 'Sigismunda.' You may remember you was pleased to say you would give me what price I should think fit to set upon any subject I would paint for you; and at the time that you made this generous offer, I in return made it my request that you would use no ceremony in refusing the picture when done, if you should not be thoroughly satisfied with it. This you promised should be as I pleased, which I now entreat you will comply with, without the least hesitation, if you think four hundred too much money for it.[78] One more favour I have to beg, which is, that you will determine on this matter as soon as you can conveniently, that I may resolve whether I shall go about another picture for Mr. Hoare the banker, on the same conditions, or stop here.—I am, etc. "June 13, 1757.
Sir Richard Grosvenor to Mr. Hogarth. "Sir,—I should sooner have answered yours of the 13th instant, but have been mostly out of town. I understand by it that you have a commission from Mr. Hoare for a picture. If he should have taken a fancy to the 'Sigismunda,' I have no sort of objection to your letting him have it; for I really think the performance so striking and inimitable, that the constantly having it before one's eyes would be too often occasioning melancholy ideas to arise in one's mind, which a curtain's being drawn before it would not diminish in the least.—I am, Sir, your most obedient servant, Richard Grosvenor. "Grosvenor Square,
Sunday morning, June 17. Mr. Hogarth's Reply. "Sir Richard,—As your obliging answer to my letter in regard to the picture of 'Sigismunda' did not seem to be quite positive, I beg leave to conclude you intend to comply with my request if I do not hear from you within a week.—I am, etc. W. H.
"His Lordship not thinking fit to take any further notice of the affair, here it must have ended; but things having been represented in favour of his Lordship, and much to Mr. Hogarth's dishonour, the foregoing plain tale is therefore submitted to such as may at any time think it worth while to see the whole truth in what has been so publicly talked of." 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." "January 2, 1764. "All efforts to this time to get the picture finely engraved proving in vain, Mr. Hogarth humbly hopes his best endeavours to engrave it himself will be acceptable to his friends." CORREGGIO'S SIGISMUNDA. "Mute, solemn sorrow, free from female noise." —Dryden'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 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 (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 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:— "As the most violent and virulent abuse thrown on 'Sigismunda' was from a set of miscreants, with whom I am proud of having been ever at war, I mean the expounders of the mysteries of old pictures, I have been sometimes told they were beneath my notice. This is true of them individually; but as they have access to people of rank, who seem as happy in being cheated as these merchants are in cheating them, they have a power of doing much mischief to a modern artist. However mean the vendor of poisons, the mineral is destructive; to me its operation was troublesome enough. Ill-nature spread so fast, that now was the time for every little dog in the profession to bark, and revive the old spleen which appeared at the time of the Analysis.[80] The anxiety that attends endeavouring to recollect ideas long dormant, and the misfortunes which clung to this transaction, coming at a time when nature demands quiet, and something besides exercise to cheer it, added to my long sedentary life, brought on an illness which continued twelve months. But when I got well enough to ride on horseback I soon recovered. This being at a period when war abroad and contention at home engrossed every one's mind, prints were thrown into the background; and the stagnation rendered it necessary that I should do some timed thing, to recover my lost time and stop a gap in my income. This drew forth my print of 'The Times,' a subject which tended to the restoration of peace and unanimity, and put the opposers of these humane objects in a light which gave great offence to those who were trying to foment destruction in the minds of the populace. One of the most notorious among them, till now rather my friend and flatterer, attacked me in a North Briton, in so infamous and malign a style, that he himself, when pushed even by his best friends, was driven to so poor an excuse as to say, 'he was drunk when he wrote it.' Being at that time very weak, and in a kind of slow fever, it could not but seize on a feeling mind. My philosophical friends advise me to laugh at the nonsense of party writing—who would mind it?—but I cannot rest myself: 'Who steals my gold steals trash; 'tis something, nothing; 'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands: But he that filches from me my good name, Robs me of that which not enriches him, And makes me poor indeed.' "Such being my feelings, my great object was to return the compliment, and turn it to some advantage. "This renowned patriot's portrait drawn, like as I could as to features, and marked with some indications of his mind, fully answered my purpose. The ridiculous was apparent to every eye. A Brutus! a saviour of his country with such an aspect! was so arrant a farce, that, though it gave rise to much laughter in the lookers-on, galled both him and his adherents to the bone. This was proved by the papers being every day crammed with invectives against the artist, till the town grew absolutely sick of thus seeing me always at full length. "Churchill, Wilkes' toad-eater, put the North Briton into verse in an epistle to Hogarth; but as the abuse was precisely the same, except a little poetical heightening, which goes for nothing, it made no impression, but perhaps in some measure effaced or weakened the black strokes of the North Briton. However, having an old plate by me, with some parts ready, such as the background and a dog, I began to consider how I could turn so much work laid aside to some account; so patched up a print of Master Churchill in the character of a Bear. The pleasure and pecuniary advantage which I derived from these two engravings, together with occasionally riding on horseback, restored me to as much health as can be expected at my time of life. "Thus have I gone through the principal circumstances of a life which, till lately, passed pretty much to my own satisfaction, and, I hope, in no respect injurious to any other man. This I can safely assert, I have invariably endeavoured to make those about me tolerably happy, and my greatest enemy cannot say I ever did an intentional injury; though, without ostentation, I could produce many instances of men that have been essentially benefited by me. What may follow, God knows.—Finis." 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:— "TO THE MEMORY OF WILLIAM HOGARTH, WHO WAS SUCH AM ACCURATE OBSERVER OF MANKIND THAT NO CHARACTER ESCAPED HIM, AND SO HAPPY IN EXPRESSING HIS CONCEPTIONS BY THE STRENGTH OF HIS PENCIL, THAT, AS HIS OWN TIMES NEVER PRODUCED A RIVAL, POSTERITY WILL SCARCE EVER SEE AN EQUAL TO HIM. HIS THOUGHTS WERE SO CONSTANTLY EMPLOYED IN THE CAUSE OF TRUTH AND VIRTUE, THAT HE MAY BE JUSTLY RANKED AMONGST THE BEST MORAL AUTHORS. WHILST HE FAITHFULLY FOLLOWED NATURE THROUGH ALL HER VARIETIES, AND EXPOSED WITH INIMITABLE SKILL THE INFINITE FOLLIES AND VICES OF THE WORLD, HE WAS HIMSELF AN EXAMPLE OF MANY VIRTUES; AND WHEN, WITH UNIVERSAL ADMIRATION AND APPLAUSE, HE HAD REPROVED, INSTRUCTED, AND DELIGHTED THE AGE WHEREIN HE LIVED, HE RESIGNED THE UNCOMMON GIFTS WHICH HE POSSESSED, AND PAID THE GREAT DEBT HE OWED TO NATURE, OCT. 27, 1764."
|
  |
