MASTERS IN HISTORY.

ALBERT DURER, tho' not the inventor, was one of the firſt improvers of the art of engraving. He was a German painter; and at the ſame time a Man of letters, and [66] a philoſopher. It may be added in his praiſe, that he was an intimate friend of the great Eraſmus; who reviſed, it is ſuppoſed, ſome of the pieces which he publiſhed. He was a man of buſineſs alſo; and for many years was the leading magiſtrate of Nuremburgh. — His prints, conſi⯑dered as the firſt efforts of a new art, have great merit. Nay, we may add, that it is aſtoniſhing to ſee a new art, in its firſt eſſay, carried to ſuch a length. In ſome of thoſe prints, which he executed on cop⯑per, the engraving is elegant to a great degree. His Hell-ſcene parti⯑cularly, which was engraved in the year 1513, is as high-finiſhed a print as ever was engraved, and as hap⯑pily finiſhed. The labour he has [67] beſtowed upon it, has it's full effect. In his wooden prints too we are ſur⯑prized to ſee, in ſo early a maſter, ſo much meaning, and relief; the heads ſo well marked; and every part ſo well executed. — This artiſt ſeems to have underſtood very well the principles of deſign. His com⯑poſition too is often pleaſing; and his drawing generally good: but he knows very little of the management of light; and ſtill leſs of grace: and yet his ideas are purer, and more elegant, than we could have ſup⯑poſed from the aukward archetypes, which his country and education af⯑forded. In a word, he was certainly a Man of a very extenſive genius; and, as Vaſari remarks, would have been an extraordinary artiſt, if he [68] had had an Italian, inſtead of a Ger⯑man education. His prints are very numerous. They were much admi⯑red in his own life-time, and eagerly bought up; which put his wife, who was a teizing woman, upon urging him to ſpend more time upon en⯑graving, than he was inclined to do. He was very rich, and choſe rather to practice his art as an amuſement, than as a buſineſs. He died in the year 1527.

The immediate ſucceſſors, and imi⯑tators of ALBERT DURER were LUCAS VAN LEIDEN, ALDGRAVE, PENS, HISBEN, and ſome others of leſs note. Their works are very much in their maſter's ſtyle; and were the admiration of an age, which [69] had ſeen nothing better. The beſt of ALDGRAVE'S works are two or three ſmall pieces of the ſtory of Lot.

GOLTZIUS flouriſhed a little after the death of theſe maſters; and car⯑ried engraving to a great height. He was a native of Germany, where he learned his art; but travelling afterwards into Italy, he there im⯑proved his ideas. You plainly diſ⯑cover in him, a mixture of the Fle⯑miſh and Italian ſchools. His forms have ſometimes a degree of elegance in them; but, in general the Dutch maſter predominates. GOLTZIUS is often happy in deſign and diſpoſi⯑tion; and fails moſt in the diſtribu⯑tion of light. But his chief excellence [70] lies in execution. He engraves with a noble, firm, expreſſive line, which hath ſcarce been excelled by any ſucceeding maſters. There is a va⯑riety too in his manner, which is very pleaſing. His print of the cir⯑cumciſion is one of the beſt of his works. The ſtory is well told, the groups agreably diſpoſed; and the execution admirable; but the figures are Dutch; and the whole, through the want of a proper diſtribution of ſhade, is only a glaring maſs.

MULLER ingraved very much in the ſtyle of GOLTZIUS; and yet with a ſtill bolder, and firmer ſtroke. We have no where greater maſter⯑pieces in execution, than the works of this artiſt exhibit. The baptiſm [71] of JOHN is perhaps the moſt beauti⯑ful ſpecimen of bold engraving, that is extant.

ABRAHAM BLOEMART was a Dutch maſter alſo, and contempo⯑rary with GOLTZIUS. We are not informed what particular means of improvement he had; but it is cer⯑tain he deſigned in a more elegant taſte, than any of his countrymen. His figures are often graceful; ex⯑cepting only, that he gives them ſometimes an affected twiſt; which is ſtill more conſpicuous in the fin⯑gers: an affectation which we ſometimes alſo find in the prints of GOLTZIUS. — The reſurrection of LAZARUS is one of BLOEMART'S maſter pieces; in which are many [72] faults, and many beauties; both very characteric.

While the Dutch maſters were thus carrying the art of engraving to ſo great an height, it was intro⯑duced into Italy by ANDREA MAN⯑TEGNA; to whom the Italians aſ⯑cribe the invention of it. The paint⯑ings of this maſter, tho' they abound in noble paſſages, are formal and diſagreable. We have a ſpecimen of them at Hampton-Court in the triumph of JULIUS CAESAR.—His prints, which are ſaid to have been engraved on tin-plates, are tranſ⯑ſcripts from the ſame ideas. We ſee in them the chaſte, correct out⯑line, and noble ſimplicity of the Ro⯑man ſchool: but we are to expect [73] nothing more; not the leaſt attempt towards an agreable whole. — And indeed we ſhall perhaps find in ge⯑neral, that the maſters of the Roman ſchool were more ſtudious of thoſe eſſentials of painting, which regard the parts; and the Flemiſh maſters of thoſe, which regard the whole. The former therefore drew better figures; the latter made better pic⯑tures.

MANTEGNA was ſucceeded by PARMIGIANO and PALMA, both maſters of great reputation. PAR⯑MIGIANO having formed the moſt accurate taſte upon a thorough ſtudy of the works of RAPHAEL and MICHAEL ANGELO, publiſhed many of his figures, rather than deſigns [74] engraved on wood, which abounded with every kind of beauty; if we may form a judgment of them from the few which we ſometimes meet with. Whither PARMIGIANO in⯑vented the art of engraving upon wood, does not certainly appear. His pretentions to the invention of etching are leſs diſputable. In this way he publiſhed many ſlight pieces, which do him great credit. In the midſt of his labours, he was inter⯑rupted by a knaviſh engraver, who pillaged him of all his plates. Una⯑ble to bear the loſs, he foreſwore his art, and abandoned himſelf to chymiſtry.

[75]PALMA was too much employed as a painter to have much leiſure for etching. He hath left however ſe⯑veral prints behind him, which are remarkable for the delicacy of the drawing, and the freedom of the execution. He etches in a very looſe but maſterly manner. His prints are ſcarce; and indeed we ſeldom meet with any, that deſerve more than the name of ſcetches.

FRANCIS PARIA ſeems to have copied the manner of PALMA with great ſucceſs. But his prints are ſtill more ſcarce than his maſter's; nor have we a ſufficient number of them to enable us to form a judgment of his merit.

[76]But the great improver of the art of engraving upon wood, and who at once carried it to a degree of per⯑fection, which hath not ſince been exceeded was ANDREA ANDREANI of Mantua. The works of this ma⯑ſter are remarkable for the free⯑dom, ſtrength, and ſpirit of the execution; the elegant correctneſs of the drawing; and in general for their effect. Few prints come ſo near the idea of painting. They have a force, which a pointed tool upon copper cannot reach; and the waſh, of which the middle tint is compoſed, adds all the ſoftneſs of drawing. The works of this maſter indeed are ſeldom ſeen in perfection. They are ſcarce; and when we do meet with them, it is a chance if [77] the impreſſions be good: and very much of the beauty of theſe prints depends on the goodneſs of the im⯑preſſion. For often the outline is left hard, the middle tint being loſt; and ſometimes the middle tint is left without it's proper termination.

Among the ancient Italian maſters, we cannot omit MARK ANTONIO, and AUGUSTIN of Venice. They are both celebrated; and have hand⯑ed down to us many engravings from the works of RAPHAEL: but their antiquity, not their merit, ſeems to have recommended them. Their execution is harſh, and formal to the laſt degree; and if their prints give us any idea of the works of RAPHAEL, we may well wonder, [78] as PICART obſerves, how that maſter got his reputation.

FREDERIC BAROCCHI was born at Urbin, where the genius of RA⯑PHAEL inſpired him. In his early youth he travelled to Rome: and giving himſelf up to intenſe ſtudy, he acquired a great name in paint⯑ing. At his leiſure hours he etched a few prints from his own deſigns, which are highly finiſhed, and exe⯑cuted with great ſoftneſs and deli⯑cacy. The Salutation is his capital performance; of which we ſeldom meet with any impreſſions, but thoſe taken from the retouched plate, which are very harſh.

[79]ANTHONY TEMPESTA was a na⯑tive of Florence, but reſided chiefly at Rome; where he was much em⯑ployed as a painter by GREGORY XIII. — His prints are very numerous; all from his own deſigns. Battles and huntings are the ſubjects, in which he moſt delighted. His merit lies in expreſſion, and drawing; in the grandeur of his ideas, and an imagination exceedingly fertile. His figures are often elegant, and grace⯑ful; and his heads marked with un⯑common ſpirit, and correctneſs. His horſes, tho' fleſhy and ill-drawn, and evidently never copied from nature, are however noble animals; and diſ⯑play an endleſs variety of beautiful ac⯑tions. — His imperfections, at the ſame time, are very glaring. His [80] compoſition is generally bad. Here and there you have a good group; ſeldom an agreeable whole. He had not the art of preſerving his back⯑grounds tender; ſo that we are not to expect any effect of keeping. His execution is harſh; and he is totally ignorant of the diſtribution of light. — But notwithſtanding all his faults, ſuch is his merit upon the whole, that, as ſtudies at leaſt, his prints deſerve a much higher rank in the cabinets of connoiſſeurs, than they generally find.

AUGUSTIN CARRACHE has left a few etchings, which are admired for the delicacy of the drawing, and the freedom of the execution. But there is great flatneſs in them, and [77] want of ſtrength. Etchings indeed in this ſtyle are rather meant as ſcetches, than finiſhed prints.

GUIDO'S etchings, moſt of which are ſmall, are eſteemed for the ſim⯑plicity of the deſign; the elegance and correctneſs of the outline; and that grace, for which this maſter is ſo remarkable. The extremities of his figures are particularly touched with great accuracy. But we have the ſame ſpiritleſs flatneſs in the works of GUIDO, which we find in thoſe of his maſter CARRACHE, ac⯑companied at the ſame time with leſs freedom.

[78]CANTARINI copied the manner of GUIDO, as PARIA did that of PALMA; and ſo happily, that it is often difficult to diſtinguiſh the works of theſe two maſters.

CALLOT was little acquainted with any of the grand principles of paint⯑ing: of compoſition, and the ma⯑nagement of light he was totally ig⯑norant. But tho' he could not make a picture, he was admirably ſkilled in drawing a figure. His attitudes are generally graceful, when they are not affected; his expreſſion ſtrong; his drawing correct; and his execu⯑tion maſterly, tho' rather laboured. His Fair is a good epitome of his works. Conſidered as a whole, it is a confuſed jumble of ideas; but the [79] parts, ſeparately examined, appear the work of a maſter. The ſame character may be given of his moſt famous work, the Miſeries of war; in which there is more expreſſion both in action and feature, than was ever perhaps ſhewn in ſo ſmall a compaſs. And yet I know not whether his Beggars be not the more capital performance. In the Miſeries of war, he aims at compoſition, in which he rarely ſucceeds: His Beg⯑gars are detached figures, in which lay his ſtrength. — I ſhall only add, that a vein of drollery and humour runs through all his deſigns; which ſometimes, when he chuſes to indulge it freely, as in the Temptation of St. ANTHONY, diſplays itſelf in a very facetious manner.

[80]COUNT GAUDE contracted a friendſhip at Rome with ADAM ELSHAMER, from whoſe deſigns he engraved a few prints. GAUDE was a young nobleman upon his travels; and never practiſed engraving as a profeſſion. This would call for in⯑dulgence, if his prints had leſs merit; but in their way they are beautiful; tho' on the whole, formal, and un⯑pleaſant. They are highly finiſhed, but void of all freedom. Moon⯑lights, and torch-lights are the ſub⯑jects he chiefly chuſes; and his great excellence lies in preſerving the effects of theſe different lights. His prints are generally ſmall. I know only one, the Flight into Egypt, of a larger ſize.

SALVATOR ROSA painted landſkip more than hiſtory; but his prints [81] are chiefly hiſtorical. He was bred a painter; and perfectly underſtood his art; if we except only the ma⯑nagement of light, of which he ſeems to have been ignorant. The capital landſkip of this maſter at Chiſwick is a noble picture. The contrivance, the compoſition, the diſtances, the figures, and all the parts, and appen⯑dages of it are fine: but in point of light it might perhaps have been improved, if the middle ground, where the figures of the ſecond diſtance ſtand, had been thrown into ſun⯑ſhine. — In deſign, and generally in compoſition, SALVATOR is very great. His figures, which he drew in ex⯑quiſite taſte, are graceful, and nobly expreſſive, beautifully grouped, and varied into the moſt agreeable atti⯑tudes. With regard indeed to the [82] legs of his figures, it muſt be owned, he is a manneriſt. They are well drawn; but all caſt in one mould. There is a ſtiffneſs too in the backs of his extended hands: the palms are beautiful. But theſe are trivial criticiſms. — His manner is flight; ſo as not to admit either ſoftneſs or effect: yet the ſimplicity and ele⯑gance of it are wonderfully pleaſing; and bear that ſtrong characteriſtic of a maſter's hand,

One thing, in his manner of ſhading, is diſagreable. He will often ſhade a face half over with long lines; which, in ſo ſmall, and delicate an object, gives an unpleaſant abruptneſs. It is treating a face like an egg: no diſtinc⯑tion of feature is obſerved.

[83]SALVATOR was a man of genius, and of learning; both which he has found frequent opportunities of diſ⯑playing in his works. His ſtyle is grand; every object that he intro⯑duces is of the heroic kind; and his ſubjects in general ſhew an intimacy with ancient hiſtory, and mytho⯑logy.

A roving diſpoſition, to which he is ſaid to have given full ſcope, ſeems to have added a wildneſs to all his thoughts. We are told, he ſpent the early part of his life in a troop of banditti; and that the rocky and deſolate ſcenes, in which he was accuſtomed to take refuge, furniſhed him with thoſe romantic ideas in landſkip, of which he is ſo exceed⯑ingly fond; and in the deſcription of which he ſo greatly excells. His [84] Robbers, as his detached figures are commonly called, are ſuppoſed alſo to have been taken from the life.

REMBRANDT'S excellency, as a painter, lay in colouring, which he poſſeſſed in ſuch perfection, that it almoſt ſcreens every fault in his pic⯑tures. His prints, deprived of this palliative, have only his inferior qua⯑lifications to recommend them. Theſe are expreſſion, and ſkill in the ma⯑nagement of light, execution, and ſometimes compoſition. I mention them in the order in which he ſeems to have poſſeſſed them. His expreſ⯑ſion has moſt force in the character of age. He marks as ſtrongly as the hand of Time itſelf. He poſſeſſes too in a great degree, that inferior [85] kind of expreſſion, which gives its proper, and characteriſtic touch to drapery, fur, metal, and every object he repreſents. — His management of light conſiſts chiefly in making a very ſtrong contraſt; which has often a good effect: and yet in many of his prints there is no effect at all; which gives us reaſon to think, he either had no principles; or publiſhed ſuch prints before his principles were aſ⯑certained. — His execution is pecu⯑liar to himſelf. It is rough, or neat, as he meant a ſcetch, or a finiſhed piece; but always free, and maſterly. It produces it's effect by ſtrokes in⯑terſected in every direction; and comes nearer the idea of painting, than the execution of any other maſter.

[86]Never painter was more at a loſs than REMBRANDT, for an idea of that ſpecies of grace, which is neceſ⯑ſary to ſupport an elevated character. While he keeps within the ſphere of his genius, and contents himſelf with low ſubjects, he deſerves any praiſe. But when he attempts beauty, or dignity, it were goodnatured to ſuppoſe, he means only burleſque and charicature. He is a ſtrong contraſt to SALVATOR. The one drew all his ideas from nature, as ſhe appears with the utmoſt grace and elegance. The other caught her in her meaneſt images; and transferred thoſe images into the higheſt cha⯑racters. Hence SALVATOR exalts banditti into heroes: REMBRANDT degrades patriarchs into beggars. [87] REMBRANDT indeed ſeems to have affected awkwardneſs. He was a man of humour; and would laugh at thoſe artiſts who ſtudied the an⯑tique. "I'll ſhew you my antiques," he would cry; and then he would carry his friends into a room furniſh⯑ed with head-dreſſes, draperies, houſ⯑hold-ſtuff, and inſtruments of all kinds: ‘Theſe, he would add, are worth all your antiques.’

His beſt etching is that, which goes by the name of the hundred-guildres-print; which is in ſuch eſteem, that I have known twenty guineas given for a good impreſſion of it. In this all his excellencies are united; and I might add, his imperfections alſo. Age and wretchedneſs are admirably [88] deſcribed; but the principal figure is ridiculouſly mean.

REMBRANDT is ſaid to have left behind him near three hundred prints; none of which are dated be⯑fore M,DC,XXVIII; none after M,DC,LIX. They were in ſuch eſteem, even in his own life-time, that he is ſaid to have retouched ſome of them four, or five times.

PETER TESTA ſtudied upon a plan very different from that either of SAL⯑VATOR or REMBRANDT. Thoſe maſters drew their ideas from nature: TESTA, from what he eſteemed a ſuperior model — the antique. Smit with the love of painting, this artiſt travelled to Rome in the habit of a [89] pilgrim, deſtitute of all the means of improvement, but what mere genius furniſhed. He had not even inte⯑reſt to procure a recommendation; nor had he any addreſs to ſubſtitute in it's room. The works of ſculp⯑ture fell moſt obviouſly in his way; and to thoſe he applied himſelf with ſo much induſtry, copying them over, and again, that he is ſaid to have gotten them all by heart. Thus qua⯑lified he took up the pencil. But he ſoon found the ſchool, in which he had ſtudied, a very inſufficient one to form a painter. He had neglected colouring; and his pictures were in no eſteem. Diſappointed and mor⯑tified he threw aſide his pallet, and applied himſelf to etching; in which he became a great proficient.

[90]His prints are very valuable. We are ſeldom indeed to expect a cohe⯑rency of deſign in any of them. An enthuſiaſtic vein runs through moſt of his compoſitions; and it is not an improbable conjecture, that his head was a little diſturbed. He generally crouds into his pieces ſuch a jumble of inconſiſtent ideas, that it is diffi⯑cult ſometimes only to gueſs at what he aims. He was as little acquaint⯑ed with the diſtribution of light, as with the rules of deſign: and yet notwithſtanding all this, his works contain an infinite fund of entertain⯑ment. There is an exuberance of fancy in him, which, with all its wild⯑neſs, is agreable; his ideas are ſub⯑lime and noble; his drawing moſt elegantly correct; his heads touched [91] with infinite ſpirit, and expreſſion; his figures graceful, rather too nearly allied to the antique; his groups often beautiful; and his execution, in his beſt etchings, for he is often unequal to himſelf, very maſterly.^* Perhaps no prints afford more uſeful ſtudies for a painter.

The proceſſion of SILENUS, if we may gueſs at ſo confuſed a deſign, may illuſtrate all that hath been ſaid. The whole is as incoherent, as the parts are beautiful.

This unfortunate artiſt was drown⯑ed in the Tyber; and it is left uncer⯑tain, whether by accident or de⯑ſign.

[92]SPANIOLET etched a few prints in a very ſpirited manner. No maſter underſtood better the force of every touch. SILENUS and BACCHUS, and the Martyrdom of St. BARTHOLOMEW, are the beſt of his hiſtorical prints; and yet theſe are inferior to ſome of his charicaturas, which are admira⯑bly executed.

MICHAEL DORIGNY, or OLD DORIGNY, as he is often called to diſtinguiſh him from NICHOLAS, had the misfortune to be the ſon in law of SIMON VOUET, whoſe works he engraved, and whoſe imperfections he copied. His execution is free, and he preſerves the lights extremely well upon ſingle figures: his drapery too is natural, and eaſy: but his [97] drawing is below criticiſm; in the extremities eſpecially. In this his maſter miſled him. VOUET excel⯑led in compoſition; of which we have many beautiful inſtances in DO⯑RIGNY'S prints.

VILLAMENA was inferior to few engravers. If he be deficient in ſtrength and effect, there is a delicacy in his manner, which is inimitable. One of his beſt prints is a deſcent from the croſs.

But his works are ſo rare, that we can ſcarce form an adequate idea of his merit.

STEPHEN DE LA BELLA was a minute genius. His manner wants ſtrength for any larger work; but [98] in ſmall objects it appears to advan⯑tage: there is great freedom in it, and uncommon neatneſs. His fi⯑gures are touched with ſpirit; and ſometimes his compoſition is good: but he ſeldom diſcovers any ſkill in the management of light; though the defect is leſs ſtriking, becauſe of the ſmallneſs of the pieces. His Pont Neuf will give us an idea of his works. Through the bad ma⯑nagement of the light, it makes no appearance as a whole; tho' the compoſition, if we except the modern architecture, is tolerable. But the figures are marked with great beauty; and the diſtances extremely fine. — Some of his ſingle heads are very elegant.

[]

[99]LA FAGE'S works conſiſt chiefly of ſcetches. The great excellency of this maſter lay in drawing; in which he was perfectly ſkilled. How⯑ever unfiniſhed his pieces are, they diſcover him to have been admira⯑bly acquainted with anatomy and proportion. There is very little in him beſides, that is valuable; grace, and expreſſion ſometimes; ſeldom compoſition: his figures are gene⯑rally either too much crowded, or too diffuſe. As for light and ſhade, he ſeems to have been totally igno⯑rant of their effect, or he could never have ſhewn ſo bad a taſte, as to publiſh his deſigns without at leaſt a bare expreſſion of the maſſes of each. Indeed we have poſitive proof, as well as negative. Where [100] he has attempted an effect of light, he has ſhewn only how little he knew of it.

His genius chiefly diſplays itſelf in the gambols of nymphs and ſatyrs; in routs and revels: but there is ſo much obſcenity in his works of this kind, that, altho' otherwiſe fine, they ſcarce afford an innocent entertain⯑ment.

In ſome of his prints, in which he has attempted the ſublimeſt cha⯑racters, he has given them a wonder⯑ful dignity. Some of his figures of Chriſt are not inferior to the ideas of RAPHAEL; and in a ſlight ſcetch, intitled, Vocation de Moyſe, the Deity is introduced with ſurprizing majeſty. [101] —His beſt works are ſlightly etched from his drawings by ERTINGER; who has done juſtice to them.

BOLSWERT engraved the works of RUBENS, and in a ſtile worthy of his maſter. You ſee the ſame free, and animated manner in both. It is ſaid that RUBENS touched his proofs; and it is probable; the ideas of the painter are ſo exactly transfuſed into the works of the engraver.

PONTIUS too engraved the works of RUBENS; and would have ap⯑peared a greater maſter, if he had not had ſuch a competitor as BOLS⯑WERT.

[102]SCIAMINOSSI etched a few ſmall plates of the myſteries of the roſary in a maſterly ſtyle. There is no great beauty in the compoſition; but the drawing is good; the figures are generally graceful; and the heads touched with great ſpirit.

ROMAN LE HOOGHE is inimita⯑ble in execution. Perhaps no maſter etches in a freer and more ſpirited manner: there is a richneſs in it likewiſe, which we ſeldom meet with. His figures too are often good; but his compoſition is gene⯑rally faulty: it is crouded, and con⯑fuſed. He knows little of the effect of light. There is a flutter in him too, which hurts an eye pleaſed with [103] ſimplicity. His prints are very hiſ⯑torical. The deluge at Coeverden is finely deſcribed. — LE HOOGHE was much employed by the authors of his time in compoſing frontiſ⯑pieces; ſome of which are very beautiful.

LUIKEN etches in the manner of LE HOOGHE, but it is a leſs maſterly manner. His hiſtory of the bible is a great work, in which there are many good figures, and great freedom of execution; but poor compoſition, much confuſion, and little ſkill in the diſtribution of light. This maſter hath alſo etched a book of various kinds of capital puniſh⯑ments; amongſt which there are many good prints.

[104]GERRARD LAIRESSE etches in a looſe, and unfiniſhed; but free, and maſterly manner. His light is often well diſtributed; but his ſhades have not ſufficient ſtrength to give his pieces effect. Though he was a Dutch painter, you ſee nothing of the Dutchman in his works. His compoſition is generally grand and beautiful, eſpecially where he has only a few figures to manage. His figures themſelves are graceful, and his expreſſion ſtrong. The ſimple and ſublime ideas, which appear every where in his works, acquired him the title of the Dutch RAPHAEL; a title which he very well deſerves. LAIRESSE may be called an ethic painter. He commonly inculcates ſome truth either in morals, or reli⯑gion; [105] which he illuſtrates by a Latin ſentence at the bottom of his print. — It may be added, that his drape⯑ries are particularly excellent.

CASTIGLIONE was an Italian painter of ſome eminence. He drew human figures with grace and cor⯑rectneſs; yet he generally choſe ſuch ſubjects, as would admit the intro⯑duction of animal life, which often makes the moſt diſtinguiſhed part of his piece.

There is a ſimplicity in the deſigns of this maſter, which is very beau⯑tiful. In compoſition he excells greatly. Of his elegant groups we have many inſtances in a ſet of prints, etched from his paintings, [106] in a ſlight, free manner by C. MACEE; particularly in thoſe of the patriar⯑chal journeyings. He hath left us ſeveral of his own etchings alſo, which are very valuable. The ſub⯑jects indeed of ſome of them are odd, and fantaſtic; and the compo⯑ſition not equal to ſome prints we have from his paintings by other hands; but the execution is greatly ſuperior. Freedom, ſtrength, and ſpirit are very eminent in them; and delicacy likewiſe, where he chuſes to finiſh highly; of which we have ſome inſtances. — One of his beſt prints is the entrance of NOAH into the ark. The compoſition; the diſtribution of light; the ſpirit and expreſſion, with which the ani⯑mals are touched; and the freedom [107] of the execution are all admira⯑ble.

VANDER MUILEN has given us hiſtorical repreſentations of ſeveral modern battles. His prints are ge⯑nerally large, and contain many good figures, and agreable groups: but they have no effect, and ſel⯑dom produce a whole. A diſagre⯑able monotony (as the muſical peo⯑ple ſpeak) runs through them all.

OTHO VENIUS has entire⯑ly the air of an Italian, tho' of Dutch parentage. He had the ho⯑nour of being the maſter of the celebrated RUBENS; who chiefly learned from him his knowledge of light and ſhade. This artiſt pub⯑liſhed [108] a book of love-emblems, in which the Cupids are engraved with great ſpirit. His pieces of fabulous hiſtory have leſs merit.

MELLAN was a whimſical en⯑graver. He ſhadowed entirely with parallel lines, which he winds round the muſcles of his figures, and the folds of his draperies, with great variety, and beauty. His manner is ſoft and delicate, but void of ſtrength and effect. His compoſitions of courſe make no whole, tho' his ſin⯑gle figures are often elegant. His ſaints and ſtatues are in general his beſt pieces. There is great expreſ⯑ſion in many of the former: and his drapery is often incomparable. One of his beſt prints is inſcribed, [109] Per ſe ſurgens: and another very good one with this ſtrange paſſage from St. AUSTIN, Ego evangelio non crederem, niſi me catholicae eccleſiae com⯑moveret auctoritas. — His head of Chriſt, effected by a ſingle ſpiral line, is a maſterly, but whimſical performance.

OSTADE'S etchings, like his pic⯑tures, are admirable repreſentations of low life. They abound in hu⯑mour and expreſſion, in which lies their great merit. They have little beſides to recommend them. The compoſition is generally very indiffe⯑rent; and the execution no way re⯑markable. Sometimes, and but ſel⯑dom, you ſee a good effect of light.

[110]CORNELIUS BEGA etches very much in the manner of OSTADE; but with more freedom.

VAN TULDEN has nothing of the Dutch maſter in his deſign; which ſeems formed upon the ſtudy of the antique. It is chaſte, elegant, and correct. His manner is rather firm, and diſtinct, than free, and ſpirited. His principal work is the voyage of ULYSSES in fifty-eight plates; in which we have a great variety of elegant attitudes, excellent charac⯑ters of heads, good drawing, and tho' not much effect, yet often good grouping. His drapery is heavy.

[111]JOSEPH PARROCELLE painted battles for LEWIS XIV. He etched alſo ſeveral of his own deſigns. The beſt of his works are eight ſmall battles, which are very ſcarce. Four of theſe are of a ſize larger than the reſt; of which two, the battle, and ſtripping the ſlain, are very fine. Of the four ſmaller, that entitled veſper is the beſt. — His manner is rough, free, and maſterly, and his knowledge of the effect of light con⯑ſiderable.— His greateſt undertaking was the Life of Chriſt in a ſeries of plates: but it is a haſty and incor⯑rect work. Moſt of the prints are mere ſcetches; and many of them, even in that light, are bad; tho' the freedom of the manner is pleaſing in the worſt of them. The beſt [112] plates are the 14th, 17th, 19th, 22d, 28th, 39th, 41ſt, 42d, and 43d.

V. LE FEBRE etched many deſigns from TITIAN and JULIO ROMANO, in a very miſerable manner. His drawing is bad; his drapery fritte⯑red; his lights ill-preſerved; and his execution diſguſting: and yet we find his works in capital collec⯑tions.

BELLANGE'S prints are highly finiſhed, and his execution is not amiſs. His figures alſo have ſome⯑thing in them, which looks like grace; and his light is tolerably well maſſed. But his heads are ill-ſet on; his extremities incorrectly touch⯑ed; his figures badly proportioned; [113] and in ſhort, his drawing in general very bad.

CLAUDE GILLOT was a French painter; but finding himſelf rivalled, he laid aſide his pencil, and employ⯑ed himſelf entirely in etching. His common ſubjects are dances and re⯑vels, in which he introduces ſatyrs, nymphs, and fawns. By giving his ſylvans a peculiar caſt of eye, he has introduced a new kind of character. The invention, and fancy of this maſter are very pleaſing; and his compoſition is often good. His man⯑ner is ſlight; which is the beſt apo⯑logy for his bad drawing.

WATTEAU has great defects, and, it muſt be owned, great merit. He [114] abounds in all that flutter, and af⯑fectation, which is ſo diſagreable in the generality of French painters. But at the ſame time, we acknow⯑ledge, he draws well; gives grace and delicacy to his figures; and pro⯑duces often a beautiful effect of light. I ſpeak chiefly of ſuch of his works, as have been engraved by others.—He etched a few ſlight plates himſelf with great freedom and elegance. The beſt of them are contained in a ſmall book of figures in various dreſſes and attitudes.

CORNELIUS SCHUT excells chiefly in execution; ſometimes in compo⯑ſition: but he knows nothing of grace; and has, upon the whole, but little merit.

[115]WILLIAM BAUR etches with great ſpirit. His largeſt works are in the hiſtorical way. He has given us many of the ſieges, and battles, which waſted Flanders in the ſixteenth cen⯑tury. They may be exact, and pro⯑bably they are; but they are rather plans than pictures; and have little to recommend them but hiſtoric truth, and the freedom of the execution. BAUR'S beſt prints are ſome charac⯑ters he has given us of different na⯑tions, in which the peculiarities of each are very well preſerved. His OVID is a poor performance.

COYPEL hath left us a few prints of his own etching; the principal of which is an Ecce homo, touched with great ſpirit. Several of his own de⯑ſigns [116] he etched himſelf, and after⯑wards put into the hands of engra⯑vers to finiſh. It is probable he over-looked this work; but it is probable alſo, that we ſhould have had better prints, if we had received them pure from his own needle. What they had loſt in force, would have been amply made up in ſpirit.

PICART was one of the moſt in⯑genious of the French engravers. His imitations are among the moſt entertaining of his works. The cry, in his day, ran wholly in favour of antiquity: "No modern maſters were worth looking at." PICART, piqued at ſuch prejudice, etched ſeveral pieces in imitation of ancient ma⯑ſters; and ſo happily, that he al⯑moſt [117] out-did in their own excellen⯑cies, the artiſts whom he copied. Theſe prints were much admired, as the works of GUIDO, REMBRANDT, and others. Having had his joke, he publiſhed them under the title of Impoſtures innocentes. — PICART'S own manner is highly finiſhed, yet, at the ſame time, rich, bold, and ſpirited. His prints are generally ſmall; and moſt of them from the deſigns of others. One of the beſt is from that beautiful compoſition of POUSSIN, in which Truth is delivered by Time, from Envy.

ARTHUR POND, our countryman, ſucceeded admirably in this method of imitation; in which he hath etched ſeveral very valuable prints; particu⯑larly [118] two oval landſkips after SAL⯑VATOR — a monkey in red chalk after CARRACHE — two or three ruins after PANINI, and ſome others equally excellent.

But this method of imitation hath been moſt ſucceſsfully practiſed by Count CAYLUS, an ingenious French nobleman, whoſe works in this way are very voluminous. He hath ran⯑ſacked the French king's cabinet, and hath ſcarce left a maſter of any note, from whoſe drawings he hath not given us excellent prints. Inſo⯑much, that if we had nothing re⯑maining from thoſe maſters, but Count CAYLUS'S works, we ſhould not want a very ſufficient idea of them. So verſatile is his genius, that []

[119] with the ſame eaſe he preſents us with an elegant outline from RAPHAEL, a rough ſcetch from REMBRANDT, and a delicate portrait from VAN⯑DYKE.

LE CLERC was an excellent en⯑graver; but chiefly in the petite ſtile. He immortalized ALEXANDER, and LEWIS XIV. in miniature. His genius ſeldom exceeds the dimen⯑ſions of ſix inches. Within thoſe limits he can draw up twenty thou⯑ſand men with great dexterity. No artiſt except CALLOT and DELLA BELLA could touch a ſmall figure with ſo much ſpirit. He ſeems to have imitated CALLOT'S manner, but his ſtroke is neither ſo firm, nor ſo maſterly.

[120]PETER BARTOLI etched with free⯑dom; tho' his manner is not agreeable. His capital work is LANFRANK'S gallery.

JAC. FREII is an admirable en⯑graver. He unites in a great de⯑gree ſtrength, and ſoftneſs; and comes as near the force of painting, as an engraver can well do. He employed himſelf chiefly in copying; and has given us the ſtrongeſt ideas of the works of ſeveral of the moſt emi⯑nent maſters. He preſerves the draw⯑ing, and expreſſion of his original; and often perhaps improves the effect. You ſee him in perfection in a noble print from MARATTE, intitled, In conſpectu angelorum pſallam tibi.

[121]S. GRIBELIN is a careful, and laborious engraver; of no extenſive genius; but painfully exact. His works are chiefly ſmall; the princi⯑pal of which are his copies from the Banquetting-Houſe at Whitehall; and from the Cartoons. His man⯑ner is formal; yet he has contrived to preſerve the ſpirit of his original. We have no copies of the cartoons ſo good as his. It is a pity he did not engrave them on a larger ſcale.

LE BAS etches in a clear, di⯑ſtinct, free manner; and has done great honour to the works of TE⯑NIERS, WOVERMAN, and BERG⯑HEM, from whom he chiefly copied. The beſt of his works are after BERG⯑HEM.

[122]BISCHOP'S etching has ſomething very pleaſing in it. It is looſe, and free; and yet has ſtrength, and rich⯑neſs. Many of his ſtatues are good figures: the drawing is ſometimes incorrect; but the execution beau⯑tiful. Many of the plates of his drawing-book are very well. His greateſt ſingle work is the repreſen⯑tation of JOSEPH in Egypt; in which there are many faults, both in the drawing and effect; ſome of which are chargeable upon him, and others upon the artiſt from whom he copied; but upon the whole, it is a pleaſing print.

FRANCIS PERRIER was the de⯑bauched ſon of a goldſmith in Franche-compte. His indiſcretions [123] forcing him from home, his incli⯑nations led him to Rome. His manner of travelling thither was whimſical. He joined himſelf to a blind beggar, whom he agreed to lead for half his alms. At Rome, he applied to painting, and made a much greater proficiency than could have been expected from his diſſipa⯑ted life. He publiſhed a large col⯑lection of ſtatues, and other antiqui⯑ties, which are etched in a very ma⯑ſterly manner. The drawing is often incorrect; but the attitudes are well choſen, and the execution ſpirited. Many of them ſeem to have been done haſtily; but there are marks of ge⯑nius in them all.

MAROT, who was architect to K. [124] WILLIAM, hath etched ſome ſtatues likewiſe in a very maſterly manner. Indeed all his works are admirably executed; but they conſiſt chiefly of ornaments, in the way of his pro⯑feſſion.

FRAN. ROETTIERS etches in a very bold manner, and with a good deal of ſpirit; but there is a harſh⯑neſs in his outline, which is diſagre⯑able; tho' the leſs ſo, as his drawing is generally good. Few artiſts ma⯑nage a crowd better; or give it more effect by a proper diſtribution of light. Of this management we have ſome judicious inſtances in his two capital prints, the Aſſumption of the croſs, and the crucifixion.

[125]NICHOLAS DORIGNY was bred a lawyer; but not ſucceeding at the bar, he ſtudied painting; and after⯑wards applied to engraving. His capital work is the Transfiguration, which Mr. ADDISON calls the nobleſt print in the world. It is unqueſtion⯑ably a noble work; but DORIGNY ſeems to have exhauſted his genius upon it: for he did nothing afterwards worth preſerving. His cartoons are very poor. He engraved them in his old-age, and was obliged to employ aſſiſtants, who did not anſwer his ex⯑pectation.

MASTERS IN PORTRAIT.

Among the maſters in portrait REMBRANDT may take the lead. His heads are admirable copies from nature; and perhaps the beſt of his works. There is infinite expreſſion in them and character.

VAN ULIET followed REM⯑BRANDT'S manner, which he hath in many things excelled. Some of his heads nothing can exceed. The force, which he gives to every fea⯑ture, the roundneſs of the muſcle, the ſpirit of the execution, the ſtrength of the character, and the effect of the whole, are all admirable.

[]

[127]J. LIEVENS etches in the ſame ſtyle. His heads are executed with great ſpirit; and deſerve a place in any collection of prints; tho' they are certainly inferior to ULIET'S. — ULIET, and LIEVENS etched ſome hiſtorical prints, particularly the latter, whoſe Lazarus, after REMBRANDT, is a noble work; but their portraits are their beſt prints.

Among the imitators of REM⯑BRANDT, we ſhould not forget our countryman WORLIDGE; who has very ingeniouſly followed the man⯑ner of that maſter; and ſometimes improved upon him. No man un⯑derſtood the drawing of an head bet⯑ter.

[128]Many of VAN DYKE'S etchings do him great credit. They are chiefly to be found in a collection of the por⯑traits of eminent artiſts, which VAN DYKE was at the expence of get⯑ting engraved. Several of theſe he etched himſelf. They are done ſlightly: but bear the character of a maſter. LUKE VOSTERMAN is one of the beſt. It is probable VAN DYKE made the drawings for moſt of the reſt: his manner is conſpicuous in them all. — A very finiſhed etch⯑ing of an Ecce homo paſſes under the name of this maſter. It is a good print upon the whole; but not equal to what we might ex⯑pect.

We have a few prints of Sir PETER [129] PETER LELY'S etching likewiſe; but there is nothing in them that is extraordinary.

R. WHITE was the principal en⯑graver of portraits in CHARLES IId's reign; but his works are miſerable performances. They are ſaid to be good likeneſſes: they may be ſo; but they are wretched prints.

BECKET and SIMONS are names, which ſcarce deſerve to be mentioned. They were both metzotinto-ſcra⯑pers, of note, only becauſe they were the beſt of their time.

WHITE, the metzotinto ſcraper, ſon of the engraver, was an artiſt of great merit. He copied after Sir [130] GODFREY KNELLER; whom he teized ſo much with his proofs, that it is ſaid Sir GODFREY forbad him his houſe. His metzotinto's are very beautiful. BAPTISTE, WING, STUR⯑GES, and HOOPER are all admirable prints. He himſelf uſed to ſay, that old and young PARR were the beſt portraits he ever ſcraped. His manner was peculiar, at the time he uſed it: tho' it hath ſince been adopted by other maſters. He firſt etched his plate, and then ſcraped it. Hence his prints pre⯑ſerve a ſpirit to the laſt, which few metzotintos do.

SMITH was the pupil of BECKET; but he ſoon excelled his maſter. He was eſteemed the beſt metzotinto-ſcraper []

[131] of his time, tho' perhaps in⯑ferior to WHITE. He hath left a very numerous collection of portraits, ſo numerous, that they are often bound in two large folios. He copied chiefly from Sir GODFREY; and is ſaid to have had an apartment in his houſe. —Lord SOMERS was ſo fond of the works of this maſter, that he ſeldom travelled without carrying them with him in the ſeat of his coach.—Some of his beſt prints are, two holy fami⯑lies, ANTHONY LEIGH, MARY MAGDELINE, SCALKEN, an half-length of Lady ELIZABETH CROMWELL, the Duke of SCHOM⯑BERG on horſe-back, the counteſs of SALISBURY, GIBBON the ſtatuary, and a very fine hawking piece from WYKE.—After all, it muſt be own⯑ed, [132] that the beſt of theſe metzotintos are inferior to what we have ſeen done by the maſters of the preſent age.

MELLAN'S portraits are the moſt indifferent of his works. They want ſtrength, ſpirit, and effect.

PIAZZETA, a Venetian, hath lately publiſhed a ſet of heads, in the ſtyle of MELLAN; but in a much finer taſte, both as to the compoſiti⯑on, and the manner. Tho' like MELLAN, he never croſſes his ſtroke; yet he has contrived to give his heads more force and ſpirit.

J. MORIN'S heads are engraved in a very peculiar manner. They are [] [] [] [] [] []

[133] ſtippled with a graver, after the manner of metzotinto, and have a good effect. They have force; and at the ſame time, ſoftneſs. Few por⯑traits, upon the whole, are better. GUIDO BENTIVOLIUS from VNA⯑DYKE is one of the beſt.

J. LUTMA'S heads are executed in the ſame way: we are told, with a chiſſel and mallet. They are infe⯑rior to MORIN'S; but are not with⯑out merit.

EDM. MARMION etched a few portraits in the manner of VAN⯑DYKE, and probably from him; in which there is great eaſe and free⯑dom. He has put his name only to one of them.

[134]DREVET'S portraits are neat and elegant; but laboured to the laſt de⯑gree. They are copied from RI⯑GAUD, and other French maſters; and abound in all that flutter, and licentious drapery, ſo oppoſite to the ſimple and chaſte ideas of true taſte. DREVET chiefly excells in copying RIGAUD'S frippery, lace, ſilk, fur, velvet, and other ornamental parts of dreſs.

RICHARDSON hath left us ſeveral heads, which he etched for Mr. POPE, and others of his friends. They are ſlight; but ſhew the ſpirit of a maſter. Mr. POPE'S profile is the beſt.

VERTUE was an excellent anti⯑quarian; [135] but no artiſt. He copied with painful exactneſs; in a dry, diſ⯑agreeable manner, without force, or freedom. In his whole collection of heads we can ſcarce pick out half a dozen, which are good.

Such an artiſt, in metzotinto, was FABER. He has publiſhed nothing extremely bad; and yet few things worth collecting. Mrs. COLLIER is one of his beſt prints; and a very good one. She is leaning againſt a pillar, on the baſe of which is en⯑graved the ſtory of the golden apple.

HOUBRAKEN is a genius; and has given us, in his collection of Engliſh portraits, ſome pieces of engraving at leaſt equal to any thing of the kind. [136] Such are his heads of HAMBDEN, SCHOMBERG, the earl of BEDFORD, the duke of RICHMOND particularly, and ſome others. At the ſame time we muſt own, that he has intermix⯑ed among his works a great number of bad prints. In his beſt, there is a wonderful union of ſoftneſs, and freedom. A more elegant and flow⯑ing line no artiſt ſurely ever em⯑ployed.

Our countryman FRY has left be⯑hind him a few very beautiful heads in metzotinto. They are all copied from nature; have great ſoftneſs, and ſpirit; but want ſtrength. Metzo⯑tinto is not adapted to works ſo large, as the heads he has publiſhed.

[]

MASTERS IN ANIMAL LIFE.

BERGHEM has a genius truly paſ⯑toral; and brings before us the moſt agreeable ſcenes of rural life. The ſimplicity of Arcadian manners is no where better deſcribed than in his works. We have a large collection of prints from his deſigns; many etched by himſelf, and many by o⯑ther maſters. Thoſe by himſelf are ſlight, but maſterly. His execution is inimitable. His cattle, which are always the diſtinguiſhing part of his pieces, are well-drawn, admirably characterized, and generally well-grouped. Few painters excelled more in compoſition than BERGHEM; and [138] yet we have more beautiful inſtances of it in the prints etched by others, than in thoſe by himſelf. Among his own etchings a few ſmall plates of ſheep, and goats are exceedingly valued.

J. VISSCHER never appears to more advantage, than when he copies BERGHEM. His excellent drawing, and the freedom of his execution give a great value to his prints, which have more the air of originals, than of copies. He is a maſter both in etching, and engraving. His ſlighteſt etchings, tho' copies only, are the works of a maſter; and when he touches with a graver, he knows how to add ſtrength and firmneſs, without deſtroying freedom and ſpirit. He []

[139] might be ſaid to have done every thing well, if he had not failed in the diſtribution of light: it is more than probable, he has not attended to the effect of it in many of the paintings, which he has copied.

HONDIUS, a native of Rotterdam, paſſed the greater part of his life in England. He painted animals chief⯑ly; was free in his manner; extrava⯑gant in his colouring; incorrect in his drawing; ignorant of the effect of light; but amazingly great in ex⯑preſſion. His prints therefore are better, than his pictures. They poſ⯑ſeſs his chief excellency without his defects. They are executed indeed with great ſpirit; and afford ſuch ſtrong inſtances of animal fury, as we meet [140] with no where, but in nature itſelf. His hunted wolf is an admirable print.

DU JARDIN underſtood the ana⯑tomy of domeſtic animals perhaps better than any other maſter. His drawing is admirably correct; and yet the freedom of the maſter is pre⯑ſerved. He copied nature ſtrictly, tho' not ſervilely; and hath given us not only the form, but the charac⯑teriſtic peculiarities of each animal. He never indeed, like HONDIUS, animates his creation with the vio⯑lence of ſavage fury. His genius takes a milder turn. All is quietneſs, and repoſe. His dogs, after their exerciſe, are ſtretched at their eaſe; []

[141] and the languor of a meridian ſun prevails commonly through all his pieces. His compoſition is beautiful; and his execution, tho' neat, is ſpi⯑rited.—His works, when bound to⯑gether, make a volume of about 50 leaves; among which there is ſcarce one bad print.

REUBENS'S huntings are undoubt⯑edly ſuperior, upon the whole, to any thing of the kind we have. There is more invention in them, and a grander ſtyle of compoſition than we find any where elſe. I claſs them under his name, becauſe they are en⯑graved by ſeveral maſters. But all their engravings are poor. They re⯑ſemble the paintings they are copied from, as a ſhadow does the object, [142] which projects it. There is ſome⯑thing of the ſhape; but all the finiſh⯑ing is loſt. And indeed there is no doubt, but the awkwardneſſes, the patch-work, and the groteſque cha⯑racters, which every where appear in thoſe prints, are in the originals bold fore-ſhortnings, grand effects of light, and noble inſtances of ex⯑preſſion.—But it is as difficult to co⯑py the flights of REUBENS, as to tranſlate thoſe of HOMER. The ſpi⯑rit of each maſter evaporates in the proceſs.

WOVERMAN'S compoſition is ge⯑nerally crouded with little ornaments. There is no ſimplicity in his works. He wanted a chaſte judgment to cor⯑rect his exuberance.—VISSCHER was [143] the firſt who engraved prints from this artiſt. He choſe only a few good deſigns; and executed them maſter⯑ly.—MOYREAU undertook him next, and hath publiſhed a large collection. He hath finiſhed them highly; but with more ſoftneſs than ſpirit. His prints however have a neat appear⯑ance, and exhibit a variety of plea⯑ſing repreſentations; cavalcades, marches, huntings, and encamp⯑ments.

ROSA of TIVOLI etched in a very finiſhed manner. No one out-did him in compoſition, and execution: He is very ſkilful too in the manage⯑ment of light. His deſigns are all paſtoral; and yet there is often a mixture of the heroic ſtyle in his [144] compoſition, which is very pleaſing. His prints are ſcarce; and, were they not ſo, would be valuable.

STEPHEN DE LA BELLA may be mentioned among the maſters in ani⯑mal life; tho' few of his works in this way deſerve any other praiſe, than what ariſes from the elegance of the execution. In general, his animals are neither well drawn, nor juſtly characterized. The beſt of his works in animal life are ſome heads of camels and dromedaries.

ANTHONY TEMPESTA hath etch⯑ed ſeveral plates of ſingle horſes, and of huntings. He hath given great expreſſion to his animals; but his compoſition is more than ordinarily [145] bad in theſe prints: nor is there in any of them the leaſt effect of light.

J. FYT hath etched a few animals; in which you diſcover the drawing, and ſomething of that inimitable ſtrength and ſpirit, with which this maſter painted. But he has only done a few detached things in this way; nothing to ſhew his ſkill in compo⯑ſition, and the management of light, both which he well underſtood.

In curious collections we meet with a few of CUYP'S etchings. The pic⯑tures of this maſter excell in colour⯑ing, compoſition, drawing, and the ex⯑preſſion of character. His prints have all theſe excellencies, except the firſt.

PETER DE LAER hath left us ſe⯑veral [146] ſmall etchings of horſes, and other animals, well characterized, and executed in a bold and maſterly manner. Many of them are ſingle figures; but when he compoſes, his compoſition is generally good, and his diſtribution of light ſeldom much amiſs; often very pleaſing: his drawing too is commonly good.

PETER STOOP came from Liſbon with queen Catherine; and was ad⯑mired in England, till WYCK'S ſu⯑perior excellence in painting eclipſed him. He hath etched a book of hor⯑ſes, which are very much valued; as there is in general, accuracy in the drawing, nature in the characters, and ſpirit in the execution.

[147]REMBRANDT'S lions, which are etched in his uſual ſtyle, are worthy the notice of a connoiſſeur.

BLOTELING'S lions are highly fi⯑niſhed; but with more neatneſs than ſpirit.

PAUL POTTER etched ſeveral plates of cows and horſes in a maſter⯑ly manner. His manner indeed is better than his drawing; which, in his ſheep eſpecially, is but very indif⯑ferent: neither does he characterize them with any accuracy.

BARLOW'S etchings are numerous. His illuſtration of Eſop is his greateſt work. There is ſomething pleaſing in the compoſition, and manner of this maſter, tho' neither is excellent. [148] His drawing too is very indifferent; nor does he characterize any animal juſtly. His birds in general are bet⯑ter than his beaſts.

FLAMEN has etched ſeveral plates of birds, and fiſhes: the former are bad, the latter better than any thing of the kind we have.

HOLLAR has given us ſeveral plates in animal life; which ought the ra⯑ther to be taken notice of, as they are the beſt of his works. Two or three ſmall plates of domeſtic fowls, ducks, wood-cocks, and other game, are very well. His ſhells, and but⯑terflies are beautiful: and indeed theſe are the ſubjects ſuited to his ge⯑nius; []

[149] and it is a pity he did not con⯑fine himſelf to them.

I ſhall cloſe this account with RI⯑DINGER, who is one of the greateſt maſters in animal life. He is ſtill living; but as he is ſo capital in this way, he muſt not be omitted. This artiſt has marked the characters of animals, eſpecially of the more ſa⯑vage kind, with ſurprizing expreſſi⯑on. His works may be conſidered as natural hiſtory. He carries us into the foreſt among bears, and tygers; and, with the exactneſs of a natura⯑liſt, deſcribes their forms, haunts, and manner of living.—His compo⯑ſition is generally beautiful, and his diſtribution of light good; ſo that he commonly produces an agreeable whole. His landſkip too is pictureſque [150] and romantic, and well adapted to the ſubjects he treats. — On the other hand, his manner is laboured and wants freedom. His human fi⯑gures are ſeldom drawn with taſte. His horſes are ill-characterized, and worſe drawn; and indeed his draw⯑ing, in general, is but ſlovenly.— The prints of this maſter are often real hiſtory, and repreſent the por⯑traits of particular animals, which had been taken in hunting. We have ſometimes too the ſtory of the chace, in high-dutch, at the bot⯑tom of the print. The idea of hiſ⯑torical truth adds a reliſh to the en⯑tertainment; and we ſurvey the ani⯑mal with new pleaſure, which has given diverſion to a German prince for nine hours together.—The pro⯑ductions [151] of RIDINGER are very nu⯑merous; and the greater part of them good. His huntings in general, and different methods of catching animals, are the leaſt pictureſque of any of his works. But he meant them rather as didactic prints, than as pictures. Many of his fables are beautiful, par⯑ticularly the 3d, the 7th, the 8th, and the 10th. I cannot forbear ad⯑ding a particular encomium upon a book of the heads of wolves, and foxes.—His moſt capital prints are two large uprights; one repreſenting bears devouring a deer; the other wild-boars repoſing in a foreſt.

MASTERS IN LANDSKIP.

SADLER'S landſkips have ſome merit in compoſition: they are pic⯑tureſque and romantic; but the man⯑ner is dry and diſagreeable, the light is ill-diſtributed, the diſtances ill-kept; and the figures bad.—There were three engravers of this name; but none of them eminent. JOHN engraved a ſet of prints for the bible; and many other ſmall plates in the hiſtorical way; in which we ſome⯑times find a graceful figure, and to⯑lerable drawing; but on the whole, no great merit. EGIDIUS was the engraver of landſkips, and is the per⯑ſon here criticized. RALPH chiefly [153] copied the deſigns of BASSAN; and engraved in the dry diſagreeable man⯑ner of his brother.

REMBRANDT'S landſkips have ve⯑ry little to recommend them, beſides their effect; which is often ſurpri⯑zing. One of the moſt admired of them goes under the name of The three trees.

GASPER POUSSIN etched a few landſkips in a very looſe, but maſter⯑ly manner. It is a pity we have not more of his works.

ABRAHAM BLOEMART underſtood the beauty of compoſition, as well in landſkip, as in hiſtory. His prints have little force, through the want of a proper diſtribution of light. Nei⯑ther [154] is there much freedom in the ex⯑ecution; but there is generally great elegance in the deſign, and great ſim⯑plicity.

HOLLAR gives us views of parti⯑cular places, which he copies with great truth, unornamented, as he found them. If we are ſatisfied with exact repreſentations, we have them no where better than in HOLLAR'S works: but if we expect pictures, we muſt ſeek them elſewhere. HOL⯑LAR was an antiquarian, and a draughtſman; but ſeems to have been unacquainted with any one prin⯑ciple of painting. Stiffneſs to the laſt degree is his characteriſtic, and a pain⯑ful exactneſs, utterly void of all taſte. His larger views are mere plans. In []

[155] ſome of his ſmaller, at the expence of infinite pains, ſomething of an ef⯑fect is ſometimes produced. But in general, we conſider him as a repo⯑ſitory of curioſities, a record of an⯑tiquated dreſſes, aboliſhed ceremonies, and edifices now in ruins.

STEPHEN DE LA BELLA'S land⯑ſkips have little to recommend them, beſides their neatneſs, and keeping. There is no great beauty in his com⯑poſition; and the foliage of his trees reſembles bits of ſpunge. I ſpeak chiefly of his larger works; for which his manner is not calculated. His great neatneſs qualifies him better for miniature.

[156]BOLSWERT'S landſkips after REU⯑BENS are compoſed in a very grand ſtyle. Such a painter and ſuch an engraver could not fail of producing ſomething great. There is little va⯑riety in them; nor any of the more minute beauties ariſing from contraſts, catching lights, and ſuch little ele⯑gancies; but every thing is ſimple, and great. The print, which goes by the name of The waggon, is par⯑ticularly, and deſervedly admired. Of theſe prints you generally meet with good impreſſions, as the plates are engraved with great ſtrength.

NEULANT hath etched a ſmall book of the ruins of Rome, in which there is great ſimplicity, and ſome ſkill in compoſition, and the diſ⯑tribution [157] of light: but the execution is harſh and diſagreeable.

We have a few landſkips by an earl of Sunderland, in an elegant, looſe manner. One of them, in which is is a Spaniard ſtanding on the fore⯑ground, is marked G. and J. ſculpſe⯑runt: another J. G.

WATERLO is a name beyond any other in landſkip. His ſubjects are perfectly rural. Simplicity is their characteriſtic. We find no great va⯑riety in them, nor ſtretch of fancy. He ſelects a few ſtriking objects. A coppice, a corner of a foreſt, a wind⯑ing-road, or a ſtragling village is ge⯑nerally the extent of his view: nor does he always introduce an offſkip. [158] His compoſition is generally good, and his light often well diſtributed; but his chief merit lies in execution, in which he is a conſummate maſter. Every object, that he touches, has the character of nature: but he par⯑ticularly excells in the foliage of trees.—It is a difficult matter to meet with the works of this maſter in perfection: the original plates are all retouched, and greatly injured.

SWANEVELT painted landſkip at Rome, where he obtained the name of the hermit, from his ſolitary walks among the ruins of TIVOLI, and FRESCATI. He etched in the man⯑ner of WATERLO; but with leſs freedom. His trees, in particular, will bear no compariſon with thoſe [159] of that maſter. And yet, upon the whole, his works have great merit. We ſhould think them excellent, if the idea of WATERLO'S ſuperiority in the ſame ſtyle of etching did not conſtantly recur.

JAMES ROUSSEAU was the diſci⯑ple of SWANEVELT. He was a French proteſtant, and fled into Eng⯑land from the perſecution of Lewis XIV. Here he was patronized by the duke of MONTAGUE, whoſe palace, now the Britiſh Muſeum, he contributed to adorn with his paint⯑ings; ſome of which are very good. The few etchings he hath left are very beautiful. He underſtood com⯑poſition, and the diſtribution of light; and there is a fine taſte in his land⯑ſkips, [160] if we except perhaps only that his horizon is often taken too high. Neither can his perſpective, at all times, bear a critical examination; and what is worſe, it is often pedanti⯑cally introduced. His figures are good in themſelves, and generally well placed.—His manner is rather dry and formal.—ROUSSEAU, it may be added, was an excellent man. Having eſcaped the rage of perſecu⯑tion himſelf, he made it his ſtudy to leſſen the ſufferings of his diſtreſſed brethren by diſtributing among them the greateſt part of his gains. Such an anecdote in the life of a painter, ſhould not be omitted even in ſo ſhort a review as this.

[161]J. LUTMA hath etched a few ſmall landſkips in a maſterly manner, which diſcover ſome ſkill in compoſition, and the management of light.

ISRAEL SYLVESTRE has given us ſmall views (ſome indeed of a larger ſize) of moſt of the capital ruins, churches, bridges, and caſtles in Italy and France. They are ex⯑ceedingly neat, and touched with great ſpirit. This maſter can give beauty even to the out-lines of a mo⯑dern building; and, what is more, he gives it, without injuring the truth: inſomuch that I have ſeen a gentleman juſt come from his travels, pick out many of SYLVESTRE'S views, one by one, tho' he had never ſeen them before, merely from his ac⯑quaintance [162] with the buildings. To his praiſe it may be farther added, that in general he forms his view in⯑to an agreeable whole; and if his light is not always well diſtributed, there are ſo many beauties in his ex⯑ecution, that the eye cannot find fault. His works are very numerous, and few of them are bad. In trees he excels leaſt.

The etchings of CLAUDE LORRAIN are below his character. We ſome⯑times find good compoſition in them; but little elſe. His execution is bad: there is a dirtineſs in it, which is diſguſting: his trees are heavy; his lights ſeldom well-maſſed; and his diſtances only ſometimes obſerved.— The truth is, CLAUDE'S talents lay [163] upon his pallet; and he could do no⯑thing without it.

PERELLE has great merit. His fancy is exceedingly fruitful; and ſupplies him with a richneſs, and va⯑riety in his views, which nature ſel⯑dom exhibits. It is indeed too ex⯑uberant; for he often confounds the eye with too great a luxuriancy. His manner is his own; and it is hard to ſay, whether it excells moſt in richneſs, ſtrength, elegance, or free⯑dom. His trees are particularly beau⯑tiful; the foliage is looſe, and the ramification eaſy and graceful. And yet it muſt be confeſſed, that PERELLE is rather a manneriſt, than a co⯑pier of nature. His views are all ideal; his trees are of one family; [164] and his light, tho' generally well diſtributed, is ſometimes affected: it is introduced as a ſpot; and is not properly melted into the neighbour⯑ing ſhade by a middle tint. Catch⯑ing lights, uſed ſparingly, are beau⯑tiful: PERELLE affects them.— Theſe remarks are made principally upon the works of old PERELLE, as he is called. There were three en⯑gravers of this name; the grandfa⯑ther, the father, and the ſon. They all engraved in the ſame ſtyle; but the juniors, inſtead of improving the the family-taſte, degenerated. The grandfather is the beſt, and the grand⯑ſon the worſt.

OVERBECK etched a book of Ro⯑man ruins; which are in general, [165] good. They are pretty large, and highly finiſhed. His manner is free, his light often well diſtributed, and his compoſition agreeable.

GENOEL'S landſkips are rather free ſcetches, than finiſhed prints. In that light they are beautiful. No effect is aimed at: but the free man⯑ner, in which they are touched, is pleaſing; and the compoſition is in general good, tho' often crouded.

BOTH'S taſte in landſkip is elegant. His ideas are grand; his compoſition beautiful; and his execution bold, and maſterly. His light too is com⯑monly well diſtributed; and his fi⯑gures are excellent. We regret only, that we have ſo few of his works.

[166]MARCO RICCI'S works, which are numerous, have little merit. His human figures indeed are good, and his trees tolerable; but he produces no effect, his manner is diſguſting, his cattle ill-drawn, and his diſtan⯑ces ill-preſerved.

ZEEMAN was a Dutch painter; and excelled in ſea-coaſts, beaches, and diſtant land; which he common⯑ly ornamented with ſkiffs, and fiſh⯑ing-boats. His execution is neat, and his diſtances well kept. Of the diſtribution of light he knows no⯑thing; and the fore-grounds of ma⯑ny of his prints are for that reaſon particularly bad. But his figures are good, and his ſkiffs admirable. In his ſea-pieces he introduces larger veſ⯑ſels; [167] but his prints in this ſtyle are commonly awkward; and diſagree⯑able.

VANDIEST left behind him a few rough ſcetches, which are executed with great freedom.

GOUPY very happily caught the manner of SALVATOR; and in ſome things excelled him. There is a rich⯑neſs in his execution, and a ſpirit in his trees, which SALVATOR wants. But his figures are bad. Very groſs inſtances not only of indelicacy of out⯑line, but even of bad drawing, may be found in his print of PORSENNA, and in that of DIANA. Landſkip is his ſort; and his beſt prints are thoſe, which go under the titles of the La⯑trones, [168] the Augurs, Tobit, Hagar, and its companion.

Our celebrated countryman HO⯑GARTH cannot properly be omitted in a catalogue of engravers; and yet he ranks in none of the foregoing claſſes. With this apology I ſhall in⯑troduce him here.

The works of this maſter abound in true humour; and ſatyr, which is generally well-directed: they are admirable moral leſſons, and a fund of entertainment ſuited to every taſte; a circumſtance, which ſhews them to be juſt copies of nature. We may conſider them too as valuable repoſi⯑tories of the manners, cuſtoms, and dreſſes of the preſent age. What a fund of entertainment would a col⯑lection [169] of this kind afford, drawn from every period of the hiſtory of Britain?—How far the works of HO⯑GARTH will bear a critical examinati⯑on, may be the ſubject of a little more enquiry.

In deſign HOGARTH was ſeldom at a loſs. His invention was fertile; and his judgment accurate. An im⯑proper incident is rarely introduced; a proper one rarely omitted. No one could tell a ſtory better; or make it, in all its circumſtances, more intelli⯑gible. His genius, however, it muſt be owned, was ſuited only to low, or familiar ſubjects. It never ſoared above common life: to ſubjects natu⯑rally ſublime: or which from anti⯑quity, or other accidents borrowed dignity, he could not riſe.

[170]In compoſition we ſee little in him to admire. In many of his prints the deficiency is ſo great as plainly to ſhew a want of all principles; it makes us ready to believe, that when we do meet with a beautiful group, it is the effect of chance. In one of his minor works, the Idle 'prentice, we ſeldom ſee a croud more beautifully managed, than in the laſt print. If the ſhe⯑riff's officers had not been placed in a line, and had been brought a little lower in the picture, ſo as to have formed a pyramid with the cart, the compoſition had been unexceptiona⯑ble: and yet the firſt print of this work is ſuch a ſtriking inſtance of diſagreeable compoſition, that it is amazing, how an artiſt, who had any idea of beautiful forms, could [171] ſuffer ſo unmaſterly a performance to leave his hands.

Of the diſtribution of light HO⯑GARTH had as little knowledge as of compoſition. In ſome of his pieces we ſee a good effect; as in the Exe⯑cution juſt mentioned; in which if the figures at the right and left cor⯑ners, had been kept down a little, the light would have been beautifully diſtributed on the foreground, and a fine ſecondary light ſpread over part of the croud: but at the ſame time there is ſo obvious a deficiency in point of effect, in moſt of his prints, that it is very evident he had no prin⯑ciples.

Neither was HOGARTH a maſter in drawing. Of the muſcles and ana⯑tomy of the head and hands he had [172] perfect knowledge; but his trunks are often badly moulded, and his limbs ill ſet on. I tax him with plain bad drawing, I ſpeak not of the ni⯑ceties of anatomy, and elegance of out-line: of theſe indeed he knew nothing; nor were they of uſe in that mode of deſign, which he cultivated: and yet his figures upon the whole are inſpired with ſo much life, and meaning, that the eye is kept in good-humour, in ſpite of its inclina⯑tion to find fault.

The author of the Analyſis of beau⯑ty, it might be ſuppoſed, would have given us more inſtances of grace, than we find in the works of HOGARTH; which ſhews ſtrongly that theory and practice are not always united. Many opportunities his ſubjects naturally [173] afford of introducing graceful atti⯑tudes; and yet we have very few ex⯑amples of them. With inſtances of pictureſque grace his works abound.

But of his expreſſion, in which the force of his genius lay, we cannot ſpeak in terms too high. In every mode of it he was truely ex⯑cellent. The paſſions he thoroughly underſtood; and all the effects which they produce in every part of the hu⯑man frame: he had the happy art alſo of conveying his ideas with the ſame preciſion, with which he con⯑ceived them.— He was excellent too in expreſſing any humourous oddity, which we often ſee ſtamped upon the human face. All his heads are caſt in the very mould of nature. Hence that endleſs variety, which is diſ⯑played [174] through his works; and hence it is that the difference ariſes between his heads, and the affected charica⯑turas of thoſe maſters, who have ſometimes amuſed themſelves with patching together an aſſemblage of features from their own ideas. Such are SPANIOLET'S; which, tho' ad⯑mirably executed, appear plainly to have no archetypes in nature. HO⯑GARTH'S, on the other hand, are collections of natural curioſities. The Oxford-heads, the phyſicians-arms, and ſome of his other pieces, are expreſly of this humourous kind. They are truly comic; tho' ill-na⯑tured effuſions of mirth: more en⯑tertaining than SPANIOLET'S, as they are pure nature; but leſs inno⯑cent, as they contain ill-directed ridi⯑cule.—But [175] the ſpecies of expreſſion, in which this maſter perhaps moſt excels, is that happy art of catching thoſe peculiarities of air, and geſture, which the ridiculous part of every profeſſion contract from their peculi⯑ar ſituation; and which for that rea⯑ſon become characteriſtic of the whole. His counſellors, his under⯑takers, his lawyers, his uſurers are all conſpicuous at ſight. In a word, almoſt every profeſſion may ſee in his works that particular ſpecies of affec⯑tation, which they ſhould moſt en⯑deavour to avoid.

The execution of this maſter is well ſuited to his ſubjects, and manner of treating them. He etches with great ſpirit; and never gives one unneceſſary ſtroke. For myſelf, I greatly more [176] value the works of his own needle; than thoſe high-finiſhed prints, on which he employed other engravers. For as the production of an effect is not his talent; and as this is the chief excellence of high-finiſhing, his own rough manner is certainly preferable, in which we have moſt of the force, and ſpirit of his expreſſion. The man⯑ner in none of his works pleaſes me ſo well, as in a ſmall print of a cor⯑ner of a play-houſe. There is more ſpirit in a work of this kind, ſtruck off at once, warm from the imagi⯑nation, than in all the cold correct⯑neſs of an elaborate engraving. If all his works had been executed in this ſtyle, with a few improve⯑ments in the compoſition, and the management of light, they would [177] certainly have been a much more valuable collection of prints than they are. The rake's progreſs, and ſome of his other works, are both etched and engraved by himſelf: they are well done; but it is plain he meant them as furniture. As works deſigned for a critick's eye, they would certainly have been better without the engraving, except a few touches in a very few places. The want of effect too would have been leſs conſpicuous, which in his high⯑eſt finiſhed prints is diſagreeably ſtriking.

THE RESURRECTION OF LA⯑ZARUS, BY BLOEMART.

WITH regard to deſign, this print has great merit. The point of time is very judiciouſly cho⯑ſen. It is a point between the firſt command, Lazarus come forth; and [180] the ſecond, Looſe him, and let him go. The firſt aſtoniſhment of the two ſiſters is now over. The predomi⯑nant paſſion is gratitude; which is diſcovering itſelf in praiſe. One of the attendents is telling the yet ſtu⯑pified man, "That is your ſiſter." He himſelf, collecting his ſcattered ideas, directs his gratitude to Chriſt. Jeſus directs it farther, to heaven. So far the deſign is good. But what are thoſe idle figures on the right hand, and on the left? ſome of them ſeem no way concerned in the action. Two of the principal of them are introduced as grave-diggers; but even in that capacity they were unwanted; for the place, we are told, was a cave, and a ſtone rolled upon the mouth. When a painter is employed on a [181] barren ſubject, he muſt make up his groups as he is able: but there is no barrenneſs here: and the painter might with propriety have introdu⯑ced in the room of the grave-diggers, ſome of the Phariſaical party malig⯑ning the action. Such we are told were on the ſpot. They are figures of conſequence in the ſtory; and ought not to have been ſhoved back, as they are, among the appendages of the piece.

The compoſition is almoſt faultleſs. The principal group is finely diſpoſed. It's form is nearly that of a right-an⯑gled triangle. The hand of Chriſt is the apex. The kneeling figure, and the dark figure looking up make the two other angles. The group [182] opens in a beautiful manner, and diſ⯑covers every part. It is equally beau⯑tiful, when conſidered, as combined with the figures on the left. It then forms an eaſy inclined plane, of which the higheſt figure is the apex, and the dark figure juſt mentioned, on the left of Lazarus is the angle at the baſe. Such combinations of trian⯑gular forms have a fine effect.

The light is very ill-diſtributed, tho' the figures are diſpoſed to receive the moſt beautiful effect of it. The whole is one glare. It had been bet⯑ter, if all the figures on the elevated ground, on the right, had been in ſtrong ſhadow. The extended arm, the head, and ſhoulder of the grave-digger might have received catching [183] lights. A little more light might have been thrown upon the principal figure; and a little leſs upon the fi⯑gure kneeling. The remaining fi⯑gures, on the left, ſhould have been kept down. Thus the light would have centered ſtrongly upon the ca⯑pital group, and would have faded gradually away.

The ſingle figures are in general good. The principal one indeed is not ſo capital as might be wiſhed. The character is not quite pleaſing; the right arm is aukwardly introdu⯑ced, if not ill-drawn; and the whole diſagreably incumbered with drape⯑ry.—Lazarus is very fine: the draw⯑ing, the expreſſion, and grace of the figure are all good.—The figure [184] kneeling is not very graceful; but it contraſts with the group.—The grave-diggers are both admirable fi⯑gures. It is a pity, they ſhould be incumbrances only.

The drawing is good; yet there ſeems to be ſomething amiſs in the pectoral muſcles of the grave-digger on the right. The hands too, in general, of all the figures, are con⯑ſtrained and aukward. Few of them are in natural action.

The manner is ſtrong, diſtinct, and expreſſive. It is mere engraving, without any etching. The drapery of the kneeling figure is particularly well touched: as are alſo the head, and leg of LAZARUS; and the grave-digger on the left.

THE DEATH OF POLYCRATES, BY SALVATOR ROSA.

The ſtory is well told: every part is fully engaged in the ſubject, and properly ſubordinate to it.

The diſpoſition is agreeable. The contrivance of the groups, falling one into another, is very pleaſing: And yet the form would have been more beautiful, if a ladder, with a figure upon it, a piece of looſe drapery, a ſtandard, or ſome other object had been placed on the left ſide of the croſs, to have filled up that formal vacancy, in the ſhape of a right-an⯑gle, and to have made the pyramid more compleat. The groups them⯑ſelves [186] are ſimple and elegant. The three figures on horſe-back indeed are had. A line of heads is always unpleaſing.

We have no idea of keeping. The whole has only one ſurface; which might have been prevented by a lit⯑tle more ſtrength on the fore-ground, and a ſlighter ſky.

The light is diſtributed without any judgment. It might perhaps have been improved, if the group of the ſoldier reſting upon his ſhield, had been in ſhadow; with a few catching lights. This ſhadow, paſ⯑ſing through the label, might have extended over great part of the fore-ground above it: by which we ſhould have had a body of ſhadow to balance the light of the centre-group. The [187] lower figures of the equeſtrian-group might have received a middle tint, with a few ſtrong touches; the up⯑per figures might have caught the light, to detach them from the ground.

With regard to the figures taken ſeparately, they are almoſt unexcep⯑tionably good. You will ſeldom in⯑deed ſee ſo many good figures in any collection of ſuch a number. The young ſoldier leaning over his ſhield; the other figures of that group; the ſoldier pointing, in the middle of the picture; and the figure behind him ſpreading his hands, are all in the higheſt degree elegant, and graceful. The diſtant figures too are beautiful. The expreſſion, in the whole body of the ſpectators, is very ſtriking. [188] Some are more, and ſome leſs affec⯑ted; but every one in a degree.— All the figures however are not fault⯑leſs. POLYCRATES hangs ungrace⯑fully upon his croſs: his body is too much made up of parallel lines, and right angles. His face is ſtrongly marked with agony: but his legs are diſproportioned to his body.—The three lower figures of the equeſtrian-group, are bad. They are properly placed to catch the abruptneſs of the centre-group, and finiſh the pyra⯑midal form; but they might have had a little more meaning, and a little more grace.—One of the equeſ⯑trian figures alſo, that neareſt the croſs, is formal, and diſguſting: and as to an horſe, SALVATOR ſeems not to have had the leaſt idea of the pro⯑portion, [189] and anatomy of that ani⯑mal.

The ſcenery is inimitable. The rock broken, and covered with ſhrubs, at the top; and afterwards ſpreading into one grand, and ſimple ſhade, is in itſelf a pleaſing object; and affords an excellent back-ground to the fi⯑gures.

The execution of this print is equal to that of any of SALVATOR'S works. The paſſages, in which this maſter's manner is more particularly characte⯑rized, are, the ſoldier ſitting with the ſhield, the pointing figure in the middle group, the head in armour behind it, the diſtant groups imme⯑diately on the right, and left of the croſs; and the ſcenery in general.

THE TRIUMPH OF SILENUS, BY PETER TESTA.

P. TESTA ſeems, in this elegant and maſterly performance, as far as his ſublime ideas can be comprehend⯑ed, to intend a ſatyr upon drunken⯑neſs.

The deſign ſeems to be perfect. The God is introduced in the middle of the piece, holding an ivy-crown, and ſupported by his train, in all the pomp of unwieldy majeſty. Before him dance a band of bacchanalian ri⯑oters; while Intemperance, De⯑bauchery, and unnatural Luſts com⯑pleat the immoral feſtival. In the offſkip riſes the temple of Priapus, [191] hard by a mountain, dedicated to lewdneſs, nymphs and ſatyrs. — In the heavens are repreſented the Moon and Stars puſhing back the Sun; to ſhew that the actions, of which this night was a witneſs, dreaded the ap⯑proach of light.

The diſpoſition has leſs merit; yet is not unpleaſing. The whole group, on the left of SILENUS, and the ſe⯑veral parts of it, are happily diſpo⯑ſed. The group of dancers, on the other ſide, is crouded, and ill-ſhapen. It is diſagreeable too for want of con⯑traſt. The two principal figures, each ſtanding on one leg, appear diſ⯑guſting counter-parts. The whole (I ſpeak only of the terreſtrial groups) is diſpoſed in the form of an eaſy in⯑clined [192] plane; which partakes as lit⯑tle as poſſible of the pyramidal form. It might perhaps have had a better effect, if an elegant canopy had been holden over SILENUS, which would have been no improper appendage; and, by bringing the apex of the pyramid over the principal figure, would hav [...] given more variety to the whole. The ſameneſs too in the diſ⯑poſition of the etherial and the ter⯑reſtrial figures, which is rather diſ⯑pleaſing, would have been prevented by this ſlight alteration.

The light, with regard to particu⯑lar figures is very beautiful. But ſuch a light, at beſt, gives you only the idea of a picture examined by a can⯑dle. Every figure, as you hold the [193] candle to it, appears well lighted; but inſtead of an effect of light you have only a ſucceſſion of ſpots. In⯑deed the light is not only ill, but abſurdly diſtributed. The upper part is inlightened by one ſun, and the lower part by another; the direction of the light being different in each.— Should we endeavour to amend it, it might be better perhaps to leave out the Sun; and to repreſent him, by his ſymbols, as approaching only. The ſky-figures would of courſe re⯑ceive catching lights, and might be left nearly as they are. The figure of Rain under the Moon ſhould be in ſhadow. The bear too, and the li⯑on's head ſhould be kept down. Thus there would be nothing glaring in the celeſtial figures. For SILENUS, and [194] his train, they might be enlightened by a very ſtrong torch-light; which might be carried by the dancing fi⯑gures. The light would then fall nearly as it does, upon the principal group. The other figures ſhould be brought down to a middle tint. This kind of light would naturally produce a gloom in the back-ground; but there is no occaſion to make it dark, as more torch-light might be ſuppo⯑ſed.

With regard to the figures taken ſeparately, they are conceived with ſuch claſſical purity, and ſimplicity of taſte, ſo elegant in the drawing, ſo graceful in every attitude, and at the ſame time marked with ſuch man⯑ly expreſſion, that if I were obliged to fix upon any print as an example [195] of all the beauties, of which ſingle figures are capable of receiving, I ſhould be tempted to give the prefe⯑rence to this: tho' at the ſame time it muſt be owned, that ſome of them give you too much the idea of mar⯑ble.

The moſt ſtriking inſtances of fine drawing are ſeen in the principal fi⯑gure; in the legs of the figure that ſupports him; and in thoſe of the fi⯑gure dancing with the pipes; in the man and woman behind the centaur; in the figure in the clouds, with his right hand over his knee; in the A⯑pollo; and particularly in that bold, fore-ſhortened figure of the ſign Ca⯑pricorn.

Inſtances of expreſſion we have in the unweildineſs of SILENUS. He [196] appears ſo dead a weight, ſo totally unelaſtic, that every part of him, which is not ſupported, ſinks with its own gravity. The ſenſibility too with which his bloated body, like a quagmire, feels every touch, is ſtrong⯑ly expreſſed in his countenance. The figure, which ſupports him, expreſ⯑ſes in every muſcle the labour of the action. The dancing figures, if we except that with the thyrſus, are all ſtrongly characterized. The puſhing figures in the ſky are marked with great expreſſion; and above all the threatning Capricorn, who is repre⯑ſented in the act of drawing a bow.

With regard to grace, every figure, at leaſt every capital one, is agreeable; if we except only that figure, which lies kicking its legs upon the ground. [197] But we have the ſtrongeſt inſtances of grace in the figure dancing with the pipes, in the man and woman behind the centaur, (which, it is not im⯑probable, might be deſigned for BAC⯑CHUS and ARIADNE) and in the boy lying on the ground.

With regard to execution, we rarely ſee an inſtance of it in greater perfec⯑tion. Every head, every muſcle, and every extremity is touched with infi⯑nite ſpirit. The very appendages are fine; and the ſtone-pines, which adorn the back-ground, are marked with ſuch taſte and preciſion, as if landſkip had been this artiſt's only ſtudy.

SMITH'S PORTRAIT OF THE DUKE OF SHOMBERG, FROM KNELLER.

KNELLER, even when he laid him⯑ſelf out to excel, was often but a taw⯑dry painter. His equeſtrian portrait of king WILLIAM, at Hampton-court, is a very unmaſterly perform⯑ance: the compoſition is bad; the colouring gaudy; the whole is void of effect, and there is ſcarce a good figure in it.—The compoſition before us is more pleaſing, tho' the effect is little better. An equeſtrian figure, at beſt, is an aukward ſubject. The legs of an horſe are great incumbran⯑ces in grouping. VANDYKE indeed has managed king CHARLES the Firſt [199] on horſe-back with great judgment; and RUBENS too, at Hampton-court, has made a noble picture of the duke of ALVA, tho' his horſe is very ill-drawn.—In the print before us the figure ſits with grace and dignity; but the horſe is no Bucephalus: its character is only that of a managed⯑pad. The buſh, growing by the duke's trunchion, is a trifling circum⯑ſtance; and helps to break into more parts, a compoſition already too much broken.—The execution is throughout excellent; and tho' the parts are ra⯑ther too ſmall for metzotinto, yet SMITH has given them all their force.

PETHER'S METZOTINTO OF REM⯑BRANDT'S JEWISH RABBI.

The character is that of a ſtern, haughty man, big with the idea of his own importance. The rabbi is probably fictitious; but the carac⯑ter was certainly taken from nature. There is great dignity in it; which in a work of REMBRANDT'S is the more extraordinary.—The full ex⯑preſſion of it is given us in the print. The unelaſtic heavineſs of age, which is ſo well deſcribed in the original, is as well preſerved in the copy. The three equidiſtant lights on the head, on the ornament, and on the hands, are diſagreeable: [201] in the print they could not be remov⯑ed; but it might have been judicious to have kept down the two latter a little more.—With regard to the ex⯑ecution, every part is ſcraped with the utmoſt ſoftneſs, and delicacy. The muſcles are round and plump; and the inſertions of them, which in an old face are very apparent, are well expreſſed. Such a variety of middle tints, and melting lights were difficult to manage; and yet they are managed with great tenderneſs. The looſeneſs of the beard is maſterly. The hands are exactly thoſe of a fat old man. The ſtern eyes are full of life; and the noſe and mouth are ad⯑mirably touched. The ſeparation of the lips in ſome parts, and adheſion in others, are characteriſtic ſtrokes; [202] and happily preſerved. The folds and lightneſs of the turban are very ele⯑gant. The robe, about the ſhoulder, is unintelligible, and ill-managed: but this was the painter's fault.—In a word, when we examine this very beautiful metzotinto, we muſt ac⯑knowledge, that no engraving can equal it in ſoftneſs, and delicacy.

HONDIUS'S HUNTED WOLF.

The compoſition, in this little print, is good; and yet there is too much ſimilitude in the direction of the bo⯑dies of the ſeveral animals. The ſhape alſo of the group would have been more pleaſing, if the vertical angle had been rather more acute. The group is too much broken alſo, and wants ſolidity. The horizon is taken too high; unleſs the dimenſi⯑ons of the print had been higher. The riſing-ground, above the wolf's head, had been offſkip enough; and yet the rock, which riſes higher, is ſo beautifully touched; that it would be a pity to remove it.—The light is [204] diſtributed without any judgment. It might have been improved, if all the interſtices among the legs, and heads of the animals had been kept down; and the ſhadow made very ſtrong under the fawn, and the woun⯑ded dog. This would have given a bold relief to the figures; and might, without any other alteration, have produced a good effect.—The draw⯑ing is not faultleſs. The legs and body of the wounded dog are but very inaccurate: nor does the attacking dog ſtand firm upon his right leg.— With regard to expreſſion, HONDIUS has exerted his full force. The ex⯑preſſion both of the wounded dog, and of the wolf, is admirable: but the expreſſion of the attacking dog is a moſt bold and maſterly copy from [205] nature. His attitude ſhews every nerve convulſed; and his head is a maſterpiece of animal fury. — We ſhould add, that the ſlaughtered ani⯑mal is ſo ill-characterized, that we ſcarce know what it is. The execution is equal to the expreſſion. It is neat, and highly finiſhed; but diſcovers in every touch the ſpirit of a maſ⯑ter.

THE 5th PLATE OF DU JARDIN'S ANIMALS.

The deſign, tho' humble, is ſimple and beautiful. The two dogs repo⯑ſing at noon after the labour of the morning, the impliments of fowling, the fictitious hedge, and the loop⯑holes through it, all correſpond to⯑gether, and agreeably tell the little hiſtory of the day.—The compoſition is beautiful; tho' it might have been improved, if another dog, or ſome⯑thing equivalent, had been introduced in the vacancy at the left corner. This would have given the group of dogs a better form. The nets, and fowling-pieces are judiciouſly added; [207] and make an agreeable ſhape with the dogs. The hedge alſo adds another pyramidal form; which would have been more pleaſing, if the left cor⯑ner of the reeds had been a little higher.—The light is well diſtribu⯑ted; only there is too much of it. The farther dog might have been taken down a little; and the hinder parts of the nearer.—The drawing and expreſſion are pure nature; and the execution elegant and maſterly.

WATERLO'S TOBIAS.

The landſkip I mean, is an up⯑right of the largeſt ſize, which this maſter ever uſed; near twelve inches in height, by ten. On the near ground ſtands an oak, which forms a diagonal through the print. The ſecond diſtance is compoſed of a riſing ground, connected with a rock, which is covered with ſhrubs. The oak, and the ſhrubs make a viſta, through which you have an extenſive view into the coun⯑try. The figures, which conſiſt of an angel, Tobias, and a dog, are de⯑ſcending an hill, which forms the ſecond diſtance. The print, with [209] the deſcription, cannot be miſtaken.— The compoſition is very pleaſing. The trees, on the fore-ground, ſpreading over the top of the print, and ſloping to a point at the bottom, give the beautiful form of an inverted pyra⯑mid; which, in trees eſpecially, has often a fine effect. To this form the inclined plane, on which the figures ſtand, and which is beautifully bro⯑ken, is a good contraſt. The rock approaches to a perpendicular, and the diſtance to an horizontal line. All together make ſuch a combina⯑tion of beautiful and contraſting ſhapes, that the whole is very plea⯑ſing. If I ſhould find fault with any thing, it is the regularity of the rocks. There is no variety in parrel⯑lel lines; and it had been very eaſy [210] to have broken them.—The keeping is very accurate. The ſecond, and third diſtance are both judiciouſly managed.—The light is beautifully diſpoſed. To prevent heavineſs, it is introduced upon the tree, both at the top and bottom; but it is pro⯑perly kept down. A maſs of ſhade ſucceeds upon the ground of the ſe⯑cond diſtance; and is continued upon the water. The light breaks, in a blaze, upon the bottom of the rock, and maſſes the whole. The trees, ſhrubs, and upper part of the rock are happily thrown into a middle tint, to prevent extravagance. Perhaps the effect of the diſtant country might have been better, if all the lights up⯑on it had been kept down, except one eaſy catching light upon the town, [211] and the riſing ground on which it ſtands.—The execution is exceedingly beautiful. No artiſt had an happier manner of expreſſing trees than WA⯑TERLO; and the tree before us is one of his capital works. The ſhape of it we have already criticized. The bole and ramification are as beautiful as the ſhape. The foliage, if I were not afraid of ſpeaking the language of extravagance, ſeems the work of inchantment. Such an union of ſtrength, and lightneſs is rarely found. The extremities are touched with infinite tenderneſs; the ſtrong maſſes of light are relieved with ſha⯑dows equally ſtrong; and yet great eaſe, and ſoftneſs are preſerved. The fore-ground is highly inriched; and indeed the whole print, and every part of it, is full of art, and full of nature.

THE DELUGE AT COEVERDEN, BY ROMAN LE HOOGHE.

This is an hiſtorical landſkip, a ſtyle very different from that of the laſt. WATERLO had nothing in view, but to form an agreeable pic⯑ture. He had all nature before him; through which his imagination might range. The figures he introduced, unconnected with his ſubject, ſerv⯑ed only to embelliſh it. Any o⯑ther figures would have anſwered his deſign as well. But LE HOOGHE was confined within narrower lines. He had a country to deſcribe, and a ſtory to tell. The country is the en⯑virons of Coeverden, a Dutch town, [213] with a view of that immenſe bank, which the biſhop of Munſter, in the year 1673, threw up, and fortified at a vaſt expence, to lay the town under water. The ſtory, is the ruin of that bank, which was broken through in three places, by the vio⯑lence of the waters in a ſtorm. The ſubject was great, and difficult; and yet the artiſt has acquitted himſelf in a maſterly manner. The town of Coeverden fills the diſtant view. The country is ſpread with a deluge; the ſky with a tempeſt; and the breaches in the bank appear in all their horror.—The compoſition, in the diſtant, and middle parts, is as plea⯑ſing as ſuch an extenſive ſubject can be. An elevated horizon, which is always diſguſting, was neceſſary here [214] to give a diſtinct view of the whole. —The light too is thrown over the diſtant parts in good maſſes.—The expreſſion of the figures, of the horſes eſpecially, is very ſtrong: thoſe, which the driver is turning, to avoid the horrid chaſm before him, are impreſſed with the wildeſt character of terror: and indeed the whole ſcene of diſtreſs, and the horrible confuſion in every part of it, are ad⯑mirably deſcribed.—The execution is not equal to that of many of LE HOOGHE'S works. The ſky is hard; and there is a dryneſs in the whole. If in any part the maſter appears like himſelf, it is in the figures on the left of the fore-ground.—There are other faults in this print. The ſhape of it is bad. A little more length [215] would have enlarged the idea; and the town would have ſtood better not quite in the middle.—But what is moſt faulty, is the diſproportion, and littleneſs of the fore-ground on the right. The ſpirit, which the artiſt had maintained through the whole deſcription, flags miſerably here. Whereas here he ſhould have cloſed the whole with ſome vaſt, and noble confuſion; which would have given keeping to the diſtant parts, and ſtruck the ſpectator with the ſtrongeſt ima⯑ges of horror. Inſtead of this, we are preſented with a few pigs, and calves floundering in the water. The thought ſeems borrowed from OVID. In the midſt of a world in ruins, Nat lupus inter oves.

HOGARTH'S RAKE'S PROGRESS.

The firſt print of this capital work is an excellent repreſentation of a young heir taking poſſeſſion of a mi⯑ſer's effects. The paſſion of avarice, which hoards every thing, without diſtinction, what is, and what is not valuable, is admirably deſcribed.— The compoſition, tho' not excellent, is not unpleaſing. The principal group, conſiſting of the young gen⯑tleman, the taylor, the appraiſer, the papers, and cheſt, is agreeably ſhaped: but the eye is hurt with the diſagreeable regularity of three heads nearly in a line, and at equal diſtan⯑ces.—The light is not ill-diſpoſed. [217] It falls on the principal figures: but the effect might have been improved. If the extreme parts of the maſs, (the white apron on one ſide, and the memorandum-book on the other,) had been in ſhade, the repoſe had been leſs injured. The detached parts of a group ſhould rarely catch a ſtrong body of light.—We have no ſtriking inſtances of expreſſion in this print. The principal figure is un⯑meaning. The only one, which diſ⯑plays the true vis comica of HOGARTH, is the appraiſer fingering the gold. You enter at once into his character. —The young woman might have furniſhed the artiſt with an opportu⯑nity of preſenting a graceful figure; which would have been more plea⯑ſing. The figure he has introduced [218] is by no means an object of allure⯑ment.—The perſpective is accurate; but affected. So many windows, and open doors may ſhew the author's learning; but they break the back-ground, and injure the ſimplicity of it.

The ſecond print introduces our hero into all the diſſipation of modiſh life. We became firſt acquainted with him, when a boy of eighteen. He is now of age; has entirely thrown off the clowniſh ſchool-boy; and aſ⯑ſumes the man of faſhion. Inſtead of the country-taylor, who took meaſure of him for his father's mourn⯑ing, he is now attended by French-barbers, French-taylors, poets, mil⯑liners, jockies, bullies, and the whole [219] retinue of a fine gentleman.—The expreſſion, in this print, is wonder⯑fully great. The dauntleſs front of the bully; the keen eye, and elaſti⯑city of the fencing-maſter, and the ſimpering importance of the dancing-maſter are admirably expreſſed. The laſt is perhaps rather a little outrè; and it may be added, but very indif⯑ferently drawn. The architect is a ſtrong copy from nature.—The com⯑poſition ſeems to be entirely ſubſer⯑vient to the expreſſion. It appears, as if HOGARTH had ſcetched in his memorandum-book all the charac⯑ters, which he has here introduced; but was at a loſs how to group them; and choſe rather to introduce them in detached figures, as he had ſcetch⯑ed them, than to loſe any part of the [220] expreſſion by combining them.—The light is very ill diſtributed. It is ſpread indiſcriminately over the print; and deſtroys the whole.—We have no inſtance of grace in any of the fi⯑gures. The principal figure is very deficient. There is no contraſt in the limbs; which is always attended with a degree of ungracefulneſs.— The execution is very good. It is ela⯑borate, and yet free.—The ſatyr on operas, tho' it may be well-directed, is forced and unnatural.

The third plate carries us ſtill deeper in the hiſtory. We meet our hero engaged in one of his evening-amuſements. This print, on the whole, is no very extraordinary ef⯑fort of genius.—The deſign is good; [221] and may be a very exact deſcription of the humours of a brothel.—The compoſition too is not amiſs. But we have few of thoſe maſterly ſtrokes, which diſtinguiſh the works of HO⯑GARTH. The whole is plain hiſtory. The lady ſetting the world on fire, is the beſt thought: and there is ſome humour in furniſhing the room with a ſet of Caeſars; and not placing them in order.—The light is ill-managed. By a few alterations, which are ob⯑vious, particularly by throwing the lady dreſſing, into the ſhade, the diſpoſition of it might have been to⯑lerable. But ſtill we ſhould have had an abſurdity to anſwer, whence comes it? Here is light in abun⯑dance; but no viſible ſource.—Ex⯑preſſion we have very little through [222] the whole print. The principal fi⯑gure is the beſt. The ladies have all the air of their profeſſion; but no variety of character. HOGARTH'S women are, in general, very inferior to his men. For which reaſon I pre⯑fer the rake's progreſs to the harlot's. The female-face indeed has ſeldom ſtrength of feature enough to admit the ſtrong markings of expreſſion.

Very diſagreeable accidents often befall gentlemen of pleaſure. An event of this kind is recorded in the fourth print; which is now before us. Our hero going, in full dreſs, to pay his compliments at court, on St. Da⯑vid's-day, was accoſted in the rude manner, which is here repreſented. —The compoſition is good. The form [223] of the group, made up of the figures in action, the chair, and the lamp-lighter, is pleaſing. Only here we have an opportunity of remarking, that a group is diſguſting, when the extremities of it are heavy. A group in ſome reſpect ſhould reſemble a tree. The heavier part of the foliage, (the cup, as the landſkip-painter calls it) is always near the middle: the out⯑ſide-branches, which are relieved by the ſky, are light and airy. An in⯑attention to this rule has given a heavineſs to the group before us. The two bailiffs, the woman, and the chairman are all huddled together in that part of the group, which ſhould have been the lighteſt; while the middle part, where the hand holds the door, wants ſtrength and [224] conſiſtence. It may be added too, that the four heads, in the form of a diamond, make an unpleaſing ſhape. All regular figures ſhould ſtudiouſly be avoided.—The light would have been well diſtributed, if the bailiff holding the arreſt, and the chairman, had been a little lighter, and the wo⯑man darker. The glare of the white apron is diſagreeable.—We have, in this print, ſome beautiful inſtances of expreſſion. The ſurprize and ter⯑ror of the poor gentleman is appa⯑rent in every limb, as far as is con⯑ſiſtent with the fear of diſcompoſing his dreſs. The inſolence of power in one of the bailiffs, and the un⯑feeling heart in the other, which can jeſt with miſery, are ſtrongly marked. The ſelf-importance too of the honeſt [225] Cambrian is not ill-portrayed; who is chiefly introduced to ſettle the chronology of the ſtory.—In point of grace, we have nothing ſtriking. HOGARTH might have introduced a degree of it in the female figure; at leaſt he might have contrived to vary the diſagreeable, and heavy form of her drapery.—The perſpective is good, and makes an agreeable ſhape. —I cannot leave this print without remarking the falling ban-box. Such repreſentations of quick motion are very abſurd; and every moment the abſurdity grows ſtronger. You can⯑not deceive the eye. The falling bo⯑dy muſt appear not to fall. Objects of that kind are beyond the power of repreſentation.

[226]Difficulties croud ſo faſt upon our hero, that at the age of twenty-five, which he ſeems to have attained in the fifth plate, we find him driven to the neceſſity of marrying a woman, whom he deteſts, for her fortune. The compoſition here is very good; and yet we have a diſagreeable regu⯑larity in the climax of the three fi⯑gures, the maid, the bride, and the bride-groom.—The light is not ill-diſtributed. The principal figure too is graceful; and there is ſtrong ex⯑preſſion in the ſeeming tranquility of his features. He hides his contempt of the object before him, as well as he can; and yet he cannot do it. She too has as much meaning, as can appear through the deformity of her features. The clergyman's face we [227] are well acquainted with, and alſo his wig; tho' we cannot pretend to ſay, where we have ſeen either. The clerk too is an admirable fellow. — The perſpective is well underſtood; but the church is too ſmall; and the wooden poſt, which ſeems to have no uſe, divides the picture very diſ⯑agreeably.—The creed loſt, the com⯑mandments broken, and the poor's-box obſtructed by a cobweb, are all excellent ſtrokes of ſatyrical humour.

The fortune, which our adventurer has juſt received, enables him to make one puſh more at the gaming-table. He is exhibited in the ſixth print, venting curſes on his folly for having loſt his laſt ſtake. — This is upon the whole perhaps the beſt print [228] of the ſet. The horrid ſcene it deſcribes, was never more inimitably drawn. The compoſition is artful, and natural. If the ſhape of the whole be not quite pleaſing, the figures are ſo well grouped, and with ſo much eaſe and variety, that you cannot take of⯑fence.—In point of light, it is more culpable. There is not ſhade enough among the figures to balance the glare. If the neck-cloth, and weep⯑ers of the gentleman in mourning had been removed, and his hands thrown into ſhade, even that alone would have improved the effect.— The expreſſion, in almoſt every figure, is admirable; and the whole is a ſtrong repreſentation of the human mind in a ſtorm. Three ſtages of that ſpecies of madneſs, which at⯑attends [229] gaming, are here deſcribed. On the firſt ſhock, all is inward diſ⯑may. The ruined gameſter is re⯑preſented leaning againſt a wall, with his arms acroſs, loſt in an agony of horror. Perhaps never paſ⯑ſion was deſcribed with ſo much force. In a ſhort time this horrible gloom burſts into a ſtorm of fury: he tears in pieces what comes next him; and kneeling down, invokes curſes upon himſelf. He next at⯑tacks others; every one in his turn whom he imagines to have been in⯑ſtrumental in his ruin.—The eager joy of the winning gameſters, the attention of the uſurer, the vehe⯑mence of the watchman, and the profound reverie of the high-wayman are all admirably marked. There is [230] great coolneſs too expreſſed in the lit⯑tle we ſee of the fat gentleman at the end of the table. The figure oppoſing the mad-man is bad: it has a drunken appearance; and drunken⯑neſs is not the vice of a gaming-table.—The principal figure is ill drawn. The perſpective is formal; and the execution but indifferent: in heightening his expreſſion HO⯑GARTH has loſt his ſpirit.

The ſeventh plate, which gives us the view of a jail, has very little in it. Many of the circumſtances, which may well be ſuppoſed to in⯑creaſe the miſery of a confined debt⯑or, are well contrived; but the fruit⯑ful genius of HOGARTH, I ſhould think, might have treated the ſub⯑ject [231] in a more copious manner. The epiſode of the fainting woman might have given way to many cir⯑cumſtances more proper to the occa⯑ſion. This is the ſame woman, whom the rake diſcards in the firſt print; by whom he is reſcued in the fourth; who is preſent at his mar⯑riage; who follows him into jail; and laſtly to Bedlam. The thought is rather unnatural, and the moral certainly culpable. — The compoſition is bad. The group of the woman fainting, is a round heavy maſs: and the other group is very ill ſhapen. The light could not be worſe ma⯑naged; and, as the groups are con⯑trived, can hardly be improved.—In the principal figure there is great expreſſion; and the fainting ſcene is [232] well deſcribed.—A ſcheme to pay off the national debt by a man who cannot pay his own; and the at⯑tempt of a ſilly rake to retrieve his affairs by a work of genius, are admirable ſtrokes of humour.

The eighth plate brings the fortunes of our hero to a concluſion. It is a very expreſſive repreſentation of the moſt horrid ſcene, which human nature can exhibit. — The compoſition is not bad. The group, in which the lunatic is chained, is well managed; and if it had been carried a little further towards the middle of the picture, and the two women, (who ſeem very odly introduced) had been removed, both the compoſition, and the diſtri⯑bution of light had been good. — [233] The drawing of the principal fi⯑gure is a more accurate piece of ana⯑tomy, than I ſhould have expect⯑ed from HOGARTH. The expreſ⯑ſion of this figure is rather un⯑meaning; and very inferior to the ſtrong characters of all the other lunatics. The fertile genius of the artiſt has introduced as many of the cauſes of madneſs, as he could well have collected; tho' there is a little tautology. There are two religioniſts, and two aſtronomers. Yet there is vari⯑ety in each; and ſtrong expreſ⯑ſion in all the characters. The ſelf-ſatisfaction, and conviction of him, who has diſcovered the lon⯑gitude, the mock majeſty of the monarch, the moody melancholy [234] of the lover, and the ſuperſtitious horror of the popiſh devotée are all admirable.—The perſpective is ſimple and proper.