TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE
Italic text is denoted by _underscores_.
A superscript is denoted by ^; for example M^R, y^e.
Obvious typographical errors and punctuation errors have been
corrected after careful comparison with other occurrences within
the text and consultation of external sources.
Footnotes have been moved to the end of the book text. Some Footnotes
are very long.
More detail can be found at the end of the book.
HOGARTH'S WORKS:
WITH
_LIFE AND ANECDOTAL DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS PICTURES._
THIRD SERIES.
[Illustration: _HOGARTH'S DEDICATION, WRITTEN FOR A HISTORY OF THE
ARTS, &c., WHICH HE INTENDED PUBLISHING AS A SUPPLEMENT TO THE
ANALYSIS OF BEAUTY. COPIED FROM HIS MANUSCRIPT IN THE POSSESSION OF
JOHN IRELAND._]
The no Dedication
Not Dedicated to any Prince in Christendom
for fear it might be thought an
Idle piece of Arrogance.
Not Dedicated to any man of quality
for fear it might be thought too assuming.
Not Dedicated to any learned body
of Man, as either of the universityes, or the
Royal Society, for fear it might be thought
an uncommon piece of Vanity.
Nor Dedicated to any one particular Friend
for fear of offending another.
Therefore Dedicated to nobody.
But if for once we may suppose
Nobody to be every body, as Every body
is often said to be nobody, then is this work
Dedicated to every body.
by their most humble
and devoted W: Hogarth.
HOGARTH'S WORKS:
WITH
_LIFE AND ANECDOTAL DESCRIPTIONS OF HIS PICTURES_.
BY
JOHN IRELAND AND JOHN NICHOLS, F.S.A.
[Illustration: (The Dolphin Candlestick)]
_THE WHOLE OF THE PLATES REDUCED IN EXACT
FAC-SIMILE OF THE ORIGINALS._
Third Series.
London:
CHATTO AND WINDUS, PUBLISHERS.
(_SUCCESSORS TO JOHN CAMDEN HOTTEN._)
LIST OF PLATES
DESCRIBED IN THE THIRD SERIES.
PAGE
FAC-SIMILE AUTOGRAPH--"THE NO DEDICATION," _Frontispiece to
face Title._
DOLPHIN CANDLESTICK, _Title Page._
Do. (described), 123
KENT'S ALTAR-PIECE, 24
THE RAPE OF THE LOCK, 26
ARMS OF THE DUCHESS OF KENDAL, 28
FRONTISPIECE TO ARTISTS' CATALOGUE, 78
TAIL-PIECE TO Do., 78
THE VASE, 114
Do. (described), 112
HINTS FOR A NEW CAPITAL, 114
ROUND AND SQUARE HEADS, 114
Do. (described), 116
HERCULES, HENRY VIII., AND A FRENCH DANCING-MASTER, 114
Do. (described), 119
CHARLES I., HENRIETTA MARIA, ITALIAN JUPITER, ETC., 124
THE DANCE, 124
FRONTISPIECE TO THE PERSPECTIVE OF ARCHITECTURE, 132
TASTE IN HIGH LIFE, 180
FARINELLI, CUZZONI, AND SENESINO, 184
A WOMAN SWEARING HER CHILD TO A GRAVE CITIZEN, 188
THE FOUNDLINGS, 192
CAPTAIN THOMAS CORAM, 192
FRONTISPIECE TO TERRÆ FILIUS, 194
THE SEPULCHRE, 194
THE POLITICIAN, 198
THE MATCHMAKER, 200
THE MAN OF TASTE, 202
HENRY FIELDING, 206
SIMON LORD LOVAT, 210
NINE PLATES FOR DON QUIXOTE:
PLATE I. The First Sally in Quest of Adventure, 220
PLATE II. The Innkeeper, 220
PLATE III. The Funeral of Chrysostom, 222
PLATE IV. The Innkeeper's Wife and Daughter administering
Chirurgical Assistance to the poor Knight of
La Mancha, 222
PLATE V. Don Quixote seizes the Barber's Basin for
Mambrino's Helmet, 224
PLATE VI. Don Quixote releases the Galley Slaves, 224
PLATE VII. First Interview of Don Quixote with the
Knight of the Rock, 226
PLATE VIII. The Curate and Barber disguising themselves
to convey Don Quixote home, 226
PLATE IX. Sancho's Feast, 228
HEIDEGGER IN A RAGE, 230
LARGE MASQUERADE TICKET, 230
THE SOUTH SEA BUBBLE, 238
THE LOTTERY, 238
MASQUERADES AND OPERAS--BURLINGTON GATE, 238
BEGGARS' OPERA BURLESQUED, 242
TWELVE PLATES OF BUTLER'S HUDIBRAS, 242
JUST VIEW OF THE BRITISH STAGE, 246
EXAMINATION OF BAMBRIDGE, 246
HENRY VIII. AND ANNA BULLEYN, 248
CROWNS, MITRES, MACES, ETC., 246
Do. (described), 249
THE ROYAL MASQUERADE, 252
RICH'S TRIUMPHANT ENTRY, 254
MR. RANBY'S HOUSE AT CHISWICK, 254
Do. (described), 262
HYMEN AND CUPID, 254
Do. (described), 263
THE POOL OF BETHESDA, 256
THE GOOD SAMARITAN, 256
MARTIN FOLKES, Esq., 260
BISHOP HOADLEY, 262
FALSE PERSPECTIVE, 264
INHABITANTS OF THE MOON, 264
RECEIPT FOR PRINT OF MARCH TO FINCHLEY, 264
THE FARMER'S RETURN, 266
GRAVITY, 266
FRONTISPIECES TO TRISTRAM SHANDY, 266
FOUR HEADS FROM THE CARTOONS, 268
THE SHRIMP-GIRL, 268
LORD HOLLAND, 268
EARL OF CHARLEMONT, 268
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, 270
DEBATES ON PALMISTRY, 270
THE STAYMAKER, 270
CHARITY IN THE CELLAR, 270
SIX TICKETS, 272
[Illustration: (end of section floral icon)]
ADVERTISEMENT.
The manuscripts from which the principal parts of this volume are
compiled were written by the late Mr. Hogarth; had he lived a
little longer, he would have methodized and published them.[1] On
his decease, they devolved to his widow, who kept them sacred and
entire[2] until her death, when they became the property of her
relation and executrix, Mrs. Lewis, of Chiswick, by whose kindness
and friendship they are now in my possession.
This is the fair and honest pedigree of the Papers, which may be thus
divided:--
I. Hogarth's life, comprehending his course of study, correspondence,
political quarrels, etc.
II. A manuscript volume, containing the autographs of the
subscribers to his "Elections," and intended print of "Sigismunda;"
and letters to and from Lord Grosvenor relative to that picture.
III. The manuscript of the _Analysis of Beauty_, corrected by the
author, with the original sketches, and many remarks omitted in the
printed copy.
IV. A supplement to the _Analysis_, never published; comprising a
succinct history of the arts in his own time, his account of the
institution of the Royal Academy, etc.
V. Sundry memoranda relative to the subject of his satire in several
of his prints.
These manuscripts being written in a careless hand, generally on
loose pieces of paper, and not paged, my first endeavour was to
find the connection, separate the subjects, and place each in its
proper class. This, in such a mass of papers, I found no very easy
task; especially as the author, when dissatisfied with his first
expression, has frequently varied the form of the same sentence
two or three times: in such instances I have selected that which I
thought best constructed. Every paper has been attentively examined,
and is to the best of my judgment arranged as the author intended.
I have incorporated Hogarth's account of the Arts, Academy, etc.,
with his narrative of his own life; and to keep distinct the various
subjects on which he treats, divided the whole into chapters. Where
from negligence or haste he has omitted a word, I have supplied it
with that which the context leads me to believe he would have used.
Where the sentences have been very long, I have occasionally broken
them into shorter paragraphs, and sometimes tried to render the style
more perspicuous, by the retrenchment of redundant expressions; but
in every case the sense of the author is faithfully adhered to.
As he has usually given the progress of his life, opinions, etc. in
the first person, I have adopted the same rule; and to distinguish my
own remarks from Hogarth's narrative, the beginning of each sentence
written by him is marked with inverted commas. His correspondence is
regulated by the dates of the letters; and the copies from sketches
in the MS. _Analysis_ are placed in the chapter which contains
Hogarth's account of that publication.
In the papers which relate to the subject of his satire in some of
his prints, he appears to have projected more than his life allowed
him to perform; the few remarks which he made are inserted in the
Appendix.
Prints are in general designed to illustrate books, but the
Editor's part of this volume is written to illustrate Prints. He is
apprehensive that the whole will stand in need of much indulgence,
but certain that the errors, whatever they may be, do not originate
in a want of diligence. To his thanks for the flattering reception of
the first Edition, and rapid sale of the first and second Editions
of the two preceding volumes, he has only to add his reasons for
bringing forward this third. When they were published, he had
neither seen the MSS., nor ever heard that Hogarth had written
anything for the press, except the _Analysis of Beauty_. When he
some time after obtained the papers, he considered them as a very
valuable acquisition, and was vain enough to think that by arranging
them he could compile a volume which would gratify the admirers of
Hogarth; and in the hope that the life, opinions, criticisms, and
correspondence of this great and original genius will excite and
gratify curiosity, he respectfully submits the following pages to the
candour and indulgence of the public.
J. I.
[Illustration: (end of section floral icon)]
HOGARTH.
INTRODUCTION.
Mr. Walpole (in p. 160 of his _Anecdotes_) gravely declares that
Hogarth had but slender merit as a painter, and in colouring proved
no greater a master. By the six pictures of "Marriage à la Mode,"
both these declarations are answered and refuted.
Mr. Nichols (in p. 449 of his _Anecdotes_), at the same time that
he kindly acknowledges "Hogarth's hand was faithful to character,"
roundly asserts that as an engraver his merits are inconsiderable;
that he wants clearness; that his strokes sometimes look as if
fortuitously disposed, and sometimes thwart each other in almost
every possible direction. He adds, "that what the artist wanted in
skill, he strove to make up in labour; but the result of it was a
universal haze and indistinctness, that, by excluding force and
transparency, rendered several of his larger plates less captivating
than they would have been had he entrusted the sole execution of
them to either Ravenet or Sullivan." This is very severe; but is
it true? If the "Harlot's" and "Rake's Progress," the "Enraged
Musician," "Strolling Actresses," "Medley," and many other prints
produced by his own graver, are attentively examined, I think the
strokes will not be found to be fortuitously disposed: every touch
tells, and gives that expression which the artist intended. As to
his striving to make up for his want of skill by labour, I believe
him to have been a prodigy of industry, but do not discover the
result that is suggested by Mr. Nichols. We may possibly annex
different ideas to the words. Johnson describes a universal _haze_
as a fog, a mist; and _indistinctness_ he defines to be confusion,
uncertainty, obscurity,--faults which were never attributed to
William Hogarth. Neither have I before heard it said that his prints
want force: energy is in general their leading characteristic. As to
transparency, if Mr. Nichols means that they have not that gauzy,
glittering tone which marks many of our modern productions, I humbly
conceive the artist did not desire such distinction; neither did he
wish his works to be classed with such _pretty performances_: he was
superior to the tricks of art, rejected all unnecessary flourish, and
aimed at convincing the mind rather than dazzling the eye.
The two most difficult things in painting are character and drawing;
and they are least understood by the crowd, who are invariably
attracted by colour and glare. But for my own part, so far am I from
thinking his style unsuitable to his subject, that I cannot conceive
any manner in which his prints could be engraved that would be
equal to his own. I prefer it to the most laboured copies of those
miniature masters who, by fine finishing, fritter away all force.
Thus much may suffice for Mr. Nichols, from whom I am sorry to
differ, as I owe him thanks for much useful information; but with the
next critic upon the list it is dangerous to disagree.
For the talents of Mr. James Barry, Professor of Painting to the
Royal Academy, I have the highest respect; his pictures in the
Adelphi are an honour to the artist, and to the nation. In the sixth,
representing the state of final retribution, he gives Hogarth a
seat in Elysium; but in p. 162 of his description of the picture,
etc. (published for Cadell), he has drawn this great artist in so
motley a garb as leaves the reader in some doubt whether censure or
praise predominates, and confers on poor Hogarth a sort of degrading
immortality.
The Professor begins by admitting that "Hogarth's merit entitles
him to an honourable place amongst the artists in Elysium, and that
his little compositions 'tell' their own story with more facility
than is often found in the elevated and more noble inventions of
Raphael;" yet adds, "it must be honestly confessed that in what is
called knowledge of the figure, foreigners have justly observed
Hogarth is often so raw and unformed as hardly to deserve the name of
an artist." Though he is often thus raw and unformed, yet Mr. Barry
acknowledges that "this capital defect is not often perceivable, as
examples of the naked and of elevated nature but rarely occur in his
subjects, which are for the most part filled with characters that in
their nature tend to deformity." Sometimes, I admit; but surely not
for the most part. "Besides, his figures are small, and the junctures
and other difficulties of drawing that might occur in their limbs
are artfully concealed with their clothes, rags, etc." Mr. Barry
surely does not mean that Hogarth needed any artifice to conceal
an ignorance of anatomy, because Mr. Barry knows that many of his
works prove a perfect knowledge of the figure. The Professor thus
continues:--
"What would atone for all his defects, even if they were twice
told, is his admirable fund of invention, ever inexhaustible in its
resources; and his satire, which is always sharp and pertinent, and
often highly moral, was (except in a few instances, where he weakly
and meanly suffered his integrity to give way to his envy) seldom or
never employed in a dishonest or unmanly way." A few instances! I do
not believe it possible to point out one. Seldom or never! Why is
the Professor so parsimonious in his praise? He might safely have
said never. It has been the fashion to call Hogarth an envious man; I
cannot conjecture why. The critic surely does not mean to insinuate
that there was any violation of integrity in Hogarth's retaliating
the pictured shapes upon Wilkes and Churchill, or that he envied the
character of the late worthy Chamberlain of the city of London!
Mr. Barry goes on: "Few have attempted to rival him in his moral
walk. The line of art pursued by my very ingenious predecessor and
brother Academician, Mr. Penny, is quite distinct from that of
Hogarth, and is of a much more delicate and superior relish; he
attempts the heart, and reaches it, whilst Hogarth's general aim
is only to shake the sides." Whoever will turn over a portfolio of
Hogarth's prints, will find that his satire had sometimes a higher
aim. "In other respects no comparison can be thought of,"--in good
truth, it cannot,--"as Mr. Penny has all that knowledge of the figure
and academical skill which the other wanted." Can Mr. Barry conceive
it possible that posterity will think Mr. Penny's line of art of a
superior relish to that of Hogarth! Mr. Penny's academical skill I
do not contest; but to say that Hogarth wanted all that knowledge of
the figure, etc., is rather too much. I know that imperfections may
be pointed out in some of his works, but they had their origin in
carelessness rather than ignorance.
Mr. Barry concludes by remarking, that "perhaps it may be reasonably
doubted whether the being much conversant with Hogarth's method of
exposing meanness, deformity, and vice, in many of his works, is not
rather a dangerous, or at least a worthless pursuit; which, if it
does not find a false relish, and a love of, and search after, satire
and buffoonery in the spectator, is at least not unlikely to give him
one."
That the Professor of Painting, after acknowledging Hogarth's satire
was highly moral, should be apprehensive that contemplating such of
his works as expose meanness, deformity, and vice, is dangerous, I
cannot comprehend!
Considering their genius, general good tendency, and boundless
variety, it would have been more candid to have viewed them through
the medium of his beauties, than thus have distorted his faults, and
reluctantly admitted his merits; but to such criticism his own works
supply a short answer.
An instance of this occurred in 1762, when the author of the _North
Briton_, among some other malign remarks, inserted the following
paragraph:--"I have for some time observed Hogarth's setting sun: he
has long been very dim, and almost shorn of his beams." A few weeks
after the appearance of this candid critique, Hogarth published his
"Medley," which, considered in the first and second state, has more
mind, and is marked with deeper satire, than all his other works!
By fastidious connoisseurs it has been said that his scenes are
sometimes low and vulgar; but he carried into every subject the
energy of genius, and marked every countenance with the emotions of
the soul. He had powers more than equal to ascending into a higher
region, though, as he might have lost in utility what he gained in
dignity, this adherence to terrestrial objects is not much to be
regretted. Had he wandered in heathen mythology, and chosen to people
his canvas with demigods instead of the "Harlot's Progress," we might
have had the "Loves of Venus and Adonis;" and in the place of the
"Stages of Cruelty," the "Labours of Hercules."
To enumerate the little critics that stepped forth with the _kind_
intention of unpluming this "eagle tow'ring in his pride of place,"
would be waste of ink; had they succeeded to their wish, not a
feather would have been left in his wing. As an artist, he might have
soared superior to their efforts; but when he commenced author, they
found him within their reach, and renewed their attack with redoubled
acrimony.
Mr. Wilkes, in the _North Briton_ above quoted, calls him the
supposed author of the _Analysis_. By some he was said to have
borrowed a part of the work, and by others to have stolen the whole;
nay, I have more than once been seriously assured that every line
was written by his friends. To this I can now reply in a style
similar to that of the peripatetic, who, being told by a philosopher
that there was no such thing as motion, gravely rose from his seat
and walked across the room. I can produce the original manuscript,
with the red chalk corrections by his own hand.[3] This supplement to
that work, Hogarth wrote to vindicate himself from these and similar
aspersions. In explaining his motives, he is led into stating his
professional opinions; and in that part which relates to the Royal
Academy, predicts that, on the plan they set out, the institution
could never be of material use to the Arts. For one who is neither
artist, associate, nor academician, to assert that Hogarth's prophecy
is fulfilled, might be deemed too assuming. But, with little more
claim to connoisseurship than I derive from a long and unreserved
intimacy with some of the first painters of this country, I am led
to fear that the wish their late President expressed in his first
discourse is not likely to be speedily realized. He hopes that "the
present age may vie in Arts with that of Leo the Tenth; and that 'the
dignity of the dying Art' (to make use of an expression of Pliny) may
be revived under the reign of George the Third."
This discourse was read in 1769; yet (let it not be told in Gath, nor
whispered in the streets of Askelon), when in 1797 the students of
the Royal Academy produced their drawings for the silver medal, not
one of them was found worthy of the prize; and what (considering the
recent discovery of the Venetian secret) was still more strange, all
the pictures sent by the candidates for the prize of painting were
rejected, and voted out of the room! This circumstance the Professor
of Painting has recorded in his letter to the Dilettanti Society, and
candidly admits that the fault does not lie with the students, but is
in the Institution!
If it should be thought that Hogarth, in the course of his narration,
seems too tremblingly alive, and sometimes offended where offence
was not meant, let it be recollected that he must have felt superior
to men whom the public preferred. To rank him with Kent, Jervas,
Highmore, Hudson, Hayman, or any of that school of mannerists who
figured in the different periods of his life, is classing a giant
among pigmies. His works will bear the relative test of times when
the Arts may be higher than they were then or are now; and I am
fully conscious that this Memoir must derive its principal interest
from the celebrity of the artist, who, like Louis de Camoëns, was a
distinguished actor in the scenes he describes.
ANECDOTES OF AN ARTIST,
_WHO HELD, AS 'TWERE, THE MIRROR UP TO NATURE_.
CONTAINING MANY CIRCUMSTANCES RELATIVE TO HIS LIFE, AND OPINIONS OF
THE ARTS, ARTISTS, ETC. OF THE TIMES IN WHICH HE LIVED; AND SUNDRY
MEMORANDA RELATIVE TO HIS PRINTS.
_Compiled from his Original Manuscripts, in the possession of_
JOHN IRELAND.
CHAPTER I.
HOGARTH'S OWN ACCOUNT OF HIS BIRTH AND EARLY EDUCATION. REASONS
FOR HIS BEING APPRENTICED TO A SILVER-PLATE ENGRAVER; WITH
WHICH EMPLOYMENT BECOMING DISGUSTED, HE COMMENCES AN ENGRAVER
ON COPPER. METHOD OF STUDY. THE FATE OF THE FIRST PRINT HE
PUBLISHED, ETC.
"As many sets of my works have been lately sent to foreign
countries, and others sold to persons who, from their ignorance
of the particular circumstances at which I aimed, have mistaken
their meaning and tendency, I have been told that a short
account of such parts as are obscure, or have been most liable
to misconstruction, in those prints that are not noticed in Mr.
Rouquet's book,[4] would be highly acceptable.
"I am further told, that the public have sometimes expressed a
curiosity to know what were the motives by which the author was
induced to make choice of subjects so different from those of
other painters, and what were his modes of study in a walk which
had not been trode by any other man. These reasons will, I hope,
be deemed a sufficient apology for my attempting the following
brief history; in which must necessarily be introduced my opinion
of the present state of the arts, and conduct of contemporary
artists, and a vindication of myself and my productions from the
aspersions which they have so liberally bestowed upon each.
"With respect to my life,--to begin sufficiently early,--I was
born in the city of London, on the 10th day of November 1697, and
baptized the 28th of the same month. My father's pen, like that
of many other authors, did not enable him to do more than put me
in a way of shifting for myself. As I had naturally a good eye
and a fondness for drawing, shows of all sorts gave me uncommon
pleasure when an infant; and mimicry, common to all children, was
remarkable in me. An early access to a neighbouring painter drew
my attention from play, and I was at every possible opportunity
employed in making drawings. I picked up an acquaintance of
the same turn, and soon learnt to draw the alphabet with great
correctness. My exercises when at school were more remarkable
for the ornaments which adorned them, than for the exercise
itself.[5] In the former I soon found that blockheads with
better memories could much surpass me, but for the latter I was
particularly distinguished.
"Besides the natural turn I had for drawing rather than learning
languages, I had before my eyes the precarious situation of men
of classical education. I saw the difficulties under which my
father laboured, and the many inconveniences he endured from his
dependence being chiefly on his pen, and the cruel treatment
he met with from booksellers and printers, particularly in
the affair of a _Latin Dictionary_,[6] the compiling of which
had been a work of some years. It was deposited in confidence
in the hands of a certain printer; and during the time it was
left, letters of approbation were received from the greatest
scholars in England, Scotland, and Ireland. But these flattering
testimonies from his acquaintance (who, as appears from their
letters which I have still by me, were of the first class)
produced no profit to the author.[7] It was therefore very
conformable to my own wishes that I was taken from school and
served a long apprenticeship to a silver-plate engraver.
"I soon found this business in every respect too limited. The
paintings of St. Paul's Cathedral and Greenwich Hospital,[8]
which were at that time going on, ran in my head, and I
determined that silver-plate engraving should be followed no
longer than necessity obliged me to it. Engraving on copper
was, at twenty years of age, my utmost ambition. To attain this
it was necessary that I should learn to draw objects something
like nature instead of the monsters of heraldry; and the common
methods of study were much too tedious for one who loved his
pleasure and came so late to it, for the time necessary to
learn in the usual mode would leave me none to spare for the
ordinary enjoyments of life. This led me to considering whether
a shorter road than that usually travelled was not to be found.
The early part of my life had been employed in a business rather
detrimental than advantageous to those branches of the art which
I wished to pursue, and have since professed. I had learned by
practice to copy with tolerable exactness in the usual way, but
it occurred to me that there were many disadvantages attending
this method of study, as having faulty originals, etc.; and even
when the pictures or prints to be imitated were by the best
masters, it was little more than pouring water out of one vessel
into another. Drawing in an academy, though it should be after
the life, will not make the student an artist; for as the eye
is often taken from the original to draw a bit at a time, it is
possible he may know no more of what he has been copying when his
work is finished than he did before it was begun.
"There may be, and I believe are, some who, like the engrossers
of deeds, copy every line without remembering a word; and if
the deed should be in law Latin or old French, probably without
understanding a word of their original,--happy is it for them,
for to retain would be indeed dreadful.
"A dull transcriber who, in copying Milton's _Paradise Lost_,
hath not omitted a line, has almost as much right to be compared
to Milton as an exact copier of a fine picture by Rubens hath to
be compared to Rubens. In both cases the hand is employed about
minute parts, but the mind scarcely ever embraces the whole.
Besides this, there is an essential difference between the man
who transcribes the deed and he who copies the figure; for
though what is written may be line for line the same with the
original, it is not probable that this will often be the case
with the copied figure: frequently far from it. Yet the performer
will be much more likely to retain a recollection of his own
imperfect work than of the original from which he took it.
"More reasons, not necessary to enumerate, struck me as strong
objections to this practice, and led me to wish that I could
find the shorter path; fix forms and characters in my mind, and,
instead of copying the lines, try to read the language, and, if
possible, find the grammar of the art, by bringing into one focus
the various observations I had made, and then trying by my power
on the canvas how far my plan enabled me to combine and apply
them to practice.
"For this purpose I considered what various ways, and to what
different purposes, the memory might be applied, and fell
upon one which I found most suitable to my situation and idle
disposition.
"Laying it down first as an axiom, that he who could by any means
acquire and retain in his memory perfect ideas of the subjects
he meant to draw, would have as clear a knowledge of the figure
as a man who can write freely hath of the twenty-four letters
of the alphabet and their infinite combinations (each of these
being composed of lines), and would consequently be an accurate
designer.
"This I thought my only chance for eminence, as I found that
the beauty and delicacy of the stroke in engraving was not to
be learnt without much practice, and demanded a larger portion
of patience than I felt myself disposed to exercise. Added to
this, I saw little probability of acquiring the full command of
the graver in a sufficient degree to distinguish myself in that
walk; nor was I, at twenty years of age, much disposed to enter
on so barren and unprofitable a study as that of merely making
fine lines. I thought it still more unlikely, that by pursuing
the common method and copying old drawings, I could ever attain
the power of making new designs, which was my first and greatest
ambition. I therefore endeavoured to habituate myself to the
exercise of a sort of technical memory; and by repeating in my
own mind the parts of which objects were composed, I could by
degrees combine and put them down with my pencil. Thus, with
all the drawbacks which resulted from the circumstances I have
mentioned, I had one material advantage over my competitors,
viz. the early habit I thus acquired of retaining in my mind's
eye, without coldly copying it on the spot, whatever I intended
to imitate.[9] Sometimes, but too seldom, I took the life for
correcting the parts I had not perfectly enough remembered, and
then I transferred them to my compositions.
"My pleasures and my studies thus going hand in hand, the most
striking objects that presented themselves, either comic or
tragic, made the strongest impression on my mind; but had not I
sedulously practised what I had thus acquired, I should very soon
have lost the power of performing it.
"Instead of burdening the memory with musty rules, or tiring
the eyes with copying dry and damaged pictures, I have ever
found studying from nature the shortest and safest way of
attaining knowledge in my art.[10] By adopting this method I
found a redundancy of matter continually occurring. A choice
of composition was the next thing to be considered, and my
constitutional idleness[11] naturally led me to the use of such
materials as I had previously collected; and to this I was
further induced by thinking that, if properly combined, they
might be made the most useful to society, in painting, although
similar subjects had often failed in writing and preaching.
"To return to my narrative: the instant I became master of my own
time, I determined to qualify myself for engraving on copper. In
this I readily got employment; and frontispieces to books, such
as prints to _Hudibras_, in twelves, etc., soon brought me into
the way. But the tribe of booksellers remained as my father had
left them when he died about five years before this time,[12]
which was of an illness occasioned partly by the treatment he met
with from this set of people, and partly by disappointment from
great men's promises; so that I doubly felt this usage, which put
me upon publishing on my own account. But here again I had to
encounter a monopoly of printsellers equally mean and destructive
to the ingenious; for the first plate I published, called the
'Taste of the Town,' in which the reigning follies were lashed,
had no sooner begun to take a run, than I found copies of it in
the print-shops, vending at half price, while the original prints
were returned to me again; and I was thus obliged to sell the
plate for whatever these pirates pleased to give me, as there was
no place of sale but at their shops.
"Owing to this and other circumstances, by engraving, until I was
near thirty, I could do little more than maintain myself; but
even then I was a punctual paymaster."
The print here alluded to, I apprehend to be that now entitled the
"Small Masquerade Ticket," or "Burlington Gate," published in 1724,
in which the follies of the town are very severely satirized by the
representation of multitudes, properly habited, crowding to the
masquerade,[13] opera, pantomime of _Doctor Faustus_, etc., while
the works of our greatest dramatic writers are trundled through the
streets in a wheel-barrow, and cried as waste paper for shops.
As a further illustration of the taste of the times, the artist
has given a view of Burlington Gate, with a figure, I believe,
intended to represent the then fashionable artist, William Kent, on
the summit, brandishing his palette and pencils, and placed in a
more elevated situation than either Michael Angelo or Raphael, who,
seated beneath, become the two supporters to this favourite of Lord
Burlington.
To this popular artist, architect, and improver of gardens, Hogarth
seems to have had an early dislike, founded in some degree on his
being, as he really was, a most contemptible painter; and probably
heightened by his ranking higher, with those who led the fashion of
the day, than that very superior artist, Sir James Thornhill.
Hogarth the year following published his
COPY OF KENT'S ALTAR-PIECE,[14]
[Illustration: KENT'S ALTAR-PIECE]
which, combined with the inscription engraved beneath, is a very
bitter satire on the painter; though it must be acknowledged that the
original, which has been for many years in the vestry-room of St.
Clement Danes, amply justifies the ridicule.
This picture produced a small tract, with the following title:--
"A letter from a parishioner of St. Clement Danes, to Edmund
(Gibson), Lord Bishop of London, occasioned by his Lordship's causing
the picture over the altar to be taken down, with some observations
on the use and abuse of church paintings in general, and of that
picture in particular."
In this tract, after some compliments to the prelate, the writer
works himself into a violent rage at the introduction of this
piece of popish foppery, and asks some questions which in a degree
elucidate part of the inscription under Hogarth's copy:--
"To what end or purpose was it put there, but to affront our
most gracious sovereign, by placing at our very altar the known
resemblance of a person who is the wife of his utter enemy, and
pensioner to the whore of Babylon?
"When I say the known resemblance, I speak not only according to my
own knowledge, but appeal to all mankind who have seen the Princess
Sobieski, or any picture or resemblance of her, if the picture of
that angel in the white garment and blue mantle, which is there
supposed to be beating time to the music, is not directly a great
likeness of that princess.
"Whether it was done by chance or on purpose, I shall not determine;
but be it which it will, it has given great offence, and your
Lordship has acted the part of a wise and good prelate to order
its removal."
It was probably during the time of Hogarth's apprenticeship that he
engraved the annexed print, entitled
THE RAPE OF THE LOCK.
[Illustration: THE RAPE OF THE LOCK.]
I by no means think, as Mr. Nichols asserts, that this is one of
the poorest of Hogarth's performances; for though slight, and
not intended to be impressed on paper, the air of the figures is
easy, and the faces, especially those of Sir Plume and the heroine
of the story, extremely characteristic. It is said to have been
engraven on the lid of a snuff-box for some gentleman characterized
in Pope's admirable mock-heroic poem, probably Lord Petre, who is
here represented as holding the lock of hair in his left hand. Sir
Plume,--the round-faced and insignificant Sir Plume,--
"Of amber snuff-box justly vain,
And the nice conduct of a clouded cane;"
for Sir George Brown, who was the only one of the party that took
the thing serious. He was angry that the poet should make him talk
nothing but nonsense; and, in truth (as Mr. Warburton adds), one
could not well blame him.
As this little story was intended to be viewed on gold, the figures
in the copy are not reversed, but left as they were originally
engraven on the box; from which I believe there are only three
impressions extant, one of which was sold by Greenwood at Mr.
Gulston's sale, on the 7th of February 1786, for £33.
The following account of the persons for whom Hogarth painted several
of his early pictures is copied from his own handwriting, and may
sometimes be useful in tracing the pedigree of a portrait.
By this list, it appears that the two pictures of "Before and
After" were painted for a Mr. Thomson; but as it is not probable
that Hogarth delineated this subject twice, I think that these two
pictures were the property of the late Lord Besborough. They were
sold on his Lordship's demise, in February 1801, at Christie's rooms.
"_Account taken, January 1, 1731, of all the pictures that remain
unfinished.--Half payment received._
A family piece, consisting of four figures, for Mr. Rich, 1728.
An assembly of twenty-five figures, for Lord Castlemain, August
28, 1729.
Family of four figures; Mr. Wood, 1728.
A conversation of six figures; Mr. Cock, Nov. 1728.
A family of five figures; Mr. Jones, March 1730.
The Committee of the House of Commons, for Sir Archibald Grant,
Nov. 5, 1729.
The Beggar's Opera; ditto.
Single figure; Mr. Kirkham, April 18, 1730.
Family of nine; Mr. Vernon, Feb. 27, 1730.
Another of two; Mr. Cooper.
Another of five; Duke of Montague.
Two little pictures; ditto.
Single figure; Sir Robert Pye, Nov. 18, 1730.
Two little pictures, called "Before and After," for Mr. Thomson,
Dec. 7, 1730.
A head, for Mr. Sarmond, Jan. 12, 1730-31.
Pictures bespoke for the present year 1731."
With this his memorandum ends; and I regret that he has not recorded
the prices he received for the pictures. Mr. Nichols conjectures
that they were originally very low; he is most probably right with
respect to those that were painted in the early part of Hogarth's
life. But let it be recollected that for the portrait of Garrick in
Richard III. he received two hundred pounds, which, as the artist
himself remarks, was a more liberal remuneration than had been paid
to any contemporary painter. When my late friend Mr. Gainsborough
began to paint portraits at Bath (at a period when much higher prices
were paid), his general rule was five guineas for a three-quarters
portrait.
Below is inserted a copy from one of Hogarth's early engravings,
the arms of the Duchess of Kendal, mistress to George I., probably
done on a piece of plate at the time he was Gamble's apprentice. The
original, of the same size, is in the Editor's possession. It is
drawn in a correct and spirited style; and considering the age of the
artist, and the purpose for which it was engraven, not demanding much
attention or exertion, gave some promise of the excellence which he
afterwards attained.
In this point of view, to an admirer of Hogarth it becomes in some
degree interesting, which will, I hope, plead my apology for the
insertion of this solitary specimen of his boyish heraldry. On no
other ground should so insignificant a production as a coat of arms
have found a place in this volume.
[Illustration: THE KENDAL ARMS.]