_From the original painting in Lincoln's-Inn Hall, painted by Wm.
Hogarth._
[Illustration: PAUL PREACHING BEFORE FELIX.]
This is engraved from the same design as the former, but the
situation of the figures is reversed, and Drusilla omitted, it being
thought that St. Paul's hand was rather improperly placed.
It is somewhat superior to the former, but the light is ill
distributed, and the characters too individual for the dignity of
historical composition.
Upon this and the following print Doctor Joseph Warton, in his _Essay
on the Genius and Writings of Pope_, made the following remark.
Trusting to his memory, he confounded two prints together, and
remembering to have seen a dog snarling at a cat in the fourth
print of "Industry and Idleness," from an error in recollection,
transferred them to the "Paul before Felix:"--
"Some nicer virtuosi have remarked, that in the serious pieces into
which Hogarth has deviated from the natural bias of his genius
there are some strokes of the ridiculous discernible, which suit
not with the dignity of his subject. In his Preaching of St. Paul,
a dog snarling at a cat; and in his Pharaoh's Daughter, the figure
of the infant Moses, who expresses rather archness than timidity,
are alleged as instances that this artist, unrivalled in his walk,
could not resist the impulse of his imagination towards drollery.
His picture, however, of Richard III. is pure and unmixed, without
any ridiculous circumstances, and strongly impresses terror and
amazement."
On the publication of this criticism, Hogarth engraved the whole
quotation under the two prints alluded to without any comment; but on
the appearance of the following very ample and candid apology, erased
them:--
"The author gladly lays hold of the opportunity of this third edition
of his work to confess a mistake he had committed with respect to
two admirable paintings of Mr. Hogarth,--his Paul Preaching, and
his Infant Moses,--which on a closer examination are not chargeable
with the blemishes imputed to them. Justice obliges him to declare
the high opinion he entertains of the abilities of this inimitable
artist, who shines in so many different lights and on such very
dissimilar subjects, and whose works have more of what the ancients
called the ΗΘΟΣ in them than the compositions of any other modern.
For the rest, the author begs leave to add, that he is so far from
being ashamed of retracting his error, that he had rather appear a
man of candour than the best critic that ever lived."
Hogarth did not understand Greek, and was for some time doubtful
whether the ΗΘΟΣ was meant as complimentary or satirical.
If the original painting in Lincoln's-Inn Hall were destroyed,
Hogarth's reputation would not be diminished.
[Illustration: (end of chapter floral icon)]