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 [Page 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, consi­dered 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 cop­per, the engraving is elegant to a great degree. His Hell-scene parti­cularly, which was engraved in the year 1513, is as high-finished a print as ever was engraved, and as hap­pily finished. The labour he has [Page 67] bestowed upon it, has it's full effect. In his wooden prints too we are sur­prized 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 com­position 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 sup­posed from the aukward archetypes, which his country and education af­forded. 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 [Page 68] had had an Italian, instead of a Ger­man education. His prints are very numerous. They were much admi­red 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 en­graving, 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 imi­tators 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 [Page 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 car­ried engraving to a great height. He was a native of Germany, where he learned his art; but travelling afterwards into Italy, he there im­proved his ideas. You plainly dis­cover in him, a mixture of the Fle­mish 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 disposi­tion; and fails most in the distribu­tion of light. But his chief excellence [Page 70] lies in execution. He engraves with a noble, firm, expressive line, which hath scarce been excelled by any succeeding masters. There is a va­riety too in his manner, which is very pleasing. His print of the cir­cumcision 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 master­pieces in execution, than the works of this artist exhibit. The baptism [Page 71] of JOHN is perhaps the most beauti­ful specimen of bold engraving, that is extant.

ABRAHAM BLOEMART was a Dutch master also, and contempo­rary with GOLTZIUS. We are not informed what particular means of improvement he had; but it is cer­tain he designed in a more elegant taste, than any of his countrymen. His figures are often graceful; ex­cepting only, that he gives them sometimes an affected twist; which is still more conspicuous in the fin­gers: 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 [Page 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 intro­duced into Italy by ANDREA MAN­TEGNA; to whom the Italians as­cribe the invention of it. The paint­ings 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 trans­scripts from the same ideas. We see in them the chaste, correct out­line, and noble simplicity of the Ro­man school: but we are to expect [Page 73] nothing more; not the least attempt towards an agreable whole. — And indeed we shall perhaps find in ge­neral, 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 pic­tures.

MANTEGNA was succeeded by PARMIGIANO and PALMA, both masters of great reputation. PAR­MIGIANO 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 [Page 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 in­vented 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 inter­rupted by a knavish engraver, who pillaged him of all his plates. Una­ble to bear the loss, he foreswore his art, and abandoned himself to chymistry.

[Page 75]PALMA was too much employed as a painter to have much leisure for etching. He hath left however se­veral 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.

[Page 76]But the great improver of the art of engraving upon wood, and who at once carried it to a degree of per­fection, which hath not since been exceeded was ANDREA ANDREANI of Mantua. The works of this ma­ster are remarkable for the free­dom, 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 [Page 77] the impressions be good: and very much of the beauty of these prints depends on the goodness of the im­pression. 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 hand­ed 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, [Page 78] as PICART observes, how that master got his reputation.

FREDERIC BAROCCHI was born at Urbin, where the genius of RA­PHAEL inspired him. In his early youth he travelled to Rome: and giving himself up to intense study, he acquired a great name in paint­ing. At his leisure hours he etched a few prints from his own designs, which are highly finished, and exe­cuted with great softness and deli­cacy. 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.

[Page 79]ANTHONY TEMPESTA was a na­tive of Florence, but resided chiefly at Rome; where he was much em­ployed 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 grace­ful; and his heads marked with un­common spirit, and correctness. His horses, tho' fleshy and ill-drawn, and evidently never copied from nature, are however noble animals; and dis­play an endless variety of beautiful ac­tions. — His imperfections, at the same time, are very glaring. His [Page 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 back­grounds 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 [Page 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 sim­plicity 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, ac­companied at the same time with less freedom.

[Page 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 paint­ing: of composition, and the ma­nagement of light he was totally ig­norant. 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 execu­tion 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 [Page 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 Beg­gars 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.

[Page 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 in­dulgence, if his prints had less merit; but in their way they are beautiful; tho' on the whole, formal, and un­pleasant. They are highly finished, but void of all freedom. Moon­lights, and torch-lights are the sub­jects 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 [Page 81] are chiefly historical. He was bred a painter; and perfectly understood his art; if we except only the ma­nagement 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 appen­dages 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 sun­shine. — In design, and generally in composition, SALVATOR is very great. His figures, which he drew in ex­quisite taste, are graceful, and nobly expressive, beautifully grouped, and varied into the most agreeable atti­tudes. With regard indeed to the [Page 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 ele­gance 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 distinc­tion of feature is observed.

[Page 83]SALVATOR was a man of genius, and of learning; both which he has found frequent opportunities of dis­playing in his works. His style is grand; every object that he intro­duces is of the heroic kind; and his subjects in general shew an intimacy with ancient history, and mytho­logy.

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 exceed­ingly fond; and in the description of which he so greatly excells. His [Page 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 pic­tures. His prints, deprived of this palliative, have only his inferior qua­lifications to recommend them. These are expression, and skill in the ma­nagement of light, execution, and sometimes composition. I mention them in the order in which he seems to have possessed them. His expres­sion 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 [Page 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 as­certained. — His execution is pecu­liar 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 in­tersected in every direction; and comes nearer the idea of painting, than the execution of any other master.

[Page 86]Never painter was more at a loss than REMBRANDT, for an idea of that species of grace, which is neces­sary 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 cha­racters. Hence SALVATOR exalts banditti into heroes: REMBRANDT degrades patriarchs into beggars. [Page 87] REMBRANDT indeed seems to have affected awkwardness. He was a man of humour; and would laugh at those artists who studied the an­tique. "I'll shew you my antiques," he would cry; and then he would carry his friends into a room furnish­ed with head-dresses, draperies, hous­hold-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 [Page 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 be­fore 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 SAL­VATOR 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 [Page 89] pilgrim, destitute of all the means of improvement, but what mere genius furnished. He had not even inte­rest to procure a recommendation; nor had he any address to substitute in it's room. The works of sculp­ture 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 qua­lified 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 mor­tified he threw aside his pallet, and applied himself to etching; in which he became a great proficient.

[Page 90]His prints are very valuable. We are seldom indeed to expect a cohe­rency 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 diffi­cult sometimes only to guess at what he aims. He was as little acquaint­ed with the distribution of light, as with the rules of design: and yet notwithstanding all this, his works contain an infinite fund of entertain­ment. There is an exuberance of fancy in him, which, with all its wild­ness, is agreable; his ideas are sub­lime and noble; his drawing most elegantly correct; his heads touched [Page 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 drown­ed in the Tyber; and it is left uncer­tain, whether by accident or de­sign.

[Page 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 admira­bly 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 [Page 97] drawing is below criticism; in the extremities especially. In this his master misled him. VOUET excel­led in composition; of which we have many beautiful instances in DO­RIGNY'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 [Page 98] in small objects it appears to advan­tage: there is great freedom in it, and uncommon neatness. His fi­gures 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 ma­nagement 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.

[Page]

[Page 99]LA FAGE'S works consist chiefly of scetches. The great excellency of this master lay in drawing; in which he was perfectly skilled. How­ever unfinished his pieces are, they discover him to have been admira­bly acquainted with anatomy and proportion. There is very little in him besides, that is valuable; grace, and expression sometimes; seldom composition: his figures are gene­rally either too much crowded, or too diffuse. As for light and shade, he seems to have been totally igno­rant 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 [Page 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 entertain­ment.

In some of his prints, in which he has attempted the sublimest cha­racters, he has given them a wonder­ful 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. [Page 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 ap­peared a greater master, if he had not had such a competitor as BOLS­WERT.

[Page 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 inimita­ble 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 gene­rally faulty: it is crouded, and con­fused. He knows little of the effect of light. There is a flutter in him too, which hurts an eye pleased with [Page 103] simplicity. His prints are very his­torical. The deluge at Coeverden is finely described. — LE HOOGHE was much employed by the authors of his time in composing frontis­pieces; 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 punish­ments; amongst which there are many good prints.

[Page 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 reli­gion; [Page 105] which he illustrates by a Latin sentence at the bottom of his print. — It may be added, that his drape­ries are particularly excellent.

CASTIGLIONE was an Italian painter of some eminence. He drew human figures with grace and cor­rectness; yet he generally chose such subjects, as would admit the intro­duction 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 beau­tiful. In composition he excells greatly. Of his elegant groups we have many instances in a set of prints, etched from his paintings, [Page 106] in a slight, free manner by C. MACEE; particularly in those of the patriar­chal journeyings. He hath left us several of his own etchings also, which are very valuable. The sub­jects indeed of some of them are odd, and fantastic; and the compo­sition 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 ani­mals are touched; and the freedom [Page 107] of the execution are all admira­ble.

VANDER MUILEN has given us historical representations of several modern battles. His prints are ge­nerally large, and contain many good figures, and agreable groups: but they have no effect, and sel­dom produce a whole. A disagre­able monotony (as the musical peo­ple speak) runs through them all.

OTHO VENIUS has entire­ly the air of an Italian, tho' of Dutch parentage. He had the ho­nour of being the master of the celebrated RUBENS; who chiefly learned from him his knowledge of light and shade. This artist pub­lished [Page 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 en­graver. 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 sin­gle figures are often elegant. His saints and statues are in general his best pieces. There is great expres­sion in many of the former: and his drapery is often incomparable. One of his best prints is inscribed, [Page 109] Per se surgens: and another very good one with this strange passage from St. AUSTIN, Ego evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae ecclesiae com­moveret auctoritas. — His head of Christ, effected by a single spiral line, is a masterly, but whimsical performance.

OSTADE'S etchings, like his pic­tures, are admirable representations of low life. They abound in hu­mour and expression, in which lies their great merit. They have little besides to recommend them. The composition is generally very indiffe­rent; and the execution no way re­markable. Sometimes, and but sel­dom, you see a good effect of light.

[Page 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 charac­ters of heads, good drawing, and tho' not much effect, yet often good grouping. His drapery is heavy.

[Page 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 con­siderable.— His greatest undertaking was the Life of Christ in a series of plates: but it is a hasty and incor­rect 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 [Page 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 fritte­red; his lights ill-preserved; and his execution disgusting: and yet we find his works in capital collec­tions.

BELLANGE'S prints are highly finished, and his execution is not amiss. His figures also have some­thing in them, which looks like grace; and his light is tolerably well massed. But his heads are ill-set on; his extremities incorrectly touch­ed; his figures badly proportioned; [Page 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 employ­ed himself entirely in etching. His common subjects are dances and re­vels, 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 man­ner is slight; which is the best apo­logy for his bad drawing.

WATTEAU has great defects, and, it must be owned, great merit. He [Page 114] abounds in all that flutter, and af­fectation, which is so disagreable in the generality of French painters. But at the same time, we acknow­ledge, he draws well; gives grace and delicacy to his figures; and pro­duces 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 compo­sition: but he knows nothing of grace; and has, upon the whole, but little merit.

[Page 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 cen­tury. They may be exact, and pro­bably 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 charac­ters he has given us of different na­tions, 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 de­signs [Page 116] he etched himself, and after­wards put into the hands of engra­vers 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 in­genious 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 ma­sters; and so happily, that he al­most [Page 117] out-did in their own excellen­cies, 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; particu­larly [Page 118] two oval landskips after SAL­VATOR — 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 ran­sacked the French king's cabinet, and hath scarce left a master of any note, from whose drawings he hath not given us excellent prints. Inso­much, that if we had nothing re­maining from those masters, but Count CAYLUS'S works, we should not want a very sufficient idea of them. So versatile is his genius, that [Page]

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

LE CLERC was an excellent en­graver; but chiefly in the petite stile. He immortalized ALEXANDER, and LEWIS XIV. in miniature. His genius seldom exceeds the dimen­sions of six inches. Within those limits he can draw up twenty thou­sand 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.

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

JAC. FREII is an admirable en­graver. He unites in a great de­gree 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 emi­nent masters. He preserves the draw­ing, 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.

[Page 121]S. GRIBELIN is a careful, and laborious engraver; of no extensive genius; but painfully exact. His works are chiefly small; the princi­pal of which are his copies from the Banquetting-House at Whitehall; and from the Cartoons. His man­ner 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, di­stinct, free manner; and has done great honour to the works of TE­NIERS, WOVERMAN, and BERG­HEM, from whom he chiefly copied. The best of his works are after BERG­HEM.

[Page 122]BISCHOP'S etching has something very pleasing in it. It is loose, and free; and yet has strength, and rich­ness. Many of his statues are good figures: the drawing is sometimes incorrect; but the execution beau­tiful. Many of the plates of his drawing-book are very well. His greatest single work is the represen­tation 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 de­bauched son of a goldsmith in Franche-compte. His indiscretions [Page 123] forcing him from home, his incli­nations 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 dissipa­ted life. He published a large col­lection of statues, and other antiqui­ties, which are etched in a very ma­sterly 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 ge­nius in them all.

MAROT, who was architect to K. [Page 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 pro­fession.

FRAN. ROETTIERS etches in a very bold manner, and with a good deal of spirit; but there is a harsh­ness in his outline, which is disagre­able; tho' the less so, as his drawing is generally good. Few artists ma­nage 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.

[Page 125]NICHOLAS DORIGNY was bred a lawyer; but not succeeding at the bar, he studied painting; and after­wards applied to engraving. His capital work is the Transfiguration, which Mr. ADDISON calls the noblest print in the world. It is unquestion­ably 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 ex­pectation.

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 REM­BRANDT'S manner, which he hath in many things excelled. Some of his heads nothing can exceed. The force, which he gives to every fea­ture, the roundness of the muscle, the spirit of the execution, the strength of the character, and the effect of the whole, are all admirable.

[Page]

[Page 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 REM­BRANDT, we should not forget our countryman WORLIDGE; who has very ingeniously followed the man­ner of that master; and sometimes improved upon him. No man un­derstood the drawing of an head bet­ter.

[Page 128]Many of VAN DYKE'S etchings do him great credit. They are chiefly to be found in a collection of the por­traits of eminent artists, which VAN DYKE was at the expence of get­ting 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 etch­ing 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 ex­pect.

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

R. WHITE was the principal en­graver 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-scra­pers, 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 [Page 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, STUR­GES, 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 pre­serve 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 [Page]

[Page 131] of his time, tho' perhaps in­ferior 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 fami­lies, ANTHONY LEIGH, MARY MAGDELINE, SCALKEN, an half-length of Lady ELIZABETH CROMWELL, the Duke of SCHOM­BERG on horse-back, the countess of SALISBURY, GIBBON the statuary, and a very fine hawking piece from WYKE.—After all, it must be own­ed, [Page 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 compositi­on, 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 [Page] [Page] [Page] [Page] [Page] [Page]

[Page 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 por­traits, upon the whole, are better. GUIDO BENTIVOLIUS from VNA­DYKE 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 infe­rior to MORIN'S; but are not with­out merit.

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

[Page 134]DREVET'S portraits are neat and elegant; but laboured to the last de­gree. They are copied from RI­GAUD, 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 anti­quarian; [Page 135] but no artist. He copied with painful exactness; in a dry, dis­agreeable 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 en­graved 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. [Page 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 intermix­ed 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 flow­ing line no artist surely ever em­ployed.

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

[Page]

MASTERS IN ANIMAL LIFE.

BERGHEM has a genius truly pas­toral; 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 o­ther 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 [Page 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 [Page]

[Page 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 chief­ly; was free in his manner; extrava­gant in his colouring; incorrect in his drawing; ignorant of the effect of light; but amazingly great in ex­pression. His prints therefore are better, than his pictures. They pos­sess his chief excellency without his defects. They are executed indeed with great spirit; and afford such strong instances of animal fury, as we meet [Page 140] with no where, but in nature itself. His hunted wolf is an admirable print.

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

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

REUBENS'S huntings are undoubt­edly 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 en­graved by several masters. But all their engravings are poor. They re­semble the paintings they are copied from, as a shadow does the object, [Page 142] which projects it. There is some­thing of the shape; but all the finish­ing is lost. And indeed there is no doubt, but the awkwardnesses, the patch-work, and the grotesque cha­racters, which every where appear in those prints, are in the originals bold fore-shortnings, grand effects of light, and noble instances of ex­pression.—But it is as difficult to co­py the flights of REUBENS, as to translate those of HOMER. The spi­rit of each master evaporates in the process.

WOVERMAN'S composition is ge­nerally crouded with little ornaments. There is no simplicity in his works. He wanted a chaste judgment to cor­rect his exuberance.—VISSCHER was [Page 143] the first who engraved prints from this artist. He chose only a few good designs; and executed them master­ly.—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 appear­ance, and exhibit a variety of plea­sing representations; cavalcades, marches, huntings, and encamp­ments.

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 manage­ment of light. His designs are all pastoral; and yet there is often a mixture of the heroic style in his [Page 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 ani­mal 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 etch­ed several plates of single horses, and of huntings. He hath given great expression to his animals; but his composition is more than ordinarily [Page 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 compo­sition, and the management of light, both which he well understood.

In curious collections we meet with a few of CUYP'S etchings. The pic­tures of this master excell in colour­ing, composition, drawing, and the ex­pression of character. His prints have all these excellencies, except the first.

PETER DE LAER hath left us se­veral [Page 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 ad­mired in England, till WYCK'S su­perior excellence in painting eclipsed him. He hath etched a book of hor­ses, which are very much valued; as there is in general, accuracy in the drawing, nature in the characters, and spirit in the execution.

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

BLOTELING'S lions are highly fi­nished; but with more neatness than spirit.

PAUL POTTER etched several plates of cows and horses in a master­ly manner. His manner indeed is better than his drawing; which, in his sheep especially, is but very indif­ferent: 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. [Page 148] His drawing too is very indifferent; nor does he characterize any animal justly. His birds in general are bet­ter 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 ra­ther 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 but­terflies are beautiful: and indeed these are the subjects suited to his ge­nius; [Page]

[Page 149] and it is a pity he did not con­fine himself to them.

I shall close this account with RI­DINGER, 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 sa­vage kind, with surprizing expressi­on. His works may be considered as natural history. He carries us into the forest among bears, and tygers; and, with the exactness of a natura­list, describes their forms, haunts, and manner of living.—His compo­sition is generally beautiful, and his distribution of light good; so that he commonly produces an agreeable whole. His landskip too is picturesque [Page 150] and romantic, and well adapted to the subjects he treats. — On the other hand, his manner is laboured and wants freedom. His human fi­gures are seldom drawn with taste. His horses are ill-characterized, and worse drawn; and indeed his draw­ing, in general, is but slovenly.— The prints of this master are often real history, and represent the por­traits of particular animals, which had been taken in hunting. We have sometimes too the story of the chace, in high-dutch, at the bot­tom of the print. The idea of his­torical truth adds a relish to the en­tertainment; and we survey the ani­mal with new pleasure, which has given diversion to a German prince for nine hours together.—The pro­ductions [Page 151] of RIDINGER are very nu­merous; 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, par­ticularly the 3d, the 7th, the 8th, and the 10th. I cannot forbear ad­ding 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 pic­turesque and romantic; but the man­ner 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 some­times find a graceful figure, and to­lerable drawing; but on the whole, no great merit. EGIDIUS was the engraver of landskips, and is the per­son here criticized. RALPH chiefly [Page 153] copied the designs of BASSAN; and engraved in the dry disagreeable man­ner of his brother.

REMBRANDT'S landskips have ve­ry little to recommend them, besides their effect; which is often surpri­zing. 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 master­ly 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. Nei­ther [Page 154] is there much freedom in the ex­ecution; but there is generally great elegance in the design, and great sim­plicity.

HOLLAR gives us views of parti­cular 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. HOL­LAR was an antiquarian, and a draughtsman; but seems to have been unacquainted with any one prin­ciple of painting. Stiffness to the last degree is his characteristic, and a pain­ful exactness, utterly void of all taste. His larger views are mere plans. In [Page]

[Page 155] some of his smaller, at the expence of infinite pains, something of an ef­fect is sometimes produced. But in general, we consider him as a repo­sitory of curiosities, a record of an­tiquated dresses, abolished ceremonies, and edifices now in ruins.

STEPHEN DE LA BELLA'S land­skips have little to recommend them, besides their neatness, and keeping. There is no great beauty in his com­position; 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.

[Page 156]BOLSWERT'S landskips after REU­BENS are composed in a very grand style. Such a painter and such an engraver could not fail of producing something great. There is little va­riety in them; nor any of the more minute beauties arising from contrasts, catching lights, and such little ele­gancies; but every thing is simple, and great. The print, which goes by the name of The waggon, is par­ticularly, 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 dis­tribution [Page 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 fore­ground, is marked G. and J. sculpse­runt: 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 va­riety in them, nor stretch of fancy. He selects a few striking objects. A coppice, a corner of a forest, a wind­ing-road, or a stragling village is ge­nerally the extent of his view: nor does he always introduce an offskip. [Page 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 par­ticularly 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 man­ner of WATERLO; but with less freedom. His trees, in particular, will bear no comparison with those [Page 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 disci­ple of SWANEVELT. He was a French protestant, and fled into Eng­land 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 paint­ings; some of which are very good. The few etchings he hath left are very beautiful. He understood com­position, and the distribution of light; and there is a fine taste in his land­skips, [Page 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 pedanti­cally 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 persecu­tion 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.

[Page 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 ex­ceedingly neat, and touched with great spirit. This master can give beauty even to the out-lines of a mo­dern 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 ac­quaintance [Page 162] with the buildings. To his praise it may be farther added, that in general he forms his view in­to an agreeable whole; and if his light is not always well distributed, there are so many beauties in his ex­ecution, 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 some­times 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 [Page 163] upon his pallet; and he could do no­thing without it.

PERELLE has great merit. His fancy is exceedingly fruitful; and supplies him with a richness, and va­riety in his views, which nature sel­dom exhibits. It is indeed too ex­uberant; 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 free­dom. His trees are particularly beau­tiful; the foliage is loose, and the ramification easy and graceful. And yet it must be confessed, that PERELLE is rather a mannerist, than a co­pier of nature. His views are all ideal; his trees are of one family; [Page 164] and his light, tho' generally well distributed, is sometimes affected: it is introduced as a spot; and is not properly melted into the neighbour­ing shade by a middle tint. Catch­ing lights, used sparingly, are beau­tiful: PERELLE affects them.— These remarks are made principally upon the works of old PERELLE, as he is called. There were three en­gravers of this name; the grandfa­ther, 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 grand­son the worst.

OVERBECK etched a book of Ro­man ruins; which are in general, [Page 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 man­ner, 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 com­monly well distributed; and his fi­gures are excellent. We regret only, that we have so few of his works.

[Page 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 distan­ces ill-preserved.

ZEEMAN was a Dutch painter; and excelled in sea-coasts, beaches, and distant land; which he common­ly ornamented with skiffs, and fish­ing-boats. His execution is neat, and his distances well kept. Of the distribution of light he knows no­thing; and the fore-grounds of ma­ny 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 ves­sels; [Page 167] but his prints in this style are commonly awkward; and disagree­able.

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 rich­ness 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 out­line, 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 La­trones, [Page 168] the Augurs, Tobit, Hagar, and its companion.

Our celebrated countryman HO­GARTH cannot properly be omitted in a catalogue of engravers; and yet he ranks in none of the foregoing classes. With this apology I shall in­troduce 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 reposi­tories of the manners, customs, and dresses of the present age. What a fund of entertainment would a col­lection [Page 169] of this kind afford, drawn from every period of the history of Britain?—How far the works of HO­GARTH will bear a critical examinati­on, 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 im­proper incident is rarely introduced; a proper one rarely omitted. No one could tell a story better; or make it, in all its circumstances, more intelli­gible. His genius, however, it must be owned, was suited only to low, or familiar subjects. It never soared above common life: to subjects natu­rally sublime: or which from anti­quity, or other accidents borrowed dignity, he could not rise.

[Page 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 she­riff'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 unexceptiona­ble: 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 [Page 171] suffer so unmasterly a performance to leave his hands.

Of the distribution of light HO­GARTH had as little knowledge as of composition. In some of his pieces we see a good effect; as in the Exe­cution just mentioned; in which if the figures at the right and left cor­ners, 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 prin­ciples.

Neither was HOGARTH a master in drawing. Of the muscles and ana­tomy of the head and hands he had [Page 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 ni­ceties 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 inclina­tion to find fault.

The author of the Analysis of beau­ty, 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 [Page 173] afford of introducing graceful atti­tudes; and yet we have very few ex­amples 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 ex­cellent. The passions he thoroughly understood; and all the effects which they produce in every part of the hu­man frame: he had the happy art also of conveying his ideas with the same precision, with which he con­ceived 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 dis­played [Page 174] through his works; and hence it is that the difference arises between his heads, and the affected charica­turas 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' ad­mirably executed, appear plainly to have no archetypes in nature. HO­GARTH'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-na­tured effusions of mirth: more en­tertaining than SPANIOLET'S, as they are pure nature; but less inno­cent, as they contain ill-directed ridi­cule.—But [Page 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 peculi­ar situation; and which for that rea­son become characteristic of the whole. His counsellors, his under­takers, his lawyers, his usurers are all conspicuous at sight. In a word, almost every profession may see in his works that particular species of affec­tation, which they should most en­deavour 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 [Page 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 man­ner in none of his works pleases me so well, as in a small print of a cor­ner of a play-house. There is more spirit in a work of this kind, struck off at once, warm from the imagi­nation, than in all the cold correct­ness of an elaborate engraving. If all his works had been executed in this style, with a few improve­ments in the composition, and the management of light, they would [Page 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 high­est finished prints is disagreeably striking.

THE RESURRECTION OF LA­ZARUS, BY BLOEMART.

WITH regard to design, this print has great merit. The point of time is very judiciously cho­sen. It is a point between the first command, Lazarus come forth; and [Page 180] the second, Loose him, and let him go. The first astonishment of the two sisters is now over. The predomi­nant passion is gratitude; which is discovering itself in praise. One of the attendents is telling the yet stu­pified 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 [Page 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 introdu­ced in the room of the grave-diggers, some of the Pharisaical party malig­ning 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-an­gled triangle. The hand of Christ is the apex. The kneeling figure, and the dark figure looking up make the two other angles. The group [Page 182] opens in a beautiful manner, and dis­covers every part. It is equally beau­tiful, 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 trian­gular 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 bet­ter, 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 [Page 183] lights. A little more light might have been thrown upon the principal figure; and a little less upon the fi­gure kneeling. The remaining fi­gures, on the left, should have been kept down. Thus the light would have centered strongly upon the ca­pital 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 introdu­ced, if not ill-drawn; and the whole disagreably incumbered with drape­ry.—Lazarus is very fine: the draw­ing, the expression, and grace of the figure are all good.—The figure [Page 184] kneeling is not very graceful; but it contrasts with the group.—The grave-diggers are both admirable fi­gures. 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 con­strained 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-an­gle, and to have made the pyramid more compleat. The groups them­selves [Page 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 lit­tle 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, pas­sing 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 [Page 187] lower figures of the equestrian-group might have received a middle tint, with a few strong touches; the up­per figures might have caught the light, to detach them from the ground.

With regard to the figures taken separately, they are almost unexcep­tionably good. You will seldom in­deed 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. [Page 188] Some are more, and some less affec­ted; but every one in a degree.— All the figures however are not fault­less. POLYCRATES hangs ungrace­fully 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 pyra­midal form; but they might have had a little more meaning, and a little more grace.—One of the eques­trian 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 pro­portion, [Page 189] and anatomy of that ani­mal.

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 fi­gures.

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 characte­rized, are, the soldier sitting with the shield, the pointing figure in the middle group, the head in armour behind it, the distant groups imme­diately 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 comprehend­ed, to intend a satyr upon drunken­ness.

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 ri­oters; while Intemperance, De­bauchery, and unnatural Lusts com­pleat the immoral festival. In the offskip rises the temple of Priapus, [Page 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 ap­proach of light.

The disposition has less merit; yet is not unpleasing. The whole group, on the left of SILENUS, and the se­veral parts of it, are happily dispo­sed. The group of dancers, on the other side, is crouded, and ill-shapen. It is disagreeable too for want of con­trast. The two principal figures, each standing on one leg, appear dis­gusting counter-parts. The whole (I speak only of the terrestrial groups) is disposed in the form of an easy in­clined [Page 192] plane; which partakes as lit­tle 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 dis­position of the etherial and the ter­restrial figures, which is rather dis­pleasing, would have been prevented by this slight alteration.

The light, with regard to particu­lar figures is very beautiful. But such a light, at best, gives you only the idea of a picture examined by a can­dle. Every figure, as you hold the [Page 193] candle to it, appears well lighted; but instead of an effect of light you have only a succession of spots. In­deed 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 re­ceive 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 li­on's head should be kept down. Thus there would be nothing glaring in the celestial figures. For SILENUS, and [Page 194] his train, they might be enlightened by a very strong torch-light; which might be carried by the dancing fi­gures. 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 suppo­sed.

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 man­ly expression, that if I were obliged to fix upon any print as an example [Page 195] of all the beauties, of which single figures are capable of receiving, I should be tempted to give the prefe­rence to this: tho' at the same time it must be owned, that some of them give you too much the idea of mar­ble.

The most striking instances of fine drawing are seen in the principal fi­gure; in the legs of the figure that supports him; and in those of the fi­gure 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 A­pollo; and particularly in that bold, fore-shortened figure of the sign Ca­pricorn.

Instances of expression we have in the unweildiness of SILENUS. He [Page 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 strong­ly expressed in his countenance. The figure, which supports him, expres­ses 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 repre­sented 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. [Page 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 im­probable, might be designed for BAC­CHUS and ARIADNE) and in the boy lying on the ground.

With regard to execution, we rarely see an instance of it in greater perfec­tion. Every head, every muscle, and every extremity is touched with infi­nite 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 him­self out to excel, was often but a taw­dry painter. His equestrian portrait of king WILLIAM, at Hampton-court, is a very unmasterly perform­ance: 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 incumbran­ces in grouping. VANDYKE indeed has managed king CHARLES the First [Page 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 managed­pad. The bush, growing by the duke's trunchion, is a trifling circum­stance; and helps to break into more parts, a composition already too much broken.—The execution is throughout excellent; and tho' the parts are ra­ther too small for metzotinto, yet SMITH has given them all their force.

PETHER'S METZOTINTO OF REM­BRANDT'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 carac­ter was certainly taken from nature. There is great dignity in it; which in a work of REMBRANDT'S is the more extraordinary.—The full ex­pression 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: [Page 201] in the print they could not be remov­ed; but it might have been judicious to have kept down the two latter a little more.—With regard to the ex­ecution, 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 ad­mirably touched. The separation of the lips in some parts, and adhesion in others, are characteristic strokes; [Page 202] and happily preserved. The folds and lightness of the turban are very ele­gant. 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 ac­knowledge, 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 bo­dies 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 dimensi­ons 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 [Page 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 woun­ded dog. This would have given a bold relief to the figures; and might, without any other alteration, have produced a good effect.—The draw­ing 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 ex­pression 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 [Page 205] nature. His attitude shews every nerve convulsed; and his head is a masterpiece of animal fury. — We should add, that the slaughtered ani­mal 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 mas­ter.

THE 5th PLATE OF DU JARDIN'S ANIMALS.

The design, tho' humble, is simple and beautiful. The two dogs repo­sing at noon after the labour of the morning, the impliments of fowling, the fictitious hedge, and the loop­holes through it, all correspond to­gether, and agreeably tell the little history of the day.—The composition is beautiful; tho' it might have been improved, if another dog, or some­thing 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; [Page 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 cor­ner of the reeds had been a little higher.—The light is well distribu­ted; 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 up­right 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 coun­try. The figures, which consist of an angel, Tobias, and a dog, are de­scending an hill, which forms the second distance. The print, with [Page 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 pyra­mid; which, in trees especially, has often a fine effect. To this form the inclined plane, on which the figures stand, and which is beautifully bro­ken, is a good contrast. The rock approaches to a perpendicular, and the distance to an horizontal line. All together make such a combina­tion of beautiful and contrasting shapes, that the whole is very plea­sing. If I should find fault with any thing, it is the regularity of the rocks. There is no variety in parrel­lel lines; and it had been very easy [Page 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 pro­perly kept down. A mass of shade succeeds upon the ground of the se­cond 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 up­on it had been kept down, except one easy catching light upon the town, [Page 211] and the rising ground on which it stands.—The execution is exceedingly beautiful. No artist had an happier manner of expressing trees than WA­TERLO; 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 sha­dows 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 pic­ture. He had all nature before him; through which his imagination might range. The figures he introduced, unconnected with his subject, serv­ed only to embellish it. Any o­ther 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 en­virons of Coeverden, a Dutch town, [Page 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 vio­lence 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 plea­sing as such an extensive subject can be. An elevated horizon, which is always disgusting, was necessary here [Page 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 ad­mirably 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 [Page 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 ima­ges 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 mi­ser'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 gen­tleman, 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 distan­ces.—The light is not ill-disposed. [Page 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 un­meaning. The only one, which dis­plays 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 opportu­nity of presenting a graceful figure; which would have been more plea­sing. The figure he has introduced [Page 218] is by no means an object of allure­ment.—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 as­sumes the man of fashion. Instead of the country-taylor, who took measure of him for his father's mourn­ing, he is now attended by French-barbers, French-taylors, poets, mil­liners, jockies, bullies, and the whole [Page 219] retinue of a fine gentleman.—The expression, in this print, is wonder­fully great. The dauntless front of the bully; the keen eye, and elasti­city 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 indif­ferently drawn. The architect is a strong copy from nature.—The com­position seems to be entirely subser­vient to the expression. It appears, as if HOGARTH had scetched in his memorandum-book all the charac­ters, 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 scetch­ed them, than to lose any part of the [Page 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 fi­gures. 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 ela­borate, 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 ef­fort of genius.—The design is good; [Page 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 HO­GARTH. 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 ob­vious, particularly by throwing the lady dressing, into the shade, the disposition of it might have been to­lerable. But still we should have had an absurdity to answer, whence comes it? Here is light in abun­dance; but no visible source.—Ex­pression we have very little through [Page 222] the whole print. The principal fi­gure 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 pre­fer 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. Da­vid's-day, was accosted in the rude manner, which is here represented. —The composition is good. The form [Page 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 out­side-branches, which are relieved by the sky, are light and airy. An in­attention 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 [Page 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 wo­man darker. The glare of the white apron is disagreeable.—We have, in this print, some beautiful instances of expression. The surprize and ter­ror of the poor gentleman is appa­rent in every limb, as far as is con­sistent with the fear of discomposing his dress. The insolence of power in one of the bailiffs, and the un­feeling heart in the other, which can jest with misery, are strongly marked. The self-importance too of the honest [Page 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 can­not deceive the eye. The falling bo­dy must appear not to fall. Objects of that kind are beyond the power of representation.

[Page 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 regu­larity in the climax of the three fi­gures, the maid, the bride, and the bride-groom.—The light is not ill-distributed. The principal figure too is graceful; and there is strong ex­pression 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 [Page 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 dis­agreeably.—The creed lost, the com­mandments 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 [Page 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 of­fence.—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 weep­ers 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 at­attends [Page 229] gaming, are here described. On the first shock, all is inward dis­may. The ruined gamester is re­presented leaning against a wall, with his arms across, lost in an agony of horror. Perhaps never pas­sion 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 at­tacks others; every one in his turn whom he imagines to have been in­strumental in his ruin.—The eager joy of the winning gamesters, the attention of the usurer, the vehe­mence of the watchman, and the profound reverie of the high-wayman are all admirably marked. There is [Page 230] great coolness too expressed in the lit­tle 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 drunken­ness 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 HO­GARTH 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 in­crease the misery of a confined debt­or, are well contrived; but the fruit­ful genius of HOGARTH, I should think, might have treated the sub­ject [Page 231] in a more copious manner. The episode of the fainting woman might have given way to many cir­cumstances more proper to the occa­sion. 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 mar­riage; 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 ma­naged; and, as the groups are con­trived, can hardly be improved.—In the principal figure there is great expression; and the fainting scene is [Page 232] well described.—A scheme to pay off the national debt by a man who cannot pay his own; and the at­tempt 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 distri­bution of light had been good. — [Page 233] The drawing of the principal fi­gure is a more accurate piece of ana­tomy, than I should have expect­ed from HOGARTH. The expres­sion of this figure is rather un­meaning; 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 vari­ety in each; and strong expres­sion in all the characters. The self-satisfaction, and conviction of him, who has discovered the lon­gitude, the mock majesty of the monarch, the moody melancholy [Page 234] of the lover, and the superstitious horror of the popish devotée are all admirable.—The perspective is simple and proper.