as illustrating manners or character. And here I must again notice the conduct of Hogarth, whose attention to the costume of his day has sometimes been considered as confining his satires too much to the era in which he lived, and therefore a fault. But as his object was to show

." The very age and body of the time,

Its form and pressure

we must judge him by what he intended, and we shall find that, like a great genius, he has accomplished more than he intended. Indeed, it is having done

this that led to the objection I have noticed.

Where the dresses of his time were not beautiful they were always picturesque, and he has availed himself of their forms, in this respect, with as much of taste as he has shown of judgment and humour in rendering them the assistants of character. The different ranks of society, as well as the different professions and occupations of men, were far more marked to the eye by dress a hundred years ago than they are now, and this was an immense advantage in painting subjects from real life. Indeed, I cannot see how it would have been possible for Hogarth to have told his stories, with less attention than he paid to the fashions of the day, while his pictures would have lost greatly in humour, point, and satire. One of the prevailing follies of that time was the imitation by Englishmen of French manners and of French fashions, and this he never omitted any opportunity of holding up to ridicule. The young bridegroom in the first picture of the "Mar

riage à-la-Mode" has transformed himself, as entirely as he could outwardly do so, into a Paris beau; and so have the emaciated fop and antiquated belle in his "Taste in High Life." The gentlemen, also, who are seen in the side boxes above his "Laughing Audience," and who are too well bred to care for the play, have undergone the same transformation. And in all this Hogarth is borne out by contemporary authors; for the innkeeper in Goldsmith's play concludes that Marlow and Hastings may be Londoners because "they look woundily like Frenchmen."

The works of this most genuine English painter, it is true, must be studied to be understood,—not, however, because of their obscurity, but because of their great depth and fulness; and as Shakspeare is in no danger of ever wanting commentators, neither, I am persuaded, is Hogarth.

On Colour and Chiaroscuro.

"AFTER seeing all the fine pictures in France, Italy, and Germany," writes Wilkie, one must come to this conclusion, that colour, if not the first, is, at least, an essential quality in Painting. No master has yet maintained his ground, beyond his own time, without it."

It was, perhaps, very much from modesty that Reynolds placed the things he so greatly excelled in lower than I think they should be placed among the attributes of Art. It was natural that he should not think the most highly of what he found so easy; but as I have not the same reason for undervaluing colour and chiaroscuro, I will endeavour to show why I venture to dissent on these points from so high an authority.

In the first letter which he addressed to The Idler, he speaks of "critics who are continually lamenting that Raphael had not the colouring and harmony of Rubens, or the light and shadow of Rembrandt, without considering how much the gay harmony of the former or the affectation of the latter would take from the dignity of Raphael." Now I think the following reply to this might fairly be suggested on

behalf of the critics. The colouring and harmony of Rubens, instead of injuring the dignity of Raphael, would, if applied with the discrimination with which Raphael was sure to apply them to his works, unite with it, and add to their value. Imagine, for instance, the "Galatea" with the tone and harmony of Rubens, and the image of a work is immediately presented to the mind of far greater perfection than that picture in its present state; and that the colour of Rubens may be accommodated to all that is most pathetic, we have a striking proof in his "Descent from the Cross." Whatever may be the deficiency of this great work in historical dignity, arises from the grossness of form and want of elevation of character in some of the personages. It may be objected,

also, that the dress of the Magdalene is too modern, but the expression of her face, little as we see of it, the grief and reverence with which she receives in her arms the feet of our Lord, have rarely been equalled, never surpassed; and the colour and chiaroscuro are of the greatest importance in assisting the deep impression this matchless work must make on every human being that has a heart.

Then, again, as to the light and shadow of Rembrandt being incompatible with the dignity of Raphael, I would say the same thing. Unquestionably not, if used with Raphael's judgment. One of the most remarkable characteristics of that great man was the quickness with which he saw and made himself master of every beauty and excellence in the works of others,-of his contemporaries as well as of the artists who preceded him; and to this it is in