(if I recollect rightly), and it is gratifying to be able now to add, that the picture may be seen, as the property of the nation, in the National Portrait Gallery.

Among portraits 'wanted' should be mentioned that of Caxton, of whom it is very doubtful if there be an authentic one known. Ames in his "Topography" has a portrait of him, but it is very suspicious -indeed it has been said that those both of Caxton and Pynson are wholly fictitious; the first being the likeness of an Italian poet, and the latter a copy of a woodcut designed for some foreign writer.

In these short chapters I have not attempted to say all that might be said, but rather by hints to show how very much might be made of the subject. Within a short distance of where I am now writing, there exist in private houses, almost unknown portraits of, I believe, Cardan and Sir John Cheke by Holbein, others well-authenticated of Harry Lawes and D. Garrick, and very probable originals of Pope, Milton, &c.

IX.

Of False and Unsatisfactory Portraits,

and of altered Portraits.

SI have elsewhere intimated, it is almost impossible now to make a collection of

original pictures of great men or celebrated women, and those who seek to form such a 'collection' must be content with engravings; but of these it is advisable to get the best, those copied direct from the originals; and the best impressions of these copies that can be procured. A copy from a copy of a picture is generally worthless, and a copy which attempts to improve' the original is in a worse case. I have seen copies of hard, illcoloured, dark, and somewhat cracked and patched originals, that have been so softened, and polished, and flounced, and furbelowed that it were a sin to call them the likeness of anything human, or anything but a fiction of waxwork and drapery. There were cha

racter, thought, and humanity in the despised original; nothing but vapid inanity in the copy. And it is not only unknown painters who have done this. Some who should have known better have been guilty of this deception. It has been often remarked though it is not always true, that painters paint themselves in their works. This is true of some. Bartolozzi in engraving made everything Bartolozzi, and the Holbein heads which he copied have more of the prettiness of the conscious dancing-master than of the sturdy old painter who forgot himself in his devotion to his art. What are the requisites to a fine portrait? It is not sufficient to have the features merely exactly copied, as in a plaster cast from the face; for in that case, the waxwork figures we see in Madame Tussaud's Exhibition would be at least as fine as a picture by Van Dyck, or a statue by Foley or Marochetti. Until lately it was held by portrait painters that a 'broad' style, in which individual peculiarities should be sacrificed to a 'general' effect, was essential; but now the pre-Raphaelite system would lead us into the extreme of the contrary. The perfect style would be to unite the two. With the utmost accuracy as to features and peculiarities, the general character should be seized, and the

But

picture should look as well near as distant. besides this, the features and expression should be given at their best or most characteristic moment. The subtleties of expression are so refined that the painter, to excel, must 'hold,' as it has been stated, 'the compasses in the eye,' whilst the variation of the features under different moods of the mind or physical changes, are so great that we may actually measure with the calipers or a foot-rule, the differences in one person at different times. The ordinary artist will measure these foot-rule differencesthe extraordinary artist will see the more subtle and evanescent effects of momentary expression, and will give them on the canvass, not by neglecting to 'finish the parts,' but by uniting that finish to the general finish. The passage in Reynolds' eleventh Discourse is calculated to mislead on this point.

"The excellence of Portrait-painting, and we may add, even the likeness, character, and countenance, depend more upon the general effect produced by the Painter than on the exact expression of the peculiarities, or minute discrimination of the parts. The chief attention of the artist is therefore employed in planting the features in their proper places, which so much contributes to giving the effect and

true impression of the whole. The very peculiarities may be reduced to classes and general descriptions; and there are therefore large ideas to be found even in this contracted subject. He may afterwards labour single features to what degree he thinks proper, but let him not forget continually to examine whether in finishing the parts he is not destroying the general effect." Now, by 'finish,' we ought not to understand, as Reynolds perhaps in this instance understood the word, smoothness or 'niggle,' but that accumulation of facts or truths, which Mr. Ruskin was the first, I think, to point out as the characteristic of true 'finish.' In this sense, if that finish were carried out throughout the portrait, the general effect must be improved, and could not be destroyed by it. The difficulty in practice lies in neglecting the mass of facts for the pleasure of giving prominence to some particular fact, or set of facts; and the partiality of a painter for some particular form of fact, will sometimes lead him to fancy it present when it is not. I speak of a conscientious painter, not of those who wilfully persist in placing the favourite form because they think the portrait would look better with it than without, irrespective of likeness.