and whoever cannot paint these, is no portrait painter.

Each perfect portrait is an important painting, since it displays the human mind with the peculiarities of personal character. In such we contemplate a being where understanding, inclinations, sensations, passions, good and bad qualities of mind and heart are mingled in a manner peculiar to itself. We here frequently see them better than in nature herself, since in nature nothing is fixed, all is swift, all is transient. In nature also we seldom behold the features under that propitious aspect in which they will be transmitted by the able painter.

If we could indeed seize the fleeting transitions of nature, or had she her moments of stability, it would then be much more advantageous to contemplate nature than her likeness; but this being impossible, and since likewise few people will suffer themselves to be observed, sufficiently to deserve the name of observation, it is to me indisputable, that a better knowledge of man may be obtained from portraits than from nature, she being thus uncertain, thus fugitive.

The rank of the portrait painter may hence be easily determined; he stands next to the historical painter. Nay history painting itself derives a part of its value from its portraits; for expression, one of the most important requisites in historical painting, will be the more esti

mable, natural, and strong, the more of actual physiognomy is expressed in the countenances, and copied after nature. A collection of excellent portraits is highly advantageous to the historical painter for the study of expression.

Where shall we find the historical painter, who can represent real beings with all the decorations of fiction? Do we not see them all copying copies? True it is, they frequently copy from imagination; but this imagination is only stored with the fashionable figures of their own or former times.

Having presumed thus far, let us now enumerate some of the surmountable difficulties of portrait painting. I am conscious the freedom with which I shall speak my thoughts will offend, yet to give offence is far from my intention. I wish to aid, to teach that art, which is the imitation of the works of God: I wish improvement. And how is improvement possible without a frank and undisguised discovery of defects?

The

In all the works of portrait painters which I have seen, I have remarked the want of a more philosophical, that is to say, a more just, intelligible, and universal knowledge of men. insect painter, who has no accurate knowledge of insects, the form, the general, the particular, which is appropriated to each insect, however good a copyist he may be, will certainly be a bad painter of insects. The portrait painter,

however excellent a copyist, (a thing much less general than is imagined by connoisseurs) will paint portraits ill, if he have not the most accurate knowledge of the form, proportion, connexion, and dependance of the great and minute parts of the human body, as far as they have a remarkable influence on the superficies; if he has not most accurately investigated each individual member and feature. For my own part, be my knowledge what it may, it is far from accurate in what relates to the minute specific traits of each sensation, each member, each feature; yet I daily remark that this acute, this indispensable knowledge, is at present every where uncultivated, unknown, and difficult to convey to the most intelligent painters.

Those who will be at the trouble of considering a number of men promiscuously taken, feature by feature, will find that each ear, each mouth, notwithstanding their infinite diversity, have yet their small curves, corners, characters, which are common to all, and which are found stronger or weaker, more or less marking, in all men who are not monsters born, at least in these parts.

Of what advantage is all our knowledge of the great proportions of the body and countenance? (Yet even that part of knowledge is, by far, not sufficiently studied, not sufficiently accurate. Some future physiognomonical painter will justify this assertion, till when be it considered as nothing more than cavil.) Of what

advantage, I say, is all our knowledge of the great proportions, when the knowledge of the finer traits, which are equally true, general, determinate, and no less significant, is wanting? And this want is so great, that I appeal to those who are best informed, whether many of the ablest painters, who have painted numerous portraits, have any tolerably accurate or general theory of the mouth only. I do not mean the anatomical mouth, but the mouth of the painter, which he ought to see, and may see, without any anatomical knowledge.

I have examined volume after volume of engravings of portraits, after the greatest masters, and am therefore entitled to speak. But let us confine observations to the mouth. Having previously studied infauts, boys, youth, manhood, old age, maidens, wives, matrons, with respect to the general properties of the mouth; and, having discovered these, let us compare, and we shall find that almost all painters have failed in the general theory of the mouth; that it seldom happens, and seems only to happen by accident, that any master has understood these general properties. Yet how indescribably much depends on them! lar, what the characteristic, but shades of the general! As it is with the mouth, so it is with the eyes, eyebrows, nose, and each part of the

countenance.

What is the particu

The same proportion exists between the great features of the face; and as there is this general

proportion in all countenances, however various, so is there a similar proportion between the small traits of these parts. Infinitely varied are the great features, in their general combination and proportion. As infinitely varied are the shades of the small traits, in these features, however great their general resemblance. Without an accurate knowledge of the proportion of the principal features, as for example, of the eyes and mouth, to each other, it must ever be mere accident, an accident that indeed rarely happens, when such proportion exists in the works of the painter. Without an accurate knowledge of the particular constituent parts, and traits of each principal feature, I once again repeat, it must be accident, miraculous accident, should any one of them be justly delineated.

The reflecting artist may be induced from this remark to study nature intimately by principle, and to shew him, if he be in search of permanent fame, that, though he ought to behold and study the works of the greatest masters with esteem and reverence, he yet ought to examine and judge for himself. Let him not make the virtue modesty his plea, for under this does omnipresent mediocrity shelter itself. Modesty, indeed, is not so properly virtue as the garb and ornament of virtue, and of existing positive power. Let him, I say, examine for himself, and study nature in whole and in part, as if no man ever had observed, or ever should observe,