Mr. Walpole (in p. 160 of his Anecdotes) gravely declares that Hogarth had but slender merit as a painter, and in colouring proved no greater a master. By the six pictures of "Marriage à la Mode," both these declarations are answered and refuted.
Mr. Nichols (in p. 449 of his Anecdotes), at the same time that he kindly acknowledges "Hogarth's hand was faithful to character," roundly asserts that as an engraver his merits are inconsiderable; that he wants clearness; that his strokes sometimes look as if fortuitously disposed, and sometimes thwart each other in almost every possible direction. He adds, "that what the artist wanted in skill, he strove to make up in labour; but the result of it was a universal haze and indistinctness, that, by excluding force and transparency, rendered several of his larger plates less captivating than they would have been had he entrusted the sole execution of them to either Ravenet or Sullivan." This is very severe; but is it true? If the "Harlot's" and "Rake's Progress," the "Enraged Musician," "Strolling Actresses," "Medley," and many other prints produced by his own graver, are attentively examined, I think the strokes will not be found to be fortuitously disposed: every touch tells, and gives that expression which the artist intended. As to his striving to make up for his want of skill by labour, I believe him to have been a prodigy of industry, but do not discover the result that is suggested by Mr. Nichols. We may possibly annex different ideas to the words. Johnson describes a universal haze as a fog, a mist; and indistinctness he defines to be confusion, uncertainty, obscurity,—faults which were never attributed to William Hogarth. Neither have I before heard it said that his prints want force: energy is in general their leading characteristic. As to transparency, if Mr. Nichols means that they have not that gauzy, glittering tone which marks many of our modern productions, I humbly conceive the artist did not desire such distinction; neither did he wish his works to be classed with such pretty performances: he was superior to the tricks of art, rejected all unnecessary flourish, and aimed at convincing the mind rather than dazzling the eye.
The two most difficult things in painting are character and drawing; and they are least understood by the crowd, who are invariably attracted by colour and glare. But for my own part, so far am I from thinking his style unsuitable to his subject, that I cannot conceive any manner in which his prints could be engraved that would be equal to his own. I prefer it to the most laboured copies of those miniature masters who, by fine finishing, fritter away all force.
Thus much may suffice for Mr. Nichols, from whom I am sorry to differ, as I owe him thanks for much useful information; but with the next critic upon the list it is dangerous to disagree.
For the talents of Mr. James Barry, Professor of Painting to the Royal Academy, I have the highest respect; his pictures in the Adelphi are an honour to the artist, and to the nation. In the sixth, representing the state of final retribution, he gives Hogarth a seat in Elysium; but in p. 162 of his description of the picture, etc. (published for Cadell), he has drawn this great artist in so motley a garb as leaves the reader in some doubt whether censure or praise predominates, and confers on poor Hogarth a sort of degrading immortality.
The Professor begins by admitting that "Hogarth's merit entitles him to an honourable place amongst the artists in Elysium, and that his little compositions 'tell' their own story with more facility than is often found in the elevated and more noble inventions of Raphael;" yet adds, "it must be honestly confessed that in what is called knowledge of the figure, foreigners have justly observed Hogarth is often so raw and unformed as hardly to deserve the name of an artist." Though he is often thus raw and unformed, yet Mr. Barry acknowledges that "this capital defect is not often perceivable, as examples of the naked and of elevated nature but rarely occur in his subjects, which are for the most part filled with characters that in their nature tend to deformity." Sometimes, I admit; but surely not for the most part. "Besides, his figures are small, and the junctures and other difficulties of drawing that might occur in their limbs are artfully concealed with their clothes, rags, etc." Mr. Barry surely does not mean that Hogarth needed any artifice to conceal an ignorance of anatomy, because Mr. Barry knows that many of his works prove a perfect knowledge of the figure. The Professor thus continues:—
"What would atone for all his defects, even if they were twice told, is his admirable fund of invention, ever inexhaustible in its resources; and his satire, which is always sharp and pertinent, and often highly moral, was (except in a few instances, where he weakly and meanly suffered his integrity to give way to his envy) seldom or never employed in a dishonest or unmanly way." A few instances! I do not believe it possible to point out one. Seldom or never! Why is the Professor so parsimonious in his praise? He might safely have said never. It has been the fashion to call Hogarth an envious man; I cannot conjecture why. The critic surely does not mean to insinuate that there was any violation of integrity in Hogarth's retaliating the pictured shapes upon Wilkes and Churchill, or that he envied the character of the late worthy Chamberlain of the city of London!
Mr. Barry goes on: "Few have attempted to rival him in his moral walk. The line of art pursued by my very ingenious predecessor and brother Academician, Mr. Penny, is quite distinct from that of Hogarth, and is of a much more delicate and superior relish; he attempts the heart, and reaches it, whilst Hogarth's general aim is only to shake the sides." Whoever will turn over a portfolio of Hogarth's prints, will find that his satire had sometimes a higher aim. "In other respects no comparison can be thought of,"—in good truth, it cannot,—"as Mr. Penny has all that knowledge of the figure and academical skill which the other wanted." Can Mr. Barry conceive it possible that posterity will think Mr. Penny's line of art of a superior relish to that of Hogarth! Mr. Penny's academical skill I do not contest; but to say that Hogarth wanted all that knowledge of the figure, etc., is rather too much. I know that imperfections may be pointed out in some of his works, but they had their origin in carelessness rather than ignorance.
Mr. Barry concludes by remarking, that "perhaps it may be reasonably doubted whether the being much conversant with Hogarth's method of exposing meanness, deformity, and vice, in many of his works, is not rather a dangerous, or at least a worthless pursuit; which, if it does not find a false relish, and a love of, and search after, satire and buffoonery in the spectator, is at least not unlikely to give him one."