47. A ditto, "Kit-Kat," with his favourite dog.

48. Two Portraits of Lady Thornhill and Mrs. Hogarth, exceedingly fine.

49. The First Sketch of the "Rake's Pro

gress."

50. A ditto of the Altar of Bristol Church. 51. The Shrimp Girl, a Sketch.

52. Sigismunda.

53. An Historical Sketch, by Sir James Thornhill.

54. Two Sketches of Lady Pembroke and Mr. John Thornhill.

55. Three Old Pictures.

56. The Bust of Sir Isaac Newton.

57. Ditto of Mr. Hogarth, by Roubiliac.

58. Ditto of the Favourite Dog and Cast of Mr. Hogarth's Hand.1

1 The Royal Academy has a palette of Hogarth's. maul-stick came into the hands of Sir George Beaumont, who gave it to Wilkie, after seeing his "Village Politicians."

CHAPTER XIII.

SIR JOSHUA REYNOLDS AT No. 47.

T may be said with but little exaggeration, that the spring-heads of two of the main streams of English art, domestic incident and portrait painting, rise in Leicester Fields, in the painting-rooms of Hogarth and Reynolds, as three of the chief sources of English philosophy and physiology in those great scientific celebrities of the same region, Newton, Hunter, and Charles Bell.

Reynolds, not yet Sir Joshua, was in the thirtyseventh year of his age, and in the full tide of his popularity as a portrait painter, when, in the summer of 1760, he removed from No. 5, Great Newport Street to No. 47, Leicester Fields. He had been working in London only seven years,

but had already established himself as beyond all rivalry the reigning portrait-painter. He had indeed given quite a new life to portraiture, which he may be said to have found wooden and left of flesh and blood. His first labours under Hudson from 1740 to 1743, and again from 1744 to 1745, had taught him all that he could learn from the practice of the best London hands; and his well-directed study in Italy from 1749 to 1752, had opened his eyes to the poverty of resource, and the lifelessness of most that then passed for portrait painting in England. Hogarth's portraits, it is true, had life and character, but he was not the fashion, and had no turn for fashionable subjects and people. In his handling he was often heavy; in his temper hot, heady, intractable and self-assertive, the worst qualities for the success of a face-painter. Above all he had an imperfect appreciation of the more delicate qualities of high-bred womanly beauty. Sir Joshua brought to his work a sympathetic insight into character, a keen eye for loveliness, an inimitable felicity in seizing happy aspects and accidents of pose, light and shade, arrangement of dress and action. He managed to