Note 32 — HOGARTH.

Having given Mr. Walpole's remarks, it is but fair to insert that part of the Analysis which gave rise to them:—

"Notwithstanding the deep-rooted notion, even amongst the majority of painters themselves, that Time is a great improver of good pictures, I will undertake to show that nothing can be more absurd. Having mentioned the whole effect of the oil, let us now see in what manner Time operates on the colours themselves, in order to discover if any changes in them can give a picture more union and harmony than has been in the power of a skilful master with all his rules of art to do. When colours change at all, it must be somewhat in the manner following; for as they are made, some of metal, some of earth, some of stone, and others of more perishable materials, Time cannot operate on them otherwise than as by daily experience we find it doth, which is, that one changes darker, another lighter, one quite to a different colour, whilst another, as ultra-marine, will keep its natural brightness even in the fire. Therefore, how is it possible that such different materials, ever variously changing (visibly, after a certain time), should accidentally coincide with the artist's intention, and bring about the greater harmony of the piece, when it is manifestly contrary to their nature; for do we not see, in most collections, that much time disunites, untunes, blackens, and by degrees destroys, even the best preserved pictures?

"But if, for argument's sake, we suppose that the colours were to fall equally together, let us see what sort of advantage this would give to any sort of composition: we will begin with a flower-piece. When a master hath painted a rose, a lily, an african, a gentinnella, or violet, with his best art and brightest colours, how far short do they fall of the freshness and rich brilliancy of nature! And shall we wish to see them fall still lower, more faint, sullied, and dirtied by the hand of Time, and then admire them as having gained an additional beauty, and call them mended and heightened, rather than fouled, and in a manner destroyed? How absurd! instead of mellowed and softened, therefore, always read yellow and sullied; for this is doing Time, the destroyer, but common justice. Or shall we desire to see complexions, which in life are often literally as brilliant as the flowers above mentioned, served in the like ungrateful manner? In a landscape, will the water be more transparent, or the sky shine with a greater lustre, when embrowned and darkened by decay? Surely no.—These opinions have given rise to another absurdity, viz. that the colours now-a-days do not stand so well as formerly; whereas colours well prepared, in which there are but little art or expense, have, and will always have, the same properties in every age; and without accidents, damps, bad varnish, and the like (being laid separate and pure), will stand and keep together for many years in defiance of Time itself."