it equally discernible in his “Nativity” for the window in New College Chapel?  We think not.  There is nothing in his “Nativity” that has not been better done by others; yet, as a whole, it is good; and if the subject demands a more creative power, and a higher daring than was habitual to him, we are yet charmed with the good sense throughout; and while we look, are indisposed to criticise.  We have already remarked how much Sir Joshua was indebted to a picture by Domenichino for the “Tragic Muse.”  Every one knows that he borrowed the “Nativity” from the “Notte” of Correggio, and perhaps in detail from other and inferior masters.  His “Ugolino” was a portrait, or a study, in the commencement; it owes its excellence to its retaining this character in its completion.  If we were to point to failures, in single figures, (historical,) we should mention his “Puck” and his “Infant Hercules.”  The latter we only know from the print.  Here he certainly had an opportunity of displaying the great style of Michael Angelo; it was beyond his daring; the Hercules is a sturdy child, and that is all, we see not the ex pede Herculem.  We can imagine the colouring, especially of the serpents and back-ground, to have been impressive.  The picture is in the possession of the Emperor of Russia.  The “Puck” is a somewhat mischievous boy—­too substantially, perhaps heavily, given for the fanciful creation.  The mushroom on which he is perched is unfortunate in shape and colour; it is too near the semblance of a bullock’s heart.  His “Cardinal Beaufort,” powerful in expression, has been, we think, captiously reprehended for the introduction of the demon.  The mind’s eye has the privilege of poetry to imagine the presence; the personation is therefore legitimate to the sister art.  The National Gallery is not fortunate enough to possess any important picture of the master in the historical style.  The portraits there are good.  There was, we have been given to understand, an opportunity of purchasing for the National Gallery the portrait of himself, which Sir Joshua presented to his native town of Plympton as his substitute, having been elected mayor of the town—­an honour that was according to the expectation of the electors thus repaid.  The Municipal Reform brought into office in the town of Plympton, as elsewhere, a set of men who neither valued art nor the fame of their eminent townsman.  Men who would convert the very mace of office into cash, could not be expected to keep a portrait; so it was sold by auction, and for a mere trifle.  It was offered to the nation; and by those whose business it was to cater for the nation, pronounced a copy.  The history of its sale did not accompany the picture; when that was known, as it is said, a very large sum was offered, and refused.  It is but justice to the committee to remind them of the fact, that Sir Joshua himself, as he tells us, very minutely examined a picture which he pronounced to be his own, and which was nevertheless a copy.  Unquestionably his genius