the horny asphaltum look they have, to change.  It is unquestionably exceedingly mortifying to see, while the specimens of the Venetian and Flemish colourists are at this day so pure and fresh, though painted centuries before our schools, our comparatively recent productions so obscured and otherwise injured.  Tingry, excellent authority, the Genevan chemical professor, laments the practice of the English painters of mixing varnish with their colours, which, he says, shows that they prefer a temporary brilliancy to lasting beauty; for that it is impossible, that with this practice, pictures should either retain their brilliancy or even be kept from decay.  We do not remember to have seen a single historical picture of Sir Joshua’s that has not suffered; happily there are yet many of his portraits fresh, vigorous, and beautiful in colouring.  It should seem, that he thought it worth while to speculate upon those of least value to his reputation.

Portrait-painting, at the commencement of Sir Joshua’s career, was certainly in a very low condition.  A general receipt for face-making, with the greatest facility seemed to have been current throughout the country.  Attitudes and looks were according to a pattern; and, accordingly, there was so great a family resemblance, however unconnected the sitters, that it might seem to have been intended to promote a brotherly and sisterly bond of union among all the descendants of Adam.  Portrait-painting, which had in this country been so good, was in fact, with here and there an exception, and generally an exception not duly estimated, in a degraded state:  the art in this respect, as in others, had become vulgarized.  From this universal family-likeness recipe, Reynolds came suddenly, and at once successfully, before the world, with individual nature, and variety of character, and portraits that had the merit of being pictures as well as portraits.  He led to a complete revolution in this department, so that if he had rivals—­and he certainly had one in Gainsborough—­they were of his own making.  The change is mostly perceptible in female portraits.  They assumed grace and beauty.  Our grandmothers and great-grandmothers were strangely vilified in their unpleasing likenesses.  The somewhat loose satin evening-dress, with the shepherdess’s crook, was absurd enough; and no very great improvement upon the earlier taste of complimenting portraits with the personation of the heathen deities.  The poetical pastoral, however, very soon descended to the real pastoral; and, as if to make people what they were not was considered enough of the historical of portrait, even this took.  We suspect Gainsborough was the first to sin in this degradation line, by no means the better one for being the furthest from the divinities.  He had painted some rustic figures very admirably, and made such subjects a fashion; but why they should ever be so, we could never understand; or why royalty should not be represented as royalty, gentry as gentry;