all, as far as the words go: they are redolent
throughout of the peculiar satire of the author of the "Lives," who so
loves point and antithesis, who tells us Sir Joshua "poured" out his
wines, (the distribution of which he had otherwise spoken of,) that the
_stint_ to the servants may have its fullest opposition. And again, as
to the humbler, does he not contradict himself? He prefaces the fact
that Sir Joshua gave a hundred guineas to Gainsborough, who asked sixty,
for his "Girl and Pigs," thus--"Reynolds was commonly humane and
tolerant; he could indeed afford, both in fame and purse, to commend and
aid the timid and needy."--P. 304. This is qualifying vilely a generous
action, while it contradicts his assertion of being sparing of "a kindly
word and a guinea." Nor are the occasional criticisms on passages in the
"Discourses" in a better spirit, nor are they exempt from a vulgar taste
as to views of art; their sole object is, apparently, to depreciate
Reynolds; and though a selection of individual sentences might be picked
out, as in defence, of an entirely laudatory character, they are
contradicted by others, and especially by the sarcastic tone of the
Life, taken as a whole. But it is not only in the Life of Reynolds that
this attempt is made to depreciate him. In his "Lives" of Wilson and
Gainsborough, he steps out of his way to throw his abominable sarcasm
upon Reynolds. One of many passages in Wilson's Life says, "It is
reported that Reynolds relaxed his hostility at last, and, becoming
generous when it was too late, obtained an order from a nobleman for two
landscapes at a proper price." So he insinuates an unworthy hypocrisy,
while lauding the bluntness of Wilson. "Such was the blunt honesty of
his (Wilson's) nature, that, when drawings were shown him which he
disliked, he disdained, or was unable to give a courtly answer, and made
many of the students his enemies. Reynolds had the sagacity to escape
from such difficulties, by looking at the drawings and saying 'Pretty,
pretty,' which vanity invariably explained into a compliment."--P. 207.
After having thus spoken shamefully of Sir Joshua Reynolds in the body
of his work, he reiterates all in a note, confirming all as his not
hasty but deliberate opinion, having "now again gone over the narrative
very carefully, and found it impossible, without violating the truth, to
make any alteration of importance as to its facts;" and though he has
omitted so much which mi