atures: it serves also to indicate the prevailing mood
and predominant power to the mind. And here is another portrait,
quiet, deeply-toned, gentlemanly,--a transcript apparently of one of
the more characteristic portraits of Sir Thomas Lawrence. Perhaps,
however, of all our British artists, the artist whose published works
most nearly resemble a set of these drawings is Sir Joshua Reynolds.
We have a folio volume of engravings from his pictures before us; and
when, placing side by side with the prints the sketches in brown, we
remark the striking similarity of style that prevails between them,
we feel more strongly than at perhaps any former period, that the friend
of Johnson and of Burke must have been a consummate master of his art.
The engraver, however, cannot have done full justice to the originals.
There is a want of depth and prominence which the near neighbourhood of
the photographic drawings renders very apparent: the shades in the
subordinate parts of the picture are more careless and much less
true; nor have the lights the same vivid and sunshiny effect. There is
one particular kind of resemblance between the two which strikes as
remarkable, because of a kind which could scarce be anticipated. In
the volume of prints there are three several likenesses of the artist
himself, all very admirable as pieces of art, and all, no doubt,
sufficiently like, but yet all dissimilar in some points from each
other. And this dissimilarity in the degree which it obtains, one
might naturally deem a defect--the result of some slight inaccuracy in
the drawing. Should not portraits of the same individual, if all
perfect likenesses of him, be all perfectly like one another? No; not
at all. A man at one moment of time, and seen from one particular point
of view, may be very unlike himself when seen at another moment of
time, and from another point of view. We have at present before us the
photographic likenesses of four several individuals--three likenesses
of each--and no two in any of the four sets are quite alike. They
differ in expression, according to the mood which prevailed in the
mind of the original at the moment in which they were imprinted upon
the paper. In some respects the physiognomy seems different; and the
features appear more or less massy in the degree in which the lights and
shadows were more or less strong, or in which the particular angle they
were taken in brought them out in higher or lower relief.

We sha