[41] One exception to this remark occurs in the _Gentleman's Magazine_ for 1754, p. 14; where the reviewer of the Analysis observes, that it is "a book written with that precision and perspicuity which can only result from a perfect knowledge of his subject in all its extent. His rules are illustrated by near two hundred figures, engraved by himself; the knowledge which it contains is universally useful, and as all terms of art are avoided, the language will be universally understood. The player and the dancing-master, whom others consider as patterns of just action and genteel deportment, are not less instructed than the statuary and the painter; nor is there any species of beauty or elegance that is not here investigated and analysed. "A book, by which the author has discovered such superiority, could scarce fail of creating many enemies; those who admit his Analysis to be just, are disposed to deny that it is new. Though in the year 1745, having drawn a serpentine line on a painter's pallet, with these words under it, 'the line of beauty,' as a frontispiece to his prints, no _Egyptian_ hieroglyphic ever produced greater variety of speculation; both painters and sculptors then came to enquire the meaning of a symbol, which they soon pretended to have been their old acquaintance; though the account they could give of its properties were scarce so satisfactory as that of a day-labourer, who constantly uses the _lever_, could give of that instrument, as a mechanical power. The work, however, will live when these cavils are forgotten; and except the originals, of which it is pretended to be a copy, are produced, there is no question but that the name of the author will descend to posterity with that honour which competitors only can wish to withhold." It should be observed, however, that the general decision on _Hogarth's_ performance may be just. Certain we are, that it has not been reversed by the opinion of the First of our Modern Painters. [42] The _Analysis_ itself however affords sufficient specimens of inaccuracy in spelling. Thus we have (pref. p. xix.) _Syclamen_ instead of _Cyclamen_; (p. 44.) calc_i_donian for C_h_alc_e_donian; (p. 65.) nuckles for _k_nuckles; (p. 97.) Iris_h_-stitch for Iris-stitch, &c. &c. In the sheets that contain these errors, it is easy to conceive that _Hogarth_ must have been his own corrector of the press. [43] It is so extraordinary for an illiterate person to ridicule inaccuracy of spelling, that this might probably be a real blunder. [44] Some account of this work will be given in a future page. [45] See a note on _Marriage-a-la-Mode_ (under the year 1745); from whence it sufficiently appears, that _indelicacies_, &c. had been imputed to _Hogarth's_ performances, and that, therefore, when he advertised the six plates of _Marriage-a-la-Mode_, he thought it necessary to assure the public that no _indelicacy, indecency,_ or _personality_, would be found in any of these representations.