To the painter's recriminations in this party jar, Mr. Nichols I suppose alludes, page 97 of his Anecdotes, where he says, that "_in his political conduct and attachments, Hogarth was at once unprincipled and variable_." These are harsh and heavy charges, but I am to learn on what they are founded. He never embarked with any party, nor did he publish a political print before the year 1762; and the principles he there professes he retained until his death. In the same page of the Anecdotes, I find, after a complimentary quotation from one of Mr. Hayley's poems, several severe strictures to which I cannot assent.[33] The assertion, that _all his powers of delighting were confined to his pencil_, is in a degree refuted by the Analysis. That _he was rarely admitted into polite circles_, I can readily believe; but if by _polite circles_, Mr. Nichols means those persons of honour who deem _dress_ the grand criterion of distinction, think making _an easy bow_ the first human acquirement, and Lord Chesterfield's code _the whole duty of man_,--the artist had no great cause to regret the loss of such society. But _his sharp corners not being rubbed off_ by collision with these polite circles, he was, _to the last, a gross, uncultivated man_. Engaged in ascertaining the principles of his art, he had not leisure to study the _principles of politeness_; but by those who lived with him in habits of intimacy, I am told he was by no means gross. "_To be member of a club consisting of mechanics, or those not many degrees above them, seems to have been the utmost of his social ambition._"--Yet we find in the list of his social companions, Fielding, Hoadley, Garrick, Townley, and many other names who were an honour to their age and country. Though excluded from _polite circles_, by these and such men he was received as a friend. Some of his evenings were probably passed among his neighbours, and being above dissimulation, I suppose he resented what he disliked, and was, as Mr. Nichols informs us, often _sent to Coventry_. "_He is said to have beheld the rising eminence and popularity of Sir Joshua Reynolds with a degree of envy; and, if I am not misinformed, spoke with asperity both of him and his performances._" It has been said, and I believe with equal truth, that Rubens _envied_ the rising eminence and popularity of Vandyke: neither the Englishman nor the Fleming were capable of so mean a passion. The walk of William Hogarth was diametrically opposite to that of Sir Joshua Reynolds. They saw nature through a different medium: one of them almost invariably dignifies his characters; whilst the other, from the nature of his subjects, sinks, and in some measure degrades them. The man whose portrait is painted by the President feels exalted; whilst he who looks in the mirror displayed by Hogarth, finds a resemblance better calculated to gratify his _good-natured friends_ than himself. These circumstances considered, I can conceive Hogarth