384 The Miseries of a Portrait -Painter. 



a fault than " having painted him in a seconds' cloth coat, not a super- 

 fine one ;" he assuring us positively that he never wore any other 

 kind than superfine. Puzzled at the aim of this communication, and 

 distressed at the severe and injured look of our legal employer, we 

 asked to revise the picture. We had it put in the light ; we had it 

 put back again ; we considered it, and we reconsidered it ; and, at 

 last, were fairly compelled to throw ourselves upon the mercy of the 

 offended party, and confess we could not find out what he meant. 

 " Not know what I mean !" said he, in a surprised key, " only look 

 close at the picture, and you will see on the sleeve and the collar the 

 marks of the brushes you used. Why, I can see them quite plainly,*' 

 said he, putting his spectacled face within a foot of the canvass : 

 "here, take my glasses." We ventured to hint that a large picture 

 was not to be looked at close, and that it was not always possible to 

 obliterate the touches left by the brush ; nay, that it was even some- 

 times desirable purposely to introduce them in order to gain texture, 

 and that the brush marks in the present instance were not seen at the 

 distance of three or four feet; but we might as well have talked to 

 him of the temple at Tenderah. Our conversation was closed by his 

 drily and briefly telling us, " Well, all I can say is, that I have no 

 such marks on my coat." He was to have recommended us. He 

 never did. 



We remember once receiving a note from a gentleman whose 

 son's portrait we had painted, requesting " to see us any day this 

 week with respect to it." We went. Our friend received us courte- 

 ously, but gravely. We saw that something was wrong. After a 

 brief exordium, he told us that, having had occasion to pass his finger 

 over the face a few days before, to remove some particles of dust 

 sticking to the canvass, he had detected in both the eyes a something 

 so unaccountable that he had thought it better at once to send for us 

 to look at it. " If," said he, " you will pass your finger over the 

 eyes, you will find in the centre of each pupil a small lump or pro- 

 minence, which I am sure you could not have intended." We did as 

 we were desired; and, stifling any desire to laugh, we explained to 

 him that the only means painters had to represent the vivid sparkle 

 of light which is seen in the eye, is by touching the pupil in the pic- 

 ture with a sharp-pointed brush dipped in white paint ; a dot or mi- 

 nute projection of paint is thereby left behind, which, catching the light, 

 serves to produce the effect desired. He coughed ; looked grave ; 

 went to the glass and looked at himself; came back ; felt again ; and 

 then conciliatingly telling us " he dar'd to say we were right as to the 

 sparkle in the eye," begged as a favour we would indulge him by 

 " removing the projection of paint, as he was quite sure his son had 

 no such lump in his eye." What was to be done ? Nothing, of 

 course, but comply. We accordingly had the picture returned to us, 

 scraped the high light down so as to be impalpable, and sent it home 

 again ; looking of necessity dim-sighted, but perfectly satisfactory to 

 the touch of the owner. 



The reader will say these are gross absurdities, and not such as are 

 likely to be committed by the generality of persons. We assure him 

 that in the last particular he is wrong. All may not be of this hnme* 



