Portrait Painting.
The great field of painting in Britain, since the time of its earliest introduction down to the present day, has been that of family memorials, confined originally to he raldic painting, but for many ages to that of portrait. Of these ancient specimens of very great curiosity are still existing, preserved in the Royal Palaces, and more an cient baronial residences of our nobility. Accounts of them have been published in the works of various writers on the history of British painters, from whom we learn, that, among the multitude of portrait painters who filled the country with their works, there are comparatively few names of native artists. Many of these foreigners, how ever, became in a manner naturalized, from having passed their lives in Britain in the exercise of their art, and es tablished their families in the country. Of that number we have to record the prince of portrait painters, Van dyck, whose works abound in Britain. Many painters of merit both preceded and followed him. So early as the reign of Queen Elizabeth, Isaac Oliver distinguished him self as a celebrated miniature painter, and his son Peter obtained a high name in the succeeding reign of James the Sixth.
Jamieson, a native of Aberdeen, studied under Rubens and Vandyck, and attained so great a degree of perfec tion in the art of portrait, as to be considered next to Vandyck. Were Jamieson's pictures better known, there is little doubt that he would hold a higher rank as a painter than what is generally allowed to him. His works being chiefly confined to Scotland, and in the pos session of private families in a remote part of the country, the circle of his fame has been necessarily of narrow range, though his merit is far superior to that of some English artists, whose performances circumstances have brought more into notice.
Among the classical painters of England, we have long been accustomed to consider several names of local cele brity, who are actually foreigners, though adopted by continued residence as natives, namely, Sir Peter Lely, Sir Godfrey Kneller, Sir John Medina, and others. Nlany of the portraits of that age were sacrificed to the absurd fashion of the times, in dress the most ungraceful as well as unnatural, that could be conceived ; with full bottomed wigs, and every thing that was calculated to disfigure the human form. The tight laced gown of the ladies was
equally incompatible with any graceful form of drapery, so desirable for a painter. They were obliged to clothe their portraits in fancy dresses, in which the taste does not always appear very judicious or appropriate. The sleepy eye of Sir Peter Lely's ladies, with their per sons but sparingly enveloped in a loose night gown, seem as if they had only that moment slept out of bed ; but leave us much at a loss to account for the garden scenery which generally surrounds them, and for which they seem so unsuitably attired. It is as injurious to the effect of a portrait to distract the attention from the countenance, by any thing very unusual in the dress, as by the introduction of obtrusive necessaries, which thrust themselves forward upon the eye.
The proper draping of a portrait is a matter of some difficulty. There are strong reasons for adopting the usual habit of the person, however inelegant ; and yet, in the course of a few years, it may be the means of exciting such a degree of the ridiculous as to destroy the whole merit of the picture. At the same time, if, in our por trait, we choose to appear in masquerade, we have cer tainly no reason to complain of want of resemblance ; for it is wonderful how small a change of dress from the or dinary habit will prove sufficient to disguise our most intimate friends; so that, upon the whole, the chance of appearing ridiculous in after times, is perhaps the least objection ; if we are represented exactly as we appeared when living, we have little reason to complain. The more, however, the fashion of the day can be simplified, without destroying the character, the better ; and yet how common it is for those who go to sit for their picture to dress them selves up in such a manner as to aggravate the evil ! It was,at one period, much the fashion to endeavour to escape this difficulty by the ingenious device of representing the person in allegorical, or even mythological characters, than which nothing could be more preposterous. Although we cannot follow the antique simplicity of the Greeks, who represented their portraits without any covering at all, yet certainly the simpler and the less ornamental the bet ter, as the ornament forms no part of the person of whom we desire to preserve the memory.