ical, and call it vanity; but put both anecdotes
into tolerably good grave Latin, and name them Portia and Lucretia, and
we should have as fine a sentiment as the boasted one of the hero
endeavouring to fall decently. There may be but little difference, and
that only just what we, in our humours, choose to make it. I am sure you,
Eusebius, will stand up for the old village crone, and the fine lady,
too. But the fraternity of the brush, if they do now and then promote
vanity, much more commonly gratify affection. Private portraits seem to
me to be things so sacred, that they ought not to survive the immediate
family or friends for whose gratification they are painted. I much like
the idea of burying them at last. I will show you how estimable these
things sometimes are. You remember a portrait I have--a gentleman in a
dress of blue and gold--in crayon. Did I ever tell you the anecdote
respecting him? If not, you shall have it, as I had from my father. If
you recollect the picture, you must recollect that it is of a very
handsome man. His horses took fright, the carriage was overturned, and he
was killed upon the spot. The property came to my father. One day an
unknown lady, in a handsome equipage, stopped at his door, and, in an
interview with him, requested a portrait of this very person, not the one
you have seen, but another in oil-colour, and of that the head only. My
father cut it out, and gave it to her. Many, many years afterwards it was
returned to him by an unknown hand, with an account of the accident that
caused the death, pasted on the back; and it is now in my possession. The
lady was never known. No, Eusebius, we must not deny portrait-painters,
nor portrait painting. It is the line in which we excel--and that we have
above all others patronized, and had great men too arise from our
encouragement--Who are so rich in Vandyks as we are? And some we have had
better than the world allowed them to be--Sir Peter Lely was occasionally
an admirable painter--though Sir Joshua did say, "We must go beyond him
now." There was Sir Joshua himself, and Gainsborough--would that either
were alive to take you, Eusebius, though I were to pay for the sitting. I
think too, that I should have given the preference to Gainsborough--it
would have been so true. Did you ever see his portrait of Foote?--so
unaffected--it must be like. I won't be invidious by naming any, where we
have so many able portrait-painters--but if you have not fi