JNTah

K&&SL TO THE ptrji

c

M* DUBOST,

EDITOR of the

y !r',

LOFBOF;
7Jrin/Bd/er tfieAitltivrfyCbm/iton MM2& Str'(7( >£/y N/// a ¦/,'/¦,* /iad c/ali- //¦>
Fruict//."/ B'.-o/;saUer ?

AN

APPEAL,

THE two articles extracted from the Examiner,
Sunday Newspaper, and printed in an . Appendix
to this Appeal, appeared in the form of criticisms
on the Fine Arts, and wereparticularlv called forth
by a painting founded on the story of the Beauty
and Beast, which was lately exhibited amongst my
other pictures at Pall Mall. Had these criticisms, as
they are called, been confined to the merits or de
merits, to the beauties or defects of my performance,
I should not have felt myself authorised by any se
verity of remark to attempt a reply ; but as they,
under the guise of candid criticism and liberal ex
amination, are nothing else than a string of gross
slanders, and foul misrepresentations, intended to
A

6
vilify and depress me as an artist and as a man, I
think it a duty which I owe to the friends that
have patronized me, to the public that has en
couraged me, and to my own honour so outrage
ously attacked, to clear myself from imputations,
which, unless for the mischief they are calculated
to produce, should be suffered by me to die away
in contempt.
I confess that it is with great reluctance I ap
pear thus before the tribunal of the public, partly
from a natural repugnance to this kind of alterca
tion, but chiefly because I wished, as a stranger,
not to be forced into the ungracious situation of
an accuser* and into an exposal of the Conduct of
a man, whom, although he had grievously injured
me, I did not wish to render infamous. Goaded
as I am, however, into this defence by the illiberal
and cowardly abuse of Mr. Hope's hireling, I
feel that the silence which I should otherwise be
inclined to preserve would now argue a conscious
ness of guilt that I abhor, and an acquiescence in
charges that I am able not only to repel but to
retort. :

If this foul attack had not been made upon me,
Mr. Hope might have, perhaps, escaped the jus.t
indignation which my narrative cannot fail to
excite against him ; but the efforts of friendship,
though well intended, are not always judicious ;
and it may be, that, when he sees his name suffer
ing in a scandalous notoriety, he will not be greatly
thankful to the scribbling kindness of Mr.. Hunt.
I can assure the Editor of the Examiner, with ail-that
good temper which I suppose he has been well paid
for losing, that by bringing this business before
the public he has done me a favour, without being
inclined to confer one, and that I should feel my
self much complimented by his abuse, had it been
a little better written.
It is not easy however to command the elegance
^of one's pen for every dirty occasion. There are
some subjects, to write on which one must put off
the gentleman, and commence the blackguard ;
and, indeed, I will do Mr. Hunt the justice to
say, that, if his subject had been a better one,
if his heart had not struggled hard against his
head (unless, perhaps, one should be as base as the

8
other), whilst performing the critical dirty work
of Mr. Hope, he could not have so far departed
from the decent mediocrity of his style, nor have
descended into a language so far below contempt.
Were it possible for Mr. Hunt to take counsel
from one whom he has represented as so base and
So stupid, I would advise him to confine himself
to the maudlin metaphysics of his theatrical essays,
or to the measuring out of his weekly yard of sedi
tious politics. There he may have some claim to
that kind of respectability* which he himself has
so often denned ; but to hire himself out to the
malice of any man, and that, too, to write on a
subject where he betrays continually the most
consummate ignorance, is not only injudicious,
but base ; it is not only folly, but shameful de
pravity.

* The Examinee, speaking of a Mr. Abbott that appeared in
the. new piece called the Doubtful Son, thus characterizes him : —
*' He appears to be precisely what is called a respectable performer ;
that is-, a performer of very tolerable mediocrity in indifferent
characters."

Having said thus much by way of preface, I will
proceed to the subject of the charges of the Exa
miner. — After proclaiming me, in broad letters of
condemnation, as, definitely, the infamous ca
ricaturist, Mr. Hunt proceeds in a strain of
vituperation that would not at all disgrace the
stalls of Covent Garden. I am the "foul asperser
of an amiable woman, a public slanderer, an in
cendiary, a miscreant, a calumniator ;" in short,
this elegant writer has ransacked the. whole calen
dar of scurrility, and hunted for nicknames through
all the common places of blackguardism, that he
might be the more able to stigmatize me as one of
the basest of the species ; whilst Mr. Hope is the
theme of his delicate eulogy, and as pronounced,
with dogmatism enough, a man of universally
acknowledged taste and the purest virtue.
Unfortunately for Mr. Hope, the purchased
praise of the hireling imparts as little true delight
as the ' bought smile' of the harlot ; and it will,
perhaps, mortify him not a little to be informed,
that, had I chosen to substitute a note of another
nature for the candid and intrepid one sent to the

10
office of the Examiner, I could have commanded
a quantity of panegyric, equal at least to the heap
of censure with which I am now loaded. This
supposition is supported by> the general tenor
of the language of the criticisms, which could
not possibly have proceeded from a pen solely in
fluenced by the love of truth, and from the con
versation of Mr. Hunt with the gentleman whom
he met at the Exhibition, and whom he has had the
pitiful cowardice to blacken with his dark italics, in
return for the polite attentions paid him by that gen
tleman. Mr. Hunt, indeed, avers that, " ongoing
" to the Exhibition, his feelings were shocked to
" see a caricature so severe upon persons whom
" public report, as well as his own private sources
" of information, assured him were among the
" most worthy of human beings ;" and that he
" observed to a dark man, who told him he was
" not, Mr. D., but his friend, that he thought the
" reasons assigned in the catalogue very insuffiT
' " cient to justify such a painting." I am author
rised by my friend, with whom this pretended con
versation was held, to give it the most public and
flat contradiction ; to declare it (in the delicate

11
phraseology of Mr. Hunt himself) abarefaced lie; a
conversation so different from what passed between
them, that, in fact, Mr. Hunt extolled the painting
of Hyde Park as an excellent performance, and
was not at all wanting in encomiums on the merits
of the Beast and Beauty. But at this time, per
haps, the Editor of the Examiner had not received
his wages ; and his subsequent conduct is only a
lamentable proof, amongst the ten thousand others,
of what miracles gold is able to perform, and how
even the stern integrity of a modern newspaper
Critic will sometimes yield to its efficacy.
But to eome at once to the main accusation
against me, what sin against "decency and public
morals and society" and I know not what, have I
committed ? What mighty crime of mine is it that
has been thought worthy of such signal vengeance
as the tirades of the Examiner ? Be not astonished,
gentle reader, when I inform you, that the proof
of my ' miscreancy' is the having painted a
piece in which there is the figure of a beast ;
and that this figure of a beast ± drawn in all the
traits of stupidity that my fancy and profes-

19
sional skill could suggest, bore an accidental
' facial' resemblance to Mr. Thomas Hope, the in
genious author of the splendid tract on Household^
Furniture. In the same piece was the personifica
tion of Beauty ; and I am accused also of making
this portrait, in which I had embodied my ideas
of all that- was beautiful in the human form arid
face, like Mrs. Hope.
To the latter part of this accusation I might
plead guilty, if the malice of the accuser had not
misrepresented the painting, and added that I had
designated the amiable and estimable lady in ques
tion as one " who bartered her sincerity and happir
ness for gold." Had this libeller, with whom accu
racy of statement is as little valuable as decency of
language, taken the trouble to read the little tale
that gave its name to my painting, or had he
looked on the painting itself with any other eyes
than those of malice and misrepresentation, he
should have been convinced that in neither the
story or the painting was the lady depicted in the
light in which he is pleased to represent her as if
from my canvas : he should have found, that, of

13
the three sisters in the story, she was the most-
virtuous and disinterested ; and he would have
¦^een her disinterestedness, her noble indifference
to pelf, her perfect absence of any thing like a
passion for money, beautifully exemplified in the
asking from her father, when he was about to set
out on his journey, nothing but ' a rose.'' — The
Beast certainly displayed his wealth as his greatest
attraction, but the Beauty was painted in an at
titude of disdain and contempt for the offer ; and
the story says that her marriage was afterwards
the effect of two of the finest feelings of the hu
man soul, — the filial piety which prompted her to
sacrifice herself for her father, and the gratitude
which the kindness of the poor stupid Beast after
wards inspired.
" Every part of the physical and moral deli-
" neation of this incendiary's caricature bore the
" direct stamp of a lie," says the Editor of the
Examiner. — Now, supposing the painting for an
instant to have been intended as a caricature, how
could either the physical or moral delineation of
the lady be considered to bear the stamp of a lie?

14
She wasi painted in all the dignity and grace of
beauty, like that beiug in whose eye the poet has:
placed " a heaven ;" and so far the physical deli
neation was not a lie. As to the moral delineation,
she was, in the painting as in the story, the most
amiable, the most virtuous, the most disinterested
of human beings '; and if it was a lie thus to re
present her, then Mi\ Hunt is her asperser, her
slanderer, and not L
But it is the trick, it is the little cunning, of
Mr. Hunt, and the vanity of the author of House
hold Furniture, to describe me to the public as the
" foul asperser of this amiable woman," knowing
as they did that, if their Tie succeeded, the sym
pathy of every feeling heart would be- justly ex
cited in "her favour ; and judging rightly, that,
if their accusation was confined to the mere beasti-
fcation of Mr. Hope himself, instead of the sym
pathy, they should have to rejoice, only in the
laugh of the town. But the triumph of false
hood is generally short ; and when the readers of
the Examiner shall have known the true state of
the matter, instead of " every social and exery

n
honourable feeling, awaking contempt and de
testation at me as a foul calumniator," they
will feel the contempt and the detestation for the
Editor of the Examiner, as the foulest calumniator
that ever had it in his power to circulate a mali
cious and wilful misrepresentation.
With regard to the moral delineation even of the
Beast, Mr. Hope, jf he conceives there existed
any physical resemblance between himself and that
non-descript animal, has nothing to complain of
on a moral account. The story represents the
Beast as kind and good-natured to a degree;
and certainly I should not have drawn Mr. Hope
in traits of such a nature, had I intended to carica
ture him. If there happened to be a 'facial' re
semblance, it was not my fault. I combined in the
countenance of the Beast all the lineaments of
feature with which study and observation taught
me to designate stupidity ; and if the face, that
Fancy had thus drawn, was of kindred likeness with;
that which Mr. Hope wears, I am no more to blame
than I should be, in case, designing to paint the
personification of any of the bad passions, or of a

16
combination of them, I should have the misfor
tune to present the world with the dark, repulsive
countenance and assassin form of Mr. Hunt. Paint
ing in this respect is like poetry. The painter
has as much a right to ridicule with his pencil as
the poet with his pen ; and Horace, as a satirist,
was not a whit more privileged than Hogarth.
As to the causes for my supposed resentment
against Mr. Hope, which the Editor 'of the Exa
miner enumerates in such a strain of diminishing
and abusive declamation, I must trespass on the
patience of those who shall do me the honour
to read this Appeal, by giving a detailed account
of the transaction between that gentleman and me,
respecting the painting of Damocles. This trans-.
action has come so discoloured from the venal and
falsifying pen of Mr. Hunt, and he has taken so
much pains to represent me as an atrocious ingrate,
..that I must implore the attention of the public to
the following narrative, as on it will depend whe
ther I am to be condemned as the wretch described
by the Examiner ; or whether Mr. Hope ought not
to take my place in his pages, and to stand con-

17
victed of having done the grossest injury to my
•interest and reputation.
When I came to this country from France, I
brought with me among others a painting, "re
presenting the historical incident of Damocles
with the sword suspended over his head." This
painting was considered by the best judges in
Paris as a performance that merited praise ; not
such as the cold and half-starved- approbation with
nvhi'ch the Editor of the Examiner is pleased to
speak of it, but the high eulogy of having united
in it the design of the Italian with the colouring
of the Flemish school, and it obtained for me
one of Napoleon's annual gold medals. Since I
am forced upon the defensive, I must use a lan
guage in speaking of myself, which in any other
circumstances I never would have adopted, and
which indeed at any time would appear more. gra
cious in the mouth of another. But, when a pre
suming, half-learned coxcomb ; a mere boy of
yesterday, tricking himself out in all the osten
tation of talent and the importance of experience^
' dares in one blasting breath to wither, the few

18
hard-earned laurels which, in the travel and study
of thirty years, I had arduously gathered ; when
such a creature, possessing the power of dissemi
nating his opinions, endeavours to damn me into
obscurity and neglect by not only insinuating, but
in fact declaring, that I am not the painter of those
works which have cost me all the anxiety and la
bour of my life, no liberal mind will blame me
for claiming, that station among my contempo
raries from which it is attempted to pull me down,
and for expressing the indignation that dictates
this sentence, against the envy which I know to
be the instigator of the attempt.
After I had been a short time in London, I ex
hibited the picture of Damocles in Leicester
Square; and, among the amateurs whom it at
tracted, was Mr. Hope. He was prodigal of
praise on its merits ; and instead of " my sup
plicating and entreating him''' to purchase it, I was
unwilling to part with it, and refused his first
offers. The price I put on the painting, at his re
quest,, was laOO guineas, which Mr. Hopfi/did not
consider too high ; and he begged of me (as I had

19
declared my intention to keep it in my possession
another year) to inform him when I would be ready
to sell it. m
The information he required I accordingly sent
him, and he entered into a negociatioti with me
about the purchase of the painting. Mr. Hope told
me that, at the moment, he couM not command1
more than eight hundred guineas of the price fixed
ou, and that he did not wish to go in debt for the
remamder : he at the same time mentioned that he
was ashamed to offer so small a "sum as the eight
hundred guineas for a picture which he considered
so great a master-piece, and he was afraid that
he could not conclude the purchase. I then told
Mr. Hope, that my wish to have Damocles in his
gallery, in a favourable situation, was such, that
if he was satisfied to procure one hundred sub
scribers for the engraving of it, and would make
a promise of his future patronage, I would con
sent to take the eight hundred guineas, thinking
the conditions I mentioned equivalent to the other
seven hundred.

20
; As I had been but a short time in London, and
was consequently very little known in England,
the appearance of my Damocles in a favourable
light in Mr. Hope's gallery would have been of in
calculable service to me, as thereby my name would
make its way, and my reputation spread itself.
These conditions were agreed to by Mr. Hope,
BUT NOT ONE OF THEM FULFILLED, except the
payment of the eight hundred guineas. Instead of
procuring for me the hundred subscribers, he sent
me but two names, those of Sir Charles Pole and
Mr. Angerstein ;*and he accompanied his message
with an unnecessary and awkward declaration,
that he would not be accountable for the pay
ment even of their subscriptions. Instead of
placing the painting in the favourable position in
his gallery — by cutting off a part of the canvas,
and thereby destroying the unity of the parts and
the harmony of the colouring, he injured the
painting itself, and rendered the whole effect of the
historical representation quite unnatural and ridi
culous. The Damocles in his possession now, were
it not for a partial material identity, is not, to all
intents and purposes, the same painting he pur-

21
chased from me ; and consequently an engraving
from it now would not be the performance of the
condition, whereby I was allowed to have one
from it in its original state. As to the third con
dition, namely the promise he made of his future
patronage, he fulfilled it with a vengeance, , by
erasing my name from the canvas, and reporting
among his friends that it was a painting of David's.
Why has the Editor of the Examiner suppressed
all these'facts, which I defy him to falsify? And if
they are, true, as I thus publicly pledge myself to
prove that they are, in what light must the con-*
duct of the hireling and his employer be considered,
but that of a mean and cowardly conspiracy to
rob me of my honestly acquired fame as an artist,
and my integrity and honour as a man ? If they
are true, what becomes of the assertion that I had
no just cause of provocation against Mr. Hope,
supposing the Beast and. Beauty to have been
a caricature? Or could any caricature possible in
imagination, could any transposition of Mr. Hope's
countenanceon theshoulders of any beast, have been
an equivalent punishment for conduct so grossly
c

22
unjust and unwaiTantable ? Perhaps in all the
annals of the Arts there is not another instance of
a painter's name being erased from his canvas by
the purchaser of a painting ; and, in fact, it is in
itself a thing so mean, so cowardly, and so unjust,
that it required such a man of taste as Mr. Hopej
and such an honest Dutch heart as he possesses,
to be the first to perform it. Does Mr. Hunt
mean to say that after I received the price of
this painting, all my solicitude for its preserva
tion should have ceased? Or, judging from
the paltry incitements ¦ of pelf and profit,,
the only springs, perhaps, of his own ac
tions, the only producing principles of his own
little perishable labours, does he think me pos
sessed of a mind ignoble enough to be satisfied
with the mess of pottage that my paintings might
produce? Does he think that even I, poor in me
rit as be may conceive me, am not impelled to my
daily professional toil by impulses and desires
more noble than any that can arise from the hope
of pecuniary reward — by an ambition more dignified
than the lust of money ? Does he think that those
dear delusions that are born and cherished with

23
the love of fame are unknown to my heart, and
that the pleasing idea of "living after death" ne
ver cheers my labour, nor animates my exertions?
— What an enthusiast for the advancement of the
Fine Arts must not this same calculating Mr.
Hunt be, who thinks that I could paint my Da
mocles with the same view that a Red Lion is
daubed on a sign-post, and that I could see it de
stroyed without feeling any other sensations than
those which the destruction of the sign-post would
excite ! Although Mr. Hope was bound by no
parchment to preserve my painting, yet there was
that tacit engagement not to destroy it which al
ways exists between the purchaser and the painter,
which a man of honour would hold sacred, and
which a man of taste, even from selfish motives,
would never violate.
To palliate this shameful act of his patron, Mr.
Hunt has recourse to sophistry and falsehood ; but
the one is happily as destitute of argument as the
other is of truth. In the first article in the Exa>
miner against me, the Editor says, that "Whe-
" ther the Damocles was painted by Dubost or

24
"not, the conviction in the mind of the pur
" chaser, that it was not,- was a sufficient reason
" for his effacing Dubost's name, strengthened
" as that- opinion was by the general and indeed
" unanimous conviction of judges that he was not
11 the painter." — Here there are two positions ; the
first, that,Mr. Hope was convinced I was not the
painter of 'Damocles ; and the second, that it was
the general opinion of judges I was not. As to
Mr. Hope's conviction, he gave me a very strange
proof of it, by engaging me, in preference of all
the English artists, to paint the portrait of his lady
at a price of four hundred guineas, and by after
wards extolling this portrait as a highly finished
performance. I have known Mr. Hope to hide
himself behind a screen, whilst many of his friends
Avere viewing the picture, to listen to the testimony
they might bear to the accuracy of the likeness ;
and after they had departed, so pleased^ would he
be with the unanimous praises bestowed on it, that
I could sometimes scarcely, prevent him from
embracing me, in the ecstacy of his gratitude.
By and by I shall explain Avhy Mr. Hope after
wards changed his opinion of this portrait, and to

25
that part of my narrative I request the particular
attention of Mr. West,
As to the second position, " that in the opinion
of judges I was not the painter of Damocles," it is
one of those common-place slanders which can be
thrown out by malice at any time and against any
person ; and, besides, it is so wide and so vague
an accusation, that one Cannot close and grapple
with.it { in any tangible shape' for its destruction.
Why has not the confident Mr. Hunt mentioned
even one name to sanction his assertion ? Or, de
pending as ifevdoes on his own veracity, is it not ra
ther one of those convenient lies, which the corrupt
of Mr. Hunt's trade know so Avell how to manu
facture ? The picture of Damocles was publicly
exhibited in Paris ; and it is not very likely, that,
if David was thepainter, he would have been so very
kind as to give away his fame for the aggrandize
ment, of another. This is not human nature, and
it, in fact, shocks every idea of probability and
common sense. Mr. Campbell, the poet, might
as well be accused of not being the author of his
Pleasures of Hope, and the poem might- with as

26
much justice be attributed to Walter Scott, by some
shrewd critic like Mr. Hunt. In London, where
the celebrity of the two poets Avould render such a
conjecture ridiculous, the critic would only be
laughed at ; but if Mr. Campbell happened to
be in Paris, and the Editor of a public journal
should declare with all the confidence ima
ginable, and with all the flippancy of Mr.
Hunt's " and indeed," that in the opinion of the
Parisian judges Mr. Campbell was not the author
of the Pleasures of Hope, and that their opinion
was founded on the notion that his Gertrude of
Wyoming was not equal in general poetic excellence
to his former poem, the Parisian journalist might
be believed for a time ; the lie might live, and be
successful for a day; and Mr. Campbell's fame
might be the temporary victim of the slander.
This is precisely my situation. I am in London,
just as Mr. Campbell should be in Paris : the
calumniating journalist would have the advantage
in either city of the situation in Avhich the
stranger would be placed, and nothing could for
the instant oppose the success of the calumny,

27
when once the critic had had the audacious dis
honesty to propagate it.
But it may be asked, what motive could induce
Mr. Hope to originate, or Mr. Hunt to publish, a
calumny like this? As to Mr. Hunt's motives,
having never had any personal altercation or even
acquaintance with the man in my life, I must only
suppose, as I before said, that his integrity bent
under the pressure of Mr. Hope's purse, and that
" he has received the wages of his iniquity." Of
Mr. Hope I know something more; but as I
shall not by any provocation be forced to publish
the original cause of his animosity towards me, I
must be contented with suffering the public to
judge his motives by his actions : in addition,
however, to any motive of a private nature which
might impel Mr. Hope to act towards me as he
has done, I must not omit to mention, that I am
in some measure indebted for his injurious treat
ment of me to the envy or jealousy, or dislike, or
I know not what to call it,- of Mr. West.
When my Damocles was first hung up in the

28
gallery of Mr. Hope, it happened to be placed
by the side of one of Mr. West's paintings. Mr.
Hope thought (perhaps wrongfully) my painting
so superior to Mr. West's, that he requested the
latter gentleman to take down his, and retouch
it, lest his fame might suffer by the juxtaposi
tion and comparison of both. This so mortified
Mr. West, that I believe he has never forgiven
the insult ; and my belief is sufficiently borne out
by the knoAvledge that he has since exerted all his
influence at the British Institution, and at Somerset
House, to anuoy and obstruct me.
During the time that Mr. Hope Avas engaged
in spreading the report that I was not the painter
of Damocles, it is a strange coincidence that he
and* Mr. West should have conspired to exclude
my Venus and Diana from the British Institution ;
and Mr. West cannot help remembering, that,
Avhen the portrait of Mrs. HoPEAvas exhibited at

* This fact I have learned from a gentleman whose name I am
not at liberty to publish, but of whose veracity and honour I
have every reason to be assured.

29
Somerset House, I was' refused by him the privi*
lege i which all the academicians enjoy, and Avhich
is usually given by courtesy to other artists, name
ly, that of retouching it after it had been hung tip,
and of making those little changes which the situ
ation of a painting relatively to the objects that
surround it renders absolutely necessary;' This
privilege was granted at the very same time to one
of my ourn pupils who had a painting in the exhT
bition, and he laboured at the changes which I
mention for- three days before the exhibition Avas
opened. "I applied also, by letter, to Mr. West
for the 'small favour of even allowing me to alter
thw position of the portrait about an inch in incli
nation from that in which it was hung, as it did
not receive the light in a sufficient degree to dis
play its colouring, and its appearance was thereby
much injured ; but Mr. West did not do me the
honour of an answer, and during the exhibition
the portrait was seen to a disadvantage, not per
haps very disagreeable to Mr. West.
This- is not the manner in which the cultivators
<of the Arts should treat each other ; it is not the
D

$0
manner in Avhich Mr. West himself was treated
in Paris : and I am really sorry that a gentleman
of talent and reputation, like him, should have suf
fered himself to be so Avorked upon by a pitiful
jealousy, as to deny those opportunities to ano
ther Avhich he knew to be of essential importance
to, himself. Genius is of no country; it is the
child of no particular soil: and although nations
may her at political variance with each other, its
votaries in alL should cordially join in its, avo,i-
ship. , It Avas urged, indeed, by Mr. Hope* as
the reason for excluding my \. Venus and. Diana
from the British Institution, that it Avas too
large; but I knew at the time that, there w:a*
a painting of a Dog, and another of Columbine
and Harlequin, exhibited both much larger than
the Venus and Diana.
I have now nearly gOne over all the calumnies
of -thet Examiner, and it only remains to sheAV
Avhether the charge "of " consummate ingratitude"
made against me be founded in truth or not.
From Avhat I have already written, it is sufficiently
clear that I have no great reason, to be grateful to

31
Mr. Hope, but, on the contrary, that I have tevery
reason for resentment : I shall, however, be more
particular in my reply to this charge of the hire
ling, because the character of an ingfate is above
all others that Avhich I most detest, and Avhich j
am confident, of all the other vices, is the least
chargeable on my nature.
The Examiner states, " that I stayed in any days
under the roof of my patron (meaning Mr. Hope),
and that I received the most polite attentions from
the lady I traduced." In the first place, I did not
traduce the lady, as in the beginning of these pages
I have already" proved. In the second place, in
stead of my remaining under the roof" of Mr.
Hope, while I was draAvingthe portrait of his lady,
being considered as a favour Or an hospitality con
ferred ton mei ;"I beg leave to say that I could not
confer on Mr. Hope a higher favour, "rior shew him
a greater mark of my condescension, than by so
remaining in his house ; and if Mr. Hunt knew
any thing of the etiquette observed by painters of
the first class, he should have known that, by at
tending on Mrs. Hope, I was paying a compliment

32
to her husband, instead of receiving one. I' defy
the .hireling to mention one other instance in which
I received the most distant civility, or even an ap
proach to one, from Mr. Hope. In all his transac
tions with me, he on the contrary betrayed mucli
more of the Dutch trader than of the liberal pa
tron, and seemed to purchase my Dampcles, and
make me engage in other paintings, more like a
man who speculated in such a commodity to ; deal
in ,jt profitably again, than like one who was
solely influenced by his love for the Arts, and his
wish to encourage them.
i > ... . .
Again, the Examiner says, "that Mr. Hope
was the first .who, took, me by the hand when J
came to England, and enabled me to subsist. |'
The vulgarity of th^isj attack Avould only deserve
my contempt, but that, \n order to extract the
venom from (tlie fang of the reptile, I must be par
ticular in my ansAver. It is not true that I Avas en-
abled tp subsist by Mr. Hope after I came, to Eng
land, because I had been here fourteen months
before I sold him my Damocles, or received a gui
nea for any of my Avorks ; and because, if |

33
wanted the means of subsistence, it was not
likely that I should have refused to part with it
for one thousand five hundred guineas, a sum
enormous enough to tempt a man in Avant to
its reception. It is not true neither that Mr.
Hope Avas the first ( to take me by the hand,' be
cause I came to this country Avith letters of intro
duction to gentlemen every Avay superior to Mr.
Hope; amongst whom it is only necessary for
me to mention the name of the Duke of Bedford."
The fact is, that, Avhenever I happened to be in any
temporary pecuniary embarrassments, it Avas OAving
to the want of communication between the two
countries, and not to any state of destitution Avhich
the Editor of the Examiner insinuates me to have
been in. It now strikes me that, perhaps, Mr.
Hope Avas impressed with some idea of this kind,
Avhen he said that he could not command' the en
tire fifteen hundred guineas for the purchase of
D.amocles, and Avhen he deceived me into the
conditions I before mentioned as an equivalent
for the remaining seven hundred, which at the
time he said he was unable to pay.

34
Again ; the Examiner asserts, " that, in conse-
" quence of Dubos.t stating his necessities, Mr.
" Hope paid him the four hundred guineas for
" the portrait of his lady in advance, notwith-
" standing the option Avas reserved of leaving the
" portrait on his hands, if it should be disap-
" proved of, AvhichAvas the case." — Mark, reader,
the. falsehood of these assertions;! The story of the
screen, Avhich I before told, speaks sufficiently
that the portrait was not disapproved of . But if
any further proof be necessary, the history of the
payment of the money will furnish it. When Mr,
Hope engaged me to paint the portrait of his Avife,
he agreed to pay me four hundred guineas for it
in tAvo payments, according to the custom of this
country on such occasions ; the first payment after
the first sitting, and the other on the delivery of
the painting. It is so far from being true " that Mr.
Hope paid me the money in a dvance, " that I did not
receive the first payment until after the regular
time ; and it is also so far from being true ' ' that the
portrait was disapproved , qf, " that. Mr. Hope Avas
highly delighted Avith it after seven sittings, coiii
sidered it as a finished performance, and insisted

35
that I should not again touch it. It is true that
he very shortly after Avished to have a change
made in the length of the legs of the portrait of
about tAvo inches, his knoAvledge of the , arts and
enlightened taste being such as to imagine that a
change of such a nature could be made at Aviil in
the painting. To this message I replied, that I had
no objection'to finish the portrait as I wished my
self, but that the person* who suggested, the idea of
lengthening the legs. of the portrait had not viewed
it at its proper distance, and therefore could uot
he a sufficient judge of its merits or defects. So
stable and so fixed Avas the taste of Mr. Hope;
that he immediately veered about' to my opinion*
desired me to leave it untouched, and again la
vished all the praises he had atfirst used upon itf.

* Mr. Hope will recollect the gentleman to tvhom I here
allude. ¦f If it be true, as Mr. Hunt says, "that this portrait was
finally disapproved of," how came it to pass that Mr. Hope after
wards (although he had another portrait of the lady in his posses
sion done by one of the first mast&s) should -get a miniature like
ness painted on enamel by the celebrated Bone, from this very

36
— So much for the truth of Mr. Hunt's assertion,
" that the money was paid in advance, and that
the. portrait Avas disapproved of 1"
The last component part of the charge of ingra
titude, is that, " as soon as I had obtained all that
" I had wanted, I behaved in the most shameful
" and brutal manner relative to finishing the por-
" trait, and taking it away from Somerset House."
same " disapproved" portrait?— And yet this is actually the fact,
and a fact that " damns" completely the confident assertion of
"the Examiner. — It is true that in some critiques on this painting,
when it was exhibited at Somerset House, many severe remarks
were made, and justly too, on a peculiar seriousness of expression
given to the countenance of Mrs. Hope ; but I appeal to Mr.
Hope himself, and his lady can bear testimony to the truth of what
J-advance, whether, in giving that- particular cast to her features, I
was not forced to it by the reiterated entreaties and, importunities
of Mr. Hope, who succeeded in beating me out of my better
judgment, and made me in a manner sacrifice my reputation to the
overstrained and too delicate complaisance with which I treated
him. I would not now accept one thousand' guineas to pass
through the same ordeal of annoyance which I suffered from the
stupidity of this man of taste while I was painting the portrait in
question.

37
This is one bf the facts which Mr. Hunt defies to
be controverted ; and as I shall give it a direct
contradiction, it will be necessary for him to give
his authority, and to mention that "indubitable
source" Avhence his information proceeded. , " The
brutal manner in which I behaved relative to finish
ing the portrait" Avas, that I offered, Avhen on the
eve of an intended departure for France, to spend
some days in its completion ; but the proffered ser
vice was not accepted by Mr. Hope, and I have
the letter noAV before* me wherein' he refused the
offer. * As to " my taking it aAvay from Somerset
House," the brutality of my conduct consists in
having it sent to Mr. Hope by Mr. Bogart, his
frame-maker, and in not accompanying it myself,
as is the custom of the artists in this country.
The fact is, that I Avas ignorant of any such usage
existing amongst the artists, and sent the painting
from Somerset House to its owner by Avhat I
thought the safest conveyance*. And I appeal to
* Mr. Bogart, a Fleming, be it known, was the only person of
his profession in Europe whom Mr. Hope found capable of making
frames in a style equal to his ideas of the necessary splendour of
Household Furniture. — See the Edinburgh Review, Vol. X.
Was it not safe to commit the portrait to the care of such a man 1
E '

38
the feelings of any honourable man, was not my
application to him afterwards to bail me, when
under a temporary difficulty, sufficient testimony
that I felt a consciousness of not having treated
him slightingly or insultingly.
I have now Avaded through the filthy ordure
of the hireling's abuse, and, having performed
the disgusting but necessary task, I should leave
Messrs. Hope and Hunt to the judgment of
the public, and the consequent detestation that
aAvaits them ; but it is quite impossible that I could
finish these pages Avithout alluding to one most
notable thing in the attack of the Examiner, and
that is the emphasis laid on the. taste of Mr. Hope.
It cannot provoke my rage, but it must my laughr
ter, to read the stuff of the ," tasteful patron,''
and all about " the little harm Avhich Avould accrue
" to his universally known character as a man of
' ' taste, bad I adopted, a ^pictorial burlesque satire
* Reader, what sort of a satire is a Pictorial Burlesque onel
How beautifully verbose and nonsensical ! What a useful book a
Johnson's Dictionary might be in Mr. Hunt's library !

39
" to exhibit the purchaser of Damocles as a
" pseudo-critic in art." Certainly Mr. Hope's
taste must be in very high vogue, particularly
after the eulogies bestowed by the Edinburgh Re <
viewers on the Uiyct m«xov, the bulky volume of
splendid nonsense published under the title of
Household Furniture by that "ingenious" gen-.
tleman, as these ironical geniuses are pleased to call
him. His amputating a painting, such as Damocles^
lest he should annoy the border of his room, is also
another noble proof of h\% taste; but, above all, one
of his declarations to me, that in the French school
of painting the nose of the human countenance
Avas always painted aflat pug, and the eyes large
and staring, displays such a universal acquaints
ance with the Arts, and such a knoAvledge of the
manner of painting ia the different schools, that
if Mr. Hunt, or any other privileged critic, Avould
lend me their powers, I should think it fit to dub
the said " tasteful patron," author of the tract on
Household Furniture, Sec. &c. the Leo at least
of the present age. I understand that he is al
ready, like the Doctor in the play, an A.S.S.

40
As to Mr. Hope'st two coadjutors, Mr. Hunt
and the *Reverend John Beresford, in addition
to what I have already said of the former, I beg
leave to refer him to my frontispiece for a proof
of the high consideration in which -I hold him ;
but as I intend to meet the latter in another and
a better place, where the justice of this country
will preside to indemnify and revenge the injuries
done to the stranger as well as the. native, I can
only now admire the proficiency of the reverend
gentleman in that art of cutting, for Avhich> as I
am informed by some of my Irish friends^ the
family of the Beresfords are deservedly famed.
ANTOINE DUBOST.
London, July 20, 1810.
* This is the gentleman (a son of the ARGHBrsHOPof Tuam
and brother of Mrs. Hope) who wreaked the vengeance of the
blood of the Hopes on the poor Beast and Beauty. To see the
man qf God holding the bloodless stiletto in his hand, and tri
umphing in the murder of the innocent unresisting picture, I could
scarcely refrain from exclaiming with the poet,
 Tonlane animis calcsfiius ira t

append

EXTRACTS FROM THE EXAMINER.
FINE ARTS.
THE INFAMOUS CARICATURIST.
A Frenchman of the name of Dubost, a few years
since, brought a painting from Paris, representing the his-*
torical incident of Damocles, with the Sword suspended over
his head. The picture, which he pronounced to be his own
performance, with many defects,- possessed considerable
merit, and a highly esteemed patron of art purchased it of
Dubost for 700 or 800 guineas. Dubost has since con
tinued in England painting, various pictures, all of which
are so very inferior to the Damocles, that the best judges
universally conclude that the latter work could not be the
sole production of Dubost. The purchaser felt so con
vinced of this, that he effaced Dubost's name from the
canvass, and cut off a trifling part of it. The painter was
so enraged at this, that he painted and exhibited a carica
ture, representing the story of Beauty and the Beast, in
which the purchaser of the picture, designated as the lat-

42
ter, is tempting a beautiful young lady to marry him by
shewing her his wealth. Now, whether the Damocles was
painted by Dubost or not, the conviction in the mind of
the purchaser that it was not, was a sufficient reason for his
effacing Dubost's name, strengthened as that conviction
was by the general and indeed unanimous conviction of
judges that he was not the painter ; and his cutting the
picture is too insignificant a reason to be listened lo for a
. moment, as an adequate or indeed as any cause for inflam
ing the painter's animosity, for what was cut off was only a
small and uninteresting part of the ceiling of a room. But
even allowing it was culpable to cut the picture and efface
Dubost's name, notwithstanding such conviction, and that
by so doing an act of injustice was committed against the
character and consequent interests of Dubost, the latter
has . committed a gross outrage on public decency and jus
tice, by departing, in his publicly exhibited caricature,
from that truth which can alone justify such a species of
condemnation. Had Dubost adopted a pictorial burlesque
satire to exhibit the purchaser as a pseudo-critic in Art, I
might possibly have taken no notice of such a caricature,
from the little harm which would accrue to his universally
known character as a man of taste, as well as from the af
finity which such a representation would bear to the al
leged ill treatment of the painter. But when delicacy of
feeling and moral purity is vilified, not only of a virtuous

43
man, the immediate object of hatred to the foul aspersef
but of an amiable woman, no way accessory to the awaken
ing his unjust revenge, then not to hold up the public
slanderer to the general execration which he deserves, would
be traitorous to truth, and an encouragement to slander, by
permitting it to deal out its deadly attacks with impunity.
Not to set a public mark on the caricaturist would be a cul
pable permission of his unhallowed hands to unloose the
very bonds of social society, and to plant daggers in the
minds of innocent individuals. Every part of the physical
and moral delineation of this incendiary's caricature bore
the direct stamp of a lie, except so far as a facial resem
blance to the respectable persons vilified, indubitably
pointed them out to the spectator. Had' the pencil of
truuVgone over the odious form in which the "tasteful pa
tron was iies'cribed by the remorseless caricaturist, it would
have been converted into a graceful, exterior, the emblem
of a cultivated mind and uncorrupted heart. I glow with
indignation Avhen I think of the miscreant that can be so
far urged by the spirit of an unjustly provoked malevolence,
so to belie worth as to represent it seeking to purchase with
mere gold the most valuable blessing of existence, the
hand and affections of a beautiful and amiable woman;
but my indignation is converted into disgust at and hatred
of the calumniator, when I see hjs odious hand designating
that estimable female as the very one who, having been con-

44
nubially united to the highly respectable-but traduced indi
vidual previously to the painting the caricature, is therefore
held up for the finger of virtuous scorn to be • pointed at,
as one who barters sincerity and happiness for gold. But
the finger of virtuous scorn is turned only at himself, and
every social, every honourable feeling, awakens contempt
and detestation at the foul calumniator.

THE INFAMOUS CARICATURIST.
The baseness of Dubost was but partially exposed in the
Examiner of last Sunday. It is incumbent on me, there
fore, to state further what I know of it, that, for the sake
of example and public justice, the punishment of public
exposure may be inflicted on the delinquent, and that if any
of my readers, or their friends, have any connection with
him, they may be on their guard, especially as, like Mil
ton's fiend, he can assume the deceitful exterior of good
ness. About a month since, this Epitome of every thing vile in
the French character, sent me the following note : — .
" The attention of Mr. H. is called to the Exhibition of MonsieurDu-
host's Paintings, in Pall Mall. He refers Mr. H. to the Introduction 'of
his Catalogue, for reasons why his impartiality, if not his generosity,
should impel him to take notice, in his Review of the Fine Arts, of the

4'5
Pictures now exhibited. M. D. applies to Mr. H. as a public character.
He expects no praise, unless it should be thought deserved ; and he will
suffer any candid censure without at all repining.''
This note, the latter part of which assumes such an
aspect of candor and diffidence, was evidently meant to
bias me in his favour. On going to his Exhibition, my
feelings were shocked to see a Caricature so severe upon
persons AVhom public report, as well as my own pri
vate sources of information, assured me were among the
most worthy of human beings ; and I observed to a datk
man, who told me he was not Mr. D. but his friend, that
I thought the reasons assigned in the Catalogue very insuf-
ficent to justify such a painting. As I had told him who I
was, he appeared very anxious to justify Dubost in paint
ing the Caricature,, but stated nothing more than was con
tained in the Catalogue. I mention these incidents to prove
that the miscreant is judged as he himself requested me,
by his own account in the catalogue, and even out of the
mouth of his friend. The catalogue stated the prbvocation.
to 'be, cutting the picture and' effacing Dubost's name,
which I think, in my last, I proved to be perfectly proper.
But L will proceed to assign other reasons, beside the gene
ral opinion that Dubost is not the painter of Damocles,
why his name was effaced. These are the strong- evidence
of further facts, which I have obtained from the most in
dubitable source," and I defy them -to be controverted. They
F

46
exhibit the culprit as the most odious of all characters —
that of a consummate ingrate. The gentleman so dis
gustingly caricatured, was the first and only person who,
after Dubost's coming to England, took. him by the hand,
and enabled him to subsist. The former bought the Da
mocles on the supplicating entreaties of Dubost, and paid
him the enormous price of 400 guineas for a Portrait of the
Lady, whom, without even a fancied provocation, he has so
grossly calumniated. — In consequence of Dubost stating
his necessities, he paid him this money in advance, not
withstanding the option was reserved of leaving the Portrait
on his hands if it should be disapproved of, which was the
case, He staid many days in the country under the roof of
his patron, during which time he received the most polite
attentions from the Lady he has traduced. As soon how
ever as he had obtained all he expected, he behaved in the
most shameful and indeed brutal manner relative to finishing
the Portrait, and taking it away from Somerset House.
This was another reason in the generous mind of his Patron
for effacing a name which associated with it such disagree
able ideas of ingratitude, and which stared ridiculously on a
conspicuous part of the picture. Notwithstanding this un
generous conduct, Dubost had the modesty to request his
injured Patron to bail him when arrestedl The refusal to
dp this, united tp his resentment at the erasure of his
name, and a wish to scrape together a few guineas, prompted

47

the malignant Frenchman to resort to the base expedient of
a lying and gross caricature ; base on every account, but
especially as it vilified a Lady whom he knew only "by her
kindness to him, and whose excellent nature may be ascer
tained by such pursuits as superintending a school she has
established on Lancaster's Plan. Could the miscreant have
designated his Patron by his own likeness, he would have
delineated a transformation a thousand times, more odious
than the Beast in his Caricature, in the hateful ideas of mo
ral depravity which it would have induced.
R. H.

THE END.

J. Comi'ton, Printer, Middle Street,
' . Cloth Fair, London.

onnHdiio