MASSARD works in the same school with Desnoyers.  He is harder in his style of outline as well as of finishing; but he understands his subject thoroughly, and treats it with skill and effect.  ANDOUIN is lately come out with a whole length portrait of the present king:  a palpable copy, as to composition, of that of his late brother.  There are parts of the detail most exquisitely managed, but the countenance is rather too severely marked.  LIGNON is the prince of portrait-engravers.  His head of Mademoiselle Mars—­though, upon the whole, exhibiting a flat, and unmeaning countenance, when we consider that it represents the first comic actress in Europe—­is a master-piece of graphic art.  It is wrought with infinite care, brilliancy, and accuracy.  The lace, over the lady’s shoulder, may bid defiance even to what Drevet and Masson have effected of the like kind.  The eyes and the gems of Mademoiselle Mars seem to sparkle with a rival lustre; but the countenance is too flat, and the nose wants elevation and beauty.  For this latter, however, neither Gerard nor Lignon are amenable to criticism.  Upon the whole, it is a very surprising performance.  If I were called upon to notice Lignon’s chef d’oeuvre, I would mention the frontispiece to the magnificent impression of Camoens’ Lusiad, containing the head of the author, surrounded by an arabesque border of the most surprising brilliancy of composition and execution.  You must however remember, that it is in the splendid work entitled LE MUSEE FRANCAIS, that many fine specimens of all the artists just mentioned are to be found.  There is no occasion to be more particular in the present place.

I must not omit the notice of FORSTER and LAUGIER:  both of whom I have visited more than once.  At the same time, I beg it may be distinctly understood that the omission of the names of other engravers is no implication that they are passed over as being unworthy of regard.  On the contrary, there are several whom I could mention who might take precedence even of the two last noticed.  Some of Forster’s academic figures, which gained him the prize, are very skilfully treated; both as to drawing and finishing.  His print of Titian’s Mistress exhibits, in the face and bosom of the female, a power and richness of effect which may contend with some of the best efforts of Desnoyers’s burin.  The reflex-light, in the mirror behind, is admirably managed; but the figure of Titian, and the lower parts of his Mistress—­especially the arms and hands—­are coarse, black, and inharmonious.  His Wellington is a fine performance, as to mechanical skill.  M. Benard, the well-known print-seller to his Majesty, living on the Boulevards Italiens, laughed with me the other day at the rival Wellington—­painted by Lawrence, and engraved by Bromley,—­as a piece of very inferior art!  But men may laugh on the wrong side of the face.  I consider, however, that what has depended upon Forster, has been done with equal ability and truth.  Undoubtedly the great failing of the picture is, that it can hardly be said to have even a faint resemblance of the original.