IN December 1964 Hogarth's unfinished painting of Satan, Sin and Death from Milton's Paradise Lost, reappeared at a London auction sale and was subsequently bought by the Tate Gallery (Fig.29).1 The importance of the composition as a forerunner of what was to be a characteristic theme of English painters of the 'horrific-sublime' had long been recognized, but it was known only through engravings from the painting made after Hogarth's death.2 Neither the painting nor the engravings received much attention from Hogarth scholars, because the composition was regarded by Hogarth's earliest chroniclers Ireland and Nichols as the most unfortunate and embarrassing of his attempts in a manner alien to his real gift for Modern Moral Subjects.

'It is impossible to conclude any account of it without observing that the united labours of Teniers, Heemskirk, and Callot could not have furnished a more absolute burlesque of this noble subject than Hogarth, who went seriously to work on it, has here produced. "How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, thou son of Morning!" will be the exclamation of every observer on seeing this unaccountable performance, in which Satan and Death have lost their terrors, and Sin herself is divested of all the powers of temptation.'3 The engravings give little clue to the date of the painting, and it has been conjectured to have been either a very early work, because of a presumed connection with two early engravings from Paradise Lost, usually dated c.1725, or a late work, perhaps even left unfinished because of Hogarth's death.'4

Neither of these suggestions is confirmed by the style of the painting itself; it is too accomplished to be as early as the 172os, and yet can hardly be a late work. A comparison with another unfinished painting, The Staymaker (Tate Gallery) of c.1744 shows Satan, Sin and Death to be more precise and linear in handling than the former, which has the more fluid and painterly underpainting characteristic of Hogarth's work after 1740. The scale of the figures and the predominant warmth of the colouring would suggest a date in the early 173os, but the freedom of the brushwork points more strongly to the second half of the decade, the period of the St Bartholomew's Hospital wall-paintings.5 The painting was almost certainly abandoned, therefore, for formal reasons. Hogarth has rubbed out Satan's right arm and redrawn it in outline in a different position with the probable intention of improving the rather clumsy figure of Satan, but he presumably realized that little could be done without reworking the whole composition. The new position of the arm, which Hogarth has indicated lightly, would also alter the meaning of the incident slightly. In the original position of the arm, Satan appears to have been lowering his arm in astonishment at the intervention of Sin, while in the raised position he would still be intent on his impending struggle with Death.6

The painting was in the possession of David Garrick, and the earliest mention of his ownership is to be found in the dedication to him of the lost Townley engraving, published in 1767.7 Ireland states that the subject was painted for Garrick,8 but this is unlikely for Garrick was not widely known until his first major success as Richard III in 1741.9 On Garrick's death the painting passed to his widow, and it was bought at her sale in 1823 by Thomas Seaton Forman of Pall Mall,10 remaining in the family until 1899 when it was bought by Fairfax Murray.11 It was then lost to sight and was not seen by any subsequent writers on Hogarth.12 The first treatment of the episode of Satan, Sin and Death is to be found in the first illustrated edition of Paradise Lost of 1688 (Fig.3o), with designs by Sir John Medina, which were repeated frequently throughout the first half of the eighteenth century. 13 The illustration for Book II shows the moment at which Satan stands poised for his descent into Hell, after the Gates have been opened (Bk.II, lines 917- 929). The pose of Death is almost repeated in Hogarth's version, but Hogarth has emphasized the skeletal form and added the flames which gush from the joints. The figure of Satan is also probably derived from the Medina version; he wears a similar tunic, and the wings, lightly sketched in by Hogarth, correspond closely. Hayman's illustration (Fig.3I) which first appeared in 1749 illustrates the same moment as the Medina engraving, and appears to be completely independent of Hogarth's version. 14 The subject of Hogarth's painting is taken from an earlier passage in Book II, lines 711-726, and shows the separation of Satan and Death by Sin, who interposes herself between the two contestants who have met for the first time before Hell-gate;

Each at the head Level'd his deadly aim; their fatal hands no second stroke intend, and such a frown Each cast at th' other, when two black clouds, With Heaven's artillery fraught, come rattling on Over the Caspian, then stand front to front Hovering a space, till winds the signal blow To join their dark encounter in mid air: So frowned the mightly combatants, that Hell Grew darker at their frown, so matched they stood: For never but once more was either like To meet so great a foe: and now great deeds Had been achieved, whereof all Hell had rung, Had not the snaky sorceress that sat Fast by Hell gate, and kept the fatal key, Risen, and with hideous outcry rushed between

Hogarth has chosen one of the most dramatic and harrowing passages in Paradise Lost, in which Sin dissuades Satan and Death from combat by revealing Satan's paternity of both herself and Death. Sin is described by Milton as attractive, but she nestles in her womb the Cerberean monsters, that are the product of her incestuous union with Death, who is her own son by Satan. Burke singled out Milton's description of Death as a prime example of the power of obscurity to evoke terror. 'In this description all is dark, uncertain, confused, terrible, and sublime to the last degree.'15

The other shape, If shape it might be called that shape had none Distinguishable in member, joint or limb, or substance might be called that shadow seemed, For each seemed either; black it stood as night Fierce as ten furies, terrible as Hell, And shook a dreadful dart; what seemed his head The likeness of a kingly crown had on.16

Hogarth shows Death as a skeleton, and omits 'the likeness of a kingly crown'. His image of Death as a skeleton follows an earlier pictorial tradition deriving most immediately from seventeenth-century English Emblem books, and a possible prototype can be found in Quarles's Emblems, which were still in print in 1736.17 Salvator Rosa also brought skeletons into his paintings on occasions.18 The suggestion that Hogarth's treatment of the theme may have been influenced by Burke can be dismissed in any case, because Burke only entered Trinity College, Dublin, in 1744 at the age of 15.19 Burke's discussion of the effects of obscurity did, however, influence the later treatment of the theme, and later painters not only restored to Death his kingly crown, but attempted to match the 'obscurity' of Milton's image by a more painterly handling, for example, in Romney's study of the head of Death (Fig.32).20

Burke's discussion of Milton's description of Death undoubtedly helped later to make the subject of Satan, Sin and Death a popular one amongst painters of the Sublime, but apart from engraved illustrations Hogarth's painting is unique in its own period as a rendering of an horrific subject from Milton. It is difficult to judge from the painting as it stands whether Hogarth meant it to be an exercise in the 'savage' manner of Salvator Rosa21 or an elevated rendering of the subject, but it is possible that the circumstances of its creation are to be found in discussions in Hogarth's circle following the publication of Jonathan Richardson's Explanatory Notes on Paradise Lost in 1734. According to Ireland, the elder Richardson read the work to a gathering of writers and artists, including Hogarth, who formed a club that met at Old Slaughter's coffee house in St Martin's Lane. Richardson sees the allegory of Satan Sin and Death as containing 'the Main of his (Milton's) Poem' and as the epitome of the whole argument of Paradise Lost which is 'a kind of paraphrase on those words of St James I.15. Then when Lust hath conceived it bringeth forth Sin, and Sin when it is finished bringeth forth death'.22 There is some evidence that Hogarth had satirical intentions towards the Richardsons, father and son, and in particular towards their collaboration on the Explanatory Notes,23 but this does not allow any firm conclusions to be made about the present painting. It should be noted, however, that Nichols24 implicitly assumed that it was serious in intention even though the results may have been akin to burlesque, but Ireland wondered whether its aim was 'serious or ludicrous'.25

Three different engravings from the painting were in circulation by the end of the eighteenth century. The earliest by Charles Townley was dated 1767, but only three or four impressions were taken from the plate before it was destroyed, and so far none have come to light. Nichols describes it as a large print, and states that 'it was dedicated to the late Mr Garrick, who possessed the original (unfinished) picture painted by Hogarth'.26 Ireland owned an impression of the Townley print and also mentioned that Mrs Garrick had one, but oddly he did not mention that she also owned the original painting at the time.27 Ireland made a copy of the Townley print for his Graphical Illustrations of Hogarth because of its scarcity, and he wrote on the back of the original that he had been offered 20 guineas for it. 28 The Ireland copy is of poor quality but was widely circulated, and a more accomplished version of the composition was made by Rowlandson. It is derived from a 'painting in ChiaroScuro by R. Livesay' who lodged with Hogarth's widow from 1777-85 and engraved for her a number of Hogarth sketches (Fig.33).29

The first dated version of the subject that clearly depends upon the Hogarthian prototype is a drawing by Fuseli from the Roman period dated October 1776 (Fig.34). The moment of Sin's intervention is also depicted, and the adversaries are disposed along the same plane. Dr Schiff has pointed to the probable classical origin of the figure of Satan.30 The large version for the Milton Gallery is now lost,3 1 but two later versions of the composition by Fuseli suggest that he may have tried to make the figure of Death more insubstantial and terrifying without changing the posture of Satan.32 Antal has suggested that Fuseli may have seen Hogarth's painting in Garrick's house,33 a possibility that would seem to be confirmed by the fact that Fuseli has followed generally the lightly sketched-in alternative position of Satan s right arm, which appears in Hogarth's painting but not in either of the known engravings. Romney's attempts at the subject seem not to have gone beyond a number of notebook sketches (see Fig.35),34 but they show his dependence on Hogarth's composition, but combined with a looseness of outline that matches the 'obscurity' of the text.

Barry's interpretation of the subject raises the complex problem of his relationship with his patron Edmund Burke.35 It is clear from his engraving (Fig.36)36 that he believed that all forms, however ineffable in substance, should be clearly defined, and that the academic tradition was a greater influence on his technique than Burke. Barry has possibly made a concession to the principle of obscurity by shrouding the figure of Death in a shapeless cloak, but otherwise the figures are drawn with prosaic clarity.

Blake whose admiration for Barry was boundless, also faced the problem of reconciling the use of a firm outline, 'the hard and wirey line of rectitude',37 with the depiction of the ineffable figure of Death. Blake's solution is one of characteristic ingenuity; he has drawn Death as a fully formed male figure, but has made the body completely transparent. Blake made two versions of the subject as part of a series of twelve illustrations to Paradise Lost (Fig.37).38 The composition follows the main lines of the Hogarth engraving, but Blake seems to follow Barry most closely in detail, particularly in the figure of Sin in the preparatory drawing, while the figure of Death in the preparatory drawing and the Butts version is close to Barry's figure of Satan. In the first version of 1807 Blake shows Death as a bearded figure of the type of Urizen, but in the later version shows him beardless but more malevolent in expression.

The continued influence of Hogarth's composition can be seen as late as 1826 in John Martin's illustrations to Paradise Lost,39 and his brother Jonathan, who was confined to Bedlam after setting fire to York Minster, almost certainly went back directly to one of the engravings after Hogarth, and not to one of his own brother's versions, for his strange interpretation of the subject (Fig.38).40

The early date that now must be assigned to Hogarth's painting of Satan, Sin and Death leaves little of substance from the anecdotes that were attached to the composition in the eighteenth century, and the circumstances of its creation, paradoxically, seem more mysterious now than before the painting itself emerged again from obscurity. Even so, the importance of the work can be confirmed by the large number of later paintings and engravings that follow its manner and composition,41 and its unique position in Hogarth's oeuvre makes it a notable addition to the collection of his paintings in the Tate Gallery.

1 The dimensions of the painting are 241 by 293 in. (62 by 74"5 cm.). It is painted in oil on canvas, and there are no significant paint losses.

2 For recent discussions of the influence of the engravings see A. BLUNT: The Art of William Blake [ 1959], p.20; F. ANTAL: Hogarth and his place in European Art [ 1962], pp.155-6, 18o; G. SCHIFF: Johann Heinrich Fiisslis Milton-Galerie [1963], PP.45-51.

3 J. NICHOLS: Biographical Anecdotes of W.H. [1781], p.134. See also: S. IRELAND: Graphic Illustrations of William Hogarth [1794], Vol.I, pp.x 78-181.

4 R. B. Beckett, on the basis of the print, suggested that the painting was probably early (R. B. BECKETT: Hogarth [1949], p.72), while Antal, assuming it to have been painted for Garrick late in Hogarth's career, pointed to a connection between its 'expressionism' and the Strawberry Hill phase of the Gothic Revival (ANTAL, pp.155-6). Dr Schiff seems to assume that it was left unfinished because of Hogarth's death in 1764 (SCHIFF, p.49, 133 n. p.229).

5 I am grateful to Mr Martin Butlin for his advice on the dating of the painting.

6 Rowlandson's engraving after the painting omits the new position of Satan's arm, and his expression seems to be one of astonishment rather than ferocity.

7 NICHOLS, p.134.

8 SIRELAND, p.178.

9 D.N.B.

10 Christies, 23rd June 1823. The painting is not in the sale catalogue, but the back of the painting contains the following inscription: 'Hogarth purchased 13 June 1823 at Mrs Garricks sale at Christies by me T. S. Forman'.

11 Sotheby's, 27th June 1899, lot 56.

12 The painting reappeared at Sotheby's, 9th December 1964, the property of C. C. Greer Esq. It was purchased at the sale by the Sabin Gallery, and subsequently by the Tate Gallery.

13 Crude versions of Medina's design were in circulation at least as late as 1752.

14 A new edition with notes by Thomas Newton, D.D., pub. by J. Tonson [17491-].

15 EDMUND BURKE: A Philosophical Enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and beautiful [7th ed., 1773], po.101.

16 Paradise Lost, Bk. II, 666-673.

17 See, for example, QUARLES: Hieroglyphikes of the life of Man, No.VI, and ROSEMARY FREEMAN: English Emblem Books [1948], p.II 4.

18 Antal suggested the possible influence of Salvator's Witch of Endor before Saul, 1668 (Louvre), which contains a number of skeletal forms. For discussion of the general influence of Salvator Rosa on Hogarth's composition, see note 21 below. Hogarth could also have known Holbein's Dance of Death woodcuts.

19 J. T. BOULTON ed.: Edmund Burke: A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful [1958], p.xv. Burke began writing the book in 1747 and published it in 1757. For a discussion of the connection between Hogarth's Analysis of Beauty and Burke's Philosopical Enquiry see above edition, pp.lxx-lxxii.

20 p.62 of a Romney sketchbook dated March 1790. See Note 34 below.

21 Salvator Rosa's Saul and the Witch of Endor has comparable elements of chiaroscuro, drama and horror, and has already been suggested as a precedent for Hogarth's painting by ANTAL (op. cit., p.155). The painting itself was in France in the eighteenth century, but an engraving after it was current in Hogarth's time (L. SALERNO: Salvator Rosa [1963], p.113, pl.XXIV). Antal also thought that Hogarth's figure of Satan may have been borrowed from Salvator s figure of Jason killing the Dragon (Montreal, Museum of Fine Arts). This painting was in the Chandos collection at Cannons in Hogarth's lifetime, and the subject was etched by Salvator himself (SALERNO, p.136, pl.89). The figure of Satan does not in fact correspond particularly closely to the figure of Jason, and Salvator's painting contains only two figures, but in terms of 'savagery' and a faintly burlesque sense of the horrific it provides the closest precedent for Hogarth's painting.

An earlier and easily accessible example of a composition of three figures disposed along a single plane parallel to the picture surface, is to be found in the painting by Paolo de Matteis of the Judgment of Hercules, engraved by Gribelin for the revised edition of Shaftesbury's Characteristics, Vol.III [1714], in illustration of An Essay on Painting, being a Notion of the Historical Draught or Tablature of the Judgment of Hercules.

22 JONATHAN RICHARDSON: Explanatory Notes on Paradise Lost [1734], pp.71-72. Addison had thought that the introduction of the allegorical figures of Sin and Death detracted from the greatness of Paradise Lost: 'He has brought into it two actors of a Shadowy and Fictitious Nature, in the persons of Sin and Death, by which means he has interwoven in the body of his fable a very beautiful and well invented allegory. But notwithstanding the Fineness of this allegory may atone for it in some measure; I cannot think that persons of such a Chymerical Existence are proper actors in an Epic Poem; because there is not that measure of probability annexed to them which is requisite in writings of this kind'. (JOSEPH ADDISON, The Spectator, 12th January [1712]). This opinion was not universally held in the early eighteenth century, and others considered that the greatness of the conception of Sin and Death transcended classical rules in this case. (See R. D. HAVENS: The influence of Milton on English Poetry [1922], p.18).

23 The account of Richardson's reading of his work on Milton occurs in Ireland's discussion of the indelicate caricature print of the Richardsons, father and son, entitled The complicated R---n (IRELAND, Vol.I, p.117). Ireland cites as authority for the occasion of the original sketch by Hogarth, Horace Walpole's anecdotes of Richardson and the verbal account of Highmore's grandson, who specifically connects the original sketch with a reading of the Explanatory Notes. Professor Paulson has suggested, following Stevens, that some of the scarce prints discussed by Ireland in his Graphical Illustrations may have been forgeries by his son, the celebrated forger William Ireland. Even if the print is a forgery by Ireland or somebody else, and the feebleness of the design makes it highly probable, then it is certainly based on an early anecdote. For further discussion of the 'Joseph Sympson' prints see RONALD PAULSON: Hogarth's Graphic Works [1965], Vol.I, p.3II, and Vol.II, plate 337, for an illustration of the print.

24 NICHOLS, p.134.

25 IRELAND, Vol.I, p.179.

26 NICHOLS, p.134.

27 IRELAND, Vol.I, pp. 178-181.

28 Catalogue of Standly sale, Christie's, 14th-22nd April 1845, 1220, bt. By Colnaghi. A drawing in sepia of the same subject was also in the sale, 1221 but it is not clear whether it was intended to be attributed to Hogarth or not.

29 I have seen two separate states of the print, only one of which is dated: a. stamped 'proof print'. 'Printed for Robert Wilkinson No 125 Fenchurch St.' b. 'Published by J. Thane June Ist 1792.' As above except for the address.

30 Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. Pen and wash, 26-2 by 37"7 cm. (SCHIFF, pl.13).

31 Picture No.V. Fuseli also included in the Milton Gallery paintings of the following subjects concerned with Satan, Sin and Death from Bk.II: Vi. The Birth of Sin, pp.752-8. VII. Sin pursued by Death, pp.787-8. VIII. Lapland Orgies, pp.662-6. Fuseli added a note to picture VIII as follows: 'This subject, and the rest of those that relate to the deformities of Sin, prove the unequal power of images transmitted to the mind by sounds and by the eye. The Poet is suffered to say, and perhaps admired for saying, what the Painter would be loathed for, had he represented'. For a reprint of the Milton Gallery catalogue, and a definitive discussion of the problems arising from it see SCHIFF, op. cit.

32 Schiff suggests that the version in the Los Angeles County Museum (oil on canvas, 64.7 by 57-I cm.) is probably closest to the lost Milton Gallery painting (scHIF, p.51, pl.14). A slightly later variant is known from an engraving by J. Neagle after Fuseli for Du Roveray's Paradise Lost [1802].

33 ANTAL, p.180.

34 Formerly in an album dated March 1790 in the De Pass collection, Royal Institution of Cornwall, Truro. This album was sold at Sotheby's, 22^nd February 1966, and the contents were dispersed. A complete set of photographs is in the Witt Collection, Courtauld Institute.

35 See R. R. WARK: 'A Note on James Barry and Edmund Burke', Journal of Warburg and Courtauld Institute, Vol.XVII [1954], pp.382-385.

36 The British Museum Print Room has a number of proofs before letters of this print, including an early trial proof. Plate area 221 by 16f in. It is approximately the same size as unlettered proofs of Milton dictating Paradise Lost and God addressing Adam and Eve, which suggests that the three engravings were the beginning of an abortive project to illustrate the whole of Paradise Lost. They cannot be dated accurately but they are probably late works.

37 WILLIAM BLAKE: A Descriptive Catalogue [1809]. (Keynes Complete Writings of William Blake [1966], p.585.)

38 Both water-colours are in the Huntington Library, San Marino.

a. 9 3/4 by 8 3/16 in. From the complete set in the Huntington, most of which are dated 1807. It has recently been discovered that this set was almost certainly bought from Blake by the Rev. Joseph Thomas. (See LESLIE PARRIUS: 'William Blake's Mr Thomas', Times Literary Supplement [5th December 1968], p.1390.)

b. 19 1/2 by 15 13/16 in. From the set painted for Thomas Butts in 18o8. This set has been partly broken up. Nine of the original twelve water-colours are in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.

A preliminary drawing, partly finished in pen, is in the John Work Garrett Library, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. 9  4/5 by 7  7/10 in. From the collection of Frederick Tatham, and Mr and Mrs John W. Garrett. It is closer in conception to the Butts water-colour. The additions in pen may not be by Blake.

39 From a set of twenty-four mezzotints engraved in 1826 and published by Septimus Prowett 1827. They were issued in large (8 by 11 in.) and small (6 by 8 in.) sets. For further information see THOMAS BALSTON: John Martin: his life and works [1947], p.286.

40 A full account of the extraordinary career ofJ onathan Martin the incendiary can be found in THOMASB ALSTON: The Life of Jonathan Martin: incendiary of York Minster [19451].

41 Other derivations from Hogarth's composition may also be mentioned:

I. Thomas Stothard, I792-3 (BLUNT, op. cit., pl.10a); 2. James Gillray, Sin, Death, and the Devil. Vide Milton. Dated 9thJune 1792. Caricature print showing Pitt as Death, Thurlow as Satan and Queen Charlotte as Sin. Inscribed as follows: 'NB. The above performance containing Portraits of the Devil & his relatives, drawn from the Life, is recommended to Messrs Boydell Fuzelli & the rest of the Proprietors of the Three Hundred & Sixty Five Editions of Milton, now publishing, as necessary to be adopted, in their classick Embellishment'. (DRAPER HILL: Fashionable Contrasts: Caricatures by James Gillray [1966], pl.6, p. 139.)