Page:Constable by C. J. Holmes.djvu/23

 With some few variations, the method is the same as that employed by Rembrandt in early and middle life, the principal difference being the larger proportion of shadow employed by the great Dutchman. Rembrandt's countrymen, however, were too ardently naturalistic to be content with a system which forced nature to be ever ablaze with autumnal russet, or the glow of a golden afternoon. The Landscape with Tobias and the Angel at Trafalgar Square, and Lord Lansdowne's noble Mill, are proof enough that Rembrandt was not blind to the silver twilight that follows the sunset; but Ruysdael was the first to make a regular study of the most characteristic aspect of northern scenery—steep roofs of weathered tiles among heavy green trees, and overhead a grey cloudy sky.

The change in technique that ensued was a necessity rather than an accident. The method of Rubens was essentially transparent, and transparency implies warmth. To obtain coolness, the Dutch painters used pigments that were at least partially opaque. The method of Rubens compelled the painter to work swiftly; he might interpret detail, but could not copy it. The Dutchmen wished to copy detail, and so had to prepare a solid underpainting with which any small addition could be blended and harmonized. The method of Rubens derived much of its glow and luminosity from a free use of warm glazes. The Dutchmen painted local colours solidly upon the monochrome sketch, and, as a rule, did not depend upon strong glazes. In other respects pictorial practice was unaltered; so that the difference between the style of Rubens and Ruysdael is not a radical difference. Both obtain unity by the use of a general shadow colour which pervades the whole picture. In Rubens this is warm and transparent, in Ruysdael it is cooler and semi-opaque. Rubens painted quickly into his shadows while wet, getting great variety of texture by a skilful use of strong impasto, and relying upon a rich glaze, when all was dry, to set the colour right. Ruysdael painted more drily, more slowly, more smoothly. He was thus able to match his colours at leisure, to alter them where incorrect, and needed only a thin general glaze at the last, to bring up the quality of his painting.

This manner of working is practically identical with that employed by Claude, but Claude's spirit and subject-matter were widely different from those of the Dutchmen. The Carracci and 3