Now, in the instance before us, a person not accustomed to good writing might very rashly conclude that when Reynolds spoke of the Dutch School as one “in which the slowest intellect was sure to succeed best,” he meant to say that every successful Dutch painter was a fool.  We have no right to take his assertion in that sense.  He says, the slowest intellect.  We have no right to assume that he meant the weakest.  For it is true, that in order to succeed in the Dutch style, a man has need of qualities of mind eminently deliberate and sustained.  He must be possessed of patience rather than of power; and must feel no weariness in contemplating the expression of a single thought for several months together.  As opposed to the changeful energies of the imagination, these mental characters may be properly spoken of as under the general term—­slowness of intellect.  But it by no means follows that they are necessarily those of weak or foolish men.

We observe, however, farther, that the imitation which Reynolds supposes to be characteristic of the Dutch School is that which gives to objects such relief that they seem real, and that he then speaks of this art of realistic imitation as corresponding to history in literature.

Reynolds, therefore, seems to class these dull works of the Dutch School under a general head, to which they are not commonly referred—­that of historical painting; while he speaks of the works of the Italian School not as historical, but as poetical painting.  His next sentence will farther manifest his meaning.

“The Italian attends only to the invariable, the great and general ideas which are fixed and inherent in universal Nature; the Dutch, on the contrary, to literal truth and a minute exactness in the detail, as I may say, of Nature modified by accident.  The attention to these petty peculiarities is the very cause of this naturalness so much admired in the Dutch pictures, which, if we suppose it to be a beauty, is certainly of a lower order, which ought to give place to a beauty of a superior kind, since one cannot be obtained but by departing from the other.

“If my opinion was asked concerning the works of Michael Angelo, whether they would receive any advantage from possessing this mechanical merit, I should not scruple to say, they would not only receive no advantage, but would lose, in a great measure, the effect which they now have on every mind susceptible of great and noble ideas.  His works may be said to be all genius and soul; and why should they be loaded with heavy matter, which can only counteract his purpose by retarding the progress of the imagination?”

Examining carefully this and the preceding passage, we find the author’s unmistakable meaning to be, that Dutch painting is history; attending to literal truth and “minute exactness in the details of nature modified by accident.”  That Italian painting is poetry, attending only to the invariable; and that works which attend only to the invariable are full of genius and soul; but that literal truth and exact detail are “heavy matter which retards the progress of the imagination.”