hat a landscape background should be exceedingly unassertive--"nothing
more than the shadow of a landscape; effect is all that is
wanted"--and, always executing them himself, his are invariably
subordinate to the figure. But the essential quality of his vision
went best with plain backgrounds. That he did not wholly abandon the
decorative convention which he heired, and often employed to excellent
purpose, was due in large measure to caution. "He came," says W. E.
Henley, "at the break between new and old--when the old was not yet
discredited, and the new was still inoffensive; and with that exquisite
good sense which marks the artist, he identified himself with that
which was known, and not with that which, though big with many kinds of
possibilities, was as yet in perfect touch with nothing actively
alive." Yet, had he had the full courage of his convictions, his work
would have been an even more outstanding landmark in the history of
painting than it is. Still to ask from Raeburn what one does not get
from Velasquez, many of whose portraits have a conventional setting, is
to be more exacting than critical, and, as has been indicated,
simplicity of design and aerial relief became increasingly evident in
Raeburn's work, and that in spite of the protests of some of his
admirers.

While Raeburn had been working towards a fuller and more subtle
statement of likeness, modelling, and arrangement, it is possible that
removal to his new studio accelerated development in that direction.
The painting-room had been designed by himself for his own special
purposes, and no doubt suggested new possibilities. In any case, the
portraits painted after 1795 reveal a definite increase in the
qualities mentioned. But before considering the characteristics of his
later style, it might be well to tell what is known of his habits of
work and technical procedure. Cunningham's summary of these applies
partly to the George Street and partly to the York Place period, but
for practical purposes they may be regarded as one, for, while
Raeburn's art may be divided into periods, each was but a stage in a
gradual and consistent evolution. "The motions of the artist were as
regular as those of a clock. He rose at seven during summer, took
breakfast about eight with his wife and children, walked into George
Street, and was ready for a sitter by nine; and of sitters he generally
had, for many years, not fewer than three or four a day. To the