VI

Fig. 27.—Mules. By K. Du Jardin. B. 2.

given the vital image of an animal, he could not resist the temptation of adding to it non-essential facts. He had not that transcendent intelligence which instinctively practises the economy called “style.” But itwas on the side of intelligence, certainly not of tenderness or sympathy, that he was lacking. He sat down to Nature’s feast, and the delight of his eyes seduced him.

Before leaving this plate of theTwo Plough Horses, we may notice a point which does not seem to have been remarked before, that there was apparently a kind of tradition of subjects among the animal painters and etchers. This plate was published, in the set of horses, in 1652. But in a set of etchings published the year before, 1651, by the artist Dirk Stoop, this identical subject appears. The horses stand towards the left of the plate in precisely the position of Potter’s horses.

Stoop, though as good as many of the Dutch etchers, was no consummate draughtsman, and his horses are not to be compared with Potter’s. Yet they do not look in the least like a copy, while the dates discountenance such a supposition. If there be any direct relation between the two etchings it must have been Potter who took a hint from Stoop. But it seems equally likely to suppose that the subject, two plough-horses released from labour, was a traditional one. The life of cattle and horses does not offer more than a certain number of typical pictures, and hence the tendency of painters and etchers to repeat the same subject, always with an eye to improving on the best yet done; just as earlier painters would choose aSaint Sebastianas the typical subject in which to display their power of painting the human figure. In the same way Potter’s fifth etching of horses, where he depicts the forlorn death that overcomes the worn-out beast, has its prototype in a similar etching by Pieter de Laer, and the subject is repeated by Du Jardin.

The etcher mentioned above, Dirk Stoop, Jed a wandering life, went to Lisbon, became painter to the Court there, and, being brought over to England with the Infanta, worked also in London. His etchings of horses and dogs are less good than those of the courtfêtes, processions, and spectacles at Lisbon, at Hampton Court, and at London.

If Potter did not produce many etchings himself, Marcus de Bye, who etched in most cases after Potter’s designs, was comparatively prolific. He produced over a hundred prints. Some of these,

Ox and Sheep. From an etching by A. Van de Velde.

purporting to be after drawings by Potter, are studies, not of cattle and sheep or horses, but of wild animals—lions, tigers, and wolves. If these could be taken as fairly representative of Potter’s work, we should have to infer that Potter was far less fortunate in his drawing of wild creatures than of tame. And it would be unlike Potter to have made such studies except from the life. De Bye, however, lost a great deal of the subtlety and life of his original in working from Potter’s sketches. Karel du Jardin is a more independent artist. Born at Amsterdam in 1622, he was trained in Berchem’s studio, but went to Italy still young. There he found De Laer’s pictures in great esteem, and developed a manner and a choice of subject very similar to his. Some time before 1656 he returned to Holland, and remained at the Hague till 1659, when he removed to Amsterdam. There he painted some fine portraits, quite unlike his ordinary pictures in style, being stirred to emulation presumably by the superb Corporation pieces then produced there. In 1675 he started again for Italy, but died three years later in Venice.

The British Museum possesses a red-chalk drawing of Du Jardin by himself. It is an agreeable portrait, but the face does not suggest much power.

Though a pupil of Berchem, Du Jardin in his etchings follows Potter much more than that artist. Dr. Lippmann, in fact, speaks of him as “Schuler Potters,” but the expression must only mean a follower, not a pupil, of Potter.

Twenty-four of Du Jardin’s etchings are dated, the dates being 1652, 1653, 1655, 1656, 1658, 1659, 1660, and 1675. Only one piece belongs to the last year, while the other years have two, three, four, and five pieces each. So that, whenever the undated etchings were produced, the bulk of Du Jardin’s work on copper may safely be assigned to the eight years 1652-1660; that is to say, to the first years after his return to Holland, and possibly to the last year or two of his first stay in Italy. Most of the etchings are from sketches made in Italy. Fig. 27 is an example, and is a good specimen of Du Jardin as an etcher. There is nothing very original about such art, but its agreeable qualities will always give pleasure. Du Jardin, in his drawing and in his painting, has a light and happy touch; yet beyond such craftsman’s merits there islittle to be said for him. He seems to have painted and etched what was the fashion with a facile grace and commendable skill, but without any strong inborn love of the subjects he handled.

As an etcher he is of the same order as Potter. A good many of the prints are pastoral landscapes; these are less good than those in which animals are the main subject. To turn from some of these small landscape

Fig. 28.—Pigs. By K. Du Jardin. B. 15.

studies of Du Jardin’s, in which nothing is seized strongly while everything is made a little dull, to an etching of Rembrandt’s, saySix’s Bridge, is to receive a most vivid impression of Rembrandt’s immense superiority. Rembrandt’s light sketch is instinct with style; Du Jardin, in these prints at any rate, has no style at all. Such etchings as that of the pigs (Fig. 28) are of far higher quality.

Another etcher from Amsterdam, Adriaen van de Velde, came strongly under Potter’s influence. Born in 1635-36 Van de Velde, like Du Jardin, studied with Berchem. It has sometimes been assumed that he, too, followed up his studies with a journey to Italy, but Dr. Bredius decides against this supposition. There is Italian scenery in many of Adriaen’s pictures, but there were plenty of fellow artists to borrow materials for such backgrounds from. And with him the landscape is never much more than a background. His interest lay more in his cattle and his figures than in their surrounding. It is known, indeed, that he inserted figures for several of the landscape painters, including Ruisdael and Hobbema.

Van de Velde’s etchings are nearly all of cattle, and here he sometimes comes near Potter in drawing, while in management of the acid he is decidedly Potter’s superior. His earliest dated etching of 1653 is a large plate, which though not powerful has a real beauty. The cow which forms the centre of the composition is almost identical with that in the foreground of Potter’sCowherd. Perhaps this was deliberate imitation, and if so, is evidence of the recognition Potter’s knowledge of animal form commanded, but it may equally well have been an accident. The whole plate is bathed in drowsy sunshine, with which the man asleep by the roadside, drawn with an admirable suggestion of repose, harmonises well. This print is one of those which must be seen in the silvery earliest state to be appreciated.

The original design for this plate is in the British Museum. In the same collection is also the design forThe Cow Lying Down(B. 2). On the same sheet of paper is a study of part of the cow in a slightly altered position, and this has been adopted in the etching. Except for this insignificant change, the two etchings are copied from the pencil studies with entire fidelity. And probably this was always Van de Velde’s practice, as it was with Potter and Du Jardin. It is, therefore, strictly speaking, incorrect to describe the drawings as being made for the etchings. The studies were etched simply that they might be multiplied.

None of the studies of cattle, etched by the Dutch masters, surpasses Van de Velde’s set of three, numbered 11, 12, and 13 in Bartsch. The second is reproduced (Plate IV.). Potter never produced an effect sodelicate and so rich in colour as Van de Velde in these three etchings. At the same time there is no ostentation of skill; rather there seems a

Fig. 29.—A Goat. By A. Van de Velde. B. 16.

kind of modesty in the workmanship that is winning. Equally excellent is the charming little study of a goat (Fig. 29).

Van de Velde, if not a great artist, was a true one, and his early death at the age of thirty-seven was a loss to the art of Holland.

A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,K,L,M,N,O,P,R,S,T,U,V,W,Z

Altdorfer,12Amsterdam Cabinet, Master of,60Backhuysen,53,54,55Bartsch,5,23Bassano,60Bega,26,31,32Berchem,60,63-65,68,71,72Beresteyn, C. van,50Bleecker,63Bode,13,55,56Both, A.13Both, J.57,58,65Bray, J. de,18Bredius,8,37,63,67,77Breenbergh,57Bronchorst,56Brouwer,21Bye, M. de,74,75Cabel, A. van der,48,58Callot,12,13Campagnola,35Camphuisen,67Capelle, J. van de,43,53Caravaggio,13Claude,13,55,56,57Constable,49Cornelis Cornelisz,18Crome,49,50Du Jardin,60,64,74,75Dürer,11,35,60Dusart,31,34Dutuit,24,26,38Elsheimer,13,14,37,55Everdingen, A. van,44-46Fyt, J.,62Genoels,58Glauber,58Goltzius,18,39Goudt, Count de,37Goya,32Goyen, J. van,42,43Gozzoli,60Groot, Hofstede de,8Grotius,9Haeften, N. van,31Hals, D.,18Hals, F.,6,18,20Hamerton,6,30Helst, B. van der,65Heusch, W. de,58Heyden, J. van der,52,53Hirschvogel,12Hobbema,6,49,50,77Honthorst,13Hooch, P. de,6,9,28Hopfer,12Keene,31Klomp,66Koehler,40Koninck, P. de,39Laer, P. de,57,63,74Lautensack,12Leblond,39,40Le Ducq,5Leech,31Leyden, Lucas van,62,70Lippmann,43,75Matham,42Metsu,9Miel,13Moeyart,62,67Molyn, P. de,42,43Naiwincx,50Ostade, A. van,6,17-32Pater, Walter,9,38Patinir,35,37Picart,25Potter,6,60,62,63,65-75,77Rembrandt,5,6,13,15,24,28,38,63,72,76Roghman,50,52Rousseau, Th.,49Rubens,11,14,15,35,60,61Ruisdael,6,7,46-50,77Seghers, H.,36-40Snyders,60,62Spinoza,9Steen,6,9Stoop,74Swanevelt,13,48,58Terborch,9,42Theocritus,62Titian,35Tolstoi,71Uden, L. van,35Uytenbroeck, M. van,55,62Vadder, L. de,35Vandyck,15Velasquez,13,60Velde, A. van de,60,77,78Velde, E. van de,18,41Velde, J. van de,41,55Velde, W. van de,44,53Verboom,50Vermeer,6,28Vlieger, S. de,43,53Vosmaer,17Waterloo,5,38,48,50Watteau,9Westrheene, van,66Wet, J. de,67,68Whitman,70Willigen, van der,8,17Wyck,57Zeeman,53,54

FOOTNOTES:[1]The last figure is doubtful. It is 8 according to Bartsch and Dutuit, but may also be 9.[2]Manuel de l’Amateur d’Estampes: par M. Eugene Dutuit. Vol. V. Paris. 1882.[3]By all the older authorities the date is wrongly given as 1625.[4]TheTobias and the Angeldates probably from about 1613, or a little later, as this was the date of de Goudt’s print.[5]Probably the engraving, since Seghers’ print is a reverse copy from this, but in the same sense as the picture.[6]No. 236 in Middleton’s Catalogue.[7]In the National Gallery.[8]Seghers has also been credited with the use of soft ground etching or of aquatint. Examination of the prints shows, however, that the effects in question were got either by using acid on the plate, or by working in dotted lines, not with the roulette but with the simple needle. In ascertaining these facts and in correcting some of his first impressions the writer has profited by the knowledge and the kind assistance of Mr. S. R. Koehler, Keeper of the Prints at Boston, U.S.A., whose authority on such questions is well known.[9]This assumes him to have been born 1631. Another date given is 1633.[10]Seesupra: p. 41.[11]A drawing of his is datedParis, 1623. And according to Bertolotti he was in Rome by 1627.[12]Bredius gives the date as 1644.[13]Exhibited last winter (1895) at Burlington House by the Duke of Westminster.[14]Compare also a little-known piece of Whitman’s “The Ox-Tamer,” inAutumn Rivulets, which ends:Now I marvel what it can be he appears to them ...I confess I envy only his fascination—my silent, illiterate friend,Whom a hundred oxen love there in his life on farms,In the northern county far, in the placid pastoral region.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]The last figure is doubtful. It is 8 according to Bartsch and Dutuit, but may also be 9.

[2]Manuel de l’Amateur d’Estampes: par M. Eugene Dutuit. Vol. V. Paris. 1882.

[3]By all the older authorities the date is wrongly given as 1625.

[4]TheTobias and the Angeldates probably from about 1613, or a little later, as this was the date of de Goudt’s print.

[5]Probably the engraving, since Seghers’ print is a reverse copy from this, but in the same sense as the picture.

[6]No. 236 in Middleton’s Catalogue.

[7]In the National Gallery.

[8]Seghers has also been credited with the use of soft ground etching or of aquatint. Examination of the prints shows, however, that the effects in question were got either by using acid on the plate, or by working in dotted lines, not with the roulette but with the simple needle. In ascertaining these facts and in correcting some of his first impressions the writer has profited by the knowledge and the kind assistance of Mr. S. R. Koehler, Keeper of the Prints at Boston, U.S.A., whose authority on such questions is well known.

[9]This assumes him to have been born 1631. Another date given is 1633.

[10]Seesupra: p. 41.

[11]A drawing of his is datedParis, 1623. And according to Bertolotti he was in Rome by 1627.

[12]Bredius gives the date as 1644.

[13]Exhibited last winter (1895) at Burlington House by the Duke of Westminster.

[14]Compare also a little-known piece of Whitman’s “The Ox-Tamer,” inAutumn Rivulets, which ends:Now I marvel what it can be he appears to them ...I confess I envy only his fascination—my silent, illiterate friend,Whom a hundred oxen love there in his life on farms,In the northern county far, in the placid pastoral region.

[14]Compare also a little-known piece of Whitman’s “The Ox-Tamer,” inAutumn Rivulets, which ends:

Now I marvel what it can be he appears to them ...I confess I envy only his fascination—my silent, illiterate friend,Whom a hundred oxen love there in his life on farms,In the northern county far, in the placid pastoral region.

Back to Index Next